Virginia’s New Governor Rescinds Unhealthy Mask and Deadly Vax Mandates for Schools, State Employees on First Day

/

From [HERE] Glenn Youngkin, Virigina’s first Republican governor to win statewide office since 2009, signed 11 executive orders on his first day that include rescinding vaccine mandates for state employees.

In his inauguration speech Saturday, Youngkin mentioned education as his policy priority. He promised to raise standards of education and teacher pay, and stated that he would “remove politics from the classroom.” His executive order that bans the teaching of critical race theory calls the framework “divisive,” prompting criticism from the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus.

Youngkin lamented the school shutdowns and the economic difficulties that have followed the pandemic. While doing so, he has also signed an executive order to “empower” Virginia parents in their children’s education and upbringing by allowing parents to make decisions on whether their child wears a mask in school. Additionally, he issued an executive directive to “restore individual freedoms and personal privacy by rescinding the vaccine mandate for all state employees.”

Other executive orders that the governor signed included establishing a commission to combat antisemitism, withdrawing from a regional greenhouse gas reduction initiative and declaring Virginia “open for business.” He also signed several directives including one that will cut “job killing regulations” by 25%.

As a first-time elected official, Youngkin takes office in the midst of two emergencies- a 30-day limited state of emergency aimed at the state’s hospitals that are struggling under the hike of coronavirus cases, and another ahead of a snowstorm predicted to hit Virginia on Sunday.

MIT Scientist Says It is 'Outrageous to Be Giving Fake Vax to Kids b/c There is Very Low Risk of Dying from COVID" and Warns Injections Likely to Cause ‘Crippling’ Brain Disease in Children

/

From [CHD] Giving young people COVID vaccines will likely cause an “alarming increase in several major neurodegenerative diseases,” Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D. told Fox News today.

It’s “outrageous” to vaccinate young people for COVID because they have a “very low risk” of dying from the virus, said Seneff, senior research scientist at MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“When you look at the potential harm from these vaccines, it just doesn’t make any sense,” Seneff said. “And repeated boosters are going to be very devastating in the long term.”

Seneff told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham she’s done “a lot of research” to help her understand how COVID vaccines can lead to neurodegenerative diseases later on in life.

“It’s very disturbing,” she said.

Her research paper is [HERE] PDF. According to Seneff’s research:

“[B]oth the mRNA vaccines and the DNA vector vaccines may be a pathway to crippling disease sometime in the future. Through the prion-like action of the spike protein, we will likely see an alarming increase in several major neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, CKD, ALS and Alzheimer’s, and these diseases will show up with increasing prevalence among younger and younger populations, in years to come.

“Unfortunately, we won’t know whether the vaccines caused this increase because there will usually be a long time separation between the vaccination event and the disease diagnosis.”

That latter point, Seneff said, is “very convenient for the vaccine manufacturers, who stand to make huge profits off of our misfortunes — both from the sale of the vaccines themselves and from the large medical cost of treating all these debilitating diseases.”

Researcher ​Dr. Tess Lawrie: Safe, Effective and Cheap Treatments for Treating and Prevent COVID, such as Ivermectin, are Suppressed So Authorities Can Push Deadly COVID Injections

/

Dr. Tess Lawrie is a world-class researcher and consultant to the World Health Organisation. In the video below she has decided to speak out in protest against the current medical establishment at considerable personal risk.  She co-founded the BiRD Group; an international consortium of experts dedicated to the transparent and accurate scientific research of Ivermectin, with particular emphasis on the treatment and prevention of Covid-19.  She discusses how there is no evidence of anyone suffering adverse reactions when using Ivermectin but there is considerable evidence of people suffering serious adverse reactions from the covid vaccines.

New CDC Data Shows One Million and Thirty Four Thousand (1,033,994) Reports of Adverse Events following COVID Injections. Data Includes Record of a 7 yr Old Dead 11 Days After Injection

/

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,033,994 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 1, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 21,745 reports of deaths — an increase of 363 over the previous week — and 170,446 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 3,840 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 723,042 adverse events, including 9,936 deaths and 64,406 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 7, 2022.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 9,936 U.S. deaths reported as of Jan. 7, 19% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 24% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 516 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Jan. 7, including 303 million doses of Pfizer, 197 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

The most recent death involves a 7-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1975356) from Minnesota who died 11 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when she was found unresponsive by her mother. An autopsy is pending.

  • 14 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).

  • 22 reports of blood clotting disorders.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:  

The most recent death involves a 15-year-old girl from Minnesota (VAERS I.D. 1974744), who died 177 days after receiving her second dose of Pfizer from a pulmonary embolus. An autopsy is pending.

  • 62 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases
    attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

  • 589 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 578 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

  • 149 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

Brandon Says He'll Use Our Money to Buy Us Unwanted Masks [to remind us of "the emergency"] and Tests [that don't measure infectiousness] [Corpse Joe is Unlikely to be Alive for His Nuremberg Trial]

/

THE BLIGHT HOUSE ISSUED A “FACT SHEET” ABOUT TESTING AND MASKING THAT IS SCIENCE-FREE WITH ZERO CITATIONS. The Biden Administration to Begin Distributing At-Home, Rapid COVID-⁠19 Tests to Americans for Free.

According to FUNKTIONARY

BLIGHT SUPREMACY - genocide. , Genocide is the primary means of maintaining Blight Supremacy. (See Genocide and Racism.)

eugenics - the science of African extermination and of the gene that produces a people (ethnicity) with the object being African and melanated peoples of the world. 2) the science of Racism White Supremacy. Eugenics is a bogus pseudo-science founded by English psychoologist Francis Galton, used for purposes of white supremacy tactics made popular by Hitler in Nazi Germany but practiced earlier in the U.S.S.A. 3) the maniacal (Yuruguistic) philosophy of using genetic manipulation to create a better organism, better race or even a so-called master race by a lone totalitarian Dictator or a group of evil men under the veil of a Corporate State, i.e., Social Eugenics. 4) the racist belief held by many Caucasians that Africans and descendants of Africans are biologically moribund—and consequently were deficient in native or inborn intelligence and that the lack of intelligence would likely lead to a decline in the nation's collective intelligence. 5) the antidote of the Caucasian's unconscious fear of a Black Planet. 6) the artifice of attempting to make people appear to be other than they are. 7) the propaganda that African people should be done away with—exterminated. The name 'eugenics" was coined by the white psychologist Francis Galton. The triune objectives of Eugenics is selective ethnic genetic annihilation, population control (or depopulation), and selective breeding by a pathological strain of DNA. Eugenics essentially means, good white genetic stock; the selective breeding of white people and the mass extermination of African people. Mass incarceration, the homosexuality agenda (depopulation) grew out of the Eugenics movment. Read "War of the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race" by Edwin Black. (See: Genocide, Yurugu, Recombinant DNA, U.S. Sterilization Laws, Freemasony, Theosophy, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, Planned Parenthood, Neuropean, Weiteko Disease, Racism White Supremacy, Similac, PLC, Caucasian & Inferiority Complex)

Eugenicide - Neuropean-style genetic ethnic cleansing. (See: Yurugu, Fascism, United Nations & Weiteko Disease)

Biocide: the attempted annihilation of all life, which is the intent of Doggy and CrimethInc. (See: Doggy & CrimethInc.)

genocide - the intentional decreasing of the people of a given population or asili, particularly in the interests of another population or value system that wishes to control the resources of the victims. 2) the cide-show of the World Health Organization (WHO). (See: Population Control)

According to undeceiver Ishmael Reed:

genthanasia - the non-violent weeding out of undesirables or the slow motion extermination of non-white people. 2) Having failed to achieve victory through violent means the white supremacists have resorted to subtler means, referred to non-violent ethnic cleansing. “Genthanasia takes the form of placing an embargo on supplies that were promised to Puerto Rico, leading to 4,000 deaths. Poisoning of water in Flint, like creating smallpox epidemics among Indian tribes. Predictably, the bureaucratic rogues who were responsible for lead poisoning have had their convictions overturned by a friendly Colonial court. Genthanasia includes slavery with a different name, like private prisons where inmates are forced to work or starve. Where the deaths of prisoners are withheld from the public. The withholding of adequate housing, leading to disease-ridden street living noted in the headlines of USNews (23 April 2019), The Homeless Are Dying in Record Numbers on the Streets of Los Angeles. The assigning of Black and Latinx children to the service industries and placing a freeze upon their opportunity to advance by criminalizing pre-school and grade school students and applying suspensions to black and brown students in a disproportionate manner. One could add the administration’s denial of global warming, which is leading to thousands of deaths in the global south, nations that did not cause the problem. The U.S. is the Biggest Carbon Polluter in History.2 The Department of Health and Human Services reports that blacks, browns and reds bear the brunt of health hazards from living in toxic neighborhoods. Under the heading, More likely to live near polluting industries and breathe polluted air, African-Americans are three times as likely to die from asthma-related causes than white Americans. What else is this but another example of slow-motion extermination? Such actions against blacks, browns and reds indicate that the thinkers, hidden from the public and who finance pundits and publications, will go to any lengths to fulfill the desire of the founders and the Pilgrims, to create a white land ordained by God.”

Scientific Evidence Proves Masks Don't Work [there are no randomized studies for cloth, surgical, or N95 masks showing they stop COVID] and in 2020 Govt Health Authorities Around the World Agreed

/

From [HERE] and [KIRSCH] The Scientific evidence suggests face masks as worn by the general public do not work.

Government health ministers around the world said in 2020 face masks as worn by the general public do not work.  They are telling you to wear them because it creates fear and it keeps the threat of a virus in everyone's mind. 

Healthy people with no symptoms should not be wearing masks because asymptomatic people cannot spread a virus they do not have.  https://www.thehardtruth.co.uk/asymptomatic-transmission

 Dr. Paul E. Alexander, a Canadian epidemiologist, wrote: “Surgical and cloth masks, used as they currently are, have absolutely no impact on controlling the transmission of Covid-19 virus, and current evidence implies that face masks can be actually harmful.” (American Institute for Economic Research, Feb. 11, 2021.)

 ‘Masks and respirators do not work. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.  Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (<2.5μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.  The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.’ — DR. D. G. Rancourt, Ontario Civil Liberties Association, former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada (11 April, 2020)

​“I cannot recall any time in human history when nearly universal use of masks throughout society has successfully controlled the spread of disease,” Dr. Mikovits said. “The data support the opposite. That is, masks suppress the immune system, render the mist vulnerable to infection, and amplify more viruses in the compromised who become victims and further spread the disease among family and close contacts” - Dr. Judy Mikovits

 Literally there are dozens of articles, videos and studies by doctors, OSHA inspectors, professors and health professionals which show that masks worn by the general public do not stop the spread of a virus in fact they contribute to the virus spreading and to lowering your immune system.  Cases and deaths rose in every country after mask mandates where brought in, shouldn’t it have been the opposite.  Masks should have been brought in at the height of the covid cases and deaths in March\April not when there was no cases and deaths in July 2020.  They were brought in at this time to keep the fear in the minds of the public that the virus is still among us when it actually was not.  The wearing of masks keeps people fearful and that is why governments will not tell you to remove them for a long time, perhaps years.  Make people fearful and you can make them do anything.

​A 2020 study conducted by a team of Danish researchers has found that face masks have no effect in controlling the spread of COVID-19. 

A study conducted by a team of Danish researchers has found that face masks have no effect in controlling the spread of COVID-19. The new finding comes at a time when WHO is strictly advocating people to wear masks to contain the pandemic effectively.

​The study which is known as the Danmask-19 trial was conducted in the Spring 2020 with more than 3,000 participants. During the time of this trial, the general public was not asked to wear masks as a precautionary measure to control coronavirus.

​Out of the 3,000 participants, 1,500 people were given surgical masks. Researchers also made sure that these participants are changing these masks every eight hours. After one month, PCR tests were conducted on these 1,500 participants, and the results were compared with non-mask users.

​The results were pretty surprising, as there was no significant difference between mask users and non-maskers when it comes to getting contracted with coronavirus. According to the study report, 1.8 percent of mask users were infected with coronavirus when compared to 2.3 percent of non-maskers.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

A September 2020 report by the CDC found that more than 70 percent of COVID-positive patients contracted the virus in spite of faithful mask wearing while in public. Moreover, 14 percent of the patients who said they “often” wore masks were also infected. Meanwhile, just four percent of the COVID-positive patients said they “never” wore masks in the 14 days before the onset of their illness. 

The authoritative New England Medical Journal investigated the circumstances necessary for contamination. The conclusion of five scientists is that face masks are of no use at all. Infection only occurs after someone has been standing very close to an infected person with symptoms for several minutes.

​‘We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection’ — New England Journal of Medicine (21 May, 2020)

​Public health authorities define a significant exposure to covid-19 as face-to-face contact within one and a half meters with a patient who has covid-19 symptoms. That contact must be maintained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes).

​A large scale study was conducted to determine once and for all, whether face masks are useful for dentists. The result of this historic study was surprising:

​'These and other studies show that viruses or other submicron particles are not filtered by face masks.' - Dr John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC

 It should be concluded from these and similar studies that the filter material of face masks does not retain or filter out viruses.  Viruses are very, very, very small. Microns across. You can only see them with an electron microscope. As such the weave of a cloth mask provides almost no resistance to their passage.

The advice above from the WHO was in March 2020 but they changed their minds later on or where pressured to.

​A very extensive study carried out by nine scientists shows that the prolonged use of face masks in fact increases the risk of infection!

​'This study is the first RCT of mouth masks, and the results warn against the use of face masks. Moisture retention, re-use of face masks and poor filtration can lead to an increased risk of infection.' - BMJ Medical Report

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

​There’s also the issue of other possible complications, such as hypercapnia, an excess of carbon dioxide in the blood caused by re-breathing your own expelled air.  It’s also been shown that mask use can exacerbate chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) and perhaps other respiratory issues as shown in the study below.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31992666/

Face mask manufacturers warn: no protection against a virus.

Some honest manufacturers of face masks correctly inform their users that their products offer no protection against covid-19 and other viruses. If these medical ear loop masks - that have multiple layers (!) - don't help, then the self fabricated masks offer no protection either.

On the contrary: they block oxygen flow, which weakens the body and therefor weakens the immune system, which results in higher risk of infection.

47 studies confirm ineffectiveness of masks for COVID and 32 more confirm their negative health effects

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/47-studies-confirm-inefectiveness-of-masks-for-covid-and-32-more-confirm-their-negative-health-effects/

 Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence.

https://swprs.org/face-masks-and-covid-the-evidence/

 Peer-reviewed research concludes face masks are harmful to health and ineffective

https://wickedtruths.org/en/peer-reviewed-research-concludes-face-masks-are-useless-and-dangerous

 There is this study from the U.S National Library of medicine

The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

 The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses

https://www.sott.net/article/434796-The-Science-is-Conclusive-Masks-and-Respirators-do-NOT-Prevent-Transmission-of-Viruses

​Masks Are neither Effective nor Safe: A Summary of the Science

https://www.technocracy.news/masks-are-neither-effective-nor-safe-a-summary-of-the-science/

 Watch the video titled ‘Why Masks Do More Harm than Good’ – by Dr. Michael Gaeta -https://vimeo.com/424254660

 Ben Swann: The Truth about Face Masks

https://vimeo.com/439643593

 Masks are neither effective nor safe: A summary of the science

https://www.primarydoctor.org/masks-not-effect

 Masks don’t work – a review of science relevant to Covid-19 social policy by Dr. Denis Rancourt PhD

https://thewallwillfall.org/2020/06/23/masks-dont-work-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covid-19-social-policy/

 Twenty Reasons Mandatory Face Masks are Unsafe, Ineffective and Immoral

https://www.globalresearch.ca/twenty-reasons-mandatory-face-masks-are-unsafe-ineffective-and-immoral/5735171

 The Study below with over 8000 subjects found masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.”

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240287

 A recent study in the journal Cancer Discovery found that inhalation of harmful microbes can contribute to advanced stage lung cancer in adults. Long-term use of face masks may help breed these dangerous pathogens.

https://www.wakingtimes.com/long-term-mask-use-may-contribute-to-advanced-stage-lung-cancer-study-finds/

 Wearing the Face Mask: Who is putting our Children at Risk, SARS-CoV-2 or the Actions of our Governments?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/wearing-the-face-mask-who-is-putting-our-children-at-risk-sars-cov-2-or-the-actions-of-our-governments/5723961

 COVID-19: Continuous Wearing of Mask Aggravates Risk of Infection. “Psychological Terrorism”? By Dr. Pascal Sacre

https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-continuous-wearing-of-mask-aggravates-the-risk-of-infection-psychological-terrorism/5719704

 Masks: The Science & Myths by Dr. Lee Merrick MD

https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/custom_videos/mask-myths/

 A very extensive study carried out by nine scientist’s shows that the prolonged use of face masks in fact increases the risk of infection!

'This study is the first RCT of mouth masks, and the results warn against the use of face masks. Moisture retention, re-use of face masks and poor filtration can lead to an increased risk of infection.' - BMJ Medical Report

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

 A July 2020 review by the University of Oxford, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence that cloth masks are at all effective against virus infection or transmission.
• Jefferson, Tom & Heneghan, Carl, Masking lack of evidence with
politics, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, July 23, 2020. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidencewith-politics/

A July 2020 study by Japanese researchers found that cloth masks “offer zero
protection against coronavirus.”
• Naoya Kon, Cloth face masks offer zero shield against virus, a study shows, The Asahi Shimbun, study by Kazunari Onishi. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13523664

“This experiment reconfirmed that wearing cloth and gauze masks can’t prevent virus infection.”

In an August 2020 article, Denis G. Rancourt, PhD, a Researcher, Ontario
Civil Liberties Association, debunks supposed “studies” purporting to support
compelled face mask use for the general population.
• See Rancourt, Face masks, lies, damn lies, and public health officials: “A growing body of evidence” August 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343399832_Face_masks_lies_damn_lies_and_public_hea [MORE]

Since CDC Has Admitted PCR Tests Can't Identify Active COVID Infection, What Does It Mean For Those Who Died w/a Positive Test? Did they have an active infection? If not, What is the Real Death Count?

/

Dr. Joseph Mercola states: What’s the Real Death Count?

The CDC’s belated admission that the PCR test can’t identify active infection raises another question: What does this mean for those who died with a positive test? Did they actually have an active infection? If not, should they have been designated as COVID deaths?

The obvious answer to the last two questions is, of course, no. The vast majority were likely false positives, and the real death toll from COVID-19 considerably lower than we’re led to believe. The CDC undoubtedly knew this all along, seeing how they’ve been relentlessly criticized for their recommendation to run the PCR at a CT of 40. They’re trying to pretend that they just realized this, but that’s simply not believable. [MORE]

Previously Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi and Dr. Karina Reiss wrote the following

How dangerous is the new “killer” virus?

Compared to conventional coronaviruses. Gauging the true threat that the virus posed was initially impossible. Right from the beginning, the media and politicians spread a distorted and misleading picture based on fundamental flaws in data acquisition and especially on medically incorrect definitions laid down by the World Health Organization (WHO). Each positive laboratory test for the virus was to be reported as a COVID-19 case, irrespective of clinical presentation(15). This definition represented an unforgiveable breach of a first rule in infectiology: the necessity to differentiate between “infection” (invasion and multiplication of an agent in the host) and “infectious disease” (infection with ensuing illness). COVID-19 is the designation for severe illness that occurs only in about 10% of infected individuals(16), but because of incorrect designation, the number of “cases” surged and the virus vaulted to the top of the list of existential threats to the world.

Another serious mistake was that every deceased person who had tested positive for the virus entered the official records as a coronavirus victim. This method of reporting violated all international medical guidelines(17). The absurdity of giving COVID-19 as the cause of death in a patient who dies of cancer needs no comment. Correlation does not imply causation. This was causal fallacy that was destined to drive the world into a catastrophe. Truth surrounding the virus remained enshrouded in a tangle of rumours, myths and beliefs.

A French study, published on March 19, brought first light into the darkness(6). Two cohorts of approximately 8,000 patients with respiratory disease were grouped according to whether they were carrying everyday coronaviruses or SARS-CoV-2. Deaths in each group were registered over two months. However, the number of fatalities did not significantly differ in the two groups and the conclusion followed that the danger of “COVID-19” was probably overestimated. In a subsequent study, the same team compared the mortality associated with diagnosis of respiratory viruses during the colder months of 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 (week 47-week 14) in southeastern France. Overall, the proportion of respiratory virus-associated deaths among hospitalised patients was not significantly higher in 2019–2020 than the year before(18). Thus, addition of SARS-CoV-2 to the spectrum of viral pathogens did not affect overall mortality in patients with respiratory disease.

Regarding the number of deaths

How can the aforementioned be reconciled with the official reports of the
horrifying number of COVID-19 deaths? Two numbers must be known if the
danger of a virus is to be assessed: the number of infections and the number of deaths.

How many were infected by the new virus?

Attempts to answer this question were beset by three problems:

  1. How reliable was the test for virus detection?

The virus is present in the nasopharynx for approximately two weeks, during
which time it can be detected. How is this done? Viral RNA is transcribed into DNA and quantified by the so-called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The first assay for the new coronavirus was developed under guidance of Professor Christian Drosten, Head of the Institute for Virology at the Charité Berlin. This test was used worldwide in the initial months of the outbreak(19). Tests from other laboratories followed(20).

Diagnostic PCR tests must normally undergo stringent quality assessment and be approved by regulatory agencies before use. This is important because no laboratory test can ever give 100% correct results. The quality control requirements were essentially shelved in the case of SARS-CoV-2 because of
declared international urgency. Consequently, nothing was really known regarding test reliability, specificity and sensitivity. In essence, these parameters give an indication of how many false-positive or false-negative results should be expected. The test protocol from the Drosten laboratory were used worldwide, and test results played a key role in political decision-making. Yet, data interpretation was often largely a matter of belief. What did Drosten himself say on Twitter(21)?

Sure: Towards the end of the illness the PCR is sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Here, chance plays a role. When you test a patient twice as negative and discharge him as cured, it is indeed possible that you can have positive test results again at home. But this is still far from being a re-infection.

Several physician colleagues have informed us of similar haphazard results with patients who had been tested repeatedly during their hospitalisation. Is it particularly surprising that goats and papayas tested positive for the virus in
Tanzania? The criticism by the President of Tanzania regarding the unreliability of the test kits was of course immediately dismissed by the WHO(22).

But today it is perfectly clear that the test result is error-prone, as is every
PCR(23,24). How much so, and whether there are significant differences among the presently available tests, cannot be determined because of lack of data.

So let us assume that the PCR test is incredibly good and produces 99.5%
correct results. That sounds, and would indeed be, exceptional – it means that
one can expect only 0.5% false-positives. Now take the cruise ship “Mein Schiff 3”. After a crew member had tested positive for the virus, almost 2,900 people from 73 countries were forced into “ship quarantine”. Many had been on board for nine months. Complaints reached the outside world about the “prison-like” conditions, psychological problems abounded and nerves were frayed(25).

Nine positive cases were reported after testing was completed. One person
who tested positive had a cough, the other eight were without symptoms. Might they have belonged to the 0.5% false-positive cases, as perhaps the very first case had been? Where were the true-positives that must theoretically have been there? Were they possibly tested as false-negatives or were all positive tests false?

In the context of false results, we should consider the following: when the
epidemic subsided (in Germany, in mid-April,) PCR testing became a dangerous source of misinformation because numbers of new cases were derived from the “background noise” of false-positive results. When all 7,500 employees of the Charité Berlin (one of Europe’s largest university hospitals) were tested from April 7 to April 21, 0.33% were positive(26). True or false?

When positive test rates drop below a certain limit, it is senseless to continue
mass screening for the virus in non-symptomatic individuals. And use of
numbers acquired under these circumstances as a reason for implementing any measures should not be tolerated.

  1. Selective or representative? Who was tested?

There is only one way to approximate how many people are infected during an epidemic with an agent that causes high numbers of unnoticed infections: at sites of an outbreak, the population must be tested as extensively as possible. But scientists who called for this during the coronavirus epidemic(27,28) were ignored.

Instead, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the German federal government
agency and research institute for disease control, stipulated at the beginning that only selective testing should be carried out – exactly the opposite of what should have happened. And as the epidemic ran its course, the RKI stepwise altered the testing strategy – always in the diametrically wrong direction(29).

At first, only people who had been in a high-risk area and/or had been in
contact with an infected person and also presented with flu-like symptoms were to be tested. At the end of March, the RKI then changed the recommended test criteria to: flu-like symptoms and, at the same time, contact with an infected person. At the beginning of May, the President of the RKI, Professor Lothar Wieler, announced people with even “the slightest symptoms” should be tested(29).

The responsibility for translating these dubious decisions into action lay
entirely within the hands of the local health authorities. A co-worker at our lab was a typical example: the coach of her handball team was coronavirus positive. The players – all from different administrative districts – were sent home on 14-day quarantine. One player developed symptoms with coughing and hoarseness and wanted to get tested but was refused on the grounds that she had no fever. A player from a neighbouring district had no symptoms but the local health authority ordered a test despite this fact.

This resulted in chaos, caused by the appalling ineptitude of the authorities
from top to bottom. What would have been urgently needed instead were
scientifically sound studies to clarify basic issues of virus dissemination. As
many as possible should have been tested in outbreak areas. Antibody responses in those that had tested positively could have subsequently been assessed.

Only a single such study addressing these questions was undertaken in
Germany: the Heinsberg investigation conducted by Professor Hendrik Streeck, Director of the Institute for Virology at the University of Bonn. Aware of the importance of the preliminary data, these were presented at a press conference – where Streeck was torn apart by the disbelieving media(30,31). The fatality rate was ridiculed as being impossible because it was ten times lower than what acknowledged experts and the WHO had been spreading as established facts. After completion of the study, final results essentially confirming the preliminary report were again presented, and again deemed by the media to be flawed and inconclusive. But the results of the study spoke for themselves(32) – and they contradicted the panic propaganda of the media.

3. The number of conducted tests directly influences infection statistics

A third factor added to the statistical mess. Imagine that you wanted to count the number of a migratory bird species in a large lake district. There are hundreds of thousands but your counting device can only count 5,000 per day. Next day, you ask a colleague to help, and together you arrive at 10,000 counts. The day after that, two more colleagues join in and 20,000 birds are counted. In short, the higher the testing capacity/number of tests, the higher the numbers – as long as innumerable unidentified cases abound, as with SARS-CoV-2(16,32–36). The more tests are performed, the more COVID-19 cases are found during the epidemic. This is the essence of a “laboratory-created pandemic”.

Now recall that the test has neither 100% specificity nor 100% sensitivity –
meaning that occasionally you would mistake a log for a bird. Therefore, even
after all our birds have long since moved on, you would still “find” many by just
performing a sufficient number of tests.

In conclusion, no reliable data existed regarding the true numbers of infection at any stage of the epidemic in this country. At the peak of the epidemic, the official numbers must have been gross underestimates – in the order of 10 or even more. At its wane at the end of April in Germany, the numbers must also have been gross overestimates.

Basing any political decisions on official numbers at any stage was fallacy.

How many deaths did SARS-CoV-2 infections claim?

Here, again, we have the dilemma of definition: what is a “coronavirus death”?

If I drive to the hospital to be tested and later have a fatal car accident – just as my positive test results are returned – I become a coronavirus death. If I am diagnosed positive for coronavirus and jump off the balcony in shock, I also become a coronavirus death. The same is true for a sudden stroke, etc. As openly declared by RKI president Wieler, every individual with a positive test result at the time of death is entered into the statistics. The first “coronavirus death” in the northernmost state of Germany, Schleswig-Holstein, occurred in a palliative ward, where a patient with terminal oesophageal cancer was seeking peace before embarking on his last journey. A swab was taken just before his demise that was returned positive – after his death(37). He might equally well have been positive for other viruses such as rhino-, adeno- or influenza virus – if they had been tested for.

This particular case did not need more testing or a post-mortem to determine
the actual cause of death.

However, with the emergence of a new and possibly dangerous infectious disease, autopsies should be undertaken in cases of doubt to clarify the actual cause of death. Only one pathologist ventured to fulfil this task in Germany. Against the specific advice of the RKI, Professor Klaus Püschel, Director of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Hamburg University, performed autopsies on all “coronavirus victims” and found that not one had been healthy(38). Most had suffered from several pre-existing conditions. One in two suffered from coronary heart disease. Other frequent ailments were hypertension, atherosclerosis, obesity, diabetes, cancer, lung and kidney disease and liver cirrhosis(39).

The same occurred elsewhere. Swiss pathologist Professor Alexander Tzankov reported that many victims had suffered from hypertension, most were overweight, two thirds had heart problems and one third had diabetes(40). The Italian Ministry of Health reported that 96% of COVID-19 hospital deaths had been patients with at least one severe underlying illness. Almost 50% had three or more pre-existing conditions(41).

Interestingly, Püschel found lung embolisms in every third patient(39). Pulmonary embolisms usually arise through detachment of blood clots in deep veins of the leg that are swept into the lungs. Clots typically form when blood flow sags in the legs, as when the elderly spend the day seated and inactive. A high frequency of lung embolisms was already described in deceased influenza patients 50 years ago(42). Thus, we are not on the verge of discovering a unique property of SARS-Cov-2 that would heighten its threat, but we do bear witness to the absurd situation where the elderly seek to protect themselves by obeying the chant that sounds around the world: “Stay at home”. Physical inactivity is pre-programmed, thromboses included? Swedish epidemiologist Professor Johann Giesecke recommended exactly the opposite: As much fresh air and activity as possible. The man knows his job!

The number of genuine COVID-19 fatalities remained unknown outside Hamburg. The situation was no better in other countries. Professor Walter Riccardi, adviser to the Italian Ministry of Health, stated in a March interview with “The Telegraph” that 88% of the Italian “coronavirus deaths” had not been due to the virus(43).

The problem with coronavirus death counts is such that the numbers can be viewed as nothing other than gross overestimates(44). In Belgium, not only fatalities with a positive COVID-19 test entered the ranks but also those where COVID-19 was simply suspected(45).

Scientific competence did not seem to rule the agenda of Germany’s RKI. Fortunately, there are scientists who stand out in contrast. Stanford Professor John Ioannidis is one of the eminent epidemiologists of our times. When it became clear that the epidemic in Europe was nearing its end, he showed how the officially reported numbers of “coronavirus deaths” could be used to calculate the absolute risk of dying from COVID-19(46).

The risk for a person under 65 years in Germany was about as high as a daily drive of 24 kilometres. The risk was low even for the elderly ≥ 80 with 10 “coronavirus deaths” per 10,000 ≥ 80-year olds in Germany (column at the far right).

Calculation of this number is simple. About 8.5 million citizens are ≥ 80 years in Germany. About 8,500 “coronavirus deaths” were recorded in this age group. This leads to an absolute risk of coronavirus death of 10 per 10,000 ≥ 80 year-olds. Now realise that every year about 1,200 of 10,000 ≥ 80-year olds die in Germany (black column, data from the Federal Office of Statistics). Nearly half of them due to cardiovascular diseases (CVD), almost a third from cancer and around 10% (over 100) owing to respiratory infections. The latter have always been caused by a multitude of pathogens including the coronavirus family. It is obvious that a new member has now joined the club, and that SARSCoV-2 cannot be assigned any special role as a “killer virus”.

This is underlined by another observation. Severe respiratory infections are registered by the RKI in the context of influenza surveillance. The vertical line marks the time when documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infections was started. Was there ever any indication for an increase in the number of respiratory infections(47)? No, the 2019/20 winter peak is followed by typical seasonal decline. And note that the lockdown (red arrow) was implemented when the curve had almost reached base level.

CITATIONS

(15) “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Report—61,” World Health Organization, March 20, 2020, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200321-sitrep-61-covid-19.pdf.

(16) Michael Day, “COVID-19: Four Fifths of Cases Are Asymptomatic, China Figures Indicate,” BMJ 369, (April 2020): m1375, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1375.

(17) “Regeln zur Durchführung der ärztlichen Leichenschau,” AWMF Online (Germany), revised January to October 2017, https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/054-002l_S1_Regeln-zur-
Durchfuehrung-der-aerztlichen-Leichenschau_2018-02_01.pdf.

(18) Audrey Giraud-Gatineau et al., “Comparison of Mortality Associated with Respiratory Viral Infections between December 2019 and March 2020 with That of the Previous Year in Southeastern France,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases 96 (July 2020): 154–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.001.

(19) Victor M. Corman et al., “Detection of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by Real-Time RTPCR,” Eurosurveillance 25, no. 3 (January 2020): 2000045, https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045.

(20) Sonja Gurris, “Corona-Tests werden Geheimwaffe,” n-tv (Cologne), March 30, 2020, https://www.ntv.de/panorama/Corona-Tests-werden-Geheimwaffe-article21678629.html.

(21) Christian Drosten, Twitter post, April 13, 2020, 4:42 p.m., https://twitter.com/c_drosten/status/1249800091164192771.

(22) Australian Associated Press, “WHO Rejects Tanzania Claim Tests Faulty,” Examiner (Launceston), May 8, 2020, https://www.examiner.com.au/story/6749732/who-rejects-tanzania-claim-tests-faulty.

(23) Yafang Li et al., “Stability Issues of RT-PCR Testing of SARS-CoV-2 for Hospitalized Patients Clinically Diagnosed with COVID-19,” Journal of Medical Virology 92, no. 7 (July 2020): 903–8, https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25786.

(24) Gurris, “Corona-Tests werden Geheimwaffe.”

(25) Ines Nastali, “Police Intervenes on Quarantined Mein Schiff 3,” Safety at Sea, May 6, 2020, https://safetyatsea.net/news/2020/police-intervenes-on-quarantined-mein-schiff-3-2.

(26) “Wenig Infektionen beim Charité-Personal,” Deutsches Ärzteblatt (Berlin), May 13, 2020, https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/112809/Wenig-Infektionen-beim-Charite-Personal.

(27) John P. A. Ioannidis, “Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Harms of Exaggerated Information and Non-Evidence-Based Measures,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation 50, no. 4 (April 2020):e13222, https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13222.

(28) Sucharit Bhakdi, open letter to Angela Merkel, March 26, 2020, PDF available to download until March 31, 2021, https://c.gmx.net/@824224682608695698/cI1TagSeQmi0WlXK-m8vWA.

(29) Patrick Gensing and Markus Grill, “40 Prozent mehr Tests in Deutschland,” Tagesschau (Hamburg), May 6, 2020, https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/corona-tests-rki-101.html.

(30) Julia Bernewasser, “Das sind die ersten Lehren der Heinsberg-Studie,” Der Tagesspeigel (Berlin), April 9, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/zwischenergebnis-zurcoronavirus-uebertragungdas-sind-die-ersten-lehrenderheinsberg-studie/25730138.html.

(31) Paula Schneider, “‘Unwissenschaftlich’: Statistikerin zerlegt Heinsberg-Studie, auf die sich Laschet stützt,” Focus (Munich), April 15, 2020, https://www.focus.de/gesundheit/news/hoffe-dass-wirdarausnur-wenig-ueber-corona-lernen-statistikerin-zerlegtheinsbergstudie-keine-transparenz-keinwissenschaftlicher-standard_id_11881853.html.

(32) Hendrik Streeck et al., “Infection Fatality Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a German Community with a Super-Spreading Event,” preprint, medRxiv, June 2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.04.20090076.

(33) “Field Briefing: Diamond Princess COVID-19 Cases,” National Institute of Infectious Diseases (Japan), February 19, 2020, https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/2019-ncov-e/9407-covid-dpfe-01.html.

(34) Kenji Mizumoto et al., “Estimating the Asymptomatic Proportion of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Cases on Board the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship, Yokohama, Japan, 2020,” Eurosurveillance 25, no. 10 (March 2020): 20000180, https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180.

(35) Tara John, “Iceland Lab’s Testing Suggests 50% of Coronavirus Cases Have No Symptoms,” CNN, April 3, 2020, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/europe/iceland-testing-coronavirus-intl/index.html.

(36) Rongrong Yang, Xien Gui, and Yong Xiong, “Comparison of Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,” JAMA Network Open 3, no. 5 (May 2020): e2010182, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.10182.

(37) “Erster Todesfall in Schleswig-Holstein,” Der Spiegel, March 17, 2020, https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/coronavirus-erster-todesfall-in-schleswig-holstein-a-6db5f0b0-b662-45b0-bdb4-603684d4dc92.

(38) Bettina Mittelacher, “Mediziner: Alle Corona-Toten in Hamburg waren vorerkrankt,” Berliner Morgenpost, April 27, 2020, https://www.morgenpost.de/vermischtes/article228994571/Rechtsmediziner-Alle-Corona-Toten-hattenVorerkrankungen.html.

(39) Dominic Wichmann et al., “Autopsy Findings and Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study,” Annals of Internal Medicine 173, no. 4 (August 2020):268–77, https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-2003.

(40) Nikita Jolkver, “Coronavirus: Was die Toten über COVID-19 verraten,” DW Akademie (Bonn), April 30, 2020, https://p.dw.com/p/3baZF.

(41) SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Group, Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Patients Dying in Italy, report based on available data on July 9, 2020, https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-COVID-2019_9_july_2020.pdf.

(42) O. Haferkamp and H. Matthys, “Grippe und Lungenembolien,” Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 95, no. 51 (1970): 2560–63, https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1108874.

(43) Sarah Newey, “Why Have So Many Coronavirus Patients Died in Italy?,” Telegraph, March 23, 2020, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/have-many-coronaviruspatients-died-italy.

(44) Gregory Beals, “Official Coronavirus Death Tolls Are Only an Estimate, and That Is a Problem,” NBC News, April 15, 2020, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/official-coronavirus-death-tollsare-
only-estimate-problem-n1183756.

(45) Karolina Meta Beisel, “Warum Belgien die höchste Todesrate weltweit hat,” Tages-Anzeiger (Zurich), April 22, 2020, https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/warum-belgien-die-hoechstetodesrateweltweit-hat-825753123788.

(46) John P. A. Ioannidis, Cathrine Axfors, and Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, “Population-Level COVID-19 Mortality Risk for Non-Elderly Individuals Overall and for Non-Elderly Individuals without Underlying Diseases in Pandemic Epicenters,” Environmental Research 188 (September 2020): 109890, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109890.

(47) “GrippeWeb,” Robert Koch-Instituts, https://grippeweb.rki.de.

Panic Hype-Man Fauci Acknowledges the PCR Test Cannot Reliably Detect Infection or Measure Contagiousness [fake test = fake false positive numbers = plandemic]

/

MERCOLA STATES: SO What’s the Real Death Count? The CDC’s belated admission that the PCR test can’t identify active infection raises another question: What does this mean for those who died with a positive test? Did they actually have an active infection? If not, should they have been designated as COVID deaths?

The obvious answer to the last two questions is, of course, no. The vast majority were likely false positives, and the real death toll from COVID-19 considerably lower than we’re led to believe. The CDC undoubtedly knew this all along, seeing how they’ve been relentlessly criticized for their recommendation to run the PCR at a CT of 40. They’re trying to pretend that they just realized this, but that’s simply not believable.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE 

  • Since the beginning of the pandemic, experts have warned that the PCR test is not as a valid diagnostic and produces far too many false positives, as it can pick up on “dead,” nonreplicating viral debris

  • The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now admits the PCR test can remain positive for up to 12 weeks after infection. For this reason, they say most people don’t need to retest negative before ending their quarantine

  • The CDC also admits the PCR cannot identify active infection or measure contagiousness

  • People who are double-jabbed or unvaccinated and test positive for SARS-CoV-2, or have known exposure, but remain asymptomatic, now only need to isolate for five days rather than 10, but should wear a mask for another five days when at work or in public. People who are triple-jabbed do not need to isolate after exposure, but should wear a mask for 10 days

  • Health care workers who test positive for COVID but remain asymptomatic can return to work after seven days with a negative test, but isolation time can be cut to five days if there are staffing shortages

From [HERE] and [MERCOLA PDF] Since the beginning of the pandemic, experts have warned that the PCR test is not a valid diagnostic tool and produces far too many false positives, as it can pick up on “dead,” nonreplicating viral debris.  The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) now admits the PCR test cannot identify active infection or measure contagiousness.

A PCR test cannot distinguish between “live” viruses and inactive, non-infectious, viral particles. This is why it cannot be used as a diagnostic tool. As explained by Dr. Lee Merritt in her August 2020 Doctors for Disaster Preparedness lecture, media and public health officials appear to have purposefully conflated “cases” or positive tests with the actual illness in order to create the appearance of a pandemic.

Furthermore, a PCR test cannot confirm that SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent for clinical symptoms as the test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel Prize for his work, explained this as shown in the video below.

Almost universally, health authorities have instructed labs to use excessively high cycle thresholds (“Ct”) — i.e., the number of amplification cycles used to detect RNA particles — thereby ensuring a maximum of false positives.

From the start, experts noted that a Ct over 35 is scientifically unjustifiable, yet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and the CDC recommended running PCR tests at a Ct of 40,5; the University of Queensland in Australia said that laboratory technicians were running PCR tests at 40 to 50 Ct; and the World Health Organization recommended a Ct of 45.

The pandemic of false positives was then used by world governments to implement pandemic countermeasures that have destroyed the global economy, ruined countless lives, decimated the education of an entire generation and stripped us of basic human rights and freedoms.

In a 30 December 2021 appearance on MSNBC, Dr. Anthony Fauci responded to questions about the updated CDC guidance. CDC director Rochelle Walensky also tried to make sense of the new guidance in a 29 December 2021 ABC News interview.

Fauci was asked about how one can measure contagiousness. If the PCR can register positive for 12 weeks after an infection, it can’t be a reliable indicator of infectiousness. This was precisely the point that Mullis attempted to make in the video above with respect to PCR and HIV.

So, how can we tell if we’re infectious or not? Fauci confirmed that the PCR can only tell you there’s a presence or absence of viral fragments, not whether it’s an active infection, or whether you’re actually infectious. He did not, however, provide an answer to the question as to how one can measure contagiousness.

How is it that the CDC, and health officials in all countries for that matter, didn’t realise that the PCR test was picking up dead viral debris for three months, or longer, after infection? The facts that the test, a) was far too sensitive, and b) couldn’t identify active infection, were criticisms from the start. What the CDC’s belated admission means is that, for the past two years, people have unnecessarily wasted time in self-isolation — perhaps weeks — waiting for a negative test.

Sources and resources:

Dying w/COVID is Not the Same as Dying from COVID: 'CDC Continues to Inflate the Number of COVID Deaths.' It Counts COVID as Causing Death Even If its Not Listed as the Underlying Cause of Death'

/

You know the official story: COVID-19 is a highly contagious and deadly infection that can be stopped only by social distancing, frequent hand-washing, lockdowns, masks, mass testing, contact tracing, and ultimately vaccines. But in reality, COVID-19 appears to be a highly contagious, dangerous, lab-manufactured ~trigger" for the preexisting conditions of an aging and increasingly chronically ill population. The virus itself isn't the primary cause of most COVID-19 hospitalizations and fatalities. Rather, the virus exploits other serious diseases with high mortality that are widespread in the population and dangerous in and of themselves. It's these comorbidities, along with rampant medical malpractice (and other factors we've already touched on and will cover further in this book), that are the main drivers of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. To put it simply: People are dying ~oith COVID-19 as opposed to dying from it.

Data Show COVID-19 Isn't a Significant Threat

To understand the truth versus the official story, we have to separate the real statistics from the “official" statistics on cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. A relatively high “case" load does not mean people are actually getting sick and dying. The media has been conflating a positive test result with the actual disease, COVID-19, thereby deliberately misleading the public into believing the infection is far more serious and widespread than it actually is.

COVID-19 is not confirmed by a positive test; it is a clinical diagnosis of someone infected with SARS-COV-2 who is exhibiting severe respiratory illness characterized by fever, coughing, and shortness of breath. By using a test that falsely labels healthy individuals as sick and infectious, mass testing drives the narrative that we're in a lethal pandemic. Indeed, the use of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests is at the very heart of this entire scam. If it wasn't for this flawed test, there would be no pandemic to speak of I will review this in greater detail in chapter 5.

Mislabeled Causes of Death

According to groundbreaking data released by the CDC on August 26, 2020, only 6 percent of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the US had COVID- 19 listed as the sole cause of death off the death certificate.1 To help that sink in: 6 percent of 496,112 (the total death toU reported by the CDC as of February, 21, 2021) is 29,766. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 infection was directly responsible for 29,766 deaths of otherwise healthy individuals--a far different story from the 200,000-plus (and rising) number reported in the media. The remaining 94 percent of patients had an average of 2.6 health conditions that contributed to their deaths.

These data paint a picture that's in stark contrast with Johns Hopkins University, which in August 2020 reported that about 170,000 of the 5.4 million Americans who had tested positive for COVID-19 had died, prompting Dr. Thomas Frieden, former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to say that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the US, killing more Americans than "accidents, injuries, lung disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and many, many other causes." 2. Frieden is simply stoking the flames of fear with this claim.

Johns Hopkins has been having a hard time keeping its story straight. In November 2020 the institution published an article alleging accounting errors on a national level regarding COVID-19 deaths in the elderly.

"Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19," the author of the article said. "Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact) the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same." But after a link to the Johns Hopkins article was posted on Twitter, the article quickly disappeared.3 Fortunately, an archive of it is still available.4

The American Institute for Economic Research reported on the mysterious disappearance of the article and went a few steps further by posting its own graph taken from CDC data in April 2020. "This suggests that it could be possible that a huge number of deaths could have been mainly due to more serious ailments such as heart disease but categorized as a COVID-19 death, a far less lethal disease," the institute reported.5. Incidentally, this is precisely what CDC guidance has instructed medical practitioners to do.

The CDC's Plan to Intentionally Inflate Numbers of Deaths Due to COVID-19

The CDC has done its part to ensure that as many deaths as possible are attributed to COVID-19---even when it was not the actual cause of death. In personal correspondence, Meryl Nass, MD, reported that in March 2020: "The CDC issued new guidance that required doctors who complete death certificates to list COVID-19 on the certificate if it contributed to or caused the death. This was no different than what we did before. We are supposed to list all contributory causes.

The official communication at that time read:

It is important to emphasize that Coronavirus Disease 2019 COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death...

For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both/ pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included along with COVID-19 in Part I... If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II.6

In April 2020 the CDC issued new guidance documents on how to complete death certificates for COVID-19 and even hosted a webinar on the process, but according to Nass, the guidelines remained substantively the same. Then, later in the fall of 2020, the CDC changed course dramatically, this time without bringing any attention to the new guidelines. According to Nass: "Without fanfare, the CDC acknowledged on another webpage that even if COVID was not listed by the doctor as the underlying cause of death, or the proximate cause of death, as long as it was listed as one cause or contributor, it would be coded as the cause of death."

Indeed, the CDC website at the time of this writing reads (emphasis ours): "When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19.” 8.

All of this caused Nass to conclude that the fanfare that occurred in April was "deliberate misdirection." You may not appreciate how absurd this is, so let me give you an example. If a young healthy person died in a motorcycle accident and had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, according to these CDC guidelines, their death would be listed as a COVID-19 death.

All these machinations with the death certificates hide the fact that the death rate from COVID-19 for everyone except for those over 60 is significancy lower than the death rate for influenza. [MORE]

Would Perpetrators of Genocide Lie Under Oath? Fauci Tells Puppetician, 'COVID Injections Aren't Deadly, VAERS Records are Unreliable.' Like the Record of the 13 Yr Old who Died 3 Days After the Vax?

/

From [HERE] CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Anthony Fauci appeared before a Senate Committee Hearing this week regarding the “Omicron Response,” and both of them lied under oath.

They both claimed that they “didn’t know” how many deaths were recorded in VAERS following COVID-19 vaccines, and Walensky stated the COVID-19 vaccines are “incredibly safe” and “protect us against Omicron, they protect us against Delta, they protect us against COVID.”

She also stated that all reported COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been “adjudicated,” when in fact not a single COVID-19 vaccine injury, let alone a death, has been tried in the Government CounterMeasures Injury Compensation Program, the only place where a vaccine death or injury following a COVID-19 shot can be “adjudicated.”

Senator Tommy Tuberville, a really really stoopid puppetician from Alabama, either displayed his complete ignorance regarding VAERS, or colluded with Walensky and Fauci to ask them a meaningless question which then gave them the opportunity to control the narrative. [MORE]

the puppetician asked:

Dr. Walensky, it has been reported by some virologists and scientists that this year around 170 people have died from taking the regular flu vaccine.

The Vaccine Adverse Reporting System reported that the number of people dying after or following the COVID vaccine is actually in the thousands.

Now this is what I am hearing. I’ll give you a chance to refute that or confirm it here. Is this true?

Are we having that many people die after taking one of these vaccines?

This is a meaningless question because the answer is already public knowledge!

The VAERS database is open to the public, and anybody can search it. You don’t need a “virologist” or “scientist” to tell you how many deaths there are following COVID-19 shots. Anyone can make that search, and it takes less than 60 seconds to find the answer.

As of this recorded Senate Hearing, the total deaths following COVID-19 shots in VAERS was 21,382. (Source.)

So what he should have asked was:

Dr. Walensky, VAERS is reporting 21,382 deaths following the emergency use authorized COVID-19 vaccines for the first year, which is more deaths than following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 31 years combined, since VAERS started recording deaths following vaccines in 1990.

Why are we still injecting these experimental products into Americans?

But instead, he questioned whether or not VAERS was actually reporting this, which led to a canned response by both Walensky and Fauci that VAERS is not reliable, because someone can get the vaccine and then walk outside and get hit by a car, and that is recorded as a vaccine death.

FAUCI, AN UNELECTED MEMBER OF THE PERMANENT GOVERNMENT IS A PROXYMORON OR DUMMY WHO SPEAKS ON BEHALF OF BIG PHARMA AND AUTHORITY. a proxymoron is one moron who speaks on behalf of another pluperfect moron or a whole gang of morons. (See Politician, Congressman, Moron-Majority, Delegate, Prozac, Oxymoron & TV). [MORE]

Here, in reality COVID Shots Are the Deadliest ‘Vaccines’ in Medical History. According to Dr. Joseph Mercola, VAERS reporting is likely underreported by a factor of 41. Since there are over 8,000 domestic deaths reported to VAERS, and 98% of those deaths are “excess deaths,” this suggests that as many as 300,000 Americans may have died from the COVID shots thus far

  • Calculations based on government data from 35% of the world’s population suggest we’re killing approximately 411 people per million doses on average. Moderna and Pfizer are both two-dose regimens, which pushes this to 822 deaths per million fully vaccinated. And that’s just the short-term mortality. We still have no concept of how these shots might impact mortality and morbidity in the longer term

  • An Italian investigation found that if the COVID mortality definition were changed to only include those cases where there were no preexisting comorbidities, the mortality from COVID comes out to just 2.9% of the overall reported number. This suggests that if a COVID death was redefined to being a death actually “from” COVID rather than “with” COVID, the death count could be substantially smaller than 760,000 deaths and may be smaller than the number killed by the vaccines

  • The deadliest vaccine ever made is the smallpox vaccine, which killed 1 in 1 million vaccinated people. The COVID shots kills 822 per million fully vaccinated, making it more than 800 times deadlier than the deadliest vaccine in human history

it is undisputed that scientific research has demonstrated that the VAERS database vastly under reports COVID injection injuries and deaths. Recently an engineering study estimated that COVID Injections have killed 150,00 people in the US. alone, while a Columbia University study, “COVID vaccination and age-stratified all-cause mortality risk” by Spiro P. Pantazatos and Hervé Seligmann, explained that injection deaths are underreported by at least a factor of 20 in VAERS. Said study estimated that at least 200,000 people have been killed by COVID injections. At this point the dangerousness of the fake vaccines is well established for those who eyes to see; in fact Over One Thousand Scientific Studies Prove That the COVID-19 Vaccines Are Dangerous.

Last month 2 prominent doctor researchers, Sucharit Bhakdi, MD and Arne Burkhardt published conclusive evidence that the fake vaccine are killing people. Fifteen dead bodies were examined (all died from 7 days to 6 months after vaccination; ages 28 to 95). The coroner didn’t associate the vaccine as the cause of death in any of the cases. However, further examination revealed that the vaccine was implicated in the deaths of 14 of the 15 cases. The most attacked organ was the heart (in all of the people who died), but other organs were attacked as well. The implications are potentially enormous resulting in millions of deaths.

VAERS data released Friday b1/7/22 y the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,017,001 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 21,382 deaths and 166,606 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2021.

 VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 21,382 reports of deaths — an increase of 380 over the previous week — and 166,606 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 4,100 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 715,857 adverse events, including 9,778 deaths and 63,089 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2021.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 9,778 U.S. deaths reported as of Dec. 31, 20% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 24% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 507.1 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Dec. 30, This includes296 million doses of Pfizer, 194 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

The most recent death involves a 7-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1975356) from Minnesota who died 11 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when she was found unresponsive by her mother. An autopsy is pending.

  • 13 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).

  • 15 reports of blood clotting disorders.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

The most recent death involves a 15-year-old girl from Minnesota (VAERS I.D. 1974744), who died 177 days after receiving her second dose of Pfizer from a pulmonary embolus. An autopsy is pending.

  • 62 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases
    attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

  • 579 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 573 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

  • 146 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:

CDC not investigating 13-year-old’s death following COVID vaccine

The CDC is not investigating the death of a 13-year-old Michigan boy who died June 16, 2021, of myocarditis three days after his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.

Judicial Watch on Wednesday obtained 314 pages of records from the CDC, including communications from Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky showing a request for information about the death of Jacob Clynick.

In the communications, CDC officials said the agency was not actively involved in the investigation of Clynick’s death, although it did make contact with the state health department and the pathologist who confirmed preliminary results showed “bilateral ventricular enlargement and histology consistent with myocarditis.”

The official said the agency was in touch to “maintain situational awareness” but said it was up to the states to conduct investigations into deaths reported following COVID vaccines.

The teen’s death was not acknowledged by CDC officials in presentations on myocarditis or vaccine safety during meetings held by the agency’s vaccine safety advisory panel, which makes clinical recommendations for use of COVID vaccines in children.

Thousands of Miscarriages Following COVID Injections Reported in VAERS Are Being Censored as an Entire Generation Is Being Sterilized

/

From [HERE] Now that we have a full year of injecting people with an experimental gene altering shot for COVID-19, we can conclusively state that this is most definitely a weapon of mass destruction, as it not only kills and cripples people in the present, but it destroys unborn children in the womb as well, and is most likely making an entire generation of child-bearing aged females infertile.

And the facts that support this statement are found in the government’s own database of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), as incomplete as that data set is.

I have basically employed two methods of analyzing the data in VAERS in my reports for the past year, and that is by comparing what is published by the government for the experimental COVID-19 shots with all the FDA-approved vaccines for the past 32 years, since VAERS began in 1990.

This gives us a true “apples to apples” approach using only the data that they supply.

The other method is to determine the “under-reporting multiplier” as everyone admits, including the government health authorities, that VAERS is a passive system that is vastly under reported.

I have used Dr. Jessica Rose’s analysis done on the under-reporting multiplier that is published here, and she determined that based on her analysis, the COVID-19 reporting in VAERS needs to be multiplied by a factor of 41X.

To arrive at the number of fetal deaths recorded in VAERS I had to test several different searches on listed “symptoms” and then see if the search results documented fetal deaths, since there is no demographic for “fetal deaths.”

The following is the current list of “symptoms” in VAERS that reveals fetal deaths:

  • Aborted pregnancy

  • Abortion

  • Abortion complete

  • Abortion complicated

  • Abortion early

  • Abortion incomplete

  • Abortion induced

  • Abortion induced incomplete

  • Abortion late

  • Abortion missed

  • Abortion of ectopic pregnancy

  • Abortion spontaneous

  • Abortion spontaneous complete

  • Abortion spontaneous incomplete

  • Ectopic pregnancy

  • Ectopic pregnancy termination

  • Ectopic pregnancy with contraceptive device

  • Foetal cardiac arrest

  • Foetal death

  • Premature baby death

  • Premature delivery

  • Ruptured ectopic pregnancy

  • Stillbirth

This list may not be exhaustive. But using this list with the last update in VAERS that contains data through December 31, 2021, I have found 3,147 fetal deaths recorded following the COVID-19 shots into pregnant women, or into women of child-bearing age who became pregnant shortly after receiving one of the experimental COVID-19 injections (such as ectopic pregnancies). (Source.)

VAERS Data Reveals 50 X More Ectopic Pregnancies Following COVID Shots than Following All Vaccines for Past 30 Years

Using the under-reporting multiplier of 41X, the truer number of fetal deaths following COVID-19 injections becomes 129,027 fetal deaths.

Please note that these deaths would be in addition to the recorded deaths of people already born, which as of the December 31, 2021 VAERS data release is 21,382 (source).

Using the under-reporting multiplier of 41X, we have 876,662 deaths after the COVID-19 shots, and that is in addition to the 129,027 fetal deaths.

THAT’S OVER 1 MILLION DEATHS IN JUST THE FIRST YEAR OF THE COVID-19 “VACCINES”!

You don’t believe it? Just look around you at the so-called “supply chain” bottlenecks that are getting worse, not better, and understand that there is NOT a shortage of products, but a shortage of HUMAN LABOR!

Using the “apples to apples” analysis of the VAERS data, I performed the exact same search on the symptoms listed above for all FDA-approved vaccines in the database prior to December, 2020, which is the month the first two COVID-19 shots were issued emergency use authorization.

That search returned a value of 2,479 fetal deaths following ALL vaccines for the previous 31 years, or an average of about 80 fetal deaths per year. (Source.)

  • Fetal deaths following FDA-approved vaccines: 80 per year

  • Fetal deaths following experimental COVID-19 shots in first year: 3,147

That’s a 3,834% increase in fetal deaths, using just the government data reported in VAERS.

And if someone like myself just sitting at home behind a computer searching the U.S. Government’s VAERS database can see this, you can be sure that all the scientists and doctors who work for the government that also have access to this data see it too.

Here is a video report on this atrocity that we published in October last year.

The Corona Investigative Committee says There are “Different Batches" of COVID Injections, Some More Deadly Than Others. Fake Vax Manufacturers are Experimenting w/“Lethal Doses" in @ Least 32 States

/

From [HERE] After hearing the witness statements to the German Corona Investigative Committee by former vice president of Pfizer Dr Mike Yeadon who has been a scientist for 36 years, lawyers with Reiner Füllmich draw the same conclusion: The injections normally called Corona vaccines are designed to experiment on the human race and to find out what dosage of a yet unknown toxin is needed in order to kill people. 

The mortality rate linked to the vaccines, according to Yeadon, is traceable in terms of lot numbers of the different batches, as some batches appear to be more lethal than others. When taking a look at the evidence available, the main goal with the injections all over the world is global depopulation, according to the lawyers involved. Dr Füllmich told Perspektiv that the lawyers preparing an international law suit were no longer in doubt: Poisoning and mass murder through so called Corona vaccines is intentionally being perpetrated on the peoples of the world.

Citizen Journalist Ulf Bittner from EU/EES Healthcare blog and Sverige Granskas stated in the interview that the situation with traceable lot numbers and injuries and death related to lot numbers is similar in the different health care regions of Sweden. Bittner is in contact with a vaccine coordinator who has provided documents to keep track of how many people have been injured and lost their lives related to the different batches of the so-called vaccines.

High Recorded Mortality in Countries Categorized as “Covid-19 Vaccine Champions." The Vaccinated Suffer from Increased Risk of Mortality

/

From [HERE] Since the beginning of the health crisis, the French government has claimed that early treatment was ineffective. It has  imposed major restrictions on our freedoms, in particular on doctors’ prescriptions,[1] 

It has also promised that vaccination would achieve collective immunity, the end of the crisis and a return to normal life.

But the failure for 18 months of this so-called “health strategy” based on false simulations, innumerable lies, promises never kept, as well as the propaganda and fear campaign has become unbearable. 

In turn this has been followed by the extortion of consent to be vaccinated, by outright blackmail, while curtailing our freedoms to move and socialize, our right to work and engage in leisure activities. 

Are the current vaccines that they want to impose on us effective?

Can they lead to a collective immunity or is it only a myth? To answer this question, we will make the current sanitary assessment of the most vaccinated countries according to the figures provided by the World Health Organization and the curves of OurWorldinData. (From Vaccine outset in December 2020 to September 15, 2021)

Record mortality in Gibraltar, champion of Astra Zeneca injections

Gibraltar (34,000 inhabitants) started vaccination in December 2020 when the health agency counted only 1040 confirmed cases and 5 deaths attributed to covid19 in this country. After a very comprehensive vaccination blitz, achieving 115% coverage (vaccination was extended to many Spanish visitors), the number of new infections increased fivefold (to 5314) and the number of deaths increased 19fold. The number of deaths increased 19-fold, reaching 97, i.e. 2853 deaths per million inhabitants, which is one of the European mortality records. But those responsible for the vaccination deny any causal link without proposing any other plausible etiology. And after a few months of calm, the epidemic resumed, confirming that 115% vaccination coverage does not protect against the disease. [MORE]

Publicly Available Data from Governments in Canada Show the Vast Majority of Hospital Admissions are Fully Vaxed Persons

/

From [HERE] The government claims that the unvaccinated are responsible for continuing to spread the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) because they refuse to get shot, but the latest data shows that the opposite is true.

In Ontario, Can., at least, hospital beds are filling up with people who took the jabs, believing they would provide protection against infection. The reality is that the shots are spreading more infection, as well as the new covid “variants.”

Publicly available data from the Ontario government suggests that the vast majority of hospital admissions throughout the region are fully vaccinated.

“As per the information, there seem to be 1,327 ‘Fully vaccinated cases’ in hospitals as of January 7, contrasting to only 441 ‘Unvaccinated cases,'” reported Great Game India. “There were 100 patients inside the hospital for ‘partially vaccinated cases.'”

“There are 119 ‘unvaccinated cases,’ 17 ‘partially vaccinated cases,’ and 106 ‘fully vaccinated cases’ in Ontario’s ICU … The great proportion of patients who screened positive for COVID in Ontario originate from ‘fully vaccinated’ individuals, according to the data.”

Throughout the province, there were 9,515 cases of the Fauci Flu among the fully vaccinated as of January 7. This is compared to just 1,543 cases among the unvaccinated and 375 cases among the “partially vaccinated.”

Getting vaccinated will result in the “collapse of our health system,” warns expert

The situation is much the same in Alberta and Quebec where the vast majority of hospitalizations are occurring in the fully vaccinated.

In Albert, there were 258 patients in the hospital for covid despite a “complete” immunization record, along with 19 cases among those with “partial” vaccination status.

In Quebec, there were 1,948 fully vaccinated patients in the hospital and 1,046 hospitalizations among the unvaccinated.

Overall, the vast majority of sickness and death is on the fully vaccinated side of the spectrum with very few unvaccinated illnesses and deaths. And truth be told, even these are likely a factor of “shedding” caused by the fully and partially vaccinated.

Despite all this, the Canadian government is obsessed with the vaccines and still claims that they provide some kind of protection. At best, the shots supposedly reduce the risk of hospitalization, we are told. But even this is a baseless claim without any scientific backing.

According to Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA technology used in the injections, people who take the jabs are the true “super spreaders,” not the unvaccinated.

This fact is not stopping Canadian Minister of Health Jean-Yves Duclos from insisting that everyone get vaccinated regardless of the outcome. In his view, all Canadians should be forced to take the jabs even if many of them later end up having to be hospitalized.

Duclos announced that Fauci Flu shots will probably soon be mandatory throughout Canada, though not everyone agrees. Premier Jason Kenney of Alberta tweeted that at no point will the jabs be required in his province.

“Alberta’s Legislature removed the power of mandatory vaccination from the Public Health Act last year and will not revisit that decision, period,” Kenney wrote emphatically.

“While we strongly encourage those who are eligible to get vaccinated, it is ultimately a personal choice that individuals must make.”

In India, there is a similar uptick in cases of the Wuhan Virus wherever the injections are being widely administered. In Chandigarh, for instance, 77 percent of all new cases are occurring in the fully vaccinated.

A world-renowned virologist and former senior officer at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has repeatedly warned about the risks of getting injected. He says that the vaccinated are becoming a breeding ground for the virus, and that the fallout from this will be the “collapse of our health system.”

Supreme Court Rejects Biden's Mandate Requiring Employees of Large Businesses to Get COVID Injections or Undergo Weekly Testing and Wear a Mask Indoors while Working

/

From [HERE] The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected the Biden administration’s mandate requiring employees of large businesses to be vaccinated against COVID or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask indoors while working.

The court’s conservative majority said the administration overstepped its authority by imposing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) vaccine-or-test rule on U.S. businesses with at least 100 employees.

At the same time, the court allowed to move forward a separate rule mandating COVID vaccines for workers in healthcare facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid.

The Supreme Court on Jan. 7 heard oral arguments pertaining to both of the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandates. The focus of the hearing was whether to stay or to grant temporary injunctions requested by plaintiffs in a number of lawsuits challenging the emergency mandates for millions of Americans.

At the time, the rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), was stayed for 24 states that initiated lawsuits, but the OSHA stay was lifted by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court’s decision today reversed the lower court rulings, imposing a stay on the OSHA mandate and allowing the CMS rule to proceed.

Today’s rulings came three days after the OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard went into effect, targeting more than 84 million workers and two-thirds of the nation’s private-sector workforce.

The conservative justices wrote in an unsigned opinion:

“OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here.”

The conservative majority also expressed concerns over the implications of allowing OSHA to implement a widespread mandate without congressional authorization.

“Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life — simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock — would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” the opinion stated.

A majority of the Supreme Court’s justices concluded the applicants challenging OSHA’s mandate were likely to succeed in the merits of their claim and the secretary of labor lacked authority to impose the mandate, resulting in a stay while the case works its way through the 6th Circuit Court.

“Administrative agencies are creatures of statute,” the justices wrote. “They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.”

In a joint dissent of the OSHA ruling, the court’s three liberal justices argued the court was overreaching by substituting its judgment for that of health experts.

“Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis, the Court displaces the judgments of the Government officials given the responsibility to respond to workplace health emergencies,” Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a joint dissent.

The justices contended OSHA’s mandate is comparable to a fire or sanitation regulation imposed by the agency, while the majority said a vaccine mandate is strikingly unlike the workplace regulations that OSHA has typically imposed as a vaccination “cannot be undone at the end of the workday.” [MORE]

Former Pfizer Vice President, Dr. Mike Yeadon: ‘The COVID Injections are toxic by design and Purposefully Intended for Mass Murder’

/

From [HERE]

8 COVID LIES

Lie # 1 (PCR)

The PCR False Positive Pseudo-Epidemic:
https://dailysceptic.org/the-pcr-false-positive-pseudo-epidemic/

Corman-Drosten Review Report (10 fundamental flaws with PCR protocol)
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

The performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the population
https://europepmc.org/article/MED/34081958

Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests “Unreliable” & Quarantines “Unlawful”
https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless
https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

The Peculiar PCR Test
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/covid-testing-how-reliable-pcr-test-jack-kerwick/

Lie #2 (No Treatments)

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 65 studies
https://ivmmeta.com

Lie #3 (Severity of the virus)

John P A Ioannidis Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/99/1/20-265892.pdf

Lies #4 & 5 (Asymptomatic transmission and masks)

A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0954611120301669

Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w#change-history

Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102

University of Florida researchers find no asymptomatic or presymptomatic spread
https://archive.is/WWaHC#selection-365.0-365.79

Has the Evidence of Asymptomatic Spread of COVID-19 been Significantly Overstated?
https://dailysceptic.org/has-the-evidence-of-asymptomatic-spread-of-covid-19-been-significantly-overstated-2/

Debunked, the myth of asymptomatic Covid transmission
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/debunked-the-myth-of-asymptomatic-covid-transmission/

Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers, A Randomised Controlled Trial
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings, Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article?fbclid=IwAR3ASxBUrRE5LHeZsZF-iHrpTuX2PprS8FnkKGUpEUDEIAnH6s5wQOpkOJI

Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Challenging Epidemiologist Michael Baker on Face Masks & Mass Masking
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mCb0bcFbwGVh/

Lie #6 (Lockdown)

Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33400268/

Seven Peer-Reviewed Studies That Agree: Lockdowns Do Not Suppress the Coronavirus
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/04/15/seven-peer-reviewed-studies-that-agree-lockdowns-do-not-suppress-the-coronavirus/

Lie #7 (no immunity because novel virus)

Wuhan’s Coronavirus Genetic Codes 80% Similar To SARS – Study Finds
https://www.biotecnika.org/2020/02/coronavirus-80-similar-to-sars-new-study-findings/

Immune cells for common cold may recognize SARS-CoV-2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/11069/

SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

SARS-CoV-2-derived peptides define heterologous and COVID-19-induced T cell recognition
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-020-00808-x

Lie #8 (Variants)

Comprehensive analysis of T cell immunodominance and immunoprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes in COVID-19 cases
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33521695/

Scientists uncover SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in recovered COVID-19 and SARS patients
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200716101536.htm

Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors

"mRNA-based COVID Injections have caused injury and death on an unprecedented scale." Doctors Palmer and Bhakdi Explain why adverse events must be expected after the 1st injection each booster

/

1. Introduction

From [doctors4covidethics] Readers of the D4CE website will be familiar with the atrocious safety record of the mRNA COVID vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna [1]. One striking feature is that adverse events occur not only after the first injection but also after every booster shot. In this short article, we will examine the reason for this observation. Other aspects of mRNA vaccine toxicity have been discussed by the D4CE before [2,3].

2. How the mRNA COVID vaccines work

The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines consist of a synthetic messenger RNA (mRNA) that encodes the SARS-CoV-2 “spike protein,” which is normally found on the surface of the coronavirus particles. This mRNA is coated with a mixture of synthetic lipids—fat-like molecules—that protect it from degradation during transport within the body, and which also facilitate its uptake into the target cells through endocytosis.

After the vaccine particle has entered a cell, the lipids are stripped off, and the mRNA is released into the cytosol (the intracellular fluid). The mRNA then binds to ribosomes—the cell’s little protein factories—and directs them to synthesize the actual spike protein molecules. Most of the spike protein molecules will then be transported to the cell surface.

Sooner or later, cells that express this protein, or the remnants of such cells, will reach the organizational centers of the immune system in the lymphatic organs. The spike protein will then be recognized by various types of immune cells, including B-lymphocytes (B-cells), which will begin to make antibodies to it.

Furthermore, as with any protein that is synthesized within the cell, a small number of molecules will undergo fragmentation, and the fragments will be presented on the cell surface in association with specific (HLA-) carrier proteins. The purpose of this mechanism is immune surveillance: as soon as fragments show up of some protein which the immune system does not recognize as “self,” that is, as belonging to the human body, an immune response will be mounted against any cells that produce it. This response will result in the formation of cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (T-killer cells) that attack and destroy the cells which present those antigen fragments.

The cytotoxic activity of the T-killer cells will be augmented by several other immune effector mechanisms that are initiated by the antibodies. If this combined immune attack happens to the cells that line the blood vessels—the endothelial cells—the resulting lesion may cause blood clotting. Stroke, heart attacks, and thromboses must be expected, and many such cases have indeed been reported as adverse events after vaccination with Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (as well as with the adenovirus-based vaccines produced by AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson).

These immunological mechanisms must be expected to operate with any other mRNA-encoded viral antigens. In the case of COVID19 vaccines, there is a second, unique pathway that connects expression of the spike protein to vascular disturbances. A centrally important part of the spike protein (the S1 fragment) can be cleaved off and released from the cell. The S1 fragment can then bind to blood platelets (thrombocytes) and to endothelial cells at remote sites, effecting their activation. This second pathway of triggering vessel damage and blood clots is specific for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

3. How the immune system deals with natural viruses (or live vaccines)

The immune system’s reaction to the expression of an mRNA vaccine is rather similar to the response of an immunologically naive host to the first infection with a new virus. In this situation, there is nothing to prevent the virus from entering a cell. Once inside the cell, the viral genome will direct the expression of viral proteins, which again will appear on the cell surface—some of them in intact form, and all of them as fragments, as discussed above. Accordingly, cytotoxic T-cells and antibody-dependent effector mechanisms will jointly attack the infected cell and kill it off. The death of infected cells on a large enough scale will cause inflammation and clinical disease.

Now, what happens if we are infected with the same virus again? In this case, we will already have antibodies to it, and these will bind many of the virus particles and prevent them from entering our body cells. Instead, the antibody-bound virus particles will be taken up by phagocytes and undergo destruction.1

Essentially the same kind of immune response is triggered by live virus vaccines, such as for example the measles vaccine. The difference is that the virus strain used for vaccination has been “attenuated” so as to not cause significant disease even after the first infection.

4. How the immune system reacts to mRNA vaccines

As noted above, the first injection of an mRNA vaccine will set off a sequence of events not unlike the one we see in a viral infection—the mRNA will initiate the synthesis of the protein antigen it encodes, and the immune system will generate antibodies and cytotoxic T-cells directed against that antigen. Together, these will cause the death of the cell.

What happens if we administer a booster injection of the same vaccine? Antibodies to the antigen in question will now be present. However, unlike a proper virus, the vaccine particles contain only the mRNA blueprint, but no protein copies of the antigen. Thus, the antibodies will be unable to recognize and grab onto the vaccine particles. Accordingly, nothing can prevent the mRNA from entering the body cells and expressing the antigen, and the immune system from attacking those cells. What is is more, the immune system will already be primed to attack faster and more forcefully.

The same will happen not just after the second injection, but after each and every booster injection. Similarly, individuals who have already had COVID-19 and thus have acquired natural immunity are at increased risk of adverse events even after the first mRNA vaccine injection [4,5]. You will be able to draw your own conclusions regarding the wisdom of sentencing the people, in many jurisdictions including even those with documented natural immunity, to a seemingly endless series of mRNA booster shots against COVID-19.

5. Why is the first injection of an mRNA vaccine more harmful than that of a conventional live virus vaccine?

The above argument explains why booster injections will be more toxic with mRNA vaccines, but not why even the first injections of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have caused so much more damage than conventional live virus vaccines have done in the past. There are several aspects to this:

  1. the choice of the antigen—namely, the spike protein, which plays a key role in the pathogenesis of regular COVID-19 disease [6];

  2. the rapid appearance of the mRNA vaccines in the bloodstream [3], which will lead to the expression of the spike protein in the endothelial cells of the blood vessels, the destruction of these cells by immune attack, and blood clotting;

  3. the large amount of mRNA contained in each injection. This amount far exceeds the amount of nucleic acids injected with attenuated live vaccines or taken up in case of a natural infection.

We note that only the first stated reason refers to the COVID-19 vaccines specifically. The other two are inherent in the mRNA vaccine technology as such, and they must be expected even with vaccines that encode viral antigens with no intrinsic toxicity. At least the final reason given—namely, the large administered dose of harmful nucleic acid—also applies to the adenovirus-based vaccines produced by Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. However, with these two vaccines, one might hope that the antibody response to the adenoviral proteins of the vector will mitigate the cell destruction caused by booster doses.

6. Conclusion

We have seen that for very general and elementary reasons the mRNA technology is inherently more dangerous than live virus vaccines, which themselves are already less safe than inactivated virus vaccines or subunit vaccines (the latter two varieties were not examined in this paper). Accordingly, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines should never even have been introduced. Their current application must be stopped, and any further development of this fundamentally flawed vaccine technology should be halted.

Notes

  1. Even if prior to reinfection antibodies cannot be detected in the bloodstream because the first infection was long ago, we will still have so-called memory B-cells, which can be reactivated on short notice and mount a rapid and forceful antibody response; similarly, memory T-cells exist and can be rapidly activated. Thus, even though the virus will manage to infect a small number of cells, it will have much less time to propagate than it did the first time around—the infection will be snuffed out rapidly, and only an insignificant number of infected cells will have to be killed. This is why we experience childhood diseases only once—immunological memory is ready to spring into action even after decades. Some viruses may manage to multiply even after “neutralization” and uptake into immune cells. In these cases, antibodies tend to make disease worse. This is called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and occurs for example with Dengue virus, but also with coronaviruses, including the causative agent of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2).

References

  1. Goss, J. and Price, M. (2022) Covid-19 Statistics 2022.

  2. Anonymous, (2021) The Dangers of Booster Shots and COVID-19 `Vaccines’: Boosting Blood Clots and Leaky Vessels.

  3. Palmer, M. and Bhakdi, S. (2021) The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: Pharmacokinetics and Toxicity.

  4. Menni, C. et al. (2021) Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: a prospective observational study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 21:939-949

  5. Parés-Badell, O. et al. (2021) Local and Systemic Adverse Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Comparing Two Vaccine Types and Occurrence of Previous COVID-19 Infection. Vaccines 9 (preprint)

  6. Marik, P.E. et al. (2021) A scoping review of the pathophysiology of COVID-19. Int. J. Immunopathol. Pharmacol. 35:20587384211048026