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.”

Gwinnett Agrees to $400k Settlement. After Bullshit License Plate Stop, White Cops Punched a Black Man in the Face While His Hands Were Up and Then Ran-Up and Stomped On His Head While Laying Facedown

From [HERE] The Black man who was beaten and kicked by Gwinnett County officers has reached a $400,000 settlement in his federal lawsuit, according to the county.

Demetrius Hollins, who is Black, was assaulted by two white officers on April 12, 2017, and the pair was later fired and charged.

Sgt. Michael Bongiovanni had pulled Hollins over for a license plate issue, and shortly after Hollins exited the car with his hands up, the sergeant punched him in the face, bystander video showed. As Hollins lay facedown, apparently not resisting, Officer Robert McDonald ran up and stomped Hollins’ head.

In September, Hollins filed a lawsuit against the officers, the former police chief and the county.

“I don’t want anyone else to experience the pain and horror I did,” Hollins said after the suit was filed. “My hope is that this lawsuit serves as a reminder that members of law enforcement need to treat people with respect. I shouldn’t be receiving justice simply because of a video.”

The county declined to comment on the settlement Tuesday.

The case was terminated in December, court records show, and last week, the Gwinnett County Commission approved paying the settlement. The lawsuit accused Gwinnett police leaders of ignoring a pattern of excessive force and falsified reports involving the two officers.

A grand jury indicted both officers in the assault. Bongiovanni pleaded no contest in 2019 to aggravated assault and was sentenced to six months in a jail work-release program, followed by five months of house arrest.

New Report Finds Kentucky Authorities Are Most Likely to Use the Death Penalty Against Blacks who are Convicted of Murdering a White Person

From [HERE] The death penalty in Kentucky has been used sparingly in the last 30-plus years, but its use shows racial biases, according to a new report from local researchers and other experts (article available here(link is external)).

In cases eligible for the death penalty, those with white victims have been far more likely to end in the convict being sentenced to death, according to a report from Professor Frank Baumgartner at UNC Chapel-Hill and the Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Kentucky has handed down 82 death sentences since 1975. In those instances, cases with white victims were five times more likely to result in a death sentence than cases with Black victims, according to the report. Black men have been 20 times more likely to receive a death sentence when the victim is a white female.

Black male victims account for nearly 30 percent of all homicide victims in Kentucky, but fewer than 8 percent of death sentence cases in Kentucky involved a Black victim.

Eighth Circuit Rules Feds Can't Take Prison Wages For Restitution

From [HERE] The Eighth Circuit on Monday said the government can't collect inmates' prison wages to satisfy victim restitution orders, agreeing with two other appeals court opinions and vacating(link is external) a lower court order to seize $5,500 from an Arkansas prisoner's trust account (article available here(link is external)).

In a unanimous opinion, the Eighth Circuit returned the case of federal inmate Corey Kidd to district court, where federal prosecutors won an order in July 2020 to transfer Kidd's prison earnings toward his restitution obligation of approximately $62,000 on armed robbery charges.

The court of appeals chided the district court for granting the government's request "without discussing contrary decisions of two sister circuits."

The court held Congress had something else in mind when it enacted the statute for restitution collection in cases where an inmate gains "substantial resources" while incarcerated.

"The inference from that wording is that Congress focused on single transactions from outside sources, not the $18 per month paid by the government into Kidd's inmate trust account for his prison wages," the court wrote. "Nor do we see any hint in this language that the statute was intended to apply, counterintuitively, to payments made to an inmate during incarceration by the institution that was incarcerating him."

In district court, Kidd, representing himself, asked for a hearing to "properly produce and present the means in which I received and saved money," the opinion noted. "I am an indigent inmate, who happens to work in the prison for eighteen dollars a month," Kidd wrote to the court. He added, "Every so often I may receive outside funds from someone as a result of payment for hand washing clothes, cleaning cells or acting as a personal microwave cook. Outside of that, for the most part I have no financial support."

The district court denied Kidd's request for a hearing before granting the government's motion to seize his money.

FAIR COURTS: Black Man on Death-Row Granted a New Hearing After a Juror Told an Investigator that She'd Seen His File at Her Job and Believed He was an Evil Person w/No Redeeming Qualities

From [HERE] An Ohio death-row inmate is entitled to a hearing to explore whether the foreperson at his trial, who worked as a local child-abuse investigator, was biased, the Sixth Circuit said(link is external) (article available here(link is external)).

Well after the trial, at which Jeronique Cunningham was convicted, the jury’s foreperson, Nichole Mikesell, told a private investigator that she’d seen Cunningham’s file at work and that he was an evil person with no redeeming qualities. Mikesell also told the investigator that some of her coworkers knew Cunningham and were afraid of him. But during voir dire she said she could be unbiased.

The state courts denied Cunningham’s request for a hearing to explore Mikesell’s comments, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied his habeas corpus petition. Cunningham is entitled to a hearing to show if Mikesell had private communications with her coworkers during the trial, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Monday.

Another juror said that as foreperson, Mikesell pressured her into voting to convict Cunningham by repeatedly referring to her work and dealing with victims’ families, and saying the families deserved a guilty verdict. But Cunningham was denied state relief to explore the possible juror bias.

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]

Bank of America to Cut Overdraft Fees to $10 from $35. BofA Made $1.11 Billion Last Year by Ripping-Off Mostly Black People, who are Nearly Twice as Likely to Incur the Fees as Whites

From [HERE] Bank of America Corp. said Tuesday it would cut overdraft fees to $10 from $35 beginning in May, following other big banks that have rolled back or ditched such charges.

Overdraft fees, which are charged when customers don’t have enough cash in their accounts to cover their purchases, are under scrutiny by regulators and politicians who say they unfairly exploit cash-strapped families. Under the Biden administration, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have pressed banks to scale them back. In a December report, the CFPB flagged Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. on their overdraft fees. 

Wells Fargo said Tuesday that it was planning changes in the near future to minimize overdraft fees, including getting rid of fees for nonsufficient funds. The bank also announced several changes it said would help customers avoid overdraft fees. Wells Fargo will give customers 24 hours to cover an overdrafted amount and allow them earlier access to direct deposits, the bank said. By the end of 2022, Wells Fargo plans to offer short-term loans of up to $500 to consumers, including some customers who might otherwise incur overdraft fees.

JPMorgan has recently made changes to limit the costs of overdrafting. Customers can now overdraw up to $50 before incurring a fee, instead of just $5, and the bank said last month it would give customers who overdraw until the end of the next business day to replenish their bank accounts.

“It’s an astute political risk-management strategy,” said Karen Petrou, head of Federal Financial Analytics, a regulatory advisory firm. “It does pay to get out ahead of the reaper, and it does seem certain that the CFPB will turn to regulating overdraft fees.”

Bank of America collected $1.11 billion in overdraft charges in 2020, about 1.3% of its total revenue. Ken Usdin, a bank analyst at Jefferies, estimated in a report last month that overdraft fees and other related charges accounted for a median 1.4% of banks’ revenue in the third quarter.

Black households and those with low to moderate incomes are almost twice as likely to incur overdraft fees as white households or those with higher incomes, according to a report from the Financial Health Network, a research firm partly funded by financial institutions.

“Bank of America’s decision will provide much-needed relief for customers who least can afford the burden of overdraft fees and should lead other financial institutions to drop these fees that disproportionately impact low-income, Black and Latino Americans,” Mike Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending, said in a statement.

Bank of America also said that it would eliminate nonsufficient-funds fees beginning next month. It also plans to eliminate the transfer fee for its overdraft-protection service in May.

The bank said that these and other changes it has made in recent years will reduce its overdraft-fee revenue by 97% from 2009 levels.

Other big banks have already adjusted their policies. Capital One Financial Corp. is ditching its $35 overdraft fee altogether. Ally Financial Inc. ALLY 0.76% said last June it would get rid of its $25 overdraft fee. Ally decided to eliminate the fees after positive customer feedback when it temporarily suspended the charges in the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, Diane Morais, Ally Bank’s president of consumer and commercial banking, said at the time.

Other banks have made it easier for customers to avoid the fees but haven’t gotten rid of them altogether. PNC Financial Services Group Inc. PNC 0.62% last year gave customers the option of receiving an alert when their balance falls below $50. Customers are notified again when their balance turns negative, after which they have 24 hours to make a deposit before being charged. Fifth Third Bancorp FITB 0.51% also said it would provide additional time to cover the overdraft with a deposit. Huntington Bancshares Inc. doesn’t charge an overdraft fee when an account is overdrawn by $50 or less. U.S. Bank eliminated nonsufficient funds fees this month and said it is planning further changes to help customers avoid overdraft fees.

“The dominoes started falling months ago, and I think it’s going to be very difficult for any large bank to keep the old fee structures in place,” Cowen Inc. analyst Jaret Seiberg said.

Many big banks became more lenient on overdraft fees when the pandemic hit, with most waiving the charges when customers asked for help. In 2020, banks’ overdraft revenue fell for the first time in six years, according to financial-data firm Moebs Services Inc. Still, firms collected $31.3 billion in the fees in 2020, Moebs calculated.

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

Report says FLA Authorities are Regularly Briefed About Prison Guards’ Membership in the KKK and Other Clownish White Supremacy Gangs but Do Nothing About It [which means They are Also Racist]

From [EJI] Many Florida prison guards who openly associate with white supremacist groups have been identified after targeting their Black coworkers and incarcerated people of color for intimidation, harassment, and violence—but prison officials have failed to take sufficient action, The Associated Press reported recently.

“Some Florida prison guards openly tout associations with white supremacist groups to intimidate inmates and Black colleagues, a persistent practice that often goes unpunished,” The AP’s investigation found.

Former prison inspectors and current and former officers told The AP that Florida corrections officials regularly receive reports about prison guards’ membership in the Ku Klux Klan and criminal gangs with white supremacist affiliations, but few are investigated by state prison inspectors.

Even after an FBI investigation into three current and former Florida prison guards who were KKK members led to their convictions in 2017 for plotting to kill a Black man who was formerly incarcerated, state prison officials refused to investigate the prevalence of white supremacist groups within their ranks.

Last June, three guards who bragged about being white supremacists beat, pepper sprayed, and used a stun gun on incarcerated men of color at Jackson Correctional Facility, The AP reports. A man incarcerated at Jackson reported the two separate incidents to the state, and even though both happened in view of surveillance cameras, the inspector general’s office did not investigate.

“I’ve visited more than 50 (prison) facilities and have seen that this is a pervasive problem that is not going away,” Florida state Rep. Dianne Hart told The AP. “It’s partly due to our political climate. But, those who work in our prisons don’t seem to fear people knowing that they’re white supremacists.”

Officers who report their colleagues’ misconduct have faced harassment and retaliatory firings, according to The AP’s review of allegations in public documents and interviews with a dozen inmates and current and former corrections employees. “Officers are saying their colleagues are members, but they can have me killed,” one former investigator told reporters.

A Black officer filed an incident report last summer after discovering that a white guard had allowed 20-30 incarcerated members of a white supremacist group to meet openly inside the facility, according to The AP. But the report was ignored and the white guard was not punished, and the reporting officer now feels unsafe at work.

Incident reports that allege officer misconduct are often censored by supervisors and ignored by officials, The AP reported.

“This is a pattern all over the country,” said Paul Wright, a formerly incarcerated journalist who helped expose KKK members working in a Washington state prison in the 1990s. “There’s an institutional acceptance of this type of racism,” he told The AP. “What’s striking about this is that so many of them keep their jobs.”

Indeed, in the past two decades, law enforcement officials with alleged connections to white supremacist groups or far-right militant activities have been exposed in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and elsewhere, according to a 2020 report from The Brennan Center.

“These officers’ racist activities are often known within their departments, but only result in disciplinary action or termination if they trigger public scandals,” the report found.

Most state prisons and police departments do not check whether prospective new hires are members of white supremacist or other extremist groups, a former chief of the FBI’s New York domestic terrorism squad told The AP.

Rep. Hart has called for the FBI to conduct a systemwide investigation into Florida prison guards’ associations with white supremacist groups. The FBI would not confirm or deny to The AP if it has launched an investigation.

Top epidemiologist Professor John Ioannidis has published a new study which concludes that the survival rate of people under the age of 20 who catch COVID is 99.9987%.

From [InfoWars] The data used from the study was taken before the advent of mass vaccination programs, meaning the numbers apply to unvaccinated people.

ioannidis previously published an analysis of seroprevalence (antibody) studies from 2020, which resulted in him being able to reveal that the infection fatality rate for COVID globally was around 0.15%. In Europe, the number stood at 0.3%-0.4% , while in Africa and Asia it went down to 0.05%.

Now the professor has published new information that breaks down infection fatality rates by age.

“From analysis of 25 seroprevalence surveys across 14 countries, Prof. Ioannidis and his colleague found the IFR varied from 0.0013% in the under-20s (around one in 100,000) to 0.65% in those in their 60s,” writes Will Jones.

For those above 70 not in a care home it was 2.9%, rising to 4.9% for all over-70s. This means that even for the elderly, more than 95% of those infected survive – 97.1% when considering those not in a care home. For younger people the mortality risk is orders of magnitude less, with 99.9987% of under-20s surviving a bout of the virus. These survival rates include people with underlying health conditions, so for the healthy the rates will be higher again (and the fatality rates lower).”

The authors of the study concluded that the data reflects the reality that the infection fatality rate of COVID is substantially lower than previously reported estimates.

“The study’s findings confirm that Covid is a mild disease in all but a small minority of cases. With Omicron now reducing the severity several-fold further, even the proponents of lockdown should be able to accept that this virus is well below a level where restrictions are justifiable,” writes Jones.

The results of the study once again bring into question the rationality of giving COVID-19 vaccines to young people and children.

Court Reinstates Suit Alleging Pfizer, J&J, other Big Pharma Corps Funded Terror Attacks Against US Soldiers Killed/Injured in Iraq. Will The Dependent Media Report Bad News About Their Masters?

From [HERE] A 2017 lawsuit alleging five pharmaceutical companies helped finance terror attacks against U.S. service members and other Americans in Iraq during the “War on Terror” was unanimously reinstated and remanded by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit against the five companies in question — Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Roche and GE Healthcare — was dismissed in July 2020 by a federal district court in Washington, D.C. before being reinstated last week.

The lawsuit claims the five companies regularly paid bribes, including free drugs and medical devices, to officials in Iraq’s Ministry of Health between 2005 and 2011, in their efforts to secure drug contracts.

In turn, the suit alleges, these companies’ contracts with the Iraqi health ministry helped “fund terrorism” perpetrated by a Shiite militia that killed Americans during that period.

The militia in question, Jaysh al-Mahdi, or the “Mahdi Army,” maintained control of the health ministry at that time.

The amended lawsuit was filed on behalf of 395 Americans who were killed or injured in Iraq during the six-year period.

The plaintiffs seek damages under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which states plaintiffs must demonstrate the terror attacks were conducted by an organization formally designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. government.

While the Mahdi Army has not been formally classified as a terrorist group, the lawsuit alleges the army’s attacks carried out in Iraq were “planned and organized” by Hezbollah, which the U.S. in 1997 labeled a terror group.

The initial lawsuit also prompted an investigation of the pharmaceutical companies by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), in 2018.

An alleged web of corruption and kickbacks

The allegations made in the lawsuit are based on information provided by 12 confidential witnesses, public and private reports, contracts, email communications and documents published by WikiLeaks.

Included in the lawsuit are 27 pages of itemized deaths and injuries sustained by U.S. service members in attacks by the Mahdi Army between 2005 and 2009, and claims of pain and suffering submitted by their family members and relatives.

One of the main planks of the lawsuit pertains to bribes and kickbacks the five companies named in the suit are alleged to have provided to the terrorists who controlled the Iraqi health ministry between 2005 and 2011.

The lawsuit alleges the five companies obtained contracts with the ministry through the illicit payments, which were then used to “aid and abet” terror attacks against Americans.

The central argument put forth in the original lawsuit is that the companies must have been aware that Iraq’s health ministry operated as a de facto terrorist organization, and this knowledge should have resulted in an insistence, on the part of the five companies, that any contracts with the ministry be structured to reflect this knowledge and to guard against potential corruption and misuse of funds.

This point is crucial, as it is illegal under U.S. law to knowingly fund terror groups.

In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the procurement budget for the Iraqi health ministry skyrocketed, from $16 million in 2003 to approximately $1 billion in 2004, due to U.S. financial assistance.

It was in 2004, according to the lawsuit, that the Mahdi Army took control of the Iraqi health ministry, at a time when various political factions in the country took over government ministries as the U.S. devolved power back to the Iraqis.

Having taken over the ministry, the Mahdi Army allegedly used it as a vehicle for financing terrorist acts, using local agents to deliver cash kickbacks to terrorists on the ground and selling medical supplies “off the books” on the black market, to further fund terror operations. [MORE]

'A positive test isn’t a clinical diagnosis of COVID. 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'

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.

COVID Versus Influenza

Though an article in Scientific American called the claim that the virus's fatality is on par with the flu "fake news,"9 there's nothing fake about it. We call your attention to research looking at the fatality ratio for the average person, excluding those residing in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities, presented September 2, 2020, in Annals of lnternal Medicine: “The overall non-institutionalized infection fatality ratio [for COVID-19] was 0.26 percent... Persons younger than 40 years had an infection fatality ratio of 0.01 percent, those aged 60 or older had an infection fatality ratio of 1.71 percent."10

Other sources are reporting similar findings. During an August 16, 2020, lecture at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness convention, Dr. Lee Merritt pointed out that, based on deaths per capita--which is the only way to get a true sense of the lethality of this disease--the death rate for COVID-19 at that time was around 0.009 percent.11 That number was based on a global total death toll of 709,000, and a global population of 7.8 billion. This also means the average person's chance of surviving an encounter with SARS-CoV-2 was 99.991 percent.

In comparison, the estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza listed in the Annals of lnternal Medicine paper is 0.8 percent. Other sources put it a little higher. In either case, the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza are those over the age of 60. All others have a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu. White House coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx also confirmed this far lower than typically reported mortality rate when she, in mid-August 2020, stated that it “becomes more and more difficult to get people to comply with mask rules "when people start to realize that 99 percent of us are going to be fine."

Who Gets Sick?

In April 2020 nearly all crew members of the deployed aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt were tested for SARS-CoV-2. By the end of the month, of the roughly 4,800 crew on board, 840 tested positive. However, 60 percent were asymptomatic, meaning they had no symptoms. Only one crew member died, and none were in intensive care.13

Similarly, among the 3,711 passengers and crew aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship, 712 (19.2 percent) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and of these 46.5 percent were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Of those showing symptoms, only 9.7 percent required intensive care and 1.3 percent died.14 Military personnel, as you would expect, tend to be healthier than the general population. Still, the data from these two incidents reveal several important points to consider. First of all, it suggests that even when living in close, crowded quarters, the infection rate is rather low." Only 17.5 percent of the USS Theodore Roosevelt crew got infected--slightly lower than the 19.2 percent of those aboard the Diamond Princess, which had a greater ratio of older people. Second, fit and healthy individuals are more likely to be asymptomatic than not--60 percent of naval personnel compared with 46.5 percent of civilians onboard the Diamond Princess had no symptoms despite testing positive.

Medical Errors Responsible for Host COVID-19 Deaths

Now that we've established that the official statistics aren't telling us the whole truth and that COVID-19 isn't responsible for nearly as many deaths as we've been told, let's look at a leading cause of death that you don't hear about in the media: medical malpractice.

In 2016 a Johns Hopkins study found that more than 250,000 Americans die each year from preventable medical errors, effectively making modem medicine the third leading cause of death in the US.15 Other estimates place the death toll from medical mistakes as high as 440,000.16 The reason for the discrepancy in the numbers is that medical errors are rarely noted on death certificates, and death certificates are what the CDC relies on to compile its death statistics. While medical errors are continually swept under the proverbial rug, they need to be brought to light now more than ever, because they play also play a role in the death toll attributed to COVID-19.

A significant portion of those who have died from COVID-19 were in fact victims of medical errors. In particular, Elmhurst Hospital Center in Queens, New York--which was the epicenter of the epicenter" of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US--appears to have grossly mistreated COVID-19 patients, thereby causing their death.17

Financial Incentives Increased Deaths

According to army-trained nurse Erin Olszewski, who worked at Elmhurst during the height of the outbreak in New York City, hospital administrators and doctors made a long list of errors, most egregious of which was to place all COVID-19 patients, including those merely suspected of having COVID-19, on mechanical ventilation rather than less invasive oxygen administration.

During her time there, most patients who entered the hospital wound up being treated for COV'ID-19, whether they tested positive or not, and only one patient survived. The hospital also failed to segregate COVID-positive and COVID-negative patients, thereby ensuring maximum spread of the disease among non-infected patients coming in with other health problems.

By ventilating COVID-19-negative patients, the hospital artificially inflated the caseload and death rate. Disturbingly, financial incentives appear to have been at play. According to Olszewski, the hospital received $29,000 extra for a COVID-19 patient receiving ventilation, over and above other reimbursements. In August 2020, CDC director Robert Redfidd admitted that hospital incentives likely elevated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics around the country. 18

Many Governors Radically Increased Elderly Deaths with Misguided Policies

Another major error that drove up the death toll was state leadership's decision to place infected patients in nursing homes, against federal guidelines.19 According to an analysis by the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, which included data reported by May 22, 2020, an average of 42 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in the US had occurred in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and other long-term care facilities. 20 "

This is extraordinary, considering this group accounts for just 0.62 percent of the population. By and large nursing homes are ill equipped to care for COVID- 19-infected patients.21 While they're set up to care for elderly patients—whether they are generally healthy or have chronic health problems--these facilities are rarely equipped to quarantine and care for people with highly infectious diseases.

It's logical to assume that commingling infected patients with non-infected ones in a nursing home would result in exaggerated death rates, as the elderly are far more prone to die from any infection, including the common cold. We also learned, early on, that the elderly were disproportionately vulnerable to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Yet ordering infected patients into nursing homes with the most vulnerable population of all is exactly what several governors decided to do, including New York's Andrew Cuomo, Pennsylvania's Tom Wolf, New Jersey's Phil Murphy, Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, and California's Gavin Newsom.22

ProPublica published an investigation on June 16, 2020, comparing a New York nursing home that followed Cuomo's misguided order with one that refused, opting to follow the federal guidelines instead. The difference was stark.23. By June 18 the Diamond Hill nursing home--which followed Cuomo's directive--had lost 18 residents to COVID-19, thanks to lack of isolation and inadequate infection control. Half the staff (about 50 people) and 58 patients were infected and fell ill.

In comparison, Van Rensselaer Manor, a 320-bed nursing home located in the same county as Diamond Hill, which refused to follow the state's directive and did not admit any patient suspected of having COVID-19, did not have a single COVID-19 death. A similar trend has been observed in other areas.

Ventilators Did Not Help and Only Increased Deaths

The misuse of mechanical ventilation was not limited to Elmhurst Hospital Center in Queens. As early as June 2020, researchers warned that COVID- 19 patients placed on ventilators are at increased risk of death, and leading experts suggested the machines were being overused and that patients would likely do better with less invasive treatments. According to one study, more than 50 percent of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients died.24

The practice remained widespread, nonetheless. In a case series of 1,300 critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) in Lombardy, Italy, 88 percent received invasive ventilation, but the mortality rate was still 26 percent.25 Further, in a JAMA study that included 5,700 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the New York City area between March 1, 2020, and April 4, 2020, mortality rates for those who received mechanical ventilation ranged from 76.4 percent to 97.2 percent, depending on age.26

Similarly, in a study of 24 COVID-19 patients admitted to Seattle-area ICUs, 75 percent received mechanical ventilation and, overall, half of the patients died between 1 and 18 days after being admitted."27

There are many reasons why those on ventilators have a high risk of mortality, including being more severely ill to begin with. There are risks inherent to mechanical ventilation itself, including lung damage caused by the high pressure used by the machines. In cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the lung's air sacs may be filled with a yellow fluid that has a gummy" texture, making oxygen transfer from the lungs to the blood difficult, even with mechanical ventilation. Long-term sedation from the intubation is another significant risk that is difficult for some patients, especially the elderly, to bounce back from. [more]