As we approach the one-year anniversary of fifteen days to flatten the curve, we have yet to acquire any data suggesting that the past year of life-destroying lockdowns and politicized behavioral mandates has done anything to keep us safe from covid-19. While discussions surrounding the reintroduction of nationwide lockdowns seem to have ceased—it’s impossible to ignore the lockdowns’ disproportionately deadly effects and the numerous studies demonstrating their futility—the media still retain their grip on the narrative that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as mask mandates, curfews, capacity restrictions, gathering restrictions, and others remain necessary to prevail in our fight against covid-19.
Government officials, in lockstep with big tech and nearly all major news outlets, have controlled the NPI narrative to such an extent that its proponents have simply sidestepped the burden of proof naturally arising from the introduction and continued support of novel virus mitigation strategies, happily pointing to the fact that their ideas enjoy unanimous support from the corporate media and government officials all over the world. This seemingly impenetrable narrative rests, of course, on the critical assumption that NPIs, or behavioral mandates, have protected us from covid-19.
In June of 1944 Operation Titanic had 10 soldiers of the Allied Air Service parachute over the French countryside along with 500 "ruperts." Ruperts were dummies, fabric stuffed with straw and sand tossed from the airplanes along with the soldiers. They were equipped with incendiary devices so that, upon impact, they ignited, leaving no trace that they were decoys.
It gave the illusion of an invasion far from where the actual invasion was taking place, which was Normandy. The Germans were duly deceived, diverted their resources, and this deception was decisive in making the Normandy invasion ultimately successful.
Intentional deceptions such as this have been part and parcel to warfare for centuries. These deceptions have often been the deciding factor in determining the outcome of battle.
The first count is the cumulative deaths caused by Covid-19. The US recently crossed the "grim mile mark" of 200,000 deaths due to the disease. It is a tragic number of deaths, to be sure. But we can also be sure that, as an infectious disease, the cumulative number of deaths will certainly continue to rise into the indefinite future. No one knows what the efficacy will be of any future vaccine, but Dr. Fauci is hoping for at least 75%. In any case, there will always be unfortunate deaths to add to the cumulative death number. All infectious diseases, and in fact all potentially fatal diseases, are the same in this regard.
No one is anticipating complete eradication of Covid-19. This disease is expected to reach a background level, still infectious and occasionally deadly, but not epidemic. Cumulative deaths will continue to rise. The media will surely continue to toll that ominous bell because it carries the gravity of the situation like no other statistic.
The second count used by the media daily is "new cases." These new cases are telling us just how rapidly this virus is disseminating through the population and is used as what we can expect as a surrogate marker for future deaths. Slowing the rise of new cases and squashing any "hotspots" and "outbreaks" of new case clusters is a prime motive behind essentially all social measures, e.g. mask mandates, social distancing, and business closures. For this reason, it is essential that we understand what a new case actually indicates. And to understand that, we first have to examine polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the laboratory technique used to diagnose a case.
There are two worlds. In the first, independent researchers with no conflicts of interest, and, hopefully, a sense of logic, sort out what is actually going on behind propaganda parading as medical research.
In the second world, it’s all official propaganda, wall to wall, posing as science.
This article looks at the second world. It doesn’t mention what I’ve established in prior articles: the unproven discovery of a new virus (COVID); the notoriously useless PCR diagnostic test for the virus, rendering case numbers meaningless; the con-job proposition that COVID is a real disease with one cause, rather than a grouping of people with diverse conditions clustered under one fake umbrella term (COVID).
In the second world, we have the announcement that a new antibody test has been developed to detect COVID-19 virus in people. Millions of test kits have been ordered. Some versions of the test can be self-administered quickly at home.
So let’s go to the mainstream media and see what they, and their medical sources, have to say about the new antibody test. Buckle up.
Chicago Tribune, April 3: “A new, different type of coronavirus test is coming that will help significantly in the fight to quell the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors and scientists say.”
“The first so-called serology test, which detects antibodies to the virus rather than the virus itself, was given emergency approval Thursday by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”
“The serology test involves taking a blood sample and determining if it contains the antibodies that fight the virus. A positive result indicates the person had the virus in the past and is currently immune.”
The North Dakota House of Representatives has passed a bill that will make any future mask mandates illegal in the state.
Monday’s vote passed 50-44 and is now heading to the state senate.
“Our state is not a prison camp,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jeff Hoverson, said.
The state’s Republican Gov. Doug Burgum had put a mask mandate in place three months ago, but had previously expressed doubt about if mandates were really the way to go.
The Grand Forks Herald reports that Hoverson called mask mandates “diabolical silliness,” referring to them as a conspiracy run by “unelected, wealthy bureaucrats who are robbing our freedoms and perpetuating lies.”
Only one representative spoke against the bill, Rep. Jason Dockter, a Republican. He argued that cities, counties, schools and businesses should have “local control” of their affairs.
“Both chambers of the Legislature have required that masks or face shields be worn in areas of the Bismarck Capitol building under the branch’s control, though the rule is lightly enforced and oft ignored by lawmakers. House Speaker Kim Koppelman, R-West Fargo, reminded legislators to wear their masks on the chamber floor Monday, but he noted the rule may be reexamined in the next few weeks,” WDAY reports.
This is a brilliant few segments from the Laura Ingraham Show where she highlights the never-ending stream of LIES and moving goalposts spewed the likes of Dr. Fauci. Also includes "honest" comments by Dr. Atlas: America’s health officials are peddling fear not facts. Altas pointed out that the majority of COVID-19 stories airing in America have been “fear-invoking.” He told Ingraham these stories have taken a heavy toll on the country’s psyche. “Over 70 percent of Americans say they will wear a mask after the pandemic is over,” he said. “That’s very frightening. We have a damaged American psyche, and it’s due to these public health officials that are just really not saying the real data, probably because they don’t want to admit they were so wrong,” Atlas remarked.
Many of us have friends or family who plan on getting the vaccine. Maybe they truly believe they are in danger. Maybe they think it’s better safe than sorry. Maybe they just want to be able to go to the pub again.
If you know someone who is planning on getting vaccinated against Covid19, ask them these five questions. Make sure they understand exactly what they’re asking for.
1. Did You Know That We Have Never Successfully Vaccinated Against Any Coronavirus?
Scientists have been trying to develop a SARS and MERS vaccine for years, with nothing to show for it. In fact, some of the failed SARS vaccines actually caused hypersensitivity to the SARS virus. Meaning that vaccinated mice could potentially get the disease more severely than unvaccinated mice.
2. Did You Know It Usually Takes 5-10 Years To Fully Develop A Vaccine?
Vaccine development is a slow, laborious process. Usually, from development through testing and finally being approved for public use takes many years. The various vaccines for Covid have all been developed and approved in less than a year.
The cognitive dissonance required to accept these numbers is stunning. This is all part of a narrative supporting an agenda to keep the masses in the dark, compliant, and terrified. Conning people into conceding control to our "betters" is how they keep us in line.
Flu season came and went without ever actually existing this year. Doctors and mainstream media are putting forth every possible excuse for why it went from 400,000 hospitalized cases and 22,000 deaths last season to an infinitesimal 165 hospitalized cases this season, but very few of them are stating the most obvious reason.
They claim that since many are on lockdown, few children are in school, most are wearing masks, and all of the other things associated with China Virus protocols, it effectively eliminated the flu this season. Sadly, many are buying this excuse. The reality is this: There was likely a sharp drop in cases, possibly as few as 100,000. But to say it was essentially eliminated down to an average of just over three cases per state all season long is ludicrous.
For that to be the case, we would have also seen a tremendous drop in Covid-19 cases. The flu is nearly as contagious as the China Virus, so hitting the flu so effectively would have meant sharp drops in Covid cases. Instead, we saw spikes.
This group of people showed up to a Trader Joes grocery store in Santa Cruz, California and they proceeded to cause some very much needed EPIC CHAOS!!! We need more of these type of events in the future and we need to BOYCOTT these businesses for treating people this way. If ever a video needed to go viral, this is the one! PLEASE SHARE THIS VIDEO EVERYWHERE YOU CAN!!!
Also, notice the difference between these protesters and Antifa/BLM protesters. If these would have been Antifa/BLM protesters, the store would have been trashed and looted! AND everyone would celebrate it.
Curative offers a PCR test using spit rather than swabs from the back of your nasal cavity. Initially only authorized for use on symptomatic patients, the company has requested the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expand its authorization for use on asymptomatic individuals
According to company data, the spit test accurately identifies about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT
According to the FDA, that comparative CT is too low, and will produce too many false negatives. This, despite the scientific consensus, which states anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable as it produces enormous amounts of false positives
According to an April 2020 study, a CT of 17 must be used to obtain 100% confirmed real positives. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. At 33 cycles, the false positive rate is 80%. Beyond 34 cycles, the false positive rate reaches 100%
Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of the test is important. Recent research shows the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by viral culture is seven days, whereas the PCR test continues to detect nonviable (noninfectious) SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days
For several months, experts have highlighted the true cause behind the COVID-19 pandemic, namely the incorrect use of PCR tests set at a ridiculously high cycle count (CT), which falsely labels healthy people as “COVID-19 cases.” In reality, the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test, although it has been promoted as such.
An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at excessive CT, or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous, out-of-control pandemic.
An interesting case detailed in a January 21, 2021, Buzzfeed article4 that raises those same questions in regard to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is its recent spat with Curative, a California testing company that got its start in January 2020. It has since risen to become one of the largest COVID-19 test providers in the U.S.
Curative’s most popular PCR test differs from other providers in that it uses spit swabbed from the patient’s tongue, cheek and mouth rather than from the back of the nasal cavity.
In April 2020, the FDA issued an accelerated emergency use authorization5 for the Curative spit test, but only for patients who had been symptomatic within the two weeks prior to taking the test, as the data available at that time showed it failed to catch asymptomatic “cases.”
However, the test was subsequently used off-label on individuals without symptoms anyway, and the company has been urging the FDA to expand its authorization to include asymptomatic individuals based on newer data.
In December 2020, Curative submitted that data,6 showing its oral spit test accurately identified about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT.7
The FDA objected, saying that Curative was comparing its test against a PCR that had a CT that was too low, and would therefore produce too many false negatives.8 According to the FDA, the bar Curative had chosen was “not appropriate and arbitrary,” Buzzfeed reports.9
This is a curious statement coming from the FDA, considering the scientific consensus on PCR tests is that anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable.10,11,12
From the start, the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40.13 This was already high enough to produce an inordinate number of false positives, thereby labeling healthy people as “COVID-19 cases,” but when it comes to Curative’s spit test, the FDA is demanding they compare it against PCR processed at a CT of 45, which is even more likely to produce false positives.