The COVID-19 crisis at a time of deteriorating economic conditions caused what in hindsight may be known as a Greater Depression — exceeding the worst of the 1930s.

For 20 straight weeks, new claims for unemployment insurance exceeded one million.

Prior to March, the highest ever weekly total was 695,000. What’s unfolding in real time in the US is unprecedented and then some.

The Labor Department’s reported 1.2 million new filings was fake news like earlier weekly reports.

According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), 1.6 million US workers applied for unemployment benefits in the last week — not seasonally adjusted.

The number includes 984,000 who applied for state unemployment benefits — another 656,000 seeking Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA).

In the past 20 weeks, a previously unimaginable 55 million Americans filed initial claims for unemployment benefits.

Nearly one-third of US working-age Americans currently have no jobs.

Over 30% of laid off US workers who regained employment were furloughed again because of Depression-level economic conditions at a time of zero federal jobs creation programs.

While only Cassandra excelled at predicting future events, what’s going on suggests harder than ever hard times may worsen ahead before improving at an unknown future time.

Federally approved unemployment insurance (UI) benefits of $600 weekly to eligible recipients expired at end of July.

Republicans want benefits slashed to $200 weekly, along with no financial aid to cash-strapped states, no funds for emergency workplace health and safety protections, nothing to prevent landlords from evicting jobless tenants with no ability to pay rent.

Through Thursday, Republicans and Dems failed to agree on a package of vital benefits for unemployed Americans.

According to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, “(w)e’re still a considerable amount apart.”

Dems expressed “disappoint(ment)” over failure to resolve differences with Republicans.

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said if stalemated talks continue, Trump will act unilaterally by executive order that surely will fall far short of what’s needed by a president who time and again showed indifference toward public health and welfare — serving privileged interests exclusively throughout his tenure.

Dems said they’ll legally challenge unilateral action by Trump to resolve major differences if he takes this step.

Both sides blame each other for impasse on major issues at a time of unprecedented US unemployment armageddon when vital aid to the needy is essential without delay.

For the past week, jobless Americans got no UI.

EPI called slashing benefits from $600 to $200 weekly, as Senate Republicans demand, “not just cruel, it’s terrible economics,” adding:

“These benefits are supporting a huge amount of spending by people who would otherwise have to cut back dramatically.”

“The spending made possible by the $400 that the Senate wants to cut is supporting 3.4 million jobs.”

“If you cut the $400, you cut those jobs.”

If (now expired) benefits are cut to $400 weekly, $1.7 million jobs will be lost.

May and June employment gains “reversed. Now is not the time to cut benefits that are supporting jobs,” EPI stressed.

GOP leadership claims that UI benefits of $600 disincentivise unemployed Americans from returning to work have no merit.

EPI called the claim “massively overblown,” adding:

“(R)igorous empirical studies show that any theoretical disincentive effect has been so minor that it cannot even be detected.”

Data show that over two-thirds of UI recipients who returned to work in May and June earned more from unemployment benefits than on-the-job pay.

Slashing benefits when most needed amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, an 8th Amendment breach.

In his second (January 1937) inaugural address to the nation, Franklin Roosevelt said the following:

“I see tens of millions of its citizens—a substantial part of its whole population—who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.”

“I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.”

“I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society half a century ago.”

“I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.”

“I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many other millions.”

“I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.”

The state of the nation today for most Americans is more dire than during the 1930s.

No FDR era alphabet soup of jobs creation programs exists to put Americans back to work, none planned by Republicans or Dems.

Will things change for the better if Biden succeeds Trump in January and if Dems control both houses of Congress?

No evidence suggests it other than perhaps some tinkering around the edges when massive relief and jobs creation programs are vitally needed to turn things around — at a time of unprecedented economic and unemployment armageddon.

What’s going on is likely to be protracted and painful for countless millions of Americans — what I call the hardest of hard times in a nation serving privileged interests exclusively, uncaring about the vast majority of ordinary people.

The COVID-19 virus. Does it exist? Is it a novel virus? Is there a Pandemic?

If you ask any doctor or scientist in the world to show you a scientifically-verified proof, they will not be able to show you one.

Given that it has not been scientifically established that the COVID-19 novel virus exists, it is therefore clear that everything being done supposedly in the effort to tackle the ‘virus’ is being done for another purpose and COVID-19 is being used to conceal this fact.

However, with the elite-driven narrative being endlessly promoted by the World Health Organisation, governments, the medical and pharmaceutical industries, along with the corporate media, the truth is being obliterated.

And the reason for this is obvious: Any serious consideration of the underlying evidence, as I have documented previously, clearly indicates that the global elite is conducting a coup against humanity and using the fear it generates around COVID-19 to distract people from paying attention to what is happening in the background. For this reason, the coup continues to gain pace with only an insignificant number of people yet aware of the coup and its ongoing and increasingly devastating impacts.

‘How is the elite doing this?’ you might ask. Far too easily, unfortunately.

In essence, key individuals in the World Health Organisation (WHO), governments, the medical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the corporate media are lying to you about this. They are lying to you, consciously or unconsciously, for essentially one of three reasons (essentially determined by where the individual fits in relation to the elite’s ongoing execution of its coup):

This presentation PROOVES WITHOUT DOUBT that America is in for a major fight that will put you and your family in the firing line, literally… So make sure you watch this presentation while it’s still online…

1. they are lying as an outcome of their complicity in the coup (given the perceived benefits to them personally, at least in the short term),
2. they are lying as an outcome of their ignorance (by not investigating and considering the evidence for themself and submissively accepting the elite narrative), or
3. they are lying as an outcome of their fear (of the adverse personal repercussions they would expect for resisting the elite narrative that there is indeed a virus).

And, so far, the elite is successfully executing its coup because the many voices contradicting its narrative – such as those individual doctors powerful enough to present the truth about the so-called ‘virus’ – are being denied a forum in any elite-controlled outlet such as the corporate media or they are being censored (including removed from accessible sites on the internet).

If what I have written above sounds incredible given the worldwide response supposedly to tackle the ‘virus’, the evidence presented below, together with the references to further documentation, will give you plenty to consider (provided your own fear will allow you to do so).

But before presenting this evidence, it is worth being aware of some of the existing adverse impacts of the coup:

1. The sudden destruction of the global economy has impoverished tens of millions of people in industrialized societies through unemployment, making them even more vulnerable to homelessness and other misery, as well as precipitating the death of millions of people projected to die of starvation in Africa, Asia and elsewhere because of the disruption of global food production and supply. See ‘WFP chief warns of “hunger pandemic” as Global Food Crises Report launched’and ‘COVID-19 could kill more people through hunger than the disease itself, warns Oxfam’.
2. There has been a dramatic increase in violence against children and women all over the world and particularly in some contexts with a recent United Nations Population Fund report highlighting that an ‘additional 5.6 million child marriages can be expected because of the coronavirus pandemic, which resulted in a short-term increase in poverty and the shutdown of schools’. In addition, the ‘current pandemic is also expected to have a massive impact on the projected growth of harmful practices on women’s bodies’ including female genital mutilation (FGM). See ‘Child Marriage, FGM and Harmful Practices on Women’s Bodies to Increase Because of COVID-19’.
3. The lockdowns have imprisoned people in their homes (with its seriously adverse psychological, social and physical repercussions) and laws have been introduced regarding ‘social distancing’ and other measures (including mask-wearing which I will discuss below) that have eviscerated rights and freedoms it took centuries to win.

In response to growing concerns on a number of points, 600 doctors signed a letter to US President Donald Trump to end the ‘lockdown’ – see ‘“Mass casualty incident”: 600 doctors sign letter to Trump calling for end to lockdowns over health concerns’– which has since been signed by thousands. See ‘Literally Thousands of Doctors and Scientists Have Come Out Against Fauci’s Lockdowns Including a Nobel Prize-Winning Biophysicist. The Media Just Doesn’t Want You to Know’.

4. Despite the ‘diagnostic’ tests for COVID-19 being ‘scientifically meaningless’ – see ‘COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless’– (how can they not be when there is no virus?) compulsory vaccination (again, against a non-existent virus) is being threatened – in direct violation of Article 6 of the ‘Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights’despite the extensively documented record of vaccines causing devastating harms including massive lethality. For a taste of the vast literature on this point, see ‘Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination’.

As Dr Stefan Lanka has explained about vaccines generally:

Only ignorant people who blindly trust in the state authorities who are ‘testing’ and approving the vaccines can regard vaccination as a ‘small harmless prick’. The verifiable facts demonstrate the danger and negligence of these scientists and politicians, who claim that vaccines are safe, have little or no side-effects and would protect from a disease. None of these claims is true and scientific.See‘The Misconception Called “Virus”: Measles as an example’.

Moreover, this vaccination will be used to dramatically expand surveillance both via biometric ID and ‘immunity passes’. See ‘ID2020 and partners launch program to provide digital ID with vaccines’and ‘Mass-Tracking COVI-PASS Immunity Passports Slated to Roll Out in 15 Countries’.

5. Other measures to expand surveillance (apart from through vaccination) are being introduced. These include ‘contact tracing’ despite the fact that even ‘A WHO study on influenza pandemics in 2019 came to the conclusion that contact tracing is not useful from an epidemiological point of view and “is not recommended in any circumstances”.’ See ‘Facts about COVID-19’. But that is precisely the point: Contact tracing is not about epidemiological usefulness; it is about surveillance.
6. Critically, several measures necessary to implement the so-called fourth industrial revolution, including the deployment of 5G, which will reduce human individuals to digitized identities without effective rights and freedoms, are being accelerated. See ‘Techno-Tyranny: How The US National Security State Is Using Coronavirus To Fulfill An Orwellian Vision’.
7. While much human activity has been brought to a standstill, this has not included any of the violence which has not only continued unchecked but has expanded. Apart from the dramatic increase in violence against children and women all over the world noted above, wars, threats of war, sanctions, the military violence of occupations in places such as Palestine, Tibet and West Papua, the structural violence that systematically exploits (that is, loots) countries in Africa, Asia and Central/South America, the ecological violence that destroys lands, oceans and atmosphere have all proceeded as usual with the caveat that there has been a reduction in the emissions of some industrial and other waste products although this is hugely problematic in one critical sense. See ‘Will COVID-19 Trigger Extinction of All Life on Earth?’
8. And four distinct paths to human extinction – nuclear war, the climate catastrophe, the deployment of 5G and biodiversity collapse – have been accelerated, inadvertently or otherwise, by the coup. See ‘The Elite’s COVID-19 Coup to Destroy Humanity that is also Fast-Tracking Four Paths to Human Extinction’.

Does COVID-19 Exist?

Despite these and many other adverse impacts already happening in response to the COVID-19 crisis, as noted at the beginning, it has never been scientifically established that the COVID-19 virus actually exists. More fundamentally, according to Dr Stefan Lanka:

‘Contrary to what most people believe, there are no pathogenic viruses.… All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognisable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations…. A real and complete virus does not exist anywhere in the entire “scientific” literature.’ See ‘The Misconception Called “Virus”: Measles as an example’.

To reiterate in the words of two other authors: ‘there is no original scientific evidence that definitively demonstrates that any virus is the cause of any disease’. See What Really Makes You Ill? Why everything you thought you knew about disease is wrong. But you can read more in ‘Dismantling the Virus Theory – The “measles virus” as an example’ and watch the video interview ‘The Real Science of Germs: Do Viruses Cause Disease?’

In addition, and specifically in relation to COVID-19, according to Dr Andrew Kaufman, ‘there is no evidence of anyone dying from any novel illness’. See ‘Unmasking the Lies Around COVID-19: Facts vs Fiction of the Coronavirus Pandemic’. So what has happened?

Over the past year over 13,200 families have also already successfully used the very same technique to get over tragic milestones such as hurricanes, snow storms or floods.

in this short video I’ll tell you a life-changing story about how I figured out how to easily create an automated supply of the freshest, high-quality organic foods you’ve ever tasted for pennies on the dollar…

As Dr Kaufman explains: Early scientific papers on the subject suggested an association (not causation) between a novel coronavirus ‘with human to human transmission and severe human infection’ whereas a subsequent key ‘scientific’ paper that made a claim which helped drive the global response to COVID-19 ‘flat out lied’ about their results: ‘Following the first outbreaks of unexplained pneumonia in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, a new coronavirus was identified as the causative agent in January 2020.’ See ‘Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19’. In fact, Dr Kaufman points out:

‘they cannot reference any science to back that up whatsoever’.

Moreover, subsequently to this paper, another article – see ‘I study viruses: How our team isolated the new coronavirus to fight the global pandemic’– declared ‘The emergence of a new coronavirus in a market in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 set in motion the pandemic we are now witnessing in 160 countries around the world’. But again, Dr Kaufman counters, ‘no evidence was provided at all’ to support this claim: ‘just flat out lies’. For the details and citation of all the scientific sources for this explanation of how the COVID-19 ‘rumour mill’ got started, see ‘The Rooster in the River of Rats’ or ‘Koch’s Postulates: Have They Been Proven for Viruses?’

Finally on this point, pathologist Dr Stoian Alexov, President of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, has stated that he and his colleagues across Europe:

have not found any evidence of any deaths from the novel coronavirus on that continent.

Dr. Stoian Alexov called the World Health Organization (WHO) a ‘criminal medical organization’ for creating worldwide fear and chaos without providing objectively verifiable proof of a pandemic.See ‘“No one has died from the coronavirus”: Important revelations shared by Dr Stoian Alexov, President of the Bulgarian Pathology Association’.

Fortunately, as awareness of the fact that the COVID-19 virus does not exist gradually spreads, more people are challenging the official response to the engineered crisis on that basis. For example, one group of doctors has written to the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson challenging Public Health England to ‘show proof’ that a virus exists. See ‘Challenge to Public Health England that they must show Proof that a Virus Exists which Causes COVID-19 or Declare there is No Virus and end the Vax and Trax Programmes’.

But it is clear that the engineered crisis and the measures supposedly being taken to combat the non-existent ‘virus’ are being used to mask the truth, including the elite coup, and so actions aimed at elite agents, such as governments, must inevitably fail.

Unscientific Responses to the Non-existent Virus

The unscientific nature of the supposed threat posed by the ‘virus’ is, of course, matched by the unscientific response with countries imposing lockdowns suffering far worse outcomes – measured psychologically, socially, economically and otherwise – than countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Belarus and Sweden which did not follow this course. In any case, countries that did impose lockdowns could only use lies and statistical manipulation to make it appear that COVID-19 has been the cause of death among some of those who are recently deceased. For a taste of the extensive documentation, see ‘Facts about COVID-19: July 2020 Update’ and ‘COVID 19 Is A Statistical Nonsense’.

Given that the negative impacts of the lockdown are extensively documented, there have been many attempts (of many different kinds) occurring all over the world to end them already. See, for example, ‘“Mass casualty incident”: 600 doctors sign letter to Trump calling for end to lockdowns over health concerns’.

But another way in which this unscientific response to the non-existent ‘virus’ is manifesting is immediately obvious if one examines the scientific evidence in relation to the effectiveness of masks in preventing cross infection. As it turns out, as explained in a long series of documented scientific studies, as distinct from the inaccurate claims promulgated by elite agents, the research demonstrates that masks are at best ineffective, and at worst horribly counterproductive; that is, masks cannot achieve the purpose for which they are, supposedly, intended but they can achieve some very unhealthy outcomes. But who among the general population is seeking out and considering this evidence (which the WHO, governments, the medical and pharmaceutical industries, the education systems and the corporate media are not going to present)?

For just a sample of the evidence about the ineffectiveness and dangers of wearing a mask, see the following:

‘Nevertheless, the question of the effectiveness of masks can be asked. In the case of influenza epidemics, the answer is already clear from a scientific point of view: masks in everyday life have no or very little effect. If used improperly, they can even increase the risk of infection.’ See ‘Facts about COVID-19: July 2020 Update’.

In a recent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the five co-authors stated ‘We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infect
ion.’ See ‘Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era’.

In his recent article ‘Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy’documenting the results of his research, physics professor Dr Denis G. Rancourt concludes:

No RCT [randomized controlled trial] study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW [health care workers] or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public.

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

Masks and respirators do not work.

By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

After reviewing more than 50 articles on masks in the medical literature and documenting her case,  concludes as follows:

There are NO randomized, controlled trials (RCT) with verified outcomes that show a benefit to healthcare workers or community members for wearing a mask or a respirator. There is no such definitive study. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public.See ‘Coronavirus Pt 4: Masks Don’t Protect’and, for your convenience, Tenpenny has cited the relevant passage from 35 of the articles she researched in this document: ‘Conclusion Regarding Masks: They Do Not Work’.

But if you want to read more, you can access each of the 50 articles Tenpenny cited or check out these as well: ‘Coronavirus: Face masks could increase risk of infection, medical chief warns’ and ‘Coronavirus Fact-Check #6: Does wearing a mask do anything?’

Or watch this video presentation: ‘Why Face Masks Don’t Work, According to Science’.

So if there is no virus and face masks do not work to prevent infection anyway, why are we being told to wear them and, increasingly, being terrorized into wearing them under threat of punishment if we do not? For just two of many examples, see ‘Soon, You Will Need to Wear a Mask to Enter Virtually Every Major Retail Store in America’ and ‘Total Masking: Victoria’s Coronavirus Response’.

Because the face masks, like other elements of the supposed strategy to tackle COVID-19, are simply being used to terrorize us into not resisting the ongoing elite coup. See ‘The Mask as a Symbol of Subjugation’, ‘The New (Pathologized) Totalitarianism’and ‘The Hidden Agendas of Masks, Distancing, and Tracing’.

And it is largely working with most people projecting their fear onto the non-existent ‘virus’ and then ignorantly endeavouring to ‘protect’ themselves from it by wearing a mask (or going along with other measures supposedly intended to ‘prevent infection’).

So if you are wondering why virtually everyone is being caught up in this, there are very good psychological reasons. One of them is that virtually all humans are terrorized into obedience as children. Consequently, resisting orders from those considered to be ‘in authority’ is virtually unthinkable. I have explained this submissive obedience in the article ‘Contemplating Human Extinction Terrifies Most People: A Strategy for Survival’.

But there is another, more subtle, reason too.

COVID-19 and the Psychology of Projection

For the vast bulk of the human population, considering the fundamental evidence of what is taking place – and acknowledging that the global elite is conducting a coup against us with all that this entails – is truly terrifying. Moreover, recognizing that if we are to resist this coup, we will need to make a courageous and strategically-focused stand to defend ourselves is frightening for most people as well.

And the global elite knows this. It is for this reason that they are terrorizing us in the first place. The elite does not want people resisting the coup and it certainly does not want them resisting the coup effectively.

Hence, the global elite is exploiting our fear – by projecting it onto COVID-19 – so that we submissively go along with its coup. How is the elite doing this? Let me explain the psychology of projection, very simply.

If, when you are a child, you are scared of something but that ‘something’ is truly terrifying and inescapable – that is, you are denied any safe opportunity to feel your terror and to take action in response to it so that you can make yourself safe – your mind will precipitate one response and, if necessary, a second response to defend you in the short term.

The SHTF we all prep for is what folks 150 years ago called daily life: …no electrical power, no refrigerators, no Internet, no computers, no TV, no hyperactive law enforcement, and no Safeway or Walmart

The first response will be to significantly dampen (and possibly completely suppress) your awareness of just how terrifying the ‘something’ that is scaring you actually is so that you are not overwhelmed to such an extent that you become incapacitated. This response is intended to enable you to act powerfully to get yourself out of the terrifying situation and into a context in which you feel safe.

Ideally, following any such incident when you again feel safe, you need time to recover emotionally. Fundamentally, this means that you need time to focus on feeling the terror and other feelings that were raised during the incident so that these feelings are fully felt and expressed, rather than suppressed more deeply into your unconscious.

If, however, there is no opportunity for this emotional recovery, your mind will have no choice but to more deeply suppress your awareness of these feelings so that you can resume functioning more or less as previously. I say ‘more or less’ because you won’t be functioning precisely as previously because the unconscious terror will now be playing a part in your emotional life and, therefore, playing a part in shaping your behaviour.

However, your unconscious mind – which is enormously powerful – has not given up on enabling you to heal from the terrifying incident and, therefore, its second response is to later trick you into believing that something else, that is far less frightening, is what is really scaring you so that you can safely access and feel your terror in relation to the original incident. Your mind does this so that the terror that was initially suppressed, in order to allow you to devise and implement a strategy for immediate survival, can now be released.

By using these two responses, your mind enables you to survive in a terrifying environment so that, hopefully at some point soon, you can devise and implement a strategy to escape that environment. But also by allowing you to subsequently believe that something that is actually quite safe by comparison is what was really scaring you in the first place, it gives you the opportunity to feel your fear and act it out without (or with profoundly reduced) fear of the consequences.

In the short term, this pair of responses by your mind can enable you to survive something truly terrifying: it minimizes the risk that you will be immobilized (frozen) in terror and thus unable to survive a dangerous situation. In essence, in evolutionary terms, these responses have tremendous survival value in the short term.

If, however, you are not able to escape the truly terrifying situation in the short term and you remain trapped in the situation indefinitely, your unconscious mind will continue to both suppress awareness of the terror and ‘trick’ you into subsequently believing that it is something else that is frightening you.

Unfortunately, beyond the very short term, this mental trick is highly dysfunctional. It leads the individual to eventually ‘forget’ (deeply suppress their awareness of) the original and true source of what is terrifying them and to believe that the safe ‘target’ they unconsciously chose subsequently is actually the genuine threat.

In the jargon of psychology, this is called ‘projection’ or ‘transference’ because the victim is now blaming something other than the true cause of their terror.

This has profound societal consequences too for the simple reason that an elite can effectively nominate the ‘something’ onto which our terror is projected. And it can do this very easily by simply parading a target or ‘legitimized victim’ as terrifying which, in effect, gives ‘permission’ for us to feel scared of the target it has nominated. But in directing our fear in a certain direction, they are also invariably intent on manipulating our behaviour in response.

Historically, this has been demonstrated rather endlessly with the manipulation of our fear crucial to the achievement of certain elite ends, politically and otherwise. For example, racism (fear of other far less frightening Africans) exploded to justify the slave trade, Nazism exploited fears to mobilize Germans against far less frightening Jews (among others), Israeli leaders project the fear of Israelis to exploit far less frightening Palestinians and the entire US ‘war on terror’ has been conducted on the basis of projecting people’s unconscious terror at far less frightening Muslims. As I mentioned, however, the list of possible examples is virtually endless.

In each and every case, however, the terror exploited had its origin in something much earlier in the life of these individuals than the current circumstance exploited by elites. It had its origin during early childhood.

And this origin can be traced directly back to the parenting and teaching models virtually universally used by human beings. As I have explained many times previously, but to briefly reiterate here: virtually all human beings are terrified for the same reason: the child-raising process that sociologists like to label ‘socialization’ should be more accurately labeled ‘terrorization’. This is because from the moment of a child’s birth, parents, teachers, religious leaders and adults generally regard themselves as responsible for terrorizing the child into obedience of the commands, rules, conventions and laws that define the nature of permissible behaviour in their society.

But because evolutionary pressures do not predispose any individual to obey the will of another – for the simple reason that obedience has no evolutionary functionality – it takes enormousterrorization during childhood to ensure that the child surrenders their Self-will at the alter of obedience. To achieve this outcome and largely unknowingly, parents, teachers, religious leaders and other adults in the child’s life use a large range of behaviours from the three categories of violence that I have labeled ‘visible’ violence, ‘invisible’ violence and ‘utterly invisible’ violence.

At its most obvious, all children are routinely threatened with violence and actually punished with violence (usually in each of its three forms: ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’) for ‘disobedience’ (that is, for following their own Self-will rather than obeying orders to submit). See ‘Punishment is Violent and Counterproductive’.

And, as preposterous as I know this sounds to those reading it for the first time: The fundamental outcome of this process is that all children end up utterly but unconsciously terrified of their parents, teachers, religious figures and other significant adults in their life.

But never given adequate safe opportunities to feel this terror, each child ends up projecting it onto something or a series of targets including those ‘legitimized victims’ approved by an elite, local or otherwise.

Hence, in the current world context, this results in the bulk of the human population submitting to direction by the global elite to project their fear onto COVID-19 and then behave as ordered, rather than pay attention to the elite coup and resist it. For summaries and documentation of the evidence in relation to each of these points.

The elite does this by triggering our unconscious fear through endless reporting of the ‘threat’ posed by COVID-19, issuing warnings, announcing deaths supposedly caused by the ‘virus’ (and concealing that the death rates are not even comparable to deaths caused by a serious influenza), and placing increasingly onerous limits on our rights and freedoms (through such measures as lockdowns and mask-wearing). And because virtually everyone has so much suppressed terror and needs outlets onto which this can be projected, the coup is being conducted virtually without resistance.

As I have explained before, just because the global elite is able to do this does not mean that it is sane. In fact, it is completely insane and that is precisely why it is conducting this coup but unable to see its catastrophic outcome for the elite as well. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

So what can we do?

Well, if we are to effectively resist the elite coup and fight for human survival, it would be useful to start by giving yourself time to focus on feeling your emotional responses – fear, anger, sadness, pain, dread…. – to whatever is generating an emotional reaction: COVID-19, the elite coup, the imminent threats of extinction or anything else. See ‘Putting Feelings First’.

This is necessary so that you can engage meaningfully and strategically in the effort, whatever issue you choose to fight.

So once you have a clearer sense of your emotional reactions to this knowledge and have allowed yourself time to focus on feeling these feelings, you will be in a far more powerful position to consider your response to the situation. And, depending on your interests and circumstances, there is a range of possible responses that will each make an important difference.

Fundamentally, you might consider making ‘My Promise to Children’ which will include considering what an education for your children means to you, particularly if you want powerful individuals – not ones who are submissively obedient and project their terror – who can perceive reality and resist violence. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’

You might consider supporting others to become more powerful. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

If you wish to strategically resist the elite coup against humanity, you can read about nonviolent strategy, including strategic goals for doing so, from here: Coup Strategic Aims.

Remaining pages on this website fully explain the twelve components of the strategy, as illustrated by the Nonviolent Strategy Wheel, as well as articles and videos explaining all of the vital points of strategy and tactics, such as those to help you understand ‘Nonviolent Action: Why and How it Works’.

Given the complexity of the configuration of this conflict, however, which involves the need to fight simultaneously to retain our essential humanity, defeat the elite coup and avert near-term human extinction, it is important that our tactical choices are strategically-oriented (as are those listed at the Strategic Aims page nominated above). Hence, three further considerations assume importance.

First, choose/design tactics that have strategic impact, that is, they fundamentally and permanently alter, in our favor, the power relationship between the elite and us.

Second, when tactical choices are made, focus them on undermining the elite coup, not just features of it, such as ‘social distancing’ or the lockdowns. At its most basic, this can be achieved by using tactical choices that mobilize people to act initially, as is happening, but then inviting them to consider taking further, more focused, action as well (such as those nominated in the strategic goals referenced above). This is important because existing actions will have little impact on key underlying measures, such as those being taken by the elite to advance the fourth industrial revolution.

Third, choose/design tactics that also have strategic impact on the greatest threats to human survival, including the collapsing biodiversity on Earth, the threat of nuclear war, the climate catastrophe and the deployment of 5G. Given the incredibly short timeframe in which we are now working to avert human extinction, while people are mobilizing it is important to use this opportunity to give them the chance to perceive the ‘big picture’ of what is taking place – beyond lockdowns and other measures supposedly being used to tackle COVID-19 – and to act powerfully in response.

Fortunately, as more people become aware of the deeper strands of what is taking place, the energy to break the lockdowns, resist other limitations on our rights and freedoms (such as contact tracing, COVID-19 testing/temperature checks, mask-wearing and vaccinations) as well as resist the coup itself will gather pace. As I have previously outlined, using a locally relevant focus, or perhaps several, for which many people would traditionally be together – a cultural, religious or sporting event, a nonviolent action, a community activity such as working to establish a community garden to increase local self-reliance, a celebration and/or a return to work – we can mobilize people to collectively resist.

If you wish to focus on powerfully resisting one of the primary threats to human existence – nuclear war, the deployment of 5G, the collapse of biodiversity and/or the climate catastrophe – you can read about nonviolent strategy, including strategic goals to focus your campaigns, from here: Campaign Strategic Aims.

You might also consider joining those who are powerful enough to recognize the critical importance of reduced consumption and greater self-reliance as essential elements of these strategies by participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’. While you over-consume or are dependent on the elite for your survival, in any way, you are vulnerable.

In addition, you are welcome to consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

Conclusion

Under cover of a ‘virus’ that does not exist, the global elite is social engineering a massive restructuring of world society to suit their own ends. If they achieve their aim, your existence as any sort of individual with meaningful rights and freedoms will have been terminated.

Apart from these ongoing disastrous outcomes, the elite coup is also unwittingly accelerating four paths to human extinction: nuclear war, the climate catastrophe, the deployment of 5G and biodiversity collapse.

To have any chance of defeating the elite coup and fighting effectively to avert our own extinction, we must fight strategically.

Fundamentally, this means recognizing that lobbying (that is, begging) elite agents, such as governments, simply reinforces the power of the elite to control us. It is only when we take action ourselves to both build our own power (which includes that of our children and those with whom we work) while campaigning strategically to undermine the power of the global elite itself that we take crucial steps to liberate ourselves from its violence, in all of the forms that this violence takes.

Given that the elite coup is jeopardizing our individuality, our liberty and our future, it is time for us to decide whether we are human beings or a planet of sheep.

If you’re interested in learning more old remedies, you should read The Lost Book Of Remedies.

The physical book has 300 pages, with 3 colored pictures for every plant and for every medicine.It was written by Claude Davis, whose grandfather was one of the greatest healers in America. Claude took his grandfather’s lifelong plant journal, which he used to treat thousands of people, and adapted it into this book.

Learn More…

• According to the CDC, 101 children age 0 to 14 have died from influenza, while 31 children have died from COVID-19.
• No evidence exists to support the theory that children pose a threat to educational professionals in a school or classroom setting, but there is a great deal of evidence to support the safety of in-person education.
• According to the CDC, 131,332 Americans have died from pneumonia and 121,374 from COVID-19 as of July 11^th, 2020.
• Had the CDC used its industry standard, Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003, as it has for all other causes of death for the last 17 years, the COVID-19 fatality count would be approximately 90.2% lower than it currently is.

Abstract

The CDC has instructed hospitals, medical examiners, coroners and physicians to collect and report COVID-19 data by significantly different standards than all other infectious diseases and causes of death.

These new and unnecessary guidelines were instituted by the CDC in private, and without open discussion among qualified professionals that are free from conflicts of interest.

These new and unnecessary guidelines were additionally instituted despite the existence of effective rules for data collection and reporting, successfully used by all hospitals, medical examiners, coroners, and physicians for more than 17 years.

As a result, elected officials have enacted many questionable policies that have injured our country’s economy, our country’s educational system, our country’s mental and emotional health, and the American citizen’s personal expression of Constitutionally-protected rights to participate in our own governance.

***

This paper will present significant evidence to support the position that if the CDC simply employed their 2003 industry standard for data collection and reporting, which has been successfully used nationwide for 17 years; the total fatalities attributed to COVID-19 would be reduced by an estimated 90.2%, and questions would be non-existent regarding schools reopening and whether or not Americans should be allowed to work.

 Is It Safe for Students & Teachers to Return to School?

While the current question gripping the nation is, ‘Should schools reopen in the fall?’ The crucial data available through the CDC, but not being actively promoted by the CDC, asks a different question, ‘Should schools have ever closed in the first place?’

According to the CDC’s Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts By Sex, Age & State, we know the following data from Feb 1, 2020 through July 11^th, 2020.¹

• Three times as many children in the 0 to 14 age demographic have died from influenza (101) compared to COVID-19 (31).
• In the 0 to 14 age demographic, there have been 11,158 reported fatalities from all causes.
• Thus, COVID-19 fatalities in the 0 to 14 age demographic make up a very small 0.0278% of all fatalities.

There is more data when looking at the 15 to 24 age demographic.

• 41.2% more teens and college age young adults, in the 15 to 24 age demographic, have died from pneumonia (267) compared to COVID-19 (157).
• In the 15 to 24 age demographic, there have been 13,721 reported fatalities from all causes.
• Thus, COVID-19 fatalities in the 15 to 24 age demographic make up only 1.14% of all fatalities.

We would not consider closing in-person educational institutions for typical seasonal flu or pneumonia fatalities, so why did we close them when COVID-19 numbers are even lower?

Some have argued for concern and caution in the 25 to 54 age demographic, which makes logical sense, so let’s look again at the current data available.

• More work force age adults, in the 25 to 54 age demographic, have died from pneumonia (9,268) compared to COVID-19 (9,034).
• In the 25 to 54 age demographic, there have been 146,663 reported fatalities from all causes.
• Thus, COVID-19 fatalities in the 25 to 54 age demographic make up 6.16% of all fatalities. The risk of fatality for COVID-19 is on par with the risk of fatality associated with contracting pneumonia, 6.32% in this age demographic.

As encouraging as this data is, we have concerns regarding data collection and reporting that we will discuss below that potentially lowers current fatality counts by 90.2%. It is very possible that state health departments have been instructed by the CDC to over-count COVID fatalities, cases, and hospitalizations, and we will present that evidence shortly.

As we have demonstrated in our first 2 research articles, ‘Are Children Really Recovering 99.9584% of the Time From COVID-19,’ and ‘COVID-19…Have You Heard? There Is Good News!’ there is a very real concern for Americans over the age 50 and especially over 65 years of age. Risk of fatality increases substantially for Americans over age 50 with at least 1 of the following comorbidities: Hypertension, Diabetes, Elevated Cholesterol, Kidney Disease, Dementia, Heart Disease. For perspective, according to the CDC, is the risk of dying from pneumonia higher than the risk of dying from COVID-19 in the 55 to 64 age demographic?

• Pre-retirement adults, in the 55 to 64 age demographic, had a slightly higher chance of dying from pneumonia (16,469) compared to COVID-19 (14,963).
• In the 55 to 64 age demographic, there have been 178,884 reported fatalities from all causes.
• Since February 1^st, fatalities in the 55 to 64 age demographic had a 12% greater risk of dying from pneumonia than COVID-19. COVID-19 fatalities in the 55 to 64 age demographic make up 8.21% of all fatalities and the risk of fatality due to COVID-19 is on par with the risk of fatality associated with contracting pneumonia, 9.21%.

The reported fatalities from the CDC’s Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Sex, Age & State webpage:

• Include ‘Probable’ fatalities, unconfirmed by testing, for COVID but not for influenza or pneumonia;
• Does not have accompanying data to detail how many of the fatalities had significant underlying, pre-existing, or comorbid medical conditions;
• Does not have accompanying data to determine if any of the fatalities were treated in a hospital setting and if the subsequent fatality was a result of the treatment.

What this data does reveal, however, is that there is no more significant risk of fatality from contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus than from contracting influenza for children & teens. It also reveals that there is no more significant risk of fatality from contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus than there is for developing pneumonia for teens & young adults.

We would not consider prohibiting in-person education when presented with infection rates and medical conditions at these rates, so why are we considering doing it for an infection that poses even less of a risk?

What this data reveals for adults working with children, teens, and young adults is that COVID-19 has a lower risk of fatality than pneumonia and the data suggests that other options should be created for both parents and educational professionals to allow them to choose which style of education they are currently comfortable with (1) traditional in-person education; (2) hybrid online/in-person education; or (3) virtual online education.

There are many questions that need to be addressed with the current situation.

Should each school district give parents and professionals options for in-person education, hybrid education, and/or online education this fall?

Should parents and professionals be allowed to decide where their comfort level is, and act accordingly given the data presented?

Or, should in-person students and professionals be forced to adhere to guidelines from the CDC that not only compromise the educational experience, but also place undue, unrealistic burdens upon them for something with a lower risk than pneumonia for all and influenza for the 0 to 14 age demographic?

We leave these questions for each American to answer.

More Scientific Evidence that It’s Safe for Children to Go Back to School

A genetic project in Iceland revealed interesting findings about children infecting adults.

“Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.”² See this

Sweden kept schools open with no demonstrative adverse impact upon children in school settings compared to Finland that elected to close in-person education.

“Sweden’s decision to keep schools open during the pandemic resulted in no higher rate of infection among its schoolchildren than in neighboring Finland, where schools did temporarily close, their public health agencies said in a joint report…In conclusion, (the) closure or not of schools had no measurable direct impact on the number of laboratory confirmed cases in school-aged children in Finland or Sweden.” ³ See this

A German study found that children are unlikely vectors of COVID-19.

“Prof Reinhard Berner, the head of pediatric medicine at Dresden University Hospital and leader of the study, said the results suggested the virus does not spread easily in schools. “It is rather the opposite,” Prof Berner told a press conference. “Children act more as a brake on infection. Not every infection that reaches them is passed on.” The study tested 2,045 children and teachers at 13 schools — including some where there have been cases of the virus.” ⁴ See this

No evidence of children infecting teachers in Australia.

“Our investigation found no evidence of children infecting teachers…In contrast to influenza, data from both virus and antibody testing to date suggest that children are not the primary drivers of COVID-19 spread in schools or in the community.” ⁵ See this

School environments are low risk and in-person education resuming should begin.

“Our report includes both the primary and secondary school setting, with no transmission in either setting. The limited evidence of transmission in school settings supports the re-opening of schools as part of the easing of current restrictions. There are no zero risk approaches, but the school environment appears to be low risk.” ⁶ See this

Infected children do not spread the virus to other children, teachers or administrators.

“The main new finding is that the infected children did not spread the virus to other children or to teachers or other school staff…there was no secondary transmission of the virus to other children at the school, or from children to teachers.” ⁷ See this

Why Did the CDC Decide to Create Unique Reporting Rules for COVID-19 When Successful Reporting Rules Already Existed?

A double standard exists for how COVID-19 data is collected and reported versus all other infectious diseases and causes of death. Let’s examine three essential data categories; Fatalities, Cases & Hospitalizations for all infectious diseases because there are significant flaws in what constitutes a COVID-19 case, hospitalization and fatality.

On March 24^th, the CDC decided to ignore universal data collection and reporting guidelines for fatalities in favor of adopting new guidelines unique to COVID-19. The guidelines the CDC decided against using have been used successfully since 2003.

After all, based upon the July 11^th data from the CDC’s Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Sex, Age & State webpage, if COVID-19 is an epidemic (122,374 Fatalities), then shouldn’t pneumonia (131,372 Fatalities) also be an epidemic?¹

Fatality Data

It is important to note that COVID-19 data is collected and reported by a much different standard than all other infectious diseases and causes of death data. This unique standard for COVID-19 was used, despite the existence of guidelines that have been successfully used since 2003 for data collection across all infective, comorbid, and injurious situations.

This begs the question, if the CDC already has well established guidelines for reporting fatalities then why make up new guidelines for COVID-19?

COVID-19 data is collected and reported based upon the March 24^th National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) Guidelines and the April 14^th CDC adoption of a position paper authored by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE). ^8,9

However, the data for all other causes of death is based upon the 2003 CDC’s Medical Examiners’ & Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting and the CDC’s Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death. ^10,11

On March 24^th, the NVSS, under the direction of the CDC and National Institute of Health (NIH), instructed physicians, medical examiners, and coroners that COVID-19 would:

• be recorded as the underlying cause of death “more often than not;”
• be recorded as the cause of death listed in Part I of the death certificate even in assumed cases;
• be recorded as the primary cause of death even if the decedent had other chronic comorbidities. All comorbidities for COVID-19 would be listed now in Part II, rather than in Part I as they had been since 2003 for all other causes of death.

March 24^th, 2020 – NVSS COVID-19 Alert No. 2

“Will COVID-19 be the underlying cause? The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate. However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID19 being the underlying cause more often than not.”

“Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test? 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. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. 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. (See attached Guidance for Certifying COVID-19 Deaths)”

It’s worth noting that Part I of a death certificate is the immediate cause of death listed in sequential order from the official cause on line item (a) to the underlying causes that contributed to death in descending order of importance on line item (d), while Part II is/are the significant conditions NOT relating to the underlying cause(s) in Part I.

As we will demonstrate shortly, comorbid conditions are always listed on Part I of death certificates as causes of death per the 2003 CDC Handbook, so that accurate reporting can be developed. Comorbidities are seldom placed in Part II, as this is typically the place where coroners and medical examiners can list recent infections as underlying factors.

Prior to the March 24^th and April 14^th decisions, any comorbidities would have been listed in Part I rather than Part II and initiating factors, like recent infections, would have been listed on the last line in Part I or in Part II.

Why does this matter?

This matters because the Part I causes of death are statistically recorded for public health reporting, while Part II does not hold nearly the same statistical significance in reporting. This March 24^th NVSS guideline essentially allows COVID-19 to be the cause of death when the actual cause of death should be the comorbidity according to the industry-standard 2003 CDC Handbook. It can be a bit confusing, so we will present an example shortly for clarity.

On April 14^th, the CDC in conjunctions with approval from the National Institute of Health (NIH), adopted the CSTE position paper that authorized the following guidelines for data collection and reporting which are completely unique for COVID-19 and had never been done before which:

• allowed for ‘Probable’ cases, hospitalizations, and fatalities [section A5];
• created a pathway for the minimum standards of evidence to be a single cough [section A1];
• created a pathway for completely bypassing laboratory testing in order to classify a COVID-19 case as positive [section A5];
• created a pathway for the minimum standard of evidence necessary for determining a COVID-19 case to be positive as being within 6 feet of a ‘Probable’ case for 10 minutes or traveling to an area with outbreaks [section A3];
• declined to create any methodology for ensuring the same COVID-19 positive person would not be counted multiple times as a new case upon being tested multiple times [section B].

April 14^th, 2020 – CDC Adopts CSTE Interim-20-ID-01

Title: Standardized surveillance case definition and national notification for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

“VII. Case Definition for Case Classification

1. Narrative: Description of criteria to determine how a case should be classified.

A1. Clinical Criteria At least two of the following symptoms:

• fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s) OR
• At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing OR
• Severe respiratory illness with at least one of the following:
  • Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, or
  • Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). AND
  • No alternative more likely diagnosis

A2. Laboratory Criteria Laboratory evidence using a method approved or authorized by the FDA or designated authority:

Confirmatory laboratory evidence:

• Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a clinical specimen using a molecular amplification detection test

Presumptive laboratory evidence:

• Detection of specific antigen in a clinical specimen
• Detection of specific antibody in serum, plasma, or whole blood indicative of a new or recent infection*

*serologic methods for diagnosis are currently being defined

A3. Epidemiologic Linkage One or more of the following exposures in the 14 days before onset of symptoms:

• Close contact** with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19 disease; or
• Close contact** with a person with:
  • clinically compatible illness AND
  • linkage to a confirmed case of COVID-19 disease.
• Travel to or residence in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV2.
• Member of a risk cohort as defined by public health authorities during an outbreak.

**Close contact is defined as being within 6 feet for at least a period of 10 minutes to 30 minutes or more depending upon the exposure. In healthcare settings, this may be defined as exposures of greater than a few minutes or more. Data are insufficient to precisely define the duration of exposure that constitutes prolonged exposure and thus a close contact.

A4. Vital Records Criteria A death certificate that lists COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 as a cause of death or a significant condition contributing to death.

A5. Case Classifications

Confirmed:

• Meets confirmatory laboratory evidence.

Probable:

• Meets clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.
• Meets presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence.
• Meets vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19.

1. Criteria to distinguish a new case of this disease or condition from reports or notifications which should not be enumerated as a new case for surveillance

• N/A until more virologic data are available”

Additionally, the CSTE position paper gave no definition as to what constitutes a COVID-19 recovery for all state and country health departments to follow.

While the, seemingly independent, CSTE position paper was authored by five accomplished professionals from the Idaho, Alabama, Michigan, Hawaii, and Iowa state health departments; 5 of the 7 Subject Matter Experts who contributed to the position paper were directly employed by the CDC which raises ethical concerns about conflicts of interest.

It stands to reason that each of the professionals who contributed to the CSTE position paper were aware of the existence of the 2003 guidelines for reporting fatalities.Additionally, no subject matter experts from universities, medical examiners, coroners or private industry appear to have been consulted on the production of this highly questionable document.

So, why does all of this matter?

It matters for several reasons:

• The minimum standards defy accepted professional standards for differential diagnosis in medical practice;
• Section A3 empowers contact tracers, who are unlikely to have any medical training, to illegally diagnose patients without even examining them, which is a violation of medical law in every state and constitutes practicing medicine without a license;
• The CSTE position paper opens the door for any fatality to be listed as COVID-19 without any reasonable standard of evidence, while mandating that comorbidities simultaneously be deemphasized and moved to Part II, so as not to appear as a cause of death;
• Simultaneous testing for all other infectious diseases, with similar respiratory symptom profiles like Coccidioidomycosis for Valley Fever, is not required. We therefore have no clinical or statistical means of knowing if a co-infection was present along with a positive finding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the differential diagnosis process.

Why was all of this necessary with a successful methodology for physicians, medical examiners, and coroners already in place since 2003?

The CDC’s 2003 Handbook suggests that COVID-19 should be listed either at the bottom of Part I or in Part II of a death certificate, rather than as the top line item in Part I, despite Dr. Fauci’s describing in multiple press interviews, that medical examiners and coroners would not be doing this, which disregards any knowledge of the March 24^th orders by the NVSS to do so.

Let’s review what would have happened had the CDC decided to use their 2003 Handbook rather than adopting new rules for COVID-19 reporting.

2003 – CDC Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration

“Because statistical data derived from death certificates can be no more accurate than the information provided on the certificate, it is very important that all persons concerned with the registration of deaths strive not only for complete registration, but also for accuracy and promptness in reporting these events.”.

“The principal responsibility of the medical examiner or coroner in death registration is to complete the medical part of the death certificate.”

“The cause-of-death section consists of two parts. Part I is for reporting a chain of events leading directly to death, with the immediate cause of death (the final disease, injury, or complication directly causing death) online (a) and the underlying cause of death (the disease or injury that initiated the chain of events [SARS-CoV-2 in this case] that led directly and inevitably to death) on the lowest used line. Part II is for reporting all other significant diseases, conditions, or injuries that contributed to death but which did not result in the underlying cause of death given in Part I.”

Under these guidelines, the highest COVID-19 could be listed in the presence of an established comorbidity would be Part I, line item (d) or lower, or in Part II.

“The cause-of-death information should be the medical examiner’s or coroner’s best medical OPINION. Report each disease, abnormality, in-jury, or poisoning that the medical examiner or coroner believe adversely affected the decedent.”

The ability for medical examiners and coroners to register their best medical opinion was neutered by the March 24^th NVSS guidelines.

“If an organ system failure (such as congestive heart failure, hepatic failure, renal failure, or respiratory failure) is listed as a cause of death, always report its etiology on the line(s) beneath it (for example, renal failure due to Type I diabetes mellitus or renal failure due to ethylene glycol poisoning).”

Based upon the 2003 CDC Handbook, Part I for COVID-19 fatalities should contain any comorbidities first. Under these guidelines, COVID-19 would only be listed as a cause of death in Part I if there were no comorbidities and therefore the fatality counts for COVID-19 would be much lower than they currently are.

Here is the comorbidity data we have compiled from the only 7 states currently publishing this data in a manner that can be analyzed statistically. Note that 90.2% of fatalities had at least 1 comorbidity and therefore these fatalities would not be counted as COVID-19 fatalities under the 2003 CDC Handbook, but instead are counted based upon the NVSS guidelines and CSTE position paper adopted by the CDC on March 24^th and April 14^th respectively.

Keep in mind that while the number of fatalities with published comorbidity data is significant (N=44,562), we were unable to obtain comorbidity information on all fatalities from all states because the majority of states have not been publishing this data, if they are collecting it at all.

If each state were publishing comorbidity data, and if each state used the CDC’s 2003 Revision Handbook as they do for all other death certificates, the actual COVID-19 fatality totals would be approximately 90.2% LOWER than they currently are based upon an extrapolation of the data that is available.

2003 – CDC Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration [continued]

“Only one cause is to be entered on each line of Part I. Additional lines should be added between the printed lines when necessary. For each cause, indicate in the space provided the approximate interval between the date of onset (not necessarily the date of diagnosis) and the date of death. For clarity, do not use parenthetical statements and abbreviations when reporting the cause of death. The underlying cause of death should be entered on the LOWEST LINE USED IN PART I. The underlying cause of death is the disease or injury that started the sequence of events leading directly to death or the circumstances of the accident or violence that produced the fatal injury. In the case of a violent death, the form of external violence or accident is antecedent to an injury entered, although the two events may be almost simultaneous.”

These clear guidelines from the CDC’s 2003 Handbook state that the highest COVID-19 would be able to be placed for comorbid conditions is on the lowest line in Part I without the March 24^th NVSS guidelines and April 14^th CSTE position paper. This means that while the SARS-CoV-2 virus may have initiated the process of death, the cause was actually the comorbidity as it should always be.

Additionally…

Without the March 24^th NVSS guidelines or the April 14^th CSTE position paper adoption, COVID-19 would NOT be allowed to be listed on a death certificate at all WITHOUT A POSITIVE LAB TEST or confirmatory pathologic autopsy findings.

Let’s take a look at how different the cause of death reporting can be for similar situations.

If we have a person who died from renal failure due to type 1 diabetes mellitus, but in scenario 1 the initiating factor was the H1N1 influenza virus while in scenario 2 the initiating factor was the SARS-CoV-2 virus, how would that look?

Here are 2 visuals of just how different these 2 very similar situations are to be recorded based upon March 24^th NVSS guidelines.

Scenario 1 – H1N1 Influenza as Initiating Factor

Scenario 2 – COVID-19 as Initiating Factor

As you can see, these similar situations are reported dramatically different. As a result, the statistical reporting for fatalities will be dramatically different as well, for all people with known comorbidities, which makes up approximately 90.2% of all reported fatalities due to COVID-19 according to the US State Health Departments reporting this data.

Why is all of this important?

The CDC knew in early March that the vast majority of fatalities would be in people over 60 with comorbidities according to Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and reported by CNBC on March 9^th, 2020.⁶

“This seems to be a disease that affects adults and most seriously older adults. Starting at age 60, there is an increasing risk of disease and the risk increases with age. People with diabetes, heart disease, lung disease and other serious underlying conditions are more likely to develop “serious outcomes, including death.”

Why would the CDC adopt new rules for reporting fatalities when they already had successful guidelines?

Was the CDC and Dr. Fauci, the head of the NIAID (a division of the NIH), aware of the potential implications that adopting these guidelines would create in terms of fatality reporting?

And perhaps the most important question of them all… Is SARS-CoV-2 a naturally evolved microorganism or is it the result of gain of function experiments?

These are questions Americans deserve answers to, for hopefully obvious reasons.

Why does this matter for schools reopening?

The fatality data being reporting has clearly been inflated in multiple ways due to the adoption of recording and reporting rules that were unnecessary. As a result, this has greatly skewed public perception of this crisis, cost more than 50 million Americans their jobs, and created a tremendous amount of undue fear regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Even with the March 24^th NVSS guidelines and the April 14^th adoption of the CSTE position paper, COVID-19 has a lower risk of fatality than pneumonia in all age demographics and a lower risk of fatality than influenza in the 0 to 14 age demographic according to the CDC.

If the fatality data reporting guidelines inflate COVID-19 fatalities while holding all other causes of death to a different and higher standard, then why are we even considering forcing children to study from home?

That is a question every American must answer for themselves as well.

So Why Are Cases & Hospitalizations Continuing to Rise?

It is important to understand the difference between SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. The scientific name of the new strain of coronavirus is SARS-CoV-2.  After much naming instability, the disease caused by this new strain is called Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19.

Thus, it is important to realize that once testing is done to determine whether a person is positive for SARS-CoV-2, the patient must then have symptoms consistent with COVID-19 before being counted as a COVID case.

Professional medical training and practice dictates that for a person to be diagnosed with an infection, they must have lab evidence of the infection AND symptoms to support the diagnosis.

This distinction is very important as a person can have detectable levels of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and NOT present with any symptoms. This is possible in the case of a person who had contracted the virus as much as 6 weeks prior, gone through natural adaptive immunity processes to defeat the infection, and now has harmless remnant proteins still present in their body.

For example, an individual may test positive for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and not have AIDS. Similarly, an individual may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 and not have COVID-19.

In order for a case to be classified as COVID-19 there must be symptoms to support the diagnosis by a licensed professional. Lab testing alone and symptom evaluation alone violates accepted professional standards for differential diagnosis in medical practice.¹³

In addition to what is stated above, there are several factors to consider regarding why we are seeing increases in cases and hospitalizations in addition to what was stated above:

• The dramatic increase in testing;
• Contact Tracers diagnosing Americans as COVID-19 positive without examination, evidence, or even being required to speak to a patient as allowed for by the CDC’s April 14^th adoption of the CSTE’s position paper;
• June 13^th CDC changes to hospital guidelines for testing in hospitals that creates the opportunity for the same patient being counted multiple times as a new case;
• Confirmed & Probable COVID-19 hospitalized cases being counted as COVID-19 cases regardless of the reason for their admission into the hospital.

Increases in Testing

This graph shows how the number of PCR molecular tests processed continues to increase almost daily. Monthly Testing Averages:

• April – 167,477 people tested per day;
• May – 345,361 people tested per day;
• June – 547,480 people tested per day;
• July – 696,396 people tested per day thru July 12^th.

More people are testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 per day, and thousands more people are being tested per day. Due to the significant increase in number of people being tested, the overall percentage of people testing positive dropped from a peak of 19.6% on April 12^th to 7.8% on July 12^th.

Contact Tracers Can Diagnose Without Contact

During our investigation, one of the most concerning pieces of information our team has come across is the empowerment of Contact Tracers (CTs) to diagnose without medical training, medical licensure, medical examination, or even being required to make physical or verbal contact with the prospective patient as allowed for by the CDC’s April 14^th adoption of the CSTE position paper [section VII.A3].⁹

The CDC followed up this dubious authorization with guidance issued on June 17^th, 2020.¹⁴

“The development and implementation of a robust data management infrastructure will be critical for assigning and managing investigations, linking clients with confirmed and probable COVID-19 to their contacts, and evaluating success and opportunities for improvement in a case investigation and contact tracing program. COVID-19 case investigations will likely be triggered by one of three events:

1. A positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test or
2. A provider report of a confirmed or probable COVID-19 diagnosis or
3. Identification of a contact as having COVID-19 through contact tracing

If testing is not available [or declined], symptomatic close contacts should be advised to self-isolate and be managed as a probable case. Self-isolation is recommended for people with probable or confirmed COVID-19 who have mild illness and are able to recover at home.”

What this reveals is that CTs are authorized to diagnose a New COVID-19 case without being medically trained or legally licensed to do so. Even more concerning is that CTs are empowered to do this without needing to examine or take a health history from a prospective patient.

If a person does not answer the call from a CT, then they are able to list that person as a Probable COVID-19 case and report their findings to their state health department for inclusion in reporting data.

This explains why Probable Cases have been rising daily since June 17^th despite the dramatic increases in testing.¹⁵

Changes In Hospital Testing Protocols & The Inclusion Of COVID-19 Probable Hospitalizations

With the abundant availability of PCR molecular testing, most hospitals in the country have adopted the policy of testing all hospital admissions for the SARS-CoV-2 virus upon admission to the hospital regardless of why that person is being admitted.

People admitted for elective surgeries are required to be tested. People admitted for injuries or accidents are being tested. People in need of care for chronic comorbid conditions are being tested, and so forth.

If a person tests positive for presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, regardless of symptom presentation or reason for admission, they are now officially counted as a COVID-19 hospitalized case. This change in policy, never undertaken before, makes it now almost impossible to distinguish between people being admitted for COVID-19 symptoms and people being admitted who simply tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, but are being admitted for reasons other than COVID-19 symptomatology.

As a result, under this methodology of data categorization, hospital numbers have risen and will continue to rise until there are substantive changes to how data is being reported that allows everyone to clearly distinguish between the two vastly different new patient scenarios.

Even worse is the reality that an unacceptable percentage of hospital admissions are ‘Probable’ (‘Suspected’) and not lab confirmed. This is exemplified in this graphic provided by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health on July 12^th that shows roughly 70-80% of COVID-19 Hospital Admissions are not lab confirmed. Be aware that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is doing one of the best jobs in reporting among all state health departments despite the highly questionable CDC guidelines they are being confined to adhere to.

These severe breakdowns in accurate, clear data collection and reporting were initiated by the CDC on March 24^th, reinforced again in their adoption of the CSTE’s April 14^th position paper, and then reinforced yet again with a June 13^th update of hospital testing guidelines for the safe discharge of COVID-19 positive patients.^16,17

Per the CDC June 13^th Update:

“Recommended testing to determine resolution of infection with SARS-CoV-2

A test-based strategy, which requires serial tests and improvement of symptoms, can be used, as an alternative to a symptom-based or time-based strategy, to determine when a person with SARS-CoV-2 infection no longer requires isolation or work exclusion.  This strategy could be considered in three situations: Discontinuation of Transmission-Based Precautions and Disposition of Patients with COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings

Test-based strategy

• Resolution of fever without the use of fever-reducing medications and
• Improvement in respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath), and
• Negative results of an FDA Emergency Use Authorized COVID-19 molecular assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from at least two consecutive respiratory specimens collected ≥24 hours apart (total of two negative specimens)”

What this reveals is that if a person is admitted to a hospital, they must be tested every 24 hours until they produce 2 consecutive negative PCR tests regardless of whether they have the serologic presence of antibodies or there is no serologic detection of the virus in the bloodstream.

 Why is this important?

This is important because the PCR test has been reported to be inaccurate 50% of the time it is used according to Dr. Lee as reported in the International Journal of Geriatrics and Rehabilitation published on July 17^th, 2020. In this study, up to 30% of PCR tests resulted in false positives and up to 20% resulted in false negatives, which means that PCR may only be accurate for detection 50% of the time it is used.¹⁸

The generally accepted medical standard for lab test accuracy is 95% and above, but in a situation like this 70 to 80% would likely be deemed as acceptable by most medical professionals.

Additionally, the mere presence of viral nucleic acids does not necessarily indicate active viral infection nor viral replication. Nucleic acid fragments from a viral entity may exist in patient tissues because of immunological destruction of the virus, which is supposed to happen and potentially occurred several weeks prior to specimen collection. What PCR testing may be discovering is not evidence of a current infection, but rather the remnants of a prior infection that the patient has already recovered from.

Conclusion

Clearly, we have to make significant changes to our case, hospitalization, and fatality definitions, data collection and reporting as a country, if the ultimate goal is accuracy in reporting for policy-level decision making in the best interests of all Americans.

Had the CDC used the well-established and successful methodology for recording COVID-19 related fatalities, as it does for all other causes of death, the fatality counts would be significantly lower.

How much lower?

We may never know. However, when we base our estimates upon the comorbidity data being published by New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, Oklahoma, Utah, Pennsylvania and Iowa the data suggests that accurate fatality rates could drop by approximately 90.2%.

How much would using the Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting rather than the March 24^th NVSS guidelines and the April 14^th CSTE position paper completely reshape the way we see COVID-19?

How much would it address the fear of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the implications, which so many media outlets have attempted to instilled within us?

And would any objective American have any worry for our children’s safety if they knew that pneumonia and influenza have each claimed more lives in the 0 to 14 age demographic than COVID-19?

We have serious professional and ethical concerns with empowering people with limited medical training to diagnose any medical condition without examining the prospective patient and reviewing a full health history with them as Contact Tracers are doing.

We have serious professional and ethical concerns with hospitals admitting patients as COVID-19 case without definitive evidence.

We have serious professional and ethical concerns with licensed physicians and nurses being required to classify all hospitalizations as COVID-19, regardless of reason for admission, or if the patient tests positive or is suspected to have contracted the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Making this a requirement prevents trained medical professionals from using their best judgment in determining diagnosis.

We have serious professional and ethical concerns with COVID-19 having much lower standards of evidence and much broader categories for inclusion into reports as Probable compared to reporting for all other infectious diseases.

In medicine, we are taught not to guess when we can know, but that basic ethos for safe practice and the sharing of accurate information has not been applied to COVID-19 in our professional opinions.

And we have serious professional and ethical concerns with medical examiners and coroners being required to list COVID-19 on Part I line item (a) as the cause of death in the clear presence of comorbid conditions with verifiable medical history, rather than trusting our healthcare professionals to do the job they are trained to do and have done so well, for so many years.

Medical examiners and coroners play a crucial role in saving lives by producing accurate data licensed healthcare professionals to use in clinical settings.

There is something to be learned in every loss of life. Sadly, what we are learning with COVID-19 is that accuracy in reporting does not matter as much as inflating the data and fanning the flame of fear.

Should American children, educational professionals, small business owners, workers and our country as a whole have to suffer because critical mistakes were made in the adoption of unnecessary new reporting rules?

Should public health officials, with no expertise in public education and economic policy, be given unchecked power to create policies that adversely impact the mental, emotional, and social development of our children, suppress small-business economic opportunity, and threaten to destroy the livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans in the name of safety?

These are questions all Americans deserve an answer to and questions we all must answer for ourselves…our collective future depends upon it.

***

Updated Probability of Recovery & Age Demographics Data

Probability of Recovery continues to improve for all age demographics from our initial June 21^stresearch article.

While the relative percentages of Fatalities with 1+ Comorbidity and age demographics for Fatalities, Hospitalizations, and Cases remains relatively unchanged, there has been a slight redistribution of age demographic percentages for cases, as more children in the Age 0 to 19 demographic are being tested for COVID-19.

Funding & Conflict of Interest Statement

This statistical research paper has been developed, composed and published without any funding, and thanks in part to a strictly, 100% volunteer community effort made by a diverse array of qualified professionals who care deeply about children and the health of every American. The authors of this paper confirm no conflicts of interest, financial, political or otherwise.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1. CDC: Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts By Sex, Age, & State https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku
2. Highfield, Roger; Coronavirus: Hunting Down COVID-19; Science Museum, 4-27-20: https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/blog/hunting-down-covid-19/
3. Soderpalm, Helena: Sweden’s health agency says open schools did not spur pandemic spread among children; Reuters: 7-15-20: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-schools-idUSKCN24G2IS
4. Huggler, Justin; German Study Finds no Evidence Coronavirus Spreads in Schools; The Telegraph; 7-13-20: https://news.yahoo.com/german-study-finds-no-evidence-164704005.html
5. National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) COVID-19 in schools – the experience in NSW; 26 April 2020: http://ncirs.org.au/sites/default/files/2020-04/NCIRS%20NSW%20Schools%20COVID_Summary_FINAL%20public_26%20April%202020.pdf
6. Laura Heavey, Geraldine Casey, Ciara Kelly, David Kelly, Geraldine McDarby; No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from children attending school in Ireland, 2020; EuroSurveillance, Volume 25, Issue 21, 28/May/2020; https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.21.2000903#html_fulltext
7. COVID-19 IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS: NO SIGNIFICANT TRANSMISSION AMONG CHILDREN OR FROM STUDENTS TO TEACHERS; 6-23-20; https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/covid-19-primary-schools-no-significant-transmission-among-children-students-teachers
8. NVSS: National Vital Statistics System COVID-19 Alert No. 2 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf
9. CSTE: Council of State & Territorial Epidemiologists; Standardized surveillance case definition and national notification for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19); Interim-20-ID-01; https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cste.org/resource/resmgr/2020ps/Interim-20-ID-01_COVID-19.pdf
10. CDC: Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting, 2003 Revision https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_me.pdf
11. CDC: Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death, 2003 Revision https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_cod.pdf
12. Kopecki, Higgins-Dunn, Miller; CDC tells people over 60 or who have chronic illnesses like diabetes to stock up on goods and buckle down for a lengthy stay at home; CNBC, March 9, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/09/many-americans-will-be-exposed-to-coronavirus-through-2021-cdc-says.html
13. World Health Organization; Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it; https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it
14. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC); Data Management for Assigning and Managing Investigations; https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/data-management.html
15. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC); Cases in the U.S.; https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
16. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC); Overview of Testing for SARS-CoV-2; https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/testing-overview.html
17. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC); Discontinuation of Transmission-Based Precautions and Disposition of Patients with COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings (Interim Guidance); https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-hospitalized-patients.html
18. Sin Hang Lee; Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in cellular components by routine nested RT-PCR followed by DNA sequencing; International Journal of Geriatrics and Rehabilitation 2(1):69- 96, July 17, 2020 http://www.int-soc-clin-geriat.com/info/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Dr.-Lees-paper-on-testing-for-SARS-CoV-2.pdf

State & Territory Health Departments

19. Alaska Department of Health & Social Services Coronavirus Response: https://coronavirus-response-alaska-dhss.hub.arcgis.com/
20. Alabama’s COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard: https://alpublichealth.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/6d2771faa9da4a2786a509d82c8cf0f7
21. https://www.healthy.arkansas.gov/programs-services/topics/novel-coronavirus
22. Arkansas Department of Health: https://azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/infectious-disease-epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php
23. California COVID-19 Dashboard: https://public.tableau.com/views/COVID-19PublicDashboard/Covid-19Hospitals?:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no
24. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Case Data: https://covid19.colorado.gov/data/case-data
25. Connecticut COVID-19 Response: https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus
26. Government of the District of Columbia, Coronavirus Data: https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-data
27. State of Delaware COVID-19 Data Dashboard: https://myhealthycommunity.dhss.delaware.gov/locations/state
28. Florida COVID-19 Response: https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/
29. Georgia Department of Public Health: https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report
30. State of Hawaii Department of Health, Disease Outbreak Division: https://health.hawaii.gov/coronavirusdisease2019/
31. Iowa Department of Public Health https://idph.iowa.gov/Emerging-Health-Issues/Novel-Coronavirus
32. Idaho Department of Public Health Dashboard: https://public.tableau.com/profile/idaho.division.of.public.health#!/vizhome/DPHIdahoCOVID-19Dashboard_V2/Story1
33. Illinois Department of Public Health COVID-19 Statistics: http://www.dph.illinois.gov/covid19/covid19-statistics
34. Indiana COVID-19 Dashboard: https://www.coronavirus.in.gov/
35. Kansas Department of Health & Environment, COVID-19 Cases in Kansas: https://www.coronavirus.kdheks.gov/160/COVID-19-in-Kansas
36. Kentucky Cabinet for Health & Family Services: https://govstatus.egov.com/kycovid19
37. Louisiana Department of Health: http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/
38. Massachusetts Department of Public Health COVID-19 Dashboard -Dashboard of Public Health Indicators: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-response-reporting
39. Maryland Department of Health: https://coronavirus.maryland.gov/
40. Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention: https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/infectious-disease/epi/airborne/coronavirus/index.shtml
41. Michigan Coronavirus Data: https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173—,00.html
42. Minnesota Department of Health: https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html
43. Missouri COVID-19 Dashboard: http://mophep.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=8e01a5d8d8bd4b4f85add006f9e14a9d
44. Mississippi State Department of Health: https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/14,0,420.html#caseTable
45. MONTANA RESPONSE: COVID-19 – Coronavirus – Global, National, and State Information Resources: https://montana.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=7c34f3412536439491adcc2103421d4b
46. North Carolina NCDHHS COVID-19 Response: https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/https://www.health.nd.gov/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/north-dakota-coronavirus-cases
47. Coronavirus COVID-19 Nebraska Cases by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS): https://nebraska.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/4213f719a45647bc873ffb58783ffef3
48. New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services: https://www.nh.gov/covid19/
49. New Jersey COVID-19 information Hub: https://covid19.nj.gov/#live-updates
50. https://cv.nmhealth.org/
51. State of Nevada Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Analytics: https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMjA2ZThiOWUtM2FlNS00MGY5LWFmYjUtNmQwNTQ3Nzg5N2I2IiwidCI6ImU0YTM0MGU2LWI4OWUtNGU2OC04ZWFhLTE1NDRkMjcwMzk4MCJ9
52. New York Department of Health, NYSDOH COVID-19 Tracker: https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Map?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n
53. New York City Coronavirus Data: https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data
54. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page
55. Ohio Department of Health: https://coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/covid-19/home
56. Oklahoma State Department of Health: https://coronavirus.health.ok.gov/
57. Oregon Health Authority: https://govstatus.egov.com/OR-OHA-COVID-19
58. COVID-19 Data for Pennsylvania: https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/disease/coronavirus/Pages/Cases.aspx
59. Puerto Rico Health Statistics: https://estadisticas.pr/en/covid-19
60. Rhode Island COVID-19 Response Data: https://ri-department-of-health-covid-19-data-rihealth.hub.arcgis.com/
61. South Carolina Testing Data & Projections (COVID-19): https://scdhec.gov/infectious-diseases/viruses/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/sc-testing-data-projections-covid-19
62. South Dakota Department of Health: https://doh.sd.gov/news/Coronavirus.aspx
63. Tennessee Department of Health: https://www.tn.gov/health/cedep/ncov.html
64. Texas Health & Human Services: https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ed483ecd702b4298ab01e8b9cafc8b83
65. Utah Department of Health: COVID-19 Surveillance: https://coronavirus-dashboard.utah.gov/
66. Virginia Department of Health: https://public.tableau.com/views/VirginiaCOVID-19Dashboard/VirginiaCOVID-19Dashboard?:embed=yes&:display_count=yes&:showVizHome=no&:toolbar=no
67. S Virgin Islands Department of Health: https://doh.vi.gov/
68. Vermont Current Activity Dashboard: https://www.healthvermont.gov/response/coronavirus-covid-19/current-activity-vermont
69. Washington State Department of Health: https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/Coronavirus
70. Wisconsin Department of Health Services: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/data.htm
71. West Virginia Health & Human Resources: https://dhhr.wv.gov/COVID-19/Pages/default.aspx
72. Wyoming Department of Health: https://health.wyo.gov/publichealth/infectious-disease-epidemiology-unit/disease/novel-coronavirus/covid-19-map-and-statistics/

Sociologist  C. Wright Mills wrote a book in 1956 that (sadly) still resonates today. In his book ‘The Power Elite’ Mills focused on groups and individuals who help to control this Republic for countless generations:

• the “Metropolitan 400”: members of historically notable local families in the principal American cities, generally represented on the Social Register
• “Celebrities”: prominent entertainers and media personalities
• the “Chief Executives”: presidents and CEOs of the most important companies within each industrial sector
• the “Corporate Rich”: major landowners and corporate shareholders
• the “Warlords”: senior military officers, most importantly the Joint Chiefs of Staff
• the “Political Directorate”: “fifty-odd men of the executive branch” of the U.S. federal government, including the senior leadership in the Executive Office of the President, sometimes variously drawn from elected officials of the Democratic and Republican parties but usually professional government bureaucrats

Mills formulated a very short summary of his book:

“Who, after all, runs America? No one runs it altogether, but in so far as any group does, the power elite.”

Now, this was in 1956, but look how what this man indicated is still part of our problem. The Super Rich are  bundled into what many have referred to as ‘The Deep State’. Well, contrary to what Trump has ascertained, and what actually helped him win the election in 2016, is  this ‘ he Deep State’.  Most of our presidents since FDR, excluding the one they knocked off, were either owned, run or influenced by such a grouping of people and organizations. Trump was able to use the actual and honest fears of the ‘Deep State’ to his advantage. Many working stiffs (usually white) saw this phony populist demagogue as the answer to their prayers: A release from that tight grip on their quality of life that this empire has successfully achieved for generations. Of course, this ‘Long Con’ as I call it has been used by the Two Party/One Party system forever it seems. Trump was just the latest, and most lethal I might add, of these devices. He, along with his minions and hidden handlers, is on the verge of finally destroying any memory of a vibrant republican democracy…. a democracy that has been a joke for decades. Getting this gang out of power will perhaps stop the bleeding a bit, but…. the Power Elite march on!

Here’s the kicker: Without an army of lackeys no empire can continue to rule so unfairly.

The Power Elite, categorized by the late C. Wright Mills, are but a few thousand people at most. They always need the ‘boots on the ground’ to maintain control. We see this occurring every day. Those who own the electronic media need a myriad of field reporters, producers, editors, writers, newscasters, hosts and their guests to keep churning out the spin. The corporate world needs top and lower level executives and managers to continue to ‘Sell their shit’ to the public.

Schools of higher learning need compliant school administrators, department heads and teachers to toe the company line of this empire. A few years ago this writer was part of a grass roots movement, The 25% Solution, advocating an immediate 25% cut in military spending, with the savings going back to the states and their localities. I was asked by a sympathetic college professor to give a presentation to a group of three sociology classes. The presentation went very well, and the three teachers were so glad that I came by. I wanted to make this a regular thing, speaking with new classes each semester. They never called or returned my calls! Somebody upstairs got to them, yes? A dear friend of mine, a NYC talk radio host, about 15 years ago had requested to his producer that they get a representative of ‘Physicians for National Health Care’ (forerunner to ‘ Medicare for All’) as a guest. He got the guest on air, and was conducting a comprehensive interview. They were covering things that Senator Sanders was, years later, passionately advocating. At the first commercial break, his producer told him, ear to ear, that he did not want the interview to run any longer. My friend argued for keeping the guest on as the phone lines were lit up with callers wishing to speak to the doctor. No dice! Over!

How powerful is this ‘Power Elite’? Ask yourself this: If you still believe that

A) Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK with that single rifle;

B) The North Vietnamese attacked the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, giving LBJ  license for increasing our presence in South Vietnam;

C) James Earl Ray killed MLK and then conveniently escaped to Canada on his own;

D) Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK, though never standing close enough to him, as the autopsy revealed the bullet had to come from inches away;

E) Reagan achieved the release of hostages held by Iran right after being elected in 1980, though Carter could not negotiate it before the election;

F) Saddam Hussein was NOT suckered into his 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Bush Sr. when US ambassador April Glaspie assured him “We do not get involved in territorial  disputes between two nations” (check out two facts: Kuwait was ‘Angle drilling’ oil from Iraqi waters even though Kuwait had supported Iraq’s 10 year war with Iran, their enemy as well, and then wouldn’t erase Iraqi loans owed to Kuwait);

G) We did NOT know in advance of Al Qaeda’s attack on us on 9/11, and it was NOT a false flag operation (seek out the many researched books on 9/11, showing how the government synopsis of it is hogwash);

H) Iraq did have WMDs and was planning on using them on us (despite the actual UN weapons inspections proving the opposite) and our attack, invasion and subsequent occupation was legal and moral;

I) This pandemic is a hoax and a scam, perpetrated to make sure Trump loses the election (despite a mountain of evidence revealing just how contagious and deadly this virus is)….need I go on?

It is simply just not all about politics, as the Two Party/One Party hucksters will allege. No, as much as we working stiffs and the poor and indigent need Trump and his crew to go, that is but the ‘Tip of the Iceberg’. As alluded to earlier in this column, it is urgent that working stiffs being **** by this empire  stand up and say ‘Enough is enough!’

We should stop asking that the Super Rich give back more to us, and that Land Lords do the right thing by their tenants. No, we need to demand that the Mega Millionaires be taxed a Flat 50% on anything they earn over one million dollars each year, with NO deductions!

We need to demand that our local governments take over absentee landlord rental properties through legal eminent domain (at market prices) and then run them nonprofit, with the tenant having an opportunity to one day own the dwelling. With even 20% of each month’s rent going into escrow towards a future down payment, this can be accomplished. Strike Three of demands should be that this obscene military budget, accounting for 50% of our federal taxes, be cut drastically (as explained above), and the majority of our 1000+ foreign military bases be shut down, sending our military personnel home. Why not? The last time I looked it was the politicians who were our ‘Public Servants’, not the Power Elite’s.

This respirator does not protect against the risk of contracting disease or infection. —Warning with a box of N-95 respirators.

You have no right not to be vaccinated. You have no right not to wear a mask. You have no right to open up your business …. If you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm. — Alan Dershowitz 

The lockdown, along with the fear campaign with its daily doses of death statistics and warnings of impending spikes, is a full assault being advanced stepwise toward a dystopia of globalist design. The masks that now dominate on faces everywhere place wearers and non wearers into one or the other of two sharply defined categories, each category carrying a list of traits in the minds of those in the opposite category. What a perfect, visible way to split The People into competing teams. Wearers are sheep!; the maskless are public hazards!

Corporate media is pushing the division with all of its corporate gusto, and if one is looking for a stark example of MSM divisiveness, it would be hard to beat this from Politico: “Wearing a mask is for smug liberals. Refusing to is for reckless Republicans”. Simple, no? In such an either-or world, fine distinctions within complex issues are not to be entertained, with the result that life-long leftists, if contending against the mask, are assumed to be solidly in the hardcore, rightwing Trump camp, fit for a MAGA hat.

There are different motives for wearing a “respirator”. It is no secret that some people are so terrified of death that they fear the remotest risk. What a helluva a way to live! Others, despite history’s countless lessons, blindly trust any governmental claim. A huge fraction, though, perhaps a majority, wear them simply to avoid the public shaming program and so opt to go along. As Lewis Lapham wrote in Gag Rule, “The willingness to go along to get along is as American as the Salem witch trials and apple pie.” But when “everybody does it”, the spectacle psychologically reinforces the perception of legitimacy of even the fraudulent. In the current environment, just going along — which is not unrelated to apathy — lends support to an unelected global elite now attending to details of an impending Great Reset that will form the basis of the New Normal.

One commentator states, “The only way to survive in Gates’s ‘new normal’ will be to develop a network of service providers who work off the surveillance grid of Big Brother. These will be small mom and pops and sole proprietors.” Alas, small businesses that might serve an underground economy are, as an objective of the lockdown, failing by the tens of thousands monthly. And now, as authorities with endless financial resources can persuade the upper managements of surviving chains and big box stores, what began as a guideline is hardening into an ironclad policy of “no mask, no entry, no exception” that is enforced throughout a company, all the way down to the minimum-wage guards who see that you get masked, or you are barred from buying food. Checkmate!

The screws tighten every week now as Orwell’s vision plays out in plain sight in workplaces and neighborhoods and on TV. Given the impact of masking on those with respiratory diseases, the “no exception” mandate seems a clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), but during the Covid-19 offensive neither agency is enforcing directives. Besides, how many citizens concern themselves with such details when the specter of impending death dominates daily news cycles? And how many will see conformity to governmental demands as the only logical option when the coming global digital currency makes “off the surveillance grid” a quaint concept of a past era?

The thesis of mask versus the antithesis of anti-mask will be settled, one way or another. If the public obediently accepts, as a resolution of the conflict, that we must be masked or be hit with fines and imprisonment, the self-appointed global elite will see that the masses yielded, conclude that they will yield again, and understand that the road is clear to their world of mandated vaccinations. Refusal to wear a mask is now being framed as making oneself a danger to others. That deception appears to have been a success, and it indicates that those in the future who take a militant stand against mass vaccination will be depicted by the Alan Dershowitz’s of the New World as walking bioweapons.

In the the final analysis, the choice to be vaccinated or not, like the choice to be masked or not, will be based less on one’s political or social views than on the understanding and trust one has gained in a powerful government, and by extension, on a willingness to face down a government grown tyrannical. Benjamin Franklyn, when asked what kind of government we were going to get, answered “A republic, if you can keep it”. Given his response, one suspects that he had doubts. If so, it appears his doubts were justified.

Postscript: Catherine Austin Fitts, former bank president, Wall Street investor, and Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, has the history, the connections and the fine eye to make observations worth one’s serious attention. Having “left the establishment” (her words), she explains the history of vaccines vis-à-vis the law, the freedom from liability that is gained for anything that can be labeled a “vaccine”, and the prospect of what might be incorporated into injectables. If you read anything today, make sure it’s this!

In the last two months, numerous medical reports confirm that the Covid-19 “estimates” have been the object of manipulation with a view to sustaining the fear campaign. 

The public has been misinformed.  The figures are inflated.  The dangers of infection are vastly exaggerated.  Ironically, Anthony Fauci, Adviser to Donald Trump confirms in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that COVID-19 is “akin to severe seasonal influenza or pandemic influenza.”

Part I

Introduction

Do not let yourself be misled by the fear campaign, pointing to a Worldwide coronavirus calamity with repeated “predictions” that hundreds of thousands of people are going to die.

These are boldface lies. Scientific assessments of the health impacts of  the COVID-19 have been withheld, they do not make the headlines. 

While COVID-19 constitutes a serious health issue, why is it the object of  a Worldwide fear campaign?

According to the WHO, “The most commonly reported symptoms [COV-19] included fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath, and most patients (80%) experienced mild illness.”  

Examine the contradictory headlines:

Screenshot The Hill 

According to the WHO and John Hopkins Medicine (see below),  the risks of dying from influenza (annual) compared to those of  COVID-19. (from January through early April)

Source; John Hopkins Medicine

Moreover, the media fails to acknowledge that there are simple and effective treatments for COVID-19. In fact, the reports on the treatment of COVID-19 are being suppressed. And the issue of “recovery” is barely mentioned. 

Persistent headlines and TV reports. Fear and panic. Neither the WHO nor our governments have taken the trouble to reassure us. 

According to the latest media hype, citing and often distorting scientific opinion (CNBC)

Statistical Models by Washington think tanks predict a scenario of devastation suggesting that “more than a million Americans could die if the nation does not take swift action to stop its spread as quickly as possible”.

One model from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggested that between 160 million and 210 million Americans could contract the disease over as long as a year. Based on mortality data and current hospital capacity, the number of deaths under the CDC’s scenarios ranged from 200,000 to as many as 1.7 million. (The Hill, March 13, 2020)

The Unspoken Truth:  Unprecedented Global Crisis

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to trigger the entire World into a spiral of  mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.

This is the true picture of what is happening. “Planet Lockdown” is an encroachment on civil liberties and the “Right to Life”. Entire national economies are in jeopardy. In some countries martial law has been declared.

Small and medium sized capital are slated to be eliminated. Big capital prevails. A massive concentration of corporate wealth is ongoing.

Is a diabolical “New World Order” in the making as suggested by Henry Kissinger (WSJ Opinion, April 3, 2020):

“The Coronavirus Pandemic Will Forever Alter the World Order”.

Recall Kissinger’s historic 1974 statement: “Depopulation should be the highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World.” (1974 National Security Council Memorandum)

This crisis is unprecedented in World history. It is destabilizing and destroying people’s lives Worldwide. It’s a “War against Humanity”.

While it is presented to World public opinion as a WHO global health emergency, what is really at stake are the mechanisms of  “economic warfare” sustained by fear and intimidation, with devastating consequences.

The economic and social impacts far exceed those attributed to the coronavirus. Cited below are selected examples of  a global process:

• Massive job losses and layoffs in the US, with more than 10 million workers filing claims for unemployment benefits.
• In India,  a 21 days lockdown has triggered a wave of famine and despair affecting millions of homeless migrant workers all over the country. No lockdown for the homeless: “too poor to afford a meal”.
• The impoverishment in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa is beyond description. For large sectors of the urban population, household income has literally been wiped out.
• In Italy, the destabilization of the tourist industry has resulted in bankruptcies and rising unemployment.
• In many countries, citizens are the object of police violence. Five people involved in protests against the lockdown were killed by police in Kenya and South Africa.

The WHO’s global health emergency was declared on January 30th, when there were 150 confirmed cases outside China. From the outset it was based on a Big Lie.

Moreover, the timing of the WHO emergency coincided with America’s ongoing wars as well simmering financial instability on the World’s stock markets.

Is the global lockdown which engineers Worldwide economic destruction in any way related to America’s global military agenda?

This is an exceedingly complex process which we have examined in detail in the course of the last two months. 

To reverse the tide, we must confront the lies.  And the lies are overwhelming. A counter propaganda initiative is required.

When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is No Moving Backwards.

Part II

In Part II wewill focus on the following issues:

• the definition of COVID-19 and the assessment of the number of “confirmed cases”, 
• the risks to people’s health,
• how the alleged epidemic is measured and identified. 

The Spread of the COVID-19 Infection

In many countries including the US, there is no precise lab test which will identify COVID-19 as the cause of a positive infection. Meanwhile the media will not only quote unreliable statistics, it will forecast a doomsday scenario. 

Let us put the discussion on COVID-19 in context.

What is a Human Coronavirus.  “Coronaviruses are everywhere”. They are categorized as “the second leading cause of the common cold (after rhinoviruses)”. Since the 2003 outbreak of SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus), several (new) corona viruses were identified. COVID-19 is categorized as a novel or new corona virus initially named SARS-CoV-2.

According to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, pneumonia is “regularly caused or accompanied by corona viruses”. And that has been the case for many years prior to the identification of the COVID-19 in January 2020:

[It is a] well-known fact that in every “flu wave” 7-15% of acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) are coming along with coronaviruses” 

The COVID-19 belongs to the family of coronviruses which trigger colds and seasonal influenza. We will also address the lab tests required to estimate the data as well as the spread of the COVID-19.  The WHO defines the COVID-19 as follows:

“The most commonly reported symptoms [of COVID-19] included fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath, and most patients (80%) experienced mild illness. Approximately 14% experienced severe disease and 5% were critically ill. Early reports suggest that illness severity is associated with age (>60 years old) and co-morbid disease.” (largely basing on WHO’s assessment of COVID-19 in China)

The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in an article entitled Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted provides the following definition:

The overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.“

These assessments confirm that COVID-19 is akin to seasonal influenza and pneumonia, categorized as contagious respiratory infections.

If the above definitions had made the headlines, there would have been no fear and panic.

The COVID-19. Tests and Data Collection

The H1N1 Pandemic 2009. Déjà Vu

This is not the first time that a global health emergency has been called by the WHO in close liaison with Big Pharma.

In 2009,  the WHO launched the  H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic predicting that “as many as 2 billion people could become infected over the next two years — nearly one-third of the world population.” (World Health Organization as reported by the Western media, July 2009).

One month later WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan stated that  “Vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots per year in the best-case scenario”,( Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), quoted by Reuters, 21 July 2009)

While creating an atmosphere of  fear and insecurity, pointing to an impending global public health crisis, the WHO nonetheless acknowledged that the H1N1 symptoms were moderate and that “most people will recover from swine flu within a week, just as they would from seasonal forms of influenza” (WHO statement, quoted in the Independent, August 22, 2009).

And President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology stated with authority, “reassuring public opinion” that  “the H1N1 pandemic is  a serious health threat… to the U.S. — not as serious as the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic but worse than the swine flu outbreak of 1976.”

H1N1 Fake Data 

In many regards, the H1N1 2009 pandemic reveals the problems of data collection and analysis which we are facing now in relation to COVID-19

Following the outbreak of the H1N1 swine flu in Mexico, the data collection was at the outset scanty and incomplete, as confirmed by official statements. The Atlanta based Center for Disease Control (CDC) acknowledged that what was being collected in the US were figures of  “confirmed and probable cases”. There was, however, no breakdown between “confirmed” and “probable”. In fact, only a small percentage of the reported cases were “confirmed” by a laboratory test.

There was no attempt to improve the process of data collection in terms of lab confirmation. In fact quite the opposite. Following the level 6 Pandemic announcement by Dr. Margaret Chan, both the WHO and the CDC decided that data collection of individual confirmed and probable cases was no longer necessary to ascertain the spread of swine flu. One month after the announcement of the level six pandemic, the WHO discontinued the collection of  “confirmed cases”. It did not require member countries to send in figures pertaining to confirmed or probable cases. WHO, Briefing note, 2009)

Based on incomplete, scanty and suppressed data, the WHO nonetheless predicted with authority that: “as many as 2 billion people could become infected over the next two years — nearly one-third of the world population.” (World Health Organization as reported by the Western media, July 2009).

In 2010, Dr. Margaret Chan and the WHO were the object of an investigation by the European Parliament:

“Confirmed Cases”: The CDC Methodology

The CDC methodology in 2020 is broadly similar (with minor changes in terminology) to that applied to the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. “Probable cases” was replaced by “Presumptive cases”.

Presumptive vs. Confirmed Cases

According to the CDC the data presented for the United States include both “confirmed” and “presumptive” positive cases of COVID-19 reported to CDC or tested at CDC since January 21, 2020″.

The presumptive positive data does not confirm coronavirus infection: Presumptive testing involves “chemical analysis of a sample that establishes the possibility that a substance is present“ (emphasis added). But it does not confirm the presence of COVID-19. The presumptive test must then be sent for confirmation to an accredited government health lab.

How is the COVID-19 Data Tabulated?

The presumptive (PC) and confirmed cases (CC) are lumped together.  And the total number (PC + CC ) constitutes the basis for establishing the data for COVID-19 infection. It’s like adding apples and oranges. The total figure (PC+CC) categorized as “Total cases” is meaningless. It does not measure positive COVID-19 Infection. And among those “total cases” are “recovered cases”.

CDC Data for April 5, 2020

But there is another important consideration: the required CDC lab test pertaining to CC (confirmed cases) is intended to “confirm the infection”. But does it confirm that the infection was caused by COVID-19?

The COVID-19 is a coronavirus which is associated with the broad symptoms of  seasonal influenza and pneumonia. Are the lab exams pertaining to COVID-19 (confirmed cases) in a position to establish unequivocally the prevalence of COVID-19 positive infection?

Below are criteria and guidelines confirmed by the CDC pertaining to “The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” (Read carefully):

Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities. 

Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.

What this suggests is that a positive infection could be the result of other viruses as well as other corona viruses. (i.e. related to seasonal influenza or pneumonia).

Moreover, the second paragraph suggests that “Negative Results” of the lab test does not preclude a positive COVID-19 infection. But neither do the “combined clinical observations, etc … “.

These criteria and CDC guidelines are contradictory and inevitably subject to error. Since January, these “positive test results” of the RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel do not prove that COVID-19  is the cause of a positive infection for the COVID-19. (also referred to as 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV-2). (See annex below).

Where does the bias come in?

Various coronaviruses are there in the tested specimen. Does the test identify COVID-19?

Has the COVID-19 been singled out as the source of an active infection, when the infection could be the result of  other viruses and/or bacteria?

Important Question?

Are the tests conducted in the US since January 2020 (pertaining to upper and lower respiratory specimens) which confirm infection from one or more causes (without proof of COVID-19) entered in the CDC data banks as “confirmed cases” of COVID-19?

As outlined by the CDC: “The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

Moreover, the presumptive cases” referred to earlier –which do not involve the test of a respiratory specimen– are casually lumped together with “confirmed cases” which are then categorized as “Total Cases”.

Another fundamental question: What is being tested?

Inasmuch as COVID-19 and Influenza have similar symptoms, to what extent are the data pertaining to COVID-19 “overlapping” with those pertaining to viral influenza and pneumonia?

The test pertaining to active infection could be attributed either to influenza or COVID-19, or both?

What is More Dangerous: Seasonal Influenza or COVID-19? 

Influenza –which has never been the object of a lockdown– appears from the recorded data on mortality to be “more dangerous” than COVID-19?

Based on the figures below, the recorded annual death rate pertaining to Influenza is substantially higher than that pertaining to COVID-19. (This is a rough comparison, given the fact that the recorded data pertaining to COVID-19 is not on an annual basis).

The latest data WHO data pertaining to COVID-19 

(Globally, all countries and territories):  40,598 deaths  (recorded up until April 1, 2020).

The estimates of annual mortality pertaining to Influenza:

Historically of the order of 250 000 to 500 000 annually (globally). (WHO).

The most recent WHO estimates (2017):

290 000 – 650 000 deaths globally  (annual). 

---

ANNEX

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

Note: Two important texts 

Text of CDC criteria For in Vitro Diagnostic Use

Intended Use

The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is a real-time RT-PCR test intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from the 2019-nCoV in upper and lower respiratory specimens (such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs, sputum, lower respiratory tract aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, and nasopharyngeal wash/aspirate or nasal aspirate) collected from individuals who meet 2019-nCoV clinical and/or epidemiological criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV infection, contact with a probable or confirmed 2019-nCoV case, history of travel to geographic locations where 2019-nCoV cases were detected, or other epidemiologic links for which 2019-nCoV testing may be indicated as part of a public health investigation). Testing in the United States is limited to laboratories certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), 42 U.S.C. § 263a, to perform high complexity tests.

Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.

Testing with the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is intended for use by trained laboratory personnel who are proficient in performing real-time RT-PCR assays. The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is only for use under a Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization.

Summary and Explanation

An outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China was initially reported to WHO on December 31, 2019. Chinese authorities identified a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), which has resulted in thousands of confirmed human infections in multiple provinces throughout China and many countries including the United States. Cases of asymptomatic infection, mild illness, severe illness, and some deaths have been reported.

The CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is a molecular in vitro diagnostic test that aids in the detection and diagnosis 2019-nCoV and is based on widely used nucleic acid amplification technology. The product contains oligonucleotide primers and dual-labeled hydrolysis probes (TaqMan®) and control material used in rRT-PCR for the in vitro qualitative detection of 2019-nCoV RNA in respiratory specimens.

The term “qualified laboratories” refers to laboratories in which all users, analysts, and any person reporting results from use of this device should be trained to perform and interpret the results from this procedure by a competent instructor prior to use.

Principles of the Procedure

The oligonucleotide primers and probes for detection of 2019-nCoV were selected from regions of the virus nucleocapsid (N) gene. The panel is designed for specific detection of the 2019-nCoV (two primer/probe sets). An additional primer/probe set to detect the human RNase P gene (RP) in control samples and clinical specimens is also included in the panel.

RNA isolated and purified from upper and lower respiratory specimens is reverse transcribed to cDNA and subsequently amplified in the Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Dx Real-Time PCR Instrument with SDS version 1.4 software. In the process, the probe anneals to a specific target sequence located between the forward and reverse primers. During the extension phase of the PCR cycle, the 5’ nuclease activity of Taq polymerase degrades the probe, causing the reporter dye to separate from the quencher dye, generating a fluorescent signal. With each cycle, additional reporter dye molecules are cleaved from their respective probes, increasing the fluorescence intensity. Fluorescence intensity is monitored at each PCR cycle by Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Dx Real-Time PCR System with SDS version 1.4 software.

Detection of viral RNA not only aids in the diagnosis of illness but also provides epidemiological and surveillance information.

The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is a real-time RT-PCR test intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from the 2019-nCoV in upper and lower respiratory specimens (such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs, sputum, lower respiratory tract aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, and nasopharyngeal wash/aspirate or nasal aspirate) collected from individuals who meet 2019-nCoV clinical and/or epidemiological criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV infection, contact with a probable or confirmed 2019-nCoV case, history of travel to geographic locations where 2019-nCoV cases were detected, or other epidemiologic links for which 2019-nCoV testing may be indicated as part of a public health investigation). Testing in the United States is limited to laboratories certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), 42 U.S.C. § 263a, to perform high complexity tests.

Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.

Testing with the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is intended for use by trained laboratory personnel who are proficient in performing real-time RT-PCR assays. The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is only for use under a Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization.

 Serology Test for COVID-19

CDC is working to develop a new laboratory test to assist with efforts to determine how much of the U.S. population has been exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19.

The serology test will look for the presence of antibodies, which are specific proteins made in response to infections.  Antibodies can be found in the blood and in other tissues of those who are tested after infection.  The antibodies detected by this test indicate that a person had an immune response to SARS-CoV-2, whether symptoms developed from infection or the infection was asymptomatic.  Antibody test results are important in detecting infections with few or no symptoms.

Initial work to develop a serology test for SARS-CoV-2 is underway at CDC.  In order to develop the test, CDC needs blood samples from people who had COVID-19 at least 21 days after their symptoms first started. Researchers are currently working to develop the basic parameters for the test, which will be refined as more samples become available. Once the test is developed, CDC will need additional samples to evaluate whether the test works as intended.

Western civilization, led by the US government and media, has embarked upon a campaign of mass psychological terrorism designed to cover for the collapsing economy, set up a new pretext for Wall Street’s ongoing plunder expedition, radically escalate the police state, deeply traumatize people into submission to total social conformity, and radically aggravate the anti-social, anti-human atomization of the people.

The pretext for this abomination is an epidemic which objectively is comparable to the seasonal flu and is caused by the same kind of Coronavirus we’ve endured so long without totalitarian rampages and mass insanity.

The global evidence is converging on the facts: This flu is somewhat more contagious than the norm and is especially dangerous for those who are aged and already in poor health from pre-existing maladies. It is not especially dangerous for the rest of the population.

The whole concept of “lockdowns” is exactly upside down, exactly the wrong way any sane society would respond to this circumstance.

It’s the vulnerable who should be shielded while nature takes its course among the general population, who should go about life as usual. Dominionist-technocratic rigidity can’t prevent an epidemic from cycling through the population in spite of the delusions of that religion, especially since Western societies began their measures far too late anyway.

Decorated Green Beret Reveals: Simple Gun Hacks That Will Instantly Double Your Accuracy…

These techniques are so powerful and efficient, that up until now they were only available for special operations troops such as the United States Green Berets, the Navy SEALS, or the Israeli Defense Force – to name a few.

So it’s best to let herd immunity develop as fast as it naturally will, at which time the virus recedes from lack of hosts (and is likely to mutate in a milder direction along the way). This is the only way to bring a safer environment for all including the most vulnerable.

The fact that most societies have rejected the sane, scientific route in favor of doomed-to-fail attempts at a forcible violent segregation and sterilization is proof that governments aren’t concerned with the public health (as if we didn’t know that already from a thousand policies of poisoning the environment while gutting the health care system), but are very ardent to use this crisis they artificially generated in order radically to escalate their police state power toward totalitarian goals.

The whole concept of self-isolation and anti-social “distancing” is radically anti-human. We evolved over millions of years to be social creatures living in tight-knit groups. Although modern societies ideologically and socioeconomically work to massify and atomize people, nevertheless almost all of us still seek close human companionship in our lives.

(I suspect most of the internet police-state-mongers are not only fascists at heart but are confirmed misanthropic loners who couldn’t care less about human closeness.)

This terror campaign seeks to blast to pieces any remaining human closeness, which means any remaining humanity as such, the better to isolate individual atoms for subjection to total domination. Arendt wrote profoundly on this goal of totalitarian governments, though even she didn’t envision a state-driven cult of the literal physical repulsion of every atom from every other atom.

So far the people are submitting completely to a terror campaign dedicated to the total eradication of whatever community was left in the world, and especially whatever community was starting to be rebuilt.

Some dream of this terror campaign somehow bringing about a magical collective transformation. They don’t explain how that is supposed to happen when everyone’s so terrorized they’re desperate to detach physically from their own shadows, let alone physically come together with other people. But any kind of political or social action, any kind of movement-building, requires close person-to-person contact.

Even SWAT Teams are Helpless Against This – WATCH THIS VIDEO and you will find many interesting things!

It seems that for most erstwhile self-alleged dissidents, the fact that social media is no substitute for face-to-face organizing and group action, a fact hitherto universally acknowledged by these dissidents, is another truth suddenly to be jettisoned replaced by its complete antithesis.

Thus the terror campaign is a virus causing those it infects to abdicate all activism and all prospect for all future activism, for as long as they remain insane with the fever of this propaganda terror.

Far more profoundly and evoking despair, the terror campaign is a virus causing those it infects to fear and loathe all human contact, all companionship, all closeness, all things which ever made us human in the first place. Prior totalitarian regimes sought this lack of contact and trust through networks of informers.

These networks are part of today’s terror campaign as well, encouraged from above and spontaneously arising from below as a result of the feeling of terror as well as the exercise of prior petty-evil intentions on the part of petty-evil individuals.

But today’s totalitarian potential is far worse than this. Now the regimes aspiring to total domination have terrorized and brainwashed the vast majority of people into an automatic physical distrust of all other people. One no longer fears that someone is an informer, but fears the very existence of another human being.

Any kind of human relations, from personal friendship and romance to friendly social gatherings and clubs to social and cultural movements become impossible under such circumstances. This threatens to be the end of the very concept of shared humanity, to be replaced by an anthill of slave atoms with no consciousness beyond fear and the most animal concern for food and shelter, which already is allowed or denied in the same way experimenters do with lab rats.

And the more people fear and loathe the literal physical existence of all other people, the more the situation becomes ripe for every epidemic of murder, from the spiking rate of domestic violence and killings to incipient lynch mobs to pogroms to Nazi-style extermination campaigns.

This is the system’s end goal. It’s the logical end where every trend of today leads. All of it is trumped up over an epidemic which objectively is a flu season somewhat rougher than average.

Why do the people want to surrender and throw away all reality and future prospect of shared humanity, happiness, freedom, well-being, over so little? Is this really a terminal totalitarian death cult, the globe as one massive Jonestown?

So far it seems this is what the majority wants. If they don’t really want this consummation of universal death in spirit, emotion and body, they’d better snap out of their terror-induced mental delirium fast, before it’s too late.

The Lost Ways is a far–reaching book with chapters ranging from simple things like making tasty bark-bread-like people did when there was no food-to building a traditional backyard smokehouse… and many, many, many more!

“It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”—James Madison

We have become one nation under house arrest.

You think we’re any different from the Kentucky couple fitted out with ankle monitoring bracelets and forced to quarantine at home?

We’re not.

Consider what happened to Elizabeth and Isaiah Linscott.

Elizabeth took a precautionary diagnostic COVID-19 test before traveling to visit her parents and grandparents in Michigan. It came back positive: Elizabeth was asymptomatic for the novel coronavirus but had no symptoms. Her husband and infant daughter tested negative for the virus.

Now in a country where freedom actually means something, the Linscotts would have the right to determine for themselves how to proceed responsibly, but in the American Police State, we’ve only got as much freedom as the government allows.

This presentation PROOVES WITHOUT DOUBT that America is in for a major fight that will put you and your family in the firing line, literally… So make sure you watch this presentation while it’s still online…

That’s not saying much.

Indeed, it’s a dangerous time for anyone who still clings to the idea that freedom means the right to think for yourself and act responsibly according to your best judgment.

Image on the right: This Kentucky couple was placed under house arrest and put in ankle bracelets for declining to sign a self-quarantine order after Elizabeth Linscott, the wife, tested positive for the coronavirus. Image source: Facebook

In that regard, the Linscotts are a little old-school in their thinking. When Elizabeth was asked to sign a self-quarantine order agreeing to check in daily with the health department and not to travel anywhere without prior approval, she refused.

“I shouldn’t have to ask for consent because I’m an adult who can make that decision. And as a citizen of the United States of America, that is my right to make that decision without having to disclose that to somebody else,” said Elizabeth. “So, no, I wouldn’t wear a mask. I would do everything that I could to make sure that I wouldn’t come in contact with other people because of the fear that’s spreading with this. But no, I would have just stayed home, take care of my child.”

Instead of signing the blanket statement, Elizabeth submitted her own written declaration:

I will do my best to stay home, as I do every other time I get sick. But I cannot comply to having to call the public health department everytime that I need to go out and do something. It’s my right and freedoms to go where I please and not have to answer to anyone for it. There is no pandemic and with a survival rate of 99.9998% I’m fine. I will continue to avoid the elderly, just like PRIOR guidelines state, try to stay home, get rest, get medicine, and get better. I decline.

A few days after being informed that Elizabeth’s case was being escalated and referred to law enforcement, the Linscotts reportedly found their home surrounded by multiple government vehicles, government personnel and the county sheriff armed with a court order and ankle monitors.

“We didn’t rob a store,” Linscott said. “We didn’t steal something. We didn’t hit and run. We didn’t do anything wrong.”

That’s the point, of course.

In an age of overcriminalization—when the law is wielded like a hammer to force compliance to the government’s dictates whatever they might be—you don’t have to do anything wrong to be fined, arrested or subjected to raids and seizures and surveillance.

Watch and see: just as it did in China, this pandemic is about to afford the government the perfect excuse for expanding its surveillance and data collection powers at our expense.

On a daily basis, Americans are already relinquishing (in many cases, voluntarily) the most intimate details of who we are—their biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to navigate an increasingly technologically-enabled world.

COVID-19, however, takes the surveillance state to the next level.

There’s already been talk of mass testing for COVID-19 antibodies, screening checkpoints, contact tracing, immunity passports to allow those who have recovered from the virus to move around more freely, and snitch tip lines for reporting “rule breakers” to the authorities.

As Reuters reports:

As the United States begins reopening its economy, some state officials are weighing whether house arrest monitoring technology – including ankle bracelets or location-tracking apps – could be used to police quarantines imposed on coronavirus carriers. But while the tech has been used sporadically for U.S. quarantine enforcement over the past few weeks, large scale rollouts have so far been held back by a big legal question: Can officials impose electronic monitoring without an offense or a court order?

More to the point, as the head of one tech company asked, “Can you actually constitutionally monitor someone who’s innocent? It’s uncharted territory.”

Except this isn’t exactly uncharted territory, is it?

It follows much the same pattern as every other state of emergency in recent years—legitimate or manufactured—that has empowered the government to add to its arsenal of technologies and powers.

The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

It doesn’t even matter what the nature of the crisis might be—civil unrest, the national emergencies, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters”—as long as it allows the government to justify all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.

It’s hard to know who to trust anymore.

Certainly, in this highly partisan age, when everything from the COVID-19 pandemic to police brutality to football is being recast in light of one’s political leanings, it can be incredibly difficult to separate what constitutes a genuine safety concern versus what is hyper-politicized propaganda.

Take the mask mandates, for example.

Over the past year over 13,200 families have also already successfully used the very same technique to get over tragic milestones such as hurricanes, snow storms or floods.

in this short video I’ll tell you a life-changing story about how I figured out how to easily create an automated supply of the freshest, high-quality organic foods you’ve ever tasted for pennies on the dollar…

Currently, 19 states have not issued mask mandates in response to rising COVID-19 infection numbers. More than 30 states have enacted some form of mask requirement. A growing number of retailers, including Walmart, Target and CVS,  are also joining the mask mandate bandwagon. Georgia’s governor, in a challenge to mask requirements by local governing bodies, filed a lawsuit challenging Atlanta’s dictate that masks be worn within city limits.

In some states, such as Indiana, where masks are required but there are no penalties for non-compliance, government officials are urging people to protect themselves but not to get into confrontations over masks or turn into snitches.

In other states, such as Virginia, the Nanny State is using more strong-handed tactics to force compliance with mask mandates, including the threat of fines, jail time, surprise inspections of businesses, and complaint hotlines that encourage citizens to snitch on each other. Officials in Las Vegas deployed 100 “compliance ambassadors” to help educate and enhance enforcement of the state’s mask mandate. One couple in Knoxville, Tenn., took mask-shaming to new heights when they created a Facebook page to track compliance by businesses, employees and customers.

In Miami, “residents now risk a legal penalty if they venture into public without a face mask. The city has assigned at least 39 police officers to make sure that residents are following the city’s mandatory mask ordinance. Offenders will be warned but, if they refuse to comply, they will be fined. The first offense will cost $100 and the second another $100. With a third — God forbid — the offender will be arrested.”

These conflicting and, in some cases, heavy-handed approaches to a pandemic that has locked down the nation for close to six months is turning this health crisis into an unnecessarily politicized, bureaucratic tug-of-war with no clear-cut winners to be found.

Certainly, this is not the first crisis to pit security concerns against freedom principles.

In this post-9/11 world, we have been indoctrinated into fearing and mistrusting one another instead of fearing and mistrusting the government. As a result, we’ve been forced to travel this road many, many times with lamentably predictable results each time: without fail, when asked to choose between safety and liberty, Americans historically tend to choose safety.

Failing to read the fine print on such devil’s bargains, “we the people” find ourselves repeatedly on the losing end as the government uses each crisis as a means of expanding its powers at taxpayer expense.

Whatever these mask mandates might be—authoritarian strong-arm tactics or health necessities to prevent further spread of the virus—they have thus far proven to be uphill legal battles for those hoping to challenge them in the courts as unconstitutional restrictions on their right to liberty, bodily autonomy, privacy and health.

In fact, Florida courts have upheld the mask ordinances, ruling that they do not infringe on constitutional rights and that “there is no reasonable expectation of privacy as to whether one covers their nose and mouth in public places, which are the only places to which the mask ordinance applies.”

Declaring that there is no constitutional right to infect others, Circuit Court Judge John Kastrenakes concluded that “the right to be ‘free from governmental intrusion’ does not automatically or completely shield an individual’s conduct from regulation.” Moreover, wrote Kastrenakes, constitutional rights and the ideals of limited government “do not absolve a citizen from the real-world consequences of their individual choices, or otherwise allow them to wholly skirt their social obligation to their fellow Americans or to society as a whole. This is particularly true when one’s individual choices can result in drastic, costly, and sometimes deadly, consequences to others.”

Virginia courts have also upheld mask mandates.

These court decisions take their cue from a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.

In other words, the courts have concluded that the government has a compelling interest in requiring masks to fight COVID-19 infections that overrides individual freedoms.

Generally, the government has to show a so-called compelling state interest before it can override certain critical rights such as free speech, assembly, press, privacy, search and seizure, etc. Most of the time, the government lacks that compelling state interest, but it still manages to violate those rights, setting itself up for legal battles further down the road.

We can spend time debating the mask mandates. However, criticizing those who rightly fear these restrictions to be a slippery slope to further police state tactics will not restore the freedoms that have been willingly sacrificed on the altar of national security by Americans of all political stripes over the years.

As I’ve warned, this is a test to see how whether the Constitution—and our commitment to the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights—can survive a national crisis and true state of emergency.

It must be remembered that James Madison, the “father” of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the fourth president of the United States, advised that we should “take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.

Whether or not you consider these COVID-19 restrictions to be cause for alarm, they are far from the first experiment on our liberties. Indeed, whether or not you concede that the pandemic itself is cause for alarm, we should all be alarmed by the government’s response to this pandemic.

By government, I’m not referring to one particular politician or administration but to the entire apparatus at every level that conspires to keep “we the people” fearful of one another and under virtual house arrest.

This is what we’ve all been reduced to: prisoners in our skin, prisoners in our homes, prisoners in our communities—forced to comply with the government’s shifting mandates about how to navigate this pandemic or else.

Right now, COVID-19 is the perfect excuse for the government to wreak havoc on our freedoms in the name of safety and security, don’t believe for a minute that our safety is the police state’s primary concern.

If you’re interested in learning more old remedies, you should read The Lost Book Of Remedies.

The physical book has 300 pages, with 3 colored pictures for every plant and for every medicine.It was written by Claude Davis, whose grandfather was one of the greatest healers in America. Claude took his grandfather’s lifelong plant journal, which he used to treat thousands of people, and adapted it into this book.

Learn More…

“Fear is only reverse faith; it is faith in evil instead of good.” Florence Scovel Shinn

After several months of the COVID-19 crisis, relevant elements of analysis of this crisis are becoming clearer.

1. The enormous pressure to convince 7 billion people of the need to be vaccinated against a virus [1] whose mortality has been inflated [2] and which is said to be ubiquitous while it is disappearing or has even disappeared.

It reminds us of the 2009 operation, with the fake H1N1 pandemic [3]: same tactics, same complicity (media, political, government), same “experts”, same scenarios, same narratives with an emphasis on fear, guilt, haste and always the same stench of this omnipresent money in the form of huge profits on the horizon for the Big Pharma vaccine producing industry.

It is as if the H1N1 episode of 2009 has been used as a rehearsal.

This time, the COVID-19 episode of 2020 is poised to turn the trial into a success?

Monitoring Tests: Collect data on VIDOC-19. Source: sph.umich.edu

2.  People submitting to authority

Despite clear signs of corruption, incompetence, ignorance about eminent personalities in politics, science, medicine, many people continue to obey them.

Despite confused, contradictory, unexplained, unjustifiable recommendations, people accept the directive of higher authority.

For example, many people continue to obey them:

1) In the midst of the epidemic, the wearing of masks is not mandatory and even discouraged for healthy people.
2) As the epidemic dies out, masks become mandatory everywhere for everyone.

I highly recommend – The R-95 Reusable Face Mask! This is the best mask I have been able to find. I tried a few and they were so uncomfortable I couldn’t wear them for more than a few minutes.  This one fits great and after a while I forget I have it on.

Many general practitioners from several countries and the IHU Méditerranée-Infection de Marseilles, one of the largest infectious disease centers in the world, the largest in France, have demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine is  an effective drug for treatment of SARS and COVID-19 [4].

In Belgium, “they” say that it is a dangerous and ineffective drug and “they” prevent general practitioners from prescribing it to their patients. In the US, a media campaign against HCQis ongoing.

Contradictions, lies, false truths…

Of course, fear and conformism may explain this fabricated obedience.

We know the experiences of Solomon Asch and Stanley Milgram [5].

This tendency to submission and obedience to coercive measures varies from one country to another.

Thus in Serbia :

“Broken, the relentless progression of coronaviral terror. The recalcitrant Serbs rebelled against their president when he ordered them to return to house arrest. After two days of street battles with dozens of hospitalized police officers, the robust demonstrators won; the authorities surrendered and abandoned their plans to seal off Belgrade. Shops, bistros and restaurants in Belgrade will have a curfew in the early evening; but this is much better than the complete closure they had planned. ” [6]

On the other hand, in Belgium:

“In an incomprehensible way, while the epidemic, except for small outbreaks (clusters), is gradually disappearing [7], coercive measures are once again being imposed, even extended [8] with compulsory wearing of masks everywhere, for everyone, obligation to give their details in restaurants and bars for tracking purposes [9] …”.

There is no justification for all this.

All this revives fear, terror, and leads to fears of a return to partial or total confinement (house arrest), whereas today we know that this measure is useless and harmful! [10-11]

It is as if the COVID-19 crisis is being used by the authorities as a full-scale test to assess the degree of submission of their people [12], and to see how far they can go before they encounter sufficient opposition.

I hope that the Belgian people, the bravest people of Gaul according to Julius Caesar [13], will have the courage and lucidity of the Serbian people and will finally wake up.

3. The use of experts by creating the impression of a consensus that does not exist

Governments form expert committees to justify their actions.

For the citizen, why question the measures in question?

However, within organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), the COVID-19 committee in France (CARE) or in Belgium (Sciensano-committee COVID-19), being an expert does not mean being independent, free of any conflict of interest, or even being competent from a standpoint [14-15].

Every time a government says: “there is a consensus of experts on this issue“, it is in fact a lie.

It only means that their experts have agreed, they have established a consensus without analysis and the conduct of scientific debate.

In COVID-19, you can find on all the subjects presented as a part of a consensus :

• Masks
• Hydroxychloroquine
• Containment
• Tests used
• Treatments
• Vaccination

… other experts equally valid in terms of academic credentials, reputation and professional activities, whose opinions go against official diktats, with honest arguments, solid demonstrations and multiple references.

How does the citizen weigh this up?

A good criterion is to check for a conflict of interest.

Many qualified authors and scientists with opinions opposed to those of their government counterparts are not linked to the pharmaceutical industry or to governments that ultimately want to push an ideology,  a political agenda and are increasingly accountable to Big Pharma.

These independent authors also have more to lose than to gain in this debate.

What else could drive them to take risks if not their honesty, their conscience?

This presentation PROOVES WITHOUT DOUBT that America is in for a major fight that will put you and your family in the firing line, literally… So make sure you watch this presentation while it’s still online…

It is neither fame, nor the hope of a contract in the private sector, nor money, in any case.

4. The fabrication of “fiction” may be inspired by a distorted understanding of real facts and for this, the use of a narrative that ends up being repeated over and over again, which then becomes a consensus which is no longer challenged.

COVID-19 is a fiction based on plausible facts: a virus, real deaths, a real disease, an epidemic of respiratory illnesses to which are added, little by little, distortions of truths or realities, or even outright lies (Cf. my series, COVID-19: as close to the truth as possible).

Coronaviruses are known. They exist. Two of them have already threatened humanity with deadly epidemics (SARS, MERS).

Regardless of the fact that the 2009 H1N1 pandemic was false and that experts had manipulated the figures, the H1N1 pandemic of 2009 set the stage for it is a threat and that only vaccination could save us.

Real sick people were hospitalized and some died. All of this made the “COVID-19” story plausible.

The COVID narrative was launched.

To perpetuate the fear campaign, a population-wide strategy of shock was put in place, tests presented as reliable were conducted, high mortality figures were released. not to mention indicators of contagiousness.

In this process, the role of the media in support of an official consensus was essential.

As always, they played their role well, announcing the number of deaths every day and attributing them to COVID-19 without supporting analysis.

Today,  the fear campaign is sustained by an alleged second wave, requiring a new lockdown. So-called “positive”| PCR tests are casually presented as new cases of COVID-19.

Sweden and other countries, as well as some states in the USA, have not played the game, or have followed their own agenda.

Stockholm during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Source: Quartz

They didn’t confine, they were less traumatized, they remained more human.

They is proof that the COVID-19 story in several countries (Belgium, France, Spain, Canada…) is indeed a fiction, based on manipulated data, plunging millions of people into a formidable “psychological trap”.

The COVID-19 story is a strategy of “shock therapy”. Strategies of this nature (implying social engineering) are never used for the good of the people.

The strategy of psychological shock is a reality, studied by several authors and researchers, including Naomi Klein [16], with her book published in 2007, “The Strategy of Shock: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”.

The aim is to make a tabula rasa, a blank page, and on this blank page, to reconstruct what we want.

How can we do this?

“On the scale of an entire population, by destroying a country’s heritage, its social and economic structures in order to build a new society, a new order after the planned and controlled chaos.

Once the people are deprived of their points of reference, shocked and infantilized, they find themselves defenceless and easily manipulated.

This process can occur following a serious economic or political crisis, an environmental disaster, an attack, a war or a health crisis. ” [17]

The strategy of shock was applied by economic means to Greece in the wake of the 2008 crisis, dragging millions of people into misery with the complicity of their politicians. [18]

The strategy of shock was applied by means of terrorism in the USA in 2001 and in France in 2015 with the establishment of states of emergency and emergency laws that have never again been abolished [19].

[19] The strategy of shock is now being applied by means of health crises, COVID-19, to a part of the world, including my country, Belgium.

“The terror induced on a large scale in a society leads to a kind of state of daze, a situation where control can easily be obtained from an external authority.

It is necessary to develop an immature state of mind in the population in order to control it as best as possible.

Society must be infantilized.“

These ideas have been studied and disseminated by the Tavistock Institute in London, which originated from a psychiatric clinic founded in 1920, specializing in psychological control and organized social chaos [17].

It is much easier to run a society through mental control than through physical control, through infantilization, confusion, misinformation and fear.

Isn’t that what is at work today?

The Lost Ways is a far–reaching book with chapters ranging from simple things like making tasty bark-bread-like people did when there was no food-to building a traditional backyard smokehouse… and many, many, many more!

People are being infantilized…

They are told which sidewalk they can walk on, which way, when they can go into a store and where they have to blow their nose.

Fear is omnipresent.

Those who refuse the masks are penalized, looked at sideways, excluded, insulted, hated.

Thousands of people see their work threatened, their whole life compromised without the possibility of demonstrating, or opposing the Covid-19 consensus imposed by their government.

Old people are abandoned.

Young people are imprisoned in a masked and confined world.

Adults are in a precarious situation

People from the same family, separated.

Thinking and reflection, not to mention dialogue and debate are paralysed.

Protest is prohibited

If this thesis is correct, it is to be expected that our government, through “experts” and media interposed, will continue this strategy of shock and announce us more and more infected, dead and waves of COVID, irrespective of the underlying reality. The facts will be manipulated.

The examples of Sweden and Belgrade are beacons of hope in this dark perspective.

Dr. Pascal Sacré, physician specialized in critical care, author and renowned public health analyst, Charleroi, Belgium. Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Note to readers: please click on the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your mailing lists. Publish this article on your blog site, web forums, etc.

Notes:

[1] Coronavirus: l’OMS tente de mobiliser politiques et acteurs économiques en vue d’ »un vaccin pour tous » sur la planète

[2] « Le chiffre de la mortalité due au coronavirus est un faux chiffre » selon le Dr. Lass

[3] Grippe H1N1, exemple de manipulation internationale, AIMSIB, 22 octobre 2018

[4] Bulletin d’information scientifique de l’IHU, Pr Philippe Parola, directeur de service de soins et d’unité de recherche à l’IHU Méditerranée Infection

[5] PSY-OP COVID-19 : assignés à résidence !, Dr Pascal Sacré, mondialisation.ca, 11 mai 2020

[6] Belgrade libérée, par Israel Shamir, maondialisation.ca, 13 juillet 2020

[7] La virulence du Covid-19 est-elle en train de diminuer ?, par Christophe De Brouwer, Contrepoints.org, 21 juillet 2020

[8] Les décisions du Conseil National de Sécurité. Les décisions ont été communiquées aux Belges à 13h30 lors d’une conférence de presse ce 24 juillet 2020

[9] Voici à quoi ressemble le formulaire-type pour l’enregistrement des clients horeca

[10] COVID-19 : au plus près de la vérité. Confinement, Dr Pascal Sacré, mondialisation.ca, 22 juillet 2020

[11] Confinement strict, surcharge hospitalière et surmortalité, PDF, mai 2020

[12] Opération COVID-19: Tester le degré de soumission des peuples, Dr Pascal Sacré, mondialisation.ca, 26 avril 2020

[13] Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, Wikipédia, “Of all the peoples of Gaul, the Belgians are the bravest”, often translated into French as “Of all the peoples of Gaul, the Belgians are the bravest.

[14] Politique et corruption à l’OMS, Dr Pascal Sacré, mondialisation.ca, 12 janvier 2010, réédité le 14 avril 2020

[15] Et les conflits d’intérêts, on en parle ?, 5 mai 2020.

[16] La Stratégie du choc : la montée d’un capitalisme du désastre (titre original : The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism) est un essai socio-politique altermondialiste publié en 2007 par la journaliste canadienne Naomi Klein. Wikipédia

[17] MK Abus rituels et Contrôle Mental, Alexandre Lebreton, éditions Omnia Veritas, 2016

[18] Stratégie du choc : comment le FMI et l’Union européenne bradent la Grèce aux plus offrants, Agnès Rousseaux, Bastamag, 20 juin 2013

[19] Quand la fin justifie les moyens : stratégie du choc et état d’urgence, 29 novembre 2016

If you’re interested in learning more old remedies, you should read The Lost Book Of Remedies.

The physical book has 300 pages, with 3 colored pictures for every plant and for every medicine.It was written by Claude Davis, whose grandfather was one of the greatest healers in America. Claude took his grandfather’s lifelong plant journal, which he used to treat thousands of people, and adapted it into this book.

Learn More…