Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
The political status of Puerto Rico is a long-standing problem that requires urgent action. The island, an unincorporated territory of the United States, is not a sovereign nation or state of the United States. This ambiguity must be addressed by both Americans and Puerto Ricans. The future well-being and prosperity of all Puerto Ricans depend on it.
The Puerto Rican economy has been in decline for decades, mainly because the political future of the island remains undetermined, with disastrous social, political, and economic consequences. This issue has been a dominant debate on the island, dividing and paralyzing Puerto Ricans for more than a century.
The absence of US leadership on this issue has encouraged and intensified Puerto Rico’s endless debate, declaring on several occasions that the future of the island will depend solely on the will of its people. This hands-off attitude has led to a political stalemate, which has led to an economic catastrophe.
Historically, the debate over Puerto Rico’s future has centered on three options: statehood, independence, and commonwealth (the status quo)
The Future of Puerto Rico
Of the three options, statehood has received the most media attention. However, given the political, economic and cultural conditions, making Puerto Rico a US state had absolutely no future.
This is a well-known fact to most, except for U.S. and Puerto Rican politicians, who have made a career out of promising that their concession is just around the corner. What kind of statehood can be granted to a territory that half the population neither wants nor feels American, while the other half favors it only as a guarantee of perpetual welfare assistance? (Nanny State)
As for independence, the second option, popular support has been low among the population of Puerto Rico during the last decades. Independence has been scapegoated and demonized as the worst of the available options.
The Commonwealth option, given its dramatic failure and its electoral rejection by more than half of the population of Puerto Rico, cannot be a viable option either.
I remember what my dad used to say. “If the elections were on a Friday night, La Independencia would win”
This reality leads us to another status option that is not well understood in Puerto Rico, but is recognized by U.S. and international law
Such an agreement would imply the end of Puerto Rico’s territorial status and the birth of a new sovereign country in the Caribbean, fully integrated into the international community and the UN system. Under a free association pact, the United States would continue its financial assistance to Puerto Rico and help the island develop a productive economy. As a sovereign state, Puerto Rico would delegate specific responsibilities to the United States, such as defense and currency matters, while retaining sovereignty over all other matters not included or delegated in the pact.
Due to the Spanish term used to describe the current Commonwealth (Estado Libre Asociado or “estado asociado libre”), the formula of free association has been confused and sometimes misrepresented as identical to the current state.
However, genuine free association has the potential to become a state of consensus in which supporters of all alternatives can get what is most important to them, while considering U.S. national interests.
Free association is the only path available to Puerto Rico and the only way to foster its prosperity while maintaining a non-territorial relationship with the United States that can bring countries closer together.
The 1960 UN resolution that established free association as a decolonizing alternative did not combine free association with independence. Both must be understood as two different types of self-government.
The resolution did not establish any size or population requirements for a territory to achieve free association. It only requires that “it be the result of a free and voluntary choice of the peoples of the territory in question, expressed through informed and democratic processes.” The exact form of the partnership is left to the parties to negotiate. Free association is a state of “middle ground” whereby the interests of all parties can be reconciled, and each can become a winner. The most important and relevant examples of the political status of free association are detailed in the Compact of Free Association, which has been in force between the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. The pacts were implemented more than 30 years ago and have been renewed ever since.
The accords transferred complete internal self-government to the new nation states, as well as authority in foreign affairs that led to their membership in the United Nations. The Pact retains full authority in matters of defense and security in the United States and obliges Washington to provide economic assistance.
Road to Free Association
Negotiations to establish a free association agreement between Puerto Rico and the United States must be carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States government, with the active participation of Congress. Puerto Rican negotiators must be chosen from among the most capable defenders and non-partisans of the island’s interests.
Before negotiations begin, the principles for free association will be agreed as a general outline of the terms under negotiation. The final negotiated document must be approved by Congress and by the people of Puerto Rico through a democratic referendum.
A free association status for Puerto Rico concludes a seemingly endless, divisive, and sometimes vicious debate. It offered the people of Puerto Rico a new opportunity to build a truly democratic country, create a much-needed productive economy, and ultimately become a self-sufficient society.
In the movie ‘Batman: The Dark Knight’ the well regarded district attorney Harvey Dent makes a statement that has since woven itself into our popular culture to the point that we often hear it quoted as if it was said by some ancient philosopher. He noted:
“You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”
The most predictable interpretation of this is that there is a fine line between doing good and doing evil with the best of intentions. People can start out as heroes and quickly fall to darkness in the name of serving the “greater good.” I think there is more meaning behind the quote, however.
There is also the issue of historical revision and the fact that the heroes of yesterday might be considered the terrorists of tomorrow given who is in charge of writing the history books or reporting the news. Sometimes heroes become villains through their own mistakes, other times they are just rewritten that way.
For example, today we hear constant gnashing and wailing from the political left about the “evils” of the Founding Fathers and why they should be erased or canceled from our cultural zeitgeist.
They have even attempted to revise the very foundations of American history through their “1619 Project” as they assert that no American accomplishment is valid because EVERYTHING was built around the institution of slavery.
They make no mention that slavery has been an institution in every single culture on the planet since civilization began, but that doesn’t matter to them.
The goal of the 1619 Project was to diminish or dismiss everything distinctly American, right down to the revolution that founded our nation. What they care about is the deconstruction of heroes, in part because if you can destroy the character of a hero then you might be able to also destroy what they stood for in the process. And, if you can destroy the ideals of a society, it becomes a lot easier to then control that society.
When the political left seeks to undermine the legacy of the founders they aren’t just engaging in character attacks against men who can no longer defend themselves, they are also attempting to sabotage the vision those men created – The vision of a free republic outside of the dictates of collectivism and monarchy (rule by the elites).
Obviously the Founding Fathers are no longer alive, but there are millions of people that have carried on their legacy for generations that are in fact still living to see their heroes be made into monsters through revisionism.
But the destruction of heroes goes even deeper than historical rewrites.
Leftists are also targeting the very foundations of heroic archetypes and mythologies by attacking heroic representations in our society.
They are seeking to change the nature of heroism by hijacking cultural pillars and erasing beloved stories and characters in order to “reboot” them in the image of the leftist cult.
This is usually done under the cover of “diversity and equity” as a means to obscure the true agenda. Let’s break down the tactics and motives behind this trend…
Rewriting Heroes To “Reflect Our Modern Era”
Woke ideology does not reflect our modern era in any way; it is actually a masked version of the old social models of collectivism and communism, specifically the social Marxism displayed by Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
The only difference is today we have online struggle sessions and corporations are fully onboard with the movement. When leftists claim they are fighting the system, they have no idea what this really means.
Leftists use the reflection argument all the time to justify the gutting of hero mythologies and replacing them with vapid clones. A recent example would be the latest Amazon release of their Lord Of The Rings prequel series.
I wrote about this extensively months ago in my article ‘Amazon’s Woke Lord Of The Rings Is The Death Rattle Of Social Justice Content.’
To summarize, the new Lord of The Rings is designed to spread a political message and undermine the values of the past rather than tell a meaningful organic story that pays homage to Tolkien. Amazon even released their woke Lord of The Rings on the anniversary of Tolkien’s death.
Sometimes the propaganda is subtle, and sometimes it’s a train wreck in your face.
Specifically, I examined the political left’s obsession with injecting their own Cultural Marxism into every new entertainment product as a means to saturate the media space with their ideology.
When they say they want to rehash old stories and old heroes but write them to “reflect the world of today,” what they are really doing is erasing past ideals and principles and eliminating choice.
They don’t want you to see the world from different points of view; you are only allowed to see it from THEIR point of view. This is the exact opposite of good story telling.
Diversity As A Crutch And A Cudgel
Diversity is meaningless. It serves no purpose in terms of heroic representations. People identify with actions and deeds and principles, not skin color.
Leftists in Hollywood do not actually care about diversity of skin color, they only care about two things – Using minorities as a crutch to justify poor storytelling and lazy productions, and using minorities as a cudgel or weapon when they face criticism.
That is to say, when they make garbage media with no imagination or effort, they announce “we got diversity, though,” and this is supposed to make you want to watch their products anyway, otherwise you might be “racist.”
By extension, when you dare to criticize the political pontificating and terrible writing in their media, they can then say “our stories are fantastic, you just don’t like us because we hire brown people.” See how that works?
They use minorities as a shield, either for their ineptitude or their malicious intent, but they DO NOT care about such people if they can’t exploit them.
“Diversity and inclusion” is the new slave plantation that leftist elites in Hollywood use to farm virtue points and ESG loans.
That’s all there is to it. If they actually respected the idea of presenting diverse heroes, they would create original minority heroes and write them well.
Or, they would pick minority heroes from real history and avoid implanting current day woke politics into that era.
Narcissists Can’t Write Heroes
It has long been my contention that the leftist ideology is rooted in appeals to narcissism. Everything about it is based in entitlement rather than sacrifice. It is based in demands for special treatment rather than respect for accomplishment and merit. It is based in equity of outcome while eliminating equality of opportunity.
A person that has embraced the victim mentality can never be a hero or imagine how a hero would act. They have no relationship to the concept, because narcissists are usually villains in the real world and villains tend to see themselves as victims while they spend their time victimizing others. How else can they justify the evils they do?
No Conservative Heroes Allowed
As our media world was overrun with woke ideologues over the years the depictions of heroes and villains have become utterly twisted. Heroes act selfishly with ego and hubris, and villains are usually depicted as either misunderstood people that are only reacting to the trespasses of society, or they are ridiculous exaggerations of conservatives and liberty activists.
This trend has become an epidemic in films, television, video games, comic books, etc. Only in the past couple of years has there been mass push-back against the agenda, but there is a long way to go before things can change for the better.
Many of these woke productions fail miserably, but they aren’t necessarily interested in box office success or making money.
Again, what they care about is saturation, as well as murdering the hero archetype openly where everyone can see.
They want to destroy your heroes in front of you and replace them with woke pod people. This is what drives them.
The biggest problem is that most conservatives ignored the culture war while only focusing on fleeting political battles. They acted as if the culture war didn’t matter, and in the process we have almost lost our country completely.
Future generations need heroic ideals and examples to live by, among real live people as well as in popular media. By ignoring the culture war, conservatives ignored the future.
There are some people out there that are working to change our country’s course by producing original media with a heroic message based in American foundations of freedom, individualism, self reliance and meritocracy.
I’m working to join them by producing my own graphic novel project based on a survivalist hero. The best we have is Burt Gummer from Tremors – He’s great but we need more. Readers who are interested in original non-woke entertainment can learn more about that project HERE.
It’s important not to underestimate the power of media in culture. There is a reason why leftists are so obsessive with it; by changing all our heroes to villains they hope to change our values and our behaviors.
They aren’t just rewriting movies, or characters, or comic books, they are trying to rewrite us.
The only way to stop this is to identify the threat, neutralize the propaganda, and then bring back legitimate hero culture by writing it once again with our own hands and our own deeds.
If you read George Orwell’s fictional novel “1984” when you were young, now is an opportune time for a second look. It’s the language of “1984” that’s of particular use.
The book is perhaps most applicable for its exploration of the relationship between nuanced language and thought, and the way dishonest, inaccurate language leads to a breakdown of identity and capacity for independent reasoning.
Curiously, Orwell was originally planning on titling the book “The Last Man in Europe.”
Orwell demonstrated astonishing prescience when he wrote his book about a cartoon and clown world, one we are witnessing today.
By creating nonsensical jargon, called “newspeak,” that’s only understood by the few workers who employ it, the Crime Syndicate kakistocracy limits the potential for communication. When newspeak becomes the only language spoken, the kakistocracy’s control over the population becomes total and absolute
Newspeak contains no negative terms. For example, the only way to express the meaning of “bad” is through the word “ungood.” Something extremely bad is called “doubleplus ungood.” Newspeak is engineered to remove even the possibility of rebellious thoughts — the words by which such thoughts might be articulated have been eliminated from the language.
“Hate speech” accusations are an extension of shutting off critical commentary against the Crime Syndicate’s covert and overt agendas.
“Goodthinkful” is a newspeak word meaning “naturally orthodox, incapable of thinking a bad thought.”
Ultimately ignoring the negative and bad is an extension of New Age solipsist deception and is fundamentally immoral behavior.
“Doublethink” is the ability to hold two completely contradictory thoughts simultaneously while believing both of them to be true. In Orwell’s book, doublethink was critical to the success of the Kakistocracy as it supported the state-imposed practice of language control, or newspeak.
“Oldspeak” is normal English usage as opposed to technical or propagandist language. This is incredibly common and is used with straw-man fallacious arguments. Occasionally, I refer to a dictionary to see how many words have been willfully altered or created for their purposes. A dictionary is also useful for carefully parsing one’s words.
The particularities of newspeak make it impossible to translate most older English (oldspeak) texts. Thus, holding on to oldspeak is key to holding authoritarian followers and pajama people’s feet to the fire.
“Duckspeak” is a newspeak term that means “to quack like a duck” (literal meaning) or “to speak without thinking.” Duckspeak can be good or “ungood” (bad) depending on who is speaking and whether what they are saying aligns with Big Brother’s ideals.
“Thoughtcrime” is an Orwellian neologism used to describe an illegal thought. A thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs, judgments or doubts that oppose or question Ingsoc.
Quote from the book: “In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
“Facecrime” is a concept in which one’s facial expressions, known to be a reflection of one’s thoughts, can be a violation of the law, if those expressions are interpreted as subversive or disapproving of the ruling kakistocracy.
“2+2=5” is an obviously false dogma that one may be required to believe.
“Groupthink” is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.
“The Thinkpol” uses criminal psychology and omnipresent surveillance (telescreens, microphones, informers) to search for, find, monitor and arrest all citizens of Oceania who could commit a thoughtcrime that would challenge to the status quo authority of the Crime Syndicate and the regime of the kakistocracy (aka Big Brother).
“Resistance” is one of the critical questions of “1984.” Is there any real organized resistance at all? Or is it all a facade? The underground resistance movement, known as the Brotherhood and led by one Emmanuel Goldstein, is mostly cointelpro. Goldstein is merely symbolic fake opposition.
“The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism”: Divide-and-conquer Hegelian dialectic — a subversive book that explains ideologies that are practically identical, and the public’s ignorance of this fact is imperative so that they might continue believing otherwise.
“Ingsocs” is the fictional political Party of the totalitarian government of Oceania. Glibly O’Brien explains to Smith:
“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
Ingsoc represents the solipsist and nihilistic view that the universe and all knowledge, meaning and values exist only in the collective mind of the Party (aka Crime Syndicate). Reality is what the Party says it is.
Solipsism is effectively the mentality and rule by the likes of Israel Keyes, the Columbine killers, Sons of Sam and Ted Bundy. This serial-killer mentality holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure. The external world cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
As a metaphysical position, solipsism’s conclusion is that the world and other minds do not really exist. In this extreme position, the solipsist believes himself to be the only true authority.
Inner Party member O’Brien describes the Party’s vision of the future:
“There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”
Other Superstates: Eurasia practices the ideology of neo-Bolshevism enslavement. Eastasia is a blood ritual death cult with morally abhorrent practices that set no value on human life. In today’s world, this group pushes concepts like global warming caused by humans and Gaia worship.
False-flag operations: Winston’s girlfriend, Julia, is convinced that the perpetual bombing of London is merely a false-flag operation designed to convince the populace that a war is occurring.
Superstate Wars: Fought over the capture and use of slave labor, human trafficking and selling the population drugs. Perpetual war consumes human labor and commodities so that the economy of a superstate cannot support economic equality, with a high standard of life for every citizen. By using up most of the produced goods, the proles are kept poor and uneducated.
Proles are the masses outside of the control network. They have liberal sex lives, rampant degeneracy and constant entertainment undisturbed by the Crime Syndicate, who also profit off of it. Divorce and prostitution are permitted. The proles live in poverty and are kept sedated with alcohol, drugs, pornography and a national lottery. Consumer goods are of low quality and rarely last long. Proles are viewed as marginal economic units and are generally completely disregarded and ignored by the kakistocracy.
An “unperson” is someone who has been vaporized. Vaporization is when a person is secretly murdered and erased from society, the present, the universe and existence.
The Party Youth League is the new generation of citizens. They have no memory of life before Big Brother and have no family ties or emotional sentiment. It’s the model society envisioned by the Crime Syndicate.
“Ownlife” is the principle that a Party member is expected to have no free time. Big Brother wishes for Party members to always be at work or taking part in some kind of communal recreation when they are not eating or sleeping. Solitude is frowned upon.
“Memory holes” are the alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing books, documents, photographs, video, transcripts or other records, such as from a website or other archive, particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression that something never happened.
Quote from “1984”: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified…”
The Ministry of Truth (Minitrue) oversees propaganda and memory holing. The main character, Winston Smith, works in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth as an editor, negating historical records to make the past conform to the ever-changing Party line and deleting references to unpersons (people who have been “vaporised,” i.e. not only killed by the state but denied existence even in history or memory).
Internalizing 1984: Completely buying into the lies. The method of 1984 is imbalancing the neocortex of the brain. This is the brain’s higher level executive control center. Once diminished, people are being made into two types of polarized creatures: dominators and those willing to capitulate to domination – in other words, slave owners and slaves.
For example, Winston’s neighbor Parsons praises his 7-year-old daughter for turning him in to the Party for being a thought-criminal.
As Ivor Cummins demonstrates in the video below, available data reveal lockdowns have been completely ineffective at lowering positive test rates, while extracting a huge cost in terms of human suffering and societal health.
All of the reports and studies reviewed in his video are also available on his website, TheFatEmperor.com.1
To that long list of evidences, we can add yet another report from Canadian pediatric infectious disease specialist Dr. Ari Joffe, which shows lockdown harms are about 10 times greater than the benefits.2
In his 51-page paper,3 “COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink,” Joffe reviews how and why initial modeling predictions failed to match reality, what the collateral damage of lockdown policies have been, and what cost-benefit analyses tell us about the efficacy of the lockdown strategy.
Mortality Predictions Were Staggeringly Wrong
While initial models predicted 510,000 Britons, 2.2 million Americans and 40 million people worldwide would end up dead from COVID-19 unless suppression tactics such as lockdowns were implemented at least two-thirds of the time for the next two years,4 such prognostications have turned out to be complete hogwash.
As noted by Joffe, the lethality of SARS-CoV-2 was quickly shown to be nowhere near as high as the 2% to 3% initially predicted. He writes:5
“The WHO recently estimated that about 10% of the global population may have been already infected, which, with a world population of 7.8 billion, and 1.16 million deaths, would make a rough approximation of IFR [infection fatality rate] as 0.15% …
A serology-informed estimate of the IFR in Geneva, Switzerland put the IFR at: age 5-9 years 0.0016%, 10-19 years 0.00032%, 20-49 years 0.0092%, 50-64 years 0.14%, and age 65+ outside of assisted care facilities 2.7%, for an overall population IFR 0.32%.
Similarly, a large study from France found an inflection point in IFR around the age of 70 years … By far the most important risk factor is older age. There is a ~1000-fold difference in death risk for people >80 years old versus children.”
Herd Immunity Threshold Vastly Overestimated
Modelers were also incorrect when they predicted that 70% to 80% would get infected before herd immunity would naturally allow the spread of infection to taper off.
In reality, the herd immunity threshold has turned out to be far lower, which removes the justification for social distancing and lockdowns. More than a dozen scientists now claim the herd immunity threshold is likely below 50%,6 perhaps even as low as 10%.7,8
Data from Stockholm County, Sweden, show a herd immunity threshold of 17%.9 In an essay, Brown University professor Dr. Andrew Bostom noted:10
“Lead investigator Dr. Gomes, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and her colleagues concluded: ‘naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may place populations over the herd immunity threshold once as few as 10-20% of its individuals are immune.’11
Separate HIT [herd immunity threshold] calculations of 9%,12 10-20%,13 17%,14 and 43%15,16 — each substantially below the dogmatically asserted value of ~70%17 — have been reported by investigators from Tel-Aviv University, Oxford University, University College of London, and Stockholm University, respectively.”
How could they get this so wrong? Herd immunity is calculated using reproductive number, or R-naught (R0), which is the estimated number of new infections that may occur from one infected person.18
R0 of below 1 (with R1 meaning that one person who’s infected is expected to infect one other person) indicates that cases are declining while R0 above 1 suggests cases are on the rise.
It’s far from an exact science, however, as a person’s susceptibility to infection varies depending on many factors, including their health, age and contacts within a community.
The initial R0 calculations for COVID-19’s herd immunity threshold were based on assumptions that everyone has the same susceptibility and would be mixing randomly with others in the community.
That doesn’t happen in real life though. According to professor Karl Friston, a statistician, “effective susceptible population,” meaning those not already immune to COVID-19 and therefore at risk of infection, was never 100%. At most, it was 50% and most likely only around 20%.19
Despite the mounting of such data, and the clear knowledge that lockdowns were causing unimaginable harm to mental health, physical health, education and local economies, lockdowns were repeatedly implemented in various parts of the world.
The initial modeling report from the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team actually admitted it did “not consider the ethical or economic implications” of the pandemic measures proposed, noting only that “The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound.”
Today, we have a much better grasp on just how profound the social and economic effects have in fact been, and they’re devastating.
Stark Reality Facing Off Against Fiction
When we consider the path forward, it’s important to separate the fiction created and promulgated by Imperial College modelers and other doomsday prophets within our government and various health agencies, from more objective, reality-based data.
The fact that lockdowns are still being implemented tells us they’re still operating based on fictional assumptions. The answer is to push back with real-world data and refuse to acquiesce to fantasy doomsday scenarios.
We also need to insist on formal cost-benefit analyses. To this day, no government has presented such an analysis to the public, which is what prompted Joffe to investigate the matter. As noted by Joffe in an interview with Toronto Sun columnist Anthony Furey:20
“Since lockdowns are a public health intervention, aiming to improve the population wellbeing, we must consider both benefits of lockdowns, and costs of lockdowns on the population wellbeing.
Once I became more informed, I realized that lockdowns cause far more harm than they prevent … Emerging data has shown a staggering amount of so-called ‘collateral damage’ due to the lockdowns.”
Essentially, Joffe’s paper is the cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns that should have at least been attempted before being implemented worldwide and then kept in place for months on end. In his interview with Furey, Joffe explains his approach:23
“In the cost-benefit analysis I consider the benefits of lockdowns in preventing deaths from COVID-19, and the costs of lockdowns in terms of the effects of the recession, loneliness, and unemployment on population wellbeing and mortality.
I did not consider all of the other so-called ‘collateral damage’ of lockdowns mentioned above. It turned out that the costs of lockdowns [in Canada] are at least 10 times higher than the benefits. That is, lockdowns cause far more harm to population wellbeing than COVID-19 can.”
A primary benefit of the lockdowns was supposed to be the prevention of COVID-19 deaths. As detailed in Joffe’s report,24 “Using the age distribution of deaths and comorbidities, in the U.K. the average person who died due to COVID-19 had 3 to 5 healthy years left to live.”
That’s a Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) score of 3 to 5, which equates to a Wellbeing Years (WELLBY) score of 18 to 30.
Joffe presents data showing that lockdowns “saved” 58.5 QALY or 360 million WELLBY, at most, seeing how herd immunity threshold and infection fatality rates are far lower than predicted. Joffe suspects the total number of deaths actually prevented by lockdowns is fewer than 5.2 million.
Meanwhile, the cost of the lockdowns in the U.K., in terms of WELLBY, is five times greater than might optimistically be saved, and may in reality be anywhere from 50 times to 87 times greater.
As mentioned by Joffe in the interview quote above, the cost for lockdowns in Canada is at least 10 times greater than the benefit. In his report, he cites data showing that in Australia, the minimum cost is 6.6 times higher, and in the U.S., the cost is estimated to be at least 5.2 times higher than the benefit of lockdowns.
A cost-benefit analysis performed for New Zealand, which looked at the cost of adding just five extra days of “COVID-19 alert level 4” found the cost in QALY was 94.9 times higher than the benefit.
In his report, Joffe also cites research estimating that in order to “break even and make a radical containment and eradication policy worthwhile,” the infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 would need to be 7.8%.25
No matter how many non-COVID deaths are falsely attributed to COVID-19, you’re not going to reach that level of lethality, which means lockdowns are robbing the population of more life than the virus.
CDC Inflated COVID-19 Deaths By 1,670%, Violated Fed Law
Indeed, according to an October 2020 peer-reviewed study26,27 by the Public Health Policy Initiative of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention inflated COVID-19 mortality statistics by 1,670%, yet we’re still nowhere near a fatality ratio of 7.8%.
According to that study, the CDC appears to have violated federal law, including the Information Quality Act in Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 and the Paperwork Reduction Act codified at 44 USC 3501, and by doing so, the CDC was able to bypass essential oversight by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
It’s an eye-opening report, which I encourage you to read through. It can offer a sobering reality check if you’re still worried. For example, on page 20, there’s a graph comparing the COVID-19 fatalities based on the CDC’s illegally updated reporting guidelines, against the fatality count had they continued using the guidelines that had been in use for the past 17 years.
As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported a COVID-19 death toll of 161,392. Meanwhile, the more accurate fatality rate, using the standard reporting guidelines that had been in place since 2003, was a mere 9,684.
No matter what data sets we look at, we find that the COVID-19 pandemic has been grossly overhyped and kept alive long past its natural expiration date.
Joffe answers these questions in his interview with Furey, stating:28
“[The] initial modelling and forecasting were inaccurate. This led to a contagion of fear and policies across the world. Popular media focused on absolute numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths independent of context. There has been a sheer one-sided focus on preventing infection numbers.
The economist Paul Frijters wrote that it was ‘all about seeming to reduce risks of infection and deaths from this one particular disease, to the exclusion of all other health risks or other life concerns.’
Fear and anxiety spread, and we elevated COVID-19 above everything else that could possibly matter.
Our cognitive biases prevented us from making optimal policy: we ignored hidden ‘statistical deaths’ reported at the population level, we preferred immediate benefits to even larger benefits in the future, we disregarded evidence that disproved our favorite theory, and escalated our commitment in the set course of action …
Each day in non-pandemic years over 21,000 people die from tobacco use, 3,600 from pneumonia and diarrhea in children under 5-years-old, and 4,110 from Tuberculosis. We need to consider the tragic COVID-19 numbers in context.
I believe that we need to take an ‘effortful pause’ and reconsider the information available to us. We need to calibrate our response to the true risk, make rational cost-benefit analyses of the trade-offs, and end the lockdown groupthink.”
He repeats these sentiments in his report, in which he stresses the need to focus on protecting those at highest risk for severe COVID-19 and death thereof. This includes:
• Hospitalized patients • Nursing home residents • Crowded institutions such as homeless shelters, prisons and any large gathering • People over the age of 70, especially if they have severe comorbidities
In these instances, universal masking and other infectious control strategies are warranted, Joffe says. The rest of the population can and should go back to normal life.
Certainly, people should not be universally treated as high risk. The closing of schools, for example, is likely to have far-reaching and devastating consequences that are completely unnecessary. As noted by Joffe:29
“We need to keep schools open because children have very low morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, and (especially those 10 years and younger) are less likely to be infected by, and have a low likelihood to be the source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.”
In my newest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” I investigate the origins of this virus and how the elite use it to slowly erode your personal liberty and freedom. I’ll also show how you can protect yourself against this disease and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic overlords.
There is no greater natural resource on this earth than water. As the sustenance of all life, water keeps every living and breathing organism, every plant, every animal and every human being on this planet alive. In the same way that without air to breathe, without water we humans cannot sustain life for more than a few days.
Due to global warming, widespread drought and increasingly polluted water systems, the projected availability of clean freshwater in years to come to meet the rising demands of a growing global population is among the most daunting human challenges of this century. By 2015 a 17% increase in global water demand was projected just for increasing agriculturally produced food. By the same year 2025, the growing global population will increase water consumption needs by a whopping 40%. While oil played the keenly critical role during the twentieth century, water is being deemed the most valued precious natural resource of the twenty-first century.
As such, several years ago the United Nations declared access to clean drinking water a universal human right. Conversely, willfully denying it is considered a serious human rights violation that denies life itself. And any calculated decision denying people their universal right to life is nothing short of a murderous, shameful crime against humanity.
Despite the human air pollution that has long been dirtying our lungs, while also causing global warming, climate change and increasing catastrophic natural disasters, not to mention the growing global health hazard for us humans, the very thought of making clean air a precious commodity that can opportunistically be packaged and sold by the same corporations that have been ruining our air, that very notion would instantly be criticized, scorned and ridiculed.
Yet that is exactly what has been happening for the last thirty years now all over this planet with the earth’s preciously dwindling freshwater drinking supply. The World Bank has been financing global privatization of the earth’s water supply making clean water that is so necessary for survival an unaffordable private commodity for the poorest people on earth to even access. They are literally dying of thirst and disease because of greedy psychopathic corporate profiteers once again placing theft and greed over human welfare and life itself.
But then that is the globalist agenda – thinning the human herd down from near seven billion currently to as low as just half a billion. That means 13 out of 14 of us alive today according to their diabolical oligarch plan simply must die within the next few years. And what better way to rapidly kill off the human population than taking full ownership and control over the earth’s limited diminishing water supply.
More people on this planet are dying presently from waterborne disease from dirty water than are dying from all wars and violence worldwide combined. Every hour 240 babies die from unsafe water. 1.5 million children under five years of age die every year from cholera and typhoid fever due to unsanitary water conditions. These incredibly sad, alarming facts illustrate just how significant and critical a clean freshwater supply is to staying alive on this planet. Taking control over the earth’s clean water supply is achieved by turning water into a privately owned commodity that only the largest corporations and banks control. Simply making water unaffordable and thereby inaccessible to the poorest people on the planet is one extremely effective, albeit most sinister way to reduce the so called overpopulation problem.
Three primary ways that the human population decreases significantly every year is death caused by starvation and malnutrition (including lack of drinkable water) at between seven to eight millionpeople, diseases that kill between two to three million (with mounting threats of infectious diseases becoming pandemics) and upwards of near a half million dying each year from war.
Behind closed doors oligarchic globalists periodically meet and discuss what is best for humanity and the planet according to them and their megalomaniacal self-interests. For many years now this all important topic of water privatization and control as a convenient and most effective means of addressing the overpopulation problem has been regularly tabled for discussion… along with related topics like geo-engineering, GMO’s, vaccines, overuse of antibiotics, planned wars over oil and water, devising global policies designed to increase political destabilization, poverty and undermine economies, nuclear radiation and a host of other means for culling the human population.
Time Magazine reported how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been financing research at the University of North Carolina among 78 others to develop ultrasound infertility contraception techniques to sterilize male sperm. At a 2010 TED conference Bill Gates spoke openly of depopulating the total of 6.8 billion people living on earth by up to “10 to 15%” using both of his heavily funded vaccine and contraception programs that will render much of the global population infertile. Meanwhile, billionaire Ted Turner went even further, offering his public opinion to decrease the world population by 70% down to “two billion.” It too is on tape.
Calls to begin sterilizing the human population began surfacing back in the mid-1970’s with Henry Kissinger as former Secretary of State and high ranking Bilderberg member in his declassified National Security Council document (1974) entitled “The Implications of World-wide PopulationGrowth on the Security and External Interests of the United States.” This document emphasized highest priority given to implementing birth control programs targeting thirteen Third World nations mostly in South America. Extraordinary resources were allocated through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) pushing the carrot stick of additional financial aid to countries willing to enact sterilization and depopulation programs.Water Is Life – They Are Stealing Our Livelihood and We Aren’t Even Noticing
More overt evidence of the callous contempt that globalist oligarchs have toward us 99%-ers is captured in a statement written by Prince Phillip, Queen Elizabeth II’s husband in the forward of his book, “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus” to reduce the human population. It seems readily discernable that an explicit globalist agenda for a New World Order openly propagated with repeated references by President Goerge Bush senior includes depopulation through various means, water control through privatization just one of many in the power elite’s arsenal.
Humans have been dying from lack of clean water for a long time now and will only continue dying at an even greater frequency if the plan to privatize water continues to unfold unchecked and without opposition. Fortunately forces have been mobilizing to combat water privatization. Just last week on the heels of the World Bank annual convening in Washington DC for several days ofconferencing, an international coalition of anti-privatization water rights groups from India and America sent a formal message calling on the World Bank to end its destructive practice of privatizing water around the world under the guise of developmental progress. The Bank’s DC meetings had been touting lies and disinformation in an attempt to paint a glowing report showcasing the so called efficacy and successes that turning water rights over to the private sector have accomplished in recent years. The World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) as the planet’s largest funding source for water privatization provides loans and financing to Third World nations for private water management companies to take charge of municipal, regional and national water rights.
The director of a global advocacy group called Corporate Accountability International, Shayda Naficy, pointed out that 75% of expenses for running a water utility company should go to infrastructure. In nation after nation private companies have placed the priority of making a profit over the need to invest in necessary infrastructure to connect and adequately service water customers. In efforts to maximize cost efficiency as well as profits, water prices invariably go up and fast become out of reach for poorest customers. Cutting off the water supply to thousands of low income families unable to pay for their rising costs has become the all too frequent inevitable result. The World Bank’s 34 percent failure rate for all private water and sewerage contracts between 2000 and 2010 far surpasses its single digit failure rates in the telecommunications, energy and transportation industries.
Critics maintain that the public sector is far more accountable to its public constituents than private sector businesses that only answer to its board of directors to show sufficient profits. Corruption becomes commonplace. Additionally, a conflict of interest exists when the IFC acts as both a money lender and consultant to foreign municipalities in assigning no bid contracts to favored private water utility companies.
To best illustrate typical scenarios where water privatization is either not working or already proved a failure deserve close examination. The good news is that in recent years people in various parts of the world have been mobilizing successful efforts and campaigns to stop water privatization in their own backyards. Presently in a number of regions in India, citizens are banding together to confront and fight the myriad of problems with water privatization in their country.
Recently in Nagpur, central India’s largest city where the country’s first municipal partnership with a private utility company is being played out, major tensions have erupted. Three years ago the city signed a 25-year contract with Veolia Water to supply the city of 2.7 million residents with 24 hour-7-days a week water service. Instead unforeseen delays driving up prices manyfold along with unfair water distribution and frequent service breakdowns have led to widespread angry protests in the streets and charges of corruption. City officials point to a series of serious contract violations. Again cutting corners by refusing to invest in the needed infrastructure appears to be the primary cause for this failed project. The Corporate Accountability International’s 2012 report called “Shutting the Spigot on Private Water: The Case for the World Bank to Divest” cites a number of similar cases where privatization has proven ineffective.
Bold and empowered citizens in Bolivia in the year 2000 made headlines around the globe when they were victorious in kicking out privatized water there in the form of the Bechtel, the fifth largest private corporation on the planet. Impassioned protestors in Bolivia’s third-largest city managed to oppose Bechtel’s increasing prices and demanded that the company abandon its hold on their city’s municipal water supply, eventually driving the powerful scandalous giant out of the country. Though big business efforts to buy and control water rights in many Latin American nations have each had their turn in nations like Equator and Brazil, only Chile water services are privatized. Ultimately local residents virtually everywhere privatization has attempted to take hold has been met with such strong resistance from consumers who realize their private utility company has failed miserably in delivering quality service at affordable prices.
The story is always the same. That is why advocacy groups like Corporate Accountability International is proactively working toward educating governments and citizens worldwide to ensure water remains under the public domain. The exhaustive and expensive legal process of ending long term contracts and successfully removing privatized foreign corporations once established in a city, state or country is formidable. It is obviously in the best interests of people around the world to ensure privatization of their water supply never gets a local foothold in the first place.
Nestlé corporation’s marketing campaign targeted wealthy Pakistanis in Lahore, and its brand of bottled water ‘Pure Life’ became a status symbol for the rich. To bottle its product, Nestlé busily dried up local underground springs that subsequently caused the village poor unable to buy the bottled water stolen from their springs to end up consuming contaminated water. Nestlé went on to extracting water from two deep wells in Bhati Dilwan village, forcing them to turn to bottled water. A similar story emerged from Nigeria where a single bottled water exceeds the average daily income of a Nigerian citizen. Nestlé is notorious for draining local water supplies used to bottle its water brands, then charge unaffordable prices to the local population whose clean water supply was stolen from them.
Corporate Watch released a report exposing some of the unethical and illegal practices that Nestlé has long been committing around the globe, completely disregarding public health concerns while destroying natural environments to ensure huge annual profits of $35 billion just from water bottle sales alone. In Brazil’s Serra da Mantiqueira region where the groundwater is rich in mineral content containing medicinal properties, over-pumping has depleted its valuable water resources and caused permanent damage to the natural environment. and long-term damage.
Nestlé has also allegedly been involved in human trafficking of child slave labor. A BBC investigative report claimed that “hundreds of thousands of children in Mali, Burkina Faso and Togo were being purchased from their destitute parents and shipped to the Ivory Coast to be sold as slaves to cocoa farms.” Yet Nestlé likely bought the cocoa from the Ivory Coast and Ghana knowing it was produced using child slaves.
Finally, Nestlé owns or leases fifty spring sites throughout America. Nestlé controls a third of the domestic market for bottled water in the US. The company is notorious for unlawful extraction of spring water while engaging in price-gouging and reeking havoc in numerous communities. An example of the trouble Nestlé typically causes is Colorado where 80% of the citizens of Aurora were opposed to Nestlé’s presence, fully aware of the company’s terrible reputation for damaging communities and natural environments. Yet the city council voted in favor 7 to 4 to let the devastation begin and over the next decade Nestlé extracted 650 million gallons of precious Arkansas River valley water that went into its Arrowhead Springs brand of bottled water. For years the embattled townspeople of Aurora fought to rid the company predator from destroying their precious aquifers. Additionally, the plastic non-biodegradable bottles are major pollutants that stay toxically intact for a full millennium.
The cumulative grave effects of privatizing water as a global commodity are appalling. The underprivileged residents of Jakarta, Manila and Nairobi pay 5 to 10 times more for water than those living in high-income areas of those same cities. People living in the Third World slums even pay more for water than upscale New Yorkers and Londoners. This kind of unfairness and inequity is obscene. Women in places in Africa where privatized water is beyond their limit walk miles to obtain dirty water from rivers and then too often die along with their children from contamination and disease. Asian farmers are losing their livelihoods if they are unable to receive state funded irrigation. The human suffering caused globally by wealthy private corporations from North America and Europe exploiting people from Third World nations for pure profit is nothing less than pure psychopathic evil.
Taking on global privatization of water for the well being and greater good of the people is but an example of the monumental work that needs to be done. Only if informed, caring and committed human beings collectively come together worldwide to take a global stand against this gravest of life and death issues facing humanity can this oligarch agenda be stopped dead in its tracks. As global human rights activists it is up to us to end the global corporate malevolence and malfeasance from further damaging and afflicting our planet like never before. With the recent formal finding that Americans no longer live in a democracy but an oligarchy, as if we did not already painfully know, it becomes even more “formally” imperative now that we as ordinary citizens of the world take the vested interest in preserving life on our only planet before it becomes too late. It is high time we take back our planet once and for all from the oligarchic corporatocracy bent on insidiously making our earthly home increasingly uninhabitable for all life forms.
Mass extinction of plant and animal species that have thrived on this planet for millions of years is silently, invisibly taking place every single day right before our eyes. At ever-perilous stake now is our own human species as well as all living species inhabiting this earth, suffering at the hands of national governments that have corruptly co-opted with the banking cabal-owned transnational corporations and for too many decades been systematically destroying the richly diverse natural ecosystems of all earthly life forms on an unprecedented scale.
Since governmental co-opting with global fortune 500 corporations has been polluting and poisoning the earth’s skies, its waters, food sources and seeds for so long, global theft and destruction has us humans and all life forms teetering now on the brink of complete self-annihilation and extinction, human-induced for the first time on a massive never before seen scale. It is time to hold the oligarchy in the form of corporations responsible for all the damage they have reeked on this earth. No more grotesque “Abama-nations” of bank and Wall Street bailouts at taxpayer expense. Since the 99% in debt to the hilt have been squeezed dry, while the 1% have made this planet nearly unlivable as the only ones filthily richly profiting from their plundering this earth, the transnationals are the sole entities with the financial capital and means to clean up the very mess they created. It is only fair then that after an entire century of mucking the planet up at our expense, that they now need to finally be held accountable for repairing the destruction they directly caused and obscenely profited from.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former Army officer. His written manuscript based on his military experience examines leadership and national security issues and can be consulted at http://www.redredsea.net/westpointhagopian/. After the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in psychology and became a licensed therapist working in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now focuses on writing.
It’s quite clear to see for anybody who is doing deep research into the COVID pandemic that there is a big split within the scientific/ medical community as to whether or not the measures being taken by governments around the world, like lockdowns, masking and social distancing are appropriate, effective and necessary.
It’s quite a concern to many that doctors and scientists who oppose the views and perception being given to us by mainstream media about the pandemic are largely ignored and censored.
Somebody like Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, can receive instant virality yet thousands of scientists and experts in the field who disagree seem to be ignored, censored and never really given the light of day to share their research, data, and opinions.
This was recently expressed by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine in an article written for The Hill titled “Facts, not fear, will stop the pandemic.”
In that article he expresses that the case fatality rate from the virus has dropped sharply since March, and that it’s now 99.95 percent for people under the age of 70 and 95 percent for people over the age of 70.
He also recently expressed this fact on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Network conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner, who interviews leading researchers and thinkers in health care about their JAMA articles.
Bhattacharya cited this study published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, along with approximately 50 others as expressed in the video interview.
In the article he wrote for The Hill, he points out a number of facts regarding the implications of lockdown measures.
The media have paid scant attention to the enormous medical and psychological harms from the lockdowns in use to slow the pandemic. Despite the enormous collateral damage lockdowns have caused, England, France, Germany, Spain and other European countries are all intensifying their lockdowns once again.
By lockdowns, we mean the all-too-familiar shuttered schools and universities, closed playgrounds and parks, silent churches and bankrupt stores and businesses that have become emblematic of American civic life these past months.
The relative dearth of reporting on the harms caused by lockdowns is odd, since lives lost from lockdown are no less important than lives lost from COVID infection. But they’ve received much less media attention.
The harms from lockdown have been catastrophic. Consider the psychological harm. Reader, since you’re reading this in lockdown, you can undoubtedly relate to the isolation and loneliness that these policies can cause by shutting down typical channels for social interaction.
In June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that one in four young adults had seriously considered suicide. Opioid and other drug related deaths are on a sharp and unsurprising upswing.
Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation, 80 million children at risk for diphtheria, measles and polio, and 1.8 million patients at risk of death from tuberculosis.
The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID.
Criticism of lockdowns has been a common theme. Early on during the first wave of the pandemic, a report published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″ has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May.
A response by Professor David Paton, Professor of Economics at the University of Nottingham and Professor Ellen Townsend, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Nottingham School of Medicine, to an article published in the the BMJ in November titled “Screening the healthy population for covid-19 is of unknown value, but is being introduced worldwide” states,
Taken together, the data are clear both that national lockdowns are not a necessary condition for Covid-19 infections to decrease and that the Prime Minister was incorrect to suggest to MPs that infections were increasing rapidly in England prior to lockdown and that without national measures, the NHS would be overwhelmed…
Lockdowns have never previously been used in response to a pandemic. They have significant and serious consequences for health (including mental health), livelihoods and the economy.
Around 21,000 excess deaths during the first UK lockdown were not Covid-19 deaths. These are people who would have lived had there not been a lockdown.
It is well established that the first lockdown had an enormously negative effect on mental health in young people as compared to adults.
The more we lockdown, the more we risk the mental health of young people, the greater the likelihood the economy will be destroyed, the greater the ultimate impact on our future health and mental health.
Sadly, we know that global economic recession is associated with increased poor mental health and suicide rates.
According to a recent study published in Pediatrics, lockdown and social distancing measures are strongly correlated with an increase in suicidal thoughts, attempts and behaviour.
According to Dr. John Lee, a former Professor of Pathology and NHS consultant pathologist,
Lockdowns cannot eradicate the disease or protect the public…They lead to only economic meltdown, social despair and direct harms to health from other causes…Scientifically, medically and morally lockdowns have no justification in dealing with Covid.
These facts and many others are what inspired Bhattacharya, along with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology to create The Great Barrington Declaration.
The declaration strongly opposes lockdown measures that are being and have been put in place by various governments around the globe. The declaration has an impressive list of co-signers from renowned doctors and professors in the field from around the world, and now has nearly 50,000 signatures from doctors and scientists. The declaration also has approximately 660,000 signatures from concerned citizens.
In the article they argue that, “In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.”
According to the AIER,
The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population.
AIER gathered data that was put together by engineer Ivor Cummins Ivor Cummins but has also added its own in the summary they posted, which you can see below.
The studies are focused only on lockdown measures and they “do not get into the myriad of associated issues that have vexed the world such as mask mandates, PCR-testing issues, death misclassification problem, or any particular issues associated with travel restrictions, restaurant closures, and hundreds of other particulars about which whole libraries will be written in the future.”
You can access those studies posted by the AIER here.
Other concerns with regards to lockdowns are the fact that they are based on “positive” results from a PCR test. Just because a person, especially an asymptomatic person, tests positive does not mean they have COVID. We seem to be forgetting this.
For example, 22 researchers have put out a paper explaining why, according to them, it’s quite clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases. As a result we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives.
The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe recently stated that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent false positives. This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it.
In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50%.
There are many examples, the list goes on and on and you can read more about that specifically here.
Although deaths are currently running at normal levels, fear is being driven by inflation of Covid “ases” caused by inappropriate use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test. This test is hypersensitive and highly susceptible to contamination, particularly when not processed with utmost rigour by properly trained staff. Case inflation also occurs from use of excessive number number of rounds of amplification cycles (termed CT) which amplifies non-infectious viral fragments and cross-reacting nucleotides from non-Covid coronaviruses/other respiratory viruses. These become mis-labelled as Covid.
Even Dr. Fauci confirms that a positive result using CT above 34 is invalid. An obvious improvement is to immediately halt any use of CTs above 34 and ensure that or CTs between 25 and 34, two consecutive positive results are required before confirming a case as Covid positive. – Eshani M King, Evidence Based Research in Immunology and Health, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, UK. (Source, BMJ)
Many concerns have also been raised about the death count, with various public health authorities admitting to counting deaths as COVID when they’re not actually a result of COVID. For example, Ontario (Canada) public health clearly states that deaths will be marked as COVID deaths whether or not it’s clear if COVID was the cause or contributed to the death. This means that those who did not die as a result of COVID are included in the death count. You can read more about that and see many more examples, here.
The ease to which people could be terrorised into surrendering basic freedoms which are fundamental to our existence..came as a shock to me…History will look back on measures – as a monument of collective hysteria & government folly.” – Jonathan Sumption, former British supreme court justice. (source)
The Takeaway Implementation of the current draconian measures that so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. –Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.
Why is there so much suppression of science and scientists who oppose the narrative and information being put out by the World Health Organization?
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)
Why is there a digital fact-checker going around the internet censoring information?
Should people not have the right to examine information, publications and evidence transparently, openly and determine for themselves what they wish to believe?
Why are government health authorities not consulting with independent scientific organizations to determine the right course of action during this pandemic?
Why do tens of thousands of doctors and scientists oppose the measures being taken by our governments?
Do we really want to give these entities so much power that they can basically do whatever they choose against the will of so many people? Do governments even represent the will of the people and have our best interests at heart or is something else going on here? Why do we as a society fail to have proper discussions about controversial topics? Why are controversial stances that go against the grain always labelled as a “conspiracy theory” and ridiculed by mainstream media no matter how strong the evidence is behind them?
“Freedom faces a new enemy. The tyranny comes under the disguise of expert rule and benevolent dictatorship. The new rulers do not justify their right to dominance because of divine providence but now claim the right to rule the people in the name of universal health and safety based on presumed scientific evidence.”
…Under the leadership of Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, twenty-six nations agreed in January 1942 to the initiative of establishing a United Nations Organization (UNO), which came into existence on October 24, 1945.
Since its inception, the United Nations and its branches, such as the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO), have prepared the countries of the world… [for] a world government…
The next decisive step toward the global economic transformation was taken with the first report of the Club of Rome.
In 1968, the Club of Rome was initiated at the Rockefeller estate Bellagio in Italy. Its first report was published in 1972 under the title “The Limits to Growth.”
The president emeritus of the Club of Rome, Alexander King, and the secretary of the club, General Bertrand Schneider, inform in their Report to the Council of Rome that when the members of the club were in search of identifying a new enemy, they listed pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famines as the most opportune items to be blamed on humanity with the implication that humanity itself must be reduced to keep these threats in check.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (Read more)
Since the 1990s, several comprehensive initiatives toward a global system of control have been undertaken by the United Nations with Agenda 2021 and Agenda 2030.
The 2030 Agenda was adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015. It launched its blueprint for global change with the call to achieve seventeen sustainable development goals (SDGs).
The key concept is “sustainable development” that includes population control as a crucial instrument. Saving the earth has become the slogan of green policy warriors.
Since the 1970s, the horror scenario of global warming has been a useful tool in their hands to gain political influence and finally rule over public discourse.
In the meanwhile, these anti-capitalist groups have obtained a dominant influence in the media, the educational and judicial systems, and have become major players in the political arena.
Also read: The United Nations Agenda To Take Over The World
In many countries, particularly in Europe, the so-called green parties have become a pivotal factor in the political system.
Many of the representatives are quite open in their demands to make society and the economy compatible with high ecological standards that require a profound reset of the present system.
In 1945, [Julian] Huxley noted that it is too early to propose outright a eugenic depopulation program but advised that it will be important for the organization “to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
Huxley’s caution is no longer necessary.
In the meantime, the branches of the United Nations have gained such a level of power that even originally minor UN sub-organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have been enabled to command individual governments around the world to obey their orders.
The WHO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – whose conditionality for loans has changed from fiscal restraint to the degree to which a country follows the rules set by the WHO – have become the supreme tandem to work toward establishing the new world order.
As Julian Huxley pointed out in his discourse in 1945, it is the task of the United Nations to do away with economic freedom, because “laisser-faire and capitalist economic systems” have “created a great deal of ugliness” (p. 38).
The time has come to work toward the emergence “of a single world culture” (p. 61).
This must be done with the explicit help of the mass media and the educational systems.
BIG UPDATES: 3rd filing found with UNDENIABLE PRE-PLANNING EVIDENCE!
As we’ve shown in previous exposes, the whole Covidiocracy is a masquerade and a simulation long prepared by The World Bank / IMF / The Rothschilds / World Economic Forum (basically the world’s “elite”, the 0.1%) and their lemmings, with Rockefeller partnership.
Our newest discoveries further these previous revelations.
A method is provided for acquiring and transmitting biometric data (e.g., vital signs) of a user, where the data is analyzed to determine whether the user is suffering from a viral infection, such as COVID-19.
The method includes using a pulse oximeter to acquire at least pulse and blood oxygen saturation percentage, which is transmitted wirelessly to a smartphone.
To ensure that the data is accurate, an accelerometer within the smartphone is used to measure movement of the smartphone and/or the user.
Once accurate data is acquired, it is uploaded to the cloud (or host), where the data is used (alone or together with other vital signs) to determine whether the user is suffering from (or likely to suffer from) a viral infection, such as COVID-19.
Depending on the specific requirements, the data, changes thereto, and/or the determination can be used to alert medical staff and take corresponding actions.
ONE KEY DETAIL STRUCK ME ON THESE REGISTRATIONS: Both were filed and updated years ago, but they were SCHEDULED to be made public in September 2020. This is sufficient evidence that they knew in 2015 what’s going to happen in September 2020!
So how did Mr. Richard A. Rothschild know to create a system and method for testing for a disease that didn’t exist, and know exactly how the disease will be called, including the year in which the disease will be discovered? Another bombshell fact: Millions of COVID-19 Test Kits Have Been Sold in 2017 and 2018
Data from the World Integrated Trade Solution, however, shows something astonishing:
“in 2017 and 2018 – two years before COVID-19 – hundreds of millions of test kits for COVID-19 were distributed worldwide.”
Two years before the outbreak of COVID-19 the USA, the EU, China and nations around the world started exporting millions of diagnostic test instruments for… COVID-19, a disease that supposedly didn’t even exist back then.