Mismanagement Of The COVID-19 Crisis And The Collapse Of The 2020’s

Mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis has initiated a socioeconomic chain reaction that has only begun to play out. Nevertheless, this story has a silver lining: the chance to make the world a better place.

But it has to start with an honest assessment of how we got here, and point to a positive course of action…

mismanagement of the covid 19 crisis and the collapse of the 2020s

Imagine ten years ago if someone described to you what the world would look like as we entered the 2020’s. Would you have believed them?

Interesting times eh? It’s about to get a lot more interesting.

History will remember this decade as a critical turning point. The end of an era.

2020 was the year that ideas like this went mainstream. Headlines that used to be relegated to the lunatic fringe were now being promoted by the corporate media.

Credible economists warning that a banking crisisa sovereign debt crisis and ultimately a monetary crisis were on the horizon. Prominent researchers projecting more riots and unrest and potentially a civil war.

The U.N. calling for urgent action to avert a global food emergency.

And world leaders warning that military conflict between the United States and China “was no longer inconceivable”.

Then of course we had the COVID-19 debacle. Though the ‘authorities’ would blame the disease itself, it was their ill-conceived response that actually served as the catalyst.

Their short sighted policies initiated a chain reaction. Some consequences of this chain reaction are inevitable (like a bullet that has left the barrel of a gun). Others hang in the balance. There will not, however, be any going back to normal.

This story has a silver lining; a chance to make the world a better place. But it has to start with an honest assessment of how we got here, and point to a positive course of action.

In the winter of 2020 as COVID-19 went exponential a panic was spreading even faster.

Borders around the globe slammed shut in rapid succession and the vast majority of the world’s population was placed under some form of curfew or stay at home order.

Businesses deemed non-essential were shuttered.

Events cancelled.

Gatherings banned.

In some countries people weren’t even allowed outside to exercise.

The public accepted these policies at first because they were led to believe they would only last a few weeks.

But as weeks became months, and infections soared in spite of summer temperatures it became clear that the lockdowns were never going to eradicate this virus.

At best they would slow or delay the spread. And at what cost?

Those who hatched this plan had made no provision for a pandemic that would linger on for months or years. They didn’t even account for the socioeconomic chain reaction that the first round of lock downs would set in motion.

With businesses shuttered and movement highly restricted, millions were left unemployed virtually overnight. The scale and speed of these job losses broke all previous records. Even the great depression didn’t come close.

By the summer of 2020 flash points of violence and social unrest were flaring up in cities around the world. Pent up frustrations were building, for obvious reasons. Billions of people had just spent months locked in their houses.

Millions had been thrown into extreme poverty.

Most stress relieving activities had been banned: social gatherings, sports, time with friends at restaurants or bars… even places of worship were restricted. This was a powder keg waiting for a match.

Politicians obviously saw the danger in this equation. When millions of people are suddenly left hungry and homeless that’s a recipe for revolution. Something had to be done, and quickly. So they did something. Boy did they do something.

When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail, and the governments around the world were looking at a very, very large nail. The fiscal stimulus programs of 2020 were epic; absolutely off the charts. By June over 18 trillion had been disbursed globally.

Some of this stimulus came in the form of checks sent directly to every single taxpayer. In the U.S. these checks shipped with a autograph of Donald J. Trump… so you would know who to thank.

Unemployment benefits were also expanded in many countries. In the United States for example unemployed workers were given an extra 600 dollars a week. This meant that many were earning more staying home than they had been on the job. In fact personal income in the United States soared by 10.5 percent in April; the largest monthly increase ever recorded.

Then there were the forgivable loans – via the paycheck protection program and similar schemes around the world – which were supposed to help prop up small businesses. Some of these loans ended up being extended to some rather strange small businesses.

For example,

the Church of Scientology got a check, as did the Catholic Church which landed a nifty 1.4 billion (some of which was distributed directly to dioceses which were facing bankruptcy due to clergy sex abuse settlements).

In the U.K. their version of the program approved a loan of 340,000 pounds to a company that hosts sex parties for the rich and famous. Seriously…

You can’t make this shit up.

These policies were obviously going to send national debts parabolic, but the reckoning would be delayed. At least for a little while.

Central banks played a critical role in this delayed reckoning.

As the historic stock market crash of February 2020 was unfolding, the Federal Reserve and their counterparts abroad were swinging their hammers in new and creative ways; injecting liquidity (aka money) into the system via asset markets.

If you’ve never heard of Quantitative Easing (or QE) you might want to look that up. The short version is that when central banks purchase assets new money is created.

The money that is transferred to the asset holders account is literally typed into existence. These asset holders typically reinvest this new money, causing asset prices (including the stocks) to rise. Poor people don’t typically own these kinds of assets so it’s basically welfare for the rich.

And while it’s wonderful that we can provide a such a nice safety net for the upper crust of society it does have one little side effect: inflating markets with liquidity creates asset bubbles. It’s like filling up a water balloon more and more… till its so big you can see through it. Sooner or later it always pops.

It also has the effect of increasing wealth inequality… but that’s a feature not a bug.

The first round of QE started in 2009 after the housing bubble collapsed. Cutting interest rates to zero just wasn’t enough. 2020 brought us round four (affectionately referred to by some as QE Infinity).

In this round the Fed would take their liquidity experiment to a whole new level; buying financial assets never touched during QE1, 2, or 3 including corporate debt and etfs.

In one month they purchased more assets than they had during the entire first year following the 2009 crisis.

By the end of May,

they had over 7 trillion dollars worth sitting on their books.

This new money fueled the most powerful stock rally in history.

Retail investors piled in.

Even the stocks of companies that had declared bankruptcy were flying high.

What could possibly go wrong?

With unemployment numbers still hovering at great depression levels and hopes of a quick, V-shaped recovery evaporating, all eyes were on governments and central banks. The question was not if there would be more stimulus and money printing, the real question was how big it would be this time.

Would it be enough? No one seemed to be asking what would happen if they went too far.

Our fearless leaders had painted themselves into a corner at this point. If unemployment benefits, mortgage forbearance and eviction moratoriums weren’t extended, those in power would soon be facing millions of homelesshungry and angry people.

With violence and unrest already smoldering in many major cities, this would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. Extending these protections however, would not be without a price.

Eviction moratoriums and mortgage forbearance programs had temporarily prevented millions from being suddenly made homeless. But with no rent coming in, landlords would soon be defaulting on mortgages en masse, as would many homeowners and businesses.

This tsunami of defaults and bankruptcies would shake the foundations of the banking system, which would of course prompt further interventions.

But as governments and central banks reached for bigger and bigger bailout hammers a monetary reckoning was rapidly approaching. And the Dollar’s world reserve currency status was in play.

For decades the dollar’s world reserve currency status had enabled Washington to run up its national debt at everyone else’s expense, and punish any nation that didn’t tow the line with unilateral sanctions (they even sanctioned the ICC for investigating war crimes committed by the U.S. military).

This era of exorbitant privilege, however, was coming to an end.

A growing hub of powerful countries had organizing behind the scenes for years; the groundwork for a currency insurrection was already laid.

Russia and China were the driving forces of this insurrection.

For years,

both countries had aggressively increased gold reserves and offloaded U.S. debt in a gradual process of de-dollarization, however in 2018 they crossed the rubicon.

Russia by launching an alternative to the SWIFT payment system which allowed countries to bypass U.S. sanctions and China by introducing the PetroYuanwhich would compete directly with the petrodollar.

China was also in the process developing a digital currency (aka the e-Yuan) that bypassed the need for banks all together. Transfers relied only on an app on your phone.

By July of 2020 China was already testing this new currency at scale.

It was only a matter of time before the digital yuan would be competing with the U.S. dollar globally.

It was this emerging threat to the dollar that motivated Washington to lash out in a series of desperate and ill conceived provocations. For example the Hong Kong Autonomy act, which the U.S. congress passed with a veto proof margin and was signed by Trump on July 14th, represented a serious escalation.

By imposing sanctions on any individual, company or bank which did business with Chinese officials enforcing the new security law, this legislation set the stage for Washington to cut China’s access to the dollar; a move which would ultimately divide the world into Yuan and Dollar based currency blocs.

Spoiler alert: it doesn’t end well for Uncle Sam.

These economic provocations were accompanied by multiple rounds of good old fashion saber rattling.

On July 13th, of 2020 when the Trump administration announced that the U.S. had decided to reject nearly all of China’s claims in the South China Sea, what this really meant was that the U.S. was going to intentionally violate airspace and waters around the artificial islands China had built up in the disputed zone, essentially daring the Chinese to do something.

It’s worth noting that by this time these islands were fully militarized and operational; complete with ports, runways and other facilities that gave the Chinese a clear strategic advantage.

At this stage the rest of the world was beginning to suspect that Uncle Sam was experiencing some form of cognitive decline. He wasn’t playing four dimensional chess here. He didn’t even seem to be playing with a full deck.

This was like a drunk guy poking a tiger with a stick (probably not going to end well).

The provocations would continue on multiple fronts: embassies ordered to close, Chinese companies sanctioned or banned from operating in the U.S. Anything and everything connected to China was open game.

China condemned each of these provocations but they didn’t take the bait. Their response would come when was in their strategic interests. They would choose their own timing. If direct conflict could be averted long enough, the U.S. was likely to collapse on its own. The war could be won without firing a shot.

Thucydides Trap:

The high probability of war when an emerging power threatens the dominance of an international hegemon.

As often happens when a declining empire is faced with a ascending rival, the United States was rushing headlong into Thucydides trap.

Those in power tend to try to stay in power by any and all means.

When all else fails pick a fight.

Would it be China?

Iran?

Some country on Russia’s border?

Eeny, meeny, miny, mo…

Meanwhile back in the U.S. of A. the violence and mayhem in the streets was intensifying. Businesses, government buildings and vehicles had been burning virtually every night for months on end. Protesters and counter protesters were now bringing semiautomatic weapons to the scene.

By September there were multiple fatalities on each side.

Perception of these events was increasingly polarized. The left and the right were no long behaving like political factions of a nation. They had devolved into hostile tribes fighting for control of a territory.

A radicalized strain of thought that directly endorsed violence as a political tool was metastasizing among a new generation of activists. A growing contingent had convinced themselves that they could win in an armed conflict. This was a serious miscalculation.

(If you try to outgun the police and the military you’re going to have a bad time).

Here humanity approached a crossroad. Probabilities were coalescing as the crisis progressed.

Those who saw the stakes would feel an urgency. With every moment of inaction the likelihood of a tragic ending increased. Something had to be done.

But what?

What could an ordinary individual do to improve the outcome? Could the trajectory of history really be altered?

Some questions are best answered with a riddle.

Rather than predicting what comes next, let’s tell a story. This story has multiple endings and you get to choose.

Story Time

It’s been said that every nation is three meals away from a revolution.

Never before had this principle been tested in so many countries simultaneously as it was in the 2020’s.

At first many held onto the hope that everything would soon go back to normal, but as the long term realities of the decade set in, more and more people would come to the same startling conclusion: the ‘authorities’ were out of their depth.

There was no exit strategy. The situation was not ‘under control’…

In the early stages of the crisis, when the first few governments were collapsing, very few realized how the conflux of economic, geopolitical and social variables were coalescing in a perfect storm.

But when G20 nations started dropping like flies the phenomenon it became impossible to ignore. Like dominoes falling, the collapse of one major economy destabilized every country connected to it. In the age of globalization very few would be spared.

What began as a trickle suddenly accelerated as the downfall of the U.S. dollar precipitated an unprecedented shock to global supply chains.

Imports ground to a halt all around the world. In countries dependent on outsourced food production and manufacturing this translated into widespread shortages and social unrest. In this environment extremist movements of all stripes flourished.

A small handful of nations would weather this storm peacefully. Rather than tearing themselves apart from within or transforming into totalitarian dictatorships, they would unify and adapt.

As economic and monetary shocks disrupted global supply chains and trade, these countries would quickly reorganize their economies to replace imports with local production – starting with food and essentials. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels was an important element of this transition.

To accomplish this feat every aspect of modern life was re-imagined.

Lawns were replaced by gardens; golf courses converted to orchards. Waste streams were recuperated to minimize losses. It wasn’t easy, but these countries pulled through, and before the decade was over, they were building regional trade networks that hadn’t existed before the crisis.

A lot of wealthy countries didn’t do so well in the second phase of the crisis; the part where real hardship kicked in. Populations accustomed to easy living and constant entertainment had a very short fuse.

As shortages and rationing became the new normal and homeless encampments grew, protests would morph into riots, armed uprisings and civil wars.

Governments that were ill prepared for these challenges crumbled quickly; some into the hands of populist movements, others to military juntas. In most cases the replacement was more brutal and repressive that the old system.

The underlying paradigm was rarely questioned at all.

Many regimes would extend their lifespan by totalitarian means. Emergency powers established under lockdown would prove invaluable here.

Policies previously justified by public health would now be implemented in the name of national security; control mechanisms adapted and repurposed to crack down on dissidents.

It was every petty dictator’s wet dream: granular control over every aspect of human behavior and interaction. No one allowed to gather in public without permission. Every contact tracked and traced. If you’re outside you better be prepared to show your papers.

This approach was most effective when the latent fears and hatreds of the population could be rallied against an enemy.

Convince a people that they are under attack and it’s easy to unify them under a flag.

Rather than rioting in the streets, impoverished youth can be conscripted into the military.

Their identities shattered and remolded; conditioned to obey; trained to kill on command.

Send them abroad to steal land and resources.

Use them at home to crush dissent.

War is – after all – the health of the state.

Regardless of which axis prevailed in these conflicts the result would be the same.

A new totalitarian order was the universal prescription; the only cure for the chaos.

The world’s first truly global currency would replace the dollar. This currency would be completely digital; coins and bank notes phased out. Every single transaction conducted using this currency would be recorded on a block blockchain.

Unlike the original cryptocurrencies this blockchain was controlled by a central authority and monitored with AI. Economic privacy a thing of the past.

It was the holy grail of ruling elite, the precursor for global governance with teeth, but before they even had time to properly congratulate themselves, their house of cards was already catching wind.

As living conditions deteriorate, and fear and uncertainty prevail, certain psychological forces are always unleashed. These forces are like the incoming waves of a tsunami.

Once they gather momentum there can be no stopping them.

Throughout history there have been individuals and movements who rode these waves; channeling the tides of human sentiment towards a course of action. Though the science of crowd psychology is complex and nuanced, the application of its principles is mind bogglingly simple.

So simple in fact, that intellectuals typically recoil from them, while bonafide idiots wield them easily (and to great effect).

Like riding a tsunami on a surfboard, attempting to redirect the momentum of a society is highly dangerous.

The crowd can lift a leader to great heights, but one mistake can leave them hanging from a lamp post. Those who manage to navigate these forces usually guard the formula carefully. Failure to do so would threaten the foundations of their power.

This time around however, humanity flipped the script.

In the age of the internet the science of crowd psychology and color revolutions had been available to the public for some time now, but very few saw the utility in studying it.

However as the 2020’s progressed, and it became more and it became more clear that that those in power were pushing civilization toward a dystopian nightmare, a contingent of activists would reverse engineer the tools being used against them.

The work of Gustave Le Bon and Edward Bernays would be modernized and tempered with a cultural code:

the positive application of human instinct.

The instinctual psychology of species can be harnessed for good or for evil. In the modern era it has been weaponized by the military industrial complex for regime change, and by corporations for marketing and public relations.

The same principles however can applied to create rather than destroy. Visions and values can spread like viruses from mind to mind, and from place to place.

The contagion of a single idea can inspire generations towards a new paradigm.

To topple a government is surprisingly easy when conditions are right. Silver spoon politicians who’ve never served or worked a day in their life can easily lose the respect and obedience of military and law enforcement. When that happens, it’s game over.

The question that always comes up in such events (usually as an afterthought) is what will you replace the old system with?

There is nothing more dangerous than armed men with utopian dreams. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.

History provides many cautionary tales. To avoid the trap of oppressed rising up to become the oppressor the paradigm that facilitates this dynamic has to be questioned.

The vast majority of modern governments, businesses and organizations utilize a social structure called vertical collectivism. Vertical collectivism is top down system of organizing human groups which amplifies power by stacking layers of authority in pyramids.

The result is a highly stratified society where those on the bottom have little or no say, and are left to fight over scraps from above.

Vertical collectivism is apolitical. Capitalists companies and Communist regimes both use it without contradiction, as do republics that call themselves democracies.

The vertical model was born of military strategy. A general or warlord alone can only control a small army, but by using subordinate officers in layers of rank, a single individual, or a small ruling class can dominate millions of people and vast territories.

This is why a state is often defined as the monopoly on violence within a region.

Vertical collectivism didn’t spread to every corner of the globe because it improved peoples lives.

In fact modern anthropologists acknowledge that the transition to this way of life was associated with reduced life expectancy and a decline in virtually all measures in health (up until very recently).

Vertical collectivism spread like a cancer because it is brutally effective in the in the context of war.

Every culture that it encountered was either crushed on the battlefield or forced to copy the model to survive. The dawn of civilization – as many euphemistically refer to it – is a story of conquest and colonialization that began approximately 10,000 years ago and continues to this day.

This was not however, the beginning of the human story.

For over 300,000 years – long before the first empires of Asia and Europe began to absorb surrounding tribes – humans organized themselves using a very different model.

Rather than building top down, stratified societies that concentrated wealth and power in the hands of an upper class, these cultures organized horizontally.

Organizing horizontally didn’t mean that there were no leaders.

The authority and instincts are far older than humanity.

Like all social animals, our species is hardwired to follow those who demonstrate courage and intelligence.

However in horizontal societies disparities of wealth and power were significantly smaller.

The leaders and councils responsible for group decisions were not insulated by armies and law enforcement conditioned to obey without question.

Defense and order were maintained by an armed citizenry, bound by a code of conduct. This dynamic forced leaders to be directly accountable to the population.

Their power was rooted in their ability to communicate with the people, build consensus and chart a course of action to the benefit of all.

The fact that horizontal societies required leaders to work with the public in such a personal way had one obvious disadvantage: it limited the size of the group. After all, why would someone voluntarily follow someone far away that they never met?

There is however, a way around this limitation. By forming federations horizontal societies can expand their sphere influence significantly.

An example of this adaptation can be found in the Iroquois confederacy which unified 5 tribes for hundreds of years in the region that came to be called New York.

Each member tribe in the confederacy had their own culture and and internal governance, but a set of shared values enabled them to cooperate economically and militarily. If one tribe was attacked they quickly mounted a common defense.

Many historians believe that United States federal system was based on the Iroquois model. One significant difference however, was that the Iroquois had no central government. There was a central council comprised of representatives from each tribe, but this council had no power to enforce its will.

Each representative was tasked with building a consensus that would resonate with their people.

A modernized adaptation of this Iroquois model gained traction in the mid 2020s as the gears of globalization ground to a halt. While governments proved incapable of solving the most basic problems, decentralized networks were replacing the system from the ground up.

They would start by organizing local food production in their communities and gradually expand cooperation to other sectors.

Their revolution was driven by an idea worth spreading. Not only was it possible to live on this planet without destroying it, this way of life was more abundant and fulfilling than the alternative. There was no need to wait for governments to act. Humans are perfectly capable of organizing themselves.

Those that succeeded became epicenters of a new renaissance; attracting skilled workers and artists from all around the world.

Some of these travelers would put down permanent roots.

Others would return to their homeland to plant seeds of their own.

From the fragments of fallen empires new nations would be born.

From the ashes of dying cultures new cultures would rise.

The great collapse of the 2020’s was not the end of the world.

It was the end of an era, and the dawn of a new one…

Time To Flip The Script

Remember how we said this story has multiple endings?

We’re going take one of them to a literal extreme; and we’re going to do it in the real world.

Now if you’re living in a crowded city center, maybe pushing the boundaries starts by planting a garden in your front yard, organizing a community compost, or speaking out against a war.

However it’s important to understand that in the era we have entered the stakes are rising, and the trajectory we’re on needs to be altered significantly.

This implies fundamental changes in the way we livRemember how we said this story has multiple endings? We’re going take one of them to a literal extreme; and we’re going to do it in the real world.

(Those who piece together the clues, get through the filters, and pass quarantine will at some point find themselves standing here. GPS COORDINATES FLASH)

Now if you’re living in a crowded city center, maybe pushing the boundaries starts by planting a garden in your front yard, organizing a community compost, or speaking out against a war.

However it’s important to understand that in the era we have entered the stakes are rising, and the trajectory we’re on needs to be altered significantly. This implies fundamental changes in the way we live, not just gestures in right direction.

You have to decide what kind of story you and your family want to be a part of. In some cases this might involve immigrating to another country. Others will be more inclined to stay, and fight to change the outcome at home. One way or the other you’ll want to be in a place where you can grow food, and you’ll want to be set up to do this without agrochemical inputs or fossil fuels.

You also don’t want to be reliant on the grid. Utilities can and will go down. Some will be shocked by how long they can stay down.

These aren’t the kind of lifestyle changes you want to make at the last moment, or put off until you can do something large scale. Far better to start transitioning to a new way of life right now. Do what you can with what you have. Join forces with others to amplify.

The learning curve for this kind of transition can be steep. There are a lot of practical skills that we should be taught in school but aren’t. Most kids when they graduate… don’t know how to build a house, or grow a garden, or even how to make bread.

The best way to learn this stuff isn’t really in a classroom anyway. People learn best by example, anchored with hands on experience.

That’s why we built this place. You could think of it as an experiential learning center / maker space. This whole landscape is a laboratory.

Here we can put ideas to an extreme test.

Rather that just reading about this stuff or watching a presentation, volunteers and travelers from all over the world come here to do it themselves. They get their hands dirty in the field: planting plants, working with animals, building crazy structures like these.

They also get to experience first hand what it takes to self organize and live in a different way.

The experience is extreme, because the challenges we face are real. We’re completely off-grid here. Our electricity comes from the sun. We have running water by pumping from the spring up to a tank on the hill.

It’s also up to us to us to maintain the road and drainage. Up here when there’s a problem we have to put our heads together and find a way to solve it.

To put this in perspective, our first long term volunteer was here when we sustained a direct hit from hurricane Maria. He also assisted in the recovery and became part of the story.

Talk is cheap. If you really want to change the world you have to be able to show people how.

We’re doing this here in the Commonwealth of Dominica cause these people are moving in the right direction, and their culture holds some of the keys to the solution.

But where ever you decide to make your stand now is the time to get serious about food security.

Our challenge in the next phase is to grow more and develop local production systems to replace imports.

Some will have a chance to collaborate onsite.

Others will integrate this information and use it creatively; writing themselves into the story in unpredictable ways.

Those who pay close attention and pause often will discover easter eggs; clues with consequences in the real world.

If you agree with the message, it’s up to you to make it spread…

Did The Fourth Branch Of Government Release SARS-CoV-2 Then Blame China

So much research has been done, we essentially know the majority of the background details. The SARS-CoV-2 virus commonly known as COVID-19 was made in a lab by scientists.

The virus then went from a lab to the global population in late 2019/early 2020. The epicenter of the outbreak appears to be one of the labs working on the virus in Wuhan, China. Those essential big picture items are no longer debated; although the Chinese government does not agree for obvious reasons.

did the fourth branch of government release sars cov 2 then blame china

With the ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘how’ essentially agreed, the question of ‘who’ and ‘why’ remains.

The Chinese have blamed the U.S. Intelligence agencies for releasing the virus.  The U.S. Intelligence agencies have said they don’t know who released it or from where. [LINK] The U.S. Intelligence position is weird and obtuse, then again, the Intelligence Community specializes in being weird and obtuse.

The cornerstone of the CTH hypothesis, regarding the ‘who’ and ‘why’ of the COVID-19 virus, is built upon the intelligence communitie’s odd position and one very key circumstantial point that stands out loudly. The U.S. Pentagon was funding the creation of SARS as a biological weapon in Wuhan, China, under the auspices of national security. “Grants from the Pentagon included $6,491,025 from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) from 2017 to 2020” (link).

♦ Central Point – The Defense Department would not be spending money to develop a biological weapon in Wuhan, China unless they already had developed that weapon in the United States. The Pentagon would not give a biological weapon to the communist Chinese unless the U.S. already developed it; and unless they already had a countermeasure to the consequences of it.

In the original pdf guidance for the 2014 research pause of into weaponization of SARS viruses there was an important footnote [LINK]:

2014 gain of function backdoor

[FN¹  SOURCE – U.S. Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses – pdf, page 2 – October 17, 2014].

Timeline:

♦ October 17, 2014 – U.S. funding of SARS to create a biological weapon was paused due to the extreme risk of a pandemic.  However, the pause allowed agencies within the U.S. government to continue funding if they determined “the research is urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security.” [LINK]

♦ 2014 through 2020 the Pentagon continued funding research in Wuhan, China. Fear of discovery would explain why many top officials in the U.S. Defense Department were against the Trump administration [with increased severity after the COVID pandemic began]. [LINK]

♦ May 2016 – [An Election Year] – “after thorough deliberation and extensive input from domestic and international stakeholders, the NSABB [National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity] issued its recommendations. NSABB’s central finding was that studies that are expected to enhance Potential Pandemic Pathogen (PPP) have potential benefits to public health but also entail significant risks. NSABB recommended that such studies warranted additional scrutiny prior to being funded.”  Anthony Fauci is on the NSABB.

♦ January 9, 2017 – [Four Days after the Susan Rice Oval Office meeting with Obama, Biden, Comey, et al] – The Obama Administration re-authorizes funding for the creation of SARS biological weapons. “Adoption of these recommendations will satisfy the requirements for lifting the current moratorium on certain life sciences research that could enhance a pathogen’s virulence and/or transmissibility to produce a potential pandemic pathogen (an enhanced PPP).“ [LINK]

Given the workarounds, exceptions and plausible deniability for the consequences, built into the original moratorium guidance in 2014, the defense department was operationally permitted to keep funding the biological weapons research in Wuhan, China. The 2014 ban was a funding moratorium in name only; however, it appears the funding for U.S. research in North Carolina was stopped.

What was reauthorized in 2017, just before President Trump took office, was the need to use “national security” as an excuse to continue the research.  It also appears funding of SARS as a biological weapon inside the U.S. (North Carolina) was now permitted again.

REFERENCES SO FAR:  – 2017 – Policy Guidelines from Obama Administration – 2014 – pdf link of Research Funding Pause – National Science Advisory Board (Wiki) – Pentagon Funding for SARS research 2013 through 2020.

If you accept that the Pentagon would never spend to develop a biological weapon in China (Wuhan Lab) unless they already had developed that weapon on their own (North Carolina Lab), then the question about the release of that weapon starts to take shape.

Remember, the State Department was looking into the origin until Joe Biden shut them down and redirected the goal to the Intelligence Community.  In essence, Biden handed the mission to the Fourth Branch of Government.   Not surprisingly, after a few months the IC said their results were “inconclusive.”

♦ [Excerpt] – […] In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it.

In an internal memo obtained by Vanity Fair, Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, wrote that staff from two bureaus, his own and the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, “warned” leaders within his bureau “not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19” because it would “‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.”

[…] In late March, former Centers for Disease Control director Robert Redfield received death threats from fellow scientists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had originated in a lab. “I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis,” Redfield told Vanity Fair. “I expected it from politicians. I didn’t expect it from science.” (read more)

♦ Washington (CNN) – “President Joe Biden’s team shut down a closely-held State Department effort launched late in the Trump administration to prove the coronavirus originated in a Chinese lab over concerns about the quality of its work, according to three sources familiar with the decision.

The existence of the State Department inquiry and its termination this spring by the Biden administration — neither of which has been previously reported — comes to light amid renewed interest in whether the virus could have leaked out of a Wuhan lab with links to the Chinese military. The Biden administration is also facing scrutiny of its own efforts to determine if the Chinese government was responsible for the virus.

♦ “On Wednesday, Biden issued a statement that he has directed the US intelligence community to redouble its efforts in investigating the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and report back to him in 90 days.” (LINK)

♦ [WASHINGTON DC] – The intelligence community failed to conclusively identify the origin of the coronavirus following a 90-day investigation ordered by President Biden, but experts are divided on why. 

A report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) found that officials were unable to rule whether the virus escaped from a lab or spread to humans through an infected animal. But the ultimate conclusion reached by the $85 billion-a-year community was that it would be unable to pinpoint the origin of the virus if China didn’t fully cooperate. (LINK)

If you have followed how the U.S. Intelligence Community operates, you can see a pretty clear picture emerge of a strong likelihood surrounding what took place.

The U.S. Defense Dept developed SARS-CoV-2 in North Carolina. The 4th Branch (Intelligence Community) wanted to use it. The Pentagon restarts funding for development of SARS-CoV-2 in partnership with Wuhan, China – setting up the cover story. The 4th Branch (Intelligence Community) then uses the virus by releasing it in/around Wuhan. Everything after that is simply part of the 4th Branch covering their tracks.  Wuhan, China becomes the patsy.

The IC release of COVID-19 would have two transparent motives for the 4th Branch:

(1) Get rid of Trump via mail-in ballots, and intelligence assistance toward the 2020 election result; and (2) Expand their influence and control operations as the most powerful force in U.S. government.

One of the central players, who likely knows the details behind who exactly executed the release, is former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has been blaming the Chinese almost exclusively. [Methinks he doth protest too much.] Former DNI John Ratcliffe is also a staunch figure pointing at Wuhan, China. Keep in mind DNI Ratcliffe was the recipient of the 4th Branch Intelligence Community products that pointed to Wuhan, China.

If it sounds like this thesis is too far ‘out there‘, then you may not fully understand how the Fourth Branch of Government operates.

Source: TheConservativeTreehHouse.com

Does the Virus Exist? The SARS-CoV-2 Has Not Been Isolated? “Biggest Fraud in Medical History”

Introduction

There is a sequence of outright lies and fabrications used to justify far-reaching policy decisions which in the course of the last 18 months are literally destroying people’s lives Worldwide. 

“Fake science” is used to justify confinement, social distancing, the face mask, the prohibition of social gatherings,  cultural and sports events, the closure of economic activity, all of which are upheld as a means to repealing the “killer virus”. 

Who is this “Killer Virus” which has been personified by both the media and our governments, held responsible for triggering economic and social chaos Worldwide? 

You might recall that at the height of the February 2020 financial collapse, “V the Virus” was held responsible for the largest stock market crash since 1929. 

Has the “Killer Virus” been Identified. Has SARS-CoV-2 been Isolated?

This article will review this contentious issue starting at the outset of the crisis in January 2020. Part of this analysis is based on research conducted in early 2020. 

The central question raised in this review is the following: is there reliable evidence provided by the WHO and national  health authorities that the alleged SARS-CoV-2  virus has been isolated/purified  from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”? 

While the alleged virus was initially defined as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated in January 2020 that it did not have in its possession details regarding the isolation/purification and identity of  2019-nCoV.

And because details concerning isolation / purification were not available, the WHO decided to “customize” The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Test using the alleged “similar” 2003 SARS virus (subsequently renamed SARS-1) as “a point of reference” for detecting genetic fragments of the novel 2019-nCoV. 

What this decision entails is that novel 2019-CoV-2 is NOT a novel virus. It was categorized by the Chinese authorities and the WHO as “similar” to the 2003 SARS-CoV as well as to MERS. 

2003 SARS-CoV was subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-1.

History: Isolation of the Virus 

Chinese Health Authorities

The Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that “a new type of virus”  had been identified  “similar to the one associated with SARS and MERS” (related report , not original Chinese government source).  The underlying method is described below:

We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing.

Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. (emphasis added)

The  following article entitled A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China(Nature, February 3, 2021) was among the first to report on the China’s novel coronavirus:…[We] collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and performed deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing. The clinical specimen was handled in a biosafety level 3 laboratory at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. Total RNA was extracted from 200 μl of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed for pair-end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described 4,6,7,8. .In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. ….The genome sequence of this virus, as well as its termini, were determined and confirmed by reverse-transcription PCR (RT–PCR)10 and 5′/3′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE), respectively. This virus strain was designated as WH-Human 1 coronavirus (WHCV) (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’) and its whole genome sequence (29,903 nt) has been assigned GenBank accession number MN908947. .The viral genome organization of WHCV was determined by sequence alignment to two representative members of the genus Betacoronavirus: a coronavirus associated with humans (SARS-CoV Tor2, GenBank accession number AY274119) [2003] and a coronavirus associated with bats (bat SL-CoVZC45, GenBank accession number MG772933) . (Nature, February 3, 2020) .

It is unclear from the above quotations as well as from the documents consulted, whether the Chinese health authorities undertook an isolation / purification of  a patient’s specimen.

US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Following the Chinese announcement  on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novela corona virus had been isolated.The CDC statement dated January 28th, 2020 (updated December 2020) is unequivocal:

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community.

….

Timeline:

  • On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.
  • On February 2, 2020, CDC generated enough SARS-CoV-2 grown in cell culture to distribute to medical and scientific researchers.
  • On February 4, 2020, CDC shipped SARS-CoV-2 to the BEI Resources Repository.
  • An article discussing the isolation and characterization of this virus specimen is available in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

One important way that CDC has supported global efforts to study and learn about SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory was by growing the virus in cell culture and ensuring that it was widely available. Researchers in the scientific and medical community can use virus obtained from this work in their studies.

SARS-CoV-2 strains supplied by CDC and other researchers can be requested, free, from the Biodefense and Emerging Infections Research (BEI) Resources Repositoryexternal icon by established institutions that meet BEI requirements. These requirements include maintaining appropriate facilities and safety programs, as well as having the appropriate expertise. BEI supplies organisms and reagents to the broader community of microbiology and infectious disease researchers.  (Emphasis added).

See also related study which was posted on the CDC website.

The CDC Acknowledges that SARS-CoV-2 has not been  Isolated.

The official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. (emphasis added, page 40)

Compare the above statement to the CDC January 28th, 2020 advisory confirming the isolation of SARS-CoV-2:

On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.

***

See the analysis of CDC responses in the section below on Freedom of Information Requests.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Did Not Undertake The Isolation / Purification of a Specimen

From the documents quoted below, the Chinese authorities did not provide the WHO with a specimen of isolated /  purified  SARS-CoV-2.

And because details concerning isolation were not available, the WHO  decided to “customize” its Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR)  test using a so-called isolate of the “similar” 2003 SARS corona virus (subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-1) as “a point of reference” (or proxy) for detecting genetic fragments of the 2019 SARS-CoV-2.

The WHO sought the advice of   Dr. Christian Drosten, and colleagues of the Berlin Virology Institute at Charité Hospital. The study entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” ) was subsequently submitted to the WHO. 

While Drosten et al’s study confirmed that “several viral genome sequences had been released”, in the case of 2019-nCoV, “virus isolates or samples from infected patients were not available … 

The recommendations to the WHO were as follows:

“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].

 We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”  (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).

What this bold statement suggests is that the isolation / purification of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “validation” would be enabled by “the close genetic relatedness to the 2003-SARS-CoV.”

The recommendations of the Drosten study (supported and financed by the Gates Foundation) pertaining to the use of the RT-PCR test applied to 2019-nCoV were then firmly endorsed by the Director General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, E-Book, Chapter II).

Freedom of Information: No Record of SARS-CoV-2 Isolation-Purification

An important ongoing and detailed investigative project by Christine Massey, M.Sc. of Ontario, Canadais entitled:

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification  (work in progress since 2020)

by Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

A related text shows the list of institutions contacted

90 Health/Science Institutions Globally All Failed to Cite Even 1 Record of “SARS-COV-2” Purification, by Anyone, Anywhere, Ever 

By Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

The investigative report provides detailed documentation based on Freedom of Information (FOI) requests addressed to ninety Health /Science institutions in a large number of countries.

The responses to these requests confirm that there is no record of isolation / purification of SARS-CoV-2 “having been performed by anyone, anywhere, ever.”

“The 90 Health /Science institutions that have responded thus far have provided and/or cited, in total, zero such records:

Our requests [under “freedom of information”] have not been limited to records of isolation performed by the respective institution, or limited to records authored by the respective institution, rather they were open to any records describing “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”) isolation/purification performed by anyone, ever, anywhere on the planet.”

The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

The CDC was contacted by the author of this report in the form of four separate requests: November 2, 2020, March 1, 2021, March 3, 2021, which are reviewed below:

On November 2, 2020.

The CDC admitted they have no records of actual isolation/purification by anyone, anywhere, ever, by any method” :USA-CDC-Virus-Isolation-Response-Scrubbed.pdf

March 1, 2021:The CDC again made clear that they still have no records of “SARS-COV-2” isolation performed by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever… just not in so many words. Instead, the CDC absurdly implied that isolation/purification of “SARS-COV-2” would require the replication of a “virus” without host cells and thus is impossible.  (The request had nothing to do with replication.)

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CDC-March-1-2021-SARS-COV-2-Isolation-Response-Redacted.pdfMarch 3, 2021:

CDC again failed to provide/cite any records describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification by anyone anywhere ever… but would no longer simply say so (as they did on November 2nd); instead they gave song and dance citing the study by Harcourt et al. which is the same one posted on CDC’s website:

June 7, 2021:

CDC admitted they have no record of “SARS-COV-2” purification from a patient sample via maceration, filtration and use of an ultracentrifuge, by anyone, anywhere, ever:

Conclusive Results of the Investigation

What the author of this incisive and detailed report have confirmed is that:

Every institution has failed to provide even 1 record describing the isolation aka purification of any “COVID-19 virus” directly from a patient sample that was not first adulterated with other sources of genetic material. (Those other sources are typically monkey kidney aka “Vero” cells and fetal bovine serum).

Here are 5 compilation pdfs containing FOI responses from 79 institutions in 22 countries/jurisdictions, re the isolation/purification/existence of “SARS-COV-2”, as well as emails from authors of studies that claimed to have “isolated the virus” and an email from the Head of the Consultant Laboratory for Diagnostic Electron Microscopy of Infectious Pathogens at Germany’s Robert Koch Institut, last updated July 13, 2021

Screenshot of a selected responses are provided below : New Zealand, Canada, UK.

Consult the full archive of letters and responses. This work was undertaken over a period of more than 12 months.

Response Public Health England

It follows from the above detailed study that there is no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated/purified from a patient’s sample, as  evidenced by the responses “under freedom of information” (FOI) from some 90 health / science institutions Worldwide.  

Thus far (July 9, 2021) 27 Canadian institutions have provided their responses. (click to access list)

Republic of Ireland:  “The Virus does not Exist”

“⁣Gemma O’Doherty is an Investigative Journalist in Ireland.

“This Irish Investigation into Covid shows that The Department of Health refuses to confirm the existence of a “virus” in writing. Confirmation that the virus was never isolated.”

“As part of our legal action we had been demanding the evidence that this virus actually exists [as well as] evidence that lock downs actually have any impact on the spread of viruses; that face-masks are safe, and do deter the spread of viruses – They don’t. No such studies exist; that social distancing is based in science – It isn’t. it’s made up; that contact tracing has any bearing on the spread of a virus – of course it doesn’t. This organization here – is making it up as they go along.” – Gemma O’Doherty 

Isolation of the Virus. The Legal Battle in Alberta. Patrick King

Patrick King. The Virus Has Not Been Isolated! “No I Did Not Win The Court Case”. “They Do Not Have the Evidence”.

The following video features Patrick King in his legal Battle against the Alberta Government. There are a lot of people in Alberta and around the World who are Fighting against the Big Lie. 

lbry://@PressForTruth#4/Pat-King-Interview#6

Concluding Remarks: “Biggest Medical Fraud in World History”

SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated. Does the virus Exist?

Neither the Chinese authorities nor the CDC, the WHO, national governments, scientific /  health authorities have provided evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has been  isolated /purified.

Based on the investigative research of Christine Malley we have access to the responses of numerous governments and health authorities, including that provided by the Republic of Ireland to journalist Gemma O’Doherty.

What this means is that the entire covid narrative falls flat.

We have been systematically misled.

Everything you have been told by your governments is a lie, a complexity of lies and falsehoods.

There is no pandemic. The isolation / purification of the virus has not been undertaken.

All the policies adopted by governments worldwide allegedly to “save lives” are illegal, socially destructive and in violation of fundamental human rights.

These policies have been instrumental in “destroying people’s lives”.

Dr. Stephen Frost  refers to the alleged “Covid pandemic” as The Biggest Medical Fraud in World History”.

From the outset in January 2020, the flawed and invalid RT-PCR test was used to “detect” the alleged 2019 SARS-CoV-2 virus,  despite the fact that details regarding the isolation/purification of the original virus were not available.

All far-reaching policy decisions imposed on people Worlwide were based on a data bank of fake  case positives coupled with false mortality data pertaining to Covid-19 related deaths.

Curbing the alleged SARS-CoV-2 pandemic through the imposition of face masks, social distancing, closing down of national economies are of a criminal nature, they have absolutely no validity,

The original strain of SARS-CoV-2 has not be isolated /purified: How does that affect the process of so-called “detection” of the “deadly variants” of the original virus?

Mortality and Morbidity: While there is “No Killer Virus”, there is a “Killer Vaccine”.

While the SARS-CoV-2 virus is presented by the media and the governments as a “killer virus” (when in fact the WHO and CDC describe it as “similar to seasonal influenza”, a totally invalid and dysfunctional Covid -19 vaccine is currently being imposed on the entire population of Planet Earth: 7.9 billion people.

It’s a multibillion dollar endeavour with Pfizer in the lead, establishing a near Worldwide monopoly for the sale and distribution of the mRNA killer vaccine.

Important Question: 

How did Big Pharma manage to develop a vaccine (sponsored by the WHO, GAVI, the Gates Foundation, et al) with a mandate “to protect people” against a virus which has not been isolated/ purified?

Moreover, 2019 SARS-CoV-2 has been categorized as similar to the 2003 SARS-CoV which means that the 2019 SARS-CoV-2 is not a novel virus. 

The legitimacy of the Covid vaccine project hinges upon the hundreds of thousands of RT-PCR fake positive cases Worldwide combined with fake Covid related mortality data.

Big Pharma’s mRNA vaccine has resulted in countless deaths and injuries Worldwide which are barely reported by the mainstream media. 

While we do not have figures for the entire Planet, the latest official figures for the European Union and the U.S are revealing. Bear in mind they vastly underestimate the real trends in vaccin related mortality and morbidity:EU/EEA/Switzerland to 31 July 2021 – 20,595 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1.94 million injuries, per EudraVigilance Database.

UK to 21 July 2021 – 1,517 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1.1 million injuries, per MHRA Yellow Card Scheme.

USA to 23 July 2021 – 11,940 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 2.4 million injuries, per VAERS database.

TOTAL for EU/UK/USA – 34,052 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 5.46 million injuries reported as at 1 August 2021

Nota Bene: It is important to be aware that the official figures above (reported to the health authorities) are but a small percentage of the actual figures. Furthermore, people continue to die (and suffer injury) from the injections with every day which passes.  (D4CE

So why are governments pressuring people to get vaccinated?

Heads of State and heads of government Worldwide are being pressured, bribed, coopted and/or threatened by powerful financial interests into accepting the Covid vaccine consensus. The vaccine passport is the endgame, which constitutes a transition towards digital tyranny.

The study and reports analyzed in this article should be used to confront politicians.

Does the virus Exist?

The governments and the WHO do not have a Leg to Stand On. And neither does Bill Gates.

What we must seek is to confront a very fragile consensus, which is based on fraud and deceit.

PS: I remain indebted to Christine Massey for her extensive research and investigation on the issue of isolation /purification.

Food supply 101: Top 12 cheapest foods to stockpile

An emergency stockpile can greatly increase your chance of survival if Shit Hit The Fan. But creating a stockpile can easily drain your grocery budget if you’re not careful.

Luckily, some of the best foods for stockpiling are extremely cheap, so you can buy them in quantities enough to last you several months. Here are some examples of cheap foods to stockpile:

Rice – Rice is a staple food worldwide. It is also a versatile ingredient as it can be paired with various foods or cooked with various ingredients. When stored in an airtight container, rice keeps for six months. Rice is also cheap when bought in bulk.


Pinto beans – Pinto beans can be cooked in bulk and used in soups and salads. Pinto beans are a cheap way to keep bellies full, too, since they are rich in carbohydrates, fiber and protein. Like rice, they will also keep for several months if stored in an airtight container in a cool, dry pantry. Buy pinto beans in bulk to save money.


Lentils – Lentils are another legume that should be part of your emergency stockpile. They give you lots of calories, carbohydrates, protein and dietary fiber. Lentils are typically used in soups. But they also make great additions in potato salads, roasted vegetable salads, curries, and other savory dishes.


Oil – Don’t forget to stock up on oil since you’ll need it to cook. Having oil on hand will also give you more variety since you can use it to make marinades, sauces and salad dressings. Choose healthy oils, such as coconut, sesame and olive oils.


Flour – Bread is a staple in various diets worldwide. But bread can quickly go bad and moldy. So instead of buying ready-made bread, stock up on bags of flour. Flour is the single most important baking ingredient. If you have flour, you can make whatever bread or pastry you want.


Cornmeal – Cornmeal is the main ingredient in cornbread, a staple in Native American diets. Cornbread will sustain you in a pinch. You can also use cornmeal to bread fish and chicken. (Related: Have a taste of frontier survival cooking with cornmeal pancakes.)


Chickpeas – Chickpeas or garbanzo beans are a staple in the Mediterranean diet. Like other beans, chickpeas are also high in protein and dietary fiber. Buy chickpeas in bulk and store them in airtight containers for long-term storage.


Pasta – Pasta is a good source of carbohydrates. Pasta also makes a great vehicle for hearty sauces, meat and dehydrated vegetables, among other ingredients. Because pasta is dried, it can keep up to two years past the expiration date printed on the packaging. Opened dry pasta will keep for one year.


Oats – Old-fashioned rolled oats are a pantry staple. You can buy them in large bags and store them in a cool, dry place for long-term storage. Oats are also a versatile ingredient. You can use them to make overnight oats, no-bake granola bars and muffins, to name a few.


Powdered milk – Forget about stocking up on cow’s milk, which will inevitably go bad even when unopened. Stock up on powdered milk instead. You can use powdered milk to make all sorts of ingredients, such as evaporated milk, coffee creamer, yogurt, hot chocolate and cottage cheese.


Meat – Meat can still be part of an emergency stockpile. For long-term storage, you can either cure meat with salt or portion it into airtight containers and place them in the freezer. You can also dry meat to make your own jerky. Check with your local grocery store or butcher for money-saving deals and promos.


Dried foods – Don’t forget to add dried fruits, vegetables and herbs to your emergency stockpile. These foods ensure you still get to eat healthy foods when Shit Hit The Fan. The best part is, you can dehydrate foods yourself. Stalky and starchy foods, such as potatoes, carrots and unripe bananas, are great for dehydrating. Follow this guide to dehydrate your own foods.

MUST WATCH – SHOW THIS TO YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY WHO WANT THE ‘VACCINE’ – PLEASE SHARE

🤔🤔

The Covid-19 “Experimental” mRNA Vaccine. Are You Being Told the Truth?

Explained: Why RNA vaccines for Covid-19 raced to the front of the pack |  MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The American people are not being told the truth about Covid, masks, social distancing, lockdowns, mortality or vaccines. In fact, the only thing of which we can be 100 percent certain, is that the government, the public health officials and the media have been lying relentlessly and remorselessly on virtually every topic for the better part of the last year. As far as I can see, lying has become the official state policy. Am I wrong?

For example, we are now being told that the sudden uptick in deaths in various parts the country, are the sign of a “4th Wave”. Naturally, these fatalities are being blamed on the “variant” which is the current ‘hobgoblin du jour.’ What the media and the pundits fail to mention is that the unexpected rise in cases and deaths is only taking place in areas that are engaged in mass vaccination campaigns, a fact that can be easily extrapolated from the chart below.

I don’t know why this is happening, and I certainly don’t think the drug companies have laced their injections with Covid-19. But it certainly deserves to be investigated, don’t you think? And the people deserve to know what’s going on instead of being hoodwinked with some far-fetched fiction about a respiratory infection that persists into the summer months. That’s not what’s happening at all. Here’s how talk show host and author, Steve Deace, summed it up in an article at The Epoch Times:

“The two main objectives of our health care system—informed consent and second opinions—were denied to us at COVID… If the average American knew that almost half of the deaths in America with COVID occurred in nursing homes where less than one percent of Americans live, we would have never ever gone along with this level of subjugation. These are the sorts of data points that have been kept from the American people, so they have not been given the right to informed consent.” (“Steve Deace on ‘Faucian Bargain’: Second Opinions About COVID-19 Denied to Americans” The Epoch Times)

What we need to know now, is whether the Covid vaccines are safe or not? It’s a simple question, but getting answers is like pulling teeth. As everyone knows, any information that doesn’t support the ‘pro-vaccine agenda’ is scrapped by the media and promptly removed from both FB and Twitter. How does that serve the public interest? How is “informed consent” possible without a thorough airing of contrary views in public forums and the media?

It’s not possible, and that seems to be the point. The managers of this campaign seem to prefer brainwashing and mass coercion over dialogue and debate. And their method appears to be working too. Just look at the way that pregnant women and children are being lured into vaccinations that pose significant risks to their health but provide no tangible benefit. The people in these age groups have a better chance of being struck by lightning than killed by Covid, so why take the risk? Why roll the dice on dizziness, nausea, migraines, Bell’s Palsy, myocarditis, blood clots or death, when there’s nothing to be gained? Check out this article in the UK Daily Mail titled “Pregnant women should be fast-tracked for Covid vaccines”:

“Pregnant women should be fast-tracked for Covid jabs because the disease greatly increases the risk of health problems for mums-to-be, a leading medic has said. A study led by a top Oxford expert found that the virus raises the risk of serious maternal complications by more than 50 per cent, including a fivefold risk of mothers needing intensive care.

It doubles the risk of premature birth and newborn illness and also significantly raises the chance of the mother dying, according to a study of more than 2,000 expectant women…..

Covid in a pregnant woman increases complications that can lead to premature birth, which is the number one contributor to newborn death and long-term disability.’” (Pregnant women should be fast-tracked for Covid vaccines because the virus greatly increases their risk of health problems, leading expert says in surprise U-turn”, Daily Mail)

Is this true? Are pregnant mothers better off getting vaccinated? Dr. Joseph Mercola doesn’t think so. Here’s what he said:

“By injecting pregnant women with novel COVID-19 mRNA gene technologies, the medical establishment has thrown away one of the most fundamental safety edicts of medicine, which is that you do not experiment on pregnant women.

None of the COVID-19 vaccines on the market are licensed. They’ve only received emergency use authorization, as basic efficacy and safety studies are still ongoing. Yet pregnant women are urged to get vaccinated, and are lining up to get the shot

This experimentation is doubly unforgivable seeing how women of childbearing age have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, their fatality risk being a mere 0.01%.

…it’s important to realize that this is a time during which experimentation can be the most hazardous of all, as you’re not only dealing with potential repercussions for the mother but also for the child. Any number of things can go wrong when you introduce drugs, chemicals or foreign substances during fetal development…

On the whole, injecting pregnant women with novel gene therapy technology that can trigger systemic inflammation, cardiac effects and bleeding disorders (among other things)…”
(“Pregnant Women Should Not Get a COVID Vaccine“, Mercola.com)

While I agree with Mercola in principle, the clinical trials are ongoing so we really don’t have sufficient data to make the determination one way or the other. That’s the problem of putting a vaccine into service before long-term Phase 3 clinical trials are concluded; you’re essentially “Flying blind.” The regulatory agencies seem to be ‘okay’ with that situation, but for pregnant women, it should be a matter of gravest concern especially when you read posts like this on author, Alex Berenson’s Twitter account:

Reports of medium- and-late-term pregnancy crises after the mRNA vaccines keep arriving in VAERS. Including case 1168104-1, a 38-year-old Virginia woman who suffered an apparent case of disseminated intravascular coagulation 16 days after vaccination. She and her fetus both died.

Yes, the fatalities are rare, but there is a common thread, isn’t there? Once again, we’re talking about a “clotting disorder” that could be triggered by– you guessed it– the Covid vaccine. And that is the central theme of this article, the vascular problems that one might experience after getting vaccinated. The connections of course are not always clear, but we suspect that scientists will eventually connect the dots. Consider, for a minute, this disturbing piece titled: “Thousands of reports of menstrual irregularities, reproductive dysfunction following COVID vaccines”. Here’s an excerpt from the piece:

“Thousands of women around the world are reporting disrupted menstrual cycles after receiving injections of COVID-19 vaccines. The U.K.’s government vaccine adverse event system has collected more 2,200 reports of reproductive disorders after coronavirus injections, including excessive or absent menstrual bleeding, delayed menstruation, vaginal hemorrhaging, miscarriages, and stillbirths.

In the U.K., the Yellow Card adverse event reporting system includes 2,233 reports of “reproductive and breast disorders” after reception of AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines.

The U.K. Yellow Card program reports 1,465 reactions involving reproductive systems as well as 19 “spontaneous abortions” (miscarriages), five premature labors, and two stillbirths in association with the AstraZeneca vaccine as of April 5. (Note–according to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) “462 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 132 reports of misscarriage or premature birth.”)

The reports include:

255 cases of abnormal uterine bleeding

175 cases of heavy menstrual bleeding

165 cases of vaginal hemorrhaging

55 reports of genital swelling, lesions, rashes or ulcerations

19 cases of postmenopausal hemorrhaging

The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) documents similar reproductive complications.” (“Thousands of reports of menstrual irregularities, reproductive dysfunction following COVID vaccines”, Lifesite News)

There was another article on this same topic in The Chicago Tribune just this week. Here’s an excerpt:

“Some people are reporting abnormal periods after a COVID-19 vaccine. U. of I. professor is looking for answers…. Clancy outlined her personal menstruation experience in a February tweet, after receiving her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. Hundreds of women and people who menstruate replied in the comments with their own experiences.

One Twitter user wrote, “I haven’t had a period in years and I’m about 3 weeks out of my second shot and I’m gushing blood I freaked out but now I see I’m not the only one. This is crazy.”

Another responded, “Two weeks exactly after shot number 2, my cycle started 12 days earlier and heavier than it’s been for the last three years.”

“I ended up finding a lot of people with similar experiences,” Clancy said…. “If you are a post-menopausal person who has experienced bleeding, you should really talk to your doctor,” Clancy said. “And if you have any significant or concerning symptoms alongside your changes to your menstrual cycle, you should also see a doctor.”…

The survey is a joint effort between Clancy and Katharine Lee, a postdoctoral research scholar at Washington University School of Medicine. As of Monday, Lee said more than 25,000 people have filled it out.” (“Some people are reporting abnormal periods after a COVID-19 vaccine. U. of I. professor is looking for answers“, Chicago Tribune)

Why is this happening? Why are so many women reporting “delayed menstruation”, “heavy vaginal bleeding” and miscarriages? Is there a link between the unusual menstrual bleeding and the clotting issues? Why didn’t any of these conditions show up in the clinical trials which were praised for their thoroughness? What does it all mean?

We don’t know, do we, because the Phase 3 trials are ongoing and we don’t have the results yet. But we do know that the CDC advisory board thinks these issues are trivial enough to ignore and to allow the failing vaccines to be put back into service. We know that for certain. Here’s the story:

“The CDC’s independent advisory panel Friday voted 10 – 4 to recommend the continued use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after the single-dose shot was paused over blood clotting concerns. The panel did not recommend adding any extra warning about the risk of rare blood clotting disorders.” (Children’s Health Defense)

No “extra warning” about blood clots? Really?

People died, isn’t that worth mentioning to the people who are weighing the risks-benefits of getting vaccinated?

And how rare are these blood clots? According to the media they are “rare, rare and REALLY RARE.” But, are they? According to an article in The Atlantic:

“Last Friday, (Andreas) Greinacher and his team published a paper on their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine. In a press briefing, he said they’d analyzed blood from several dozen people who had experienced blood abnormalities after exposure to the AstraZeneca vaccine, and that every single person tested positive for antibodies against platelet factor 4, and against platelet factor 4 joined with another molecule.

On the same day, a separate group in Norway published similar findings from five patients there who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine. Then, in a meeting this week of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which helps the CDC make vaccine recommendations, it was reported that five of the six American patients who developed this same blood condition after receiving the Johnson & Johnson shot had been tested for antibodies to platelet factor 4—and all were positive. “It is, in my opinion, absolutely clear that there’s a causal relationship” between the presence of these antibodies and the abnormal clotting, Greinacher had said at last Friday’s briefing. “There’s no doubt about this.” (“The Blood-Clot Problem Is Multiplying”,The Atlantic)

So, while it’s easy to dismiss the clotting deaths as “just a handful of people”, the reality is that a much larger number of people have been impacted, which means that something in the vaccine is triggering vascular problems that remain undiagnosed but could cause serious complications in the future. We don’t know for sure, because the long-term trials were never completed. So, it’s all a big crapshoot.

“So, why are they doing this?. Why are they rushing this vaccine back into service when the clotting fatalities might just be the tip of the iceberg”? Doesn’t that strike you as a bit reckless?

If I’d been vaccinated, I’d be mighty worried right now. The regulators, the government, the public health officials and the media, are all being extremely cavalier about people’s safety while–at the same time– they are vastly expanding their list of potential candidates. Did you notice that they’ve started Covid vaccine trials on children? Keep in mind, that children are at no risk of death if they contract Covid, but can experience severe adverse side effects from the vaccine. Simply put: The risks far outweigh the benefits. This is from the Daily Mail:

“‘Core planning’ documents have been leaked showing schoolchildren will be given one dose when they go back to class after the summer…A source told the Sun: ‘Plans are in place to vaccinate children aged 12 upwards, and senior government officials have been briefed...

Health officials are also said to be looking into jabbing children as young as five from July in a ‘worst case scenario’.” (“Children as young as 12 ‘will get Covid vaccines in September”, Daily Mail)

This is utter insanity and, yet, the same scenario is unfolding in the United States. Here’s the story from the San Jose Mercury:

“Last month, Pfizer announced that its vaccine was safe and effective in adolescents as young as 12. So the vaccine is now being tested in much younger children.

Pfizer’s nationwide trial of 144 children will unfold in phases. It is testing three different doses — 10, 20 and 30 micrograms — in bundles of three different age groups: children ages 5 through 11; ages 2 to 5, and ages 6 months to 2 years. After safety and dosage studies, research will expand into more children and seek signs of efficacy.

Pfizer has already requested an amendment from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of its Emergency Use Authorization to expand the use of its vaccine to adolescents 12 to 15 years of age, about 2.5 million Californians.” (“Stanford begins testing Pfizer vaccine in babies and young children”, Mercury News)

This goes way beyond “unethical”, and medical professionals have admitted as much. Here’s what Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D said on the matter:

“You are endangered when you take the vaccine. Your family is endangered when they take the vaccine. Your children are going to be endangered (if they take the vaccine.). I am horrified that children are now being vaccinated in clinical trials. This is criminal. I hope you realize that this is criminal, that you are endangering your own children. How can you do this?” (“Perspectives on the Pandemic– “Blood Clots and Beyond”, You Tube)

There’s no reason to vaccinate children for Covid-19. It is entirely unnecessary and deeply suspicious. Why are they doing this? What is their objective?

Here’s how the former Vice President of Respiratory Research for Pfizer, Mike Yeadon, summed it up. He said:

“Can you think of a benign explanation for why you would want to give an experimental-use, gene-based vaccine to tens of millions of people who will not die if they contract this virus? And, I say “no” you can’t, can you? And if you can’t think of a benign explanation then can you think of a malign explanation?”

Great question, but what’s the answer?

I don’t know, but I find it extremely unnerving.

Clearly, a great many people feel that the vaccine has given them their lives back. They can see their friends again, go out to dinner and hug their grandchildren. Unfortunately, the substance they have injected into their arms has already spread to their bloodstreams where it is trapped and gathering in the tissue surrounding the blood vessels. This is no small matter because this genetic material is “biologically active” and can potentially change the body’s immune response. This is the immune response that has preserved the species from the beginning of our collective existence on earth. These gene-based vaccines can alter that response, in fact, that was the intention. The scientists who created these vaccines did not want to simply insert live or dead virus into the body like a traditional vaccine does. They wanted to teach the cells “what to do”, thus, changing the immune system into a vaccine factory. The downside risk, of course, is that this tweaking will confuse the immune system causing it to attack vital organs in the body. That’s commonly referred to as an autoimmune disease “which is a condition in which your immune system mistakenly attacks your body. The immune system normally guards against germs like bacteria and viruses. When it senses these foreign invaders, it sends out an army of fighter cells to attack them.” Robert F Kennedy Jr. had this to say on the topic:

“What we know about coronavirus from 30 years of experience is that a coronavirus vaccine has a unique peculiarity, which is any attempt at making the vaccine has resulted in the creation of a class of antibodies that actually make vaccinated people sicker when they ultimately suffer exposure to the wild virus.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Could this happen? Could this new regime of vaccines create an immune system that is so hyper-vigilant that it wages a war against its own body?

Indeed, it could, in fact, this condition already has a name. It is called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) which means that your immune system has been “primed” to unleash its defensive arsenal against its own organs, blood vessels etc. We expect that ADE will become a household name in the years ahead as medical problems linked to this misguided mass vaccination campaign begin to pile up and the public outcry touches off a political firestorm. (Maybe then we’ll see some accountability, but don’t hold your breath.)

As for what happens next, well, we can’t say for sure but an “Open Letter” sent to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) by a number of doctors and scientists, points us in the right direction. Here’s part of what they said:

Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

“As physicians and scientists, we are supportive in principle of the use of new medical interventions which are appropriately developed and deployed, having obtained informed consent from the patient. This stance encompasses vaccines in the same way as therapeutics….

(but) we are concerned that there has been and there continues to be inadequate scrutiny of the possible causes of illness or death under these circumstances, and especially so in the absence of post-mortems examinations.”….

The letter then veers into the “meat and potatoes” of their complaint: Safety. Are the vaccines safe or not. Here’s what they say:

“Following intramuscular injection, it must be expected that the gene-based vaccines will reach the bloodstream and disseminate throughout the body…”

This is a critical point: The vaccine might be injected into a muscle in the arm, but it eventually gets into the bloodstream where it is “entrapped in circulation” and spread throughout the body including the brain. It is then taken up by the layer of cells (endothelial cells) that coat the blood vessels. Where the blood-flow is slower– like in the abdomen– more of the vaccine substance is taken up. This could be a very big problem in the future, but there’s no indication that the vaccine manufactures even thought about it. Here’s what happens next:

“…. during expression of the vaccines’ nucleic acids, peptides derived from the spike protein will be presented via the … pathway at the luminal surface of the cells. Many healthy individuals have …lymphocytes that recognize such peptides, which may be due to prior COVID infection, but also to cross-reactions with other types of Coronavirus…. these lymphocytes will mount an attack on the respective cells….It must be expected that endothelial damage with subsequent triggering of blood coagulation via platelet activation will ensue at countless sites throughout the body.”

So now your lymphocytes– which are the white blood cells that help to fight infectious diseases— are attacking the cells that are thought to be foreign invaders. (Sounds alot like ADE, doesn’t it?) This, in turn, leads to damage to the blood vessels and organs or the creation of blood clots which result in stroke, heart attack or other serious medical conditions. Here’s more:

“… this will lead to a drop in platelet counts, (Platelets are the smallest of our blood cells that are literally shaped like small plates) appearance of D-dimers in the blood, and to myriad ischaemic lesions ( ischaemia is a restriction in blood supply to tissues…..Ischemia is generally caused by problems with blood vessels, with resultant damage to or dysfunction of tissue) throughout the body including in the brain, spinal cord and heart. Bleeding disorders might occur in the wake of this novel type of DIC-syndrome including, amongst other possibilities, profuse bleedings and haemorrhagic stroke.”

Okay, so none of this is good, right? You don’t want blood-clots, you don’t want to have a stroke and you sure don’t want to die. So, why is this the first time you’ve read about this? This isn’t fiction and I’m sure as hell not making it up. These conditions have happened and will happen in the future as long as this gene-based gunk remains “entrapped in circulation” in a closed system wreaking “endothelial damage” (Endothelium is a single layer of squamous endothelial cells that line the interior surface of blood vessels, and lymphatic vessels)and forming blood clots. This is going to be the new reality for alot of people who took these experimental vaccines thinking they were fighting a deadly virus. Here’s more:

“The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor on platelets, which results in their activation. Thrombocytopenia has been reported in severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Thrombocytopenia has also been reported in vaccinated individuals. We request evidence that the potential danger of platelet activation that would also lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) was excluded with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.”

What does that mean in plain English?

Well, Thrombocytopenia is a condition in which you have a low blood platelet count. Platelets (thrombocytes) are blood cells that help blood to clot. Platelets stop bleeding by clumping and forming plugs in blood vessel injuries. The term “disseminated intravascular coagulation” is the same as saying ‘widespread blood-clotting in the circulatory system’. In other words, the scientists want assurances that the vaccines were tested to prevent the kind of fatalities we’ve already seen with various vaccines that are still in service today. Here’s more:

“Should all such evidence not be available, we demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until all the above issues have been properly addressed by the exercise of due diligence by the EMA. (The European Medicines Agency) There are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined above, that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute “human experimentation”, which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code.” (“Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns”,Doctors for Covid Ethics)

Keep in mind, this letter was posted weeks before the first blood clotting event took place, which means the problem could have been anticipated by anyone who understood the science. Even so, the EMA breezily ignored the letter and has done everything in its power to downplay the fatalities.

What are we to make of this? How can we trust our regulatory agencies when they cynically brush aside the legitimate concerns of respected professionals? And when have medical professionals ever put their names and reputations on the line to oppose the distribution of a vaccine?

Never. It’s never happened before, but growing numbers of professionals are stepping forward now because they think the consequences from allowing this campaign to continue unopposed, are just too horrific to ignore. 84 million Americans have now been fully inoculated. Imagine if–in two- or three-years’ time– the longer-incubating diseases emerge with a bang, that is, imagine if we’re hit with a tidal wave of vascular, heart and neuro degenerative diseases unlike anything we have ever experienced before. Imagine how that will impact our threadbare public health system leaving millions to fend for themselves.

And what if our efforts to defeat Covid have actually made matters worse? Here’s another clip from Berenson’s Twitter site:

“A reader points to a VERY worrisome finding in the @cdcgov Chicago nursing home report: patients L19, a 49-year-old staffer, and M20, a 77-year-old resident – both had very low PCR threshold counts (the nurse’s was under 17) and NO symptoms. Why does this matter?

Lower PCR counts mean a person has a heavier viral load – and is thus both more likely to be very sick and more infectious…. These two should have been extremely symptomatic. Instead, the vaccine seems to have protected them from feeling sick – but not from being thoroughly infected and potentially spreading the virus. THIS IS EVIDENCE FOR A POSSIBLE MAREK’S DISEASE OUTCOME, where vaccinated people spread the virus aggressively to the unvaccinated.” Alex Berenson

An article on PBS explains Marek’s Disease. Here’s an excerpt:

“The deadliest strains of viruses often take care of themselves — they flare up and then die out. This is because they are so good at destroying cells and causing illness that they ultimately kill their host before they have time to spread. But a chicken virus that represents one of the deadliest germs in history breaks from this conventional wisdom, thanks to an inadvertent effect from a vaccine. Chickens vaccinated against Marek’s disease rarely get sick. But the vaccine does not prevent them from spreading Marek’s to unvaccinated birds. “With the hottest strains, every unvaccinated bird dies within 10 days. …

In fact, rather than stop fowl from spreading the virus, the vaccine allows the disease to spread faster and longer than it normally would, a new study finds. The scientists now believe that this vaccine has helped this chicken virus become uniquely virulent….over the last half century, symptoms for Marek’s worsened. Paralysis was more permanent; brains more quickly turned to mush….

vaccination extended the lifespan of birds exposed to the hottest strains, with 80 percent living longer than two months. But the vaccinated chickens were transmitting the virus, shedding 10,000 times more virus than an unvaccinated bird.

“Previously, a hot strain was so nasty, it wiped itself out. Now, you keep its host alive with a vaccine, then it can transmit and spread in the world,” Read said. “So, it’s got an evolutionary future, which it didn’t have before.” (“This chicken vaccine makes its virus more dangerous”, PBS)

Are the vaccines allowing sick people –who are carrying a heavy viral load and shedding like crazy– to get on like they are not sick?

Nobody knows, just like no one seems to understand the correlation between mass vaccination and the short-term uptick in fatalities. (See Here)

On so many critical questions, we have no answers and, yet, the response of the public health czars, like Dr Fauci, seems to be that we should simply stop thinking altogether, roll up our sleeves and take the jab. But what if he’s wrong? What if we are paving the way for a disaster the likes of which were outlined by pediatric rheumatologist, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, who said the following in a letter to the FDA:

“I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs….

“Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart. As important as it is to quickly arrest the spread of the virus by immunizing the population, it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on these other organs.” (“Scientists Challenge Health Officials on Vaccinating People Who Already Had COVID”, Global Research)

Whelan’s logic is unassailable, and he is joined by so many others all of who are saying the same thing: ‘The virus is showing signs of easing, so take your foot off the gas and let’s complete the vaccine trials before rushing ahead.’ Isn’t that the more rational approach? Here’s more:

“In his public submission, Whelan sought to alert the FDA about the potential for vaccines … spike protein to cause injuries.

Specifically, Whelan was concerned that the new mRNA vaccine technology utilized by Pfizer and Moderna has “the potential to cause microvascular injury (inflammation and small blood clots called microthrombi) to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.”(“Could Spike Protein in Moderna, Pfizer Vaccines Cause Blood Clots, Brain Inflammation and Heart Attacks?“, Global Research)

Once again, the same menacing buzzwords continue to pop up: “microvascular injury”, “blood-clots” and “spike protein-based vaccines”. Forget about the messenger RNA, that dissipates quickly. The central problem is the spike protein’s effect on the vascular and immune systems. That’s what we need to worry about.

The gene-based vaccines release a spike protein that spreads throughout the body, gets trapped in the bloodstream and collects in the layer of cells (endothelial cells) that coat the blood vessels.

Then–according to Dr. Hyung Chun, a Yale cardiologist– the cells “release inflammatory cytokines that further exacerbate the body’s inflammatory response and lead to the formation of blood clots. Chun has stated: “The ‘inflamed’ endothelium likely contributes not only to worsening outcome in COVID-19, but also is considered to be an important factor contributing to risk of heart attacks and strokes.”

This seems to suggest that the spike protein from the vaccine can have the same effect as the spike protein from the infection. Here’s more:

“Individuals with COVID-19 experience a vast number of neurological symptoms, such as headaches, ataxia, impaired consciousness, hallucinations, stroke and cerebral hemorrhage.
But autopsy studies have yet to find clear evidence of destructive viral invasion into patients’ brains, pushing researchers to consider alternative explanations of how SARS-CoV-2 causes neurological symptoms….

If not viral infection, what else could be causing injury to distant organs associated with COVID-19?

The most likely culprit that has been identified is the COVID-19 spike protein released from the outer shell of the virus into circulation. Research cited below has documented that the viral spike protein is able to initiate a cascade of events that triggers damage to distant organs in COVID-19 patients.

Worryingly, several studies have found that the spike proteins alone have the capacity to cause widespread injury throughout the body, without any evidence of virus.

What makes this finding so disturbing is that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer and currently being administered throughout the U.S. program our cells to manufacture this same coronavirus spike protein as a way to trigger our bodies to produce antibodies to the virus.” (“Could Spike Protein in Moderna, Pfizer Vaccines Cause Blood Clots, Brain Inflammation and Heart Attacks?” Global Research)

Can this possibly be true? In other words, if Covid-19 is a bioweapon –as some have suggested– then the instigators of the plan may have concocted a cure that is so similar to the virus itself, that no forensic investigation will ever conclusively identify the real perpetrators. This goes way beyond “plausible deniability”. In effect, the perpetrators –if there are perpetrators(?)– have wiped the fingerprints off the smoking gun before the crime has even been committed. Could anyone be that clever?

I have no idea, but it doesn’t change the task before us which is to extricate ourselves from this public health nightmare and piece-together what’s left of our fractured society. That starts with terminating the mass vaccination campaign until Phase 3 trials are completed and product safety can be assured. Better to be safe than sorry.

*

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.

Ten Things You Need to Know about the Experimental COVID mRNA Vaccines

Heliocentric theory is wrong

Is the Solar System Really a Vortex? - Universe Today

There are four pieces of solid evidence that heliocentric theory is wrong (that I know of). The first one requires a bit of visualization but is very difficult to explain otherwise. Three others are 99.99% certain bordering on the ridiculous. You would literally have to make stuff up to try and counter them (and they have!). So without further ado, let’s begin.

Exhibit A – Where is the constant wind?
Exhibit B – Hovering, flying and falling
Exhibit C – Hardly any stellar parallax
Exhibit D – Scientific experiments
Conclusion

Exhibit A – Where is the constant wind?

The density of the Earth has been calculated at 5,515 kg/m3 (whether accurate or not is unknown). The density of air is 1.204 kg/m3 at room temperature, 4580 times less dense than the Earth.

A denser solid object does not carry a less dense gas along with it when it moves. This is self-evident as it is the basis of aerodynamics as shown in the video below.

dog out window

A moving solid object (100km/h car) leaves a gas (air) behind, creating a 100km/h wind in the perceived opposite direction of the moving car.

When the solid planes are more perpendicular, it will push gas (such as air) away from the solid object, such as a fan. The Earth, although a spinning squashed globe, would push a little air out into space due to its slight undulations but by and large it would be very aerodynamic, as this man spinning a basketball shows.



spinning ball
A very aerodynamic globe.

Heliocentric theory states that the Earth rotates at 1675km/h at the equator, 1049km/h in London, and 231km/h in Alert, northern Canada. This rotation would cause winds of almost equal speeds on the Earth’s surface… constantly.

The fastest wind speed known to man is a F5 Incredible tornado with wind speeds of 420-511 km/h. The tornado in Oklamohma in 1999 which killed 38 people and destroyed 8000 homes traveled at 486km/h; the devastation of which we can see below.

Tornado- Oklahoma
If 486km/h winds did this, what would 1675km/h do?

There is nowhere on Earth that has a constant wind speed of between 1675km/h and 231km/h. If there were, nobody living below Greenland could venture outside. We would be all living underground in caves.

Sometimes there are days of no wind, sometimes a mild breeze. The wind travels in all kinds of directions, sometimes changing by the second. Clouds move with the wind and can travel in any direction, but mostly go from West to East. This contradicts heliocentric theory as the Earth is supposed to rotate West to East, which would create winds going in the opposite direction East to West. Oops!

Another piece of self-evident incredulity. There’s more.

Exhibit B – Hovering, flying and falling

Even more obvious is the fact that the Earth does not rotate under hovering objects. A helicopter which hovers above the ground at ANY height from 1 meter all the way to its upper limit of around 8000 meters NEVER experiences the ground traveling 231km/h to 1675km/h West to East, or in any direction in fact.


hovering1
Nope, the Earth is not moving.
hovering2
Still not moving. Who’d a thunk it.

The same applies to those machines which traverse the sky, such as airplanes. The only differential between a one-way and return flight is changes in wind speed and direction.

the rotation of the Earth has no effect on the travel time of an aircraft… it is the headwinds and tailwinds that cause the change in travel times… a mere 65 mph wind is more than enough to cause a difference in travel time of five hours when you are traveling long distances!

Let’s check a flight along the equator just to be sure. Maldives to Singapore and back fits the bill. Singapore Airlines has two flights come up. Maldives to Singapore (West to East) takes 4 hours 45 minutes for both flights and Singapore to Maldives (East to West) takes 4 hours 30 minutes and 4 hours 25 minutes respectively.

The Earth is supposed to rotate at 1675km/h West to East at these locations which are 3388km apart. A Boeing 777 travels at 885km/h at 10,675m. Do I really need to do the math?

Flying from Singapore to the Maldives would take about an hour (including take off and landing) if the Earth were rotating under the plane. Going the other way, it is worse as the plane can only fly half as fast as a rotating 1675km/h Earth and so you would have to continue flying all the way around the globe East to West just to get back to Singapore. This is an obvious fallacy.


asia_ref_2000
Singapore to Maldives is a one-way trip with a rotating Earth.

So, we have gone from 8000m to 10,675m altitude and still the Earth does not move under our feet. If we go any higher there won’t be many air molecules left to be magically Velcroed to the solid Earth’s surface by a mystical and yet unknown force which there must be for heliocentric theory to exist. But let’s go higher anyway.

As mentioned in my first post on the mysterious disappearing stars at high altitude, amateurs can now send weather balloons up into the stratosphere as high as 36,000m. At these heights only about 1% of the air is left, but these few air molecules must also magically stick to the solid surface of the Earth. All these different densities and all somehow staying with the Earth.

Look at the time these balloons are in the air and the difference in distance between landing and take-off. Here’s the first one: Launched at 13:07:38, hit the ground at 16:04:40, highest altitude 29.78Km, distance from launch 108.4 Km! Launched in Maine, USA would give a rotating Earth speed of 1181km/h (45° latitude). That means the Earth should have moved 3500km under the balloon making it land in the middle of USA, but it did not. (The second example on that website page is even worse!)

Let’s go higher. Felix Baumgartner on his world record free-fall jump reached 38,969m altitude and spent 2 and a half hours ascending, 4:19 minutes falling to the ground, and 7 minutes parachuting the rest of the way down. His distance from launch:


Felix-Baumgartner-Landing
70.5km!

So, the 1% of surface air density and all the other air densities on the way to the ground and Felix himself being obviously heavier than air all moved with the rotating Earth in tandem, by some magical mystical force unknown to man. At what height would Felix have experienced the Earth rotating below him? 50km? 70km? 100km? The heliocentric advocates will have to make up a magic number. Why not, it is all fantasy after all.

Let’s continue.

Exhibit C – Hardly any stellar parallax

The stars revolve 360° in 24 hours in an anti-clockwise fashion around the north polar star in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise around the southern star in the southern hemisphere. Photographers take photos with very long shutter speeds to show this effect.


startrails
Rotating stars in the sky at night.

This, you may think, is a good case for a rotating Earth; but on it’s own it is also a good case for a geocentric one, as it demonstrates that either the Earth is moving or the heavens.

However, after 6 months, those EXACT same stars are at the EXACT same location, as can be seen with the naked eye, at which they had been 6 months previously. The annual change in the position of stars in the sky is called stellar parallax. You can demonstrate this lack of parallax by following this experiment devised by Samuel Rowbotham of Zetetic Astronomy.

Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results–the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the Earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the Earth’s surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the Earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.

Traditionally, stellar parallax has been notoriously difficult to measure with even the best of modern equipment.

The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec.

There are 3,600 arcseconds in 1 degree, 180 of which cover the sky at night. No wonder we can’t see any movement with the naked eye. Even so, movement for only a tiny fraction of the stars can be measured at all even by modern equipment!

In 1989, the satellite Hipparcos was launched primarily for obtaining parallaxes and proper motions of nearby stars, increasing the reach of the method tenfold. Even so, Hipparcos is only able to measure parallax angles for stars up to about 1,600 light-years away, a little more than one percent of the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy. The European Space Agency’s Gaia mission, due to launch in 2013, will be able to measure parallax angles to an accuracy of 10 microarcseconds, thus mapping nearby stars (and potentially planets) up to a distance of tens of thousands of light-years from Earth.


There are an estimated 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe (which is bunk, as there are no galaxies) each with up to 100 trillion stars! So being able to detect movement in 1% of the stars of our own galaxy is a miniscule amount. We also know about our space agencies’ weird and wonderful orbiting machines, so even this 1% is unlikely to be true.

This is a big problem for heliocentric theory which states that every 24 hours the Earth rotates on its axis at 1675km/h, revolving around the Sun at 107,000km/h, which in turn moves around the center of the galaxy at 900,000km/h, which moves in the universe at 2,160,000km/h!

Apart from the atmosphere disappearing at these speeds, how is there no stellar parallax, especially considering that all the other stars and galaxies are revolving around each other and the Earth as well. The sky must be a right mess! Each new day must bring a brand new unique constellation in the sky at night with some new stars getting nearer so they can be seen with the naked eye and some traveling further away and disappearing never to return for thousands or millions of years.

Before we move on, this lack of stellar parallax is the reason why advocates of heliocentric theory give the unbelievably enormous distances the heavenly bodies must be from Earth. They can’t measure it! The stars must be thousands and millions of light years away (with the Milky Way 100,000 light years across, 1 light year being 9.46 trillion kilometers!) because there is no (or little) detectable stellar parallax; otherwise heliocentric theory would be definitely wrong.

It is clear from Euclid’s geometry that the effect would be undetectable if the stars were far enough away, but for various reasons such gigantic distances involved seemed entirely implausible: it was one of Tycho Brahe’s principal objections to Copernican heliocentrism that in order for it to be compatible with the lack of observable stellar parallax, there would have to be an enormous and unlikely void between the orbit of Saturn and the eighth sphere (the fixed stars).

Not only is there no evidence for such astronomical distances, but we have now proven that the stars are approximately 4000 miles away!

Does making stuff up to support a theory lacking any observational or experimental evidence sound like science to you?

Speaking of which…

Exhibit D – Scientific experiments

How do we know it is not the heavens or “space” which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:

If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.

And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called “Airy’s failure”. It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.


airy1
The angle stayed the same, proving that the Earth does not rotate.

The heliocentric advocates were now desperate. What was needed was another observable experiment to still offer the possibility of a rotating Earth. Enter Foucault’s pendulum in 1885. This pendulum swings back and forth, each swing moving slightly to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere until, at the poles, one full circle is achieved in 24 hours. It doesn’t move left or right at all at the equator.


California_Academy_of_Sciences_Foucault_Pendulum_Clock
Foucault Pendulum in California
Foucault

Not to scale, but illustrating the movement.

As you have noticed, this is the same phenomenon as the stars rotating every 24 hours around the polar star, which was proved not to be caused by a rotating Earth thanks to George Airy. Unfortunately for the heliocentric supporters, Foucault’s pendulum also had a problem. In 1954 and 1959, Maurice Allais noticed that during a solar eclipse, which lasted 2 and a half hours, the angle of the pendulum changed dramatically by 13.5°. This has been repeatedly observed with positive results on most of the subsequent eclipses, which obviously means that the pendulum isn’t registering the Earth’s rotation, but the motion of something else instead.

With Airy’s failure proving that the Earth does not rotate, the heliocentric theorists needed to quickly show with no further doubt that the Earth rotated. Enter two staunch supporters of heliocentricity, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, who in 1887 set up a device which split up light: one beam in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, and one at right angles. The two light beams then recombined and hit a photographic plate. The difference is speed of the two beams would create an interference pattern. They expected to measure a speed of 30 km/s as that was the speed of the Earth’s supposed rotation, but instead registered a variable difference of between 1 and 10 km/s each time the experiment was repeated. They called this a “null” result. This proves that the Earth is not rotating and at the same time proved the existence of the ether.


M-M experiment
Gosh, the traveling light wasn’t rotating with the Earth. Who’d a thunk it?

It didn’t stop there, Georges Sagnac, and Henry Gale conducted similar experiments, but on a rotating platform, which again demonstrated the existence of the ether, already proved by default in 1871 and 1885 by combining the results from George Airy and Foucault’s pendulum, and also in 1887 by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

How do you think the advocates of heliocentric theory responded? Why, they made something up of course! What else could they do but invent another wild theory to play down these experimental results and lead us further into the cesspit of fallacy. Enter showbiz academic of the 20th century, Einstein and the special theory of relativity.


albert-einstein-colorized
Enter the clowns.

Special relativity was invented to make sure all these experiments still gave heliocentric theory a chance of being correct. It needed objects to shrink to a specific size in direct proportion to its speed. These objects weren’t measured! The concept had never been observed at all. It was metaphysical only. But it had to be correct, otherwise the unthinkable would be true.

The rescue operation was performed by means of a purely metaphysical concept lifted directly from Professors Fitzgerald and Lorentz, who had also been trying to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and renamed by him the Special Theory of Relativity. What was suggested was that if the dimensions of an object in motion were assumed to shrink exactly in proportion to the speed at which it was traveling by exactly the necessary amount, mathematical calculations could be made to show that the Earth was in motion after all. No one has ever seen an object shrink as a result of being in motion, and indeed one of the world’s leading authorities on relativity, Dr. Herbert Dingle, was later to dismiss the theory of relativity as metaphysical nonsense with no basis on what could be observed.

Making up a new branch of mathematics to explain the results of experiments that disagrees with your worldview does not a proof make! As a J.J. Thomson once said:

We have Einstein’s space, de Sitter’s space, expanding universes, contracting universes, vibrating universes, mysterious universes. In fact the pure mathematician may create universes just by writing down an equation, and indeed if he is an individualist he can have a universe of his own.

However, when you make stuff up not based on anything in the real world, it is bound to run into trouble.

Ironically, when Special Relativity failed due to its internal contradictions, Einstein had to invent General Relativity to shore up the façade, and in the process he had to take back the very two foundations he had discarded in Special Relativity, namely, (a) that nothing can exceed the speed of light and (b) the existence of ether. In the end, Einstein’s theories were a mass of contradictions which are covered over by obtuse mathematical equations.

Despite this nonsense, the heliocentric “authorities” pushed it through with all their media power and academic might so that once this new mathematics was firmly established, they had carte blanche to sneak in other bad “science” when experimental observations went against them, like black holes, dark matter, wormholes and other such unobservable and unverifiable nonsense. The worst offence though was trying to tie in the Coriolis effect of a rotating Earth with observable atmospheric phenomena. The Coriolis effect is an optical illusion whereby an object traveling in a straight line is seen to be moving in a curved one instead because the observer is on a rotating platform.


wikipedia_coriolis_effect
The Coriolis optical illusion. You are the red dot. Below is what you observe. Above is what actually happens.
the-coriolis-effect

This is the complete pattern and scale of ANY Coriolis effect on the Earth. If something in the real world doesn’t match this, it can NOT be the Coriolis effect!

They say it is this effect which causes moving objects to be deflected in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere and anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere; an example of which are large cyclones. This is obviously false. The Coriolis effect is NOT a force, it is an optical illusion. It cannot cause objects to be deflected; their trajectories remain the same, which is straight. Cyclones do not “travel in straight lines, but just appear to be curved because we are on the surface of a rotating sphere”. Their size ranges from under 222km to over 888km making their curves far too tight and localized. Plus there are very high altitude images looking down on cyclones from above. Is the camera rotating with the Earth to get this curved perspective?


cyclone from above
Is the camera rotating with the Earth? How can a cyclone twisting on itself be a straight line? Is this image even real?
cyclone - Australia

A tropical cyclone in Australia twisting down to Earth is not a straight line.

And what about smaller vortex phenomena like Tornadoes which average only 150m across. Where is the Coriolis effect now?


tornado1
A 150m wide tornado is really a straight line!

If you wish to study further the fallacy of linking the Coriolis effect with atmospheric phenomena then Miles Mathis‘ work is a must. Otherwise, those inclined to understand cyclones and tornadoes would do well to study the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism, and vortex dynamics instead, as even physicists admit that the Coriolis “effect” and electromagnetism is eerily similar. (What a surprise!)

Conclusion

So far we have proved that:

  • The Earth does not tilt.
  • The Earth does not rotate.
  • The Sun moves, not the Earth.
  • The heavens move, not the Earth, which means that:
  • “Space” or the ether moves and not the Earth.
  • “Space” moves in a circular motion (and is probably a vortex).

Lockdown One Year On – It doesn’t work, it never worked & it wasn’t supposed to work

Light up the lone candle on the saddest birthday cake in the world! The most destructive public policy of the century is growing up and doesn’t look like slowing down.

And so we come to March 23rd, and lockdown’s first birthday. Or, as we call it here, the longest two weeks in history.

1 year. 12 calendar months. 365 increasingly gruelling days.

It’s a long time since “2 weeks to flatten the curve”, became an obvious lie. Sometime in July it turned into a sick joke. The curve was flattened, the NHS protected and the clapping was hearty and meaningful.

…and none of it made any difference.

This was not a sacrifice for the “greater good”. It was not a hard decision with arguments on both sides. It was not a risk-benefit scenario. The “risks” were in fact certainties, and the “benefits” entirely fictional.

Because Lockdowns don’t work. It’s really important to remember that.

Even if you subscribe to the belief that “Sars-Cov-2” is a unique discrete entity (which is far from proven), or that it is incredibly dangerous (which is demonstrably untrue), the lockdown has not worked to, in any way, limit this supposed threat.

Lockdowns. Don’t. Work.

They don’t make any difference, the curves don’t flatten and the R0 number doesn’t drop and the lives aren’t saved (quite the opposite, as we’ve all seen).

Just look at the graphs.

This one, comparing “Covid deaths” in the UK (lockdown) and Sweden (no lockdown):

Or this one, comparing “Covid deaths” in California (lockdown) and Florida (no lockdown):

From Belarus to Sweden to Florida to Nicaragua to Tanzania, the evidence is clear. “Covid”, whatever that means in real terms, is not impacted by lockdowns.

Putting the entire population under house arrest doesn’t benefit public health. In fact, it’s (rather predictably) incredibly counter-productive.

The damage done by shuttering businesses, limiting access to healthcare, postponing treatments and diagnoses, postponed surgeries, increasing depression, soaring unemployment and mass poverty has been discussed to death. The scale of the impact cannot be overstated.

Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19, said this of lockdowns back in October:

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…]just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry…look what’s happening to small-holding farmers[…]it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”

A terrible, global catastrophe. A doubling of childhood malnutrition.

The “pandemic” didn’t do that, lockdowns did that. They were never going to achieve their stated aims. And what’s more, they were never intended to achieve those aims.

Too often soft language in the media talks about “misjudgments” or “mistakes” or “incompetence”. Supposed critics claim the government “panicked” or “over-reacted”. That is nonsense. The easiest, cheesiest excuse that has ever existed.

“Whoops”, they say, with an emphatic shrug and shit-eating grin “I guess we done messed up!”. Unflattering, but better than the truth.

Because the truth is that the government isn’t mistaken or scared or stupid…they are malign. And dishonest. And cruel.

All the suffering of lockdown was entirely predictable and deliberately imposed. For reasons that have nothing to do with helping people and everything to do controlling them.

It’s been more than apparent for most of the last fifty-two weeks that the agenda of lockdown was not public health, but laying the groundwork for the “new normal” and “the great reset”.

A series of programmes designed to completely undercut civil liberties all across the world, reversing decades (if not centuries) of social progress. A re-feudalisation of society, with the 99% cheerfully taking up their peasant smocks “to protect the vulnerable”, whilst the elite proselytise about the worth of rules they happily admit do not apply to them.

And we’ve all had lives ruined and a year of precious time wasted. For nothing. You’ve been locked up for two weeks that lasted 365 days. For nothing.

…or rather, for everything. Because that’s what they are trying to take from us. Everything. And the only way to stop them is not to let them. To simply refuse consent.

Let’s not let lockdown get a second birthday.

Conspiracies Are Real: How All Conspiracies Work

Expert: The best way to fight a conspiracy theory isn't with facts | Tulane  News

Conspiracies have been around since the world began. How else are wars, murders, thefts, and other types of crimes initiated except that people conspired to commit them?

One dictionary definition of a conspiracy is, “an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.”

Another definition reads, “an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.”

Some synonyms for conspiracy include plot, scheme, treason, connivance, and treachery.

Based on these definitions, it shouldn’t take much convincing to realize that conspiracies are taking place every day, in every part of the globe, by people of all walks of life. However, one of the greatest tools in the arsenal of those involved in a conspiracy is convincing people that it doesn’t exist (think Keyser Söze in the film The Usual Suspects).

The purpose of this article is to illustrate how major, even global conspiracies can exist without most people knowing. It will provide the ingredients typically included in every conspiratorial recipe to help people recognize them more easily both before and as they occur in real time.

Before Conspiracies Occur

Here are the steps involved in the initial phases of a conspiracy:

Benefit/Motive

Every conspiracy begins with a motive and something to be gained by the conspirators. The Latin phrase “cui bono,” meaning “who benefits,” should always be asked when investigating a conspiracy. Power and money are usually the main reasons, with revenge or spite also closely linked.

Goals/Outcome

Everyone involved in a conspiracy must agree to a set of goals and desired outcomes. Where unity is fragile, conspiracies rarely succeed. But when there is agreement amongst the schemers, and all are satisfied with the proposed outcome, the devious plots have a great chance to flourish.

Planning

All conspiracies, no matter how small or large, involve planning to achieve the stated goals. On a national or global level, these plans are often documented well ahead of time. Sometimes they remain hidden and other times they are available for public viewing. The reason the exposed plans go unnoticed is because most people don’t bother to read them, don’t comprehend what’s being stated, or dismiss them because they can’t believe people would do such things.

Secretive

Conspirators must be careful not to disclose their plans in order to have any chance of succeeding. Meetings are often held at clandestine locations, and participants may be encouraged or required to take oaths and be sworn to secrecy. Oftentimes those leading the conspiracy do not divulge the entirety of their plot to everyone involved. People furthest from the inner circle frequently carry out orders without being fully aware of all the details. They may be outright deceived about the true intent of the plot and march on as foot soldiers believing they are doing something good for humanity.

Data Gathering

An important step in any conspiracy involves gathering data on those being plotted against. This can cover many ways of spying including hacking, cyber-attacks, surveillance, planting informants, social media monitoring, and other extreme types of espionage.

Behavioral Analysis

Once enough data is gathered, it can then be utilized to predict behavior. These predictions may be made for individuals, ethnic groups, and sometimes entire populations. If correct, behavioral predictions can help fortify conspiratorial plans to ensure success.

Simulations

Depending on the complexity of the scheme, the conspirators may conduct simulations or “dry runs” of the key steps required to pull off their plot. The simulation gives them advanced knowledge and helps them perfect their plan before fully executing it. Simulations often play out in real life almost exactly as they were gamed ahead of time.

As Conspiracies Unfold

Once the plot begins to unfold, look for the following activities to take place:

Lies, Propaganda and Mind Control

Deception is a favorite tool of conspirators, and no plot could ever be accomplished without telling lies and promoting propaganda. Attempts at outright mind control are also often established by controlling the narrative so that people never hear or see alternative points of view. Many conspiracies are hidden in plain sight in various forms of entertainment. Conspirators also use “trusted voices” to get the unaware to believe propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation. Mainstream media sources are often the primary means by which people are deceived.

Distractions

Daily living provides a plethora of distractions for the average person. They occur at almost every level through one form or another. As conspiratorial plans are being executed, a major distraction that focuses attention on a specific event may take place. This “wag the dog” trick serves to keep people in the dark about a more serious event taking place simultaneously behind the scenes.

Hegelian Dialectic

After behavioral predictions are formulated, conspirators often employ the Hegelian Dialectic. In its simplest form, the Hegelian Dialectic is most often known as Problem-Reaction-Solution, where a problem is manufactured to garner a certain reaction leading to a pre-planned solution. Conspirators use this mind control method to hide their involvement in events that take place seemingly out of nowhere. Schemers can then get the public to demand a solution that they have already planned to implement to increase their power.

False Flags

Conspirators love to execute a plan and then blame it on others. False flag charades quickly serve up a “guilty” party to deceive the public while enabling the true subversives to go unnoticed. These events are well-coordinated efforts that may be very hard to detect by the general public.

Once Conspiracies are Exposed

These are the signs to watch for once a conspiracy starts to unravel:

Plausible Deniability

When awareness of a conspiracy begins to gather steam, those involved in the plot will almost always deny it exists. This “plausible deniability” allows the guilty to pretend they had no awareness of a secret plot or that any malfeasance was taking place. Conspiracies are usually layered so that those on the outer layers do most of the dirty work. This enables those on the inner layers to deny they knew anything about it and easily dismiss accusations.

Marginalize, Silence and/or Remove Opponents

The most frequently used method to silence people who attempt to expose conspiracies is to label them as conspiracy theorists. This negative characterization causes most people to doubt the information and question the reputation of those providing an alternative to the controlled narrative. As challenges continue to arise, more severe methods of quelling opposition are used such as libel and slander, ostracizing, harassment, spying, physical intimidation, bribes, loss of employment, criminal accusations and charges, murder, and faked suicide.

Coverups and Destruction of Evidence

As proof of any conspiracy takes root, always expect the schemers to cover their tracks by any means necessary. They will resort to destroying evidence, intimidating witnesses, redacting documents, hiding behind “need to know” security policies, coopting investigative commissions, corrupting legal trials, and other unscrupulous tactics to help the plotters evade prosecution and accountability for their crimes.

Open Admission

When the truth about a conspiracy becomes too weighty to deny, there will often be an open admission of guilt typically outing those on the lower rungs of the plot. Oftentimes the tricks work as those demanding accountability get their sacrificial lamb(s) while the insiders behind the plot go unrecognized and unpunished.

Setting Up the Next Conspiracy

The players involved in many of the greatest conspiracies are often intertwined through familial ties, business and political relationships, and ideological agreements. Therefore, the conspiracies they concoct can be carried out over a long period of time and aren’t dependent on one or a small group of individuals. Here are the two most powerful ways conspiracies are perpetuated:

Enacting and Amending Laws

The most powerful tool governments, corporations, and other major entities employ is the passage and changing of laws to make their conspiratorial crimes legal. When the power to legally spy on, detain, and imprison those they deem “enemy combatants” or traitors is embedded in our laws, it gives immense power to the perpetrators of conspiracies against the people.

The Two-Party System Sham

Warning: this section may offend if you believe in two-party systems of government.

Whether governed by a Republican or Democratic president, the march to globalization has continued pretty much unabated in the U.S. The current COVID-19 conspiracy arrived in this country under President Trump, and the new normal has been in place since March 16. Democracy has been overrun by oligarchs. Fortune 500 corporations in the technology, pharmaceutical, and banking industries now rule the U.S. Every four years, the powers that be love to put on a show to keep the people thinking they have a say in government by voting for their representatives. But elections are nothing more than “selections.” In other words, the new boss is the same as the old boss; they just have different personalities to cater to different types of people. The truth is that most elected officials are co-opted to do the bidding of those who really pull the strings. The two-party political façade helps propel the next conspiracy to consolidate more power and control in the march to a new global order!

Share This Article and Help Awaken Others

Conspiracies are often successful because people remain ignorant of how they are conceived and executed. However, once an understanding of all of these elements has been grasped, it makes recognizing true conspiracies relatively easy. My hope is that many more will be awakened to the fact that a global conspiracy is in play to reengineer society as a whole and shift more power to the 1% who desire nothing but total control over humanity. Whether you call it the Great Reset, New World Order, Agenda 2030, or Illuminati Conspiracy doesn’t matter. The ingredients are the same as those listed above. The more we expose and resist them, the better the chances it does not succeed!

Doctor Proves Lockdowns 10x Deadlier Than COVID

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.”

doctor proves lockdowns 10x deadlier than covid

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.”

Collateral damage cited by Joffe include:21devastating effects of lockdowns

Image: Mercola.com

Cost-Benefit Analysis Of 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.

Ultimate Proof: Covid-19 Was Planned To Usher In The New World Order

How Did We Get Here And How Do We Move Forward?

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.

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, the author of Fat for Fuel: A Revolutionary Diet to Combat Cancer, Boost Brain Power, and Increase Your Energy.

References: