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

1. Medical Doctors Declare That The Pandemic Was Planned

A group of over 500 medical doctors in Germany called ‘Doctors for Information’ made a shocking statement during a national press conference: (1)

‘The Corona panic is a play. It’s a scam. A swindle. It’s high time we understood that we’re in the midst of a global crime.’

Covid 19 Coronavirus New World Order

This large group of medical experts publishes a medical newspaper on 500,000 copies every week, to inform the public about the massive misinformation in the mainstream media.

They also organize mass protests in Europe, like the one on August 29, 2020 where 12 million people signed up and several millions actually showed up.

Why do these 500+ medical doctors say the pandemic is a global crime? What do they know, that we don’t?Planned Pandemic Protest Berlin 1

One of the many protests against the “plandemic” that you will not see in the mainstream media

2. Hundreds Of Spanish Medical Doctors Say The Pandemic Is Planned

In Spain a group of 600 medical doctors called ‘Doctors for Truth’, made a similar statement during a press conference.Doctors For Truth Spain Pandemic Planned

Doctors for Truth, Spain

‘Covid-19 is a false pandemic created for political purposes. This is a world dictatorship with a sanitary excuse. We urge doctors, the media and political authorities to stop this criminal operation, by spreading the truth.’ (2)

Germany and Spain are just two examples. Similar large groups of hundreds of medical experts exist in countries across the world.

In the USA a documentary called PLANDEMIC, which exposes COVID-19 as a criminal operation, is supported by over 27,000 medical doctors!

Why are these thousands of medical professionals worldwide saying the pandemic is a crime? What information do they have access to, that we are not getting from the mainstream media?

I invite you to look at the following facts with an open mind and then come to your own conclusions…

3. In 2015 A Testing Method Was Patented For… COVID-19

In 2015 a ‘System and Method for Testing for COVID-19’ was patented by Richard Rothschild, with a Dutch government organisation.

Did you catch that? In 2015 – four years before the disease even existed – a testing method for COVID-19 was developed. (2B)

Rothschild Patent Covid 19

Take a deep breath and let that sink in for a while…

4. Millions Of COVID-19 Test Kits Sold In 2017 And 2018

As we know the new COVID-19 disease appeared in China towards the end of 2019. Therefore it was named COVID-19 which is an acronym for Corona Virus Disease 2019.

Data from the World Integrated Trade Solution, however, shows something astonishing:

“in 2017 and 2018 – two years before COVID-19 – hundreds of millions of test kits for COVID-19 were distributed worldwide.”

Covid 19 Test Kits Export Worldwide
Covid 19 Test Kits Export Worldwide 2

‘Quick! Hide It!!’

This baffling data was discovered by someone on September 5, 2020, who posted it on social media. The next day it went viral all over the world.

On September 6 the WITS suddenly changed the original designation ‘COVID-19’ into the vague ‘Medical Test Kits’.

This is not allowed in trade, because you always have to be specific. There are many types of test kits for different diseases.

The fact that they removed the specification ‘COVID-19’, after this data became known worldwide, proves that they don’t want anyone to know about it.

They however forgot to delete one detail: the product code for these ‘Medical Test Kits’ is 300215 which means: ‘COVID-19 Test Kits’.

Covid19 Product Code

Their cover up came too late: this critical information was uncovered and is being revealed by millions worldwide. You can download a PDF that shows the original data of this website.

Two years before the outbreak of COVID-19 the USA, the EU, China and nations around the world started exporting millions of diagnostic test instruments for… COVID-19, a disease that supposedly didn’t even exist back then.

6. The COVID-19 ‘Project’ Is Planned Until 2025

The World Bank shows that COVID-19 is a project that is planned to continue until… end of March 2025! So the intention is to continue it for another FIVE YEARS. (2C)

Covid Program 2025 1

7. Anthony Fauci Guaranteed A Pandemic Within The Next Two Years

In 2017 Anthony Fauci made a very strange prediction, with an even stranger certainty.

With complete confidence Fauci announced that during the first term of President Trump a surprise outbreak of an infectious disease would surely happen.

Here’s what he said: (3)

“There is NO QUESTION there is going to be a challenge for the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases.

“There will be a SURPRISE OUTBREAK. There’s NO DOUBT in anyones mind about this.”

How could Fauci guarantee a surprise outbreak to happen during the first term of the Trump administration? What did he know, that we don’t?

Anthony Fauci quote - coronavirus prediction

8. Bill And Melinda Gates Guaranteed An Imminent Global Pandemic

In 2018 Bill Gates publicly announced that a global pandemic was on it’s way that could wipe out 30 million people. He said this would probably happen during the next decade. (4)

Melinda Gates added that an engineered virus is humanities greatest threat and also assured this would hit humanity in the coming years. (5)

‘A global pandemic is ON IT’S WAY. An ENGINEERED VIRUS is humanities greatest threat. This will happen in the NEXT DECADE.’ – BILL GATES, in 2018

Bill Gates about coronavirus in 2018

Let their choice of words resound into your mind for a moment…

They claim that the dense population of the world guarantees this imminent global pandemic.

But let’s be honest: most of the earth is uninhabited. Just fly over America in an airplane and look out the window. You see empty space most of the time, with a few cities here and there. Most of the United States is still wide open and empty.

The same goes for the rest of the world.

Australia, Russia, India, China, America, Africa… it’s wilderness for the most part. Our planet isn’t nearly as populated as Bill Gates wants us to believe. This world map shows it clearly…

Empty Earth

Most of the earth is totally void of any human presence. So the idea that the world is vastly overpopulated and is therefor bound to give rise to an imminent global pandemic is a lie.

[The powers that shouldn’t be also use this excuse to justify a reduction in the world’s population – i.e. depopulation.]

The Gates also claimed that air travel was sure to create a global pandemic. But countless people have been traveling in airplanes the past century.

Did that give rise to constant outbreaks of global pandemics? Of course not!

Their arguments why they guaranteed a global pandemic in the next few years are lies. So what is their real basis to make such guaranteed predictions?

9. Practicing For A Pandemic

A few months before the outbreak, Bill Gates – the world’s nr 1 vaccine dealer – organized an event in New York City. Guess what the event was all about? It was a ‘coronavirus pandemic exercise’.

Yes, you read that right:

Bill Gates organized a coronavirus pandemic exercise, right before it happened!

Event201 Planned Pandemic

On the large display in the auditorium, you see the text printed: ‘We need to prepare for the event that becomes a pandemic.’ This pandemic exercise was called Event201 and took place in October 2019, literally right before the outbreak.

Their conclusion was that all of humanity must be vaccinated…

Event 201 coronavirus

10. Excitement About Selling Vaccines In The Next Year

Shortly after this ‘exercise for a coronavirus pandemic’ Bill Gates tweeted:

“I’m particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.” – Bill Gates, Dec. 19, 2019

Tweet Bill Gates Single

Think about this: the world’s nr 1 vaccine dealer guarantees a global pandemic to occur in the next few years, and his wife said we should all fear an engineered virus that is ‘on its way’. Then they organize an exercise for an imminent global pandemic and say vaccines will be the only solution. Next Bill Gates tweets how excited he is about selling vaccines in the next year. Immediately after that, the announced pandemic breaks out.

Indeed, right away Bill Gates proclaims that the only solution for humanity is to buy his vaccines…

11. 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic Predicted In 2013

Back in 2013 a musician wrote a song called PANDEMIC. In his lyrics he described a global pandemic that kills millions, shuts down economies and gives rise to riots.

His song literally described in great detail what we are seeing in our world today, seven years later.

He even mentioned the exact year of the pandemic: 2020, and the specific type of virus: a coronavirus. (6)

This is a line in his lyrics from 2013:

‘2020 combined with CoronaVirus, bodies stacking.’

This song also predicted the riots that are now raging throughout America:

‘The State is rioting, using the street outside. It’s coming to your windows.’

How could this musician have known in 2013 that a coronavirus pandemic would break out in 2020, and that during this pandemic riots would erupt? He explains:

‘I did research back in 2012, and read the so called “conspiracy theories”. You know, those investigations the media doesn’t want us to look into. According to those theories pandemics were bound to happen in the decade of 2020 – 2030. So I wrote the song Pandemic about it.’

12. Global Preparedness Monitoring Board In Sept. 2019: ‘Get Ready For A Global Coronavirus Pandemic’

In September 2019 – also right before the outbreak – the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board released a report titled ‘A World At Risk’.

It stressed the need to be prepared for… a coronavirus outbreak!

Preparing Pandemic

On the cover of the report is the picture of a coronavirus and people wearing face masks.

In the report we read the following interesting paragraph:

‘The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.’

Did you catch that?

They have been practicing for a deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.

13. Outbreak From China Announced

Pandemic Simulation

In 2018 The Institute for Disease Modeling made a video in which they show a flu virus originating in China, from the area of Wuhan, and spreading all over the world, killing millions. They called it ‘A Simulation For A Global Flu Pandemic.’ That is exactly what happened, two years later.

Why did they say it would come from China? Why not Africa, where far more diseases are present? Or why not South America? Or India? How could they know there would be a flu virus coming from China and even show Wuhan as the originating area, that would infect the whole world?

Was This Coronavirus Engineered?

Where did the virus come from? One of the world’s leading experts in bioweapons is Dr. Francis Boyle. He is convinced it originated from a bioweapon lab in Wuhan, the Bio Safety Lab Level 4.

This facility is specialized in the development of… coronaviruses!

They take existing viruses and ‘weaponize’ them, meaning they make them far more dangerous, to be used as a biological weapon.

In the following two minute video clip you see a spokesperson for the Trump administration, bioweapon expert Dr. Francis Boyle and president Trump talk about how this virus came from the lab in Wuhan.

Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist (MD, PhD) fled the country, left her job at a prestigious Hong Kong university and became a whistleblower. She appeared on British television where she claimed SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, was created by Chinese scientists in a lab – and she offered evidence to support her claims. You can read more on the subject HERE.

Now comes the most interesting part:

14. In 2015 Anthony Fauci Gave This Very Lab 3,7 Million Dollars.

Figure this: the same man who guaranteed a surprise outbreak of a virus in the next two years, gave almost 4 million dollars to a lab that develops coronaviruses.

In the short clip below you can see a journalist ask president Trump about this grant given by Fauci to the Wuhan lab.

There are however more options in Wuhan where this virus could have originated from. Some believe it came from the Wuhan Virology Institute, where they also work on weaponizing coronaviruses.

15. Chinese Biological Experiments To Infect Humans With Coronavirus Exposed In 2015 By Italian State Media

Five years ago, Italian state owned media Company, RAI – Radiotelevisione Italiana, – exposed dark efforts by China on viruses.

The video, which was broadcast in November, 2015, showed how Chinese scientists were doing biological experiments on a SARS connected virus believed to be Coronavirus, derived from bats and mice, asking whether it was worth the risk in order to be able to modify the virus for compatibility with human organisms.

Below is a transcription of the Italian broadcast translated in English:

Chinese Biological Experiments

Chinese scientists have created a pulmonary supervirus from bats and mice only for study reasons but there are many questionable aspects to this. Is it worth the risk? It’s an experiment, of course, but it is worrisome.

It worries many scientists: It is a group of Chinese researchers attaching a protein taken from bats to the SARS virus, Acute Pneumonia, derived from mice.

The output is a super coronavirus that could affect humans. – (Source here, were you can read more)

16. Movies Predicted The Coronavirus Pandemic

Predictive programming is the process of informing the population about events that are soon to occur.

The past years several movies and television series were produced, about… a global coronavirus pandemic!

The film ‘Dead Plague’ depicts a global pandemic with a coronavirus and even mentions hydroxychloroquine as the cure.

Another film called ’Contagion’ shows how a coronavirus spreads globally with social distancing, face masks, lock-downs, washing of hands etc. as a result.

Literally everything we see now, is predicted in detail in these movies.

17. Pandemic Depicted During Olympics Summergames In 2012

Talking about predictive programming: during the opening show of the Summer Olympics in 2012, a coronavirus pandemic was played out for the eyes of the whole world.

Dozens of hospital beds, large numbers of nurses becoming puppets of a controlling system, death lurking about, a demonic giant rising up over the world, and the whole theatre was lit up in such a way that seen from the sky it looked like a coronavirus.

Coronaviru Solympics 2012
Olympics Summergames In 2012. 2
Olympics Summergames In 2012

Why did the Olympic Games show a coronavirus pandemic, in their opening show?

18. Worldwide Lockdown Predicted In 2008

Robin coronacrisis

The author and investigator Robin de Ruiter predicted in 2008 that there would come a global lockdown.

He said the purpose of this would be to create a new world of authoritarian control.

Because much of what he wrote back in 2008 is now happening right in front of our eyes, this book has been republished.

19. Journalists Predicted Planned Pandemic

In 2014 the investigative journalist Harry Vox predicted a planned global pandemic and said why the ‘ruling class’ would do such thing:

‘They will stop at nothing to complete their toolkit of control. One of the things that had been missing from their toolkit is quarantines and curfews. The plan is to get hundreds of thousands of people infected with it and create the next phase of control.’ (7)

coronavirus nwo

20. ‘Scenario For The Future’

This renown researcher refers to a famous document by the Rockefeller Foundation in which everything we see happening now is literally predicted in great detail: the global pandemic, the lock-downs, the collapse of the economy and the imposing of authoritarian control.

It’s all described with terrifying accuracy… ten years before it happened!

Rockefeller Document 2010

The document is titled ‘Scenario for the Future of Technology and International Development’. (9)

That says it all: a scenario for the future. It has a chapter called ‘LockStep’ in which a global pandemic is reported as if it happened in the past, but which is clearly intended as a rehearsal for the future.

scenario for the future -rockefeller

Rockefeller Foundation’s Operation Lockstep: ‘Under The Guise Of A Pandemic, We Will Create A Prison State’

The ‘Scenario for the Future’ continues with comparing two different responses to their predicted pandemic: the USA only ‘strongly discouraged’ people from flying, while China enforced mandatory quarantine for all citizens.

The first response is accused of spreading the virus even more, while the imposing of a suffocating lock-down is praised. Then it goes on to describe the implementation of totalitarian control:

“During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.”

Clearly the flexing of authority is the desired response. But it gets worse, according to this ‘Scenario of the Future’:

‘Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified.’

‘In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests.’

Rockefeller Foundation - coronavirus NWO

Handbook For Global Control

Now that the announced pandemic is indeed here, the same Rockefeller Foundation came forward with step two: a handbook on how to implement new control systems during this pandemic. Only when all the required control networks are in place, can the world open up again.

Rockefeller Document Covid 1

When you combine the two Rockefeller documents, you see the plan:

1) First they announce a global pandemic with a coronavirus and say what it should lead to: a whole new level of authoritarian control.
2) Secondly they give practical steps on how to apply this control system.

These are illustrations and quotes from their guide:

Global Control

‘Digital apps and privacy-protected tracking software should be widely used to enable more complete contact tracking.’

‘In order to fully control the Covid-19 epidemic, we need to test the majority of the population on a weekly basis.’

Digital Id

According to their ‘Scenario of the future’ the entire world population should get a digital ID that indicates who has received all the vaccines. Without sufficient vaccinations, access to schools, concerts, churches, public transport etc. will be denied.

Now in 2020 that is exactly what Bill Gates and many governments are calling for.

21. Bill Gates Negotiated $100 Billion Contact Tracing Deal With Democratic Congressman Sponsor Of Bill Six Months BEFORE Coronavirus Pandemic

The shocking revelations were unveiled on the Thomas Paine Podcast and the Moore Paine Show on Patreon by the two investigators.

nine months after the meetings with the Gates Foundation in Rwanda — Bobby L. Rush, a Democrat from Illinois, introduced the $100 BILLION H.R. 6666, the COVID-19 Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.

Everyone’s Contacts Must Be Checked

In a leaked government video (10) we see a conversation between former American president Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo, the governor of the state of New York.

They discuss how to set up a large control system to test the entire population and check all their contacts. They discuss how to build an army to carry out this control system.

Anthony Fauci and Cuomo

A Whole New Level Of Global Control

Bill Gates also made it clear that only people who have been vaccinated against Covid-19 should be allowed to travel, go to school, attend meetings and work. (11)

Digital vaccine ID’s are already being developed (12) and Gates has a patent on the technology that makes it possible to trace an individual’s body anywhere. This technology is called WO2020-060606 (13).

Also very interesting to note: An Enzyme Called LUCIFERASE Is What Makes Bill Gates Implantable Vaccine Work

In addition, Gates wants to set up a global monitoring network, which will track everyone who came into contact with Covid-19 (14).

The Plan: Inject Mankind With DNA Altering Vaccine

The famous investigative journalist Anthony Patch did years of research concerning the plans to control the world, by means of created pandemics and mandatory vaccines. During an interview in 2014 this researcher predicted the following:

‘They will release a man-made coronavirus. As a result the people will demand a vaccine to protect them. This vaccine will add a third strain of DNA to a persons body, essentially making them a hybrid.

‘Once a person is injected, almost immediately their DNA undergoes a transformation. This genetic change will cause people to loose the ability to think for themselves, without them even being aware this happened. Thus they can be controlled easier, to become slaves for the elite.’

Of course that sounds insane and it is insane indeed. Yet we have to be aware that this professional investigator is no fool. He has done years of research and this is what he discovered over the years.

We must be careful not to reject sound knowledge, based on years of research, simply because of our own lack of insight in these topics.

20 Years Of Research Say: The Vaccine Will Change Our DNA

Doctor Carrie Madej directed two large clinics in Georgia, before she went to the Dominican Republic to do humanitarian work. She studied DNA and vaccines for the past twenty years and made an urgent video in which she warns that there is a plan to inject humanity with very dangerous vaccines for Covid-19.

The purpose of these new vaccines will be twofold:

1) reprogram our DNA and make us hybrids that are easier to control.

2) connect us to artificial intelligence through a digital vaccine ID, which will also open a whole new realm of control.

This medical expert says she has observed multiple times how diseases were spread over populations by air craft. Because of satefy reasons she is not able to share more details about this in public.

Depopulate The Earth By Means Of Organized Epidemics

Dr. John Coleman is a famous Intelligence Officer from the CIA who wrote a book titled ‘The Committee of 300‘.

In it he explains how secret societies manipulate governments, health care, food industries, the media and so on. This book can be found on the website of the CIA. (15)

One of the primary goals of the many secret societies, that control governments and the media, is to depopulate the earth.

You can find a list of 32 ‘elites’ who support and promote (according to their own claims) depopulation HERE.

DR. JOHN COLEMAN,  CIA INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

Dr. Coleman says the following about their strategy:

‘At least 4 billion useless eaters shall be eliminated by the year 2050 by means of limited wars and organized epidemics of fatal rapid acting diseases…’ – DR. JOHN COLEMAN, CIA INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

Maintain Humanity Under 500,000,000

In 1980 a granite monument was erected in Georgia, called the Guidestones. A set of 10 guidelines is inscribed on the structure in eight modern languages and a shorter message is inscribed at the top of the structure in four ancient language scripts.

Georgia Guidestones

The first guideline goes as follows:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

The CIA officer Dr. Coleman revealed that one of their methods to ‘maintain humanity’ is to cause ‘organized epidemics of fatal rapid acting diseases’.

Using Vaccines To Reduce Humanity

During a TED talk Bill Gates echoed this goal, when he literally said that new vaccines can be used to reduce the world’s population with 10 – 15%! (16)

Bill gates - depopulationist and vaccine dealer

‘There are now 6.7 billion people on earth and soon there will be 9 billion. However, we can reduce that number by ten to fifteen percent if we do a good job with new vaccines, health care and birth control’. – BILL GATES, VACCINE DEALER

Covid19 Vaccine For Population Control?

Mike Adams is a published food scientist, author of the popular science book Food Forensics and founder of ISO-accredited CWC Labs.

Years ago he said the following:

“An engineered bioweapon will be released in population centers. There will be calls for massive government funding for the vaccine industry to come up with a vaccine. Miraculously, they will have a vaccine developed in record time. Everyone will be required to line up and take this vaccine shot.”

There is indeed a release of an engineered bioweapon, followed by a vaccine mandate, massive government funding for the vaccine industry and a vaccine that is being developed in record time.

The rest of his message is that this vaccine will slowly begin to kill millions – if not billions – of people over the course of a few years. It will be a kill-switch vaccine, designed to reduce the world’s population.

SUMMARY: WAS THE PANDEMIC PLANNED?

Thousands of medical doctors call the pandemic a global crime, and a world dictatorship with a sanitary excuse.

Two years before Covid-19 came to the global scene, the European Union, the USA, China and other nations suddenly started exporting tens of millions of test kits for Covid-19.

In 2013 a musician predicts a global pandemic with a coronavirus and says this will happen in 2020. He knew this because of personal investigation of so called ‘conspiracy theories’.

In 2017 Anthony Fauci guaranteed a surprise outbreak of an infectious disease during the first term of the Trump administration.

Right before the outbreak of a coronavirus pandemic, Bill Gates organized a global coronavirus pandemic exercise: Event201.

Right before the outbreak the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board told the world to be ready for a coronavirus pandemic.

In 2018 the Institute for Disease Modeling announced a global pandemic with a flu virus, originating in China in the area of Wuhan.

In 2018 Bill and Melinda Gates announced that in the coming years there would be a global pandemic of an engineered virus.

The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was created in the Bio Safety Lab Level 4 in Wuhan, which received millions of dollars from Anthony Fauci.

Several movies depicted the coronavirus pandemic with great detail, and even mention hydroxychloroquine as the cure.

The Summer Olympics in 2012 played a pandemic of a coronavirus during their opening show.

The investigative journalist Harry Vox predicted in 2014 that a global pandemic would be caused, so the ‘ruling class’ could implement a higher level of authoritarian control.

The investigative journalist Anthony Patch predicted a global pandemic with a man made virus, that would be used to force a DNA altering vaccine on humanity.

Dr. Carrie Madej studied DNA and vaccines for decades and says the plan is to use the Covid-19 vaccine to start the process of transhumanism: reprogramming the human DNA.

The CIA officer Dr. John Coleman studied secret societies and says their goal is to depopulate the earth by means of organized pandemics of fatal rapid acting diseases.

In the state of Georgia a huge monument was erected in 1980 with ten guidelines for humanity, in eight languages. The first of these ‘Ten Commandments’ is that humanity needs to be reduced to half a billion people.

Bill Gates said during a TED talk that new vaccines can be used to reduce the world’s population with 10-15%.

The ‘health ranger’ Mike Adams predicted years ago what we see happening now: the release of an engineered bioweapon, followed by a vaccine mandate, massive government funding for the vaccine industry and a vaccine that is being developed in record time. He also predicted that this vaccine will kill innumerable people over the course of a couple of years.

In 2010 the Rockefeller Foundation published the ‘Scenario for the future…’ in which they describe a coming global pandemic, that should result in the implementation of authoritarian control over the people, which will then intensify after the pandemic.

In 2020 they publish a handbook on how to create this world of control, with a step by step guide. They say life cannot return back to normal, until the world has become ‘Locked Down’ with this top down control from authoritarian governments.

We indeed see that Bill Gates and many others worldwide are right away seizing control in unprecedented ways, with enforcing vaccine ID’s, microchips that will be implanted into people, mandating the wearing of face masks, social distancing, forced lock-downs, extreme contact tracing, and so on.

Part of this top down control is extreme censoring of every single voice from doctors, scientists or other experts that criticize what is going on.

All Predictions Were Done Shortly Before It Happened

Note that every single prediction of this pandemic was announced a few years or even months before it happened. That is significant.

Gates and Fauci lie to their audience when they say ‘history tells us this will happen’, but there is no historic basis for guaranteeing a global coronavirus pandemic to occur within a few months or years.

Never in history did anything like this occur, on such a global scale.

The fact that such a historically unique event was predicted in great detail – by movies, shows, investigators, medical doctors, those who finance labs that develop these viruses, those who earn billions from these pandemics, those who want to create a whole new level of control in our world, etc. – shows it was planned.

Are There Signs That The Pandemic Is Being Manipulated?

So far we have looked at indications that the pandemic was planned beforehand. If it is indeed orchestrated, then that should also be obvious during the pandemic. A planned pandemic is also a controlled pandemic.

The Plan To Control The World

You may have heard the word ‘globalists’ before, but for those who aren’t familiar with it: these are people around the world who plan to create one global government, so they can have total global control over health, religion, finances – everything.

Main players in this are the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, and many others.

They recently came together in an event called DAVOS, where they expressed how the pandemic will be used to deploy their plans.

Here are some of the statements they made: (18)

‘Now is the historic moment in time, not only to fight the virus, but TO SHAPE THE SYSTEM.
The pandemic represents a window of opportunity to RESET OUR WORLD.

The world must act jointly and swiftly to REVAMP ALL ASPECTS of our societies and economies, from educational to social contacts and working conditions.

EVERY COUNTRY, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be TRANSFORMED.’ – Klaus Schwab, Funder of the World Economic Forum

A major leader of gobalism, is the World Economic Forum, founded by Klaus Schwab. He created a ‘spinning wheel’ with all their objectives. On it we can see the following three ‘projects’: Covid19 followed by Global Governance, and Internet Governance.

Global Reset
Global reset - internet governance

Good read: The Response To Coronavirus Is The New World Order / Agenda 2030

Nobody Wants These Organizations

Not a single human on the earth has voted for these organizations to even exist, let alone take full control of our lives, families, communities, jobs, health, industries, etc. Yet they present themselves as our ‘world leaders’ who are planning our entire future.

The World Health Organization presents itself as the global boss over our health, without anyone of us having chosen for them.

They apply a tyranny in mainstream media and social media, where no expression of medical or scientific expertise is allowed, unless it is in line with the guidelines of this ‘World’ organization.

Tens of thousands of medical doctors and scientists have been censored all over the world, by Facebook, Youtube and Twitter. Why? Because these social media giants state that ONLY what the World health Organization says, is true.

All of humanity must submit to these people who have positioned themselves over all of us, without ever asking our opinion or even consulting with other medical experts.

In fact, every single medical expert speaking out against their decisions is censored.

This means complete loss of medical freedom, loss of freedom of speech, loss of true science, loss of true journalism and an imposing of dictatorships by organizations that nobody voted for, lead by people nobody wanted and yet they simply seize ownership of our world.

They are the big fat mean bully on the playground, that plays boss over everyone.

World Health Organization Is Run By A Terrorist

The head of the Word Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is a member of a violent revolutionary communist party in Ethiopia, Tigray People’s Liberation Front. (19)

Who Terrorist

The Department of Homeland Security clearly states:

“The TPLF qualifies as a Tier III terrorist organization… on the basis of its violent activities…”

Let this get through to you: the man directing the World Health Organization is literally a communist terrorist, who has been involved in murdering thousands of innocent people, trying to impose communism on Ethiopia.

And this man is bullying the entire world, telling all of us what we can and cannot do, censoring every medical professional who has a different opinion, demanding blind obedience from all of humanity, while imposing mandates to be vaccinated by their number one financial sponsor: Bill Gates.

Is this the world you want to live in, from now on?

More And More Pandemics, Untill Mankind Submits

These globalists even threaten humanity with more suffering, if we don’t submit to their total control. Prince Charles recently joined DAVOS and publicly stated:

“There will be more and more pandemics, if we don’t do ‘the great reset’ now.” (18)

Bill Gates already calls this ‘pandemic one’ and is talking about ‘pandemic two and three’.

The investigator who back in 2013 predicted a coronavirus pandemic to occur in 2020, followed by riots, said the plan is to create series of pandemics during 2020-2030.

This decade is the selected timeframe to turn the world into one big banana republic, run by mad powerhungry men, who depopulate the earth, and enslave the rest of humanity.

They are planning to cause as many pandemics as needed, in order to break the back of humanity, until everybody submits to their global control.

Are you beginning to understand why more than 500 medical doctors from Germany, 600 doctors from Spain, thousands of medical experts from the USA and many more all over the world are calling this pandemic a ‘global’ crime’?

Leaders Of Catholic Church Warn Humanity

An archbishop and several cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church wrote a letter to humanity, to warn us for gloval tyranny under the guise of Covid-19.

This is an excert of this historic message, that has been translated in many languages and was sent to leaders all over the world. (20)

“We have reason to believe, on the basis of official data on the incidence of the epidemic as related to the number of deaths, that there are powers interested in creating panic among the world’s population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms, of controlling people and of tracking their movements. The imposition of these illiberal measures is a disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control.”

Is There Hope? What Can We Do?

Is there any hope for our future, or are we surrendered to the merciless hands of these wicked mega-billionaires who want to depopulate the earth and seize total control over humanity?

Hope 1

Yes, there is hope. The future is brighter than we can even imagine!

This is not a doom and gloom scenario, but a wake up call for humanity to stop blindly believing the mafia-media and perverse politicians, and rise up as one for a future of freedom.

I invite you to join a unique and historic movement of Global Freedom Fighters, who will lead humanity into a new era of hope, restoration and more freedom than we have ever known.

Source: StopWorldControl.com / References:

1: German group of Doctors For Information

2: Spanish group of Doctors For Truth

2B: Richard Rothshild patented a testing method for COVID-19 in 2015

2C: World Bank shows planned end date of project COVID-19

3: Fauci guarantees an outbreak with the next two years.

4: Bill Gates announced a global pandemic

5: Melinda Gates says humanities greatest threat is an engineered virus

6: Lyrics of 2013 song that predicted coronavirus pandemic in 2020

7: Harry Vox predicted the global pandemic

8: Robin de Ruiter predicted lockdowns

9: Scenario for the future described global pandemic

10: Andrew Cuomo talks with Bill Clinton about authoritarian control

11: Bill Gates talks about a digital ID to control people

12: Linking vaccines to a digital ID

13: Gates has pattent on technology to trace a body anywhere

14: Gates wants a global monitoring system

15: Download the book of CIA officer Coleman

16: Gates talks about reducing world population using vaccines

17: Tens of millions of Covid-19 test kist were exported by the EU, USA, China etc in 2017 and 2018

18: DAVOS and the gathering of the globalists

19: The head of the World Health Organization is member of violent terorrist group

20: Letter from archbishop and cardinals to humanity

Life As We Know It May Soon Be Over And Replaced By…

A small news report by Bloomberg earlier this week and published on MSN Money went mostly unnoticed in the corporate media, and even in the alternative media, and yet it might have been the most significant news story so far this year.

Jill Ward from Bloomberg wrote:

The Bank of England is reviewing whether it should create a central bank-backed digital currency, according to governor Andrew Bailey.

“We are looking at the question of, should we create a Bank of England digital currency,” Bailey said Monday in a webinar event with students. “We’ll go on looking at it, as it does have huge implications on the nature of payments and society. I think in a few years time, we will be heading toward some sort of digital currency,” he added.

Asian Businesswoman Using Credit Card To Payment With Facial Rec

The BOE is part of a group of major central banks teaming up to assess potentially developing their own digital currencies, acknowledging their role is being challenged by new technologies and private sector initiatives such as Facebook Inc.’s Libra.

It could be some time before the U.K. central bank is able to fully devote its attention to such a development, however.

“The digital currency issue will be a very big issue,” Bailey said. “I hope it is, because that means Covid will be behind us.” (Source)

COVID, of course, will probably never be “behind us,” as we are seeing today that it is being used as an excuse to destroy jobs and small businesses and complete the transfer of wealth from the middle classes to the Globalists.

It is working so well for them, why would they stop now?

So we should be very skeptical of governor Andrew Bailey’s statement that a Bank of England digital currency is still “a few years” away.

Why Is A Central Bank Digital Currency Such A Big Deal?

Identity Card

At this point I am sure that those still reading this article are accusing me of sensationalism and “click bait” by making the claim in the headline of this article that when cash is replaced by a digital currency, that life as we know it will be over and replaced by a New World Order.

After all, most of us already use digital payments for most of our transactions in life, and cash is seldom used these days anyway, so what’s the big deal?

The “big deal” is that all of the digital transactions that you use today to pay for goods and services, still draw upon financial resources represented by the currency you hold in your own bank account, and you have relative freedom to choose how, when, and where you are going to spend your money.

In other words, today you still have choices. You still have some freedoms.

If you don’t like the interest rates your credit card charges you, for example, you can choose to move to a different credit card company. If you don’t like the way your bank is treating you, you can choose to hold your accounts in a different bank that offers better rates, fewer fees, etc.

And if you don’t have good credit and do not qualify for a credit card, you can still participate in the marketplace with cash. You can also issue checks to someone to move your cash around should you so choose to do so without using digital payments.

And if you don’t like the fact that your local store now requires you to wear a mask to shop there? Not a huge problem, as most likely everything they sell you can order online in the comfort of your home and have it delivered to you anyway.

You still have choices.

But if the Central Bankers get their way and replace all cash and currencies with a single digital currency, you could lose ALL of these choices, and personal privacy will be almost completely gone!

Do you think that once a mandatory COVID vaccine comes out, that you can just decide not to participate?

It won’t be so easy if there is a single digital currency that replaces all other currencies.

Your ability to participate in the marketplace, even from the “comfort” of your own prison cell home, will be 100% dependent on whether or not you meet the qualifications to participate in using the new digital currency, even if you have a positive ledger in “your” account.

So just think about the ramifications if your account in the Central Banks of the new digital currency system has not approved you for transactions because you do not have a COVID digital ID card showing you have been properly vaccinated with an approved COVID vaccine?

You can’t go to a store to purchase anything, and you cannot purchase anything online either.

What are you going to do now?

Those are the kinds of questions you and your friends and family members need to start asking NOW, while you still have some freedoms left.

Trial Run On Digital Currency Happening NOW In Africa

And if you think this is fear mongering and that something like this would probably not happen for many years anyway, it is actually happening right now in Africa as a trial run.

Raul Diego published an article this week in Mint Press News titled: Africa to Become Testing Ground for “Trust Stamp” Vaccine Record and Payment System.

A new biometric identity platform partnered with the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine alliance and Mastercard will launch in West Africa and combine COVID-19 vaccinations, cashless payments, and potential law enforcement applications.

A biometric digital identity platform that “evolves just as you evolve” is set to be introduced in “low-income, remote communities” in West Africa thanks to a public-private partnership between the Bill Gates-backed GAVI vaccine alliance, Mastercard and the AI-powered “identity authentication” company, Trust Stamp.

The program, which was first launched in late 2018, will see Trust Stamp’s digital identity platform integrated into the GAVI-Mastercard “Wellness Pass,” a digital vaccination record and identity system that is also linked to Mastercard’s click-to-play system that powered by its AI and machine learning technology called NuData.

Mastercard, in addition to professing its commitment to promoting “centralized record keeping of childhood immunization” also describes itself as a leader toward a “World Beyond Cash,” and its partnership with GAVI marks a novel approach towards linking a biometric digital identity system, vaccination records, and a payment system into a single cohesive platform.

The effort, since its launch nearly two years ago, has been funded via $3.8 million in GAVI donor funds in addition to a matched donation of the same amount by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In early June, GAVI reported that Mastercard’s Wellness Pass program would be adapted in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Around a month later, Mastercard announced that Trust Stamp’s biometric identity platform would be integrated into Wellness Pass as Trust Stamp’s system is capable of providing biometric identity in areas of the world lacking internet access or cellular connectivity and also does not require knowledge of an individual’s legal name or identity to function.

The Wellness Program involving GAVI, Mastercard, and Trust Stamp will soon be launched in West Africa and will be coupled with a Covid-19 vaccination program once a vaccine becomes available. (Full article)

This follows an announcement published a few weeks ago that Visa had filed a U.S. patent on digital currency.

Visa is one of the most successful and consequential payments companies in the world. Where the powerhouse enterprise places its efforts is thus no small matter.

That’s why a newly published patent application for a blockchain-powered “digital fiat currency” system by the payments giant is not only legitimizing for blockchain tech in general but also indicates what may be coming to the mainstream payments arena amid increasing hyperdigitalization.

On Thursday, May 14th, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published the patent application in question, which is simply titled “DIGITAL FIAT CURRENCY.”

The filing, which was first submitted to the USPTO in November 2018, outlines a stablecoin-like system in which blockchain-based digital currency issuances are linked to actual fiat currency reserves. (Full Article)

This Is The REAL War! Central Bankers Vs. Free Citizens

As I have been publishing and warning for months now, there is a plan in place that is behind everything that is happening today at “warp speed,” and that plan is to usher in a New World Order.

This is not a “conspiracy theory” anymore, because the plan is unfolding before our very eyes.

The battles we are witnessing on streets and online pitting Republicans against Democrats, whites versus blacks, socialists versus capitalists, etc., are all a distraction to the REAL war, which is the masses against the Global Satanic Bankers.

And if a large enough percentage of the American public doesn’t wake up soon and realize who the real enemies are, this country will be totally lost to the Globalists.

Not to the Communists, not to the White Supremacists, but to the Global Bankers who fund both sides to achieve their purpose of a New World Order with a significantly reduced population that can be controlled by a single currency, a single government, and a single religion.

So if you haven’t been paying attention yet, it is time to get caught up.

Here are the past articles you need to read to give more context and understanding. Pay attention to the links and the accompanying videos in these articles as well.

The ‘Great Reset’ Is Targeting Our Children

As we find ourselves in this new normal, we have seen longstanding agendas, which have remained behind the scenes, hidden away from the public, now being offered as solutions justified by this crisis.

The World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the “4th Industrial Revolution” are perfect examples of prepackaged “solutions” being rolled out to save us from ourselves.

Today we will dive deeper into this agenda and also focus on how it may reshape our lives if the technocrats have their way.

The 'great Reset' Is Targeting Our Children

In this episode, Spiro is joined by John Klyczek, an Adjunct Professor, researcher, contributor to Activist Post as well as several other alternative news sites, and the author of the book School World Order: The Technocratic Globalization of Corporatized Education.

For generations the social engineers have used the strategy of indoctrination to target society’s most impressionable minds, our children, through many avenues but primarily through our education systems.

In this interview, Spiro and John Klyczek break down how this longstanding and effective tactic is being “reimagined” by the usual suspects, to reshape the future of humanity.

Covid1984: The Groupthink Pandemic

Groupthink is all around us. Decision-making in government, in the media and at work. It’s slowly killing the world.

In the background of the most important events, the Covid-19 response and increasing tension and conflict in the world, it might be worth looking through some of this in a bit more detail.

I’ve experienced groupthink working for large organisations, most notably in my last job. We were tasked with investigating and solving complex problems. Some technical expertise helped but was not crucial to the role.

Critical thinking and balancing evidence and differing viewpoints was key.

Covid1984 The Groupthink Pandemic

Yet the organisation decided that this was no longer required and changed the whole operating model to a one-size fits all type of call-centre. This new high-risk approach was recommended to us by the outside consultants Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) who were clueless about our business.

Those of us who were experienced in the role argued that the model wouldn’t work. But the organisation ploughed on regardless. It was obvious from day one that the financials didn’t stack up which they tried to deny and later concealed.

The executive largely ignored our concerns to start but then paid limited lip-service when the wheels started to come off. Anyway, in the end they offered us redundancy while employing fresh university graduates to replace us. As far as I know the place is still in denial and heading down the pan.

Groupthink is described as follows:

Groupthink is a term first used in 1972 by social psychologist Irving L. Janis that refers to a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group. In many cases, people will set aside their own personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group.

People who are opposed to the decisions or overriding opinion of the group as a whole frequently remain quiet, preferring to keep the peace rather than disrupt the uniformity of the crowd’.

Groupthink is common where group members have similar backgrounds and particularly where that group is placed under stress, resulting in irrational decision outcomes.

These are the main behaviors to watch out for:

  1. Illusions of invulnerability lead members of the group to be overly optimistic and engage in risk-taking.
  2. Unquestioned beliefs lead members to ignore possible moral problems and ignore the consequences of individual and group actions.
  3. Rationalising prevents members from reconsidering their beliefs and causes them to ignore warning signs.
  4. Stereotyping leads members of the in-group to ignore or even demonise out-group members who may oppose or challenge the group’s ideas.
  5. Self-censorship causes people who might have doubts to hide their fears or misgivings.
  6. “Mindguards” act as self-appointed censors to hide problematic information from the group.
  7. Illusions of unanimity lead members to believe that everyone is in agreement and feels the same way.
  8. Direct pressure to conform is often placed on members who pose questions, and those who question the group are often seen as disloyal or traitorous.

There are two further observations I made in the workplace, particularly relevant to groups going through major change or/and a crisis.

Firstly, they tend to swing from the status quo to the complete opposite. In our organisation, we definitely needed some changes and tweaks but we lurched towards a model which was completely unsuitable and unsustainable operationally and financially.

The other thing I noticed was our employers became control freaks. They started to talk down to us and our customers like children. They introduced office slogans such as ‘let’s crack on’ or ‘we’re all in this together’ and deflected from the problems of the disastrous reorganisation towards ‘celebrating diversity’ in the workplace. Critical thinking, creativity and expression were sucked out of the place.

The obvious analogy for all these behaviors is the response to Covid-19 when government ministers were collectively panicked into making extreme decisions on lockdown, using just one preferred source of ‘expertise’.

At the same time, they sidelined dissenters and independent experts who could have offered a calm, rational perspective and a targeted response to Covid-19.

In summing up this thinking and behavior, I’m reminded of these observations from Dr Malcolm Kendrick and Lord Sumption about the response to Covid-19. Dr Kendrick here:

We locked down the population that had virtually zero risk of getting any serious problems from the disease, and then spread it wildly among the highly vulnerable age group. If you had written a plan for making a complete bollocks of things you would have come up with this one”.

And Lord Sumption writing in the Mail on Sunday:

The Prime Minister, who in practice makes most of the decisions, has low political cunning but no governmental skills whatever. He is incapable of studying a complex problem in depth. He thinks as he speaks – in slogans.

These people have no idea what they are doing, because they are unable to think about more than one thing at a time or to look further ahead than the end of their noses.

The BBC – A Case-Study

A large organisation which has a high opinion of its news service. But of course, the reality is the opposite. There are so many groupthink case-studies but the BBC is as good as any, particularly in terms of making a bollocks of things.

The executives at the BBC and some senior correspondents will no doubt be aware that they run a politicised agenda of bias and misinformation on a grand scale. Outsiders who’ve researched their coverage will recognise this too. But this won’t be obvious to the vast majority of BBC employees, the victims of groupthink.

This came across in some of Andrew Marr’s incredulous reactions to Noam Chomsky’s observations about the media during their interview:

Andrew Marr: How can you know I’m self-censoring?

Noam Chomsky: I’m not saying you’re self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you say. But what I’m saying is if you believed something different you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.

I believe the foreign affairs reporting of the BBC is where this problem stands out most. Real expertise and impartiality has been completely absent from any reporting I’ve seen in recent years.

First, while not unusual in this profession, most journalists employed by the BBC will have a degree. Typically, when you look at today’s ‘top’ BBC journalists, many have attended the elite universities which tends to create a culture of like-minded people of similar backgrounds. This has been identified as one cause of creating groupthink.

Also, the younger journalists will be impressionable within the BBC hierarchy to the views and ways of the senior house-hold name journalists.

It’s sometimes said that there aren’t specific rules within the BBC and other media stating what a journalist can and can’t report and write and they generally don’t knowingly mislead. But they will learn almost instinctively to self-censor and operate within a set of unwritten, unspoken rules and a strait-jacket narrative.

The other problem in foreign affairs reporting is that BBC journalists and most others rarely visit the warzones. On Syria, they typically report from Lebanon or Turkey only occasionally venturing into a government or relatively safe terrorist or Kurd held area. So unlike previous conflicts, such as Bosnia where I remember at least a tiny degree of balance, journalists seldom see what is actually going on.

Under the pressure of deadlines they rely on dubious sources such as Al Qaeda terrorists and Bellingcat and pre-determined assumptions which conveniently slot in with the anti-Assad narrative of the BBC and establishment.

Recently, some grave doubts emerged about the OPCW report on the Douma incident, a huge story which has wider implications.

The investigations of Robert Stuart into a likely previously staged incident involving BBC journalists was swept under the carpet. Both matters have been ignored because the BBC have no way or will to refute evidence which goes against their bias.

On the other hand, the BBC are more than happy to provide extensive coverage to more allegations against Russia and Trump from anonymous sources, providing no background or balance within the overall of climate of related allegations which have collapsed or are unproven.

And in recent days the BBC has provided coverage on Hong Kong which looks like it’s come from a script.

It’s well known BBC journalists are silent on malpractice. We saw this with the Jimmy Savile scandal and decades of sexual abuse. This attitude is similar to what I experienced with my employer who were very vocal and proud of their anti-bullying and mental health policies. Yet when the staff were surveyed anonymously, bullying rates were through the roof.

The other obvious signs of groupthink within the BBC, particularly during the Covid-19 crisis, is dumbing-down and its slogan-filled website written as though their readers are idiots.

Another strong theme is a preoccupation with race and diversity, American affairs and general tittle-tattle, to the detriment of more pressing matters such as the longer-term and wider impact of the world’s current problems.

Covid-19 and our response to it is probably the most important event of our lifetime but there’s barely a peep about whether the response is necessary and proportionate. Instead, this totally rational viewpoint is only ever mentioned in the context of BBC articles about Covid-19 ‘conspiracy theories’.

Many of the examples I’ve described neatly fit in with groupthink behaviors and experiences I encountered in a large organisation.

But I think the biggest groupthink problem is with senior BBC journalists. Ultimately their lazy arrogance has trickled down to the newer journalists and so over time, wrong behavior has been normalised throughout.

The BBC ‘Grandees’

A few months ago Huw Edwards made some comments about accusations of bias directed towards the BBC, defending the corporation and journalists. These are some of the specific comments he made which to me showed a complete lack of understanding of the concerns people have.

The BBC is not, to put it politely, run like some newspapers, with an all-powerful proprietor and/or editor making his or her mark on the tone and direction of the coverage […] BBC News is a rather unsettling mix of awkward, contrary and assertive people who (in my very long experience) delight in either ignoring the suggestions of managers or simply telling them where to get off. That’s how it works.”

Around this time, I also recall Edwards arguing on Twitter on the subject and he said that it was ridiculous to say that journalists within the BBC were willfully misleading the public. His Twitter opponent replied that this was not what he had said and was simply stating that the BBC had fallen victim to groupthink. Edwards just couldn’t get his head past this, while continuing to attack and misrepresent BBC critics.

This defensive attitude and stereotyping of critics is classic groupthink behavior in which he, Nick Robinson and others have taken part.

I used to admire John Simpson and in the 1980s he visited Iran post-revolution. He wrote a book of the visit which I enjoyed. But in recent years, he has shown that he doesn’t understand modern geo-politics and like the BBC can only assess it in terms of the ethno-centric British view on the world and our influence.

In this President Putin press conference he asked the most ridiculous question imaginable which confirms he’s lost the plot. His question was about Russian behavior in the world and whether Putin wanted to create a new Cold War.

Putin wiped the floor with him pointing out the hundreds of NATO bases and numerous wars which put Simpson’s aspersions into their rightful place.

Jeremy Bowen is another who has lost his way. I saw a recent report from him from the position of a Christian militia unit fighting terrorists in Syria.

Again, BBC arrogance was on full display. His report made generalised comparisons between him meeting Serbs in Bosnia in the 1990s and these Syrian fighters, clearly indicating that he doesn’t listen and is not interested in Syrian views on western complicity and the White Helmets.

In the usual group-speak he described the Syrian Government ‘the regime’ and Al Qaeda as ‘rebels’. His report simply rubber-stamped the BBC coverage of the whole conflict.

This arrogance is typical of journalists who rely on their past achievements, creating an air of gravitas to impress their audience. The reality is his reporting is based on no substance and outdated and lazy assumptions.

The Madness Of John Sweeney

Ex-BBC nowadays, John Sweeney’s arrogance is off the scale. These days he spends his time on Twitter attacking lockdown sceptics, like Peter Hitchens accusing him of ‘killing’ his Mail on Sunday column readers with his views on Covid-19 lockdown.

Sweeney is off his trolley but the reality is he probably always was as this clip during his BBC days shows.

This behaviour, extreme as it is, certainly suggests groupthink played a big part somewhere in his career.

An Illusion Of Sanity

BBC Dateline is a current affairs TV panel discussion which I occasionally watched. The panel which changed regularly were seemingly well qualified with foreign writers and journalists which included Russia or Arab affairs experts.

Sitting around that table they gave the impression of people who knew what they were talking about.

However, when you listened carefully to what they were saying, there was very little substance. Their arguments, all based on a simple premise that Russia/Syria are bad, the West is good, tempered with a little occasional criticism of western policy to give the illusion of balance.

Occasionally you would have a more pro-Russia expert on but with the prevailing consensus of the rest of the panel, his or her views would be ridiculed. It got to the point any dissenting panel member started to self-censor to sound more credible, perhaps to remain on the panel. This is the dilemma for any progressively minded BBC guest nowadays.

Peter Hitchens who complains the BBC never invite him on, appeared on Good Morning Britain (GMB) recently. As is normal with many GMB debates, the discussion on Covid-19 descended to retorts and abuse and was simply not the forum for Hitchens to get across his well thought out points on the big picture.

But I don’t think he would have fared any better on the BBC. The BBC create an illusion of civilised, intelligent discussion but the reality is there is no substance, depth or balance. The crucial discussion points about Covid-19 or conflict in the world don’t get a hearing. The premise and the rules are already set in stone before the guests arrive.

Final Thoughts

There are many reasons why the world is in its current madness and on the brink of serious conflict.

Groupthink in government, the media and the general public is probably a key factor as this represents the thinking culture alongside and below the psychopaths and war criminals who pull the strings.

It’s almost impossible to break this cycle by chipping away at it. But it’s possible a large event connected to Covid-19 or a major war will be the catalyst which might shock us out of our distorted view of reality.

In the meantime, independent commentators and ex-MSM like Peter Hitchens, Anna Brees and Tareq Haddad, are putting their careers on the line and self-interests aside. We can only encourage others employed by the BBC and other media to be brave and do the same.

Certainly, the consequences will be far more disastrous doing nothing and not speaking up.

In the sudden, new founded willingness to demonstrate on the streets perhaps those participating might be better reflecting on who and what the real enemy is.

Party politics, Brexit and Black Lives Matter really don’t matter.

Groupthink, escalating world conflict, All Lives Matter, including Syrians, Libyans, Palestinians and Blacks,(including those outside of US,UK and Europe) together with the post-Covid-19 march to an uncertain ‘new normal’, are the issues which matter right now.

The War On Cash, Covid-19 Edition

The digital “toll”

It doesn’t require too dark an imagination to realize the gravity of the concerns over the digital yuan.

China is a true pioneer when it comes surveillance, censorship and political oppression and the digital age has given an incredibly efficient and effective arsenal to the state.

Adding money to that toolkit was a move that was planned for many years and it is abundantly clear how useful a tool it can be for any totalitarian regime.

The War On Cash, Covid 19 Edition

The ability to track citizens’ transactions, access their financial data, control and freeze the account of anyone that presents a potential threat, it all opens the door to the ultimate oppression: total control over private resources, over people’s livelihoods and their capacity to cover their basic needs.

But we don’t even have to wait for the first signs of abuse of the system. As part of the government’s covid relief spending packages, digital vouchers were loaded to Chinese citizens’ smartphones to encourage them to spend in their local stores.

According to Dr. Shirley Yu, visiting fellow at the London School of Economics:

“Digital coupons allow the Chinese government to trace the usage of these coupons,” and they “allow the government to know which sector is most helped, who uses it and where money is actually spent”.

Of course, if the government has access to data that allows them check if their policies were well transmitted and if the money was spent as they intended, they can also use that data to check and trace any transactions for any other purpose.

Xu Yuan, a senior researcher with Peking University’s Digital Finance Research Cen­tre, highlighted the regulatory benefits of making all cash flow in society traceable.

“In theory, following the launch of the digital yuan, there will be no transaction that regulatory authorities will not be able to see – cash flows will be completely traceable,” Xu said in an interview.

“Of course, this thought is scary enough on its own, but it becomes infinitely more terrifying when those that control the system have a very long track record of abuse and blatant disregard for basic rights and liberties.

“It could never happen here”

That’s probably the most oft-repeated argument in our “civilized” western democracies, right before some terrible governmental abuse of power takes place, or before some new restrictive law or overarching regulation gets passed that limits individual citizens’ rights.

A lot of people thought that the PATRIOT Act could never get passed, that banking secrecy would always be respected, and that there’s no way we’d ever see a global economic shutdown by decree.

By comparison, a digital fiat currency is not really that far-fetched.

In fact, about 20 central banks apart from the PBOC are already actively working on it. As for the possibility of digital currencies and payments systems being enforced, most central bank officials and politicians in the West seem to be quite confident.

In a recent interview, Philadelphia Federal Reserve bank president Patrick Harker said a real-time digital payments option was “inevitable”, while the chief of the Bank for International Settlements also recognized that central banks will need to issue their own digital currencies soon.

During the corona relief debates in the US, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, advocated for the stimulus payments to be distributed thought a digital dollar wallet.

The so-called ‘FedAccount’ program, with the Federal Reserve responsible for overseeing it, would offer free bank accounts to receive money and make payments.

As for the EU, for many years there has been very strong support for the development of a digital single market.

According to a recent European Parliament Briefing,

“There is no pan-EU retail payment method to date (other than cash in euros), as there is no European card scheme. This is a source of concern for the European Central Bank (ECB)…. Thus, the ECB is calling for a European payment strategy to change this situation.”

This is by all accounts the next step in the centralization and integration plan of the Union, and this couldn’t be a better time for it to materialize.

Given the decline in public trust after the EU’s handling of the corona crisis, financial “integration” could be a valuable tool to tie the members tighter together and to force all citizens into a common digital economy, centrally planned and managed.

A fork in the road

So, if we accept that digital currencies are inevitable and arguably their emergence has been accelerated by the corona crisis, the real question is who controls them, who issues and distributes them, and who determines their value.

We stand at a historic crossroads and the answer to these questions can determine the kind of future we’ll wake up to. It can be a very bleak one, if the power remains with governments and centralized institutions.

In this scenario, money will retain all the flaws and vulnerabilities of today’s fiat currencies, only its digital nature will amplify them to an unimaginable extent.

The privacy violations of today will become simply unstoppable, a mere fact of life, while disastrous monetary policies, like negative rates, so far only cushioned by the individuals’ ability to sidestep them through physical cash, will be forcibly and uniformly transmitted throughout the economy.

On the other hand, the future could instead be bright, if we take the other path, towards decentralization, free competition and individual financial sovereignty.

If we instead choose to break the state monopoly of money and allow private digital currencies to compete, a myriad of different solutions will emerge to serve a myriad of different needs.

Savings can be accommodated though physical gold-backed digital currencies, real assets can be tokenized to facilitate and secure physical property sales, specialized cryptocurrencies can offer privacy and untraceable transactions.

Far from a pipe dream, many solutions like these already exist, while others are in the making. There is therefore a choice about what kind of future we want and it is us, as individuals, that must make it.

By Claudio Grass, Hünenberg See, Switzerland

Why COVID19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”

But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.

Unfounded “Test, Test, Test,…” Mantra

Why Covid19 Pcr Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless

At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”

The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC.

Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:

Test, test, test — that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”

This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.

But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”

So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.

Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.

The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

Lack Of A Valid Gold Standard

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.

This is a fundamental point.

Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”[1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.

As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”

But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.

Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].

And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.

In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.

That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard.

But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd“I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”

No Proof For The RNA Being Of Viral Origin

Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.

As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.

The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.

And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.

Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.

But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).

We asked several study authors “Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”, they gave the following responses:

Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”

Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”

Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”

Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”

Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.

That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused).

Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.

We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:

[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”[3]

And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:

I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]

This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2.

In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.

In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch’s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian.

The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have done it, in reality, did not succeed.

One example is a study published in Nature on May 7. This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet any of the postulates.

For instance, the alleged “infected” laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there.

And the slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight went back to normal again.

Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies. And let’s not forget: These experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not the case.

Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 — the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) — could answer the following question I have sent them:

If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus?

Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can “stress” the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable — an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983.

It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany’s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be “accepted” (not validated!) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.

But we didn’t get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.

Regarding our question “Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?,” the Charité concedes that they didn’t use purified particles.

And although they claim “virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus,” in their paper (Corman et al.) they state:

RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany),”

Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral.

Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn’t even go through a proper peer review process, nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls — although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid.

Irrational Test Results

It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.

For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.

A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative”, “positive” and “dubious”.

A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.

Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:

It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.”

In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded scare among the “positive” people tested.

This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).

The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly “positive” (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly “negative” (a test with a specificity of 95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).

With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.

In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt published an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios.

The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.

But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have “a shockingly low” PPV.

In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested “positive” are not “positive” at all. Yet “they are prescribed quarantine,” as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically.

In a second scenario of the journal’s article, a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is assumed. In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent, meaning that 22 percent of the “positive” tests are false “positives.”

That would mean: If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered “positive” worldwide — supposing that the true “positives” really have a viral infection — we would get almost 2 million false “positives.”

All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called “SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

In the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel“ file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”

And:

This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

And the FDA admits that:

positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics[5].

To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol — and distributed by Roche we can read:

These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection”

And:

For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Where Is The Evidence That The Tests Can Measure The “Viral Load”?

There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even detect the targeted genes.

Moreover, in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are “qualitative” tests, contrary to the fact that the “q” in “qPCR” stands for “quantitative.” And if these tests are not “quantitative” tests, they don’t show how many viral particles are in the body.

That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body.

That is to say, the CDC, the WHO, the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called “viral load,” i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. “But this has never been proven. That is an enormous scandal,” as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out.

This is not only because the term “viral load” is deception. If you put the question “what is viral load?” at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream. They’re surprised to learn it’s actually RNA molecules.

Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is “burdened” with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out (which has not yet happened):

You take, let’s say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test.The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in. The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and how much of it they found. Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick — or are they fit as a fiddle?

With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the Charité to also answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. — the so-called “Drosten PCR test” — is a quantitative test.

But the Charité was not willing to answer this question “yes”. Instead, the Charité wrote:

If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charité in most cases these are […] limited to qualitative detection.”

Furthermore, the “Drosten PCR test” uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary assay, while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as confirmatory assay.

According to Corman et al., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses, while the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled “SARS-CoV-2”.

Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “positive” even if just the E-gene assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses!gives a “positive” result.

This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as specific.

That change of algorithm increased the “case” numbers. Tests using the E-gene assay are produced for example by Roche, TIB Molbiol and R-Biopharm.

High Cq Values Make The Test Results Even More Meaningless

Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a “cycle quantification” (Cq) value of over 35, and some, including the “Drosten PCR test”, even have a Cq of 45.

The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.

“Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” as it says in the MIQE guidelines.

MIQE stands for “Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments”, a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.

The inventor himself, Kary Mullis, agreed, when he stated:

If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”

The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin, Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR which has been called “the bible of qPCR.”

In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that “the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too high (increasing false “positive” results).”

And, according to him, a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.

If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is a higher probability of false positives.

Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR.”

But this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,” as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper.

Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way.

For example, he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process (RNA to cDNA) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by a factor of 10 (see above interview).

Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test’s reliable informative value.

So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests—even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity?

Certainly, the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under lockdown, not least because these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with even a spark of scientific understanding.

Thus, the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations. NB, the WHO, for example has financial ties with drug companies, as the British Medical Journal showed in 2010.

And experts criticize “that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued, even grown“ since then. The CDC as well, to take another big player, is obviously no better off.

Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “positive” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide.

And a “positive” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article “Fatal Therapie.”

Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.

Source: Off-guardian.org / Notes:

[1] Sensitivity is defined as the proportion of patients with disease in whom the test is positive; and specificity is defined as the proportion of patients without disease in whom the test is negative.
[2] E-mail from Prof. Thomas Löscher from March 6, 2020
[3] Martin Enserink. Virology. Old guard urges virologists to go back to basics, Science, July 6, 2001, p. 24
[4] E-mail from Charles Calisher from May 10, 2020
[5] Creative Diagnostics, SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR K
it.

Children Have 0.00% Chance Of Dying From COVID But Are Harmed For Life By Social Distancing, Which Has Its Roots In CIA Torture Techniques

California Civil Rights Attorney Leigh Dundas published a video on Facebook this week to show the devastating consequences of isolating children and forcing them to practice “social distancing” at places like school.

Here are some lesser known facts about social distancing and isolation:

• It was developed 70 years ago by the CIA to break down enemies of state.

• It is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day AND being an alcoholic.

• It doubles the risk of death, and destroys the part of the brain responsible for learning.

She pointed out that according to the statistics and the CDC:

• A child’s risk of dying from COVID is 0.0%, per the CDC.

• No child has passed on COVID to a family member or third party (they do not transmit).

She goes on to explain the historical origins of practicing Social Distancing, and how the technique was developed by the CIA to torture “enemies of the state.”

Child Boy In Protective Mask Is Looking At Camera Sitting On Cou

Watch the video:https://www.facebook.com/v5.0/plugins/video.php?app_id=378868832991289&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df1ce8507842abb4%26domain%3Dhumansarefree.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fhumansarefree.com%252Ff34956909748b08%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F100008294047911%2Fvideos%2F2763510123935429%2F&locale=en_GB&sdk=joey&width=1200

Here is a summary of her research designed to educate school administrators so that they abolish social distancing rules in schools.

Sample Letter To School On Harms From Social Distancing

Legal-Medical Opinion On Possible Changes to 2020-2021 School Year due to COVID

by Attorney Leigh Dundas

I write today to highlight certain factors that will hopefully serve to inform what are likely ongoing embryonic conversations at the District level, relating to COVID and the 2020-21 school year – and further – to urge a particular path of restraint during such conversations based on abundant scientific, medical, neuro-cognitive and legal considerations which have now emerged.

At the beginning of this letter, I want to acknowledge that it is quite obvious that there is a virus, which can be sometimes fatal, particularly to certain demographics.

That said, there are also a federal and state constitution – which have been to some degree overlooked by certain states in their rush to contain the virus – as well as data in the form of hard math and hard science, which is now emerging in the context of COVID, and which bears review.

Math On COVID Was Wrong

The study that precipitated the lockdown of more than 95% of America’s population (and indeed, the planet’s population) was authored by Neil Ferguson, out of the UK. It predicted deaths in the millions.

This alarming conclusion was taken into account by leaders of most nations, and acted on accordingly.

America acted by quarantining – not the sick – but the approximately 311 million Americans who were not sick, and putting them under the functional equivalent of house arrest, for an indefinite period of time.

Interestingly, after a mere one day of himself being under lockdown in the UK, the study’s author walked back his math a shocking ninety-six percent (96%): his revision of deaths in his own country went from a predicted 500,000 down to 20,000.

At this juncture, allow me to point out the obvious, using an analogy involving my daughter: if my daughter Katya routinely said the answer to a math problem this year was 100, when it was indeed only 4 – and Katya continued to get her math problems wrong by 96% – she would receive a failing grade in math from Foothill High.

And rightly so: with such incompetence in basic arithmetic reflected on her transcript, I would hope that she not be hired by anyone, anywhere, in any serious job that required basic math, as such degree of error – in engineering, statistics, or any job – would have fatal consequences (imagine if the degree of slope in a freeway overpass were 96% wrong).

Why Neil Ferguson’s model was adopted in the first place is curious, as this was not his first such major error: witness Ferguson’s 2001 model of mad cow disease – which predicted horrible fatalities including up to 150,000 deaths in England – which was subsequently deemed “not fit for purpose” when in fact only 177 people died (and that’s through 2020).[1]

Indeed, what current actual data evinces is that the mortality rate is nowhere near the initial projections, as concluded by a study out of Stanford on Sunday, followed by one out of USC yesterday.

The Stanford study, led by Professor Eran Bendavid, “concluded that the mortality rate in Santa Clara County is between 0.12% and 0.2%.” Less than 1% fatal.

And 50 to 85 times more people had been infected than originally thought in northern California (2.5%-4.2%), while in southern California – where most flights from Asia land into LAX – the infection rate was found to range from 2.8%-5.6% (which experts believe is due to earlier-than-thought exposure to COVID dating back to last Fall).

ZERO Children Dying

In addition to having a LESS THAN ONE PERCENT fatality rate overall, the fatality rate for children – who appear to be essentially immune (likely due to their contraction of endless common colds most of which are from Corona virus strains) – is ZERO.

You read that right: worldwide, ZERO children under 10 have died. And in the US? Zero individual under age 20 have died. [3]

Yet further, the number of deaths for all people in the US to date is proving this virus to be no more deadly than a bad flu.[4]

And that is even with the number of deaths being radically over-inflated due to the CDC’s order that all deaths be counted as COVID deaths – including e.g., a man who dies by crashing his motorcycle or heart attack, if he tests positive for COVID (even though he was not SICK from COVID at the time of his death, and the actual proximal cause of his fatal injury was vehicular fatality or heart attack).

Sweden is actually doing the math correctly: counting people who die with COVID separately from people who die from COVID.

But the U.S. to date is refusing to do correct math, and thus it must be noted that even the math showing COVID to be no worse than the flu is likely still artificially north of where it should be – COVID may well be far less fatal than the flu (and we know it is less fatal than SARS or MERS).[5]

Finally, it should be noted that countries and states who’ve gone into lockdown actually have no better outcomes, and in some cases, MORE fatalities than those who did not employ lockdown.[6]

Frankly, this is not shocking: in the 1918 flu pandemic, it was rapidly discovered that outdoor hospitals with no roofs – where patients were exposed to sunlight and fresh air – had lower death rates and better recovery rates (due to the incontrovertible science that shows better immune response with Vitamin D, and of course, the ability to breathe non-contaminated air that is not re-circulating with a heavy virus load).[7]

Governors Are Not Kings

Now that we have reviewed the math, I want to turn to a governmental analysis, followed by a review of legal points.

Governors are not kings. While they can issue orders, those orders are not always constitutional.

Courts – which are currently closed state-wide – are the final arbiter of whether any decree, order, or law is actually lawful.

As educators, I doubt I have to point out here the rather obvious fact that we have three branches of government, precisely to avoid the end that is occurring right now: the three branches are to act as a system of checks and balances on each other.

Currently, in California and most states, only one branch of government is in session. This is a set-up for abuse, and something our forefathers took great pains to avoid.

There is a name for countries whose countries function with only one branch in session: they are called dictatorships.

Put simply: due to the current closure of the courts, many executive branches are accomplishing by fiat what would never be allowed in any other setting, and which decrees are likely exceedingly unconstitutional.

Constitutional Rights

And turning to the legal analysis: governments may, in times of crises, curtail First Amendment rights, as well as other rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

Phrased differently, our right to speech, to assemble, to pray, our freedom of movement (a derivative First Amendment right) may be encroached upon and are not absolute.

That said, any order that burdens a First Amendment right must pass strict scrutiny: it must be “narrowly tailored” to achieving a “compelling state interest.”

Applying this standard in reverse to the facts at hand, safeguarding public health is likely going to be considered a compelling state interest – although that prong is harder to meet with every passing day that yields a new study showing COVID to be no more fatal than the flu.

But more to the point, an order that indefinitely prevents normal assembly or speech – as many governors’ orders do – is never going to be able to be shown to be “narrowly tailored” to addressing the problem of the virus.

An example of a “narrowly tailored” solution designed to achieving virus containment and public health concerns would be confining sick people to home or hospital – which is a true quarantine – as opposed to locking down 95% of Americans who are neither sick nor carriers and putting us under house arrest for an indefinite period of time.

Moreover, what may – at one very discrete point in time – be a prudent action that errs on the side of caution (ordering people to stay home during the first 4-6 weeks of the virus) – and which many would concede appears narrowly enough tailored at the front side – will NOT continue to be deemed narrowly tailored if said solution is applied indefinitely.

Stated differently: house arrest to control a pandemic spread for one month seems narrowly tailored and justified, but house arrest forever – particularly when the facts show that the virus is NOT a pandemic and is no more fatal than the annual flu – cannot be justified in a free society, and would never meet the legal standard.[8]

California’s recent order has major other issues which I won’t belabor here, as they are not particularly relevant, other than to point out the rather obvious fact that if a person can be trusted to stand six feet apart from his neighbor while buying marijuana (pot stores are considered “essential” under California’s current order), then it begs the question of why Ma and Pa Smith cannot be trusted to remain six feet apart from their neighbors while praying in the pews of their local church this Sunday.

While the governor has to my knowledge issued no official guidance to educational institutions of which I’m aware (other than shutting everything down through the end of this particular school year), he has been loudly telegraphing in interviews that he believes there will be no mass gatherings and no sports for at least 18-24 months, and that schools should endeavor to engage in some costly and scientifically unsound re-arrangements prior to Fall 2020.

Lawsuits Coming And The State Will Lose

On that front: the State is about to be hit with a deluge of lawsuits, as both the existing stay-at-home order is unconstitutional (not just from a First Amendment standpoint, but from a 13th Amendment/ slavery standpoint, and from a Takings Clause standpoint re small businesses), as are the verbalized but not-yet-written statements about California’s future (should they be enacted).

These lawsuits the State will lose: it is not constitutional to continue house arrest indefinitely, nor to require masks on healthy people at all (let alone indefinitely), nor to prohibit adults or children from gathering normally at church, work, sports, or school for 1-2 years.

Moreover, the Department of Justice has clearly and correctly indicated it will be intervening as a party of interest in such federal court lawsuits, and siding with the people and against the State.

To wit, as reported by both NPR and Bloomberg[9] yesterday:

Attorney General Barr called some current stay-at-home orders “burdens on civil liberties” and said that if they continued and lawsuits were brought, his department would side against the state.

“The idea that you have to stay in your house is disturbingly close to house arrest. I’m not saying it wasn’t justified. I’m not saying in some places it might still be justified. But it’s very onerous, as is shutting down your livelihood,” Barr said.

***

Barr was asked what he would do with any governors who are “indifferent” to easing restrictions in their states. “We’re looking carefully at a number of these rules that are being put into place,” Barr said.

“And if we think one goes too far, we initially try to jawbone the governors into rolling them back or adjusting them. And if they’re not and people bring lawsuits, we file a statement of interest and side with the plaintiffs.”

***

“These are very, very burdensome impingements on liberty. And we adopted them, we have to remember, for the limited purpose of slowing down the spread, that is bending the curve. We didn’t adopt them as the comprehensive way of dealing with this disease.”

“You can’t just keep on feeding the patient chemotherapy and say ‘Well, we’re killing the cancer, because we were getting to the point where we’re killing the patient,’” Barr said.

“Now is the time that we have to start looking ahead and adjusting to more targeted therapies.”

Before I turn to the issue of schools in the time of COVID, a brief recap of the points in this letter thus far:

The mathematical predictions on which 95% of the planet’s population was placed under house arrest were flawed by 96%, the death rate from COVID is on par with a bad flu season, the mortality rate is way less than 1% for all people while the death rate for children under age 20 in the US is zero percent.

Some governors’ actions in continuing the draconian restrictions and lockdowns are unconstitutional, lawsuits are commencing, the Department of Justice has indicated it will intervene and side against the state and against municipal authorities (translation: school districts) which are executing these unconstitutional orders, I have been approached by a cross-section of individuals who are committed to funding and commencing such legal challenges.

I have the track record and skill and desire to succeed in this area, and school districts NOT in Orange County have as of yesterday begun releasing unscientific and unconstitutional proposed changes to their education programs for 2020-21 (bootstrapped to, or otherwise derivative of, State orders or insinuations which are themselves unconstitutional).

Social Distancing Is A Euphemism That Hides A More Pernicious Truth

On the point of school alterations, let me preface the discussion with a scientific review of social distancing.

Social distancing is a euphemism which is not only inaccurate, but like many euphemisms, hides a more pernicious truth.

Social distancing is, in fact, social isolation. One can argue that distance is not the same as isolation, and only becomes isolation after a certain yardstick of measurement has been reached between persons, but the reality is that such is not the case.

If you doubt this, take a walk down the aisle at Vons, and try to initiate a smile or simple “hello” to someone six feet away.

Though this is theoretically possible, as voices and visual cues carry across a distance of six feet, nine out of ten people will not respond (and yes, I conducted this little test just last week – I studied psych/soc before becoming an attorney).

Medical journals agree: social distance is social isolation. And social isolation is thus the term I will use for the duration.

Social Isolation Is A Human Rights Violation On Par With Torture And Other War Crimes

To lead with the conclusion: social isolation is a human rights violation – which is on par with torture and other war crimes.

Indeed, social isolation is the primary protocol deployed against enemies in times of war, regardless of time period or country in question.

This is due in large part to the fact that it is so successful in psychologically destroying the individual, without need of more bloody and difficult physical interventions.

The studies of social isolation against enemies of state began in the 1950’s and 1960’s by the CIA:

“In 1960, one of the agency’s most active contractors, Lawrence Hinkle of Cornell, confirmed the significance of Hebb’s research for the CIA mind-control effort.

“Through a comprehensive review … ‘for the purposes of intelligence,’ Hinkle found Hebb’s work [on social isolation], in light of the neurological literature, the most promising of all known techniques.”

To wit:

It has long been the custom of captors, police, and inquisitors, to isolate their prisoners. But which of these methods, Hinkle asked, is most effective?

All the standard interrogation techniques have varying… impacts on the brain’s functioning…. [But] of all the possible techniques, isolation is the ideal way of “breaking down” a prisoner….

Hebb’s work found that “the effect of isolation on the brain function of the prisoner is much like that which occurs if he is beaten, starved, or deprived of sleep.” – A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror, p. 41-42, by Alfred McCoy.

The power of social isolation in contexts of war and hostage-taking was reviewed in an earth-shaking expose released by the New Yorker some years back.

In the article, the author reviewed journalist Terry Lyons’ ordeal, who was held hostage back in the 1980’s, in Lebanon, over a period of years:

Anderson was the chief Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press when, on March 16, 1985, three bearded men forced him from his car in Beirut at gunpoint.

He was pushed into a Mercedes sedan, covered head to toe with a heavy blanket, and made to crouch head down in the footwell behind the front seat.

***

A month into his confinement, he recalled in his memoir,

“The mind is a blank. Jesus, I always thought I was smart. Where are all the things I learned, the books I read, the poems I memorized? There’s nothing there, just a formless, gray-black misery. My mind’s gone dead. God, help me.”

He dozed off and on constantly, sleeping twelve hours a day. He craved activity of almost any kind…. He had a Bible and tried to read, but he often found that he lacked the concentration to do so.

He observed himself becoming neurotically possessive…. flying into a rage at guards…. He brooded incessantly, thinking back on all the mistakes he’d made in life, his regrets, his offenses against God and family.[10]

Anderson was given a reprieve from social isolation in the middle of 1986, but then made to return to full-time social isolation in September of that year.

After a few weeks of isolation, he again felt his mind slipping away:

“I find myself trembling sometimes for no reason,” he wrote. “I’m afraid I’m beginning to lose my mind, to lose control completely.”

One day, he snapped. He walked over to a wall and began beating his forehead against it, dozens of times. His head was smashed and bleeding before the guards were able to stop him.

Some hostages fared worse. Frank Reed was – like those reading my letter – an educator: a fifty-four-year-old American private-school director, who was taken hostage at the same time as journalist Anderson, and also socially isolated.

He lay motionless for hours facing a wall, semi-catatonic. He could not follow the guards’ simplest instructions. This invited abuse from them.

Released after three and a half years, Reed ultimately required admission to a psychiatric hospital.

Before the New Yorker author went on to describe the experience of Senator John McCain, he took pains to describe both why and how social isolation is so devastatingly effective, noting that “human beings are social creatures” and that we are social “not just in the trivial sense that we like company, and not just in the obvious sense that we each depend on others [but that we] are social in a more elemental way: simply to exist as a normal human being requires interaction with other people.”

The author noted that “children provide the clearest demonstration of this fact [that we are social creatures], although it was slow to be accepted” as – well into the 1950’s – psychologists were “encouraging parents to give children less attention and affection, in order to encourage independence.”

That was before the discoveries made by Harry Harlow, a professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who produced a series of influential studies involving baby rhesus monkeys.

Harlow was using monkeys for other research, but because Harlow didn’t know how to raise infant monkeys, he cared for them the way hospitals of the era cared for human infants — in nurseries, with plenty of food, warm blankets, some toys, and in isolation from other infants to prevent the spread of infection.

The monkeys grew up sturdy, disease-free, and larger than those from the wild.

Yet they were also profoundly disturbed, given to staring blankly and rocking in place for long periods, circling their cages repetitively, and mutilating themselves.

Harlow and his graduate students could not at first discern what the problem was. They considered and eventually ruled out factors such as diet, patterns of light exposure, and even the antibiotics used.

But then one of Harlow’s researchers noticed how tightly the monkeys clung to their soft blankets.

Harlow wondered whether what the monkeys were missing in their Isolettes was a mother.

So, in an odd experiment, he gave them an artificial mother:

In the studies, one artificial mother was a doll made of terry cloth; the other was made of wire. He placed a warming device inside the dolls to make them seem more comforting.

The babies, Harlow discovered, largely ignored the wire mother. But they became deeply attached to the cloth mother. They caressed it.

They slept curled up on it. They ran to it when frightened. They refused replacements: they wanted only “their” mother.

So starved for social interaction were these babies, that when “sharp spikes were made to randomly thrust out of the mother’s body when the rhesus babies held it, they waited patiently for the spikes to recede, and returned to clutching it.”

Such is the powerful – and indefatigable – need for social interaction and bonding.

But sadly, because cloth mothers are no substitute for the real thing – and even with the baby rhesus monkeys clinging wildly to the cloth surrogates – “no matter how tightly they clung to the surrogate mothers, the monkeys remained psychologically abnormal”:

In a later study on the effect of total isolation from birth, the researchers found that the test monkeys, upon being released into a group of ordinary monkeys, “usually go into a state of emotional shock, characterized by … autistic self-clutching and rocking.”

Social isolation was so devastating that some monkeys began refusing food, and even after release, “died five days later.”

While any social isolation had profound consequences, a year of social isolation had irretrievable and abominable effects:

Twelve months of isolation almost obliterated the animals socially.”

“They became permanently withdrawn…. They lived as outcasts — regularly set upon, as if inviting abuse.”

I would pray that a review of such basic psychological effects by the reader would give pause to any educator considering adopting a program that socially distances children during their formative years.

To the extent my point has not yet been well-made, let me drive it home further with the words of Senator John McCain:

It’s an awful thing,” John McCain wrote of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam — more than two years of it spent in social isolation….

It crushes your spirit more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.”

Mind you, this statement comes from a man who was beaten regularly, denied adequate medical treatment for two broken arms and a broken leg, who endured chronic dysentery, and who – in the final days – was further tortured by having more limbs broken.

According to McCain, social isolation was worse than ALL of that.

A U.S. military study of almost 150 naval aviators returning from Vietnam where they had endured weeks or more of social deprivation and distancing – “many of whom were treated even worse than McCain” – reported that they too found social isolation “to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered.”

Indeed, so barbaric is the simple act of social isolation that even our US Supreme Court has analogized it to a severe human rights violation – given its propensity to put prisoners who are socially isolated into a “condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them” and from which they often then become “violently insane” or “commit suicide… while [even] those who stood the ordeal better … did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community.” [11]

The always devastating and often fatal effects of social isolation – which bode well for its use as a war-time technique against enemies of State, but which poses grave concerns that invite thorough review before deploying on America’s schoolchildren – are not simply subjective: social isolation affects organic brain development, and the human body, length of life, cardiovascular health, and so on.

Indeed, so bad is social isolation that it doubles the risk of death in Blacks while increasing the risk of early death in Caucasians by 60-84%, while other studies show that it is safer to smoke 15 cigarettes a day – or be an alcoholic – than to be socially isolated:

“Meta-analysis co-authored by Julianne Holt-Lunstad, PhD, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Brigham Young University, [found that] lack of social connection heightens health risks as much as smoking 15 cigarettes a day or having alcohol use disorder.

“[Holt-Lunstandt] also found that social isolation is twice as harmful to physical and mental health as obesity…. ‘There is robust evidence that social isolation significantly increases risk for premature mortality, and the magnitude of the risk exceeds that of many leading health indicators.’”

“As demonstrated by a review of the effects of social isolation across the life span, [social isolation] … can wreak havoc on an individual’s physical, mental and cognitive health. Hawkley points to evidence linking social isolation with adverse health consequences including depression, poor sleep quality, impaired executive function, accelerated cognitive decline, poor cardiovascular function and impaired immunity at every stage of life.” – Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Vol. 370, No. 1669, 2015.

“A 2019 study led by Kassandra Alcaraz, PhD, MPH, a public health researcher with the American Cancer Society, analyzed data from more than 580,000 adults and found that social isolation increases the risk of premature death from every cause for every race.

“According to Alcaraz, among black participants, social isolation doubled the risk of early death, while it increased the risk among white participants by 60 to 84 percent.

“‘Our research really shows that the magnitude of risk presented by social isolation is very similar in magnitude to that of obesity, smoking, lack of access to care and physical inactivity,’ she says. American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 188, No. 1, 2019.

JAMA study finding poor cardiovascular, obesity and other health results among populations of youth who experienced social isolation:

“First, whereas clinical and research interest in the association between social isolation and poor health has been generated by studies of adults, the findings from this study provide, to our knowledge, the first evidence linking childhood social isolation to poor adult health. Our findings are consistent with a handful of retrospective studies.”

In addition to social isolation shortening life span and more than doubling the risk of early death, while also creating obesity, cardiovascular and other major physical impairments – which to point a very fine point on it, prove that TUSD would be better off feeding their school children 15 cigarettes a day or handing them a shot of vodka at the start of each period than attempting to keep them socially distanced – there are also profound, debilitating and often fatal psychological effects from attempting to keep developing children distant from each other.

In terms of psychological effects: schoolchildren exposed to social isolation and distance learning as a result of severe health conditions such a e.g., a cancer diagnosis that requires such draconian restrictions, end up having such “social isolation… often correlate with mental disorders, including depressive disorders.”[12]

Yet worse, the psychological effects of isolation do not appear to wear off after the period of isolation ends, as studies with prisoners who underwent brief periods of solitary confinement elucidate. One researcher explains his work with such individuals:

Some people make it out, and if they’re fortunate enough to get into a warm and caring environment [with significant human interaction] they begin to regain their social skills.

Even then I’ve had conversations with people who take me aside and tell me,

“You know, I may look like I’m doing OK but I’m really not. I have problems all the time. I’m anxious, I don’t feel comfortable around people.”

I’ve had more extreme cases. A couple years ago, a former prisoner’s wife called me, she was crying, she said,

“My husband just got out of prison and won’t come out of the bathroom. Every day he gets up in the morning and locks himself in the bathroom. Sometimes he won’t even sleep in the bed.”

So I went to see him — he doesn’t live far from here — and he told me,

“I never told my wife this, but I’m not just locked in the bathroom, I sit in the bathtub…. It’s the only place I feel comfortable. My wife wants me to sleep in the big bedroom we have, but [it’s] … disorienting. So I go in the bathroom and it calms me down.”[13]

Effects Of Social Isolation On Students

Already, we are seeing the effect of just a few weeks of social isolation on students: teen suicides have risen, and last week, OC Sheriff’s reported a 25% increase in domestic violence calls, a 24% increase in family disputes, and a 30% increase in child custody calls.[14]

So deleterious are these effects that in recent years the United Nations promulgated what have come to be called the Mandela rules.

These rules prohibit social isolation for longer than 15 days, noting that any longer period of social isolation “constitutes cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment, or torture.”

Other organizations, like the American Psychiatric Association, have held similarly. Id.

Perhaps most ironic, what cold hard science shows is that social isolation employed continuously – as California is suggesting doing – will actually undermine the alleged health goals because such isolation depresses the immune system.

A 2015 study led by Steven Cole, M.D. and professor of medicine at UCLA, yielded hard data in the form of how social isolation harms overall health.

Cole and his colleagues examined gene expressions in leukocytes – which are the white blood cells that play a pivotal role in the immune system’s response to infections. What they found was startling:

The leukocytes of socially isolated “participants — both humans and rhesus macaques — showed an increased expression of genes involved in inflammation and a decreased expression of genes involved in antiviral responses….

“[Social isolation] leads to long-term ‘fight-or-flight’ stress signaling, which negatively affects immune system functioning. Simply put, people who feel lonely have less immunity and more inflammation than people who don’t.” [15]

Brainwashing And Mental Health

Historically speaking, social isolation as a protocol got its start in June of 1951, when a “group of psychologists and doctors with ties to US, UK and Canadian military forces held a secret meeting at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Montreal.”[16]

The minutes from the meeting revealed that the discussion centered on the question of “brainwashing” and focused much on social deprivation and isolation as means to achieving that end, or otherwise “elicit[ing] false confession or manipulat[ing] behaviour.”

The doctors “considered various artificial conditions that could be used to create states of helplessness and extreme suggestibility” – of which social isolation and permutations thereof topped the list.

Researcher Hebb was given $30,000 – which was a tidy sum back in 1951 – to study “isolation and solitary confinement, which can have acute and lasting effects on mental health, and has a long history as a form of punishment and as a mode of philosophical inquiry.”

Social isolation was found to be a quite promising technique for the military to deploy, regardless of the fact that it was torture – or perhaps because of the fact that it was torture – in terms of aiding brainwashing.

The exact mechanics of which neuroscientist John Lilly explained thoroughly in a paper delivered to a group of military and intelligence officials in the late 1950s:

When a person is isolated for long enough, Lilly wrote, they tend to absorb signal data on demand. Under these conditions there can be an “injection of outside data” into the “inside generators,” with re-programming developing.[17]

Put simply? One can turn human beings into brain-washed robots simply by socially isolating them for short periods of time.

The mechanics behind this are more well understood through today’s world of functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Recent studies using fMRI show that people who are shunted into social isolation have a less active part of the brain known as the ventral striatum.

The ventral striatum part of the brain – which is hurt by social isolation – is absolutely “critical to learning” and is a “key portion of the brain” that is “activated through primary rewards such as food and secondary rewards… Social rewards and feelings of love also may activate the region.”[18]

The researchers in this study – like many above – concluded that social isolation is as detrimental as smoking.

How Social Isolation Affects The Brain

Not only does social distancing and social isolation – as visually proven by way of MRI – shut off the very part of the brain children need in order to learn while at school, another study shows that “social isolation causes the build-up of a particular chemical in the brain.”

While the study was conducted on mice, humans have the same have an analogous brain signaling structure. The build-up of the protein in the brains of mice exposed to social isolation was once again devastating:

Confirming and extending previous observations, the researchers showed that social isolation leads to a broad array of behavioral changes in mice. These include increased aggressiveness towards unfamiliar mice, persistent fear, and hypersensitivity to threatening stimuli.

For example, when encountering a threatening stimulus, mice that have been socially isolated remain frozen in place long after the threat has passed, whereas normal mice stop freezing soon after the threat is removed.

Unless we are looking to create paranoid children living in an adrenalized PTSD world that become prey for predators, or double their risk of death while giving them the functional equivalent of a 15-cigarette-a-day bad alky habit – we would do well to take heed of the vast amount of medical studies on this point – before implementing socially isolating or distancing protocols in the classrooms.

At this point, I’d like to further examine the physical changes to the brain which occur with social isolation by turning back to the New Yorker article, and its examination of the physical reasons underlying why John McCain and other POW’s subjectively experienced social isolation as identical to (or worse than) physical torture.

The author of the New Yorker article aptly noted that “what happened to them” in terms of social isolation actually was “physical” – as “EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners” who are socially isolated for more than a week.

Indeed, as recently as 1992, fifty-seven prisoners of war, released after an average of six months in detention camps in the former Yugoslavia, were examined using EEG-like tests. What those recordings revealed is “brain abnormalities for months afterward.”

The article went on to note that the most severe EEG results were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious … or social isolation.

It concluded:

Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury.

To wrap up the harmful neurological, cognitive, physical, emotional and social fall-out from socially-isolating mechanisms, it is worth noting what one author determined after concluding all of his POW interviews:

Whether in Walpole or Beirut or Hanoi, all human beings experienced isolation as torture.

We are Currently Undergoing the Single Largest Planetary-wide Social Experiment ever Conducted on Human Beings

And now, to wrap this letter up: we are currently undergoing the single largest planetary-wide social experiment ever conducted on human beings. Social distancing is social isolation.

It is a well-documented war-time technique deployed for the better part of the last century by the CIA against our worst enemies.

For the victims who have endured social isolation – to a man and to a woman – they experience it as torture: a torture so inhumane that they refuse to endorse its use against even their own enemies.

Id; see also, New Yorker article which described a prisoner who was confined to solitary for 8 years who – upon his release and finding out his State Prison Director had been jailed – stated he would let the Prison Director “out of solitary” as he wouldn’t wish that social isolation on anyone… “not even him.”

Moreover, a plethora of studies show that social distancing and isolation can be fatal, and when not fatal, are yet still a fate from which people do not EVER fully recover.

The brain is irretrievably structurally altered, and the part that is most vulnerable and necessary to learning – not only in children but in ourselves – is gutted beyond repair.

I implore you to take heed of these studies. And as educators yourselves, who are not doubt familiar with genocides and atrocities of yesteryear, I also implore you to not simply accept suggestions – or even orders – which are unconstitutional.

I do much work in countries where War Crimes Tribunals are active, and with lawyers who prosecute crimes against humanity, and I tell you true: it is no defense to have taken part in even a minor human rights violation, and then attempt to justify one’s actions later on down the line with the pablum that one was “required to do so” by virtue of one’s post, one’s title, one’s uniform, or one’s orders.

I further implore you to reject – out of hand and without exception – any suggestions that would force TUSD children to have classrooms requiring large distances of physical space between students, to have schedules that would reduce attendance by 20% or 50% on a rotating basis, that would seek to carve up the student body so that only ½ or 1/3 were present at any given time, that would enforce mask wearing (a separate issue, which medical studies I won’t cite here), and I would ask you to reject as well any plans that would prohibit recess and outdoor breaks or sunlight, or physical education.

Such plans are neither required nor even logically related to containment of a virus that is less fatal that SARS, MERS and the flu, and whose mortality rate for children is non-existent.

Yet more striking, such plans will make children (or anyone) less physically healthy through immuno-suppression secondary to social isolation and lack of physical activity/sunlight.

Yet further, such plans infringe on many constitutional rights – not to mention literally tearing at the very fibers of the minds of the children whose future you hold in your hands.

I recognize that I have given you an abundance of legal, scientific, and medical information. I did this because I firmly believe that people make better decisions when they have the relevant facts at hand.

And I did this because – at base – I know what the end of the road looks like, for those who embark on even the tiniest violations of civil liberties, with the best of intentions.

I would not wish the things I have seen in Cambodia, in Africa, in speaking to survivors of social isolation, of war, of human rights atrocities – I would not wish these ends on my worst enemy.

Because these people? These people … do not EVER recover: it is a harm from which there is NO ROAD BACK.

You are the guardians of our children’s minds, their hearts, their very humanity. My child – and yours – they are not rhesus monkeys. They are not hostages in Lebanon. They are not POWs in Hanoi.

But if we do not do the right thing here? They will be.

With more warmth, love and prayers than I could ever convey in words,

Leigh Dundas, Esq., VaccineImpact.com

References:

[1] Principia-scientific.org

[2] PaloaltoOnline.com

[3] Vox.com

[4] Reason.com.  See also CDC website numbers comparing 61,000 flu deaths two years ago to current number of deaths for COVID.

[5] NBCnews.com

[6] DailyWire.com.  See also Mark Meuser, Esq. analysis of five states with lockdown compared to five states of comparable size with NO lockdown and concluding locked down states have substantially worse mortality rates.

[7] Medium.com  (noting that “put simply, medics found that severely ill flu patients nursed outdoors recovered better than those treated indoors. A combination of fresh air and sunlight seems to have prevented deaths among patients; and infections among medical staff.[1] There is scientific support for this. Research shows that outdoor air is a natural disinfectant. Fresh air can kill the flu virus and other harmful germs. Equally, sunlight is germicidal and there is now evidence it can kill the flu virus).

[8] LAtimes.com.  See also DailySignal.com.  See also Rewire.news

[9] NPR.org  and see also Bloomberg.com

[10] NewYorker.com.  Note all subsequent references are from this citation, unless otherwise noted.

[11]  NewYorker.com

[12] Noisolation.com

[13] Knowablemagazine.org

[14]  NYpost.com, and see also OC Register.com.

[15] (PNAS, Vol. 112, No. 49, 2015).APA.org

[16] Wellcomecollection.org

[17] Wellcomecollection.org

[18] Sciencedaily.com

Tri-State Tyrants

NY Times: N.Y. Will Impose Quarantine on Visitors from States with Big Outbreaks New Jersey and Connecticut will also require visitors to quarantine for two weeks.*NY Times: E.U. May Bar American Travelers as It Reopens Borders, Citing Failures on Virus

As they “open up” their respective northeastern states at a multi-phase snail-walk pace, the Tri-State Tyrants — Governors Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), Phil Murphy (D-NJ) and Ned Lamont (D-CT) continue to devise new and creative schemes to torment and humiliate not only their own respective captive subjects, but now, those of other states as well. Acting as a single seditious Communist entity, the Yankee troika announced on Wednesday that they would begin requiring out-of-state visitors entering their filthy fiefdoms to self-quarantine for two weeks upon arrival. At the moment, travelers from nine states, mostly from the Republican south, including the large states of Florida, Texas and Arizona, will be affected.

As we all know, the “rule-book” we Americans so sanctimoniously pretend to revere as the Constitution of the United States has, over the course of the past 100 years, been amended, manipulated, twisted, misinterpreted and ignored to the point that it exists, for the most part, in name only. Even still, prior to Stupid-19, there were some elements of the document which retained the force of law behind them. But in recent months, for the sake of “safety,” even the clearly stipulated rights to assemble and worship freely have been abrogated.

1 & 2. The Tri-State Tyrants (Cuomo, Lamont, Murphy) have violated their own state constitutions. Now, they are openly attacking the Federal Constitution. // 3. 1930’s cartoon depicts Franklin Demono Rosenfeld “cancelling” the U.S. Constitution. And yet, even he could not have gotten away with interfering with the interstate travel rights of American citizens.

* Governor Lamont is the grand nephew of Corliss Lamont — a “5th Amendment Communist” who openly glorified the Soviet system and defied Joe McCarthy’s committee.

This new confederate commie alliance of Globalist Governors has violated Section 10, Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.”

Evidently, rebellion against the Federal Government is “OK” if it involves state Demonrats undermining Trump and/or sanctioning Republican states in an election year.

Worse yet is the assault on the fundamental right of Americans to travel freely and uninhibited from state to state. As early as the post-Revolutionary War / pre-U.S. Constitution Articles of Confederation which lightly governed the original 13 states from 1781-1789, the Congress recognized freedom of movement. From Article 4 of that document:

“The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce …”

During the drafting of the subsequent U.S. Constitution — which would replace the Articles in 1789 —  the right of movement was considered to be so basic and fundamental as not to even require any explicit mention. And now, just like that, the Tri-State Tyrants have again written our Federally-protected rights out of existence — or least created an undue burden on inter-state travelers.

From nearly two centuries of rule under British Kings like George III– to the post revolution decade under the Articles of Confederation — to the 230 years ruled by the U.S. Constitution — no subject living in the American colonies or citizen of the post-war states ever had to worry about being harassed over his travels between colonies or states. The Tri-State Tyrants have now made history!

Proving once again that the western world’s Leftist entities — though many in number — are actually all part of the same masterminded Mafia; on the same day that the Tri-State Tyrants issued their imperious decree, the European Union announced that it may ban travelers from Trump’s America.

From The Slimes story titled, E.U. May Bar American Travelers as It Reopens Borders, Citing Failures on Virus

“European Union officials are racing to agree on who can visit the bloc as of July 1 based on how countries of origin are faring with new coronavirus cases. Americans, so far, are excluded.

That prospect, which would lump American visitors in with Russians and Brazilians as unwelcome, is a stinging blow to American prestige in the world and a repudiation of President Trump’s handling of the virus in the United States.”

No Americans, Russians and Brazilians, eh? You see, if the president of your country happens to appear on the Globalist shit-list (Trump, Putin & Bolsonaro) you may not be allowed — for “safety reasons” — to set foot in the EUSSR. Interesting.

With demonic delight, the traitor Tom Frieden — a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — then mockingly tweeted against Trump over the expected EU ban:

“American exceptionalism was not supposed to mean this.”

What further evidence does a numb-skulled normie need to understand that the Stupid 19 scamdemic — which we expect to “spike” and morph into a Stupid 20 “second wave” this fall – is a Geo-political operation in which we the people of this world are the powerless victims of a vicious and power-mad Global Mafia?

Bastards!

1. Trump, Putin & Bolsonaro are the true targets of Stupid-19 — hence, the proposed EUSSR travel ban (not official yet) on Americans, Russians and Brazilians. // 3. Evil Dr. Tom Frieden & Evil Dr. Anthony Fauci. Frieden, who could barely contain his glee over the EU’s proposal to ban Americans, is “as thick as thieves” with Fauci, the Bill & Melinda Gates Syndicate, and the World Health Organization.

Melinda Gates: ‘Black… Indigenous People’ Should Get COVID Vaccine First

(LifeSiteNews) – As work continues on developing a vaccine for COVID-19, left-wing philanthropist Melinda Gates says that “black people” and “indigenous people” in America should be immunized against the virus before whites.

“One of the reasons we are so involved in this is that you don’t want the first vaccines to go to the highest-bidding countries,” said Gates, wife of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Fox Business reports. “There are 60 million healthcare workers [around the world]. They deserve to get the vaccine first, they’re the ones dealing with this on the front lines, trying to keep us all safe.”

“Then you have to start to tier from there, based on the countries and the populations,” she continued. “Here in the United States, it’s going to be black people who really should get it first and many indigenous people, as well as people with underlying symptoms, and then elderly people.”

Melinda Gates ‘black… Indigenous People’ Should Get Covid Vaccine First

Mrs. Gates’ remarks came during the couple’s virtual appearance at the Forbes philanthropy summit last week.

While many frame a vaccine as a prerequisite for fully reopening society, the prospect of making it mandatory remains controversial for a number of reasons.

While mainstream media often fixates on parents who oppose vaccines based on hotly-debated fears over side effects, they tend to overlook another group that supports vaccines in general while having an ethical conflict with vaccines derived from aborted babies’ cells.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s role in funding COVID-19 vaccine research has been a point of particular concern, due in large part to the couple’s history as radical advocates for abortion and population control.

“It is important for people to understand why so many are suspicious of the philanthropy of Bill Gates and his ilk, and why so many react with suspicion to the medical opinions of a certain sector of our elites,” LifeSiteNews’ Jonathon Van Maren explains.

“It is because they lie to us about abortion, day in and day out, and tell us that destroying a child in the womb is “health care” and “an essential service.”

It is because they tell us that the birth control pill has no side effects and is also health care, that the abortion pill is safe, that abortion has no negative impact on women, and hundreds of other lies that we know to be lies.”

During last week’s event, Bill Gates accused the US government of withdrawing from “global problem-solving” and “just trying to cast blame” by withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO) over its initial response to the coronavirus outbreak, namely its adoption of Chinese misinformation.

The Trump administration emphatically rejects claims that abandoning the WHO constitutes abandoning the COVID-19 relief effort.

“The United States continues to be the undisputed leader in foreign assistance,” James Richardson, director of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources at the State Department, said last month, noting that the US is currently responsible for “49 percent of all government and multilateral assistance” in response to COVID-19.

As of June 24, the United States is estimated to have seen more than 2.4 million COVID-19 cases, with more than 123,000 deaths and a million recoveries. More than 40 percent of those deaths have come from nursing homes.

‘Covid-19 Has Turned Public Health Into A Patient-Killing Experiment’

Potentially lethal doses of the therapeutic drug hydroxychloroquine are being administered in ‘clinical trials’, sometimes without patient consent. Nearly a quarter of those participating in one such trial subsequently died.

From the beginning of the SARS-COV-2 / COVID19 plandemic rollout there have been disturbing hints, rumours and even overt whistleblower claims of seemingly gross medical malpractice connected with the treatment and handling of allegedly infected people.

We have heard about mandatory Do Not Resuscitate orders issued for the elderlycognitively challenged peopleautistic people and even children with fairly minor congenital conditions.

Covid 19 Has Turned Public Health Into A Patient Killing Experiment

We have heard of terrifyingly inappropriate usage of invasive ventilation that can only increase the numbers of covid19 deaths’, and of general levels of incompetence and poor practice that must have the same result.

And now we have evidence of three clinical trials which require patients to be given up to 4 times the normal dosage of hydroxychloroquine, with or without their consent. In one of these studies over 25% of patients died.

This has been unearthed by Dr. Meryl Nass MD, and is covered in detail over at her site and at the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a site dedicated to exposing unethical practice in the medical community.

The three studies are:

Solidarity, conducted by the World Health Organization, on 3500 Covid-19 patients at 400 hospitals, across 35 countries. As well as Hydroxychloroqine the trial included Remdesivir, Lopinavir with Ritonavir, Lopinavir with Ritonavir plus Interferon beta-1a.

Recovery, conducted in the UK, sponsored by the Wellcome Trust (GlaxoSmithKline) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK government. 1,542 patients took part, of whom 396 (25.7%) died

Remap, an ongoing multi-national project that is now trialing hydroxychloroquine as a SARSCOV2 therapy.

Doses employed in all studies were way above normal therapeutic doses and could well have proved fatal, especially to the very frail and compromised people enrolled in the trial, many of whom were already on ventilators or other forms of assisted breathing.

In fact to even be considered for the Remap trial a patient had to be “close to death, either on a ventilator or in shock, on pressor medications.”

Neither was any allowance made in dosage for patients with poor kidney or liver function, who might have increased difficulty in processing the drug. Only actual liver failure was grounds for reducing the dose:

No dose adjustment is necessary for renal dysfunction or concomitant use of renal replacement therapy. Clinicians should consider a dose adjustment in the presence of liver failure, however no dose adjustment is necessary for abnormal liver function tests in the absence of liver failure.

Patient consent was not considered necessary:

For patients who are not competent to consent, either prospective agreement or entry via waiver of consent or some form of deferred consent can be applied, as required by an appropriate ethical review body.”

Ironically, the Solidarity hydroxychloroquine trial was suspended on May 25th following the Surgisphere report in The Lancet that claimed 35% higher death rates in patients receiving Hydroxychloroquine, but which later turned out to be fraudulent, and indeed Nass suggests these medical trials are cynically sacrificing human subjects as part of the ongoing war against hydroxychloroquine, in a bid to prove it does not work or is unsafe:

Why is public health being turned on its head? REMAP-Covid is the third major multicenter clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine to give toxic doses to Covid patients. Who or what is behind this concerted effort to maim or kill patients in order to kill any appearance of benefit from hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of Covid-19?

This is more than possible of course, but I also think we need to set these frankly murderous “trials” within the wider context mentioned above – the distribution of DNRs to healthy or mildly compromised people, the brutal system of almost deliberately induced and needless deaths described by the whistleblower nurses in the US, the deaths by ‘accidental’ neglect in care homes.

These are all beginning to add up to something very dark and very strange going on in the shadows, just beyond public scrutiny.

Whether this is deliberate policy or some dreadful perfect storm of institutionalized fear and chronic under-funding is hard to say. But something truly grotesque and potentially evil is going on here, and we can’t afford to ignore it.