Moving the Decimal

Its was noticed in an Interview with Bill Gates on top of a stack of books the title "How to Lie with statistics." Whenever something bad happens, there is usually a straight trail of money to the beneficiaries of said crisis.

Before I came across the discovery that Virology it self had been cheated since Louis Pasture, although I had some idea already, I came across the magnificent ways in which epidemiological models and estimates were preset to drive health departments to enforce a complete shutdown of society. This helps convince those whom have a hard time wrapping their head around the lack of proof of a "virus'" altogether. In a sense you can chop this thing off at the legs. However it is wrong whether you start at the head or the feet. So once you fake having a contagious disease. This is how you use Statistics to compound the imaginary issue. The Models Care Act, the W.H.O and CDC guidance, protocols and recommendations for testing with unfit diagnostic tool [PCR], lockdowns I.C.U protocols, refilter into the worst case imaginable epidemiological algorithms was a significant driving force to keeping the fear factor all the way up.

Prior to reading the headline 700 died 30,000 new cases from a gathering, crossed my eyes I was rather privy to the fact that there was something rather exaggerated to say the very least. After a a hour of investigating online and reading the article, I found out the terrifying headline was reflective of an estimate. 700 people were assumed to die, according to these estimates. According to the estimates 30,000 would have caught Covid19. None died and the Cases were assumed. I had also learned that a super spreader was basically part of a algorithm inside a more complex metric made in attempt to see the projection if a disease were able to spread among the population.

I know it's hard to believe the biggest lobbyist in the country would need to lie.

We were counting confirmed cases from health people that had no diagnosis, PCR swab or clinical.

Most recently due to the W.H.O, the FDA, Fauci's admission and several courts ruling the PCR was not fit for the purpose it was being used at least with dial turned up so far / the cycle threshold. The problem is deeper however this highlights a few things.

Since December there has been a recommendation to reduce the cycle threshold of the PCR.

this does two things.

1. it's a complete admittance they all the test Results this last year (2020) are incorrect to say the least and adding to the amount of positive test numbers outrageously.

2. When the CT is lowered you get less positives indefinitely. As I have read recently this new amount of "infection" rate (positive PCR's) is being used to assume some circumstantial efficacy to the mRNA Jabs.

That is just one recent example of how we have been misguided by statistics and estimates.

Regardless if they did or didnt change the cycle threshold, the CT was admitted so high It was turning out mass amounts of positives, and even that isn't the full fact becasue they dont and did not have evidence of a new "virus" at the time of making the tests. Multiple authorities and governments have dismissed it as not fit for the use of diagnosing people with alleged new "pathogen". On top of that the CDC just recalled the RT-PCR.

Below is a collection I gathered during 2020 on how epidemiology, the care models act, circumstantial assumption / projection models snowballed into a giant heap of fear.

BAD NUMBERS, MODELS AND PROTOCOLS = DISASTER A- IT IS concluded that the problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably being overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing. B- Numbers published by the Office For National Statistics show 917 flu and pneumonia deaths were registered for the week ending on July 10. In comparison, 366 people died that week after testing positive for Covid-19 – the lowest number of deaths involving the virus in the last 16 weeks and a 31.2% decrease compared with the previous week, which saw 532 deaths. Overall, the number of deaths registered in the same week was 6.1% (560 deaths) below the five-year average – the fourth consecutive week it has been below average. A- https://www.sciencedirect.com/.../pii/S0924857920300972... B- Read more: https://metro.co.uk/.../nearly-three-times-people.../...

-----------------------------

THIS NUMBER INCLUDES; PROBABLE PRESUMED & EXCESS COVID-19 Deaths coded (U07.1).... ... included all other deaths labeled Covid, COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation. (Which is useless anyway) mation. (Which is useless anyway) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm...

"In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), itis acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “PROBABLE” or “PRESUMED.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgment in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. " https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

As we know now, dozens of reports were made on the fail-ability of the test. High Numbers ME --At some point, and they still may be adding in later excess deaths, that can range from : ...People who died at home and were never tested) but also deaths from other causes that might have been prevented in the absence of the epidemic. The latter category could include people who did not get adequate treatment because hospitals were flooded by COVID-19 cases, people who avoided hospitals because they were afraid of catching the disease, and people who died because of lockdown-related bans on "elective" surgeries. As former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey noted in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, those prohibited surgeries have included potentially lifesaving procedures such as diagnostic biopsies and treatments for cancer and heart disease. Looking at excess deaths therefore helps illuminate the full impact of the epidemic, which goes beyond deaths directly caused by COVID-19. It also includes deaths due to strained health care systems in places such as New York and New Jersey, deaths caused by fear of the disease (which may have led people to eschew medical care), and even deaths caused by policies aimed at curtailing the epidemic. (BASICALLY; you can use an epidemiological model to say whatever you want.) At the same time, equating excess deaths with the "coronavirus death toll" is potentially misleading. While COVID-19 deaths that have been overlooked obviously are relevant in figuring out what percentage of people infected by the virus will be killed by it, deaths that were not actually caused by COVID-19 are not. https://reason.com/.../what-excess-deaths-do-and-dont.../

(Well that's rather relevant, adding excess deaths from the policies to the case numbers that continue policies that create excess dearth's that continue policies....) !?!

-------------------------FROM PART 1-------------- Professor Carl Heneghan is Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, and has been paying close attention to the Covid-19 statistics. In a post yesterday evening he revealed an extraordinary detail: the Public Health England daily death totals announced to the media include anyone who has ever tested positive for Covid-19 — even if they recovered completely. Professor Heneghan and his CEBM colleague Tom Jefferson on the current state of the Covid-19 pandemic. Key quotes: There was “massive confusion” about different Covid data between England’s health bodies. “Public Health England figures are about double the ONS figures because PHE are reporting anybody who has had a positive Covid death in the past… This will get increasingly confusing as we go into the next Winter because there could be a new outbreak and new deaths while also still reporting on historical deaths… This is a problem for epidemiologists and media… ” Even a “28 period cut-off is still not ideal for accurate death numbers because there is “immediate cause and underlying cause… Immediate cause means you’ve had Covid within 21 days but outside of that, it becomes the underlying cause — something that contributed to your death but wasn’t a direct cause. A 21 day cut-off would be helpful because it gives a clearer understanding of that distinction." “We follow excess deaths which is the most accurate information about what’s going on at that moment, but it can’t tell you what those deaths are caused by” (i.e. misdiagnosis, bad tests, maltreatment, motorist crash, heart attacks etc.) “There’s an important distinction between lives lost and life years lost. One of the things we’ll be watching very closely over the next six months is how many people would have actually died in the next six months… That’s where the excess deaths really matter. If we start to see it trend significantly under for the next few months, we’ll start to come forward with information that suggests there was a group of vulnerable people that any respiratory infection would have shortened their life.” “In the media, you’ll always hear about catastrophe and the consequences of that. One of the things we notice is that when you don’t hear anything that usually means there’s good news happening. So when Sweden looks worse you hear about it but when it’s not so bad, like now, you never see it in the media.” https://unherd.com/.../prof-carl-heneghan-can-we-trust.../

EXCESS DEATH ARE CONTRIBUTED TO THE RESPONSE THAT WE ADOPTED Not only are the coronavirus models being used by WHO and the most national health agencies based on highly dubious methodologies, and not only are the tests being used of wildly different quality, that only indirectly confirm antibodies of a possible COVID-19 illness. Now the actual designations of deaths related to coronavirus are being revealed to be equally problematic for a variety of reasons. It gives alarming food for thought as to the wisdom of deliberately putting most of the world’s people–and with it the world economy–into Gulag-style lockdown on the argument it is necessary to contain deaths and prevent overloading of hospital emergency services. https://theduran.com/coronavirus-and-dodgy-death-numbers/

99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says 99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says bloomberg.com https://www.bloomberg.com/.../99-of-those-who-died-from...

---

According to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), since the beginning of the pandemic in Berlin, 9274 infected have been identified, 223 have died. In Germany, there has allegedly been a jump in the incidence of COVID-19 since late July. The infection rate, which is denoted as R, here on July 29 exceeded one: this means that one carrier of the virus, on average, infected more than one healthy person. State and corporate-backed experts suggest that vacationers who have returned from abroad are a possible reason for the rise in R. However, experts ‘not on the dole’ have shown that the real number is going down – it is testing that has increased, and moreover, these tests are often the unreliable RT-PCR test, infamous for its false results Hospitals get paid more if patients listed as COVID-19, on ventilators.

Even a usual Strawman argument FactCheck concluded: "Recent legislation pays hospitals higher Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, https://www.usatoday.com/.../fact-check.../3000638001/

DAVID RICHARDS AND KONSTANTIN BOUDNIK 16 May 2020 • 1:22pm Neil Ferguson In the history of expensive software mistakes, Mariner 1 was probably the most notorious. The unmanned spacecraft was destroyed seconds after launch from Cape Canaveral in 1962 when it veered dangerously off-course due to a line of dodgy code. But nobody died and the only hits were to Nasa’s budget and pride. Imperial College’s modeling of non-pharmaceutical interventions for Covid-19 which helped persuade the UK and other countries to bring in draconian lockdowns will supersede the failed Venus space probe and could go down in history as the most devastating software mistake of all time, in terms of economic costs and lives lost. Since publication of Imperial’s microsimulation model, those of us with a professional and personal interest in software development have studied the code on which policymakers based their fateful decision to mothball our multi-trillion pound economy and plunge millions of people into poverty and hardship. And we were profoundly disturbed at what we discovered. The model appears to be totally unreliable and you wouldn’t stake your life on it. First though, a few words on our credentials. I am David Richards, founder and chief executive of WANdisco, a global leader in Big Data software that is jointly headquartered in Silicon Valley and Sheffield. My co-author is Dr Konstantin ‘Cos’ Boudnik, vice-president of architecture at WANdisco, author of 17 US patents in distributed computing and a veteran developer of the Apache Hadoop framework that allows computers to solve problems using vast amounts of data.

Imperial’s model appears to be based on a programming language called Fortran, which was old news 20 years ago and, guess what, was the code used for Mariner 1. This outdated language contains inherent problems with its grammar and the way it assigns values, which can give way to multiple design flaws and numerical inaccuracies. One file alone in the Imperial model contained 15,000 lines of code.

Try unraveling that tangled, buggy mess, which looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming. Industry best practice would have 500 separate files instead. In our commercial reality, we would fire anyone for developing code like this and any business that relied on it to produce software for sale would likely go bust. The approach ignores widely accepted computer science principles known as "separation of concerns", which date back to the early 70s and are essential to the design and architecture of successful software systems. The principles guard against what developers call CACE: Changing Anything Changes Everything.

Without this separation, it is impossible to carry out rigorous testing of individual parts to ensure full working order of the whole. Testing allows for guarantees. It is what you do on a conveyer belt in a car factory. Each and every component is tested for integrity in order to pass strict quality controls. Only then is the car deemed safe to go on the road. As a result, Imperial’s model is vulnerable to producing wildly different and conflicting outputs based on the same initial set of parameters. Run it on different computers and you would likely get different results. In other words, it is non-deterministic. As such, it is fundamentally unreliable. It screams the question as to why our Government did not get a second opinion before swallowing Imperial's prescription. Ultimately, this is a computer science problem and where are the computer scientists in the room? Our leaders did not have the grounding in computer science to challenge the ideas and so were susceptible to the academics. I suspect the Government saw what was happening in Italy with its overwhelmed hospitals and panicked.

It chose a blunt instrument instead of a scalpel and now there is going to be a huge strain on society. Defenders of the Imperial model argue that because the problem - a global pandemic - is dynamic, then the solution should share the same stochastic, non-deterministic quality. We disagree. Models must be capable of passing the basic scientific test of producing the same results given the same initial set of parameters. Otherwise, there is simply no way of knowing whether they will be reliable. Indeed, many global industries successfully use deterministic models that factor in randomness. No surgeon would put a pacemaker into a cardiac patient knowing it was based on an arguably unpredictable approach for fear of jeopardizing the Hippocratic oath.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA. THATS IRONIC. DID HE JUST MENSION THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH WHEN TALKING ABOUT ... CIRCUMASTANCIAL EVIDENCE FOR "VIRAL" EPIDIDEMICS. HA does anyone see the irony in that?

Why on earth would the Government place its trust in the same when the entire wellbeing of our nation is at stake? David Richards, founder and chief executive of WANdisco and Dr Konstantin Boudnik is the company's vice-president of architecture Clarification: Imperial College has asked us to make clear that its Covid modeling code is not written in Fortran but in C and that it has been applied in a way that is both deterministic and reproducible. It says it is only one of many pieces of evidence/advice on which the Government relies. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../terrifying-data-behind.../

Another sceme that was after they have their projections and some positive tests to add to the projection assumption models of "spread", all kinds of things can be said-

Here one thing some caught onto:

See this.

Dr. Tedros of the WHO intentionally conflated the initial crude case fatality rate (CFR) of Covid with the established infection fatality rate (IFR) of the seasonal flu. It is well known in the scientific community that the CFR is 10 to 100 times greater than the IFR. Dr. Tedros, of the WHO, said “Globally, about 3.4 percent of reported Covid-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1 percent of those infected.” (generally accepted as 0.1%). He directly compared the two and did not explain that he was comparing two completely different things. I can think of no innocent explanation for this. The impression given was that Covid is 34 times deadlier than the seasonal flu. But, a CFR of 3.4% indicates a likely IFR of 0.034% – 0.34%. What should have been understood as good news, if reported properly, was presented as cause for extreme alarm, “justifying” the unprecedented lockdown policies forced upon us. Interestingly, the CDC now estimates the total IFR (including all demographic categories) at 0.23%, in line with what we should have expected from the initial CFR of 3.4%.

On March 11, Anthony Fauci lied to the Senate and the American people when he claimed that Covid has a fatality rate of 1%, ten times higher than the seasonal flu. This is quite a charge, so how do I know that he lied? On February 28, a paper he co-authored was published in the NEJM. Here’s the money quote:

“…the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.

(of course not even the lowe

----------------------------- 50-70% of people intubated die. (Original Multiple Rules in diagnosing) In conclusion, even though chest CT has played a key role in detection or diagnosis of COVID-19 infection with some typical CT features while the initial RT-PCR result is negative. However, not all the cases had the initial abnormality chest CT results or positive RT-PCR in the patients with COVID-19 infection. Consequently, RT-PCR results, chest CT features, clinical manifestation, laboratory results, and exposure history should be made a comprehensive analysis to diagnose COVID-19 infection for the clinical decisions beyond clinical and radiological features. Multiple parameters required for diagnosis of COVID-19 in clinical practice https://www.sciencedirect.com/.../pii/S0163445320301420

(Meaning the rules in diagnosis became more ..... even if PCR was effective) Excess Mortality Associated with Epidemic Influenza -

A 60 Minutes investigation has found that federal officials knew many COVID-19 antibody testing kits had flaws, but allowed them to enter the U.S. market. Sharyn Alfonsi reports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=60...

Which test? Let start with antibody. Presumed positive or negative antibody tests are meaningless: May 10, 2020, San Francisco Chronicle, lead story; “Antibody Test Hopes, Doubts.” Two quotes from the article. The first, a “disclaimer” from the FDA required on all the new Coronavirus antibody tests: “Negative tests do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 and positive results may be false.” In other words, the test is meaningless. Also quoted was Marin County’s public health officer; I tell them, “You will likely be negative if tested. And it either means you were not infected or you were and the test is wrong.” The test either means you were infected or you weren’t infected. Let me repeat; there are no verifiable research studies that prove HIV causes AIDS, that AIDS is sexually transmitted or that Sars-cov-2 causes COVID-19. COVID-19 is a label, not a disease. This is the verbal magician sleight of hand, the reality shaping of perception that the label creates. Indeed, this is one of our big challenges. The PCR Test Debate The accuracy of tests is important since numbers of "cases" is the metric used to determine business closures, event cancellations, lockdowns, withdrawal of civil rights and liberties, whether or not people can congregate, and if the dreaded Xboxmasks are required. Over 100 companies are currently producing tests for COVID-19, and these tests were approved by the FDA under emergency authorization with almost no validation. The test makers only had to show that the tests performed well in test tubes and no real-world demonstration of clinical viability was required.i[1] Each vendor has established its own and as-yet-unmeasured accuracy. The variations are myriad, with some tests able to detect as few as 100 copies of a viral gene while others require 400 copies for detection.ii[2] Additionally, most will show positive results for as long as 6 months, while the actual time a person is contagious is only a few days. One of the most widely used tests is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which involves examining a sample of mucus from a person’s nose or throat to look for COVID-19 genetic material. Biochemist Kary Muliis is the inventor of the PCR test and won the Novel Prize in chemistry for his invention in 1993. Mullis stated in 2013 that PCR was never designed to diagnose disease. The test finds very small segments of a nucleic acid which are components of a virus. According to Mullis, having an actual infection is quite different than testing positive with PCR. According to Mullis, PCR is best used in medical laboratories and for research purposes.

Dr. David Rasnick, also a biochemist and founder of a lab called Viral Forensics, agrees. "You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it. You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms…the dead cells are generating the symptoms." When asked about having a COVID-19 test he stated, "Don’t do it, I say, when people ask me. No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable." He went on to say, "Every time somebody takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a government database. It’s to track us. They’re not just looking for the virus. Please put that in your article."iii[3] In fact, PCR testing was already shown to be wildly inaccurate almost 15 years ago. In 2006, massive PCR testing was performed at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center when it was thought that the medical center was experiencing an epidemic of whooping cough. Almost 1000 healthcare workers were furloughed until their test results were returned. Over 140 employees were told that they had whooping cough, and thousands of others who tested positive were given antibiotics and/or a vaccine for whooping cough.

Almost eight months later, employees received an email from the hospital administration which stated that the entire episode was due to PCR testing error. Not even one case of whooping cough was confirmed with a more reliable follow-up test, and it was determined that the employees just had a common cold, not whooping cough.iv[4] Apparently, this history was ignored as incompetent health officials like Mr. Fauci decided that ginning up cases was more important than following the science. Thus a test that the developer said was not useful for diagnosis and that had been previously shown to be inaccurate 100% of the time was recommended for COVID-19. A recent meta-analysis published in the British Medical Journal looked at the accuracy of PCR testing specifically for COVID-19. The researchers reported that while no test is 100% accurate, the sensitivity and specificity of a test is evaluated by comparison with a gold standard, and there is no gold standard for COVID-19. One of the reasons is that it is impossible to know the false positive rate without having tested people who don’t have the virus along with people who do, and this was never done. The analysis showed that the false negative rate ranges between 2% and 29%. Accuracy of viral RNA swabs was highly variable. In one study, sensitivity was 93% for broncho-alveolar lavage, 72% for sputum, 63% for nasal swab, and only 32% for throat swabs. The researchers stated that results vary for many reasons including stage of disease.v[5] This analysis was published in May – long after Mr. Fauci and his accomplices had succeeded in creating a false pandemic, in part by insisting that more and more people should be tested. Fortunately, many people are far more diligent than Fauci in checking out facts. Investigators from OffGuardian contacted the authors of four papers published in early 2020 in which researchers claimed that they had discovered a new coronavirus. The investigators asked for proof that electron micrographs showed purified virus and all four groups replied that they did not. Here are the verbatim responses from the four groups: • "The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus." • "We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells." • "[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones." • "We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification." The investigators also contacted virologist Charles Calisher and asked if he knew of any research group that had isolated and purified SARS-COV-2 and he replied that he did not. They concluded at this time no one knows whether or not the RNA gene sequences used in the in vitro trials and which were used to calibrate the tests came from SARS-CoV-2.vi[6]

All of this may explain why some of the testing results from around the world have been so difficult to understand or explain. For example, testing in Guangdong province in China showed that 10% of people who recovered from COVID tested negative and then tested positive again.vii[7] Twenty-nine patients tested in Wuhan tested negative, then positive, and then the results were "dubious."viii[8] According to Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, PCR tests are only 30- 50% accurate.ix[9] And the CDC agrees. A statement in its online instruction manual for PCR testing includes these statements: • “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms… This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens."x[10] The FDA’s online emergency use authorization includes this statement: • "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."xi[11] In fact, the manufacturers’ instruction manual for one PCR test includes these statements: • “These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection… For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures."xii[12]

The bottom line is that this test is useless for diagnosing CoVID-19. If the error rate is only 5% this could mean that the number of cases worldwide is off by millions. But the error rate is most likely much higher, which means that that the world’s population is suffering due to a made-up pandemic, as I’ve been stating for months. Fauci is supposed to be the world’s leading virology expert and we are all told regularly that we should listen to him and carefully follow his instructions. If he is, indeed, an expert, he must have known all of this for a very long time. Fauci should be held personally accountable for the death and destruction he has caused in this country. His actions are criminal. On the other hand, if he is a feckless and incompetent fool, he should be fired immediately. In either case, testing should stop, and we should immediately begin the process of returning to normal.

Pamela A. Popper, President Wellness Forum Health xiii[1] Pride D. "Hundreds of different coronavirus tests are being used – which is best?" The Conversation

xv[3] Farber C. Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?"

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/ accessed 7.2.2020

xvi[4] Kolata G. "Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t." New York Times Jan 22 2007 xviii xvii[5] Watson J, Whiting PF, Brush JE. "Interpreting a covid-19 test result." BMJ 2020 May;369:m1898 [6] Engelbrecht T, Demeter K. "COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless." Off Guardian Jun 27 2020 xix[7] Koop F. "A startling number of coronavirus patients get reinfected." ZME Science Feb 26 2020 xx[8] Li Y, Yao L, Li J et al. "Stability issues of RT-PCR testing of SARS-CoV-2 for hospitalized patients clinically diagnosed with COVID-19." J Med Virol 2020 Mar;92(7) xxi[9] Feng C, Hu M. "Race to diagnose coronavirus patients constrained by shortage of reliable detection kits." South China Morning Post Feb 11 2020 xxii[10] CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download xxiii[11] ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARY COVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA) https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download xxiv[12]

Numbers - COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless Ian Thorpe Politicians and “experts” scream and shout about testing and isolation being the way to halt the COVID 19 pandemic to a halt, but everything else they hsve told us about the disease has been absolute bollocks, why should this be any different? Well surprise, surprise, it isn’t any different. The idear that testing everybody ten times a day (OK I might be exaggerating for effect,) will do any good is just another diversionary tactic designed to distract us from the sure and certain knowledge that the establishment, i.e. is the politicians, the academic community and the medical professions haven’t a clue how to deal with this disease. However in saying that we are allowing that COVID 19 coronavirus actually exists though that is nor proven. For a pathogen to be recognised as the cause of a disease it must meet all of a set of croteria known as The Koch Postulates. Covid 19 or The Wuhan Virus actually meets none.

And to top that of the tests being used to identify who is infected have been shown by independent (i.e. not funded by governments, Big Pharma corporations or The United Nations,) to be not fit for purpose. At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, World Health Organisation (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 CNN, Reuters and the BBC’s news channel Germany’s heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television — was still repeating the mantra of the corona dogma on to its 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 belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religious dogma that tolerates virtually no contradiction. But religions are about faith and not demonstrable facts. Were we still under the rile of The Holy Roman Empire, heretics who questioned this narrative would be tortured and burned. It is certainly significant that Kary Mullis, inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology was one of the vioces dissenting from that dogma before his recent death (which was not connected to COVID — 19 we understand.) His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993. But while the WHO and other health bureaucracies are hailing PCR as the saviour of humankind, the eminent biochemist himself regarded his invention the PCR as an inappropriate tool for detecting a viral infection. 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. Gina Kolata in a 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t describes declaring pandemics on the basis of PCR tests as bad science. It is also worth mentioning that PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 are unreliable because the results show the infection does not meet any of the Koch postulates (sic). This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”[1] and “specificity” — by comparison with an established benchmark meaning the most accurate method available. 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 of Bristol University UK confirms this in her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal. Dr Watson writes that there is a “lack of 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 “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound....

(its also not a gold standard if you have cheated Kock postulates from the start! I think they changed the definition of gold standard.....)

...Apart from the absurdity of taking the test itself as part of the benchmark for evaluating 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 has acknowledged. Recently I have read that COVID 19 is a respiratory disease that is far worse than pneumonia, that is is a disease of the blood vessels, that it causes brain damage, affects liver, kidneys and other vital organs, and that it damages the digestive tract. Maybe the obvious confusion among medical professionals arises because people with a range of pre — existing conditions that take in all these symptoms are particularly vulnerable to COVID 19 And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.

RELATED: Critics Batter The Fake Science Used To Justify The Lockdown As Boris Waffles The Coronavirus Response Is The Biggest Assault On Freedom Since World War 2 Coronavirus: Fear and Panic and a Globalist Power Grab COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose.

...

...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.” .... 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". ...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.”... ...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 ... 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.” ... 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

https://off-guardian.org/.../covid19-pcr-tests-are.../

If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms ... ...You do not need a test. https://www.cdc.gov/.../2019-ncov/hcp/testing-overview.html

"In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “PROBABLE” or “PRESUMED.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. ".

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

In some countries, like Belgium and France, authorities are working to include Covid-19 deaths outside of hospitals in their daily reports, or by ADJUSTING the overall Covid-19 death totals once a death is confirmed in places like nursing or retirement homes. Others, like Britain’s Office for National Statistics, have started to release mortality data after death certificates have been processed, confirming those that MENTION Covid-19. This provides a more ACCURATE? account of mortality than the hospital figures released each day by Public Health England, however the data is delayed about two weeks. https://www.nytimes.com/.../coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

Add 10k, Multiply by 4 COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. (MEANING YES All, even excess deaths are being counted, models are being made, projections are a terrible way to live with out raw data, and im not encouraging tracking) This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation. (Original Rules in diagnosing) In conclusion, even though chest CT has played a key role in detection or diagnosis of COVID-19 infection with some typical CT features while the initial RT-PCR result is negative. However, not all the cases had the initial abnormality chest CT results or positive RT-PCR in the patients with COVID-19 infection. Consequently, RT-PCR results, chest CT features, clinical manifestation, laboratory results, and exposure history should be made a comprehensive analysis to diagnose COVID-19 infection for the clinical decisions beyond clinical and radiological features. https://www.sciencedirect.com/.../pii/S0163445320301420

Case numbers lack of correlation with death numbers by Brian Rose

https://www.facebook.com/nate.sergio.1/posts/350266069541802

---

The thing about epidemiology when used in the wrong way based on unproven hypothesis, is we can so far down into imagination land, there is no turning back. Another slight of hand pulled on us was spoted:

Note: even the lowest estimates are not evidence of "viral pandemic" because they dont have the "virus".

. See this.

Dr. Tedros of the WHO intentionally conflated the initial crude case fatality rate (CFR) of Covid with the established infection fatality rate (IFR) of the seasonal flu. It is well known in the scientific community that the CFR is 10 to 100 times greater than the IFR. Dr. Tedros, of the WHO, said “Globally, about 3.4 percent of reported Covid-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1 percent of those infected.” (generally accepted as 0.1%). He directly compared the two and did not explain that he was comparing two completely different things. I can think of no innocent explanation for this. The impression given was that Covid is 34 times deadlier than the seasonal flu. But, a CFR of 3.4% indicates a likely IFR of 0.034% – 0.34%. What should have been understood as good news, if reported properly, was presented as cause for extreme alarm, “justifying” the unprecedented lockdown policies forced upon us. Interestingly, the CDC now estimates the total IFR (including all demographic categories) at 0.23%, in line with what we should have expected from the initial CFR of 3.4%.

On March 11, Anthony Fauci lied to the Senate and the American people when he claimed that Covid has a fatality rate of 1%, ten times higher than the seasonal flu. This is quite a charge, so how do I know that he lied? On February 28, a paper he co-authored was published in the NEJM. Here’s the money quote:

“…the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.

-( Oh there is a few pages i have not added on the lie of "asymptomatic" spread - and spread in general is actually never been proven. Wait what ? Yeah Seriously. )

founded on a series of claims, always asserted as facts that are not supported by credible evidence.

Asymptomatic spread is the mother of all shame tools, but it is not a significant driver of the virus. This fact was, until recently, acknowledged the CDC, the WHO, even Dr. Fauci himself. There is no new, credible science that justifies this sudden reversal. The claim that asymptomatic spread is a significant driver of the virus is not based on identifying infected, but asymptomatic, individuals, tracking their contacts, and testing whether they infected anyone; they are based on anecdotal claims and mathematical models. Such “evidence” cannot establish causation.

Covid Jab? - LewRockwell

(once you have a projection model to start with, then some positive tests, the garbage data keeps piling up)

---

A great review of the questionable quality of the studies done to determine the "accuracy" of the current PCR tests being used for "Coronavirus" diagnosis.

HIGHLIGHTS:

"CURRENT STUDIES ESTIMATING TEST PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS HAVE IMPERFECT STUDY DESIGN AND STATISTICAL METHODS FOR THE ESTIMATION OF TEST PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF SARS-CoV-2 TESTS. The included studies employ HETEROGENEOUS METHODS and overall have an INCREASED RISK OF BIAS."

"The FDA granted the first Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for a SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR diagnostic test on February 4, 2020. Consequently, hundreds of tests for SARS-CoV-2, among them rRT-PCRs, other types of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), and automated and/or multiplex methods based on proprietary platforms, obtained FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). As of August 4th, 2020, the FDA has granted EUAs to 203 diagnostic tests, including 166 molecular tests, 35 antibody assays, and 2 antigen tests. Although the FDA began requiring the submission of validation methods and results as part of EUA application for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests, THESE TESTS WERE NOT INITIALLY REQUIRED TO UNDERGO THE RIGOROUS ASSESSMENT THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE PART OF THE FDA APPROVAL PROCESS."

"Concurrently with rapid test production, publications emerged reporting clinical diagnostic test performance characteristics, such as “sensitivity” and “specificity”, THOUGH SOME LACKED THE RIGOROUS METHODOLOGIES USUALLY REQUIRED TO FORMALLY ESTIMATE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY."

"In our scoping review of 49 articles concerning test performance characteristics of rRT-PCR and other NAAT used for the diagnosis of COVID-19, we were able to observe several overarching themes. CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS BY THE CASE DEFINITIONS FOR COVID-19 used in the early period of the pandemic DOES NOT CORRELATE WELL WITH POSITIVE RATES OF COVID-19 rRT-PCR (Table 1). The result of the initial rRT-PCR performed on a patient, if negative, may not be reflective of the result after multiple repeated rRT-PCRs for that patient (Table 2)."

"These findings should be viewed cautiously as the SARS-CoV-2 TESTS IN THESE STUDIES HAVE NOT UNDERGONE RIGOROUS EVALUATION NECESSARY FOR FDA APPROVAL DUE TO THE EMERGENCY STATE GENERATED BY THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. In addition, during our scoping review, WE FOUND SUBSTANTIAL HETEROGENEITY AMONG A VALUABLE STUDIES in terms of test types, reference standards, metrics, and details of study design and methodology."

"Furthermore, REPEATED USE OF THE SAME TEST AS A REFERENCE STANDARD FOR ITSELF DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE INACCURACIES OR LIMITATIONS OF THE TEST. Such comparisons ultimately reflect the reliability of the test (assuming a short, uniform time interval between tests), RATHER THAN PROVIDING A TRUE VIEW OF TEST ACCURACY."

"The third group of three studies calculated test performance characteristics of rRT-PCR according to a composite reference standard (Table 3). USING ARBITRARY RULES TO COMBINE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT AND IMPERFECT TESTS INEVITABLY CREATES A REFERENCE STANDARD WITH SOME DEGREE OF BIAS.57 Furthermore, all three studies in this group included the test under evaluation as part of the COMPOSITE REFERENCE STANDARD, WHICH LEADS TO ADDITIONAL BIAS, described below.58 USE OF A BIASED COMPOSITE STANDARD IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO REDUCED SENSITIVITY, AMONG OTHER ERRORS AFFECTING TRUE TEST PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS.59"

"Finally, the last group of studies compared SARS-CoV-2 NAAT platforms (Table 6). These comparative accuracy studies examined the agreement between two non-reference standard tests. Although most of the testing platforms evaluated in these studies were based on standard rRT-PCR, THE AGREEMENT BETWEENS TWO NON-REFERENCE STANDARD TESTS IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO TEST ACCURACY, as mentioned previously."

"THE MOST PROMINENT CONCERNS WERE UNCLEAR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA, UNCLEAR METHOD OF ENROLLMENT/SELECTION OF PATIENTS AND SAMPLES, and UNCLEAR HANDLING OF INDETERMINATE/INCONCLUSIVE AND INVALID RESULTS. Additionally, many of the studies were conducted in a so-called “two gate” (case-control) design, in which cases and controls were known and selected ahead of time, RATHER THAN PERFORMING THE TEST ON A GROUP OF PATIENTS OR SAMPLES WITH SUSPECTED COVID-19."

"The best approach to determining diagnostic test performance characteristics IN THE ABSENCES OF A “GOLD” STANDARD"....

(technically you can stop reading right there... Not having a Gold standard is way of saying we do not have evidence a specific microbe or "virus" causes disease.)

....is an open question in diagnostic accuracy methodology."

"Therefore, careful interpretation by studies that attempt to estimate test characteristics is warranted to account for and clarify the INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF ASSESSING ACCURACY-RELATED METRICS WHEN A GOLD STANDARD IS UNAVAILABLE."

"WHILE MORE THAN 200 SARS-CoV-2 MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTIC TESTS HAVE RECEIVED FDA EUAs, we have described in this scoping review that THE PERFORMANCE OF FEW OF THESE TESTS HAS BEEN ASSESSED APPROPRIATELY."

"However, our scoping review also UNCOVERED IMPERFECT METHODS FOR ESTIMATING DIAGNOSTIC TEST PERFORMANCE IN THE ABSENCE OF A GOLD STANDARD and demonstrate that THE ACCURACY OF THESE TESTS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WITH CAUTION."

"Indeed, instituting national requirements for test performance analysis and reporting, perhaps based on the existing FDA guidelines on diagnostic tests,61 WOULD ADVANCE THE GOAL OF STANDARDIZING THE EVALUATION SARS-CoV-2 DIAGNOSTIC TEST PERFORMANCE."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7457918/

As has been clear from the start for anyone truly paying attention, this has always been a TESTING PANDEMIC, not a "viral" one.

____

Once you have a un-honest science "contagion", or Virology to cheat to mask the true causes of disease, then you make an un-honest test which is really part of step 1. Then you throw those numbers into epidemiological spread models that magnify the lie. Then those assumed numbers from spread models go back into the algorithm/metric of assumed spread and the cycle never stops. You can work backwards and uncover the fraud as deep as your mind will let you. However we are avoiding the biggest and core issue. Virology is cheating.

See other blogs on that topic

{{{so they didn't isolate / PURIFY (without mixing a bunch a junk together to get CPE) the "virus" to make a test or a vaccine, they used old corona prototype research, filled in the blanks and voted on a consensous.}}} ____

"THE FEAR CAMPAIGN will continue in the wake of the lockdown. (IF WE ALLOW) Will the hardships of the economic and social crisis encourage people to get vaccinated? To implement the Global Vaccine, the propaganda campaign must continue. The Truth must be suppressed. These are their "guidelines", which must be confronted and challenged. The main actors including CEPI will require the firm endorsement of the WHO (which they control), a green light from the scientific community as well bold statements by corrupt politicians. Moreover, they will have to suppress information and analysis on the features of the virus, how it can be cured, which is currently the object in several countries of debate by virologist and physicians.

Remember the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic when Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology compared the H1N1 pandemic to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic while reassuring the public that the latter was more deadly. (CBC: Get swine flu vaccine ready: US advisers) Based on incomplete and scanty data, the WHO Director General predicted with authority that: "as many as 2 billion people could become infected over the next two years - nearly one-third of the world population." (World Health Organization as reported by the Western media, July 2009). It was a multibillion bonanza for Big Pharma supported by the WHO's Director-General Margaret Chan. In a subsequent statement she confirmed that: " Vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots per year in the best-case scenario" , Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO) , quoted by Reuters, 21 July 2009) .

Swine flu could strike up to 40 percent of Americans over the next two years and as many as several hundred thousand could die if a vaccine campaign and other measures aren't successful." (Official Statement of Obama Administration, Associated Press, 24 July 2009). There was no pandemic affecting 2 billion people ... Millions of doses of swine flu vaccine had been ordered by national governments from Big Pharma. Millions of vaccine doses were subsequently destroyed: a financial bonanza for Big Pharma, an expenditure crisis for national governments. There was no investigation into who was behind this multibillion fraud. Several critics said that the H1N1 Pandemic was "Fake" The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO's motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg , has declared that the "false pandemic" is "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century." ( Forbes , February 10, 2010)

We are currently in a Lockdown, We have time to reflect. There are important lessons to be learned from the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic This pandemic is far more serious and diabolical than the 2009 H1N1.

This COV-19 pandemic has provided a pretext and a justification for destabilizing the economies of entire countries, impoverishing large sectors of the World population. Unprecedented in modern history. And it is important that we act cohesively and in solidarity with those who are victims of this crisis. People's lives are in a freefall and their purchasing power has been destroyed. What kind of twisted social structure awaits us in the wake of the lockdown?

Can trust the World Health Organization (WHO) and the powerful economic interest groups behind it.

Can we trust the main actors behind the multibillion-dollar global vaccination project? Can we trust the Western media which has led the fear campaign? Disinformation sustains the lies and fabrications. Can we trust our "corrupt" governments? Our national economy has been devastated. This is an act of "economic warfare" against humanity." PHD MD Chossudovsky, https://www.nogeoingegneria.com/.../after-the-lockdown-a.../

A Columbia Journalism Review article reveals that Bill Gates sent over $ 250 million to the BBC, NPR, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, The New York Times, Univision, Medium to check global journalism. , the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, Center for Investigative Reporting, Pulitzer Center, National Press Foundation, International Center for Journalists, and a number of other groups. To hide his influence, Gates also channeled unknown sums through contract sub-concessions to other media outlets.

His bribes to the press paid off. During the pandemic, bought and brainless news agencies treated Bill Gates as a public health expert, despite his lack of medical training or regulatory experience.

Gates also funds an army of fact independent checker ( ed alleged) , including the Poynter Institute and Gannett - who use their platforms fact-checking for "to silence dissent" and "demolish" as "false conspiracy theories" And "misinformation," Gates is accused of supporting and investing in biometric chips, vaccine identification systems , satellite surveillance and COVID vaccines .

Gates' media gifts, says CJR author Tim Schwab, mean that "critical reporting on the Gates Foundation is rare . " The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation turned down several requests for interviews from the CJR and refused to disclose how much money it paid to reporters .

In 2007, the LA Times published one of the few critical investigations of the Gates Foundation, exposing Gates' holdings in companies that harm the people his foundation claims to help, such as child labor-related industries. Chief reporter Charles Piller says: "They were unwilling to answer questions and refused to answer in any way ...".

The survey showed how Gates 'global health funding has steered the global aid agenda towards Gates' personal goals ( vaccines and GMO crops ) and away from issues such as emergency preparedness to respond to epidemics, such as the global crisis. 'Ebola.

"They avoided our questions and tried to undermine our visibility," says freelance journalist Alex Park after investigating the Gates Foundation's polio vaccine efforts.

SOURCE https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/press-in-his-pocket-bill-gates-buys-media-to-control-the-messaging/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=3c1e5ff0-d5bf-4d1e-ac41- e527d3448ea2

Translation by Nogeoingegneria

*********

DOSSIER GATES

https://www.nogeoingegneria.com/timeline/personaggi/gates-to-heaven-or-to-hell-porte-del-paradiso-o-dell-inferno-1/

https://www.nogeoingegneria.com/timeline/personaggi/gates-to-heaven-or-to-hell-porte-del-paradiso-o-dell-inferno-3/

https://www.nogeoingegneria.com/timeline/personaggi/gates-to-heaven-or-to-hell-porte-del-paradiso-o-dell-inferno-3/

_

A project planned for years

We know that to carry out this criminal operation - since we must speak of a crime against God and against humanity, and not of an unfortunate fate - it took years of planning, carried out systematically to weaken the national pandemic plans, drastically reduce the hospital and ICU beds, create a mass of blind, deaf and dumb employees; employees, no longer doctors, who put safety in the workplace before their duty to treat the sick. The Hippocratic Oath was violated in the name of the profit of pharmaceutical companies and the pursuit of a social engineering project.

Involvement of the health system

We know that in order to obtain the complicity of doctors and scientists, not only has recourse been made to the system of corruption and conflicts of interest in place for decades, but also to the distribution of prizes and cash bonuses. To give an example, in Italy a specialized doctor receives 60 euros per hour for inoculating vaccines in vaccination centers; general practitioners are granted incentives for each patient vaccinated; an intensive care bed is paid by the National Health Service about 3,000 euros per day.It is clear that neither general practitioners, nor hospital staff, nor regional health companies have any interest in depriving themselves of huge revenues, after public health has been demolished for a decade in the name of cuts to waste imposed by the Union. European. To give you an idea, Italy has received 72 invitations from Brussels to close all the small hospitals that today, under the pretext of the pandemic, are reopened and financed with the funds that the European Union allocates on loan with constraints and conditionalities that at other times we would have deemed unacceptable. Yet those hospitals worked well, made it possible to offer a widespread service to citizens and were able to avoid the spread of the infection.

The fundamental role of the media

We know that the states have granted funding to the media, as a contribution to information on Covid. In Italy, the Conte government has allocated large amounts for the national information system to give a univocal version on the pandemic and censor any dissenting voice. The dissemination of data on infections and deaths has been grossly manipulated, suggesting that test positives should be considered sick, even if asymptomatics are not contagious - by the same admission of the WHO and similar organs in the United States, Canada, in Australia, etc . And alongside these government funding, in many cases the conflict of interest with pharmaceutical companies could also interfere with the choices of broadcasters and newspapers,on the one hand because BigPharma is one of the main buyers of advertising space, on the other because it is present on the boards of directors of information companies. Hard to believe that the editor of a newspaper, even if persuaded of the pandemic fraud, would dare to go against the CEO or deprive himself of the advertising profits of Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson.

___

"Never as today are men who do not fear death infinitely superior even to the strongest temporal power.

For this fear must be spread continuously.

Tyrants constantly live in the tremendous conviction that there are many who can get out of the state of fear, not just a few single individuals, which would certainly mean their downfall.

This is also the real reason for the resentment against any doctrine of the transcendent. In fact, there lies the greatest danger: that man is no longer afraid "

(E. Jünger, Beyond the Line, 1950)

***********

This Letter largely reflects the speech that I will give to the participants in the next summit "Truth Over Fear: Covid-19, the Vaccine, and the Great Reset", organized by Patrick Coffin, which will be held between April 30 and 1 May 2021. This pivotal event sees the participation of over twenty of the world's leading doctors, researchers and lawyers and will provide a scientific and savvy approach to pseudopandemic. All people have the right to informed consent. Online registration for the summit can be done here: www.restoretheculture.com

" TRUTH OVER FEAR:

COVID-19, THE VACCINE,

AND THE GREAT RESET "

Ecce nova facio omnia

Rev 21, 5

What we have learned so far about the pseudopandemic gives us the picture of a disturbing reality and an even more disturbing criminal conspiracy, hatched by misguided minds. This reality, however, is not taken into consideration by those who, hypnotized by media indoctrination, persist in considering a serious seasonal flu as a pandemic scourge, known cures as ineffective and miraculous the so-called vaccines which are admittedly useless and harmful.

The reputation of pharmaceutical companies

We know that the pharmaceutical giants - Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson - not only have not followed the ordinary protocols for drug testing, but have a long history of convictions behind them for having previously caused serious damage to the population, distributing vaccines that have proved to be the cause of disabling diseases.

Conflicts of Interest

We know what the macroscopic conflicts of interest exist between pharmaceutical companies and the bodies responsible for their control: in many cases, employees of these companies have passed through the bodies that must approve and authorize the use of drugs, and it is difficult to think that they - who often continue to have professional ties to BigPharma - have the freedom to make a fair and prudent assessment. Indeed, we have seen just recently with the case of Astra Zeneca in Europe that the obvious harmfulness of the so-called vaccine - in front of which some states have suspended its distribution - are not considered sufficient reason by the EMA (European Medicines Agency) to prohibit its adoption.

"THE TRUTH ABOUT FEAR: COVID-19, THE VACCINE AND THE GREAT RESET", BY Mgr. CARLO MARIA VIGANÒ | NoGeoengineering (nogeoingegneria.com)

ttps://www.nogeoingegneria.com/opinioni/la-verita-sulla-paura-covid-19-il-vaccino-e-il-grande-reset-di-mons-carlo-maria-vigano/

The controlled demolition of society, called COVID-19, places us at the gates of hell, somewhere between freedom and slavery, fighting a battle for humanity against a government that has become a risk to human nature.

In just under eight months, those who go by the nickname of protectors of individual freedom from tyranny have taken on the mantle of oppressors . To put ourselves above individuals, take legal control over our lives, remove our personal agenda, dictate where we can go and who we can meet. Regardless of these historic infractions of our freedom, we obey rather than disturb the wasp nest and listen diligently to the call of the showman politicians who have enlisted us , unaware that the blame has been passed on by the lords to the victims of their tyranny.

“ We are all in this togheter” is another complaint from many Ministers including Boris Johnson. Despite his small circle, he has ruled this country with ministerial decrees since March. Launch the most damaging legislation in history, without resorting to checks, debates or votes in Parliament, engagement with civil society, or even risk assessment of the impact of these laws, which even legislators do not obey. In the ancient tradition of one rule for those who make the rules , another rule for everyone else .

After a handful of inactive sessions in the House of Commons, Parliament's older freedoms themselves were confiscated on the basis of a disease with an average mortality age of 82 . What was built on this basis by the architects of this apocalypse is not only reprehensible, it is ingenious. Uniting millions behind the COVID cult. Transcending decades of the usual propaganda, behavioral engineering, consensus making. Mitigate the costs of war, terrorism or any cheating available to those in power, preparing ourselves for a controlled destination. In this particular watershed, a permanent checkpoint of our democracy to enact the terms of our servitude, called state of biosecurity .

The Trojan horse of COVID

Of course, this is not one of the standard takeover alarms of the globalized and industrialized society. Why should it? Fascism has come a long way since Hitler was there. Today the population is too intelligent, they would recognize the face of tyranny and not this impostor. Or so we think. Furthermore, "without the allies landing on the beaches of Normandy, how could we be under siege?" We reassure ourselves before returning to captivity in an easygoing confrontation of comfort with less fortunate nations. Adaptation is a wonderful thing, but maybe not for us. In keeping with the opaque nature of this trick of political trust, this is not perceived as typical dictatorship either.Instead it is England's answer to a real military junta, bearing the hallmark letters of Her Majesty's government to legitimize its piracy, courted by the ivory towers of science and medicine, and exalted as a force for good by a sleepwalking population on the verge of disaster . In the meantime, society burns, collapsing ruinously and ritualistically to the ground. But that's okay, we can rebuild better from the ashes. Or so we are told.

This journey to the wrong side of history is made possible by subtle nuances of control, confusion and fear that most fail to understand. Triggering the total abandonment of logic and reason for a seemingly benevolent cult that offers protection against the day of reckoning. The threat of death strikes a sensitive chord and our adaptability makes us weak. But who could have predicted that fascism would be so ordinary from within the Panopticon? Once we're connected to a shared digital commune, a state of emergency can quickly taint consensus, until collectivism blooms like wildfire. Meanwhile, the measured perspective becomes an act of war. Who wants to be on the wrong side of the cult,when who fails to bend a knee to COVID is, by dissociation, guilty, with blood on their hands? The whole process works because the breeding ground for the prosperity of any dictatorship is fear. A state of emergency unites us with a common purpose. And what could be more convincing than a pandemic? Death, like communism, levels the playing field of all distinctions. Regardless of class, age, sex or race, death is indiscriminate. Reaffirming the normality of our departure from one place of relative safety to another is simple enough. Security, after all, is relative to the context of the emergency.The higher the alert level, the safer we feel in the herd, regardless of small issues like the number of prison bars that hold us captive. In a strong enough current, people are like driftwood trying to dock in reeds. Remember the motto of this thing from the beginning: "The New Normal?" A state of emergency unites us with a common purpose.

Rest of that article here

LA DEMOLIZIONE CONTROLLATA DELLA SOCIETA’ | NoGeoingegneria

https://www.nogeoingegneria.com/ingegneria-sociale/la-demolizione-controllata-della-societa/