EXCLUSIVE – Former Pfizer VP “Government is Lying to You”

EXCLUSIVE - Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’

Dr. Mike Yeadon

‘Look out the window, and think, “why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?” Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.’

Published on LifeSite News By Patrick Delaney

Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.

He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.

His main points included:

1. There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”

2. Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.

3. Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign.

4. Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”

5. Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”

6. Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.

7. The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.”

Dr. Yeadon began identifying himself as merely a “boring guy” who went “to work for a big drug company … listening to the main national broadcast and reading the broad sheet newspapers.”

Continuing, he said: “But in the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus. That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in.

“Or, by the way, on top of the current list of gene-based vaccines that we have miraculously made, there will be some ‘top-up’ vaccines to cope with the immune escape variants.

“Everything I have told you, every single one of those things is demonstrably false. But our entire national policy is based on these all being broadly right, but they are all wrong.”

‘Conspiracy’ and not just ‘convergent opportunism’

“But what I would like to do is talk about immune escape because I think that’s probably going to be the end game for this whole event, which I think is probably a conspiracy. Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism,’ that is a bunch of different stakeholder groups have managed to pounce on a world in chaos to push us in a particular direction. So it looked like it was kind of linked, but I was prepared to say it was just convergence.”

“I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky varmints, these “variants”’— which I call ‘samiants’ by the way, because they are pretty much the same — but they’re all saying this and they are all saying ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”

Possible end game: vaccine ‘passports’ tied to spending allowances, thorough control

“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’… Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.

“When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide. And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it. “For example, you might find that after a banking reset that you can only spend through using an app that actually feeds off this [database], your ID, your name, [and] your health status flag.”

“And, yes, certainly crossing an international border is the most obvious use for these vaccine passports, as they are called, but I’ve heard talk of them already that they could be necessary for you to get into public spaces, enclosed public spaces. I expect that if they wanted to, you would not be able to leave your house in the future without the appropriate privilege on your app.

“But even if that’s not [the] true [intent of the vaccine campaign], it doesn’t matter, the fact that it could be true means everyone [reading] this should fight like crazy to make sure that [vaccine passport] system never forms.”

“[With such a system], here is an example of what they could make you do, and I think this is what they’re going to make [people] do.

“You could invent a story that is about a virus and its variations, its mutations over time. You could invent the story and make sure you embed it through the captive media, make sure that no one can counter it by censoring alternative sources, then people are now familiar with this idea that this virus mutates, which it does, and that it produces variants, which is true [as well], which could escape your immune system, and that’s a lie.

“But, nevertheless, we’re going to tell you it’s true, and then when we tell you that it’s true and we say ‘but we’ve got the cure, here’s a top-up vaccine,’ you’ll get a message, based on this one global, this one ID system: ‘Bing!’ it will come up and

say ‘Dr. Yeadon, time for your top-up vaccine. And, by the way,’ it will say ‘your existing immune privileges remain valid for four weeks. But if you don’t get your top-up vaccine in that time, you will unfortunately detrimentally be an “out person,” and you don’t want that, do you?’ So, that’s how it’ll work, and people will just walk up and they’ll get their top-up vaccine.”

Gov’t lies, Big Pharma moves forward, medicine regulators get out of the way, and possible ‘mass-depopulation’

“But I will take you through this, Patrick, because I am qualified to comment. I don’t know what Vanden Bossche is about. There was no possibility at all, based on all of the variants that are in the public domain, 4000 or so of them, none of them are going to escape immunity [i.e. become more dangerous].

“Nevertheless, politicians and health advisers (to loads of governments) are saying that they are. They’re lying. Well, why would you do that?

“Here’s the other thing, in parallel, pharmaceutical companies have said, several of them, it will be quite easy for us to adjust our gene-based vaccines, and we can hasten them through development, and we can help you.

“And here’s the real scary part, global medicines regulators like [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA, the Japanese medicines agency, the European Medicines Agency, have gotten together and announced … since top-up vaccines will be considered so similar to the ones that we have already approved for emergency use authorization, we are not going to require the drug companies to perform any clinical safety studies.

“So, you’ve got on the one hand, governments and their advisers that are lying to you that variants are different enough from the current virus that, even if you’re immune from natural exposure or vaccination, you’re a risk and you need to come and get this top-up vaccine. So, I think neither of those are true. So why is the drug company making the top-up vaccines? And [with] the regulators having got out of the way — and if Yeadon is right, and I’m sure I am or I wouldn’t be telling you this — you go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.

“And if you wanted to introduce a characteristic which could be harmful and could even be lethal, and you can even tune it to say ‘let’s put it in some gene that will cause liver injury over a nine-month period,’ or, cause your kidneys to fail but not until you encounter this kind of organism [that would be quite

possible]. Biotechnology provides you with limitless ways, frankly, to injure or kill billions of people.

“And since I can’t think of a benign explanation for any of the steps: variants, top-up vaccines, no regulatory studies… it’s not only that I cannot think of a benign explanation, the steps described, and the scenario described, and the necessary sort of resolution to this false problem is going to allow what I just described: unknown, and unnecessary gene sequences injected into the arms of potentially billions of people for no reason.

“I’m very worried … that pathway will be used for mass depopulation, because I can’t think of any benign explanation.”

‘Absurdly impossible’ variants will escape immunity, ‘just a lie’

“If I can show you that one major thing that governments around the world are telling the people is a lie, you should take my 32 years of experienced opinion that says, most of it, if not all of it, is a lie.”

“The most different variant is only 0.3% different from the original sequence as emailed out of Wuhan in … January 2020. 0.3% [is] the one [variant] that is the most different on the planet so far. And now another way of saying it is, ‘all of the variants are not less than 99.7% identical to each other.’

“Now, you might be thinking, ‘hmm, .3%, is that enough [to escape immunity and become more dangerous]?’ The answer is no. Get away, ya know, get out of here …

“The human immune system is a thing of wonder. What it does is when it faces a new pathogen like this, you’ve got professional cells, they’re called professional antigen-presenting cells —they’re kind of rough tough things that tend not to succumb to viruses. And their job is to grab foreign things in the near environment and tear them limb from limb [inside the cell]. They really cut them up into hundreds of pieces. And then they present these pieces on the surfaces of their cell to other bits of your immune system, and amazingly, because of the variability that God and nature gave you, huge variability to recognize foreign things, and your body ends up using 15 to 20 different specific motifs that it spots about this virus. They’re called epitopes, basically they’re just like little photographs of the details about this virus. That’s what they do. And that is what is called your repertoire, your immune repertoire is like 20 different accurate photographs, close-ups, of different bits of this virus.

“Now, if a tiny piece of the virus changes, like the .3% I’ve just described, if you are reinfected by that variant, your professional cells tear into that virus and cut it

into pieces, present them again, and lo and behold, most of the pieces that you have already seen and recognized, are still there in the variants.

“There is absolutely no chance that all of them will fail to be recognized and that is what is required for immune escape, to escape your immunity. It must present to you as a new pathogen. It must be sufficiently different that, when it is cut up by your professional checker cells, it won’t find mostly the same thing it has seen before. And that is just absurdly impossible when you have only varied .3%, so it is 99.7% (similar). “You can go and check that by looking at papers by a person called Alison Tarke. There is also Shane Crotty, and all of the other co-authors.

“And before them, coming from my theoretical understanding of multi-locus immunity, which is what I just badly tried to describe, to what actually happens … If your [immune system] is presented with something that contains even half of those similar pieces, there is no way your body will say, ‘that’s a new pathogen.’

“And, so, the idea that 0.3% could even have a chance of getting around immunity is just a lie. It’s not [even] like an opinion difference.

“I don’t think 3% would be enough. That’s 10 times more variation than has occurred in 16 months [with this virus]. I don’t even think 30% difference would be enough. So, I’m saying that 100 times more variation than has actually happened, would still leave me putting a big bet on the human immune system not being fooled that these are new pathogens.

“I’ve chatted this over with several professors of immunology and they agreed with me, it’s like, ‘why are you asking me this?’

“So, I think that what I’ve just said is that governments and their advisors in multiple countries are lying about variants. That’s a massive thing! You should check it out. Your readers should check it out. If it’s true, don’t you think it’s terrifying?! It was when I realized it.

“So, they’re lying about variants, and then, of course, since [the variants] are not really different, you do not need a ‘top-up’ vaccine. Now you should be getting the hairs on the back of your neck up, because they are making them right now!” “They are making billions of vials of it. And they will be available by the end of the year.

“And I think they’ll require people to first, be on the vaccine passport one-world database, and then it will roll up into the top-ups, and if it takes a bit longer it will take a bit longer.

“But this is not going away. It won’t go away until enough people, if they ever do, say ‘you’re a bunch of frauds and we are taking our freedoms back, so you can just stop doing this.’

“Because one person shouting into the wilderness and all of the other academics looking the other way, will have us just going down this pipe maybe a week later than if I hadn’t said anything, but we’re still going down to hell.

“So, that’s why I’m frightened.

“The variants aren’t different. I call them ‘samiants’… they’re pretty much the same. They’re not different. Therefore, you don’t need a top-up vaccine, so don’t go near any of them.”

‘Why is my government lying to me?’ Because ‘they are going to kill you.’

“[And if you recognize that our governments are involved in a major verifiable lie], don’t just turn your computer off and go to supper. Stop. Look out the window, and think, ‘why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?’ Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power and this is a really artful way of getting you to line-up and receive some unspecified thing that will damage you. I have no idea what it will actually be, but it won’t be a vaccine because you don’t need one. And it won’t kill you on the end of the needle because you would spot that.

“It could be something that will produce normal pathology, it will be at various times between vaccination and the event, it will be plausibly deniable because there will be something else going on in the world at that time, in the context of which your demise, or that of your children will look normal.

“That’s what I would do if I wanted to get rid of 90 or 95% of the world’s population. And I think that’s what they’re doing.”

“Now I don’t know [for certain] that they’re going to use that [system] to kill you, but I can’t think of a benign reason, and with that power they certainly could harm you, or control you, so you should object [and strenuously oppose it].”

People can’t deal with this level of evil, but Soviets, Hitler, Mao show its possibility

“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it. And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil…

“But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on.

“We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this. They’re all around us. So, I say to folks, the only thing that really marks this one out, is its scale.

“But actually, this is probably less bloody, it’s less personal, isn’t it? The people who are steering this … it’s going to be much easier for them. They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face. They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back and our grandparents or great grandparents were either victims of this, or they were actually members of it, or at least they witnessed it from overseas. That’s how close we are.

“And all I’m saying is, some shifts like that are happening again, but now they are using molecular biology.

“And the people going along with it, I think they would probably say, ‘I was only following orders,’ which we have heard before.

“But I know, because I have talked to lots of people, and some of them have said ‘I don’t want to believe that you are right, so I’m going to just put it away because if it is true, I can’t handle it.’ And I think … all you need to do is find a good

reason to tell people, ‘Don’t take the vaccine unless you’re a medical risk of dying from the virus!’ That seems to me a pretty good line!”

Towards a solution – ‘We need God’

“I’m a scientist, and I can tell you, talking to non-scientists, using science as a tool, will not work. It will fail.

“So, we need philosophers, people who understand logic, religion, something like that, [they have] got to wrestle with this, and start talking in a language people will understand. Because if we leave it with scientists, people like me, even though I’m well-intentioned, I’m a gabbling alien as far as most people in the street are concerned. They won’t believe the government will lie to them, they don’t believe the government would ever do anything that will harm them, but they are [doing such things].”

Finally, in an email correspondence, Dr. Yeadon concluded, “I have latest taken to signing off with ‘May God save us’, because I think we need God now more than at any time since WW2.”

 

To view the original Article 

Asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 didn’t occur at all, study of 10 million finds

Asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 didn’t occur at all, study of 10 million finds

By Michael Haynes as Published at LifeSite News

Only 300 asymptomatic cases in the study of nearly 10 million were discovered, and none of those tested positive for COVID-19.

WUHAN, China, December 23, 2020- A study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan, China, found that asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 did not occur at all, thus undermining the need for lockdowns, which are built on the premise of the virus being unwittingly spread by infectious, asymptomatic people.

Published in November in the scientific journal Nature Communicationsthe paper was compiled by 19 scientists, mainly from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, but also from scientific institutions across China as well as in the U.K. and Australia. It focused on the residents of Wuhan, ground zero for COVID-19, where 9,899,828 people took part in a screening program between May 14 and June 1, which provided clear results as to the possibility of any asymptomatic transmission of the virus.

Asymptomatic transmission has been the underlying justification of lockdowns enforced all across the world. The most recent guidance from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still states that the virus “can be spread by people who do not have symptoms.” In fact, the CDC claimed that asymptomatic people “are estimated to account for more than 50 percent of transmissions.”

U.K. Health Secretary Matt Hancock also promoted this message, explaining that the concept of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 led to the U.K. advocating masks and referring to the “problem of asymptomatic transmission.”

However, the new study in Nature Communications, titled “Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly 10 million residents of Wuhan, China,” debunked the concept of asymptomatic transmission. 

It stated that out of the nearly 10 million people in the study, “300 asymptomatic cases” were found. Contact tracing was then carried out and of those 300, no cases of COVID-19 were detected in any of them. “A total of 1,174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19.”

Both the asymptomatic patients and their contacts were placed in isolation for two weeks, and after the fortnight, the results remained the same. “None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period.”

Further evidence showed that “virus cultures” in the positive and repositive asymptomatic cases were all negative, “indicating no ‘viable virus’ in positive cases detected in this study.”

Ages of those found to be asymptomatic ranged between 10 and 89, with the asymptomatic positive rate being “lowest in children or adolescents aged 17 and below” and highest rate found among people older than 60.

The study also made the realization that due to a weakening of the virus itself, “newly infected persons were more likely to be asymptomatic and with a lower viral load than earlier infected cases.”

These results are not without precedent. In June, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, shed doubt upon asymptomatic transmission. Speaking at a press conference, Van Kerkhove explained, “From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”

She then repeated the words “It’s very rare,” but despite her word choice of “rare,” Van Kerkhove could not point to a single case of asymptomatic transmission, noting that numerous reports “were not finding secondary transmission onward.”

Her comments went against the predominant narrative justifying lockdowns, and at the time the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) highlighted that “she undermined the last bit of rationale there could be for lockdowns, mandated masks, social distancing regulation, and the entire apparatus of compulsion and coercion under which we’ve lived for three months.”

Swift to act, the WHO performed a U-turn, and the next day Van Kerkhove then declared that asymptomatic transmission was a “really complex question … We don’t actually have that answer yet.”

“I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies,” she added.

However, the new Wuhan study seems to present solid, scientific evidence that asymptomatic transmission is not just rare but nonexistent. Given that it found “no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious,” the study raises important questions about lockdowns. 

Commenting on the study, The Conservative Tree House noted that “all of the current lockdown regulations, mask wearing requirements and social distancing rules/decrees are based on a complete fallacy of false assumptions.” The evidence presented in the study shows that “‘very rare’ actually means ‘never’ asymptomatic spread just doesn’t happen – EVER.”

Such a large scientific study of 10 million people should not be overlooked, Jeffrey Tucker argued in the AIER, as it should be “huge news,” paving the way “to open up everything immediately.” Yet media reports have been virtually nonexistent and “ignored,” a fact that Tucker explained: “The lockdown lobby ignores whatever contradicts their narrative, preferring unverified anecdotes over an actual scientific study of 10 million residents in what was the world’s first major hotspot for the disease we are trying to manage.”

The recent findings should enable society to reopen once more, according to the AIER. Without asymptomatic transmission, “the whole basis for post-curve-flattening lockdowns,” life should resume and “we could take comfort in our normal intuition that healthy people can get out and about with no risk to others.”

“We keep hearing about how we should follow the science,” Tucker added. “The claim is tired by now. We know what’s really happening.” 

He closed his commentary with the question: “With solid evidence that asymptomatic spread is nonsense, we have to ask: Who is making decisions and why?”

To Read the Original Article, please visit

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/asymptomatic-transmission-of-covid-19-didnt-occur-at-all-study-of-10-million-finds

Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear

Asymptomatic 'Casedemic' Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear

Published and verified by Dr Jospeh Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones
  • Many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected via PCR swab far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive” even if their viral load is very low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat
  • Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified. Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted the chances of a positive result being accurate at 35 cycles or more “are minuscule.” Yet the CDC, FDA and WHO all recommend using 40 to 45 cycles
  • Recent research shows that to maximize accuracy, PCR tests for COVID-19 should use far fewer cycles. At 17 cycles, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be real positives. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives
  • When symptomatic, your chances of getting a true positive on the first day of symptom onset is only about 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result

As coronavirus testing takes place en masse across the U.S., many are questioning whether the tests are accurate enough to trust, especially in people who are asymptomatic. Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have several drawbacks that make mass testing problematic and rife for misleading fearmongering.

For starters, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.1 This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others.

The PCR Cycle Threshold Matters

YT LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_1Z8cSXI-Q&feature=youtu.be

Secondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.” To understand why the false positive rate for PCR tests is so high, you need to understand how the test works.2

The video above explains how the PCR test works and how we are interpreting results incorrectly. In summary, the PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, because the genetic snippets are so tiny, they must be amplified to become discernible.

Each round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used by any given test or lab is called a cycle threshold. Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified. Some experts say nothing above 30 cycles should be used,3 yet Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.4,5,6

When you go above 30 cycles, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.

‘Casedemic’ Fuels Needless Fear

When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a far higher number of positive tests than you would otherwise. At present, and going back a number of months now, what we’re really dealing with is a “casedemic,”7,8 meaning an epidemic of false positives.

Remember, in medical terminology, when used accurately, a “case” refers to someone who has symptoms of a disease. By erroneously reporting positive tests as “cases,” the pandemic appears magnitudes worse than it actually is.

“The goal is to keep you scared, isolated and demoralized for a purpose,” says PJ Media.9 “Only a beaten nation would stand for what comes next.” And that next step is a reset of America as you know it, with the UN’s one-world Agenda 2030 at the helm. To learn more, be sure to read “What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.”

As reported by Global Research in “The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a ‘Test’ to Lock Down Society”:10

“Official postulate … positive RT-PCR cases = COVID-19 patients. This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, color codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools.

This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.”


COVID Testing Fraud Fuels ‘Casedemic’

In the video at the top of this article, Del Bigtree breaks down how excessively high test sensitivity leads to falsely elevated “case” numbers that in reality mean nothing. He rightly points out that missing from the COVID-19 conversation is the death rate.

“If COVID is a deadly virus, what should we see when cases increase?” he asks. The answer, of course, is an increase in deaths. However, that’s not what’s happening. The two have virtually nothing to do with each other.

In the video, Bigtree features a November 4, 2020, tweet11 by White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Scott Atlas showing the number of positive tests (aka “cases”) in blue and COVID-19 related deaths in red, since the start of the pandemic up until the end of October 2020. As you can see, there’s no correlation between so-called cases and deaths.

U.S. COVID-19 Cases and Deaths

A second graph tweeted12 by Atlas shows the number of U.S. counties reporting more than 10 COVID-19 related deaths per day, based on New York Times data. It too indicates that the death rate is steadily dwindling.

U.S. counties reporting more than 10 COVID-19 related deaths per day

Worldwide, we see the same phenomenon. The first graph below, from Bigtree’s video report, shows the worldwide daily new cases since the beginning of the pandemic. The second graph shows daily COVID-19 related deaths, worldwide. While the number of positive tests have risen, fallen and risen again, the number of deaths have fallen off and do not appear to be rising in tandem with positive test rates any longer.

COVID-19 Daily New Cases
COVID-19 Daily Deaths

Shocking Data Reveal Inaccuracy of PCR Tests

Circling back to the PCR cycle threshold and its influence on positivity rates, Bigtree reviews research13 showing that to really maximize accuracy, PCR tests should use far fewer cycles.

At just 17 cycles, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be real positives. In other words, 17 cycles would likely be the ideal CT. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero. This is the graph from that study.14

Percentage of positive viral culturePercentage of positive viral culture of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive nasopharyngeal samples from Covid-19 patients, according to Ct value (plain line). The dashed curve indicates the polynomial regression curve.

Other data presented by Bigtree shows that your chances of getting a true positive on the first day of COVID-19 symptom onset is only about 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result.

If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule … You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle … [or] even 36 … ~ Dr. Anthony Fauci

By Day 5 the accuracy shrinks considerably and by Day 8 the accuracy is nil. Now, these are symptomatic people. When you’re asymptomatic, your odds of a positive PCR test being accurate is therefore virtually nonexistent.

Rapid Test Is Less Sensitive and May Be Better for Most

To address some of the shortcomings in PCR testing, most notably the time it takes to get the result, rapid tests have been developed that can provide an answer in minutes. These tests also appear to be less sensitive, which is actually a good thing. One such rapid test, called the Sofia by Quidel, looks for the presence of antigens (coronavirus proteins) rather than RNA.

In a recent comparison of PCR and the Quidel rapid test, University of Arizona researchers discovered that while the rapid test can detect more than 80% of the infections found by slower PCR tests, when used on asymptomatic individuals, that rate dropped to just 32%. (The study has not been published yet but was reviewed by experts solicited by The New York Times.15,16)

While a 32% detection rate may sound terrible, appearances can be deceiving. Remember, if labs are using a cycle threshold (CT) of, say, 40 cycles, the number of positive PCR results will be vastly exaggerated.

According to The New York Times,17 researchers have been “unable to grow the coronavirus out of samples from volunteers whose PCR tests had CT values above 27.” If the virus cannot replicate, you will not get ill and are not infectious, so you cannot spread it to others.

When all PCR tests with a CT value over 30 were excluded from the comparison, the rapid test was found to detect more than 85% of the SARS-CoV-2 infections detected by the PCR tests, and this held true whether the individual had symptoms or not.

Mass Testing Shown To Be Ineffective at Best

Why are we still testing asymptomatic people? According to a study18,19 in the October 21, 2020, issue of PLOS ONE, mass testing is at best ineffective and at worst, harmful.

“Even for highly accurate tests, false positives and false negatives will accumulate as mass testing strategies are employed under pressure, and these misdiagnoses could have major implications on the ability of governments to suppress the virus,” the authors state.20

“The present analysis uses a modified SIR model to understand the implication and magnitude of misdiagnosis in the context of ending lockdown measures. The results indicate that increased testing capacity alone will not provide a solution to lockdown measures. The progression of the epidemic and peak infections is shown to depend heavily on test characteristics, test targeting, and prevalence of the infection.

Antibody based immunity passports are rejected as a solution to ending lockdown, as they can put the population at risk if poorly targeted. Similarly, mass screening for active viral infection may only be beneficial if it can be sufficiently well targeted, otherwise reliance on this approach for protection of the population can again put them at risk.”

In an August 28, 2020, interview with The Post,21 Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize winner and professor of structural biology at Stanford, stated mass testing is “a huge waste of money which could much better go to helping people who have lost their jobs … It’s great for the pharmaceutical companies selling test kits, but it’s not doing anything good.”

Fauci Admits CT Over 35 Renders PCR Test Useless

YT Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE&feature=youtu.be

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted that the PCR test is useless and misleading when run at “35 cycles or higher.”22 He made this comment in a July 16, 2020, “This Week in Virology” podcast:23

“If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule … You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle … [or] even 36 …”

That then begs the question, why is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending the test be run at a CT of 40?24 Why are Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization set to 45 cycles? As noted by author and investigative journalist Jon Rappaport:25

“All labs in the U.S. that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because… Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and …

The total number of COVID cases in America — which is based on the test — is a gross falsity. The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.

Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell … On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down.”

To Read original Article, please visit

Source: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/19/covid-testing-fraud-fuels-casedemic.aspx

Sources

Efficacy of Masks

Efficacy of Masks

There are many who argue that the mandating of treatment, prophylactic or otherwise, on a population with capacity to make decisions, is entirely unethical.

Yet we need not delve into debates concerning the morality of mask mandates if the science behind such a decision disproves their efficacy.

There is no doubt the topic is highly polarised and politicised and perhaps hides a bitter truth on the state of the research that lies behind it or its ability to surface to the mainstream view.

It is entirely sensible to invent and trial plausible ways to mitigate transmission of Sars-Cov-2 Virus given its global spread and impact. Masks represent a potential, easily implementable method of influencing transmission of this pathogen.We must however, as always, be loyal to what the science indicates. It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.

Usually, where there lies uncertainty on the value of such global interventions and where the stakes are so high, there should be swift and well-designed studies to seek the answer. This has not been undertaken with regards to masks, until now.

What is obvious is that politics has come first, followed by scientific review.

Previous observational studies within the clinical setting have had mixed results with some suggesting benefit of wearing masks in the reduction of viral transmission1, whilst previous meta-analysis of PPE (Personal Protective equipment) in reducing Influenza spread in Hospitals proved to have no significant benefit2.

It is also unclear whether the observed association between masks and reduction in Covid arises because masks protect uninfected wearers (protective effect) or because transmission is reduced from infected mask wearers (source control).

As pointed out by the Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine6

" It is unwise to infer causation based on regional geographical observations as several proponents of masks have done. "

Their effectiveness in the public in a largely asymptomatic population is a different question requiring its own investigation as currently the World Health Organisation (WHO) admits it lacks evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2

" At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effective- ness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19 "

In a Norwegian study,it stated

" 200 000 people would need to wear one to prevent one new infection per week "

The measuring of the effectiveness of masks is not an easy task, with many variables to consider but this was the objective of a recent landmark study and the first randomized controlled trial on the subject. The “Danmask-19 Trial”which included more than 6,000 individuals, aimed to prove effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection specifically. This remains the most well-controlled study on the efficacy on masks.

To qualify for the trial, participants had to spend at least three hours per day outside the home and not be required to wear a mask for occupational reasons. At the end of the study, participants reported having spent a median of 4.5 hours per day outside the home.

For one month, participants in the mask group were instructed to wear a mask whenever they were outside their home. Surgical face masks with a filtration rate of 98% were supplied. In accordance with recommendations from the World Health Organization, participants were instructed to change their mask after eight hours.

Antibody testing was performed before the outset and at the end of the study period. At the end of the month, they also submitted a nasal swab sample for PCR testing.

What They Found

Among mask wearers, 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. This suggests adherence makes no difference as they concluded:

" A recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation. "

Interestingly, 1.4% (33 participants) tested positive for antibodies compared to 1.8% (44) of controls. The relevance of this unclear but may suggest improved immunity in those not wearing masks by slightly increase exposure.

During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings. This means that study participants’ exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks. For this reason, they have stated the findings, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This means, there is no proof that wearing a mask will stop you from contracting the disease but there yet remains any evidence to determine if the masks stop someone with Covid from spreading it.

The primary purpose of the maskis to catch the droplets of viral-containing sputum. If the pathogen is aerosolised as is proposed by the CDC, meaning it can suspend in the air then it would of course circumvent or penetrate the mask. For this reason, there is extra precaution taken in hospitals currently where suspected or confirmed Covid-19 patients are undergoing “Aerosol-generating Procedures”. If this is common route of transmission it would render the masks pointless

During this study participants were instructed on proper face-mask use with ones provided to them because in theory Masks can work well when they’re fully sealed, properly fitted, changed often, and have a filter designed for virus-sized particles. What is adopted by the general public is anything but these things conditions. Many forms of home-made masks have doubtful protection and there use and disposal anything but sanitary. Noticing how many people have masks with personalised designs on suggests they are not replacing them and for everyone one discarded, unless done properly represents a potential biohazard4.

Unless frequently replaced (or washed) these masks represent a constantly updating Petri dish where pathogens accumulate, that the user is touching frequently before handling items in shops, posing a potential for increased transmission.

Another take-home point that you get from this study, is that the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.

The threat globally still remains very low questioning whether intervention is so quintessential when the risk to perceived benefit is still staggeringly small.

Unsurprisingly, they faced challenges when attempting to publish this study, a common theme when the evidence is in contravention to harsh government rules.

They are not the first to suggest the futility of mask wearing in public:

" There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that masks reduce the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of Covid-19 – NE Journal of Medicine. "

" likely negative impacts outweighed any benefits " – NorwegianPublicHealth

" From a population perspective, one can argue that wearing a facemask would neither be worth the public’s money nor outweigh any potential harms " – TheLancetRespiratoryMedicine

This study aimed to answer a single question, does face mask wearing protect you from Covid? However, the decision to mandate the use of masks in public must be a wholesome one where the cost; financially, socially, environmentally and potential harmful physical effects on the user are taken into account.

Here are some side-effects and considerations as published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ)7:

  • The quality and volume of speech between people wearing masks is considerably compromised and they may unconsciously come closer
  • Wearing a mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes. This generates an impulse to touch the eyes. If your hands are contaminated, you are infecting yourself
  • Face masks make breathing more difficult. Moreover, a fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled at each respiratory cycle. Those phenomena increase breathing frequency and deepness, and they may worsen the burden of covid-19 if infected people wearing masks spread more contaminated air. This may also worsen the clinical condition of infected people if the enhanced breathing pushes the viral load down into their lungs
  • The innate immunity’s efficacy is highly dependent on the viral load.If masks determine a humid habitat where SARS-CoV-2 can remain active because of the water vapour continuously provided by breathing and captured by the mask fabric, they determine an increase in viral load (by re-inhaling exhaled viruses) and therefore they can cause a defeat of the innate immunity and an increase in infections.

In a study on the use of masks on healthcare workers, in addition to numerous other side effects and complications, they found

" 58.2% of the participants developed trouble breathing on exertion while wearing masks which is probably due to the tight mask causing hypercapnic (high levels of Carbon Dioxide) hypoxic (Low levels of Oxygen) environment leading to numerous physiological alterations such as cardio-respiratory stress and metabolic shift. "

What is becoming clearer with each day is the militancy behind mask-wearing, not as a healthy and logical measure but as a consequence of an ideology routed in fear. Whilst it might soothe the anxieties of the user, it does little else. Emboldened by spineless leaders, based on pseudo-science,a prophylaxis has been forced on the population that is causing more harm than good.

As a complement to the Danish study, data analysis by Yinon Weiss in the Federalist11compares different countries and the times at which they implemented this measure, concluding

" Mask rules appear to have had nothing to do with infection rates, which is what you’d expect if masks don’t work. "

" Weiss points out that, “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.”

As the fear continues to grip nations, governments are bearing down with greater pressures to adopt masks in complete contravention to what the evidence tells us with more people wearing masks more often. We have departed from any scientific sense to highly-charged political circus driven by emotion and ulterior motives.

Martin Kulldorff, a professor at Harvard Medical School and a leader in disease surveillance methods and infectious disease outbreaks, describes the current COVID scientific environment this way:

" After 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended."

This virus will not be going away anytime soon therefore we must learning instead how to live with it and mitigate risk by enhancing our immune systems, something that is essential in prospering in the face of a disease threat. We should not abdicate responsibility of our health to Politicians

In an October 28, 2020, Wall Street Journal opinion piece,27 Joseph Ladapo, an associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, points out that we really must accept reality and move on with life, unpredictable as it may be. He writes:

" By paying outsize and scientifically unjustified attention to masking, mask mandates have the unintended consequence of delaying public acceptance of the unavoidable truth. "

In countries with active community transmission and no herd immunity, nothing short of inhumane lockdowns can stop the spread of COVID-19, so the most sensible and sustainable path forward is to learn to live with the virus.

Shifting focus away from mask mandates and toward the reality of respiratory viral spread will free up time and resources to protect the most vulnerable Americans …

Until the reality of viral spread in the U.S. … is accepted, political leaders will continue to feel justified in keeping schools and businesses closed, robbing young people of the opportunity to invest in their futures, and restricting activities that make life worthwhile10.”

The masks are one facet of a program of change that is conditioning people to make fear-based decisions and grow ever sceptical of fellow people.

It is not just a small inconvenience it is a key impediment in preventing us returning to any semblance of normality where we can live and thrive together. They are a constant anchor to panic and a barrier to human communication and emotion. It is a hurdle we must overcome.

  1. Wang X ,  Ferro EG ,  Zhou G , et al. Association between universal masking in a health care system and SARS-CoV-2 positivity among health care workers. JAMA. 2020. [PMID: 32663246] doi:1001/jama.2020.12897
  2. Saunders-Hastings P, Crispo JAG, Sikora L, Krewski D. Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemics. 2017 Sep;20:1-20. doi: 10.1016/j.epidem.2017.04.003. Epub 2017 Apr 30. PMID: 28487207.
  3. World Health Organization. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: interim guidance. 5 June 2020.
  4. Bamber JH, Christmas T. Covid-19: Each discarded face mask is a potential biohazard. BMJ. 2020 May 21;369:m2012. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2012. PMID: 32439723.
  5. Should individuals in the community without respiratory symptoms wear facemasks to reduce the spread of COVID-19? Norwegian Institute of Public Health https://www.fhi.no/globalassets/dokumenterfiler/rapporter/2020/should-individuals-in-the-community-without-respiratory-symptoms-wear-facemasks-to-reduce-the-spread-of-covid-19-report-2020.pdf
  6. Tom Jefferson, Carl Heneghan, Masking lack of evidence with politicsJuly 23, 2020, https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
  7. Covid-19: Important potential side effects of wearing face masks that we should bear in mindBMJ 2020; 369 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2003 (Published 21 May 2020), BMJ 2020;369:m2003
  8. Purushothaman, P.K., Priyangha, E. & Vaidhyswaran, R. Effects of Prolonged Use of Facemask on Healthcare Workers in Tertiary Care Hospital During COVID-19 Pandemic.Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-020-02124-0
  9. Our immune systems can cope with Covid-19 – it’s our politicians who can’tAngela Rasmussen, The Guardian, 15 Nov 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/15/immune-systems-covid-19-politicians-virus?fbclid=IwAR2JtuMm77N1FoHYOG_3cXEjQEGfbKOc0LzIO_-U5Gx5xGCemGv_FLWrdcE
  10. Masks Are a Distraction From the Pandemic Reality Viruses inevitably spread, and authorities have oversold face coverings as a preventive measure.By Joseph A. LadapoOct. 28, 2020 7:17 pm ET, WSJ Opinion
  11. These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing To Stop COVID, Yinon Weiss, Oct 29 2020 https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/