WHAT IF THAT HAD BEEN, "BIDEN SAYS HE WILL CHOOSE A MAN AS HIS RUNNING MATE"?
THAT BECAME "BIDEN TO CHOOSE WOMAN OF COLOR FOR VP". MAKE THAT "BIDEN TO CHOOSE WHITE WOMAN FOR VP" AND OLD JOE WOULD HAVE BEEN BURNED AT THE STAKE IN THE MEDIA.
WHAT HAPPENED TO "ALL MEN (HUMANS) ARE CREATED EQUAL", WHICH BECAME THE RIGHTFUL CRY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT?
SURE, WE'VE HAD 12-30 YEARS OR SO OF IT BEING "POLITICALLY CORRECT" TO CURSE AND DAMN "WHITEY", TO BLAME STRAIGHT PEOPLE AND ANY CHRISTIANS FOR THE PROBLEMS IN THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY, AND LONGER THAN THAT TO CONDEMN AND BE "APPALLED" AT MALE DOMINANCE EVERYWHERE.
FACE IT, AMERICA, IF YOU ARE WHITE, CHRISTIAN, STRAIGHT AND MALE, YOU ARE LOW-DOWN, DIRTY BASTARDS!
YOU SHOULD BE ON YOUR KNEES, LIKE THESE REPENTANT FOLKS IN THE VIDEO, AND BE WASHING AND KISSING THE FEET OF THE POOR, OPPRESSED, (RACIST) "OTHER-THAN-WHITE" SCREAMERS ON EVERY RIOTOUS STREET CORNER IN AMERICA, DAMN YOU! OH, AND PAYING REPARATIONS FOREVER.
IT'S ONLY RIGHT THAT WE DO THE SAME FOR ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO FEEL OPPRESSED, YES?
IT WOULD BE JUST FINE IF STRAIGHT, WHITE, CHRISTIAN MALES WANTED EVERYBODY ELSE TO KISS THEIR FEET, OR BOW TO THEM AND APOLOGIZE, RIGHT?
I'M TALKING EQUAL RIGHTS HERE, CITIZENS!
KISS ONE BOOT, KISS 'EM ALL!
WILL EVERYONE BOW TO EVERYONE ELSE, YES OR NO?
WILL ALL FEET GET WASHED?
IF YES, SHOW US VIDEO OF THAT!
IF NO, WELL THEN, WHAT'S THAT PHRASE... "STFU".
"REPENT AND BE SAVED"?
LET'S HAVE A FOOT-WASHING CEREMONY FOR NATIVE AMERICANS WHOSE ANCESTORS WERE ERADICATED IN THOSE "INDIAN WARS", OR FOR DESCENDANTS OF INCARCERATED JAPANESE AT THE START OF OUR WAR AGAINST JAPAN, OR FOR SURVIVING FAMILIES OF COPS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY, FOR IRISH INDENTURED SERVANTS' DESCENDANTS, FOR VICTIMS OF AGENT ORANGE, FOR "DOWN-WINDERS" AND MILITARY USED AS HUMAN GUINEA PIGS WHEN WE WERE TESTING NUCLEAR BOMBS, FOR ANYBODY ELSE, ANYBODY ELSE AT ALL... OR DO ONLY SPECIAL FOLKS 'DESERVE' BOOT-LICKING, BOWING TO AND ASS-KISSING TODAY?
IF A WHITE OR NATIVE AMERICAN DESCENDANT OF A SLAVE TRIED THAT THEY'D PROBABLY BE STONED BY ANGRY MOBS, HMMM? THERE WERE A LOT OF WHITE AND "INDIAN" SLAVES.
The Proclamation of 1625 by James II, made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Now, you can call them whatever you want, but the truth of the matter is that in just a short period of time, Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies. By the 1630’s, Ireland was the primary source of slaves in the English slave trade. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
But it wasn’t just in Irish. The Crown hated Scots as well. For example, the judges of Edinburgh Scotland during the years 1662-1665 ordered the enslavement and shipment of Celts there to the colonies as well. These were basically anyone left that the British upper class did not like. (Register for the Privy Council of Scotland, third series, vol. 1, p 181, vol. 2, p 101).
In Barbados by the 1640s there were an estimated 25,000 slaves, of whom 21,700 were White. (“Some Observations on the Island of Barbados,” Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series).
Lewis Cecil Gray’s History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860 vol.1 pp 316, 318 records Sir George Sandys’ 1618 plan for Virginia, referring to bound whites assigned to the treasurer’s office. “To belong to said office forever. The service of whites bound to Berkeley Hundred was deemed perpetual.” John Pory declared in 1619, “white slaves are our principle wealth.”
White people from the British Isles were kidnapped, put in chains and crammed into ships that transported hundreds of them at a time. Their destination was Virginia Boston, New York, Barbados and the West Indies.
The white slaves were treated the same or worse than the black slave. The white slave did not fetch a good price at the auction blocks. Bridenbaugh wrote in his accounting on page 118, that having paid a bigger price for the Negro, the planters treated the black better than they did their “Christian” white servant. Even the Negroes recognized this and did not hesitate to show their contempt for those white men who, they could see, were worse off than themselves.
SURPRISED, BLM? WILL DESCENDANTS OF ALL EX-SLAVES SHARE THAT PERPETUAL REPARATION YOU SCREAM FOR ALL THE TIME?
WHAT'S NEXT?
I KNOW...HOW ABOUT: "YOU MUST BE AN ACHROMATIC, GENDER-NEUTRAL, DEVOUT SATANIST, DEAF-MUTE, QUADRIPLEGIC, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT NUDIST TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT"?
OH, OKAY, WHERE DID I PUT THAT WASH BASIN AND SOAP? GIVE US A SECOND TO PUCKER UP FOR ALL THE "AG-NDSD-MQIMN" CANDIDATES.
CAN I VOTE BY SMOKE SIGNALS?
INDIANS WERE THE FIRST SLAVES IN THE "BRAVE NEW WORLD" AND WERE HERE WHEN ALL THE BOATS ARRIVED, FROM EUROPE AND AFRICA.
BUY STOCK IN CHAPSTICK NOW! THERE'S ABOUT 2 MILLION "BAD" INJUNS LEFT HERE.
DID SOMEONE LOCK-DOWN ALL OUR BORDERS SO THAT THE DISGRUNTLED CAN'T ESCAPE TO SOME PARADISE WHERE THEY CAN BE HAPPY? DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A UTOPIAN NATION THAT WILL KISS THE FEET OF, BOW TO, AND PAY IN PERPETUITY, THESE "I HATE AMERICA" FOLKS?
DO WE HAVE HOSTAGE SITUATIONS THAT WE NEED TO REMEDY? HECK, WE CAN THROW ANOTHER CIVIL WAR AND SET EVERYBODY FREE...TO LEAVE...RETURN TO THEIR BELOVED HOMELANDS.
OBVIOUSLY, VERY OBVIOUSLY, BOOT-LICKING, FOOT-WASHING, REPENTANCE IS NOT SATISFYING OUR "PROTESTERS". IS THERE ENOUGH $$$$ IN THE WORLD TO SATISFY THEM?
I THINK THEY JUST MIGHT BE HIDING GRADUATE DEGREES IN VICTIM-HOOD, AND AT LEAST PhDs IN RACISM AND BIGOTRY.
[DEFINITION OF BIGOT: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
DEFINITION OF RACIST: a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.]
SHOW YOUR HEALTH CLEARANCE DOCUMENTS OR NO TRAVEL FOR YOU.
It's being called "CommonPass" and it's the one ticket you will need to move about freely...well, as freely as we'll be allowed.
CommonPass Is a Cog in The Great Reset Wheel
The current pandemic is being used as a justification for why we need to reset the global economy and shift away from capitalism and free enterprise into a new system of technocracy.
The word “technocracy” is never used by actual technocrats. Instead, they talk about 'the Great Reset' and 'the fourth industrial revolution', the nuts and bolts of which boil down to transhumanism. In years past, this plan was referred to as a “new world order” or “one world order.” All of these terms, however, refer to an agenda that has the same ultimate goal.
It’s a plan that is decades in the making. Ultimately, the goal is to monitor and control the world through technological surveillance. It’s a world government run by self-appointed elitists; hence, it calls for the total dismantling of the political system, which includes the U.S. Constitution. National borders are also destined to be erased.
“Digital finance refers to the integration of big data, artificial intelligence (AI), mobile platforms, blockchain and the Internet of things (IoT) in the provision of financial services.
Sustainable finance refers to financial services integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria into the business or investment decisions.
When combined, sustainable digital finance can take advantage of emerging technologies to analyze data, power investment decisions and grow jobs in sectors supporting a transition to a low-carbon economy.”
In 2013, a European Union library briefing on its legislative structure referred to the Commission as a "technocratic authority", holding "legislative monopoly" over the EU lawmaking process.
The term 'technocratic' has been applied to governments where a cabinet of elected professional politicians is led by an unelected prime minister, such as in the cases of the 2011-2012 Greek government led by economist Lucas Papademos, and the Czech Republic's 2009–2010 caretaker government presided over by the state's chief statistician, Jan Fischer.
This no longer sounds so far-fetched when you consider that technocracy requires social engineering to work. It requires total surveillance. It requires each person to be tied to the digital matrix — physically, mentally and financially — such that they cannot rebel.
Rebellion, resistance will lead to having finances and the means to earn a living CUT OFF. Those cut off will be homeless and unable to buy the things necessary to sustain LIFE.
FIRST, reduce the world population to 500 million and keep it there. Any volunteers for disposal?
The Plan to Dehumanize Humanity
When world leaders now talk about “building back better” and spin tales about a utopia in which humanity no longer has a negative impact on the environment, what they’re really talking about is the transition to a world in which mankind is no longer free to do the things we’ve previously engaged in and typically enjoyed. They also mean a population "redistribution" for the sake of the environment and third-world nations. Borders will be 'disappeared' as the world gives in to a real 'United Nations', where once super powers are rendered the same as the poorest nations on earth, all to "BALANCE THE EQUATION".
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them." ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
Did Tolkien see THIS future, or is just that the drive to 'rule them all' has always been a goal of mankind?
Progressive political leaders such as Trudeau and US president-elect Biden have endorsed the Great Reset plan, as has UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
CommonPass may well be just a mere cog in the Great Reset plan, but it’s the beginning stage of mass tracking and tracing, under the guise of keeping everyone safe from infectious disease. Rest assured, it will not be limited to COVID-19. The pandemic is just the justification for ushering in this radical new way of life.
The global lock-downs are part and parcel of this plan too.
You may have seen articles or videos showing how waterways and air cleared up, how wild animals began exploring quiet neighborhoods while everyone kept indoors for weeks on end.
Who knows, in the future, we may well have rolling lock-downs to look forward to — periodic house arrests for the sake of the environment, if not to prevent the latest outbreak.
"Hear and obey", right?
Sure.
After all, it's so we don't spread Covid.
Meanwhile, social distancing and mask-wearing separates us from our fellow man, our extended family, friends, demoralizes and dehumanizes us and makes us cope with being alone, even if some are fearful, depressed to the point of contemplating suicide and become overly anxious, which in turn prevents many from thinking logically and from coordinating resistance efforts.
It rather reminds me of the old buffalo hunters before the horse, just drive the herd over the cliff by FEAR. Frighten them...TO DEATH.
Add to that a grossly biased media and draconian censorship, where the Big Tech overlords decide what opinions and even facts are allowable and which are not.
When you add it all together, it starts looking like the biggest psy-op in the history of mankind, which in turn begs the question: 'If the direction they want us to go will actually lead to utopia, would this kind of social engineering effort really be necessary?'
Try reading beyond the creepy headline and see what this is all about.
From Forbes:
“Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city — or should I say, ‘our city.’ I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes.
It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much …
In our city we don't pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.
Once in a while, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy — the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes …
Shopping? I can't really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.
When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people ... The work that we do can be done at any time. I don't really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time …
Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?
Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well-being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.
My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.
Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.
All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently."
This digital clearance system is currently being tested by United Airlines on flights between London and Newark, and Cathay Pacific on flights between Hong Kong and Singapore.4 As reported by Tott News, November 15, 2020.
“Volunteer travelers landing at Newark Liberty International Airport on United Airlines Flight 15 from London Heathrow used the CommonPass health pass on their mobile phone to document their COVID-19 status and share it with airline staff upon disembarking.
Officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) observed the CommonPass demonstration in Newark … The transatlantic trial followed a successful trial of CommonPass on a Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong to Singapore on October 6.
Paul Meyer, CEO of The Commons Project, says it is anticipated that following initial trials, CommonPass will be rolled out on other routes, including international travel to and from Australia …
We are now seeing the beginning phases of a worldwide tracking system that will be linked to the health status of each and every individual … This has always been the agenda. Track and trace; identify the undesirables through deception.”
The U.S. is rapidly adopting an artificial intelligence-driven mass surveillance system rivaling that of China, and legal and structural obstacles are being swept away “under the guise of combating the coronavirus crisis.”
Again, technocracy requires social engineering to work, the effectiveness of which in turn requires mass surveillance and automation.
In the first half of the 20th century, George Orwell wrote a dystopian novel, “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” in which the government controlled every aspect of a person’s life, including their very thoughts.
Using the COVID-19 pandemic, national security and public health as their justification for doing so, those 'in charge' hope to do the same, assign us our 'barcodes', track every move we make, listen in on our private conversations via cell phone apps and make sure we're being COMPLIANT.
Don’t expect them to admit this, however. Instead, be prepared for variations of the Forbes article above. It’s basically a world in which everyone has been stripped of freedom, whose only purpose is to hear and obey.
Artificial intelligence algorithms will make decisions for you, and if you disobey or start thinking contrary thoughts all on your own, you can expect to be financially and socially disenfranchised.
Effectively eliminating an individual from society will be as easy as pressing a button and putting a freeze on your digital wallet and identification. China is already doing this.
Already, many truth-tellers that were purged from YouTube and other social media platforms simultaneously lost their PayPal and other digital payment accounts. No advance warning, and no justification given.
Imagine if all your finances were tied together in a digital finance system and everything was shut down all at once. That, I’m sure, would discourage most everyone from expressing any contradictory views.
“[In 2019], a U.S. government body dedicated to examining how artificial intelligence can ‘address the national security and defense needs of the United States’ discussed in detail the ‘structural’ changes that the American economy and society must undergo in order to ensure a technological advantage over China, according to a recent document15 acquired through a FOIA request.
This document suggests that the U.S. follow China’s lead and even surpass them in many aspects related to AI-driven technologies, particularly their use of mass surveillance.
This perspective clearly clashes with the public rhetoric of prominent U.S. government officials and politicians on China, who have labeled the Chinese government’s technology investments and export of its surveillance systems and other technologies as a major ‘threat’ to Americans’ ‘way of life.’"
The document the article refers to was produced by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), a government organization created by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2018.
Its purpose is “to consider the methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States,” and ensure the U.S. maintains a technological advantage.
To that end, the NSCAI is pushing for an overhaul of the American way of life and economy in order to usher in a more comprehensive AI-driven surveillance apparatus.
In other words, a Great Reset.
Resist the Great Reset
Ironically, while the real plan is to usher in a tech-driven globalist-run dystopia free of democratic controls, technocrats speak of this plan as a way to bring us back into harmony with Nature.
The medical tyranny and censorship of anti-group-think that has emerged during this pandemic are an unavoidable element of the Great Reset, and if you think it’s bad now, just wait until the whole system is brought fully online.
The mere idea of dissent will become a thought of the past, because your life — your health, educational and work opportunities, your finances and your very identity — will be so meshed with the automated technological infrastructure that any attempt to break free will result in you being locked out or erased from the system, leaving you with no ability to learn, work, travel or purchase anything.
It sounds far-fetched, I know, but when you follow the technocratic plan to its inevitable end, that’s basically what you end up with.
The warning signs are all around us, if we’re willing to see them for what they actually are.
The only question now is whether enough people are willing to resist it to make a difference.
Along those lines, let's carefully reflect on one of the United States’ founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, in his warning and caution with respect to losing our liberty.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
If you are open for some practical strategies on how you can respond in light of all the tyrannical interventions that have been imposed on us you might watch James Corbett’s interview with Howard Lichtman. NOT saying I agree with either gentleman, just mentioning it.
There's a video from Barbara Loe Fisher which, to me, is one of the best videos that I've seen on freedom of choice for vaccines. The goal must always be freedom and independence for ALL, to choose wheter to vaccinate OR NOT.
"MY BODY, MY CHOICE", RIGHT?
TRY, PLEASE, to comprehend that if a vaccine for SAS-CoV2 can be made MANDATORY, so can ANYTHING the technocrats come up with AFTER that's done.
There is a cultural war and collusion between many industries and federal regulatory agencies that results in a suppression of the truth about vital important health issues. If this suppression continues we will gradually and progressively erode our private individual rights that our ancestors fought so hard to achieve.
For any who think ALL should take every vaccine that comes along, that vaccines MUST BE MANDATORY, ask yourselves, "What if some group of people could force ME to NOT take the vaccines I believe in? What if I was denied MY right to free choice, denied MY personal beliefs?"
NOBODY WANTS TO BE FORCED TO DO ANYTHING.
National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your rights can have the greatest impact.
It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.
WHAT IF, INSTEAD, THEY DECIDED TO WITHHOLD ALL VACCINES, TO DENY EVERYONE THE CHOICE TO BE VACCINATED OR TO VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN?
In 1974, Trilateral Commission member and academic Richard Gardner wrote an article “The Hard Road to World Order” for Foreign Affairs magazine, predicting the future of the Commission’s self-proclaimed 'New International Economic Order'.
Gardner spoke of an “end-run around national sovereignty”, a “booming, buzzing confusion” and building it from the “bottom up” rather than attempting an “old-fashioned frontal assault.”
As a resource-based economic system, Sustainable Development intends to take control of all resources, all production and all consumption on planet earth, leaving all of its inhabitants to be micro-managed by a Scientific Dictatorship.
Topics covered include the devolution of federal governments combined with the rise of global Smart Cities. Tools, like ubiquitous surveillance, collaborative governance, Public-Private Partnerships, Reflexive Law, Fintech, including crypto currencies and the drive toward a cashless society are being brought out to acquaint us with our future lifestyle. 1984 has arrived.
The spiritual aspect of Sustainable Development is also explored as an important component of manipulation.
Looking behind the veil of globalization, Wood shows the false narrative of a promised Utopia and exposes the true nature of the deception used to promote this new economic order in video format, for those averse to reading. It's almost 2 hours long, but eye-opening. https://youtu.be/crR1X0-27aE
The elite in charge, who hate the bedrock of American liberty and its time-tested Constitution, have pulled out all the stops to destroy both, and it’s time for citizens to stand up to reject them. As always, Wood closes with the nature of effective resistance and the tools that can help to achieve success.
In the heat of the Great Depression during the 1930s, prominent scientists and engineers proposed a utopian energy-based economic system called Technocracy that would be run by those same scientists and engineers instead of elected politicians. Although this radical movement lost momentum by 1940, it regained status when it was conceptually adopted by the elitist Trilateral Commission (co-founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller) in 1973 to be become its so-called “New International Economic Order.”
Read the foreword to National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan by the Rockefeller Foundation, laying out how they intend to trace and manage those who have had the Covid-19 test and/or vaccine once that is distributed.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/TheRockefellerFoundation_WhitePaper_Covid19_4_22_2020.pdf The plan will call for a significant ramp-up in testing, an expansion of contact tracing, a public-private testing technology accelerator, a national initiative to rapidly expand and optimize the use of lab capacity, and a testing data commons and digital platform to track COVID-19 statuses, among other things.
They want to test up to 30 million people each week which will cost up to $100 billion.
The plan also calls for hiring up to 300,000 testers and contact tracers, and a data-sharing platform.
While the goal of the testing plan is to build a state-led national program, the foundation said funding for it likely can come from federal funds through agencies or grants. OR TAXPAYER POCKETS?
As this video below from the National Science Foundation shows, the technology already exists to place ANY information needed ONTO a human by "electronic tattoo". And they're pushing the hell out of it. Sell it, so we can buy it and be marked for "observation".
"We now invite you to immerse yourself in each future world and consider four different visions for the evolution of technology and international development to 2030."
[AGAIN with that 2030, but remember that this was written in 2010 and they write about four IMAGINARY possible futures.]
In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit.
Unlike 2009's H1N1, this new influenza strain - originating from wild geese - was extremely virulent and deadly.
Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults.
The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains.
Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
The pandemic blanketed the planet - though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge.
The United States' initial policy of "strongly discouraging" citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders.
However, a few countries did fare better - China in particular.
The Chinese government's quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post- pandemic recovery.
China's government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.
Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems - from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty - leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval.
Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty - and their privacy - to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit.
In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests.
In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth. By 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them. Wherever national interests clashed with individual interests, there was conflict.
Sporadic push-back became increasingly organized and coordinated, as disaffected youth and people who had seen their status and opportunities slip away - largely in developing countries - incited civil unrest. In 2026, protestors in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption.
Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries.
The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world's governments had worked so hard to establish.
"IT IS POSSIBLE TO DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL SOME SOCIETIES FOR SOME TIME, BUT NOT THE WHOLE WORLD ALL THE TIME."
--GK Bhat, TARU
Leading Edge, India
Technology trends and applications we might see in Lockstep:
Scanners using advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology become the norm at airports and other public areas to detect abnormal behavior that may indicate "antisocial intent."
In the aftermath of pandemic scares, smarter packaging for food and beverages is applied first by big companies and producers in a business-to-business environment, and then adopted for individual products and consumers.
New diagnostics are developed to detect communicable diseases. The application of health screening also changes; screening becomes a prerequisite for release from a hospital or prison, successfully slowing the spread of many diseases.
Tele-presence technologies respond to the demand for less expensive, lower-bandwidth, sophisticated communications systems for populations whose travel is restricted.
Driven by protectionism and national security concerns, nations create their own independent, regionally defined IT networks, mimicking China's firewalls. Governments have varying degrees of success in policing Internet traffic, but these efforts nevertheless fracture the "World Wide" Web."
Does this sounds eerily familiar? But it was written in 2010! How could they guess so well what would happen?
DEMOCRATS GET ONBOARD THE "RESET TRAIN"
U.S. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez [ FEBRUARY 5, 2019] says her Green New Deal is “national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since World War II.” It is 100 percent Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.
If Technocracy gains hold, it will be the end of America and the beginning of total dictatorship.
Thus far, 40 House Democrats have pledged support for the Green New Deal. Additionally, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have openly endorsed it.
Even though the as-yet vague and uncertain details about the Green New Deal render a precise calculation impossible at the moment, physicist Christopher Clack told The Hill that the cost would easily be into the trillions.
From Fox 'News': In a draft resolution to create a House select committee that would be responsible for writing the Green New Deal legislation, Ocasio-Cortez outlines the primary goals of her plan. Among them, Ocasio-Cortez proposes eliminating all fossil-fuel-powered electricity, closing every coal and natural gas power plant in the country, thus destroying the hundreds of thousands of jobs related to these businesses. Even more stunning, all this would occur by 2030, just 10 years after Ocasio-Cortez expects the legislation to be completed.
[THERE'S THAT 2030 AGAIN.] How does Ocasio-Cortez propose to pay for these many trillion-dollar programs?
By raising taxes, creating new “public banks,” and running up the national debt. In a “Frequently Asked Questions” section of Ocasio-Cortez’s draft resolution, she claims the way to fund her far-reaching proposals is to use the “same ways that we paid for the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs, the same ways we paid for World War II and many other wars.
The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments, new public banks can be created (as in WWII) to extend credit and a combination of various taxation tools (including taxes on carbon and other emissions and progressive wealth taxes) can be employed.”
New reports indicate the House Democratic Party leadership has said it has decided not to create Ocasio-Cortez’s committee—for now. But supporters of the plan aren’t giving up. They say they are going to continue pushing for these policies until they are transformed into legislation.
WHY COVID-19? The CDC estimated in a study in 2017 that, “between 291,000 and 646,000 people worldwide die from seasonal influenza-related respiratory illnesses each year.” And the FLU kills the young more than the old. If the FLU blew up like it did in 1918, it would make this newest pandemic look tame. BUT NO MASKS, NO LOCK-DOWNS, WE ACCEPT THAT HALF A MILLION WILL DIE EACH YEAR AND GO ON.
This has resulted in people waiting for hours in lines to get food. He said 16.5-million people will no longer receive CARES Act benefits and he warned of an increase in homelessness.
He said there will be a rental apocalypse, 52% of young Americans are living with their parents, student loan debt is more than $1-trillion, Americans hold $1-trillion in credit-card debt, four-million homes are in delayed foreclosure, 11-million people are in rental moratorium that could lead to eviction, 45-million people are unemployed, and an enormous housing crash will occur when the bubble bursts.
I think Jeremiah underestimates the data, mainly because we aren't given all the data, nor are we given always CORRECT data.
THINK about the rapid, many, many changes we've seen in just the past year. Erasure of American history, rioters/looters applauded and it's now 'politically correct' to kiss their asses a LOT and let them burn businesses, homes and shoot people without being incarcerated, all to make amends for their "suffering", an election gone to hell by mail-in votes on a level never seen before, economy in ruin as many businesses close forever, and an American population that won't go to church, school, visit with family members, who were compliant with cancelling surgeries, medical treatments, doctor visits, scheduled imaging, etc, because of "Covid, COVID, COVID!!!!"
With these masks on, it's bloody hard to see the CRIMINALS among us, but our politicians are still out there among the lesser ones...
TECHNOCRACY...ACCEPT IT OR DON'T.
NO, I do NOT subscribe to ANYTHING by Icke, and would change "idiots" to CRIMINALS.
______________________________
END NOTES:
-- Top pathologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson told government officials in Alberta during a zoom conference call that the current coronavirus crisis is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.” HE WASN"T THE ONLY ONE. THAT 'MEETING' WAS TAPED AND IS 9 HOURS LONG. THE FULL AUDIO IS STILL UP ON YOUTUBE AT https://youtu.be/K1W0FHuR-Rc
"He received his general medical degrees from Cambridge University in the UK where he was a scholar at Corpus Christi College. Following a residency at the University of British Columbia he became a Royal College certified general pathologist (FRCPC) and also a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists (FCAP).”
“He is in good Standing with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, and has been recognized by the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta as an expert in pathology.”
Hodkinson remarked that “social distancing is useless because COVID is spread by aerosols which travel 30 meters or so before landing,” as he called for society to be re-opened immediately to prevent the debilitating damage being caused by lockdowns.
Hodkinson also slammed mandatory mask mandates as completely pointless.
“Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever,” he said.
“Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue signalling. They’re not even worn effectively most of the time. It’s utterly ridiculous. Seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people – I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense – seeing these people walking around like lemmings obeying without any knowledge base to put the mask on their face.”
The doctor also slammed the unreliability of PCR tests, noting that “positive test results do not, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection,” and that all testing should stop because the false numbers are “driving public hysteria.”
Hodkinson said that the risk of death in the province of Alberta for people under the age of 65 was “one in three hundred thousand,” and that it was simply “outrageous” to shut down society for what the doctor said “was just another bad flu.”
“I’m absolutely outraged that this has reached this level, it should all stop tomorrow,” concluded Dr. Hodkinson."
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.
Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.
Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.
As reported from Portugal...
Additionally, “Any person or entity that gives an order that leads to deprivation of physical, ambulatory, freedom of others (whatever the nomenclature that this order assumes: confinement, isolation, quarantine, prophylactic protection, health surveillance, etc.), which do not fall under the legal qualifications, namely not provided for in article 27 of the CRP, you will be making an illegal detention, because ordered by an incompetent entity and motivated by a fact for which the law does not allow it”, The court stated, the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present.
if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person IS infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.
The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.
The threshold cycles used in PCR tests in India is between 37 and 40, which makes the reliability of the PCR test less than 3% and the false positive rate as high as 97%."
The court’s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority’s appeal reads as follows:
"Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.
It is also important to remember PCR was invented as a way to create copies of genetic material. Its was never intended to be a diagnostic tool.
The standard coronavirus tests are throwing up a huge number of positive cases daily. These tests are done based on faulty WHO protocols which are designed to include false positives cases as well."
This fact about false positives of PCR Tests was first noted in public by Dr. Beda M. Stadler, a Swiss biologist, emeritus professor, and former director of the Institute of Immunology at the University of Bern.
"So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left?" "Correct: Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]."
In India where the standard cycle threshold is between 37 and 40, the reliability of the PCR test there is similarly less than three percent, with a false positive rate as high as 97 percent.
Even The New York Times told the truth once by revealing that most people who test “positive” using a PCR test are actually negative and healthy.
Even fearmonger-in-chief Anthony Fauci has publicly stated and was videotaped stating that anything over 35 is totally unusable.
Testing data collected from Massachusetts, New York, Nevada and elsewhere show that upwards of 90 percent of people who test “positive” with a PCR test are perfectly normal and disease-free.
“Given how much scientific doubt exists – as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter – about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it,” the Portuguese court corroborated about the faulty nature of the PCR test.
It is important to keep in mind that the PCR was intended to be used as a method of trying to copy genetic material, which is NOT how it is being used in Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) testing.
In essence, if a PCR test is conducted on an immune person and turns up “positive,” what it is actually pulling up is perhaps a “shattered part of the viral genome.”
“Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected],” Great Game India further notes.
The ‘gold standard’ in testing for COVID-19 is laboratory isolated/purified coronavirus particles, free from any contaminants and particles that look like viruses but are not, that have been proven to be the cause of the syndrome known as COVID-19 and obtained by using proper viral isolation methods and controls (not the PCR that is currently being used or Serology /antibody tests which do not detect virus as such).
[Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.” When Off-Guardian asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to the rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.” MY NOTE: That article by Off-Guardian is an incredibly well-documented, informative read. ]
PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome.
The problem is the test is known not to work.
It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very, very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analyzed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery.
Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.
The CDC also notes that virus fragments have been found in patients up to three months after the onset of the illness,although those pieces of virus have not been shown to be capable of transmitting the disease.
BUT THEY ALSO SAY PCR TESTS DETECTS THOSE FRAGMENTS, SO HOW CAN THEY SEPARATE THE RECOVERED PAST-INFECTED WITH "FRAGMENTS" FROM THE ACTIVELY INFECTED WITH THE FULL VIRUS GENOME PRESENT?
“You could be positive by PCR test long after no longer being infectious,” Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, said during the Health and Human Services briefing July 14. Some people were getting tests four to six times. You don’t need to be be retested unless you’re critically ill or immunosuppressed in which you could shed virus longer.”
HANG ON! IN THE SAME ARTICLE, WE'RE TOLD THAT PCR DETECTS ONLY "ACTIVE CASES", NOT RECOVERED ONES. HERE'S THE QUOTE: "A PCR or polymerase chain reaction test detects coronavirus genetic material that’s present when the virus is active." DOUBLESPEAK LIVES AT THE CDC/HHS.
Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner, never intended that his PCR test invention be used to diagnose a single viral pathogen. It was to be used to quickly REPLICATE DNA.
CORONAVIRUS HAS NO DNA, IT REPLICATES ITS RNA GENOME TO SPREAD.
"Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in detail." [See "Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase". Science. 239 (4839): 487–91.]
AGAIN, SARS-CoV2 HAS NO DNA. THEY'RE USING A TEST THAT DETECTS, AMPLIFIES AND THEN REPLICATES DNA TO LOOK FOR A NOVEL VIRUS.
Reverse transcription converts RNA into DNA, so that must be utilized as the "detection" of the coronavirus, but many coronaviruses look very similar. HOW are they separating the one that causes common cold from the one that causes SARS-Cov2? Drosten et al. remarked that for 2003 SARS, "from a diagnostic point of view, it is important to note that nasal and throat swabs seem less suitable for diagnosis, since these materials contain considerably less viral RNA than sputum, and the virus may escape detection if only these materials are tested." Sensitivity of clinical samples by RT-PCR is 63% for nasal swab, 32% for pharyngeal swab, 48% for feces, 72–75% for sputum, and 93–95% for bronchoalveolar lavage. Some studies have found that saliva yielded greater sensitivity and consistency when compared with swab samples.[40][41][42]
Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection. “Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction
The reason Mullis would be livid to see his DNA replicator tool used to "prove" someone has a specific virus is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect specific (RNA) viruses.
How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t. “You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,” with the new molecular tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “All bets are off on exact performance.”
Of course, that leads to the question of why rely on them at all. “At face value, obviously they shouldn’t be doing it,” Dr. Perl said. But, she said, often when answers are needed and an organism like the pertussis bacterium is finicky and hard to grow in a laboratory, “you don’t have great options.” Waiting to see if the bacteria grow can take weeks, but the quick molecular test can be wrong. “It’s almost like you’re trying to pick the least of two evils,” Dr. Perl said.
“That’s kind of what’s happening,” said Dr. Kathryn Edwards, an infectious disease specialist and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University. “That’s the reality out there. We are trying to figure out how to use methods that have been the purview of bench scientists.” The Dartmouth whooping cough story (a FALSE positive PCR test on several individuals led to an epidemic scare) shows what can ensue. "To say the episode was disruptive was an understatement," said Dr. Elizabeth Talbot, deputy state epidemiologist for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services. “You cannot imagine,” Dr. Talbot said. “I had a feeling at the time that this gave us a shadow of a hint of what it might be like during a pandemic flu epidemic.” What is the relationship between the spread of testing and the “spread” of a new virus? How do we know what we are experiencing, in comparison to what we are assuming we are experiencing?
One study in Austria found that increased testing correlated with, no surprise, increased “cases.”
“Yes, they do,” wrote Austrian MD Christian Fiala. “Here are the data from Austria. In other words if they want to further increase the number of ‘infected‘ people, they have to also increase the number of tests. However, that is physically impossible.
Another aspect: during the first weeks, most tests were done on sick people. Therefore, the percentage of positive tests was relatively high. But there are not so many sick people and with the general roll out of tests, the vast majority of those tested will be healthy. Consequently, the percentage of positive tests will be low, and most will be false positive.
In other words, it is impossible to continue the increase of positive test results.”
The above article was written by a journalist who interviewed Mullis before he died and at that time, Mullis was very angry that his PCR find was being used to "diagnose" AIDS. Mullis himself came to the front line arguing against PCR as a diagnostic tool after it was used to do that. Imagine his ire today! From an email from Kary Mullis, to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, whose career and life were destroyed by an “HIV test,” and who litigated ferociously for years, against test manufacturers, Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:
“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “
If things were done right, “infection” and "cases" would be a far cry from having a positive PCR test.
“You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it,” Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics told me.
“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.”
I asked Dr. Rasnick what advice he has for people who want to be tested for COVID-19. “Don’t do it, I say, when people ask me,” he replies. “No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable.”
“Every time somebody takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a government database. It’s to track us,” says David Rasnick. “They’re not just looking for the virus. Please put that in your article.” “PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength.
So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”
This is where it gets wild.
“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”
I asked him to pause so I could exclaim my astonishment. And yet, it was déjà vu all over again. Just like in the HIV battle—people were never told that the “HIV test” had different standards in different countries, and within countries, from lab to lab. The highest bar (the greatest number of HIV proteins) was in Australia: 5. The Lowest was Africa: 2. In the US it is generally 3-4.
David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next statement:
“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”
Yes, you read that right. Labs can manipulate how many “cases’ of Covid-19 their country has. Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?
“Another reason we know this is bogus,” Crowe continued, “is from a remarkable series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA. These graphs were published in the supplementary information, which is an indication that nobody’s supposed to read them. And I think the authors probably just threw them in because they were interesting graphs, but they didn’t realize what was in them. So, they were 18 graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence. Or if they couldn’t detect florescence by…37 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of the graph, signifying a negative.”
“So, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is normally read as “infected,” to negative, which is normally read as “uninfected” back to positive—infected again.
Because if it was, like if you’re infected, and then you’re uninfected, and you’re in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the world, how did you get re-infected? And if you cured the infection, why didn’t you have antibodies to stop you getting re-infected? So, there’s no explanation within the mainstream that can explain these results. That’s why I think they’re so important.”
I couldn’t believe my ears. And yet I could.
Have you ever tried to read the package insert for a “Corona” PCR test? You begin to feel after a while that the techno-babble is some kind of spell, or bad dream. An alien language from another dimension, that could not possibly—whatever else it may do—help a single human being have a better life. It’s not “English.” I don’t know what it is.
One of the ways to distinguish truth from deception in contemporary “science” is to track what gets removed.
For example, David tells me, there was apparently an English abstract online at PubMed out of China that rendered the entire COVID testing industrial complex baseless and absurd.
“There was a famous Chinese paper that estimated that if you’re testing asymptomatic people, up to 80% of positives could be false positive. That was kind of shocking, so shocking that PubMed had to withdraw the abstract even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available. I actually have a translation with a friend. I translated it into English and it’s a really, standard calculation of what they call positive predictive value. The abstract basically said that in asymptomatic populations, the chance of a positive coronavirus test being a true positive is only about 20%. 80% will be false positive.”
“Doesn’t that mean the test means nothing?” I asked.
“The Chinese analysis was a mathematical analysis, a standard, the standard analysis that’s been done a million times before. There’s no reason to withdraw the paper for any reason. There’s nothing dramatic about the paper. It’s a really boring analysis. It’s just that they did the standard analysis and said, in some populations, like they estimated 1% of people are actually infected in the population. You could have 80% false positive.
They couldn’t do a real analysis of false positives in terms of determining whether a test is correct or not because that requires a gold standard and the only gold standard is purification of the virus. So, we get back to the fact that the virus is not being purified. If you could purify the virus, then you could take a hundred people who tested positive and you could search for the virus in them. And if you found the virus in 50 out of a hundred and not in the other 50, you could say that the test is only accurate 50% of the time. But we have no way to do that because we haven’t yet purified the virus. And I don’t think we ever will.”
I asked Crowe what he thought Kary Mullis would say about this explosion of PCR insanity.
“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”
Official postulate of our managers: 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. [RT-PCR is an amplification technique, NOT a diagnostic tool.]
As I said at the beginning, in medicine we always start from the person: we examine him/her, we collect his/her symptoms (complaints-anamnesis) and objective clinical signs (examination) and on the basis of a clinical reflection in which scientific knowledge and experience intervene, we make diagnostic hypotheses.
Only then do we prescribe the most appropriate tests, based on this clinical reflection.
We constantly compare the test results with the patient’s clinical condition (symptoms and signs), which takes precedence over everything else when it comes to our decisions and treatments.
Today, our governments, supported by their scientific safety advice, are making us do the opposite and put the test first, followed by a clinical reflection necessarily influenced by this prior test, whose weaknesses we have just seen, particularly its hypersensitivity.
No test measures the amount of virus (quantity) in the sample!
RT-PCR is qualitative: positive (presence of the virus) or negative (absence of the virus).
This notion of quantity, therefore of viral load, can be estimated indirectly by the number of amplification cycles (Ct) used to highlight the virus sought.
The lower the Ct used to detect the virus fragment, the higher the viral load is considered to be (high).
Above Ct 35, it becomes impossible to isolate a complete virus sequence and culture it!
In France and in most countries, Ct levels above 35, even 40, are still used even today!
Positive RT-PCR tests, without any mention of Ct or its relation to the presence or absence of symptoms, are used as is by our governments as the exclusive argument to apply and justify their policy of severity, austerity, isolation and aggression of our freedoms, with the impossibility to travel, to meet, to live normally!
There is no medical justification for these decisions, for these governmental choices!
The binary “yes/no” answer is not enough, according to this epidemiologist from the Harvard University School of Public Health.
“It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the course of action for each patient tested.
The amount of virus (viral load); but also and above all the clinical state, symptomatic or not of the person!
This calls into question the use of the binary result of this RT-PCR test to determine whether a person is contagious and must follow strict isolation measures.
In the New York Times (NYT), Saturday, August 29, experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that mention them.
Conclusion?
“Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus. »
The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40.
“With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT.
“And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “
In Massachusetts, between 85 and 90% of people who tested positive in July with a Ct of 40 would have been considered negative with a Ct of 30, adds the NYT.
And yet, all these people had to isolate themselves, with all the dramatic psychological and economic consequences, while they were not sick and probably not contagious at all.
I remind you that from Ct 32 onwards, it becomes very difficult to culture the virus or to extract a complete sequence, which shows the completely artificial nature of this positivity of the test, with such high Ct levels, above 30.
Similar results were reported by researchers from the UK Public Health Agency in an article published on August 13 in Eurosurveillance: “The probability of culturing the virus drops to 8% in samples with Ct levels above 35.”
If they have nothing to hide and if what I say is false, this guarantee will be provided to you and will prove their good faith.
1. We must demand that the RT-PCR results be returned mentioning the Ct used because beyond Ct 30, a positive RT-PCR test means nothing.
2. We must listen to the scientists and doctors, specialists, virologists who recommend the use of adapted Ct, lower, at 30. An alternative is to obtain the number of copies of viral RNA/μl or /ml sample.
3. We need to go back to the patient, to the person, to his or her clinical condition (presence or absence of symptoms) and from there to judge the appropriateness of testing and the best way to interpret the result.
Until there is a better rationale for PCR screening, with a known and appropriate Ct threshold, an asymptomatic person should not be tested in any way."
[Translated from French by Global Research. Original source: Mondialisation.ca]
I GOTTA SAY IT...IF ALL THIS DOESN'T HELP YOU SEE THAT WE'VE BEEN SCAMMED AGAIN, JUST LIKE WE WERE ON SWINE FLU (H1N1), ZIKA, SARS, MERS, & A HOST OF OTHERS, WELL, THERE IS NOTHING THAT WILL CONVINCE YOU OF WHAT THOUSANDS OF EXPERTS HAVE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING... COVID-19 HAS NOT SPREAD AND KILLED "HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS" OR EVEN "TENS OF MILLIONS", BUT HAS PROVEN TO BE A MILD INFECTION IN OVER 90% OF ALL INFECTED. HOWEVER, RULING EVERY DEATH A COVID DEATH JUST MIGHT BRING IT CLOSE TO MILLIONS IN ANOTHER YEAR OR SO.
THE PROOF THAT PEOPLE HAVE COVID-19 AND NOT ANOTHER CORONAVIRUS ELUDES THEM; THE PROOF-POSITIVE (BY AUTOPSY, CT SCANS, BLOOD TESTS) THAT PEOPLE ARE DYING FROM, FROM, NOT WITH, THIS VIRUS IS NEVER GOING TO MATERIALIZE.
OUR NATION OF FEARFUL SHEEP IS TOAST AND WE ARE AT THE MERCY OF THOSE WHO PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT US "ZIKA, ZIKA, BE AFRAID!", "SARS IS THE APOCALYPSE!" AND "H1N1 WILL WIPE OUT MILLIONS!"
WE COULD TAKE CDC, WHO, HHS, FDA TO COURT HERE LIKE WAS DONE IN PORTUGAL AND MAKE THE LYING BASTARDS PROVE THEIR TEST IS FAIL-PROOF, OR AT LEAST EVEN 51% ACCURATE, BUT NO, NO, WE JUST BLEAT OUR AGREEMENT TO BE DUPED, TO BE QUARANTINED, TO BE TRACKED FOREVER WHILE AMERICA GOES BUST.
FUNNY WHAT SOME WILL ACCEPT AND GIVE UP FOR A LOUSY $1200.
SO, GO AHEAD, PLAY ALONG WITH THIS POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED BOOGIE MONSTER SHOW IF YOU WANT.
WE'RE STILL FREE TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES...IF WE HAVE THE DESIRE TO.
I WONDER WHY WE AREN'T HEARING/SEEING ANY FLU STATS BY NOW. MAYBE BECAUSE NO ONE IS TESTING FOR FLU? MAYBE BECAUSE FLU CASES ARE NOW CALLED COVID-19 CASES?
