What are the truly verifiable facts surrounding COVID-19? (1)
“Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.” Those words, uttered by two-time Nobel Prize-winning chemist and physicist Marie Curie, are as relevant today as they were in her era (1867-1934).
With most of the planet under some form of medical martial law, we would do well to follow her advice: understand more and fear less about the pandemic. The way to do that is to establish the verifiable, scientific facts about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and separate those facts from the fiction being touted by a fear-mongering news media. Only then we will stop surrendering our inherent freedoms to COVID-19 propaganda.
Fiction #1: Wearing a face mask will protect you and others from the coronavirus.
Fact #1: Contrary to what many medical and government officials tell us, there is no evidence to support the claim that face masks – whether N95, surgical, or cloth – protect the wearer from any virus. These so-called “medical experts” usually reference a purportedly scientific publication to support their claim. However, when the studies they point to – namely, in The Lancet and from the Mayo Clinic – are put under closer scrutiny, they fail to pass one crucial test: they never used a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). Reputable scientists consider the RCT the Holy Grail when it comes to conducting a study on a large group of people, because it eliminates the possibility of any population bias in the testing.
When we look at trials that have used the RCT method to analyze the efficacy of face masks, we find starkly different results from those that have not. For instance, an exhaustive dental study conducted in 2016 revealed that disposable surgical face masks are incapable of providing protection from respiratory pathogens.
Then there was the study conducted this past February by Long Y, Hu T, Liu, et al., titled “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza.” It involved a total of six RCTs and 9,171 participants. The study concluded that “the current meta-analysis shows the use of N95 compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staffs those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.”
Even the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has done studies on face masks by correctly using RCTs. In one report, titled “Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol.26, No.5” and published in May 2020, the CDC did ten Randomized Controlled Trials before concluding, “Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect against accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids. There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
As for those people who wear a cloth mask in the belief that “it’s better than wearing nothing,” a RCT conducted in 2015 showed that cloth masks do not work at all. In actuality, a cloth mask puts the wearer at increased risk of respiratory illness and viral infections.
In light of the plethora of available science on face masks, it is heartening to see that some governments are making rational decisions based on that science. In the Netherlands, for example, officials are refusing to mandate mask-wearing in public.
In the end, the face mask should be viewed as a device used by authoritarians to control the masses and enforce compliance to lawless edicts. The mask lulls wearers into feeling protected from biological harm. Meanwhile, the real harm being done to them is psychological and spiritual. By submitting to mandatory face-covering orders based on flawed science and imposed by either unelected-but-politicized medical officials and technocrats or elected-but-compromised politicians who hold positions in all levels of government – these mask wearers don’t realize that they’re handing over their precious liberties, their individuality, and even, one might say, their very souls to soulless tyrants.
Fiction #2: Scientists have isolated and purified the SARS-CoV-2 RNA virus.
Fact #2: To date, not a single team of scientists has isolated and purified the SARS-CoV-2 RNA virus. Some researchers claim to have done so. But when their findings are scrutinized, they fall short.
Just as Randomized Controlled Trials are required to do accurate studies of the efficacy and safety of medical devices like face masks or products such as prescription drugs, so, too, is there a major benchmark that must be satisfied if one is to prove that he has indeed correctly identified and isolated a virus. That benchmark has been, since 1890, a set of principals known as the Koch postulates, named after famed German physician and bacteriologist Robert Koch. All researchers must apply his four postulates if they are to prove or disprove a cause-and-effect relationship between a pathogen and a particular clinical disease.
For example, in February 2020, Chinese and Dutch researchers published studies purporting to show that they had isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus by satisfying all of the Koch postulates. Four months later, however, freelance writer Armory Devereux and molecular biologist and researcher Rosemary Frei revealed the truth about those studies in an Off-Guardian article. Their heavily investigated and well-documented piece confirms that the Chinese and Dutch researchers did not fulfill Koch’s third postulate, which involves replicating or cloning the DNA to form a new copy of the virus and then injecting that new copy into a significant number of living hosts (usually lab animals) with the intent to reproduce the same discrete diagnostic symptoms associated with the virus. In fact, Frei discovered, after reviewing numerous research papers from all over the world, that not a single group of scientists was able to replicate or clone the DNA to form a new copy of the virus. In short, they failed to meet Koch’s third postulate.
Another team of investigative journalists, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter, wrote an equally comprehensive article on the same subject for Off-Guardian. They, too, concluded that there is not a single research paper out there demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been successfully isolated and finally purified. In addition, Engelbrecht and Demeter discovered that “there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.”
In other words, by not successfully fulfilling all of Koch’s postulates, scientists have thus far not proven the existence of any new coronavirus. This is why molecular biologist Dr. Andrew Kaufman has suggested in numerous interviews –on The Highwire and The Last American Vagabond and elsewhere – that the current coronavirus is not a new disease. Dr. Kaufman submits, moreover, that the particles scientists say they are looking at through their electron microscopes are perhaps not the virus at all but are, rather, exosomes being produced by the body. These exosomes, containing the same genetic material as a virus, are naturally produced by the human body as a defense mechanism in response to an external attack by a toxin emanating from our polluted environment. This would be a possible explanation as to why the “pandemic” started in China’s Wuhan province. This area of China is one of the most polluted places on earth. In Wuhan, the ecosystem in all its glorious biodiversity has been utterly destroyed by man-made pollutants and the heavy use of glyphosate in industrial farming.
Besides pollution, there is yet another plausible explanation as to why this particular coronavirus (if it exists, which some reputable experts highly doubt) may have possibly started in Wuhan. The internationally funded Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has proven financial ties to the US government and is known for its poor safety standards, was involved in dangerous gain-of-function research to make bat viruses more lethal to humans. Several disturbing studies conducted by the lab “successfully” combined animal and human virus traits in ways that made them more dangerous to humans. This description of the institute’s research raises many questions.
At present, there is not enough evidence to prove whether a pathogen was either intentionally released by the lab or was accidentally leaked into the environment. And, even if a virus was intentionally released into the environment as a bioweapon, the developers of this weapon did not do a good job. As we will see in the last fiction versus fact (below), this coronavirus has had virtually the same global infection fatality rate as the average seasonal flu. If anything, the influenza virus of 2017 was far more lethal than this year’s coronavirus.
Finally, this brings us to the multi-billion-dollar question on the virus isolation issue: If scientists have not properly identified the virus or the RNA gene sequences associated with the virus, how on earth are the vaccine companies developing a mRNA vaccine against a novel coronavirus, and what exactly will be in this vaccine? Perhaps this is why the initial vaccine trials conducted by biotech company Moderna, the US vaccine front-runner, and AstraZeneca, which leads the British Oxford Vaccine Group, have been unsatisfactory.
Fiction #3: The Reverse Transcriptase quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) test is the best way to diagnose a patient with COVID-19.
Fact #3: The PCR test, which is currently being used by every nation to test for COVID-19, was initially designed by Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Kary Mullis. From its inception, the PCR was, and still is, a thermal cycling method used to replicate billions of copies of a specific DNA sample. Simply put, the PCR makes the DNA large enough so that scientists can study it. Although Mullis unexpectedly passed away in August 2019, we know what his thoughts were when it came to using his test as a diagnostic tool, thanks to an invaluable interview he did in 1994 with investigative journalist Celia Farber. The interview leaves no doubt that Mullis argued against using the PCR as a diagnostic tool for detecting viruses.
Granted, the PCR test is capable of detecting even the minutest piece of DNA or RNA, but this is meaningless if scientists have not determined what specific RNA sequences they are actually searching for. And, in light of Fact #2, which established that no correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has been executed, the PCR test is scientifically illogical.
That the PCR test is being misused, either unwittingly or wittingly hence fraudulently, on COVID-19 diagnoses cannot be overstated. According to the aforementioned Off-Guardian article by Torsten Engelbrecht, “it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with. This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be validated to determine their ‘sensitivity’ and ‘specificity’ – by comparison to a ‘gold standard,’ meaning the most accurate method available.” Engelbrecht makes clear that, to date, there is no valid gold standard for the PCR test because, thus far, no one has isolated and purified the alleged virus. Only unequivocal proof of the existence of a new SARS-CoV-2 can be considered the gold standard.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise when we find that the PCR test is plagued with outcomes that can indicate “false negatives” of up to 20 percent or “false positives” of up to an outrageous 70 percent!
Both the US CDC and the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) are well aware that the PCR test has some major pitfalls. The CDC, for instance, states that “this test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
Meanwhile, the FDA has reviewed and summarised, for Accelerated Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) purposes, Laboratory Corporation of America’s LabCorp COVID-19 RT-PCR test and has slapped on it a warning label: “This test has not been FDA cleared or approved.” In the same summary, the FDA explains that “the agent detected may not be the definite cause of the disease.”
Given everything we now know about the inaccuracy of the PCR test, why is the World Health Organization (WHO) still insisting that every nation continue testing as many people as possible with this method? Could it be because the entire narrative about the “pandemic” is riding on the distorted PCR test results?
Could it also be that the very high “false positive” rate perfectly fits an agenda of inflating the infection case numbers (not the mortality numbers) so as to instill fear into the minds and hearts of as many people as possible?
Could it be that injecting fear into the population enables the technocrats and their pawns to continue the draconian stay-at-home lockdowns and economically devastating business shutdowns and the ridiculous containment measures (such as physical distancing) and other punitive restrictions (e.g., fourteen-day quarantines after travel, even when the travel is a simple car trip between adjoining US states)? Could it be that they are purposely placing the lives of millions of people under enormous stress and in precipitous poverty?
Is this all part of a behavior modification process that will make it easier for social engineers (technocrats) to completely redesign society so that the distribution of all goods and services to the entire population and the consumption of energy by that population will be orchestrated by a select few self-appointed “experts”?
Technocracy News & Trends’ researcher/writer Patrick Wood lays out a plausible explanation for this scenario in his recent interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola. In it, Wood notes that the technocracy movement, which started in the early twentieth century, “was always an economic movement, not a political system.”
The destruction of the global economy, the removal of everyone’s inherent freedoms, the elimination of national sovereignty, and the accumulation of layers and layers of rules and regulations based on unsubstantiated science are ingredients that constitute the perfect recipe for any technocrat whose goal is to completely redesign society and implement an entirely new economic system.
Read the second part of the article
November 22, 2020