COVID assumptions - the assumptions people make about
COVID, how dangerous it is, how it spreads and what we need to do to stop it -
are running rampant, running far more wildly than the supposed virus SARS-CoV2
itself. The coldly calculated campaign of propaganda surrounding this
'pandemic' has achieved its aim. Besieged with a slew of contradictory
information coming from all angles, people in general have succumbed to
confusion. Some have given up trying to understand the situation and found it
is just easier to obey official directives, even if it means giving up
long-held rights. Below is a list of commonly held COVID assumptions which, if
you believe them, will make you much more likely to submit to the robotic,
insane and abnormal conditions of the New Normal - screening, testing, contact tracing, monitoring,
surveillance, mask-wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation, with
mandatory vaccination and microchipping to come.
Assumption 1: The Method of Counting
COVID Deaths is Sensible and Accurate
A grand assumption of the COVID
plandemic is that the numbers are real and accurate, especially the death toll.
Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. We have had confirmation after confirmation after confirmation (in
nations all over the world) that authorities are
counting the deaths in a way that makes no sense. Well, it
makes no sense if you want to be sensible or accurate, but it makes perfect
sense if you are trying to artificially inflate the numbers and create the
impression of a pandemic where there is none. The sleight of hand is achieved
by counting those who died with the virus
as dying from the virus. This one trick alone is responsible
for vastly skewing the numbers and turning the 'official' death count into a
meaningless farce devoid of any practical value.
Assumption 2: The PCR Test for COVID
is Accurate
As I covered in previous articles,
the PCR test (Polymerase Chain Reaction) was invented by scientist Kary Mullis as a manufacturing technique (since it
is able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times), not as
a diagnostic tool. COVID or
SARS-CoV2 fails Koch's postulates. The virus which
shut the world down has still to this day never been isolated, purified and
re-injected, or in other words, has never been 100% proven to exist, nor 100%
proven to be the cause of the disease. When used to determine the cause of a
disease, the PCR test has many flaws:
1. There is no
gold standard to which to compare its results (COVID fails Koch's postulates);
2. It detects and amplifies genetic code (RNA sequences) but offers no proof these RNA sequences are of viral origin;
3. It generates many false positive results;
4. The PCR test can give a completely opposite result (positive or negative) depending upon the number of cycles or amplifications that are used, which is ultimately arbitrarily chosen. For some diseases, if you lower the number of cycles to 35, it can make everyone appear negative, while if you increase them to above 35, it can make everyone appear positive;
5. Many patients switch back and forth from positive to negative when taking the PCR test on subsequent days; and
6. Even a positive result does not guarantee the discovered 'virus' is the cause of the disease!
2. It detects and amplifies genetic code (RNA sequences) but offers no proof these RNA sequences are of viral origin;
3. It generates many false positive results;
4. The PCR test can give a completely opposite result (positive or negative) depending upon the number of cycles or amplifications that are used, which is ultimately arbitrarily chosen. For some diseases, if you lower the number of cycles to 35, it can make everyone appear negative, while if you increase them to above 35, it can make everyone appear positive;
5. Many patients switch back and forth from positive to negative when taking the PCR test on subsequent days; and
6. Even a positive result does not guarantee the discovered 'virus' is the cause of the disease!
In summary, the PCR test doesn't identify or isolate viruses, doesn't provide RNA
sequences of pathogens, offers no baseline for comparison with patient samples,
and cannot determine an infected from an uninfected sample. That
is staggeringly useless! Here is a quote from the article COVID19 PCR
Tests are Scientifically Meaningless:
"Tests need
to be evaluated to determine their preciseness -- strictly speaking their
"sensitivity" and "specificity" -- by comparison with a
"gold standard," meaning the most accurate method available. As an
example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself.
But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for
example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question "How
accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?":
If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph
in blood, we've already got blood cultures, that's our gold standard we've been
using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for
COVID-19 we don't have a gold standard test."
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper "Interpreting a COVID-19 test
result", published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes
that there is a "lack of such a clear-cut 'gold-standard' for COVID-19
testing.""
Here is the admission about the PCR test by the
CDC and FDA:
"Detection of viral RNA may not
indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative
agent for clinical symptoms …this test cannot rule out diseases caused by other
bacterial or viral pathogens."
Accurate would be about the last word
I would use to describe COVID PCR testing, yet it is currently the standard
test worldwide for COVID. Another magnificent example of many COVID
assumptions. Go figure.
Assumption 3: The Antibody Test for
COVID is Accurate
If you realized by reading the last
section that the COVID PCR tests are
flawed and meaningless, get ready for more absurdity with the COVID antibody tests. As I covered in the article COVID Antibody
Tests: Here Comes More Trickery and Fakery, there
are numerous reasons why the antibody tests don't really work and can be
interpreted any way you want:
1. Old blood
samples contain COVID antibodies, so if a test find antibodies, they may have
been there for years or decades. There is no way to tell if they were recently
acquired;
2. Like the COVID PCR test, they generate many false positive results;
3. They test for antibodies which may not even be specific for COVID;
4. Antibodies don't actually prove immunity, since there are people who fight off disease with little or no antibodies, and conversely, there are those with high antibody titers or counts, but who still get sick; and
5. The results can be interpreted any way you want. The presence of antibodies could mean you're safe and immune to future COVID waves, or conversely, it could mean you're dangerous (sick and infected right now). It's all about the interpretation.
2. Like the COVID PCR test, they generate many false positive results;
3. They test for antibodies which may not even be specific for COVID;
4. Antibodies don't actually prove immunity, since there are people who fight off disease with little or no antibodies, and conversely, there are those with high antibody titers or counts, but who still get sick; and
5. The results can be interpreted any way you want. The presence of antibodies could mean you're safe and immune to future COVID waves, or conversely, it could mean you're dangerous (sick and infected right now). It's all about the interpretation.
Hhmmm … all these COVID assumptions
are not exactly reassuring, are they?
Assumption 4: The COVID Case Count is
Rising
Someone skeptical of the alternative
view I am painting here may ask at this point: well if COVID is not that
dangerous, how come cases keep rising? The answer is simple: because there is
more testing. The more we test, the more cases we will find, because this
'virus' (really an RNA sequence) is far more widespread than we have been told,
and there are far more asymptomatic people than we have been told (which shows
it's not that dangerous). As discussed in previous articles, there is really no
proof that people didn't have this particular RNA sequence for years or decades
before the test, so the test results are quite meaningless.
That aside, a general rule of thumb
is that wherever there are people trying to gain power, there will be fraud,
and COVID testing is no exception. It has been exposed that tens of thousands
of coronavirus tests have been double counted (in the UK , but probably happening in many places). This article explains
that the "discrepancy is in large part explained by the practice of
counting saliva and nasal samples for the same individual
twice." Additionally, the COVID tests are using the PCR method as
discussed above in COVID Assumption 3, which has many flaws, including the flaw
of results flipping back and forth depending on the number of cycles, as this
previously quoted article states:
" … it is
hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test
results. For example, already in February the health authority in China 's Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness
blamed on COVID-19, started to test "negative," and then tested
"positive" again.
A month later, a
paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610
patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between "negative",
"positive" and "dubious".
A third example
is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18
patients and the majority went from "positive" to
"negative" back to "positive" at least once, and up to five times
in one patient.
Even Wang Chen,
president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that
the PCR tests are "only 30 to
50 per cent accurate"; while Sin Hang Lee from
the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the
WHO's coronavirus response team and to Anthony
S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:
"It has been widely reported in the social media that the
RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect
SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and
are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases." "
Assumption 5: Thermal
Imaging/Screening for COVID is Effective
Taking people's temperature by
pointing a gun at their head is blatant conditioning. It sends the subliminal
message that the State is all powerful and can aim a gun-like device at your
head, and you are powerless to do anything but submit. On a practical level,
taking people's temperatures has no effect in stopping viral spread. Even if
someone has an elevated temperature, what does that mean? There is a natural
variation in human body temperatures; everyone operates at a slightly different
temperature. Besides, even if your temperature is elevated, that could be
because you were just exercising, running to catch a flight, just had an angry
conversation with someone, just got the phone after a stressful call, had to
discipline a disobedient child, etc. Think about all the
things that make you stressed and irritated, or raise your blood pressure,
which could lead to an elevated temperature!
In this way it is similar to the
antibody test; it can show a result, but the result can be interpreted in so
many ways that it renders the result pointless in terms of science (although
there is a very much a point in terms of control).
Assumption 6: Asymptomatic People Can
Spread the Disease
One particular piece of propaganda hammered in hard to people's
brains which is still doing great damage is the idea that anyone could be a
carrier and could therefore infect anyone else. This has the effect of making
people anxious,
scared and even paranoid in just
going about their daily life. However the idea that
asymptomatic people can spread the disease is not something to worry about. This
Chinese study A study on infectivity of
asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers published in
May 2020 exposed 455 subjects to asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV2. None of
the 455 were infected!
WHO (World Health Organization)
official Dr. Maria van Kerkhove was reported by MSM
CNBC saying the following last month in June
(though she later backtracked her comments):
""From the data we have, it still seems to be rare
that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary
individual," Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO's emerging diseases and
zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency's Geneva
headquarters. "It's very rare.""
Assumption 7: Making Schools Adopt
Insanely Restrictive Measures Will Stop COVID Spread
Of the many COVID assumptions
floating around, these next two are based on the idea that children are a
significant source of COVID spread. They are not! The figures from WorldOMeter state
that children aged 0-17 years have 0.02-0.06% share of world COVID deaths,
which is essentially zero. Meanwhile, CDC stats show
that "among 149,082 (99.6%) cases for which patient age was known,
2,572 (1.7%) occurred in children aged <18 a="" above="" also="" and="" at="" cdc="" draconian="" earth="" found="" fraction.="" guidelines="" in="" is="" issue="" likewise="" mind="" nbsp="" on="" pictured="" strong="" style="box-sizing: border-box;" the="" these="" this="" tiny="" which="" why="" with="" would="" years="">this link18>
in
full) for American schoolchildren, if not to condition and dehumanize them?
Assumption 8: It's a Good Idea for Government to Abduct
Kids from COVID-Positive Parents
Governmental abduction of children
using COVID as a pretext has begun. This article from
June 17th 2020 reports how the "LA County Dept. of Children and
Family Services (DCFS) recommended that the court remove [a] child from their
physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19. This is a
non-offending parent. The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained."
Let that sink in for a minute. The
State stole a child from his/her parents just because a parent showed a
COVID-positive result on a (deeply flawed) test! Can anyone spell
T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y? This is the outcome of the sinister and oxymoronic warning given
by WHO official Michael Ryan in
March, that people would be removed from their families in a "safe and
dignified" way. Ryan said:
"In some senses, transmission has been taken off the
streets and pushed back into family units. Now we need to go and look in
families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them
in a safe and dignified manner."
Mercola.com
reports that the CDC is
recommending newborns be separated at birth from their parents for COVID
testing.
How bad does it have to get before
people wake up to what is happening?
Assumption 9: Social Distancing is Backed by Solid Scientific
Evidence
Another of the baseless COVID
assumptions is that all this social distancing or physical distancing is backed
by solid scientific evidence. It's not. Whether it's 6 feet, 1.5 meters or 2
meters, the virus seems to be able to jump different distances depending upon
what country it is in. The article There is no
scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule states:
"The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172
studies in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might
sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases
that undermine the reliability of their findings."
"We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing
serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health
of the population …I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some
of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-metre
rule was conjured up out of nowhere … Well, there is a certain amount of
scientific evidence for a one-metre distance which comes out of indoor studies
in clinical and experimental settings. There's never been a scientific basis
for two metres, it's kind of a rule of thumb. But it's not like there is a
whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon."
Of course, the assumption that social
distancing works is based on the underlying assumption that there is a distinct
and isolated virus SARS-CoV2 which is contagious and is the sole cause of all
the disease - which has not been proven.
Assumption 10: Mask Wearing for
Healthy People is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence
The penultimate assumption for today
is the wonderful topic of masks, or face diapers and face nappies as many have started calling them. One
of the COVID assumptions that many are still clinging to is that it is
'respectful' to wear masks because masks protect healthy individuals from
getting sick from viruses. This is patently false. As covered in the previous
article Unmasking the
Truth: Studies Show Dehumanizing Masks Weaken You and Don't Protect You,
masks are designed for surgeons or people who are already sick, not for healthy
people. They stop sick people spreading a disease through large respiratory
droplets; they do nothing to protect well people. In fact, they restrict oxygen
flow leading to under-oxygenation (hypoxia), which in turns leads to fatigue,
weakness and a lower immunity. With a lower immunity comes … more
susceptibility to disease. As I previously wrote, the masks many
people are wearing - homemade from cloth - are a joke if you think they will
stop a virus which is measured in nanometers (nanometer = 10-9 meters, or 0.000000001 meters). They won't stop a virus
but they will assuredly become a hotbed for microbes to develop due to the warm
and humid conditions. For the scientifically minded, here's what Dr. Russell Blaylock had to say:
"The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen
levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have
shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight
viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia
increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1),
which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell
called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including
COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence,
your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so,
having a much worse outcome."
Assumption 11: We Live in a World of
Indiscriminate Killer Viruses
The biggest assumption of this entire
scamdemic is that viruses are indiscriminate killers which can cross species
and jump bodies through the air to infect people. In fact, the nature of the
humble virus has been totally misunderstood by mainstream science, fueled by
the Medical Industry which promotes germ theory and the myth of contagion to
keep you in fear and to raise demand for its toxic products (Big Pharma
petrochemical drugs and vaccines). Viruses have been demonized. As discussed in
earlier articles such as Deep Down the
Virus Rabbit Hole - Question Everything, virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka exposed the truth that viruses do
not cause disease. Lanka famously won a 2017 Supreme Court in Germany where he proved that measles was not caused by a virus. Lanka writes:
"Since June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test
tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus … according to
scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments
should have been carried out … These control experiments have never been
carried out by official science to this day. During the measles virus trial, I
commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and
the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions
in the exact same way as when they come into contact with allegedly
"infected" material.
In other words, the cells die of
starvation and poisoning (since they are separated from energy and nutrients
from the body, and since toxic antibiotics are injected into the cell culture),
not from being infected by a virus. This great video presentation entitled Viral Misconceptions: The True Nature
of Viruses is well worth watching. It outlines
many stunning truths about the nature of viruses, such as:
- Viruses are created from
within your cells; they do not come from outside the body
- They
arise as a result of systemic toxicity, not because the body has been
invaded by an external threat
- Viruses
dissolve toxic matter when body tissue is too toxic for living bacteria or
microbes to feed upon without being poisoned to death. Without viruses,
the human body couldn't achieve homeostasis and sustain itself in
the face of systemic toxicity
- Viruses
are very specific. They dissolve specific tissues in the body. They do
this with the assistance of antibodies
- The
more toxicity you have in your body, the more viral activity you will have
- The
only vector transmission of a virus is through blood transfusion or
vaccines; otherwise, viruses cannot infect you by jumping from one body to
another
- Viruses
are discriminatory by nature, made by the body for a specific purpose.
They are not indiscriminate killers
- The
RT-PCR test (PCR test for short) observes genetic material left over by
the virus, not the virus itself (see assumption 2)
Conclusion: Time to Question all Your
COVID Assumptions
The good news is that these are
assumptions not facts. When you look closely, you will realize the entire
official narrative on COVID is a house of cards built on sand. It cannot stand
up to close scrutiny. This knowledge is the key to remaining sane and free in a
COVID-crazed and brainwashed world. Spread the word. Evidence, information and
knowledge will dispel assumptions and ignorance.
*
Note to readers: please click the
share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists.
Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Makia Freeman is the
editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and
senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is
on Steemit and FB.
Sources
*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/15/no-scientific-evidence-support-disastrous-two-metre-rule/
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent
news site The Freedom
Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and FB.
Disclaimer: This article is not
intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed
here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
Sayer
Ji, author of REGENERATE, discusses the controversy around
the similarity between viruses and extracellular vesicles called exosomes, as
well as the possibility that what appears to be contagion-based viral
infectivity may also be understood as a xenohormetic response to toxicant or
EMF-associated cell damage
Cited or relevant
articles, videos, and research papers include:
- Let's Get Real About This
So-Called "Plan-Demic"
- Why Everything You Learned
About Viruses is WRONG
- Plant-Derived Exosomes as
Cross-Species Messengers and Beacons of Epigenetics
- VIDEO: Coronavirus Fear, Germ Theory,
Exosomes, and Resiliency
- VIDEO: Andrew Kaufman on Exosomes,
Coronavirus and Germ Theory
- Amazing Food Science
Discovery: Edible Plants 'Talk' To Animal Cells, Promote Healing
- Exosome studies on Greenmedinfo (110 abstracts)
- How the Microbiome Undermines
the Ego, Vaccine Policy and Patriarchy
- The GMO Agenda Takes a
Menacing Leap Forward with RNAi Corn
- No Sex Required: Body Cells
Transfer Genetic Info Directly Into Sperm Cells, Amazing Study Finds
- The Dark and Light Side of
Food As Information Dietary RNAs
- COVID-19 Related Articles
- Exogenous exosomes from mice with
acetaminophen-induced liver injury promote toxicity in the recipient
hepatocytes and mice. Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 30;8(1):16070. doi:
10.1038/s41598-018-34309-7. Cho YE
- HIV As Trojan Exosome:
Immunological Paradox Explained? Front Immunol. 2017; 8: 1715.Published
online 2017 Dec 1. James E. K. Hildreth
Sayer Ji is
founder of Greenmedinfo.com,
a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional
Medicine, Co-founder
and CEO of Systome
Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee
Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice,
diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those
of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
Courtesy Quora
Going further into the rabbit hole of who we are remembering that atoms are 99.99% empty and the rest is ---well---? So we are a whole bunch of nothing tangible made into a tangible form---where does this leave Covid-19?
Courtesy Science at Jefferson Lab
This is why I started SAM (Sub Atomic Meditation) way back when several physicists I knew went through a sort of 'breakdown / breakthrough' in the early days of ' atom quantum stuff'' admirably described in the first edition of 'The Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra. In my SHACK articles I go into ' Empty No Mind a lot' and also the story of my Sensei breaking Oak.
Courtesy Whisper
I am fond of paradoxes, Koans and riddles that have no logical sense. The image above gives rise to one; 'If everything is nothing --how does it exist' 'If all is empty---what---is reality' 'Is there anything that is everlasting and real, all is impermanent, transient, here today and gone tomorrow' 'Have we all been brain washed, taught to believe who we are and if so who were we before we were programmed?' 'We are not who we think we are----we are not what we believe we are---we are what we were inculcated to believe we are--we are hand me downs of some culture, religion, cult, philosophy political idiom or agenda' 'are you sure you are your identity---ask yourself on your deathbed'. How's Covid-19 sit with you now?
Happy Days and Be Well
Geoff
WWW.SHACKISBACK.BLOGSPOT.COM
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.