While authorities are quick to blame COVID-19 for the damage caused by public health policies, in reality these policies were neither grounded in science nor unavoidable. The public has not been given a chance to properly evaluate these issues however, because rational debate has been shut down. Mainstream orthodoxy has become a religion. Questioning it is akin to heresy.
In the early stages of the pandemic we were told that the emergency powers being enacted by governments around the world were temporary. At first we were told the measures would last 3 to 4 weeks. Then weeks became months and the story morphed to ensure us that that only when vaccines finally arrived would life go back to normal. After a year had gone by the story changed again. Now we’re told that COVID-19 is here to stay, and life will never be the same again. Periodic lockdowns, mask mandates and and travel restrictions will continue. Only those with valid “health passports” proving vaccination status will be allowed to bypass these restrictions.
Some countries including Sweden, Denmark and Poland have already begun implementing health passport systems on a national level. The EU has also announced their intention to roll out a version for the entire bloc. However the WHO has made it clear that ultimately the system will be global.
Given the fact that this pandemic is being used to permanently change the way society functions, allowing governments to suspend rights and freedoms on a whim and destroy any business they deem “non-essential”, it is crucial that we challenge the logic used to justify these measures.
Lockdowns Don’t Flatten the Curve
Politicians who lock down society often claim to be “following the science” and that economic destruction and totalitarian controls are a price that must be paid in order to save lives. But it turns out that the actual science doesn’t support these policies at all. A study published in January of 2021 found no evidence that lockdowns contributed substantially to reducing the number of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain or the United States in early 2020. How is this possible? The study didn’t provide a definitive answer, but common sense should tell you that if you restrict the number of businesses that can remain open and reduce the number of hours they can operate, the public will be forced to congregate at those venues. In the end this doesn’t actually reduce the number of people who get infected.
It turns out that the biggest factor influencing the rate of spread isn’t government policies or public adherence to those policies, but rather the weather. Researchers discovered that temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed can be used to accurately predict the rise and fall of cases on a seasonal basis. Interestingly enough the same is true for the flu. If you look at a chart of the number of flu cases by month (from the CDC) it is roughly the same as the pattern we’ve seen from COVID. In 2020 the authorities claimed that cases dropped due to the lockdowns, and in 2021 they claimed that they dropped due to vaccines, but in reality mother nature was the driving force.
COVID-19 False Positives and The Missing Flu
Is the the panic surrounding COVID-19 justified? According to the WHO and the NewYork Times we now know that between 85% and 90% of positive COVID-19 test results have been false positives. This means that a large percentage of so called “asymptomatic cases” weren’t actually cases at all.
In 2007 the New York Times documented how relying on PCR tests had led to the perception that there had been a whooping cough epidemic in New Hampshire in 2006. In reality most of these illnesses turned out to have been caused by the common cold. In 2020 the number of flu cases fell to 130 year lows. On one hand they claim that this drop off in flu cases is due to mask mandates and social distancing, but on the other hand they claimed that COVID cases were rising because people were not respecting mask mandates and social distancing. So which is it? Given the fact that we now know that the vast majority of COVID-19 test results were false positives, and that the flu all but disappeared at the same time, wouldn’t it be more plausible to consider the possibility that many of these false positives might have just been cases of ordinary flu?
In March of 2020 Dr. Fauci said people should not be wearing masks to protect against COVID-19.
By January of 2021 he was saying that it was “common sense” to wear two masks instead of one.
What changed? Certainly not the science. A Danish study conducted in November of 2020 found that there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19. The only studies that claimed the opposite were “observational” – meaning they merely observed the people who ordinarily use masks rather than creating a randomized control group.
What actually changed was a social norm. Wearing a mask signals conformity to that norm. Failure to conform is stigmatized or criminalized in many jurisdictions. Facts and evidence don’t matter at all.
The Mass Vaccination Experiment
The vaccine issue is complex, and there’s a lot to unpack, but at the root is the question of risk vs. benefit. If we were talking about a disease that killed 10% of those that got infected vs. a vaccine that was 90% effective and proven to have no long term side effects it would be a no-brainer, but this clearly isn’t the case.
The CDC doesn’t release survival rate information for COVID-19, however on their website they do provide infection fatality ratio estimates based data from outbreaks in several regions. According to those estimates even the most vulnerable demographic (over the age of 70) the infection fatality ratio is only 0.054. For the 0 to 19 age group that number drops to 0.00003. Scary stuff eh?
None of these vaccines have been through long term testing, so there is no way to know what kinds of secondary side effects we may see months or years down the road, but we know from previous vaccines that side effects can be extremely serious. For example one H1N1 flu vaccine was shown to cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, Another H1N1 Vaccine (called Pandemrix) was shown to significantly increase the risk of Bell’s palsy, paraesthesia, and inflammatory bowel disease, and the MMR vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella) has been proven to cause immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). There have now been a number of reports that both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are causing ITP as well.
It’s also worth noting that the vaccine developed response to the first SARS epidemic was scuttled due to the fact that it caused serious immunopathology (hyper-immune response) in the lungs of mice when they were later exposed to the real virus. Milder versions of the same phenomenon has been documented with flu vaccines as well. This means we may not see the full side effects of some COVID-19 vaccines until subjects encounter new strains next year. At that time the hyper-immune response may end up being interpreted as a symptom of the new variant. The solution? Another vaccine! The idea that COVID-19 vaccines may need to be repeated annually is already gaining traction.
Yearly vaccination regimes adds a whole new layer of potential side effects. For example a study conducted in 2017 found that women vaccinated for two consecutive years with pH1N1-containing vaccine experienced a significantly higher rate of miscarriages. The study did not establish a causal relationship, but did assert that further research is warranted. This is the kind of long term research that should be conducted before pushing an experimental vaccine onto the general public.
And then there’s the question of effectiveness. Now obviously there are a number of vaccines being distributed and each must be examined individually, however the the AstraZeneca jab stands out in this regard due to the fact that it is being foisted onto the worlds poorest countries (by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backed groups GAVI and CEPI) in spite of having never shown to protect against infection when tested on monkeys and proving only 10% effective against the South African strain (which is spreading rapidly). South Africa suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine for this reason. However this incredibly distorted risk to benefit ratio has not stopped the experiment from continuing in other developing nations.
The Abolition of Dissent
On Friday, October 18, 2019 the World Economic Forum, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security held a tabletop exercise called event 201 which staged a simulated pandemic, describing a corona virus that leapt from bats to pigs and began spreading among humans. While most of the recommendations put forth as a result of this exercise were abstract and vapid word salads, their 7th and final recommendation was both concrete and prescient: in the event of a pandemic governments and corporations must work together to flood media with “authoritative messages” and suppress mis-information. With the arrival of COVID-19 this recommendation became official policy. As a result any information that contradicts mainstream orthodoxy on issues pertaining to health are widely censored. This principle applies even when the information in question comes directly from peer reviewed scientific studies and health organizations themselves.
The trouble with censorship is that it shuts down debate. Legitimate concerns are dismissed as misinformation. If the public is not allowed to see both sides misinformation can become entrenched as orthodoxy and may contribute to unnecessary injury and death. This runs contrary to the principle of informed consent.
When we examine the facts at hand, it becomes clear that most of the policies implemented to fight COVID-19 are not backed by science. Nor are these policies wise in the context of the risk to the benefit ratios involved. However pointing to these facts has become paramount to saying that the emperor wears no clothes. Only in this case the voice of reason is silenced.
If you question the wisdom of lockdowns, which destroy lives and businesses while achieving nothing… if you question the wisdom of injecting the entire human population with experimental vaccines — that are only marginally effective — against a disease that kills less than one tenth of one percent of those who get it… if you dare to walk outside without a mask because you don’t consider social conformity a valid justification for public health policy you’re the crazy one. You’re a problem that needs to be dealt with. Can’t have people thinking so much. It might start to spread.
Once you see how absolutely illogical the official response to COVID-19 has been, one has to consider the possibility that nothing is as it seems. What if the goal of these policies was never to stop the spread of a virus, but rather to condition the public to accept a totalitarian new normal? As we enter an era of chaos and upheaval that will ultimately culminate in a great collapse, what better way to maintain control of the population than emergency powers that allow governments to lockdown entire cities and outlaw gatherings of any kind?
Those who think that mass vaccinations are going to end this crisis are in for a rude awakening. The restrictions will not be lifted. There will be no return to life as it was before. The only path to freedom is resistance.
If you want to stop this madness the first step is to join the information war. Fact check this article and use the sources linked to make your case with friends and family. For more digital and real world activism tips visit our fight back section.
This document is a work in progress. If you have evidence or media that you believe should be included here please join our Telegram group OpenSourceTheNews and post it there.