2020 Written and Directed By

2020 Written and Directed By

Someone asked if it were fiction or non-fiction. I replied:

Definitely starts with a non-fiction beginning, Natrual Disasters, Human Tragedy, Environmental Catastrophe rapidly moving to more global real-life Drama, Biological Warfare, Scientific Fraud and Corruption, Suspense, Intrigue, Mystery, Psychological Thriller, Mind Cotrol Propaganda Case Study, Grass Roots Protests and closing with Political Intrigue and high stakes drama with threatened Political Coup and leaving the door open to futher stories on Orwellian Nightmare, Global Food Shortages, Mass Starvations and Financial Meltdowns.

Something for everyone really!

10 Flaws In PCR Test Rendering It Useless

10 Flaws In PCR Test Rendering It Useless

In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.

CONCLUSION

The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward.

Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.

Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020

The Strangely Unscientific Masking of America

Mask Science

I remember vividly the day, at the tail end of March, when facemasks suddenly became synonymous with morality: either one cared about the lives of others and donned a mask, or one was selfish and refused to do so. The shift occurred virtually overnight.

Only a day or two before, I had associated this attire solely with surgeons and people living in heavily polluted regions. Now, my friends’ favorite pastime during our weekly Zoom sessions was excoriating people for running or socializing without masks in Prospect Park. I was mystified by their certitude that bits of cloth were the only thing standing between us and mass death, particularly when mere weeks prior, the message from medical experts contradicted this new doctrine.

On February 29, the U.S. surgeon general infamously tweeted: “Seriously people – STOP BUYING MASKS. . . They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus.” Anthony Fauci, the best-known member of the coronavirus task force, advised Americans not to wear masks around this time. Similarly, in the earliest weeks of the pandemic, the CDC maintained that masks should be worn only by individuals who were symptomatic or caring for a sick person, a position that the WHO stood by even longer.

As rapidly as mask use became a matter of ethics, the issue transformed into a political one, exemplified by an article printed on March 27 in the New York Times, entitled “More Americans Should Probably Wear Masks for Protection.” The piece was heavy on fear-mongering and light on evidence. While acknowledging that “[t]here is very little data showing that flat surgical masks, in particular, have a protective effect for the general public,” the author went on to argue that they “may be better than nothing,” and cited a couple of studies in which surgical masks ostensibly reduced influenza transmission rates.

One report reached its conclusion based on observations of a “dummy head attached to a breathing simulator.” Another analyzed use of surgical masks on people experiencing at least two symptoms of acute respiratory illness. Incidentally, not one of these studies involved cloth masks or accounted for real-world mask usage (or misusage) among lay people, and none established efficacy of widespread mask-wearing by people not exhibiting symptoms. There was simply no evidence whatsoever that healthy people ought to wear masks when going about their lives, especially outdoors. Yet by April, to walk the streets of Brooklyn with one’s nose and mouth exposed evoked the sort of reaction that in February would have been reserved for the appearance of a machine gun.

In short order, the politicization intensified. President Trump refused to wear a mask relatively early on, so resistance to them was equated with support for him. By the same token, Democratic politicians across the board eagerly adopted the garb; accordingly, all good liberals were wearing masks religiously by the beginning of April. Likewise, left-leaning newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post unequivocally promoted mask-wearing after that March 27 article, with no real analysis or consideration of opposing views and evidence.

The speed with which mask-wearing among the general public transitioned from unheard of to a moral necessity struck me as suspicious. After all, if the science was as airtight as those around me claimed, surely masks would have been recommended by January or February, not to mention during prior infectious disease outbreaks such as the 2009 swine flu. It seemed unlikely that the scientific proof became incontrovertible sometime between late February and late March, particularly in the absence of any new evidence surfacing during that time period.

Perhaps none of this is particularly surprising in this hyper-political era. What is shocking is the scientific community’s participation in subverting evidence that does not comport with the consensus. A prime example is the Institute of Health Metrics Evaluation’s (“IHME”) rather astounding claim, published in the journal Nature-Medicine and echoed in countless articles afterward, that the lives of 130,000 people could be saved with a nationwide mask mandate.

As my colleague Phil Magness pointed out in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the IHME model was predicated upon faulty data: it assumed that 49% of Americans were wearing masks based on a survey conducted between April and June, while claiming that statistic represented the number of Americans wearing masks as of September 21. In fact, by the summer, around 80% of Americans were regularly wearing them. (Ironically, had Dr. Fauci and the Surgeon General not bungled the message in March, mask use probably would have reached much higher rates much earlier on).

This called into question the accuracy of the 130,000 figure, since many more people habitually used masks than the study presumed.

Although Magness contacted Nature-Medicine to point out the problem, after stalling for nearly two weeks, the journal declined to address it. Needless to say, the damage had been done: newspapers such as the New York Times undoubtedly would fail to correct the error and any retractions certainly would be placed far from the front page, where the initial article touting the IHME figure appeared. Thus, as expected, the unfounded claim that 130,000 lives could be saved with a nationwide mask-mandate continues to be repeated, including by president-elect Joe Biden and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins.

That the science behind mask-wearing is questionable at best is further exemplified by a letter to the editor written in response to Magness’s article. Dr. Christopher Murray acknowledged that rates of mask-wearing have steadily increased, but then concluded that masks should be used because they are “our first line of defense against the pandemic” and current IHME modeling indicates that “if 95% of U.S. residents were to wear masks when leaving home, we could prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans” because “masks work,” and “much deeper pain is ahead if we refuse to wear them.”

None of this accounts for the failure of either Nature-Medicine or the IHME modelers to recognize and correct the error. Moreover, neither the IHME modelers nor Dr. Murray provide any evidence that masks work. They assume masks are extremely effective at preventing spread of the coronavirus, and then claim that the model is correct for that reason. This sort of circular reasoning is all-too typical of those who so vociferously insist that masks are effective without going to the trouble of substantiating that contention – or differentiating what is likely a modest benefit from mask-wearing in specific indoor locations and around high-risk individuals from the media-driven tendency to depict masks as a silver bullet for stopping the virus in all circumstances.

Coverage of a recent mask study conducted in Denmark likewise epitomizes the failure of the scientific community to rigorously engage with results that do not fit the prevailing masks-as-a-panacea narrative. The first randomized and controlled study of its kind (another appeared in May but it pertained to flu and had similar results), it found an absence of empirical evidence that masks provide protection to people wearing them, although it apparently did not assess whether they prevent infection of those who encounter the wearer. The report was covered in a New York Times article bearing the patronizing headline, “A New Study Questions Whether Masks Protect Wearers. You Need to Wear Them Anyway.”

The Strangely Unscientific Masking of America

Release The Kracken

Operation Kracken

As the mainstream media stakes what remains of its public trust and credibility on mocking “typos” in famed attorney Sidney Powell’s blockbuster lawsuits, which allege that Donald Trump was defrauded in the 2020 election, evidence of foreign interference and Dominion vote-counting machine hijinks go unremarked upon.

One affidavit in the case is from a CIA-NSA-alphabet agency cybersecurity contractor guru who, just a few months ago, was praised in the New York Times and the Washington Monthly as a “hero,” for helping expose a multi-million dollar national security scam.

In “The Spy Was a Grifter” in its September 17th issue, The Washington Monthly wrote of Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia:

“Navid Keshavarz-Nia was another hero. He had done cybersecurity and technical counterintelligence work for the C.I.A., N.S.A., and F.B.I.”

At around the same time, the New York Times wrote of Keshavarz-Nia’s role in exposing the scandal:

“Navid Keshavarz-Nia, those who worked with him said, “was always the smartest person in the room.” In doing cybersecurity and technical counterintelligence work for the C.I.A., N.S.A. and F.B.I., he had spent decades connecting top-secret dots.”

Keshavarz-Nia, now one of Sidney Powell’s witnesses in the Georgia “Kraken” lawsuit, says in an affidavit under penalty of perjury that:

“I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred to Vice President Biden.”

Kraken: Election Stolen Say US Army 305th Intelligence Battalion Officer, and CIA Spy-Buster “Hero”

THE ESSENCE OF CHUTZPAH

Pretzel Vendor

Here’s your LOL for today!

Chutzpah is a Yiddish word meaning gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, sheer guts plus arrogance. As Leo Rosten writes, “no other word, and no other language,” can do it justice. This example is better than 1,000 words.

A little old lady sold pretzels on a street corner for 25 cents each.

Every day a young man would leave his office building at lunch time, and as he passed the pretzel stand, he would leave her a quarter, but never take a pretzel.

This went on for more than 3 years. The two of them never spoke.

One day, as the young man passed the old lady’s stand and left his quarter as usual, the pretzel lady spoke to him.

Without blinking an eye she said: “They’re 35 cents now.”

More Disturbing News on COVID Vaccines

COVID-19 Vaccine

Pfizer’s new COVID-19 Vaccine for which it claims a 90 percent success rate (less than the survival rate for the actual virus ironically which is over 98 percent) also has some disturbing ingredients.

Children’s Health Defense explained in an August 6th article,

“mRNA vaccines undergoing Covid-19 clinical trials, including the Moderna vaccine, rely on a nanoparticle-based “carrier system” containing a synthetic chemical called polyethylene glycol (PEG).”

CHD goes on to explain:

“The use of PEG in drugs and vaccines is increasingly controversial due to the well-documented incidence of adverse PEG-related immune reactions, including life-threatening anaphylaxis. Roughly seven in ten Americans may already be sensitized to PEG, which may result in reduced efficacy of the vaccine and an increase in adverse side effects. If a PEG-containing mRNA vaccine for Covid-19 gains FDA approval, the uptick in exposure to PEG will be unprecedented—and potentially disastrous. Moderna documents and publications indicate that the company is well aware of safety risks associated with PEG and other aspects of its mRNA technology but is more concerned with its bottom line.”

This is the reason why it must be kept at a temperature of -70 degrees. Colder that the Antarctic otherwise it is, in Pfizer’s own words, “ineffective.”

This is apart from the inclusion of foetus material from living animals, something that would be of concern to vegetarians and vegans not to mention various religious groups and philosophies.

CHD goes on to say, “LNPs “encapsulate the mRNA constructs to protect them from degradation and promote cellular uptake” and, additionally, rev up the immune system (a property that vaccine scientists tamely describe as LNPs’ “inherent adjuvant properties”)”

This is a polite way of saying that LNPs are adjuvants. This means they are designed to stimulate hyper-inflammatory responses in human beings in an effort to induce the creation of antibodies that allow the manufacturer to claim high “effectiveness” rates, despite those adjuvants causing severe adverse reactions (for which the company cannot be sued by the way). In fact according to recent vaccine trials conducted by Moderna, 100% of human subjects in the high-dose vaccine trial group experienced adverse reactions. That means ALL. Not some. ALL

Be very careful what you inject into your body.

https://www.seetvnews.com/post/more-disturbing-news-on-covid-vaccines

Spanish Flu Deaths

Spanish Flu Deaths

(Tom: You have to do your own homework on mask research to decide for yourself if there is an increased chance of bacterial infection in your lungs from the rebreathing of exhaled toxins from the inside of the mask.)

“it is possible that — as in 1918 — a similar pattern of viral damage followed by bacterial invasion could unfold, say the authors. Preparations for diagnosing, treating and preventing bacterial pneumonia should be among highest priorities in influenza pandemic planning, they write. “We are encouraged by the fact that pandemic planners are already considering and implementing some of these actions,” says Dr. Fauci.”

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/bacterial-pneumonia-caused-most-deaths-1918-influenza-pandemic