Nothing is more fatal than the present fashion of intellectual leaders of extolling security at the expense of freedom. It is essential that we should re-learn frankly to face the fact that freedom can be had only at a price and that as individuals we must be prepared to make severe material sacrifices to preserve it. - Friedrich August Hayek
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Key Points
Covid Lockdowns decimated small and medium sized businesses, whilst big corporations, billionaires and especially technology companies reaped record profits.
In the US, the Cares Act of 2 trillion saw majority of money be spent on big companies, law firms and food-chains. The Cheesecake Factory restaurant chain, for example, claimed a tax break of $50 million, even as it furloughed 41,000 people.
The Main Street Program, which was meant to help small businesses, relying on local and regional banks, completely failed to meet its goal and only 17 billion of the 2 trillion was invested on the project.
Quantitative Easing was pumped up full-volume propping up the stock markets of the world, especially fallen angels - big corporations, banks and hedgefunds deemed too big to fall.
Lockdowns led to deaths and mental health issues through a surge in loneliness and most mentally affected children and the elderly.
Covid-19 deaths defending the lockdowns were massively exaggerated - in the UK, initially any death within 60 days of a positive test and then, subsequently from August 2020, within 28 days of a positive test, were counted within the COVID death toll.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended or mandated PCR tests which couldn't distinguish between Covid and any other flues to test for COVID, and that therefore showed positive for influenza and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus).
More importantly, it was shown scientifically that there was a huge chance that the false positive rate for PCR's equaled the test positivity rate which means the PCR tests completely lacked any credibility - see article below.
Of the tests which showed positive, it was calculated by the New York Times that between '85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycle.' The lack of threshold limits show that the pandemic testing was a scam as a person is only contagious if testing positive at a much lower threshold than 30 yet almost all Covid tests were set a higher than 30 thresholds.
Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technique, criticized Fauci as a 'fraud' and declared the PCR test could find a needle in a haystack or a hair in a room without threshold limitations, something Fauci ignored.
Antigen tests were even less reliable than PCR tests.
COVID vaccines were administered in an non-consensual manner, every person should have a right to choose what goes in their body.
Studies showed the vaccines were dangerous. The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated.
Far more science backed the non-use of face-masks to combat the Covid Crisis - since face-masks had more negative effects than positive such as creating a moist environment attracting germs, and impeding breathing.
Sweden showed schools should have been left open and lockdowns were not needed, since Sweden considerably outperformed stricter countries, such as the UK and US for instance in response to Covid by adopting a less strict reaction.
SECTION 1 - THE PROFITEERS OF THE PANDEMIC AND ITS ECONOMIC DESTRUCTION
How bad were lockdowns and Corona-Virus security measures for the economy?
Across the world lockdowns were repeatedly implemented in 2020 and 2021 to help keep the pandemic under control. The measures were far more disastrous for the economy than the media ever really portrayed.
This is because big corporations, such as Walmart, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft continued reaping profits as usual, actually better than usual. Technology companies prospered in this new anti-social reality as shown by how the largest bank in Silicon Valley, SVB Financial group, saw its stock rise 180% between 2020 and 2022 alone. E-commerce platforms had even better times, during the same time period, for instance the US online marketplace Etsy's stock rose 248%, with 10% of its profits coming from being a pioneer at hand-made mask sales. It goes without saying, the already far too dominant and dodgy Amazon was very successful during the pandemic, as more and more stopped going to their local high-street - in one year Amazon saw 'toilet paper sales jumped 186%... while cough and cold medicine sales surged 862%'.
The businesses which suffered the most were those based on socialising and traveling like all recreational services, restaurants and accommodation services. These businesses were starved, generally making less than half the sales they made before. The airline and automobile industries suffered a sharp dive in profits. In all of these industries, a spillover unemployment effect took place, as naturally companies downsized and in every large economy millions of people paid the price of being made redundant.
Equally, small independent businesses which typically rely less on internet sales and more on local customer loyalty were decimated, affecting above all the poorest countries where more people have smaller businesses, typically family ones, and they most need to make profit just to get by. The working class were the most let down by the authoritarian wave implementing lockdowns and lock-ins and this was shown by various studies. In the majority of countries, whilst big businesses were deemed essential and could stay open, smaller ones had to close. In 2021, the World Economic Forum released a statement stating over a third of all small businesses in the US that were open in January 2020, which employed 47.3% of the nation’s private workforce, were still closed or permanently closed in May 2021.
Overall, in 2020, the world output shrank by '4.3 per cent, over three times more than during the global financial crisis of 2009'. It was argued by optimistic economists that the world economy bounced back slightly the next year by 4.7 percent, but that output boost was certainly not from small or middle sized businesses. Worryingly, in 37 of the world's most advanced '44' nations, the average annual inflation 'became at least twice what it was in 2020', created by the artificial Quantitative Easing used to falsely re-inflate GDP and output statistics by various governments in the world of developed nations. The poorer developed nations of the world, such as those in Latin America, the Caribbean and South Asia experienced the sharpest declines in output over the two years, as can be expected as there working-class suffered the most.
The billionaires by contrast were least affected by COVID - take Elon Musk, whose wealth increased by around 1,000%, with his company Tesla making record sales (even of expensive electric cars) in spite of the pandemic. Wealth-X's financial report revealed that "2020 marked the steepest increase in global billionaires' share of wealth on record." The report also revealed 'the number of billionaires grew by 13.4% in 2020'. If billionaires are symptoms that the economy is diseased, then 2020 was arguably the worst ever-year on record economically. As ever, it was a pyramid movement where the wealthiest billionaires made the most. It is no surprise that "philanthropist" Bill Gates who supposedly was the most generous billionaire helping fight the pandemic, made billions overall during the pandemic. According to Oxfam 'The world's ten richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion —at a rate of $15,000 per second or $1.3 billion a day— during the first two years of a pandemic that has seen the incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall and over 160 million more people forced into poverty.' Meanwhile, Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness 'found that American billionaires added $2.1 trillion to their wealth during the pandemic, a 70% increase'. What all this shows clearly is billionaires' financial fates are completely inversely correlated with everyone-else's economic fates. That finding may be the silver-lining of the pandemic if the public fully grasp its significance.
The danger of billionaires was actually most exemplified by the epidemic itself. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation alone have been responsible for around 80 per cent of the total amount donated by philanthropic foundations to the World Health Organisation (WHO) for a decade, and for most of those years they funded the WHO more than the entirety of Germany, or than England, or than any other country besides the United States (and overall, the foundation even regularly funded around 10% of the WHO's total incoming). That's a foundation made by two billionaires who studied computer science, out of the nearly eight billion people on earth, funding a sizeable portion of a Health Organisation that completely failed in its response to the Pandemic in every aspect, but did manage to recommend policies which seemingly only helped billionaires, particularly the ones whose expertise lay in technology. Why was the foundation not funded by wealthy leaders in medical fields instead of technology? Since they have technically complete control over there foundation, the question is why did a couple of billionaires (with no education in medicine) out of eight billion people have the second largest financial influence on the World Health Organisation, including all groups of people - governments, communities, charities etc?
In the US, a look into the CARES Act which saw $2 trillion be spent to counteract the pandemic and the creation of FED SPVs funded by $454 billion in taxpayer money, tells us that Covid was likely one of the greatest scams on earth. Economist Christopher Leonard breaks this down well. Consider the $670 billion Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), corruption was at the heart of it - 'more than half of all the PPP money went to just 5 percent of the companies that received the loans. Even 25 percent of all the PPP went to 1 percent of the companies. These were the big law firms and national food chains, which got the maximum PPP amount of $10 million.. An analysis by the Federal Reserve and others found that the PPP program saved about 2.3 million jobs at a cost of $286,000 per job, after President Trump claimed it would save or support 50 million jobs..' The CARES Act was predominantly a gift to big businesses and a complete failure at aiding workers.Then consider another part of the CARES Act - the Main Street Program, which was meant to help small businesses, relying on local and regional banks. It ''had been built to purchase as much as $600 billion in loans. It had purchased a little more than $17 billion in loans by December, the month that it was shut down... ' Moreover, Leonard writes 'about $651 billion of the CARES Act was in the form of tax breaks for businesses, which were often complicated to obtain. This meant that the tax benefits went largely to the big companies that could hire the best tax lawyers. The Cheesecake Factory restaurant chain, for example, claimed a tax break of $50 million, even as it furloughed 41,000 people... People who owned businesses were given tax breaks worth $135 billion, meaning that about 43,000 people who earned more than $1 million a year each got a benefit worth $1.6 million.' Leonard focuses on the US but almost all developed nations with powerful central banks followed suit. In the UK, in 2020 alone, the Bank of England injected £100s of billions into the economy through QE. As I have written in another blog, the winners of QE are only those with the most Assets - consider the Dow Jones Industrial Average's rise from mid-March to June following the Care Act of 35% (and it kept rising).
Without doubt, 2020-2022, the time of lockdown measures, were the least meritocratic, most socially harmful and most economically regressive years ever recorded, even worse than the years following the 2008 financial crash. However, as quantitative easing was pumped up full-volume propping up the stock markets of the world and as predatory medical businesses like Moderna, whose stock rose a whopping 937%, profited directly from the scare and as governments wasted billions on programs like Test and Trace (which cost the UK tax-payer a staggering 37 billion pounds), the economic damage of lockdowns on people were masked by corporations and minority gains - and therefore played down by the medias across the world. The Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC) justified the scale of investment on the UK Test and Trace program, on the basis that it would help avoid a second national lockdown - yet it had no such desired effect as since its creation there were multiple more lockdowns. Again there were major corporate winners over this pointless endeavor - such as Serco and other private companies used to run the test and trace service. Make no mistake, the strict authoritarian measures such as lockdowns impoverished billions and could be the last straw for capitalism as we know it today, even if the media managed to manipulate many into believing such measures were worth it for safety reasons.
SECTION 2 - HOW POOR WAS THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC AND HEALTH INDUSTRY'S RESPONSE TO THE OUTBREAK? WAS THERE ACTUALLY EVER A PANDEMIC?
The overuse of authoritarian measures (e.g. Lockdowns) to impede social-connectedness
So marked are the effects of social connectedness on health, not to mention happiness (without which there is little point in health), that they outstrip even those of diet, exercise and smoking. Lockdowns impeded education, harmed the social development of children and isolated the elderly, who stereo-typically can be the most lonely. The WHO themselves admitted their recommended lockdown policies had seismic negative mental-health effects on people globally, reporting in March 2022 'that in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, global prevalence of anxiety and depression increased by a massive 25%'.
Work became primarily done from home, and so all work which is produced best in teams and which requires attention from experienced colleagues, which contrary to what most believe is actually most work, would have lost significantly its standard. The work which least benefits from social-connectedness, typically the mindless, box-ticking and non-emotive sort became considered the safest way to earn money and no doubt this has caused a disagreeable change too most in the structure of the labour market. The loss of friendship groups created by previous work environments no doubt played a part in the mental-health crisis created by the lockdowns.
A study by the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences released in March 2021 concluded the lockdowns were totally pointless health-wise and that previous studies defending such measures were inaccurately measured, stating - 'Previous studies have claimed that shelter-in-place orders saved thousands of lives, but we reassess these analyses and show that they are not reliable. We find that shelter-in-place orders had no detectable health benefits, only modest effects on behavior, and small but adverse effects on the economy'. The study was based on the first implemented lock-down in the United States.
In most countries, statistics provided to justify the lockdowns were blatantly exaggerated and provided to the masses as if they had on average two brain cells. In the UK, the government artificially inflated the death rates absurdly - initially any death within 60 days of a positive test and then, subsequently from August 2020 within 28 days of a positive test was counted within the COVID death toll. These figures were constantly provided to the public even though it was obvious someone could actually just have died of a car crash who tested positively. Why on earth would any government or news media with half a brain cell do such a thing? Why did the government not publish COVID deaths only when COVID was attributed as the primary cause on death certificates to actually give the public a more realistic idea of how deadly the illness was? Note, this manipulative nonsense was globally done, as shown by Deborah Birx's statement, on behalf of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, that “if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.”
The only plausible answer to these questions is the government was actively engaging in fear-mongering, purposefully creating the necessary panic in order to justify the economically catastrophically regressive authoritarian safety measures. In January 2021, the UK Prime-Minister Boris Johnson exclaimed his sorrow that there had been over 100,000 corona-virus deaths. To show how misleading this figure likely was, consider that nine months later, in September 2021, it was calculated that just 17,371 had died of Covid-19 alone, in accordance with death certificates (discounting those who had no pre-existing conditions listed on their certificate). Moreover, around 40,000 of those 100,000 were taken from care homes - the question is how many of those 40,000 just tested positive and would have died anyway during that year, or that perhaps more psychologically choose to die out of the fear of isolation and extended loneliness in their last years?
Bear in mind, most private laboratories were by and large unregulated and could use whatever tests they liked, following protocols set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which recommended tests which couldn't distinguish between Covid and any other flues (as admitted in their own 2020 reports) to test for COVID. Subsequently, in 2021 the CDC themselves demanded new PCR tests to be used so that their tests were not only looking for SARS-CoV-2 and ignoring genetic material from other viruses entirely, but instead also showed positive results for other viruses like influenza and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus). All public laboratories had to follow orders and for no logical, non-corrupt reason, inflate the COVID positives test results with other viruses. Instead of distinguishing for truth, a significant proportion of deaths from pneumonia and influenza were attributed to COVID as listed by the WHO under ICD-10-CM codes.
Besides this blatant attempt to fearmonger, prolong and exaggerate the pandemic based upon obvious false testing for COVID, this was not the biggest scandal of the testing in the pandemic. I will show in the following section that the number of false positives make these COVID death statistics proclaimed by the government incredibly inflated, and that the leading authorities purposefully hid this fact (treating COVID differently to previous epidemics even when being a relatively non-prevalent outbreak made it more vulnerable to false positives). Once understood, the false positive issue stands out so large that it reaches the point where it is legitimate to question if COVID ever was even a moderately contagious type of flu (remembering it was initially described by the head of the WHO as a 'minuscule' threat, before they completely changed their tune to one of an emergency based on testing).
The overuse of Polymerase Chain Reactor (PCR) Tests
The primary diagnostic tool used for determining a viral infection is the PCR test which Anthony Fauci, as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022, and the chief medical advisor to the US president from 2021 to 2022 during the COVID outbreak, helped to establish as the gold standard for testing for COVID. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technique (for which he won the Nobel prize) has stated that no infection or illness can be accurately diagnosed with PCR. Prior to his death just before the COVID outbreak, when interviewed, Mullis said the following regarding Anthony Fauci:
‘(Fauci) doesn't understand electron microscopy and he doesn't understand medicine and he shouldn't be in a position he is in. Most of those guys who are up there on the top are just total administrative people... they make up their own rules as they go, they change them as they want to... (and) lie directly into the camera… Who do we trust – Fauci? Fauci doesn’t know enough, if Fauci wants to get on television with somebody who knows a little about this stuff and debate him, he could easily do it because he’s been asked. The president of university of south Carolina asked Fauci if he’d come down there and debate me on the stage in front of the student body because I wanted somebody who was from the other side to come down there and balance me… but he didn’t want to do it.’
Mullis never was alive to comment on COVID but he made clear while he was alive that the test was not suitable for detecting viruses or whether someone was sick (at the time, relating to how PCR tests were used to identify HIV carriers), saying -
"Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough with PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick... (the test creates) a whole lot of something from something...If they could find this virus in you at all, and with the PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It starts to get you to believe in some kind of Buddhist notion, where everything is contained there and everything in between... (people who test positive may have) “almost anything that you can test for (and) there’s a good chance you’ve also got a lot of other ones.”
It is worth bearing in mind how blatantly deceitful the WHO and CDC were in this COVID pandemic regarding false positives. After-all they inexplicably changed their tune, in previous disease outbreaks the WHO and the CDC 'warned about the potential for false positives in RT-PCR testing, restricted testing to individuals most likely to have the disease to avoid generating excessive false positives, and required confirmation of positive results by a second test. These warnings and requirements are absent from these organizations' guidance on SARS-CoV-2.'
One little known May 2020 scientific study titled 'False positives in reverse transcription PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2' which estimated a measly false positive rate of 0.8% whilst a false negative rate of a whopping 25%, still concluded that such as false positive rate would have a 'large impacts on the reliability of positive test results' for testing COVID. The scientists explained why - 'Statements from health agencies and officials suggest that positive results from SARS-CoV-2 tests are more trustworthy than negative results. However, over a wide range of likely scenarios, the opposite is true... When prevalence is low, the uninfected fraction is much greater than the infected fraction, so that even a low FPR (False Positive Rates) can have a larger effect than a high FNR (False Negative Rates).'
Lets assume that COVID on average hit a person and lasts for one week each year (that's less than 2% of the time). This is a massive overstatement given it's estimated from antibody tests by the CDC that even after three years a quarter of the population never carried COVID antibodies, and vaccines should leave antibodies and if they work, prevent COVID). Well, if false positives are around 1% of the time (again highly unlikely) and false negatives 25% of the time (just as incredibly unlikely) then 2.75% of people would test positively, assuming they needed a PCR test to show they were fit to fly, able to go to work etc... This would mean nearly a third of the positive tests would be false positives (27.3%).
The issue is there is a huge chance (see below) the false positive rate for PCR's equaled the test positivity rate, in reality they were much higher, which means the PCR tests completely lacked any credibility and were totally useless, in fact more harmful than just a giant waste of resources. As the authors of that study wrote -'The reliability of positive results dropped to near zero in these cases when test positivity approached the estimated FPR. However, even at positivities up to around four times the FPR, over 20% of positive results are likely to be false positives'.
Research conducted during the pandemic show that therefore the PCR tests were entirely pointless, in fact it begs the question whether there was an epidemic at all - 'The background rate of COVID-19 infection, even during high points, has always been relatively low. For example, Sadoff et al. 2021, the published results of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine clinical trial, including almost 40,000 participants in half a dozen countries, from late September 2020 to late January 2021, found a 0.5% PCR positive baseline (see Sadoff et al. 2021 supplementary appendix, p. 23). Similarly, Baden et al., 2020, found a 0.6% background positive PCR test result in the 30,420 clinical trial participants for the Moderna vaccine, after initial testing. Study participants for this trial were selected based on being at higher risk for exposure to the virus and the testing was conducted from late July to late October 2020.'
The authors also criticised governments at that time for still advocating testing when positive test results did come back at only 0.8% in real life - 'in Montana, for example, the model suggests that after around April 25th most positive results, especially for asymptomatic individuals, were probably false positives, but an average of nearly 3,000 tests continued to be conducted in the state each day. South Korea arrived at a similar point by April 7 but continued to conduct over 6,000 tests a day.' Those authors clearly underestimated the scale of false positive deceptions, but one thing is for sure: it is clear the government weren't led by any kind of experts like them who cared mathematically about not wasting people's money and about informing the publicly correctly over the issue of false-positives, as no fuss was made over their studies, nor real life studies showing their verdicts were grossly downplaying the effects of corona-virus false positives, as I have just shown.
.
Why did health authorities not care how realistically accurate were positive PCR tests (by not setting cycle threshold limits) and why did health authorities not care about how contagious infected individuals were (by choosing to forget to analyse whether individuals had high or low viral loads)?
Experts have concluded the accuracy of PCR tests depend on the cycle threshold of the test - that is, the level the RNA samples measure are amplified (in cycles). Realistically, PCR tests are considered very accurate when amplifying the RNA to 17 cycles, and once the RNA reaches 23 cycles the results begin to be commonly distorted. Once the cycle thresholds are amplified to 30 the data is heavily distorted and false positives extremely common. At 40, the tests are considered beyond pointless - the CDC themselves admit 'it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles (since) tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left...'
Rather incredibly the health authorities across the world forgot to care about this, for instance in the United States even state labs weren't asked by the CDC 'to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations (with the result that) most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus'. The 'Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that “commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own".'
When The Times made a review of three sets of testing data that included cycle thresholds (conveniently ignored by governments) that had compiled by officials in New York, Nevada and Massachusetts, the results were, completely unsurprisingly, absolutely shocking. 'Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York’s state lab, have access to C.T. values from tests they have processed, and analyzed their numbers at The Times’ request. In July, the lab identified 872 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles. With a cutoff of 35, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 63 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.' At around 23, it would be realistic to estimate around 75% would be shown as false positives. In Massachusetts, it was worse. It was calculated between '85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycle.'
More to the point, the Times review acknowledged that there is a further use of noting threshold limits for tests, that is to be able to deduce how high or low the viral load a person has. A person with a high viral load is very contagious and the virus is detected at a very low cycle threshold. The Times review concluded from their results- 'Up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus' , making self-isolation, travel and work restrictions totally useless. Health authorities have always known people most spread colds and flues in the first days that they are infected, and yet were totally indifferent to whether a person tested positive because they had a tiny genetic fragment from a COVID infection that took place a month beforehand. The officials were never interested in truth.
They even made it worse by permitting lateral flow tests (rapid antigen tests) as valid tests for COVID, despite acknowledging they were even less accurate than PCR tests. RNB singer Erykah Badu famously tweeted how she tested positive in one nostril and negative in another with her doctor only providing her the positive result - she found out and tested twice more, and received two more negatives. Elon Musk also made a public joke where he took four tests, two came back positive and two negative. Having showed how poor the PCR tests were regarding accuracy, it's really not necessary to even bother showing how scandalous Lateral Flow Tests were.
The overuse of flu vaccines, criminality of mandated vaccines and frightening research into invisible vaccines.
First off, to get my opinion clear - I am not an Anti-vaxxer. Vaccines have been responsible for vastly reducing or eliminating dangerous infectious diseases like smallpox, measles and polio.
However, they have been overused, overpraised and over-commercialised, particularly to deal with flu. From a commercial side, they are seen as one of the quickest and simplest ways to make profit, and when vaccines go wrong - the victims are typically ostracised and labelled anti-vaxxers even though there have been numerous times vaccines have had dismal side-effects. It is a known fact for example that commercial flu vaccines contained thimerosal, which is poisonous mercury, in the past. To be vaccine-wary simply means you know that doctors and scientists have got it so fundamentally wrong in the recent past.
The Vaccines Industry's agenda - to bypass consent?
The vaccine-industry is incredibly shady, and thanks to court-cases this has been revealed. Dr. Stanley Plotkins worked for four vaccine companies and invented the rubella vaccine. He was dubbed the godfather of vaccines for anthrax, polio, rabies and rota-virus.
However, when he was forced to testify on the case of Karen McDonald, for a mother who was jailed for refusing to vaccinate her child, he admitted that under his supervision orphans, baby’s of mothers in prison and even mentally retarded children were used as guinea pigs for new vaccines. He admitted that in the 1960s it was common practise to perform experiments on mentally handicapped people in the industry. Most staggering of all, it was admitted that in the Belgian Congo which was a country under colonial rule, a vaccine experiment was made that involved almost a million people as guniea-pigs. Furthermore, not just plants but all kinds of animals were used for the various vaccines, serco and polio for instance. From calf serum to embryomic guniea pig to monkey kidney cells (which led viruses from monkeys to contaminate humans in the SV40 polio jab) - all sorts of wierd stuff got put in these experimental jabs. Influenza jabs contained egg protein and gelatine from pigs. It was admitted childhood blood serum had even been used as well as the whole range of tissues of fetal cells - such as the pituitary gland, lung, skin, kidney, spleen, heart and tounge (most likely in numerous studies). All were cultured and used for the vaccine industry. The reason why all this is relevant here is that Dr. Stanley Plotkins most scarily was a major consultant for pharmaceutical companies on vaccine development to halt the COVID-19 pandemic and almost all information on his past exposed by the case of Karen McDonald was ´´cleaned´´ off the internet.
It became famous online and constantly fact-checked and dismissed by dodgy authoritarian fact-checkers, but it remains public that the December 2019 study funded principally by the Bill and Melinda Gate's foundation revealed that a team of scientists essentially successfully tested on rats a mechanism to record vaccines in the skin that would be invisible to the eye and would be used, hypothetically for people in developing countries, principally Africans, to have their records of children vaccines permanently available. Mandatory vaccine passports and registries are insane by themselves, but this was something else - why on earth would scientists be paid to come up with an 'approach to encode medical history on a patient' by 'including a small amount of dye with a vaccine, invisible to the naked eye but observable through a specialized cellphone app using infrared light', since 'the dye contained “quantum dots (near-infrared light-emitting microparticles). Thus, 'by co-delivering a vaccine, the pattern of particles in the skin could serve as an on-person vaccination record'. In other words the aim of the funded research was to create sneaky, invisible but very real vaccine records, that were stuck in your body - through a dye could be served under the skin at the same time without the patient knowing.
Relating to COVID, mandatory vaccinations were put in effect across the world, depending on where you worked, what age you were or where you lived - Austria, Indonesia, Ecuador for example were the first to put in laws mandating all adults to be vaccinated against the coronavirus; Greece and Italy mandated vaccines for older adults, above 50 for example whilst Costa Rica did the opposite, mandating vaccines for minors. Workers were given ultimatums to be vaccinated or resigned who were working in health-services, education, the fast-food industries, facebook, the banking sector, the moto-industry, sport etc... across the world, in countries which didn't universally mandate vaccines. Novak Djokovic was a famous case of someone who refused to be vaccine and gave up his right to defend his title in the Rolland Garros. Restrictions to travel were implemented worldwide to prevent non-vaccinated individuals from crossing boarders.
The major point here is that mandatory vaccines is surely criminal. EVERY COGNITIVELY-ABLE PERSON DESERVES THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS PUT IN THEIR BODIES. It's the most bloody common-sense. The vaccine movement basically showed that they have the moral ethics in line with kidnappers, rapists and all other consent-criminals. In other words, the shadiest type of ethics, pillaging the sacredness of consent.
Some will still argue, vaccines were crucial to fight the virus and saved lives. Yet, vaccinations against flues have never been seen as effective, especially since flu viruses so commonly mutate, hence never were common before COVID - otherwise, trust me they would have been. Moroever, usually a vaccine that was produced in a rush, skipping various tests which usually take years and that normally make up part of the requirement before a vaccine is approved, would be one taken only by the most confident and risk-taking of individuals. The idea of mandating rushed COVID vaccines was absolutely criminal from the get-go, since they are no-way near the type of product worthy of breaking people consent to force them to consume - they simply didn't save that many lives. Compare strict Austria to lax Sweden. The ONS vaccine mortality surveillance report for England (between January 2021 to 31 May 2022) revealed that 'the overall all-cause mortality rate in the vaccinated (1,367 deaths per 100k person years) being much higher than in the unvaccinated (671 deaths per 100k person years).' This was defended by the pretext that it was age related (older individuals took more vaccines according to the ONS) and by some very dubious massaging of figures - the ONS missed out many young-non vaccinated individuals who never died in the statistics meaning the disparity could and likely should have been even greater. Demonstrating this,'the ONS claimed in May 2022 that 8% of adults are unvaccinated whereas the UKHSA estimated approximately 20% and an extensive and representative ICM survey estimated 26%' .The clear point is it is very questionable whether vaccines ever saved lives or even whether they took lives, unlike the over-sure claimed by vaccine companies and the vaccine movement. Anything that questionable should never be made compulsory.
Additionally, spiritual beliefs are valid as is superstition - and vaccines have actually been prophesied as a potential weapon against our souls by modern spiritualist Rudolf Steiner - 'In the future, we will eliminate the soul with medicine. Under the pretext of a ‘healthy point of view’, there will be a vaccine by which the human body will be treated as soon as possible directly at birth, so that the human being cannot develop the thought of the existence of soul and spirit. Materialistic doctors will be entrusted the task of removing the soul of humanity. Just as today people are vaccinated against this disease or that, so, in the future, children will be vaccinated with a substance that can be produced precisely in such a way that people, thanks to this vaccination, will be immune to being subjected to the “madness” of spiritual life. They would be extremely smart, but they would not develop a conscience, and that is the true goal of some materialistic circles.' Sure, only a small minority may be Steiner but compulsory vaccines would not be acceptable if a Christian, Muslim or Jewish prophet had warned against them. It comes down to a basic principle of consent.
Let's hope, the vaccine movement reforms and avoids individuals like Bill Gates and Stanley Plotkins like the plague in the future, and that a sense of realism can get returned into what vaccines are actually useful for and why they should be always given only with consent.
How dangerous were COVID Vaccines and were they properly tested and safe?
One thing for sure, vaccine companies such as Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca not only made billions from the pandemic based upon how fast they could produce a 'safe' novel vaccine - without animal trials, even encouraged to race out of national pride, but they were indemnified globally by governments in Asia, North America, Oceania, Europe etc.. meaning were they too produce vaccines that had harmful side-effects, they would not be held accountable and required to compensate victims of the vaccines. Oh, and I almost forgot, they themselves would be the ones to conduct the safety trials and to provide scientific analysis based upon their trial findings determining how safe the vaccines would be. Genius, right? As if, money, prestige, time-pressure, competition, self-confirmation bias, excessive media attention and demands, zero-accountability and a complete absence of third-party regulation were the exact necessary conditions to provide these companies so that they made accurate safety reports on their products, which would be used by or on billions - often against their own wills. Bloody genius!
This type of abnormal vaccine manufacturer protection is nothing new. In the USA, Congress passed a law protecting vaccine manufacturers from civil personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits resulting from vaccine injuries called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, known as the Vaccine Act. The result of all these vaccine manufacturers being given indemnity for their product completely deters people from ever reporting vaccine injuries. Consider how in America, the U.S. Government bankrolls the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) which people who believe themselves injured unjustly as a result of a vaccine must file to a claim to. People rarely do, even if they believe they're injured because they don't want to lose time and believe they will lose, which statistics show to be completely true 99% of the time. Take post-Covid, in the US there were by July 2024 a total of 13,309 CICP claims were filed for COVID. Most, still remain pending review or in review (10,402), but of the 2907 decided, 2855 were denied while only 52 claims had been found eligible for compensation and just a measly 13 actually compensated (at an average of about $3,600). That means, the CICP have disregarded 98.2% of the claims that the public made they were hurt to which they responded to relatively rapidly, whilst approximately four-fifths of compensation seekers are waiting years for an enormous certain rejection. It's very hard to believe in any organisation which claims impartiality and yet equally that 98% of perceived vaccine-victims who take the time to lodge a complaint are over-exaggerating, lying or deluded in their beliefs they deserve some sort of financial compensation. Are people really that bad?
Following human trials Pfizer and Moderna claimed their vaccines were safe.Yet in August 2022 a study was released that demonstrated the dangers of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and that they had mistakenly misled the public. It was titled - 'Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults' and the study was a 'secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults.' Little press attention has been paid to this very important study.
The researchers reported that 'in 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials.' The large issue being this secondary analysis was released after the majority had taken the vaccines, having been misinformed and not told correctly about the risks of serious averse side effects.
Overall, the study showed that 'the Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated... The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000'. This meant 'combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated... there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2' . Considering the low rate of serious complications from Covid infection itself, this study essentially proved that both Moderna and certainly Pfizer put the public in more risk from unfortunately vaccinating them, than they were if they were left alone, and as these vaccines were rushed and never undertook proper safety checks that last for years, the long term effects of the vaccines are completely unknown. For instance, Pfizer’s trial did not report serious aversive events occurring past 1 month after the second dose - so the authors noted this 'may have led to an undercounting of serious AESIs in the Pfizer trial'.
Moreover, the authors stressed 'all SAEs in our analysis met the regulatory definition of a serious adverse event, but many adverse event types which a patient may themselves judge as serious may not meet this regulatory threshold.' In other words, there could have been even more moderately serious reactions which couldn't count to the statistics presented. Worst of all, the SAEs observed in the trials largely 'concern common clinical conditions, for example ischaemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome and brain haemorrhage' which means if such SAEs occurred in real life, most people would believe it to be a coincidence that they had just taken a vaccine - after all, strokes, heart-attacks and brain hemorrhages can all occur without warning as well as be triggered.
The findings of this research perhaps explains the findings of another study, published in BMJ Public Health, showing that there have been 'an excess all-cause mortality in 47 countries of the Western World from 2020 until 2022' (essentially everywhere in the West). In 2020, it has been shown that there have been'1,033,122 excess deaths' and in 2021 '1,256,942 excess deaths' (when vaccines began) and in 2022 '808 392 excess deaths' (after COVID restrictions were relaxed but still while vaccines were encouraged). The study stated that for 'the baseline of expected deaths' was calculated on a 'model (that) uses historical death data in a country from 2015 until 2019 and accounts for seasonal variation in mortality and year-to-year trends due to changing population structure or socioeconomic factors.' What makes the findings so puzzling is that COVID was most damaging in 2020, especially in the elderly and yet there were actually a little more excess deaths on average the next years (1032667) when vaccines were introduced and directly afterwards. This is counter-intuitive, if all the excess deaths were caused by COVID well, there would be a spike when those with the weakest immune systems went first and then a significant decline, and yet across almost Western countries excess deaths have been constantly present for three years. It surely categorically shows the vaccines completely failed, as there was no slump upon their release, in fact the opposite. The mainstream media will doggedly paint the opposite picture and misrepresent the modern health crisis.
The mRNA vaccines are experimental and yet were used on children, who stood at very low risk from Covid itself, in order primarily to stop the spread to adults who statistically were at greater risk, in incredibly selfish policy. How different are mRNA vaccines from previous vaccines, well the mRNA vaccines delivered instructions to how make the antigen or spike protein, instead of the antigen itself- they were very different to all previous vaccines and the long term effects are not known even today. Truthfully, the technology underpinning mRNA vaccines had been in development decades prior Covid, but no mRNA vaccine approved and then after Covid, one got approved that skipped all the normal stages of testing and regulation. It most certainly was a risky experimental vaccines that shouldn't have been used on children, who don't give their own consent and were at low risk from the actual virus.
The overuse of Masks
The flip flop of the WHO and the CDC and their leading officials regarding whether masks actually are helpful prevent diseases like corona-virus, in spite of no new scientific evidence showing they do or do not, demonstrates these organisations were recommending health policies to governments totally unscientifically.
The mandatory fines for not wearing masks imposed by governments on non-mask wearing individuals across the world, based on their statements, should all be reimbursed considering that such penalties were sanctioned falsely in the name of science and health. In fact, medical scientific research demonstrates compellingly face masks do not work.
As aforementioned, this was known and acknowledged by the WHO and CDC themselves. On March 30 2020, the WHO's Health Emergencies Program executive director Mike Ryan said that “there is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit.”. Meanwhile, on March 8 2020 Anthony Fauci informed the public on television (Sixty Minutes), that 'right now in the United States people should not be walking around with a mask' and that doing so 'could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.' Fauci also wrote an email to the former White House's Health and Human Service secretary Sylvia Burwell on February 4 2020 stating 'Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material... I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location.' The CDC also didn't recommend masks when the outbreak first took place, only voluntary home quarantine for people with sick family members.
The reason why this was the case was presumably because Fauci and the CDC were guided by various valid scientific papers to begin with. An article titled 'Masks, mechanisms and Covid‑19: the limitations of randomized trials in pandemic policy-making' by Seán M. Muller published by the National Health Institute in March 2021 confirmed this, as it began by admitting 'Reluctance to endorse mask wearing to slow transmission of SARS-Cov-2 has been rationalized by the failure of randomized control trials (RCTs) to provide supportive evidence... it was the absence of significant positive effects from RCTs prior to the pandemic that informed the WHO’s initial stance' (to not advocate face-masks).'
A 2015 study by the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine titled 'Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery' concluded 'overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.' Another later study (2018) from China noted actually the drawbacks of masks when used over a long period of time, concluding - 'The bacterial count on the surface of SMs increased with extended operating times; significant difference was found between the 4- to 6-hour and 0-hour groups (p < 0.05). When we analysed the bacterial counts from the same surgeon, a significant increase was noted in the 2-hours group. Moreover, the bacterial counts were significantly higher among the surgeons than the OR...'
Yet, in spite of no new randomized control trial (RCT) supportive evidence coming to light both the WHO led by Anthony Fauci and the CDC completely changed their tune. In fact, the CDC decided the practice was so demonstrably effective that it should be legally mandated even for 2-year-olds. In September 2020, then-CDC Director Robert Redfield described masks as 'the most important, powerful public health tool we have' whilst his successor, Rochelle Walensky in November 2021 claimed wearing a mask reduced the 'chance of (COVID) infection by more than 80%.' Their evidence were laboratory experiments and observational studies that 'do not fully account for variables that affect virus transmission' and essentially far weaker and more prone to bias than RCTs.
Oxford epidemiologist, Tom Jefferson, the lead author of a review published by the Cochrane Library, which analysed 18 RCTs that measured the impact of surgical masks or N95 respirators on the transmission of respiratory viruses, told afterwards 'there is just no evidence that they (masks) make any difference. Full stop.' He was echoing the report, which found wearing a mask in public places 'probably makes little or no difference' in the number of infections. One RCT study, from Bangladesh, was finally found in December 2021 that pleased mask-wearing advocates from the WHO and CDC (etc.) and supposedly justified their actions. The Bangladesh RCT found that 1,086 people in the study’s mask group and 1,106 people in the study’s non-mask control group, out of 340,000 individuals sampled got Covid according to Ben Recht, a professor of computer science from the University of California, Berkeley, meaning there was a eight percent difference between the COVID rates of the two groups (just 20 individuals). The researchers mistakenly said the findings were 9 percent ruled out chance since so many individuals were samples randomly, but this was false. Actually the researchers sampled 600 separate villages where individuals from each village were either completed allocated to the mask or non-mask control group, and it goes without saying for a contagious disease “outcomes inside a village are correlated”. As a result, Recht writes, “though the sample size looked enormous (340,000 individuals), the effective number of samples was only 600 because the treatment was applied to individual villages”, making the eight percent difference in COVID rates very marginal and completely inconclusive. One other very similar though more concentual RCT study was conducted in Denmark during the pandemic on 4862 individuals, where free masks were given to roughly half the individuals alongside recommendations to wear the masks. This study found that promoting mask use and individuals wearing masks had no effect on transmission rates of COVID (The between-group difference was -0.3 percentage point). Little attention was payed to that study by health authorities despite it being more reliably presented. The Bangledesh RCT study was included in the Cochrane review (it actually 'accounted for a large share of the data in the Cochrane meta-analysis') and was unable to change the review's conclusion. The Cochrane review included it despite criticised the study for 'baseline imbalance, subjective outcome assessment and incomplete follow-up across the groups.'
It goes without saying, facemasks are tremendously uncomfortable and impede all social interactions. This was patently obvious and scientific proven, one study concluded resoundingly that they 'obscure a significant portion of the face, reducing the amount of information available to gauge the mental states of others—that is, to exercise the Theory of Mind (ToM) capacity.' The study 'assessed the effect of face masks on ToM judgements, measuring recognition accuracy, perceived valence, and perceived arousal in various sets of facial expressions comprising 45 different mental states' and showed 'Significant effects of face masks were found in all three variables.' So basically, the face mask crusade just achieved to lower the population's social intelligence, and that's all.
SECTION 3 - THE AUTHORITARIAN CORONA-VIRUS CONSPIRACY: A PLANDEMIC AND SIGNS OF A NEW WORLD ORDER (ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT)?
How planned was the Corona-Virus Pandemic Response?
That is a question which will immediately trigger great anger in the supposed 'fact-checkers' of the world, but it truthfully is a very reasonable question. The answer seems to be more of what degree was it planned, especially given just how inevitable the governments across the world reaction was. The reaction was even openly predicted by the billionaires who have most controlled the modern-medical establishment over the last century - the Rockefellers - in the Rockefeller Lock Step Scenario (shown below).
It is an incredibly uncanny how close to a perfect mirror the reaction to coronavirus was to the reaction anticipated by the Rockefeller Foundation in the Rockefeller "Lock Step" Scenario dreamt up less than ten years before, such as how China react first and the US leaders are blamed for leniency and slow reaction times. The three main points which stand out from the Rockefeller report is that world leaders will "flex their muscles" requiring facemasks and other checks in public; that citizens will 'give up privacy to the paternalistic state' and most ominously, that 'after pandemic, control measures stick and are intensified.' In it's own words, the report of Lock Step envisioned "a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback." All in all a pandemic seems like any authoritarian government's dream, and of course, excessive control methods, losses of privacy and freedom, and facemasks all happened.
It is a bit of a stretch to discount coincidence but they say deceivers like to show off their deceits in plain sight of the victim, and when the first man in all of Britain received his vaccine, politicians proudly showed off that 'William Shakespeare' was the one who took it. There really can't be many namesakes around of the playwright who famously said 'All the world is a stage. And all the men and women merely players.'
Coincidence or not, various times the world's leaders responses to coronavirus seemed more akin to a planned theatre production, their behavior completely scripted and lacking any real-life feel; their actions completely uniform without fluctuations, natural variance nor unpredictability. Consider this, out of the nearly 200 countries in the world, just one held out and never implemented full strict lock-down measures - Sweden. That's more like a demonstration of a one world-government, rather than of worldwide democracy - a democratic reaction would surely show 200 separate country's independence, unique culture and variances (whether in their government's creative problem-solving or prioritisation of health and economic security).
Sweden never closed her kindergartens, elementaries or middle schools — and only briefly kept older students out of classrooms. The Swedish government also was unusually consensual and refrained from most other restrictions, generally opting for recommendations over prohibitions. The fact only one country (in the west) in the end acted differently to the rest of the countries, despite various of leaders being skeptical of lockdowns, shows that in the end the whole pandemic response was globally organised by the elite, in control of the modern medical, science and media industries (who above all took advantage of the modern-day TV as if we were straight in Orwell's 1984 universe). The question really is, how much was it planned or just taken advantage of?
How did Sweden compare with the rest of the leaderless world
How did Sweden fair compared to the rest of the world, health-wise? Well despite being universally lambasted at the time by global media and then, over-compared with her other over-performing Scandinavian neighbors (who also chose not as prolonged lockdown measures as those in the rest of Europe and the United States), Sweden fared much, much better than average. Compare Sweden to the US death-toll wise, for example. In fact, the American Libertarian Think-Tank 'Cato Institute' concluded in its report on Sweden's actions- 'It seems likely that Sweden did much better than other countries in terms of the economy, education, mental health, and domestic abuse, and still came away from the pandemic with fewer excess deaths than in almost any other European country, and less than half that of the United States—the country where both the president and major newspapers repeatedly used Sweden as a cautionary tale. The conclusion is uncomfortable for other governments. It was not Sweden that engaged in a reckless, unprecedented pandemic experiment, but the rest of the world. This experiment did not turn out well compared to the one country that did not throw out the manual. Millions of people were deprived of their freedoms without a discernible benefit to public health.'
I am half-Mexican, half-English and both countries from where I am from implemented lockdowns despite their leaders not believing in such measures. Boris Johnson in private has been shown to have said - 'I must say I have been slightly rocked by some of the data on Covid fatalities. The median age is 82-81 for men, 85 for women. That is above life expectancy. So get Covid and live longer... Hardly anyone under 60 goes into hospital (4 per cent) and of those virtually all survive...And I no longer buy all this NHS overwhelmed stuff. Folks I think we may need to recalibrate.' López Obrador said of lockdowns and curfews that they were “fashionable among authorities ... who want to show they are heavy handed, dictatorship” and refused to wear a mask, defending his 'liberty' to choose. And yet so controlled by the captured modern media, medical and scientific establishments, both leaders implemented policies in their countries that went against their instincts and both Mexico and the UK's economy suffered horribly (their Corona death toll was much more than Sweden's on top of that, though debatebly lockdowns brought their death tolls at least a little lower).
In the East, South Korea implemented the lightest type of lockdowns in response to surging cases of Covid (just banning clubs and churches for instance), and has in retrospect been commended for successfully saving her economy and not suffering from excessive deaths due to the light Korean measure. Likewise, in Japan lockdowns weren't implemented anywhere near the extent they were in most similarly developed Western nations and Japan likewise did comparatively well. In Africa, one leader was particularly fierce against lockdowns, the Tanzanian President - John Magufuli, but he unfortunately died of a heart-attack (conspiracies run amok that he was either assassinated or died of Covid himself). In truth though, overall it appears apart from Sweden, South Korea and Japan every other country in the world can be described as totally leaderless in the wake of the corona-virus, as almost all terribly overused lockdowns as a safety measure to combat the virus, which ended up costing all their county's civilians dearly.
References
(1) The Billionaire Census 2020, Wealth X, June 2020
(2) Top 5 Companies That Benefited The Most During The Pandemic, Swiss German University, May 2021
(3) World Economic Situation And Prospects: February 2021 Briefing, No. 146, United Nations, February 2021
(4) Ten richest men double their fortunes in pandemic while incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall, Oxfam, https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity
(5) The Lords of Easy Money: How the Federal Reserve Broke the American Economy, Cristopher Leonard, 2022
(6) COVID-19 pandemic triggers 25% increase in prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide, WHO, https://www.who.int/news/item/02-03-2022-covid-19-pandemic-triggers-25-increase-in-prevalence-of-anxiety-and-depression-worldwide
(7) Evaluating the effects of shelter-in-place policies during the COVID-19 pandemic, March 25, 2021, Christopher R. Berry
(8) Dr. Kary Mullis – Fauci has an Agenda and Lies Directly into the Camera, https://rumble.com/v452jy2-dr.-kary-mullis-fauci-has-an-agenda-and-lies-directly-into-the-camera.html
(9) 'False positives in reverse transcription PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2', May 2020, Andrew N. Cohen
(10) The impact of false positive COVID-19 results in an area of low prevalence, Brendan Healy, 2021
(11) Interpreting a lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 antigen test, British Medical Journal, 2021
(12) False positives in reverse transcription PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, Andrew N. Cohen, 2020
(13) Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be, 3 Jul 2021, New York Times
Comments