The Covid-19 Crisis is a Fraud

According to their own data, there is no emergency!
Please visit each source to verify for yourself!

Unreliable & Unproven Tests

All the “cases” are based on tests that are unreliable and not FDA approved. PCR tests are not testing for a virus. In reality, they are testing for fragments of genetic material that *may* indicate its presence, but can be triggered by any one of a number of different causes (including high amounts of false positives).

Some people can test positive and negative in the same day!

The W.H.O admitted on 12-7-2020 about the PCR tests: “In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.

A Lancet Article published February 2021 Suggests 50-75% of “Positive” PCR Tests Are Not Infectious People
———————————-

The CDC admits antibody tests are not accurate.
…testing at this point might result in relatively more false-positive resultsSome tests may exhibit cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses, such as those that cause the common cold.
———————————-
The MN Dept. of Health admits:Antigen tests are not considered to be as reliable as PCR tests.
———————————-
The FDA states they are aware of false positives with Antigen tests: “At 0.1% prevalence, the PPV would only be 4%, meaning that 96 out of 100 positive results would be false positives.
———————————-
The CDC in a recent study on Antigen tests state: “the majority of positive antigen tests were ‘false positives,’ which is when someone tests positive but does not have the virus.”
———————————-
“The saliva test is a PCR test, just like the traditional nasal swab, with the same effectiveness rate.” The MN Dept. of Health

Padded Death Count

The CDC states only 6% of all deaths were from Covid-19 alone and the rest had numerous comorbidities. The U.S. Covid-19 death count includes people who died of suicide, homicide, drownings, fire exposure, gun shot wounds, fall from playground equipment, alcohol poisoning, failed pregnancies, failed abortions, motor cycle accidents, bus accidents, car accidents, overdoses, exposure to fire, falls from ladder and a whole lot more that have nothing to do with a deadly virus. Look up the ICD codes yourself!

See examples ICD codes here but make sure to verify for yourself. How many deaths were unavoidable with or without Covid-19? As you’ll see, many…

 

IFR Similar to Flu

The CDC’s best estimate of the Infection Fatality Ratio puts it on par with influenza:

0-19 years: 0.002%
18-49 years: 0.05%
50-64 years: 0.6%
65+ years: 9%
————————————-
IFR is between 0.00% to 1.63% – The W.H.O.
————————————
————————————
Infection fatality ratio is about 1% – Imperial College London
————————————
According to this study: The overall noninstitutionalized IFR was 0.26%.

“False Positive Test Results

At least half of all positive tests could be false positives according to Dr. Birx,  the Coronavirus Response Coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force

Michael Yeadon: former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer said …all or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.

Dr. Barbara Yaffe, the Associate Medical Officer of Health for Toronto Public Health, admitted that in some cases, you’ll get false positives almost half of the time.

Dr. Fauci admitted back in July 2020 that if a person tests positive with a PCR test set to 35 or more cycle thresholds,  that person is not infectious. HealthPartners’ lab uses thresholds that vary from 40 to 45. Fauci also admits that the CTs aren’t included with the test results.  Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory says when using cycle thresholds 24 & higher the specimens “were viral culture negative

According to this report, 90 out of 144 “positives” were false positives.

In this now withdrawn study, the conclusion is: “In the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly half or even more of the ‘asymptomatic infected individuals’ reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives.

We’re told that up to 80% of “infections” are asymptomatic. We must ask the question: are they really asymptomatic or simply false positives?

This study says: “most of these false positive individuals would likely be asymptomatic, which could at least partially explain the reports of large numbers of asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2.”

This study from October 2020 concludes: “It is likely that at current active disease prevalence the positive rRT-PCR results of many “asymptomatic” persons are false positives.”

Learn more about false positives here

Deaths *with* Covid-19

Dr. Birx and others have admitted they’re counting anyone who died of any cause but had a Covid-19 positive test, as a Covid-19 death.

Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health said: “At the time of death, it was a covid positive diagnose… even if you die of a clear alternate cause, but you had Covid at the same time it still listed as a Covid death…”

Keep this in mind when examining the comorbidities explained above…

Airborne Transmission Is Not Proven

“No study has demonstrated actual clinical evidence of the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2” Penn Healthcare Epidemiologists’ Workgroup

In an analysis of 3 COVID-19 cases within hospital rooms in China, there were no reports of airborne transmission

Another analysis did not identify any SARS-CoV-2 in air samples collected at distances of 10 cm from patient’s not wearing a mask.

The epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 indicates that most infections are spread through close contact, not airborne transmissionCDC

To date, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by this type of aerosol route has not been demonstrated; much more research is needed given the possible implications of such route of transmissionThe World Health Organization

Asymptomatic Spread is “Rare”

massive new study released in Nov. 2020 conducted in Wuhan, China, and published in the respected scientific journal Nature, reports that asymptomatic persons who have tested positive for Covid-19 do not pass on the infection to others.

December 2020: A meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77,758 participants finds household secondary attack rate (chance an infected person will infect one or more people at home) is 18% if the index case is symptomatic and 0.7% if asymptomatic.

Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said It still appears to be rare that a asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.  She said it was “rare” 3 times. The next day, due to political pressure, the WHO stepped back from her statement but did not contradict it.

Dr. Fauci early in the pandemic had this to say about asymptomatic spread: “..in all the history of respiratory born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks…

The World Health Organization reported on four individual studies that found between 0% and 2.2% of people with asymptomatic infection infected anyone else. They conclude: “…individuals without symptoms are less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms.”

This study stated: “…transmission capacity from asymptomatic cases was limited. This supports the view of the World Health Organization that asymptomatic cases were not the major drivers of the overall epidemic dynamics.”

In this study, the researchers exposed an asymptomatic covid19 positive invidual to 455 uninfected and tracked the infection rate. Of those 455, 0 became infected.

This study states: “While asymptomatic individuals can transmit the infection, their relative degree of infectiousness seems to be limited.”

This study concluded: “Currently, there is no clear evidence that COVID-19 asymptomatic persons can transmit SARS-CoV-2”

Keep in mind this is the primary reason we’re told to wear masks “just in case you’re an asymptomatic spreader”…

Lockdown Deaths & Despair

Dr. Robert Redfield, Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said: , said We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose that are above excess that we had as background than we are seeing the deaths from COVID…”

This study finds lockdowns are 10 times more costly to public health than not locking down.

Now that the 2020 figures have been properly tallied, there is still no convincing evidence that strict lockdowns reduced the death toll from COVID-19. But one effect is clear: more deaths from other causes, especially among the young and middle-aged, minorities and the less affluent.

In March and April 2020, mental health claim lines for individuals aged 13-18, as a percentage of all medical claim lines, approximately doubled over the same months in the previous year. At the height of the spring wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, this rise in mental health claim lines amounted to 97.0 percent in March and 103.5 percent in April. These are among the many findings in FAIR Health’s new white paper, the seventh in its COVID-19 studies, The Impact of COVID-19 on Pediatric Mental Health: A Study of Private Healthcare Claims.

A paper released in Dec. 2020 by US National Bureau of Economic Research estimates an excess death of 890,000 Americans over the next 15 years due to the unemployment caused by Covid lockdowns.

Stanford epidemiologists’ study in Eur J Clin Invest: “lockdowns” did NOT control Covid-19 in either the spring or winter surges, & there were “numerous harms of aggressive measures” including potentially more Covid-19 deaths among the vulnerable elderly.

This study observed 2020 had the biggest increase in poverty in a single year since the government began tracking these figures in the 1960s.

This study concludes that “missed instruction during 2020 could be associated with an estimated 5.53 million years of life lost.”

One study, published by the Lancet, predicts over 3,000 excess cancer deaths in the UK within five years. That’s because of delays in cancer diagnosis– and consequent treatment — due to COVID-19 restrictions.

The CDC recently released it’s new “excess death” stats that show 100,967 people died this year who shouldn’t have and they were not Covid-19 deaths. The largest percentage was adults aged 25-44…

California doctors say “we’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks” because of the impact lockdown is having on mental health.

“The proportion of emergency room visits for mental health concerns in children & adolescents increased substantially this past Mar.-Oct.” CDC

According to the CDC, one quarter of American young adults have thought about committing suicide since the beginning of this panic epidemic.

Stanford Professor Warns COVID Shelter-in-Place Orders Are ‘Killing People

In Canada, “Cancer surgeons in Ontario are reporting a sharp rise in the number of people coming to hospital with advanced cancers. It’s an unintended consequence of the sudden shutdown of non-urgent health-care services during the spring wave of COVID-19.

It was already found prior to quarantine that social isolation can cause or exacerbate mental health conditions in children, and that loneliness in childhood can cause mental health problems up to almost a decade later 

“Minnesota sees 31% increase in drug overdose deaths in 2020”

Canadian report saysOpioid deaths skyrocket, mental health suffers due to pandemic restrictions”

In New York, “opioid deaths skyrocket during coronavirus pandemic”

In Wisconsin, “Suicides up in Dane County, mental health experts see link to COVID-19”

San Francisco December 2020: Suicides are elevated compared to 2019 and account for nearly 4 times the number of deaths than deaths with Covid-19.

On December 17th, 2020 the CDC issued a report indicating “approximately 81,230 drug overdose deaths occurred in the U.S. in the 12-months ending in May 2020“, a new record. “The increases in drug overdose deaths appear to have accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic

Ultimately it’s becoming apparent that Lockdowns May Have Had Little Effect on COVID-19 Spread

This study published in January 2021, concluded about the lockdowns “…we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs (more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions) on case growth in any country.

“New data suggest that social distancing and reopening haven’t determined the spread.” The Wall Street Journal

“265 million people are expected to be thrown into severe food insecurity.” The Lancet

Even the W.H.O. says they do not advocate for lockdowns as it could end up be doubling of world poverty and childhood malnutrition

If you are advocating for lockdowns, you are advocating for some portion of the population to be consigned to death.

Strained Resources?

As of March 25th, 2021: Only 3 % of people admitted to ER’s are Covid related.“During week 43, the percentages of ED visits captured in NSSP for CLI (Covid Like Illness) and ILI(influenza like illness), were 3.0% and 1.1%, respectively” Oct. 30th 2020 CDC Covid Weekly (page 4)

According to the MN Department of Health’s Response Capacity report, as of March 25th, 2021, out of over 5 million residents in MN, there are 93 people in the ICU. This is a tiny fraction of the entire ICU capacity.

According to U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as of January 5th,2021,  71.3 capacity, with 17.7% occupied by C19 patients; ICU total capacity=63.2%

Hospitals are laying off employees and some are shutting down:

Fairview to shut Bethesda, St. Joseph’s hospitals in St. Paul

U.S. Field Hospitals Stand Down, Most Without Treating Any COVID-19 Patients

Temporary morgue in St. Paul used to store protective items instead of bodies

Children’s Minnesota eliminating 150 jobs in midst of COVID-19

If the hospitals were strained with Covid patients, they wouldn’t be laying off their employees and closing down facilities like “Bethesda” hospital in St. Paul which was specially reconfigured to treat Covid patients. During this “crisis” this is the last hospital you’d expect to see shut down due to financial losses…

 

MN mask mandate vs Iowa and North Dakota
MN mask mandate vs Iowa and North Dakota

Let’s talk about masking up in mn

Consider this…
Meta-analysis on facemask use in community settings to prevent respiratory infection transmission shows no effectNovember 17th, 2020 International Journal of Infectious Diseases
——————————————
This study published in February 2021 in the Lancet, stated: “…we did not find any evidence of decreased risk of transmission in individuals who reported mask use.
——————————————
This study concluded: “Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients. “
——————————————
This study, published in the US National Library of Medicine by National Institutes of Health in January of 2021, concluded that there are numerous potential health consequences of long term mask wearing. It’s quite clear, our leaders are ignoring all of these possible adverse events of masking the masses:
——————————————
October 23rd, 2020: “There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that masks reduce the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of Covid-19, much less that their use can induce protective immunity.”  The New England Journal of Medicine letter to editor
——————————————
Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”  CDC
——————————————
The Danish randomized controlled trial on the real-world efficacy of face masks against coronavirus infection – the first of its kind – has now been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. As expected, the trial found no statistically significant benefit of wearing a face mask.
——————————————
“…dizziness, headache, and short of breath are commonly experienced by the medical staff wearing N95 masks.” National Taiwan University Hospital
——————————————
This study on the inhalation risk posed by wearing masks concludes: “masks…break down and release chemicals that are then inhaled. Tiny microfibers are also released, which can cause health problems when inhaled.” 
——————————————
This trial was done with health care workers and concluded that cloth masks were not only ineffective but also had a higher rates of infection when using cloth masks.
——————————————
This study concluded: Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers
——————————————

This study on Nanofibre health risk states “…new kinds of nanofibres being made…might pose a risk because they have a similar shape to asbestos.”

“Nanofibres…are about 1,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair and can reach the lung cavity when inhaled…may lead to cancer (mesothelioma)…caused by breathing in asbestos fibres, which are similar to nanofibres.”

researchers studying the inhalation of micro(nano)plastics through atmospheric or anthropogenic sources are now facing the reality that there is a piece of plastic garment on top of the mouth and nose for millions of people every day.

——————————————
The World Health Organization admitted in December of 2020 that there is “limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people…” Their study concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to preventing spreading illness.
The WHO Admits Masks Don't Work
——————————————
This study says: “masks increase the risk of more in-depth respiratory tract infections”
——————————————
This study concluded, there was no reduction of influenza-like illnesses (ILI) with mask use compared to no masks. Also “cloth surgical masks should not be used as they are associated with a higher risk of ILI and penetration of microorganisims.”
——————————————
Does wearing a mask decrease oxygen? This study concludes: “Our study revealed a decrease in the oxygen saturation of arterial pulsations…
——————————————
Updated December 15, 2020: An overview of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks. “So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.” Swiss Policy Research
——————————————
This study on the use of cloth masks concluded: “Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97%… Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.
——————————————

Joe Rogan: “I see people walking around with masks on wearing gloves, is that nonsense?”

Michael Osterholm: “Largely yes”

——————————————
——————————————
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.” The New England Journal of Medicine article
——————————————
So if masks are ineffective in preventing flu how can they be effective with preventing Covid-19 transmission when it’s believed to be similar? “Most experts think that flu viruses spread mainly by droplets made when people with flu cough, sneeze or talk,” says the CDC
——————————————
Mask wearing is also bad for the health of the environment: More than 1.5 billion disposable face masks will wind up in the world’s oceans this year — polluting the water with tons of plastic and endangering marine wildlife, according to a Hong Kong-based environmental group.
——————————————
Furthermore, there is no way for government officials to be able to reasonably decide for every individual whether it is appropriate for that individual to wear a mask in public because the appropriateness of mask use depends on that individual’s unique circumstances.
The only thing a mask has been proven to be good for is for keeping the fear front and center.

More On PCR False Positives…

"The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base. Available evidence mainly comes from symptomatic patients, and their clinical role in detecting asymptomatic carriers is unclear. There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests."

"caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus. PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk."

"Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens."

"False-positive test results are more likely when prevalence is moderate to low."

"It has been widely reported 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."

"I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine."

Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer.

"PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid"

"...all or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what's called false positives tests."

"Detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that a person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to another person"

"The challenge is the false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus. So the truth is, we can’t just rely on that…”

"positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite."

"...up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus."

"A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease."

 Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

“To Interpret the SARS-CoV-2 Test, Consider the Cycle Threshold Value”

"PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios."

"...false positive results will occur regularly, despite high specificity, causing unnecessary community isolation and contact tracing, and nosocomial infection if inpatients with false positive tests are cohorted with infectious patients."

"...PCR is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present. "

"...no single gold standard assay exists. The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%."

"...detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness."

"...you can find almost anything in anybody...it doesn't tell you that you're sick and it doesn't tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you..."