The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.

CV19News - The Covid Report compiled by Arnold (AJ) Jameson.

Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Published by CV19News, 2021-06-01 07:43:37

CV19News - The Covid Report

CV19News - The Covid Report compiled by Arnold (AJ) Jameson.

Keywords: cv19news,covid19

(Under Age 70) as a group was the second highest statistical risk group based on about 600 people
out of approximately 4.4 million people or 0.014% who died and were classified as a Covid-19 death.
This equates to about the same risk of dying from a poisoning; about a 1 in 7500 chance.

The next group (the under 50’s) as a whole, had a very low statistical risk based on around 70 people
out of approximately 3.4 million or 0.002% who allegedly died and were classified as a Covid-19
death. This equates to about the same risk of dying as from a fire or smoke inhalation. Q: Do you
personally know anyone who has died in a fire? Most of us don’t know any such victims of a fire even
though fire deaths occur with a relatively moderate risk of 1 in 50,000.

And finally, the lowest risk group was (the under 25’s). Their risk was almost non-existent at around 1
in 500,000, or a 0.00018% chance. This is about ¼ the odds of dying after falling down stairs. This is
based on less than 5 youths out of 1.65 million people under 25 dying with Covid-19.

Yet, in comparison, the risk of vaccine-induced blood clots is very high at 1 in 10,000.

Comparing the 2018 severe flu
season to Covid-19 in 2020, we see
virtually no statistical difference in
mortality. And this is in fact very
similar worldwide.

So, the question to be asked is:

“Why would anyone take the
chance of a vaccine injury over a
Covid19 risk after consideration of
the true risk-reward ratio?”

“It makes absolutely No Sense!”

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 65


Masks have been one of the ongoing symbols that a pandemic is actively among us, thereby justifying
draconian lockdowns around the world. However, the World Health Organization is on record as saying that
lockdowns will not and cannot work to stop a viral outbreak. They have recommended against such
measures as they will cause horrific collateral damage. The rationale for lockdowns that we heard from
politicians to justify these economy-destroying measures is based on the theory that infections can be
slowed or stopped by isolating mostly healthy asymptomatic people long enough to avoid infection and the
virus will run out of hosts to infect so it will die off and life can return to normal. We hear that we must
bend the curve to save the fragile health care system. If this is true, then we should be able to see
drastically different patterns of cases and deaths when comparing the Gompertz curves of the two
strategies in countries that took opposite approaches. Numerous data analysts around the world have
been crunching the numbers for over a year and the evidence is conclusive – lockdowns DO NOT work!

As evidence for this statement, observe the two countries of Sweden and the United Kingdom. The former
instituted no such lockdown measures while the UK has implemented three so far, likely moving towards a
fourth more severe one as “cases” increase. The seasonal “flu” curve is nearly identical and expected of a
typical flu season. There is virtually no difference in the death curves of these two European nations.

Dr. Eli David on Twitter @DrEliDavid: The strict lockdown in the United Kingdom was so effective that it
stopped the spread of Covid in Sweden as well
4:25 PM · Feb 17, 2021 · Twitter for Android

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 66

Even a Military-Enforced Quarantine Can’t
Stop the Virus, Study Reveals

November 13, 2020
Source: American Institute for Economic Research

The New England Journal of Medicine has published a study that goes to the heart of the issue
of lockdowns. The question has always been whether and to what extent a lockdown, however
extreme, is capable of suppressing the virus. If so, you can make an argument that at least
lockdowns, despite their astronomical social and economic costs, achieve something. If not,
nations of the world have embarked on a catastrophic experiment that has destroyed billions
of lives, and all expectation of human rights and liberties, with no payoff at all.

AIER has long highlighted studies that show no gain in virus management from
lockdowns. Even as early as April, a major data scientist said that this virus becomes
endemic in 70 days after the first round of infection, regardless of policies. The largest
global study of lockdowns compared with deaths as published in The Lancet found no
association between coercive stringencies and deaths per million.

To test further might seem superfluous but, for whatever reason, governments all over
the world, including in the US, still are under the impression that they can affect viral
transmissions through a range of “nonpharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs) like
mandatory masks, forced human separation, stay-at-home orders, bans of gatherings,
business and school closures, and extreme travel restrictions.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 67

Nothing like this has been tried on this scale in the whole of human history, so one
might suppose that policy makers have some basis for their confidence that these
measures accomplish something.

A study conducted by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation with the
Naval Medical Research Center sought to test lockdowns along with testing and
isolation. In May, 3,143 new recruits to the Marines were given the option to participate
in a study of frequent testing under extreme quarantine. The study was called CHARM,
which stands for COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines. Of the recruits asked, a
total of 1,848 young people agreed to be guinea pigs in this experiment which involved
“which included weekly qPCR testing and blood sampling for IgG antibody assessment.”
In addition, the CHARM study volunteers who did test positively “on the day of
enrollment (day 0) or on day 7 or day 14 were separated from their roommates and
were placed in isolation.”

What did the recruits have to do? The study explains, and, as you will see, they faced an
even more strict regime that has existed in civilian life in most places. All recruits, even
those not in the CHARM group, did the following.

All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except
when sleeping or eating; practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet; were not allowed
to leave campus; did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might
contribute to surface transmission; and routinely washed their hands. They slept in
double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared
bathrooms. All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use
with bleach wipes, and ate pre-plated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with
bleach after each platoon had eaten. Most instruction and exercises were conducted
outdoors. All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was
implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among
persons. All recruits, regardless of participation in the study, underwent daily
temperature and symptom screening. Six instructors who were assigned to each platoon
worked in 8-hour shifts and enforced the quarantine measures. If recruits reported any
signs or symptoms consistent with Covid-19, they reported to sick call, underwent rapid
qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and were placed in isolation pending the results of testing.

Instructors were also restricted to campus, were required to wear masks, were provided
with pre-plated meals, and underwent daily temperature checks and symptom
screening. Instructors who were assigned to a platoon in which a positive case was
diagnosed underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and, if the result was positive,
the instructor was removed from duty. Recruits and instructors were prohibited from
interacting with campus support staff, such as janitorial and food-service personnel.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 68

After each class completed quarantine, a deep bleach cleaning of surfaces was
performed in the bathrooms, showers, bedrooms, and hallways in the dormitories, and
the dormitory remained unoccupied for at least 72 hours before re-occupancy.

The reputation of Marine basic training is that it is tough going but this really does take
it to another level. Also, this is an environment where those in charge do not mess
around. There was surely close to 100% compliance, as compared with, for example, a
typical college campus.

What were the results? The virus still spread, though 90% of those who tested positive
were without symptoms. Incredibly, 2% of the CHARM recruits still contracted the virus,
even if all but one remained asymptomatic. “Our study showed that in a group of
predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for
SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced

And how does this compare to the control group that was not tested and not isolated in
the case of a positive case?

Have a look at this chart from the study:

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 69

Which is to say that the nonparticipants actually contracted the virus at a slightly lower rate
than those who were under an extreme regime. Conversely, extreme enforcement of NPIs
plus more frequent testing and isolation was associated with a greater degree of infection.

I’m grateful to Don Wolt for drawing my attention to this study, which, so far as I know, has
received very little attention from any media source at all, despite having been published in
the New England Journal of Medicine on November 11.

Here are four actual media headlines about the study that miss the point entirely:

 CNN: “Many military Covid-19 cases are asymptomatic, studies show”

 SciTech Daily: “Asymptomatic COVID-19 Transmission Revealed Through Study of 2,000
Marine Recruits”

 ABC: “Broad study of Marine recruits shows limits of COVID-19 symptom screening”

 US Navy: “Navy/Marine Corps COVID-19 Study Findings Published in New England
Journal of Medicine”

No national news story that I have found highlighted the most important finding of all:

extreme quarantine plus frequent testing and isolation among
military recruits did nothing to stop the virus.

The study is important because of the social structure of control here. It’s one thing to observe
no effects from national lockdowns. There are countless variables here that could be invoked
as cautionary notes: demographics, population density, pre-existing immunities, degree of
compliance, and so on. But with this Marine study, you have a near homogeneous group
based on age, health, and densities of living. And even here, you see confirmed what so many
other studies have shown: lockdowns are pointlessly destructive. They do not manage the
disease. They crush human liberty and produce astonishing costs, such as 5.53 million years of
lost life from the closing of schools alone.

The lockdowners keep telling us to pay attention to the science. That’s what we are doing.
When the results contradict their pro-compulsion narrative, they pretend that the studies do
not exist and barrel ahead with their scary plans to disable all social functioning in the
presence of a virus. Lockdowns are not science. They never have been. They are an
experiment in social/political top-down management that is without precedent in cost to life
and liberty.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 70


Just when we thought Covid19 was winding down, the media started telling us about variants, or mutated
versions of SARS-Cov2 that were more infectious and more deadly. You may have heard on the media
about a few variants of concern. What you didn’t hear was that there are in fact hundreds and possibly
thousands of variations of the original genetic code of the virus, which are all over 99.7% similar to the
original. Anything over 70% similar will be treated the same way by the immune system and effectively
neutralized as if it was the same. Thus, as Dr. David tweets, there is no need to worry about variants.

6:16 AM · Feb 27, 2021 · Twitter for Android

Dr. Eli David on Twitter @DrEliDavid: Figure above shows thousands of Covid mutations so
far (each point denotes a mutation). Now stop panicking every time you hear of a "new
mutation" with a country or city brand name.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 71

Five Reasons NOT to Fear Coronavirus Variants

From Pfizer’s former VP calling them ‘irrelevant propaganda’ to evidence that
natural immunity slaughters a host of COVID-19 variants, there’s good reason to
ignore the media’s fear-mongering.

July 12, 2021 from Life Site News

It was predictable that soon after the mass COVID-19 vaccine campaign rolled out, if the shots began
failing, the media would turn people who didn’t rush into line-ups for the fast-tracked, experimental
pharmaceutical injections, into scapegoats.

The latest COVID narrative is well underway. Thousands of fully vaccinated people are testing
positive for the disease – so many, the government has stopped counting cases of “breakthrough
COVID,” a blatant attempt to hide the problem of vaccine failure.

Rather, governments have directed attention to a Greek alphabet of new “variants” – supposedly
deadlier and even more “contagious” mutations of the original Wuhan virus that causes the disease.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 72

The media are dutifully providing an endless barrage of doomsday reportage, warning people that
they are “more at risk than ever before” and that a “dangerous fall” lies ahead amidst clouds of
inescapable Delta, Lambda, or Epsilon virus mutations. They have already begun further dividing the
population already riven by division between those who see injecting children with experimental drugs
and smothering their respiratory passages with masks as criminal and the millions who do not want
lockdown ever to end. Medical Apartheid media have begun dehumanizing children and half of
America’s “unvaccinated” adult population, calling them “variant factories” and “incubators” of

Unvaccinated people, including children, according to the latest COVID chapter, are harbors of
infection that give birth to mutations. It is these virus mutants – not public health officials and vaccine
investors – who impose masking, threaten whole countries with devastating lockdowns and
continuous quarantines, and prevent the “return to normal.” If only everyone would get vaccinated –
and receive booster shots perhaps twice a year or as necessary – to combat new variants, then there
would finally be no COVID anywhere. Ever.

Here are the top 5 reasons this narrative is a lie.

1. Virus variants of no concern

Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory research
for COVID vaccine maker Pfizer, spent more than three decades in the vaccine industry before he
retired from “the most senior research position” in his field. Variants, he says, are “irrelevant and
being used as propaganda.”

In comments sent to LifeSiteNews, Yeadon said that while it’s true that small mutations occur in
viruses routinely, these are tiny and insignificant changes that the immune system is fabulously
equipped to combat.

“It’s true that when this virus, SARS-CoV-2, replicates inside our cells, it occasionally makes a
‘molecular typo’ error. Instead of a letter A, for example, we might see a letter U. These letters are
instructions for what the next infected cell is instructed to manufacture,” Yeadon said. ‘Quite
commonly there are several errors made.”

“But it’s very important to realize that there are a LOT of letters making up the genetic code for this
virus, almost 30,000 letters. In turn this translates into almost 10,000 amino acids, the building blocks
of all proteins. If a particular altered code is found often enough, it might get noticed as “a variant of

“The question is, ‘Does it matter?’”

“So far, the answer is categorically NO.”

No variant is more than 0.3% changed from the original Wuhan sequence, said Yeadon. “That’s right,
no variant is less than 99.7% identical to the original virus.”

To give an idea as to how much (or how little, really) a change of 0.3% is, Yeadon suggested
considering that the area of one palm of your hand is about 1% of your body surface area – so a
visual of about one-third of one palm is the difference to consider.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 73

“That’s less than the visual change brought about by turning a baseball cap around or
changing the shape of the lenses in your sunglasses, and expecting not to be recognized by
your partner,” Yeadon said. “They won’t be fooled.”

“Please allow me to demonstrate that a difference of this minute amount definitely won’t fool your
immune system either, into thinking ‘this is a new virus, not sure how I’ll cope’.”

Back in 2003, there was a previous Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus, or SARS.
This new coronavirus is called SARS-CoV2 (or SARS coronavirus 2). SARS was never as widely
spread out as the current virus, but plenty of people were infected, Yeadon explained. Several of
these were followed up and invited to volunteer for a test on the immune cells in their blood.

“The main findings were that all volunteers retained solid immunity to SARS, 17 years after being
infected. That’s great & is what to expect with the present virus: robust & durable immunity,” Yeadon

“But the second finding was astonishing to those who are unfamiliar with immunology. Every
survivor of infection by SARS all those years ago also had cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2.
How could this possibly be? They’d never seen the new virus.”

“The answer is in the similarity of the two viruses: they’re around 78% identical, or 22% different. The
way our immune systems recognize & remember respiratory viruses is to chop it into pieces &
examine all the pieces.

“With a similarity as much as 78%, many of the pieces of the SARS virus which were recognized in
2003 are the same as the pieces recognized in SARS-CoV-2 now.

If our immune systems have absolutely no difficulty recognizing two viruses which are 22%
different, it’s literally impossible & absurd to pretend to the British people that a mere 0.3%
mutation is a problem. It’s not a problem.”

2. Immunity crushes variants

Anyone immune to the current virus, whether by natural infection or from vaccination, is also immune
to all the variants, according to Yeadon. “It’s not just me saying so.” He cites a study in which clinical
immunologists tested the blood T-cells from volunteers and showed them all the variants which they
had available, and they easily recognized and responded to them all.

“These mutations in SARS-CoV-2 are very common but they produce a lot of hot air. None of these
variants differ enough to represent the slightest threat to immunity already hard won. That’s
the big idea, but you’re not falling for it. So, you definitely do not need a booster or variant vaccine.
Don’t let anyone come near you with a syringe of such a thing. They’re not honest & they’re not your

But might a variant be more infectious?

“Sure, that’s possible – and expected. How have we ended up with around 40 different viruses able to
infect human respiratory tract? We think they each had nastier origins but over time, they’ve become
more infectious but LESS dangerous,” commented Yeadon.

“Don’t let them take away your liberty on a set of immunological lies.”

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 74

3. Vaccine failure

Variants are a convenient cover for the shortcomings of Pfizer and the other fast-tracked COVID
vaccines. And an easy way to scapegoat the unvaccinated. The reality is that 59% of the recent
coronavirus deaths with the Delta “variant of concern” in the United Kingdom, for example,
were among the vaccinated. The U.K. government reported June 25 that there were 7,235 cases of
“breakthrough COVID” – that’s COVID-19 infection in people who had already received two doses of
coronavirus vaccine.

Nearly 20,000 people (19,957) who had received one dose of vaccine tested positive for COVID-19
with the Delta variant. Among the fully vaccinated there were 50 deaths and 20 among the
partially vaccinated.

Among the 53,822 unvaccinated people who tested positive for COVID, just 44 died.

In America, the government stopped counting “breakthrough COVID” cases when the numbers
exceeded 10,000 and the deaths among the fully vaccinated from COVID-19 hit 535. How can public
health say it is the unvaccinated spreading disease when it refuses to even count tens of thousands
of fully and partially vaccinated people who are testing positive? Perhaps the tests are faulty?

The fact that there are more deaths among the fully vaccinated than the unvaccinated – and more
than eight times greater rate of death among the fully vaccinated compared to the
unvaccinated – is hardly a sign of the unvaccinated being risky or the variant being more dangerous.
In both groups, the coronavirus mortality is exceedingly low (less than 1%). But it is a sign of vaccine

Perhaps it’s a sign of the vaccine itself being dangerous, too. More than 9,000 deaths following
vaccination have been reported by the U.S. government Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS) as of Friday.

The higher death rate in the vaccinated may be because there are inherent dangers to vaccinating
people who have already been infected with the coronavirus. Or it may be due to Antibody-
Dependent Enhancement – a well-documented phenomenon of previous failed attempts at
coronavirus vaccines in which vaccinated lab animals became sick and died when they encountered
the virus in the wild, because their immune system hyper-reacted – just the sort of severe COVID-19
reaction people fear.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 75

If a “dangerous fall” lies ahead, as the media are warning, it may be for vaccinated people, since
the vaccines they took are still in clinical trials and no one knows how their immune systems will
respond when they meet wild flu and coronaviruses.

Will the government and media tell us how many cases of the coronavirus in the fall are among the
vaccinated? Of course not. They conveniently stopped counting COVID-19 cases in the vaccinated
because if they pretend they don’t know there is a problem, they don’t have to tell us about it. And
“variants” – invisible and elusive and ever-changing – make a nice cover for inherent vaccine

4. More variants equals more money

No one seemed more delighted to announce the prospect of new virus variants than Pfizer Chief
Financial Officer Frank D’Amelio speaking to the company’s investors this spring. During a virtual
meeting hosted by Barclay’s multinational bank in March, D’Amelio told investors that the reports of
emerging new virulent strains of the SARS coronavirus that had been reported across the globe this
spring were a “significant opportunity” for the company.

“We've got the U.K. variant, the South Africa variant, the Brazilian variant. And so, is there the
possibility for more variants to emerge? I think the answer is clearly, there is,” he announced rather

A month earlier Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla told the 2021 Davos World Economic Forum that his
company was already working on booster shots. Later he told shareholders that with variants he
expected the company to “move from a pandemic into more of a normal type of vaccination

More normal vaccination business is an endless revenue stream, not just a one (or two) and done
deal. It’s the kind of business that creates billionaires and lets Bourla give himself a 17% raise and
take home $21 million, in salary, bonuses, and stock in 2020.

Pfizer reported a “crazy good” first quarter this year, saying it expects to haul in $26 billion in sales for
its COVID-19 vaccine this year, way above its earlier projection of just $15 billion. But why stop

Just as the media began buzzing about variants, Pfizer announced Friday that the time for its third
booster shot has arrived. Immunity from its vaccine is already waning in the face of the variants
it said (more on this later).

Of course it would be time for a new shot if you are a company whose real priority is profits as new
COVID cases have stagnated and the number of people rolling up their sleeves has flat lined,
too. Those who wanted both shots have had them. Time to offer your most trusting customers – and
your income stream – a top-up.

5. Big Tech fearmongering

It is unnerving that Twitter bot campaigns are now pretending grassroots support for draconian
government measures like lockdowns and masking. Automated campaigns drumming up fear about
the variants – in the same way the media are doing – to promote severe COVID measures for
meagre threats is clear sign the variant scare campaign is not to be trusted.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 76

Facts Not Fear: What the Mainstream Media is NOT Reporting.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 77

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 78


The main justification for the lockdowns, according to our governments, is to protect the health care
system from reaching overcapacity. Initially we were told that these measures would be for a few weeks to
“flatten the curve” and to preserve hospital capacity for emergencies and to allow them to catch up with
the influx of Covid cases.

So, after more than
18 months of rolling
lockdowns, social
distancing, face
masks, and sanitizers,
are the hospitals
really overcrowded as
we are being told? We
they ever really at risk
of failing?

Whatever happened
to the pop-up
hospitals in
abandoned stadiums,
cruise ships, hotels,
and mobile field

To our knowledge,
after hundreds of
millions of dollars of
expenditure on this
excess capacity of
beds and equipment,
NONE of them were
ever needed or use.
Insiders report empty
wards, power downs,
and laid-off staff.

In Alberta, Canada,
here is the latest
statistics which are
quite revealing.

Nearly ALL Hospital
metrics are DOWN
substantially since
January 18, 2021, yet
the restrictions are
now worse than they
were a year ago.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 79

More Alberta and Global Covid19 and Flu STATISTICS.

Reclassified Flu Cases?

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 80

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 81

What few people realize after listening all day to the fear-inducing reports by the mainstream media
and our public health officials, is that nearly ALL of the reported Covid19 deaths have occurred in
long-term care seniors’ homes, and those people had an average of 2.6 serious comorbidities (other
medical conditions) that they were dying of anyway, at an average age of 84; many over 90 years old.

Just because they died with a positive Covid19 test result, it doesn’t mean they died of Covid, no
more than they died of blue eyes if they had tested positive for blue eyes. Just because the firemen
are associated with a fire, it doesn’t mean they caused the fire. They are the helpers who put out the

From the Toronto Sun on Nov 17. Alberta’s own official COVID-19 comorbidity
statistics. The number of COVID-19 deaths recorded at that time was 369 individuals.
Out of that number, 75.3% of Albertans who died had done so while suffering “with 3
or more conditions” in addition to COVID-19. Two comorbidities made up 16.5% of
cases. Those with one extra condition made up 5.4%. And those without a comorbidity
were 2.7% of the tally, or 10 persons.



Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 82



Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 83


And this brings me to the RT-PCR test.

It stands for reverse transcriptase
polymerase chain reaction. In a
nutshell, here's how the test works. They
look for trace particles, genetic fragments
of protein molecules in the sample that
they take with a nasal swab. The RT-PCR
test takes a sample which is so small they
need to make duplicate copies of it,
dozens of times, to make it large enough
to study. Now, if you take the number one
and double it, double it, double it, and you
do that 25 times, you get 33.5 Million
copies of the same thing. Imagine finding
an extremely small metal screw on the
street and making endless copies of it. If
you keep doubling the size of the sample
up to 35 times, you get 34 billion copies.
If you go up beyond that to 40 and 45
amplification cycles, which is what they're
now using at all testing facilities to ramp
up the Covid case numbers, you get
between 1.1 and 34 TRILLION copies of
this one little particle, or sheet metal
screw in our example.

Now, Dr. Anthony Fauci himself admits
that if you go past 35 amplifications (or
doublings), it is totally meaningless. All
you are finding is inactive dead genetic
protein material that could be either molecular protein building blocks or cellular waste byproducts
from anything including a past infection of the cold. It could be from a flu vaccine that you received, a
shot of any kind, stress, diabetes, cancer, or even a past Coronavirus exposure you fought off
successfully 4 months ago. No way of telling where it came from. Further, he said that you cannot
possibly culture anything from that small of a sample which means you cannot possibly be
infectious. Thus, silent asymptomatic spreaders and viral shedding is complete nonsense fake
news media-driven junk science fear porn to make you comply with these mandates. Just because
we make 1 trillion copies of a sheet metal screw, it does not tell you anything about the nature of the
screw, where it came from, or whether it is likely to be "infectious".

The inventor of the test, Dr. Kary Mullis, won the Nobel Prize in 1993 for his development of this
experimental research test. According to Mullis himself, PCR is a manufacturing technique only and
should never be used as a tool in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.” He said specifically that it
should not be used to diagnose or treat any disease because it cannot find it, it cannot measure
viral load, it cannot determine infectability, it cannot identify live verses dead, and it can only be used

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 84

to compare one piece of genetic information to another for research purposes, and that genetic
information can be left over building blocks or cellular waste proteins used for many other things.

Unfortunately, he died in August 2019 of a heart attack. The timing of that is highly suspicious
because he would have been here right now yelling at the politicians saying, “do not use this test to
justify any lockdowns whatsoever”. One expert in the testing field said that they are not just looking
for a needle in a haystack, they are blowing the needle up into a haystack through excessive
amplifications to try to justify the case numbers and the grotesque response to the virus.

In Canada, and most countries around the world, the cycle thresholds or amplifications being used
that produce 90-97% false positives is 38-45 cycles. This is outrageous as Dr. Hodkinson put it. At
these number of doubling amplifications, a tester could make ANYTHING test positive!

In fact, back in the summer of 2020, the
President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, cast
doubt on the country’s coronavirus testing
process after he allegedly submitted secret
samples from invalid subjects, including a
goat and a papaya (yes, the fruit), that
came back as “positive” for the virus. He
had put human names and ages on several
samples taken from non-human subjects.
He says the lab came back with positive
test results for a papaya, a quail, and a
goat — three things that have never been
linked to the virus in the past. (He has since
died under mysterious circumstances!)

You can read the Global News post at


And Dr. Sucharitt Bhakdi, one of the top virologists and research scientists in the world, agreed that
the test should not be used to diagnose. He said that the virus is far too small to be amplified into
billions of copes without generating 97%+ false positives.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 85

Now, if you can’t accept what
an EXPERT witness who is
actually producing and selling
the Covid19 test that is being
used world-wide for confirming
a clinical suspicion of SARS-
Cov-2, then who can you
trust? To read the full article
and watch the video, click the
shareable bitly link here:

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 86


The number of people infected with COVID-19 continues to climb, but what no one seems
to be asking is how accurate are these numbers and the tests we’re using to determine
them? How many of us are actually infected and how scared should we really be? I’ve done
some digging and the answers may shock you.

The Test and the Numbers are Grossly Inaccurate.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is currently the most commonly used COVID-19
test both in the US and globally. PCR was invented by Kary Mullis in 1985 but it was not
invented with the purpose of detecting disease, its primary intended applications
included biomedical research and criminal forensics. It is a needle in a haystack
technology that can be extremely deceptive in the diagnosis of infectious diseases and the
inventor himself argued against using PCR as a diagnostic tool for infections. “I’m
skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a
horrible tool for clinical medicine,” warns Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease

The PCR test is so well known for giving inaccurate results that the CDC warns not to give
the test to asymptomatic persons “because of the increased likelihood of false-positive
results.” In fact, there is a famous Chinese paper that stated if you’re testing asymptomatic
people with PCR, up to 80% of positives could be false positives. But the numbers
aren’t just skewed by false positives, they are also skewed by how many people are offered
the test and what condition they are in. For example, during the first few weeks of the
‘pandemic’ tests were scarce. As they became more widely available, of course the number
of infections accounted for increased as well, and false-positive results further increased
those numbers.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 87

Another problem with testing is that in most places, only those with symptoms that are
severe enough to warrant medical assistance are given a test. The good news is we are
working to get the newest Antibody Covid19 test kits, currently being used in Michigan.
The test is in line to being accepted by the FDA because the test shows if you have had the
virus and are now immune to Covid19! The test misses only 30% of those who have had
the virus, while the PCR test currently being used is nearly 75% inaccurate! Now the
Chinese PCR test has a newer case study that even if a person tests negative 4 times, by
the 5th time the person finally tested positive! That means the test is extremely inaccurate.

The fact is a vast majority of people infected with COVID-19 have mild symptoms and it’s
estimated that 50% of people infected are asymptomatic. These people were not tested or
accounted for when the case fatality rate was set by the WHO as 3.4% – a number that has
been used to prove how ‘deadly’ COVID-19 is and to justify draconian measures to ‘protect’
us from it. This estimated fatality rate doesn’t merely omit the vast majority of people who
were symptom-free or healthy enough to recover on their own, it also fails to take into
account the fact that many of the people who died from COVID-19 were already very sick
and would have died anyway in a short period of time.

The truth is viruses are rarely deadly. The majority of coronavirus-related deaths in humans
are due to chronic diseases that hinder the immune system or cause it to go haywire in
response to the virus (cytokine storm), and not damage caused by the virus itself. We need
to stop saying “Stay safe!” to everyone. We are safe. We have a powerful and intelligent
immune system that is designed to withstand toxic, microbial inundation at all times.

Viruses are not all bad. Some viruses can actually kill bacteria, while others can fight
against more dangerous viruses. So, like protective bacteria (probiotics), we have several
protective viruses in our body.

Protective ‘phages’

Bacteriophages (or “phages”) are viruses that infect and destroy specific bacteria. They’re
found in the mucous membrane lining in the digestive, respiratory and reproductive tracts.

Mucus is a thick, jelly-like material that provides a physical barrier against invading bacteria
and protects the underlying cells from being infected. Recent research suggests the phages
present in the mucus are part of our natural immune system, protecting the human body
from invading bacteria. (

Phages (viruses) have actually been used to treat dysentery, sepsis caused
by Staphylococcus aureus, salmonella infections and skin infections for nearly a century.
Early sources of phages for therapy included local water bodies, dirt, air, sewage and even
body fluids from infected patients. The viruses were isolated from these sources, purified,
and then used for treatment. (

Phages have attracted renewed interest as we continue to see the rise of drug resistant
infections. Recently, a teenager in the United Kingdom was reportedly close to death when
phages were successfully used to treat a serious infection that had been resistant to
antibiotics. (

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 88



But it sure pumps up the numbers to justify the measures.

Source video:

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 89


Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 90


Once again, assymptomatic viral transmission as unscientifc, has never been proven to occur, and the RT-
PCR test is being missued to imply infections.

“Imagine a disease so deadly that you need a test to find out if you even have it,
and a vaccine so safe they must scare and coerce you into taking it.”

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 91

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 92

Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a
management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2
patients from infectious disease wards

In a preliminary clinical study published on April 27, 2020, (the link to the full article is at the study observed that:

the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was effective against SARS-CoV-
2 by shortening the duration of viral load in Covid-19 patients. It is of paramount importance to
define when a treated patient can be considered as no longer contagious. Correlation between
successful isolation of virus in cell culture and Ct value of quantitative RT-PCR targeting E
gene suggests that patients with Ct above 33-34 using our RT-PCR system are not contagious
and thus can be discharged from hospital care or strict confinement for non-hospitalized

We observed a significant relationship between Ct value and culture positivity rate (Fig. 1).
Samples with Ct values of 13-17 all led to positive culture. Culture positivity rate then
decreased progressively according to Ct values to reach 12% at 33 Ct. NO CULTURE was
obtained from samples with Ct > 34. The 5 additional isolates obtained after blind
subcultures had Ct between 27 and 34, thus consistent with low viable virus load.

ALL labs are using 35-
45 CT’s which means
100% false positives
and no possibility for
cultivatable viral load!

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 93

In almost every lab around the world, testing machines are routinely being run at 40-41 cycle
thresholds! Recall from the chart above that 35 CT’s is ~35 billion copies of a genetic fragment only 100
nanometers in size (100 billionths of a meter) or 1/1000th the thickness of a piece of paper. 34 CT’s
implies 17 billion copies while 40 CT’s = 1.1 Trillion copies of the same invisible particle which cannot be
stopped by a mask of 29,700 nanometers in porosity. Anthony Fauci is on record on mainstream media
telling us that beyond 35 CT’s, it is impossible to culture any infectious pathogen, which means that
any lab running thresholds over 34 CT’s is committing scientific fraud that is allowing governments to
justify their unconstitutional and treasonous mitigation measures.

In other words, ALL test results beyond 34 CT’s are 100% false positives. Let that sink in for a minute.
We have locked down the world, crashed the global economy, initiated a chain reaction of business
failures, mass suicides, medical malfeasance on a grand scale for cancelled surgeries and patient
neglect, instituted draconian police state mitigation measures, and rushed vaccines to market under
Operation Warp Speed to fight an alleged viral outbreak ALL based on the total exaggeration and misuse
of a laboratory RT-PCR test conducted on mostly asymptomatic people that even the inventor of the test,
Kary Mullis, insisted should never be used for diagnosing a disease in the first place!

The study concludes by saying the following:

In the present work, we observe a strong correlation between Ct value and sample infectivity in a
cell culture model. On the basis of this data, we can deduce that with our system, patients with Ct
values equal or above 34 do not excrete infectious viral particles. It was observed that SARS-
CoV-2 was detected up to 20 days after onset of symptoms by PCR in infected patients but that the
virus could not be isolated after day 8 in spite of ongoing high viral loads of approximately 105
RNA copies/mL of sample, using the RT-PCR system used in the present study [14].

Progressive decrease of viral load over time is observed in all studies conducted in Covid-19
patients with positive detection being observed until 17–21 days after onset of symptoms,
independently of symptoms [15]. These previous observations suggested that isolation of patients
after diagnosis was mandatory. However, due to prolonged shedding of RNA in respiratory samples,
the criteria for ending the isolation of a patient were not clear, and there was a need to correlate viral
load to cultivable viruses. Our results show that in our system of RT-PCR, we can assess that
patients with Ct equal or above 34 may be discharged. In 6 patients under the current therapeutic
protocol used at our institute (hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin), Ct values > 34 were obtained
between days 2 and 4 post-treatment [6].

There is no previous correlation demonstrated between level viral load in respiratory samples
and infectivity. However, this reduction is the basis of all procedures used for the validation of
disinfectants [16]. … Another potential limitation is that nasopharyngeal swab fluid might be less
representative than sputum samples. However, from the data obtained from patients rather tested
in sputum, the viral load follows the same reduction with time of evolution than upper respiratory
specimens [17].

The question then arises of why are they using nasal swabs to the back of the nasal cavity where
these miniscule viral fragment concentrations are 1000 times more concentrated than in sputum
(spit)? If the test must be run at 35+ CT’s in order to get a nasal swab test to appear positive, and
moisture droplets from our mouth are 1000 times LESS concentrated, then how is ANYONE without
symptoms possibly able to infect or spread the virus to others AND cause them to become infected given
the nearly non-existent viral load? Answer: they CANNOT.

Asymptomatic transmission is a myth; it cannot happen!

Watch this video as Del Bigtree explains it all in detail.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 94


In a statement released on December 14, 2020 the
World Health Organization finally owned up to what
100,000’s of doctors and medical professionals have
been saying for months: the PCR test used to
diagnose COVID-19 is a hit and miss process with way
too many false positives.

This WHO-admitted “Problem” comes in the wake of
international lawsuits exposing the incompetence
and malfeasance of public health officials and
policymakers for reliance on a diagnostic test not fit

for purpose.

This World Health Organization admission is that the crux of the “problem” is a wholly arbitrary
cycling process which “means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some
circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target
virus is difficult to ascertain.” [emphasis added]

The UN body is now clearly looking to distance itself from the fatally flawed test as a growing
number of lawsuits are processing through the courts exposing the insanity of relying on a test
that even the inventor, Professor Kary B. Mullis said was never designed to diagnose diseases.

Professor Mullis was awarded the Nobel
Prize in Chemistry in 1993. ‘Coincidentally’,
Mullis died just before the pandemic started.

We reported on November 22, 2020 that a
landmark court case in Portugal had ruled
that the polymerase chain reaction test (PCR)
used worldwide to diagnose COVID-19 was
not fit for purpose. Most importantly, the
judges ruled that a single positive PCR test
cannot be used as an effective diagnosis
of infection.

As reported at the time: “In
their ruling, judges Margarida Ramos de
Almeida and Ana Paramés referred to several scientific studies. Most notably this study by
Jaafar et al., which found that – when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the
accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 95

The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using
over 25 cycles is totally unreliable. Governments and private labs have been very
tight-lipped about the exact number of cycles they run when PCR testing, but it is known
to sometimes be as high as 45. Even fearmonger-in-chief Anthony Fauci has publicly stated
anything over 35 is totally unusable.”


You can read the complete ruling in the original Portuguese here, and translated into
English here.

Among thousands of angry doctors arguing PCR tests should not be used is Dr. Pascal Sacré. He
wrote that:

“This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by
some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant
media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of
constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active
sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary
citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests,
and not on a real number of patients.”

Clear and conclusive scientific evidence proves that these tests are not accurate and create a
statistically significant percentage of false positives. Positive results more likely indicate
“ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.” [2]

However, none of this is new
information to science. These facts
were known at least before 2007
after a New York Times report
entitled, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to
Epidemic That Wasn’t,” (image, above)
clearly showed how scientifically
inaccurate PCR tests are, featuring
many shocking statements from
medical experts on the use of these
tests, clearly laying out how they
result in false positives and lead
to dangerous exaggerations and
false alarms. [3]

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 96


AS OF MARCH 21, 2021

 Dr. Tom Cowan
 March 30, 2021
 No Comments

By Tom Cowan

A virus is a particle wrapped in a protein coating containing genetic
material, either RNA or DNA. A virus is considered to be a physical thing.

How do virologists find a new virus, in this case, SARS-CoV-2?

Lay people and most medical providers assume virologist take fluid samples from the nose or
lungs of many sick people with the same symptoms and examine them under a powerful
microscope. They assume that the virologists actually see a virus that they’ve never seen
before in these samples.

How do they know that virus causes the disease in question, in this case, Covid19?

Most people — again, including medical providers — would assume that virologists prove
causation by exposing nothing but the pure virus to healthy animals in the normal way that
viruses supposedly spread.

In fact, here’s what they do, and here’s what they did again with SARS-CoV-2. Virologists took
bronchoscopy-guided lung samples (BAL fluid) from people with pneumonia from an unknown
cause. They “washed” and filtered this fluid to remove large cellular debris, fungus and
bacteria. Here’s where people’s assumptions of what happens and what actually happens
diverge: They never examined this fluid under an electron microscope (the only type that
can visualize something as small as a virus). In fact, virologists always skip examining this
fluid under a microscope.

They then took this unpurified soluble fluid from the person with pneumonia of unknown origin
and inoculated it onto tissue taken from an animal or human source. But first they added a
variety of other fluids, including amniotic fluid, horse serum, bovine fetal serum, all of which are
themselves rich sources of proteins and genetic material. They do this because the “virus”
they’re looking for won’t grow otherwise. In addition, the nutrients supporting the growth of
the tissue in the culture were withdrawn. In other words, the tissue was starved. Antibiotics,
such as gentamicin and amphotericin, were added to the culture, both of which are known to
be toxic to kidney tissue.

They then measured the ability of this unpurified mixture to lyse (or kill) the animal or human
tissue in the culture. To date, the only tissue that was killed (called a cytopathic effect) came
from Vero cells, which are taken from monkey kidneys. When the cultures contained only
human or other animal-sourced tissues, little to no cytopathic effects were seen.1

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 97

The Vero cell culture did, indeed, break down into millions of different sized and shaped
particles. The virologists took an electron-microscope picture of it, saw particles they said
were budding out from the Vero cells, and they called those particles isolated SARS-Cov-2.

How do they know those particles in the culture are the culprits?

Here’s the problem: In reality, no accepted scientific protocol can distinguish a particle
that emerges as a result of the breakdown of Vero cells or the other sources of genetic
material added to the culture from a “virus” coming from the outside.2

It gets worse. As of today, no particle with the characteristics or appearance of SAR-CoV-2
(as seen in electron micrographs) has been found in the results of this “culture”
procedure, until a protein-digesting enzyme called trypsin is added to the mix.3 This
enzyme digests the outer protein coating of these particles, resulting in the
characteristic “spike” protein appearance of the alleged SARS-CoV-2.

The next step for virologists is to do a genetic analysis of the results of this “viral
culture.” Virologists have NOT and can NOT find any complete sequence in that culture
that would represent the entire genome of any known virus. Rather, the genome
sequencing is performed inside a computer, which is called in silico genome.

In this culture, they find billions of various sized pieces of genetic material. They chop these
pieces into smaller bits, and some are discarded if they are alleged to originate from human or
other microbial origin. These small sequences are “aligned” inside the computer, meaning,
they are reconstructed into a long genome that would be the size of a coronavirus genome,
which has been previously published.4

In other words, a complete genome is sequenced based on the template of other such in
silico genomes, thereby guaranteeing that the computer will “find” SARS-CoV-2 in this
new sample. Inevitably, there is some divergence in the new genome sequence as
compared to the template. This is called a variant. At no time has the virologist found the
complete sequence of either of SARS-CoV-2 or the variant in the BAL fluid. It exists only
in the computer.

The only reasonable conclusion that anyone examining this process would come to is that no
evidence exists that a real particle in the real world that causes what they’re calling
Covid-19 has been found.



2 Gianessi, et al Viruses 2020 May; 12(5): 571. The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV,
HCV, and SARS Viruses

3 Caly et al, Med J Aust 2020, June; 212 (10) p. 459-462 PMID 3223727. Isolation and Rapid sharing of
the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with Covid-19 in Australia.

4 Ibid.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 98


Read the full article at:


Would a sane person mix a patient sample (containing various sources of genetic material and never proven
to contain any particular virus) with transfected monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs, then
claim that the resulting concoction is “viral isolate” and ship it off internationally for use in critical research
(including vaccine and test development)?

Because that’s the sort of fraudulent monkey business that’s being passed of as “virus isolation” by research
teams around the world. See the screenshot below, or click here for an example from Australia.

A colleague in New Zealand (Michael
S.) and I (CM) have been submitting
Freedom of Information requests to
various institutions around the world
seeking records that describe the
isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus from
any unadulterated sample taken from
a diseased patient.

Our requests have not been limited to
records of isolation performed by the
respective institution, or limited to
records authored by the respective
institution, rather they were open to
any records describing “COVID-19
virus” isolation performed by anyone,
ever, anywhere on the planet.

Thus far (October 24, 2020) 9 Canadian institutions have provided their final responses: Health Canada,
the National Research Council of Canada, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization-
International Vaccine Centre (VIDO-InterVac), McGill University, the Region of Peel (Ontario),
the University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, McMaster University and Mount
Sinai Hospital (Toronto) (researchers from the last 4 institutions had publicly claimed to have “isolated
the virus”).

Every institution has indicated the same: that they searched their records and located none describing
the isolation of any “COVID-19 virus” directly from a patient sample that was not first adulterated with
other sources of genetic material. (Those other sources are typically monkey kidney aka “Vero” cells
and fetal bovine serum).

See the above links (or the source article) to access the responses from Canadian institutions other
than Health Canada. See the source article and scroll further down the page for responses from
institutions outside of Canada.

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 99

Here is a compilation pdf containing “isolation/purification/existence of SARS-COV-2” FOI
responses from 33 institutions around the world, last updated November 7, 2020:

As of Nov. 7 2020: Zero institutions have provided any record describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation; 30 of
the 33 admitted flat out that they have “no records”; 2 of the 33 failed to fully co-operate (University of
Auckland and Public Health Wales); NIAID was asked a different set of questions and their response
suggests that they too have no records of any isolated/purified “SARS-COV-2”.

Regarding Health Canada specifically… despite:

 the fact that a virus that has never been isolated has also never been sequenced or
shown scientifically to be the cause of any illness;

 the fact that COVID-19 diagnostic “tests” (PCR “tests”) are sequence-based;
 the fact that the entire country has been under lock-down and Canadians have experienced a mind-

boggling level of disruption and devastation over an alleged deadly “novel coronavirus”;
 having authorized 51 clinical trials for “COVID-19” drugs and vaccines as of July 19, 2020; and
 being the sole authorizing authority for “COVID-19” testing devices imported or sold in Canada, and

having already authorized 26 “COVID-19” medical devices;

When Health Canada finally
provided their final response
via email on June 24, 2020,
sure enough “we were unable
to locate any records…” (here
is a partial screenshot of the
relevant portion of the

There are now at least 57 such
Freedom of Information
Requests that have been sent
of governments and health
agencies around the world
and they have ALL responded
in similar fashion. NO ONE has
isolated a single copy of this
alleged-to-exists virus,
ANYWHERE in the world!

Health Canada has apparently seen no need to ensure that “the deadly virus” has actually been
isolated from a patient sample by anyone, ever, anywhere on the planet, and has no records
indicating that it has been. Virus isolation and other basic “COVID-19” science is simply an
article of faith with Health Canada.

If they haven’t found a real pathogen, then what is really going on with Covid19, you might ask?

Copyright ©2021 P a g e | 100

Click to View FlipBook Version
Previous Book
Next Book
รายงานกิจกรรมการอ่านเขียน ป.1-ม.3-63