London Police Attack COVID Protestors on Saturday 9/26/2020


Once again, the London police continue to support the government and attacked peaceful protestors in Trafalgar Square. No matter what the evidence, the government is maintaining these Draconian lockdowns. We can see that the protest was peaceful until the police showed up to brutally abuse the rights of the people that will suppress their own family’s future.

Unfortunately, the London police are supporting absolute tyranny. This is clearly part of this global agenda to hand sovereignty to the United Nations. It may sound more like a conspiracy theory, but already there is talk in London that they will next use these lockdowns to combat Climate Change. Keeping people from commuting to work to reduce fuel consumption. Mariana Mazzucato, a professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London and also a Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. She has bought into the UN agenda and claims that the world is “approaching a tipping point on climate change, when protecting the future of civilization will require dramatic interventions.”

Mazzucato is suggesting that if we do not reduce CO2, then these lockdowns will be justified to save the planet. We are already dealing with a fake pandemic, which is clearly being used to expand the powers of government. They have Europe in their back-pocket, New Zealand, and of course Australia under the insane control of the madman Daniels Andrews. Above, is street art in Melbourne against this orchestrated agenda. What has escaped most of the headline is what is going on in Canada. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who has suspended Parliament. This battle to overthrow Trump is part of this Globalist Agenda. If they can get rid of Trump, then all that stands in their way is China and Russia. They intend to impose sanctions to try to force them to comply with this UN Agenda.

 

Sky News – Something is Strange in Europe


 

Did The First Lockdown Trigger The Second Wave?


The good news? If Trump wins, they won’t be able to stop that great awakening from spreading. Nor will they escape accountability.

Mark Gray image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 24, 2020

Did The First Lockdown Trigger The Second Wave?

COVID-19’s second wave will fail worse than the first. Politicians will use it to justify further tyranny now, but as the second wave recedes it will leave fully exposed the dark heart of evil that runs our lives. Our “leaders” will eventually rue the day they embraced totalitarianism.

If the answer to the title question is yes, the coming “second wave” is an “unexpected consequence” of the lockdown as we were told we’d be “safe” if we agreed to an aggressive response that included shutting schools, parks, and businesses down, quarantining the healthy, and following some sketchy safety guidelines.

Original COVID-19 models were critically flawed, producing alarming projections at odds with reality

We now know beyond any reasonable doubt that the original COVID-19 models were critically flawed, producing alarming projections at odds with reality. That panicked alarm, not the ignored reality, is what spread across the globe like wildfire, and in doing so created the “need” for a strong political response explicitly designed to “save” us.

The politicians who swallowed the COVID Kool aid, which is to say, all of them, leapt into action with liberty shredding decisions to shut down this, lock down that, and coerce abeyance with idiotic “safety” guidelines. Putting on a mask to enter a restaurant only to pull it off at the table, for example, makes no logical sense. It obviously isn’t about safety, which means it must be about the rule, or more specifically, the right to enforce the silly rule.

The entire political response—every rule, regulation, law, mandate, and guideline—was designed to save us from a false perception, not the underlying reality of a greater than 99.9% survival rate. Building solutions based on seriously bad information will always lead to “unexpected” consequences because the problem being solved doesn’t exist. This ignorance ensures policy failure, essentially guaranteeing harsh, negative consequences for us all.

If you prefer images, picture a surgeon removing the wrong limb as an example of bad information driving negative consequences.

First Wave Consequences, Second Wave Troubles

It is important to note that many of the first wave lockdown consequences were fully expected, and because of their ferocious impact, were initially sold as a short term, temporary solution. The politicians knew locking everything down would lead to massive job losses, personal and business bankruptcies, misdirected taxpayer resources, a loss of health services, which is a real health crisis, and a gross violation of civil liberties. They knew their decisions would hurt, yet they proceeded without hesitation. They knew then, and they know even better now. And yet?

The media’s second wave reporting has focused heavily on the recent rise in “number of cases” across the country, stoking fears on the assumption of a direct, causal relationship between cases and deaths.  This thinking makes sense on the surface as deaths quickly followed the rise in first wave cases, but this case-death correlation doesn’t show up in the second wave statistics, an indicator the virus is struggling to find viable victims.

This hasn’t slowed the media’s frantic fear mongering in the slightest, and they continue to press the idea that further lockdown measures are a political necessity because we face another wave of viral massacre. However, if the second wave rise in cases is an “unexpected” consequence of the first’s mistaken lockdown, something that shouldn’t have occurred, then its value to the decision-making process is also suspect and should be reviewed.

So, is there any evidence that indicates the “second wave” is a negative consequence of misguided “first wave” lockdown policies?

The Data Damns Our Decision Makers

The first two charts compare Daily COVID-19 Deaths between lockdown UK and non-lockdown Sweden, which allows us to explore the impact UK lockdown policies had on deaths.  The second two charts add the number of daily cases into the mix, allowing us to evaluate the relationship between cases and deaths for the UK and Sweden in both the first and second waves.

Daily New Deaths In United Kingdom

Daily New Deaths In Sweden

 

Although the UK and Sweden took different routes, the similarity between the lockdown and non-lockdown death curves is apparent, as is the inference that lockdowns had little effect on the lethality of the virus.

Now, let’s take a peek at the Daily Case numbers.

Daily New Deaths vs Cases in United Kingdom

Daily New Deaths vs Cases in Sweden

Fight ELITIST SUPPRESSION—Make CFP Your Go-To Home Page!There is a substantial difference in the Daily Case curves between the UK and Sweden, suggesting that although lockdown policies have little impact on daily deaths, they do have a significant effect on how the virus spreads.

While Sweden’s decision to remain open delayed the peak of their first wave Daily Cases curve, the chart shows deaths peaked and began dropping long before the virus finished spreading at its quickest. The chart shows Sweden’s second wave arrived and departed between August and September without causing a respective rise in deaths. In fact, the Daily Death curve shows no upward bounce at all.

The UK’s Daily Cases, strangely enough, began climbing after their summer mask mandate. However, the “expected” rise in Daily Deaths failed to materialize.

So,

  • Lockdown policies did set the stage for a second wave.
  • COVID-19 has lost its lethality and any rise in “second wave” deaths will likely resemble a ripple rather than a tsunami.
  • The political/media complex want us to live in lockdown. (Evil a hard pill to swallow?)

News vs Fake News

Generally speaking, the purpose of “News” is to inform. It may enhance the value of that information by adding context related analyses but by and large, News occurs after the act has happened and does its best to bring perceptions in line with reality.

Conversely, because Fake News eschews reality, it must lead with a lie of desire rather than follow the truth of events. Its success is determined by how well it is able to convince people to believe things that aren’t true, such as COVID-19 being the worst viral bug since the early 1900s, and then exploiting that belief to force political action, which then “legitimizes” the Fake claim and fuels the next News cycle. From that point there is only one acceptable direction: Forward!

Belief is key, because once set it automatically protects itself by immediately rejecting contradictory facts and figures that would destroy it. How else can we rationalize mask mandates for populations with survival rates over 99.99%, like the 8 provinces not named Quebec and Ontario? How does the call to shut down schools and mask-up children comport with this report showing zero deaths, none, out of over 48,000 cases in US Universities?

The logical disconnect is obvious, but it still isn’t enough to unseat the Fake belief “we’re all gonna die”. This leaves us fearful and exploitable. Share some COVID-19 truths with a masker then sit back and watch. You will often see the alarm grow in their eyes as the cognitive dissonance sets in. Unfortunately, that alarm is typically silenced by rejecting the painful truth and ending the discussion.

Why are western societies across the globe teetering on the brink of totalitarian terror? Because Fake News, evil as it is, works! We either eliminate it from our lives or it will continue to eliminate freedom from ours.

The world really is in an existential battle between good and evil. The rioting, lockdowns, and hatred roiling the globe are not signs of a revolution so much as they are panicked signals the corrupt cabal running things is being systematically exposed. They will get uglier.

The good news? If Trump wins, they won’t be able to stop that great awakening from spreading. Nor will they escape accountability.

Senator Rand Paul Confronts Dr. Anthony Fauci For Months of Lies and Manipulative Statements….


Senator Rand Paul confronted Dr. Anthony Fauci today about his history of false claims, lies and manipulative statements surrounding the COVID-19 virus and direction for U.S. mitigation efforts.  It’s about time someone called the baby ugly.

Anthony Fauci, a political ideologue and leftist advocate, was the primary government influence that has led to trillions in economic damage and impacted the lives of all Americans with false assertions and brutally political virus mitigation efforts.

.

COVID-19 hype was a political effort with assistance from U.S. media.

“Fish do not know they are in water”  ~Sundance

 

How CDC/WHO will fake the effects of the COVID vaccine to make it look like a success


And appointing official mouthpieces to carry lies to the public is as easy as training little Faucis to sit up and bark

Jon Rappoport image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 22, 2020

How CDC/WHO will fake the effects of the COVID vaccine to make it look like a success

Making a vaccine look like it’s a champion isn’t difficult for public health agencies.  There are a number of strategies.

Of course, these fraudulent strategies would be serious crimes.  But when has that stopped the CDC or the World Health Organization?

In no particular order——

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed)

ONE: Rework the definition of a “COVID case.” Presently, the CDC absurdly allows doctors to diagnose a person with COVID who has a cough, or chills and fever, and lives in an area where cases are being claimed.  No test necessary.

So change this practice, once the vaccine is approved.  Demand testing for a diagnosis.  State that cough alone is not enough.  Chills and fever must also be present.  Require fever to be above 100.

These and other changes would automatically shrink the number of cases.  The drop in numbers would be attributed to the vaccine.

This “definitional shrinking” was, in fact, deployed in the 1950s, after the introduction of the polio vaccine.

TWO: Order a change in the way the PCR diagnostic test is done.  The practice of amplifying the original test sample from the patient occurs in cycles, or jumps.  The greater the number of cycles, the more likely the test will result in a COVID diagnosis.  Therefore, order a reduced number of cycles for all testing labs.

Outcome?  Fewer COVID diagnoses.  Fewer case numbers.  “The vaccine is working.”

THREE: Quietly restrict the present hospital practice of arbitrarily writing “COVID” on patient case and death files.

FOUR: Cook up and publish false studies showing more and more people are developing immunity to the virus.  Attribute this to the vaccine.

FIVE: Another type of false study—-“the transmission of the virus from person to person is slowing, thanks to the vaccine.”

SIX: Pump up the success of issuing Immunity certificates after vaccination. “People are feeling safer now.  More businesses are reopening…”

SEVEN: Using the compliant press, simply issue bald declarations that the vaccine is a success.

EIGHT: Hide the many instances of injury and death from the vaccine. When necessary, claim COVID was the cause.

NINE: Warn that the wonderful vaccine-derived immunity is not permanent, and frequent booster shots are necessary.

TEN: Rework the definition of “vaccine-acquired immunity.” Even a very weak antibody response from the shot would qualify as “protective immunity.”

ELEVEN: Huge numbers of people with ordinary flu-like illness, pneumonia, and other traditional lung infections are being called “COVID.”  Change this practice.  Go back to calling many of these people “flu,” “pneumonia,” etc.  COVID case numbers will drop.  Claim the drop is the effect of the vaccine.

TWELVE: Presently, millions of so-called COVID cases have “co-morbidities.”  These are prior serious health conditions which are, in fact, the true causes of illnesses and death.  Of course, this is denied.  But after the vaccine is introduced… scale back the practice of counting all these ill and deceased co-morbid patients as “COVID.”  Case and death numbers will drop.  Claim the vaccine is the reason.

THIRTEEN: After the vaccine is introduced, slow down testing for a brief period.  This will automatically reduce the rate of new cases.  Attribute the decline to the vaccine.

Committing these crimes are a walk in the park for public health agencies.

And appointing official mouthpieces to carry lies to the public is as easy as training little Faucis to sit up and bark.

(The link to this article posted on my blog is here.)

Is the Official Covid-19 Death Toll Accurate?


Re-Posted from Just Facts Daily By James D. Agresti, September 15, 2020

Overview

Roughly two-thirds of U.S. residents don’t believe the CDC’s official tally for the number of Covid-19 deaths. This distrust, however, flows in opposing directions. A nationally representative survey conducted by Axios/Ipsos in late July 2020 found that 37% of adults think the real number of C-19 fatalities in the U.S. is lower than reported, while 31% think the true death toll is greater than reported.

The facts show that neither side has an airtight case, but the evidence is more consistent with the theory that less people have died from C-19 than the official figures indicate. Nevertheless, the extent of the possible overcount is unknown, and even if it were as high as 50,000, it would not make a marked difference in key measures of the pandemic’s severity. Hence, debates over the accuracy of the death toll distract from other issues with much greater implications.

Excess Deaths

The main argument of those who claim that the official C-19 death tally is an undercount is based on a factor called “excess deaths.” This is defined as the total number of deaths from all causes during the pandemic minus the number of deaths that would normally occur at this time of the year.

In the words of the Government Accountability Office, “Examining higher-than-expected deaths from all causes helps to address limitations in the reporting of Covid-19 deaths because the number of total deaths is likely more accurate than the numbers of deaths from specific causes.”

U.S. death certificate data shows that the rise in deaths during the pandemic has indeed been greater than the number of reported C-19 deaths. Some jump to the conclusion that these additional fatalities must be C-19 deaths that were not recorded as such, but a broad array of data indicates that the bulk or all of them are caused by societal reactions to C-19—instead of the disease itself.

For a prime example of how people misconstrue this issue, CNN’s chief media correspondent, Brian Stelter, reported on August 16:

We are likely to see the 170,000 mark crossed today—confirmed deaths from Covid-19. But researchers have looked at the actual number of excess deaths in this country—estimated deaths above the norm—and they say it’s closer to 200,000 so far this year. So the real actual death toll from Covid-19 is around 200,000. We have to constantly remind viewers that it’s even worse than we know. It’s even worse than the data indicate.

First, Stelter is wrong that this figure is for “confirmed” deaths. It is actually for “confirmed” plus “suspected” deaths. Those exact words come from the CDC’s official guidance for certifying C-19 deaths, which was published on April 3. On the same day Stelter made this claim, the CDC’s website stated that its C-19 “case counts and death counts” have included “both confirmed and probable cases and deaths” since April 14. In other words, Stelter misrepresented the essence of the data even though this accounting change was in effect for four full months.

The impact of including probable deaths in the count is evidenced by how the CDC altered its website when it adopted this methodology. Two days after the new method of counting deaths was implemented, the CDC updated its website twice (instead of its usual once-per-day update) to incorporate this revision. The changes it made on that day (April 16) provide a rough sense of scale for how the new policy modified the death toll:

  • Before any updates, the CDC reported that 24,582 people had died from C-19 as of April 14.
  • On the first update, the CDC reported that 27,012 people had died from C-19 as of April 15, including 22,871 “confirmed” and 4,141 “probable.”
  • On the second update, the CDC reported that 31,071 people had died from C-19 as of April 15, including 26,930 “confirmed” and 4,141 “probable.”

Taken at face value, the second update shows that CDC’s insertion of “probable” cases raised the death count from 26,930 to 31,071, or by 15%. From a more skeptical standpoint, the difference between the 22,871 “confirmed” deaths on the first update and the 31,071 “confirmed and probable” deaths on the second update amounts to a 36% rise caused by these bookkeeping modifications.

More significantly, Stelter failed to reveal that scholars who conduct research on excess deaths have found that multitudes of them have been caused by lockdowns, panic, and other responses to the pandemic. In July 2020, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a paper regarding this matter by researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University. An article about the study from Virginia Commonwealth University summarizes its findings and quotes the researchers as follows:

  • Some excess deaths “may reflect under-reporting” or “patients with Covid-19 who died from related complications,” “but a third possibility, the one we’re quite concerned about is” the “spillover effects of the pandemic, such as delayed medical care, economic hardship or emotional distress.”
  • In the five states that that had the most Covid-19 deaths in March and April:
    • stroke deaths were 35% above normal.
    • Alzheimer’s deaths were 64% above normal.
    • heart disease deaths were 89% above normal.
    • diabetes deaths were 96% above normal.
  • “New York City’s death rates alone rose a staggering 398% from heart disease and 356% from diabetes.”
  • “Still others may have struggled to deal with the consequences of job loss or social isolation.”
  • “A number of people struggling with depression, addiction and very difficult economic conditions caused by lockdowns may have become increasingly desperate, and some may have died by suicide. People addicted to opioids and other drugs may have overdosed.”
  • “The findings from” the “study confirm an alarming trend across the U.S., where community members experiencing a health emergency are staying home—a decision that can have long-term, and sometimes fatal, consequences.”

Numerous other facts corroborate the ones above, a small sampling of which includes the following:

  • A scientific survey commissioned by the American College of Emergency Physicians in April 2020 found that 29% of adults have “actively delayed or avoided seeking medical care due to concerns about contracting” C-19.
  • A California-based ABC News station reported in May:
    • “Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the Covid-19 virus.”
    • Mike deBoisblanc, head of the trauma unit at the hospital stated that he’s “seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks,” and “mental health is suffering so much” that he says “it is time to end the shelter-in-place order.”
  • A scientific survey conducted by the CDC in July 2020 found that about 32% of U.S. adults had “symptoms of anxiety disorder” as compared to 8% around the same time last year. The perils of this are underscored by a 2015 meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry, which found that the overall risk of death among people with anxiety is 43% higher than the general population.
  • A study published by the American Medical Association in September 2020 found that 27.8% of U.S. adults had symptoms of depression during the C-19 pandemic as compared to 8.5% before the pandemic. The same 2015 meta-analysis found that depression is associated with a 71% higher risk of death.
  • An article published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimated that “more than 20 million jobs” were “swept away” in the early months of the C-19 pandemic. A 2011 meta-analysis in the journal Social Science & Medicine about mortality, “psychosocial stress,” and job losses found that “unemployment is associated with a 63% higher risk of mortality in studies controlling for covariates.”
  • A study published by Just Facts in May 2020 found that anxiety related to C-19 will ultimately destroy at least seven times more years of life than can possibly be saved by lockdowns. With regard to this study, the accomplished psychiatrist Joseph P. Damore, Jr. wrote that it “thoroughly answers the question about the cure being worse than the disease.”

Thus, many or all of the excess deaths that Stelter and others attribute to C-19 are caused by the actions of governments and media outlets. These include but are not limited to stay-at-home orders, business shutdowns, and pervasive misinformation that fuels ill-informed decisions, panic, and depression.

Evidence of Overcounting

Several lines of evidence prove that some deaths included in the official C-19 tally were, in fact, not caused by C-19. However, the combined weight of this evidence is not enough to prove that the reported death toll is significantly greater than the actual one.

Four weeks after the World Health Organization declared C-19 a pandemic, Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House Covid-19 task force, stated that the U.S. is taking a “a very liberal approach” to counting C-19 deaths compared to “some countries.” She then explained that “if someone dies with Covid-19, we are counting that as a Covid-19 death.” Notably, that standard does not distinguish between dying from Covid-19 and dying with Covid-19.

In the wake of Birx’s statement, various government officials revealed exactly how they were implementing this “very liberal approach”:

  • A Michigan news article reported in April:
    • “In Macomb County, Chief Medical Examiner Daniel Spitz had a recent case in which an individual died by suicide. Because they had a family member in the hospital suffering from Covid-19, Spitz had a postmortem test done and found that the individual who died at home was positive for Covid-19. The virus wasn’t their cause of death, but the individual is counted as a Covid-19 death.”
    • In Oakland County, “every individual who has died while infected with Covid-19 has counted as a coronavirus death, according to Dr. Ljubisa J. Dragovic, the county’s chief medical examiner.”
  • Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois Department of Public Health stated during a April press conference:
    • If “you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you were also found to have Covid, that would be counted as a Covid death. It means that technically, even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you still had Covid at the time, it’s still listed as a Covid death.”
    • “So everyone who’s listed as a Covid death doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had Covid at the time of death.”
  • A month later, Ezike said that the Department of Public Health was partly unwinding its previous policy but some of it would remain in place:
    • We are “trying to remove those obvious cases” from the C-19 death tally “where the Covid diagnosis was not the reason for the death. If there was a gunshot wound, if there was a motor vehicle accident, we know that that was not related to the Covid positive status.”
    • If “someone has another illness, like heart disease, and then had a stroke or other event, it’s not as easy to separate that and say Covid didn’t exacerbate that existing illness. That would not be removed from the count.”
    • “Even if somebody was very elderly and they were maybe in hospice, we still can’t say that their Covid infection didn’t hasten the death, and so it’s relevant that Covid-19 maybe had a chance to accelerate that process.”
  • A Colorado-based CBS news station reported in April:
    • The “Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has reclassified three deaths at a Centennial nursing home as Covid-19 deaths, despite the fact attending physicians ruled all three were not related to coronavirus.”
    • A spokesman for the state explained that it “follows the CDC’s case definition of Covid-19 cases and deaths,” and “when a person with a lab-confirmed case of Covid-19 dies, their death is automatically counted as a Covid-19 death unless there is another cause that completely rules out Covid-19, such as a fatal physical injury.”
  • The same CBS news station reported in May about a death in Colorado where C-19 was completely ruled out, but the state counted it anyway:
    • A man was found dead with blood alcohol content about twice the level that is potentially fatal, and Montezuma County Coroner George Deavers ruled that he died of alcohol poisoning.
    • Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment classified the case as a C-19 fatality because the man tested positive for C-19 after his death.
    • The coroner stated: “Yes, he did have Covid, but that is not what took his life.”
  • In Florida during July:
    • A local Fox news station asked Dr. Raul Pino, the health officer of Orange County, if two people in their twenties who had allegedly died of Covid-19 had any preexisting conditions. Pino replied: “The first one didn’t have any. He died in a motorcycle accident.”
    • Two days after the news station published this story, Pino’s office said the case “was reviewed,” and the person “was taken off the list for Covid fatalities.”
  • Officials of the Maricopa County, Arizona Public Health Department stated in August:
    • “Even if it’s not listed on their death certificate, anyone who has a Covid-19 positive test within a certain period of when they died, is also counted as a Covid-19 positive death.”
    • If a person dies in a car crash and tested positive for C-19 in the prior 60 days, “Yes, the death would be added” to the C-19 death tally because “it is important to understand who died WITH the disease even if the disease was not the CAUSE of death. Obviously, fatal accidents are a small subset of the total.”

Short of scrutinizing every alleged C-19 death or a truly representative sample of them, there is no way to tell how many cases like those above are part of the official tally. However, certain evidence suggests they are not a large portion of the total:

  • Contrary to Birx’s statement in March, the CDC issued guidance in early April that states: “Not all conditions present at the time of death have to be reported—only those conditions that actually contributed to death.”
  • The CDC posted that guidance on April 3 when the official C-19 death count was 5,443 people, or less than one-thirtieth of the current tally. Thus, whatever happened prior to then can’t have a major impact on the total.
  • Some states instruct people who fill out death certificates to exclude C-19 if it didn’t play an active role in the fatality. Mississippi, for instance, says: “If Covid-19 was unrelated to the cause of death and not a contributing factor, it should not be included” on the death certificate.

On the other hand, the CDC’s guidance and other government policies still incentivize or stack the deck in favor of including C-19 on death certificates. For example:

  • The state of Alaska instructs medical professionals to report C-19 deaths according to this standard: “Whether Covid-19 shortened a life by 15 years or 15 minutes; whether Covid-19 is an underlying or contributing condition, the virus was in circulation, infected an Alaskan, and hastened their death. This must be reported.” Given the impossibility of determining if C-19 shortened a life by 15 minutes, these instructions favor placing C-19 on the death certificates of people who died with or after C-19 but not necessarily from C-19.
  • The CDC’s guidance for certifying C-19 deaths provides three examples of how to record them on death certificates, one of which involves an 86-year-old female who was never tested for C-19, had a debilitating stroke three years prior to her death, and passed on with “a high fever and severe cough after being exposed to an ill family member who subsequently was diagnosed with Covid-19.” The guidance states the “underlying cause of death,” or the pivotal factor that led to her death, should be listed as “Probable Covid-19.” However, many other diseases can cause a fever and cough, and a recent CDC study shows it is not uncommon for people to display symptoms of C-19 but test negative for it.
  • The federal CARES Act, which became law in late March, pays hospitals a 20% premium for treating Medicare patients who are diagnosed with C-19. Until recently, a positive lab test for C-19 was not needed to obtain this money, but the federal government added this requirement in September “to address potential Medicare program integrity risks….” Note that C-19 need not appear on a death certificate for hospitals to receive these payments, so it may not influence decisions to include it.
  • The Mississippi Department of Health states: “If the patient was a confirmed Covid-19 case, but Covid-19 contributed to but did not cause the death, such as stroke,” C-19 should be listed in Part II of the death certificate. This again favors placing C-19 on death certificates, for as the director of Illinois Department of Public Health said: If “someone has another illness, like heart disease, and then had a stroke or other event, it’s not as easy to separate that and say Covid didn’t exacerbate that existing illness.” Note that the CDC includes in its C-19 death tally all death certificates that mention C-19, regardless of whether it appears in Part I or Part II.

A breakdown of how many C-19 deaths appear in Part I versus Part II might shed considerable light on the issue of C-19’s lethality. This is because Part I of a death certificate “is for reporting the sequence of conditions that led directly to death,” while Part II is for “other significant conditions that contributed to the death, but are not a part of the sequence of conditions directly leading to the death.” Thus, Just Facts requested such data from the CDC on September 11 and is awaiting a reply.

Summary

Media outlets have persistently reported on the number of C-19 deaths while ignoring vital facts that place them in context. A simple example of this is that 2.8 million people die in the U.S. every year, including about 170,000 from accidents. Also of great import, accidents rob an average of 30.6 years of life from each of its victims, as compared to roughly 10.8 years for C-19. Yet in contrast, media outlets don’t continually publicize the running death tally from accidents.

This focus on the raw number of C-19 fatalities—combined with the fact that the very nature of the disease makes these figures uncertain—has spurred controversy over the accuracy of the CDC’s death count. Adding fuel to the fire, the statements and actions of some public officials show clear evidence of overcounting.

But even if the real death toll is 50,000 less than the 200,000 deaths currently reported by the CDC, this 25% difference would have little effect on key measures of the pandemic’s severity.

Consider, for example, the infection fatality rate, which is the portion of people who die after catching the disease. In early March, the World Health Organization announced that “about 3.4% of reported Covid-19 cases have died” and that “by comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.” This 3.4% figure was widely reported, and many media outlets criticized President Trump for saying, “I think the 3.4% is really a false number,” and “I would say the number is way under 1%.”

As it turned out, Trump was correct, and the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford now estimates that the infection fatality rate for C-19 is “somewhere between 0.1% and 0.41%.” This is well below 1%, just as Trump stated, and within range of the flu’s infection fatality rate of 0.15%. So even if C-19 deaths are overcounted by 25%, and this exaggerates the fatality rates by the same amount, they would still be 0.1% to 0.3%—or practically unchanged.

Likewise, the CDC’s current best estimates for the infection fatality rate range from 0.003% for people aged 0–19 to 5.4% for people aged 70 and above. Again, a 25% change in these figures would leave them in the same ballpark.

Thus, debates over the death count are a distraction from more informative measures like the odds of dying from C-19 for those who catch it. In this case, the highly publicized figure of 3.4% proved to be off by about a factor of 10. That is a major factor that truly informs the big picture.

From an even broader perspective, the most comprehensive available measure of the threat posed by Covid-19 is the total years of life that it will rob from all people who were alive at the outset of 2020. This crucial measure accounts for the facts that:

  • there is a material difference between a malady that kills a 20 year-old in the prime of her life and one that kills a 90-year-old who would have otherwise died a month later.
  • Covid-19 is unlikely to have an ongoing high death toll because the virus that causes it mutates much less substantially than that of the flu and other contagious diseases. Thus, it is far less likely to keep taking lives in the face of acquired immunity and vaccines.

In the context of this broad measure, debates over the actual death toll amount to rounding errors in the relative threats posed by Covid-19 and other common scourges that take masses of lives every year:

In conclusion, the facts of this matter accord with a Government Accountability Office technology assessment published in July that found: “The extent of any net undercounting or overcounting of Covid-19 deaths is unknown.” More importantly, debates over the accuracy of this figure divert attention from other issues that have much greater implications for understanding the pandemic and how it should be addressed.

Does Martin Armstrong Advise Boris Johnson?


QUESTION: Marty; Do you ever advise Boris Johnson?

HS

ANSWER: No. I have never spoken with him nor with any member of his staff that I am aware of. Perhaps some in the past. People tend to rotate around a lot in government. But to the best of my knowledge, I have never spoken with his administration. I was asked to fly over to meet with him by supporters BEFORE this COVID scheme to take over the world using fear, but that never took place.

Given his extreme actions with respect to these restrictions, I seriously doubt he would be interested in listening to me anyway. He seems to have bought this agenda because I believe the economic reality of Keynesian economics is smacking them in the face.

The central banks cannot rebuild the economy and the Bank of England hinting at negative rates demonstrates they feel they should do something, but can’t. They lack the courage to do what is really necessary. Hence, the COVID fake pandemic is being used to suppress civil rights and to try to prevent mass uprisings and protests because the Keynesian-Socialist agenda is collapsing.

London Freedom Protest September 19, 2020


Why and How did COVID-19 Appear?


Sometime around the turn of the century Bill Gates got involved with Al Gore and the Climate Change movement. Gates took this very seriously and decided to try and stop the destruction of the planet; not realizing that it wasn’t a real threat. The Reason I can say that is I have been studying the “climate” problem for well over 20 years now and although the climate does change, it always has so there is nothing new here. I can say this because of my college courses in Geography and climate so I have a basic understanding of the physical world we live in. The perceived problem relates to the time frames  that these changes of a few degrees up or down take to happen. Obviously the temperature of the planet is directly related to the out put of our sun. But the sun’s output is not a constant it is a variable of a decades long movement driven by the 11 year solar cycle of our sun. That cycle combined with orbital variations and the distribution of the continents creates weather patterns in the oceans and the atmosphere that can give the “illusion” of major changes. If the reader is interested in that subject check out my monthly climate update posted here in MY Climate research.

Gates lacking a college education doesn’t have the proper background in economics, math, statistics, physics and Climate so he was unduly influenced by others that had a different agenda then climate. The group I am referring to is those that have embraced a version of Marxism that has morphed into a version of Marxism where the leaders of the government are the very educated ones in society. Those are the ones that have graduated from the best schools like Harvard, MIT Sanford, Yale, etc. etc. Read the book Technology Rising written by Patrick M. Wood for all the details. These are the “Best and the Brightest” and they want to change the system of government in the United States so that they can save us from ourselves. After all they are our “betters!”

Bill Gates became a member of this group of Technologists when they got into the Green movement in the early 90’s after the collapse of the old U.S.S.R. Simultaneously the Green movement was infiltrated by the Progressives wing of the Democrat party (just another name for a Marxist) in the country  and this is a very toxic combination. This collision comprised of Bill Gates almost unlimited money, the Technologists, the Environmentalists, the Marxists and the Democrat Party is now the group that is orchestrating what is going on in the country today i.e. demonstrations, mob violence, looting, arson and mayhem. The bottom line is that the following groups and organizations are all in bed together and they are being controlled by Bill Gates!

Because of his almost unlimited money Gates runs the movement along with his side kick George Soros and Anthony Fauci. The plan developed by Gates was to save the planet for reducing the population and while doing that why not make it a better superior race by eliminating the weak, the sick and those of lets say lessor ability using eugenics. I think Hitler tried that almost 90 years ago and it didn’t go all that well and probably will not this time either.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics date as of September 9, 2020 the following is true. 179,927 people have died since January 1, 2020 that had the virus in their system. almost all of them had a comorbidity as well meaning that almost no people in good health dies from the virus. look at these numbers and then continue.

Why is this important? well based on the testimony of a Dr. Yan and her assertion that this virus was created in the Wuhan Lab. She fled Hong Kong to the United States in April and says she will never be allowed home. Martin Armstrong has stated from the beginning that this pandemic did not fit with his models as being natural. He has also reported that Dr. Fauci was the one experimenting with this type of virus and was told to stop. He then sent this program off to Wuhan China (maybe being asked to by Bill gates). Every source Armstrong looked at confirms it was made in a lab but was not a bio-weapon because of the “very” low death rate. However, based on the evidence of those who suddenly sold stock and bond positions in December & January, and inside sources who stated a “virus” was coming, Armstrong does not believe that China deliberately leaked this virus.

But maybe bill Gates did? The reason I can say that is Gates’s Father and he both believed in Eugenics and the crazy idea of creating a super race. Gates’s work on over population and virus’s especially the COVID series makes perfect sense as he wanted to reduce the worlds population. So who does he want to get ride of? How about all the old people especially with comorbidity’s for a start, in other words the weak. Now this fits with someone that wants to create a supper race and it also fits with a virus that apparently only kills people with comorbidity’s.  Since there as never been a virus like this its only common sense that it was created in a lab and the only person in the world that has the desire and the money to do this is Bill Gates.

 

The Fear of COVID-19!


COMMENT: I’ve noticed I slight welcomed change in people’s response to “the virus”. Less and less in my state, are wearing their masks. Ive begun to respond to others (mainly clerks) when they say ” be safe out there” . With ” Nah…not me. I’m taking some risks today” . Most the time I’m meet with some laughs. Once I removed my mask when saying it, and took a deep breath.
The only reason I bring this up. I feel we need to start taking these actions to help others break fears, and anxieties. In a way this seems to have helped in my small corner of the world. We can ALL do something. Even if it appears overwhelming at times.
SS

REPLY: Yes, if someone asks where is my mask, which is not mandatory to wear outside in Florida, I reply yes I’m sure I am risking my life with less than 10,000 dead from COVID along according to the CDC. But 10,000 out of 328 million I think the odds are in my favor.