Cómo a través del virus de los medios, se inocula el virus del miedo

[el porqué de las cosas]

El mayor Nuremberg de todos los tiempos está en camino
(Nota: traducido del alemán)
17/02/2021
Por Jean-Michel Grau

En estos momentos se está preparando un segundo tribunal de Nuremberg, con una demanda colectiva que se está poniendo en marcha bajo la égida de miles de abogados de todo el mundo detrás del abogado estadounidense-alemán Reiner Fuellmich, que está procesando a los responsables del escándalo Covid-19 manipulado por el Foro de Davos.

A este respecto, conviene recordar que Reiner Fuellmich es el abogado que logró condenar al gigante automovilístico Volkswagen en el caso de los catalizadores manipulados. Y es este mismo abogado el que logró condenar al Deutsche Bank como empresa criminal.

Según Reiner Fuellmich, todos los fraudes cometidos por empresas alemanas son irrisorios comparados con el daño que ha causado y sigue causando la crisis del Covid-19. Esta crisis del Covid-19 debería rebautizarse como el "Escándalo del Covid-19" y todos los responsables deberían ser procesados por los daños civiles causados por las manipulaciones y los protocolos de ensayo falsificados. Por lo tanto, una red internacional de abogados especializados en negocios alegará el mayor caso de daños civiles de todos los tiempos, el escándalo del fraude del Covid-19, que mientras tanto se ha convertido en el mayor crimen contra la humanidad jamás cometido.

Por iniciativa de un grupo de abogados alemanes se ha creado una comisión de investigación sobre el Covid-19 con el objetivo de presentar una demanda colectiva internacional utilizando el derecho anglosajón. He aquí la traducción resumida del último comunicado del Dr. Fuellmich del 15/02/2021

"Las audiencias de alrededor de 100 científicos, médicos, economistas y abogados de renombre internacional, que han sido llevadas a cabo por la Comisión de Investigación de Berlín sobre el asunto Covid-19 desde el 10.07.2020, han demostrado entretanto con una probabilidad cercana a la certeza que el escándalo Covid- 19 no fue en ningún momento una cuestión de salud. Más bien se trataba de solidificar el poder ilegítimo (ilegítimo porque se obtuvo por métodos criminales) de la corrupta "camarilla de Davos", transfiriendo la riqueza del pueblo a los miembros de la camarilla de Davos, destruyendo, entre otras cosas, las pequeñas y medianas empresas en particular. Plataformas como Amazon, Google, Uber, etc. podrían así apropiarse de su cuota de mercado y de su riqueza."

Estado de la investigación de la Comisión Covid-19

a. El Covid-19 como táctica de distracción de las "élites" empresariales y políticas para desplazar la cuota de mercado y la riqueza de las pequeñas y medianas empresas a las plataformas globales como Amazon, Google, Uber, etc.

Welcome to the UK Column Community | UKColumn Community

www.ukcolumn.org

El resto del texto sigue en spoiler:

Spoiler: Investigation de la Comisión Covid-19

b. Contribución del Impuesto Audiovisual a la reconstrucción de un nuevo panorama mediático que ofrezca una información verdaderamente independiente

c. Asegurar las estructuras agrícolas regionales

d. Hacer una moneda regional segura para evitar que una nueva moneda venga "de arriba" para ser asignada en caso de buen comportamiento.

e. Consideraciones psicológicas de la situación: ¿cómo se ha llegado a ella?
Acciones de anulación de la aprobación de una vacuna, presentadas contra la Comisión Europea, juicio en Nueva York sobre la situación de las pruebas PCR, juicios en Alemania, juicios en Canadá, juicios en Australia, juicios en Austria, juicios en el Tribunal Internacional de Justicia y en el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos.

"Hemos visto lo que se ha confirmado una y otra vez: el grado de peligrosidad del virus es prácticamente el mismo que el de la gripe estacional, independientemente de que se trate de un nuevo virus (total o parcialmente fabricado) o de que simplemente estemos ante una gripe rebautizada como "pandemia Covid-19". Mientras tanto, las pruebas de PCR de Drosten ni siquiera pueden decirnos nada sobre las infecciones contagiosas. Para colmo, los daños sanitarios y económicos causados por las medidas contra el covid han sido tan devastadores que tenemos que hablar de un nivel de destrucción históricamente único. »

"El hecho de que la salud nunca haya sido un problema es particularmente obvio, salvo que las inyecciones de sustancias genéticamente experimentales disfrazadas de "vacunas" están causando ahora graves daños, incluso consecuencias mortales, a escala masiva. La población mundial ha sido utilizada como conejillo de indias para estas inyecciones genéticas experimentales, tanto de forma gradual como extremadamente rápida. Para sumir a la población en el pánico, se introdujeron medidas de contención peligrosas y nocivas (incluso según la OMS) de uso obligatorio, innecesario y peligroso de máscaras y distanciamiento social, innecesario y contraproducente. La población estaba así "preparada" para las inyecciones".

"Mientras tanto, cada vez más personas, no sólo abogados -y con razón- exigen, además del fin inmediato de estas medidas asesinas, una revisión judicial por parte de un tribunal internacional verdaderamente independiente según el modelo de los juicios de Núremberg. Un ejemplo de esta exigencia y un conmovedor extracto de un discurso del médico inglés Dr. Vernon Coleman pueden encontrarse en el siguiente enlace)

Además, una entrevista con un denunciante en una residencia de ancianos de Berlín muestra que de 31 personas vacunadas allí, algunas de ellas a la fuerza, en presencia de soldados de la Bundeswehr, y que dieron negativo antes de la vacunación, 8 han muerto ahora y 11 sufren graves efectos secundarios". (2020news.de/whistleblower-aus-berliner-altenheim-das-schreckliche-sterben-nach-der-impfung/)

Reunión extraordinaria del Comité Covid de Berlín el miércoles 17/02/2021

"En este contexto, el miércoles 17.02.2021 tendrá lugar una reunión extraordinaria del Comité Covid de Berlín, en directo y con la participación de numerosos invitados a través de Zoom.
A partir de las 14:00 horas, se resumirá el estado de la cuestión. Además, se debatirá cómo se pueden mantener las contribuciones del Impuesto sobre las Licencias Audiovisuales y utilizarlas para la reconstrucción de un nuevo paisaje mediático que sirva realmente a la libertad de expresión, y cómo se pueden recuperar las contribuciones ya pagadas por la propaganda sin sentido de los últimos 11 meses mediante un aviso formal.

Habrá contribuciones y debates sobre cómo se puede asegurar el suministro de alimentos, en particular reforzando la agricultura regional; pero también sobre la creación de monedas regionales, si es necesario con el regreso de la UE a la CEE, sobre cómo garantizar que se pueda poner fin a la política de la "camarilla de Davos", basada en la impresión de dinero de la nada, y lograr el retorno a monedas estables.

Sobre todo, los expertos explicarán cómo ha podido ocurrir que nos encontremos en esta situación de chantaje inimaginable incluso hace un año.

En la segunda parte de la sesión, que comenzará a las 19.00 horas, personalidades de renombre y de alto nivel comentarán el estado de los litigios internacionales actuales, incluidas las diversas acciones colectivas, como se ha resumido anteriormente. Pero también se debatirá cómo los principales responsables, en particular los políticos, de los crímenes contra la humanidad aquí cometidos pueden y deben responder ante el derecho civil y penal en el marco de un nuevo Tribunal Internacional de Justicia que se creará de acuerdo con las directrices de los juicios de Nuremberg con distribución internacional".

El enlace a la sesión especial del Comité Covid anunciada aquí estará disponible el 17.02.2021 a través del sitio web del Comité (corona-ausschuss.de).
Comentario :

Para entender bien lo que está en juego con este nuevo tribunal de Nuremberg para juzgar el mayor caso de daños de todos los tiempos, es tirando del hilo del Dr. Drosten por haber falsificado el protocolo de pruebas PCR en nombre de la camarilla de Davos, que todo se va a cumplir: los patrocinadores de la oligarquía financiera, Klaus Schwab, el gran artífice de esta gigantesca toma de rehenes, los políticos a la cabeza de la UE, el brazo armado de la ejecución de las directivas de Drosten y de la OMS que llevaron ayer a todos los gobiernos occidentales a tomar las devastadoras decisiones de contención, toques de queda, uso obligatorio de máscaras y distanciamiento social, y hoy de vacunas letales para los más viejos entre nosotros.

"Son estas verdades las que harán caer las máscaras de los responsables de los crímenes cometidos. Para los políticos que han confiado en estas cifras corruptas", dice el Dr. Fuellmich, "los hechos que aquí se presentan son el salvavidas que les ayudará a poner las cosas en su sitio e iniciar el tan necesario debate científico para evitar hundirse con estos charlatanes criminales".

En segundo lugar, a la luz de esta última comunicación del Dr. Fuellmich, dos propuestas de la reunión extraordinaria del Comité Covid en Berlín son de especial interés:

En primer lugar, la forma de asegurar el suministro de alimentos, que parece algo surrealista dada la situación actual. Según la planificación de Klaus Schwab para el Foro de Davos, esto no es así. Ha pronosticado una ruptura de la cadena alimentaria a partir de finales del segundo semestre de 2021 (nouveau-monde.ca/fr/la-quatrieme-phase-de-schwab/).

En segundo lugar, la creación de monedas regionales. Ahí está claro que el Comité Covid de Berlín ya anticipa el crack bursátil mundial que se avecina y que la oligarquía financiera del Foro de Davos pretende aprovechar para crear la moneda digital europea en espera de una moneda mundial para crear un crédito social al estilo chino del que dependerá la clase media de todos los pueblos arruinados por el cierre de sus negocios, pequeñas y medianas industrias y empresas, industrias culturales y turísticas, instalaciones deportivas, etc.

Sólo estos dos aspectos de la toma de rehenes 2.0 de la que el mundo occidental es víctima desde hace casi un año deberían ser lógicamente lo suficientemente motivadores como para hacernos comprender definitivamente que estamos ante un "populicidio" que sólo pide aplastarnos si permanecemos inertes, con los brazos colgando sin hacer nada.

Por ello, cada uno de nosotros debe hacer todo lo posible desde ahora para que esta coalición jurídica internacional pueda ser operativa lo antes posible. Para ello, todos aquellos que deseen sumarse a la acción colectiva de los abogados franceses para participar en esta reconquista de nuestras libertades deben ponerse en contacto con ella antes del 21 de febrero (francesoir.fr/opinions-entretiens/interview-me-virginie-de-araujo-recchia-avocate-au-barreau- de- paris). Nuestra supervivencia tiene este precio, así como el futuro de nuestros hijos.

 

[el porqué de las cosas]

Impresionante. Para los que quieren saber el por qué - de punto de vista estrictamente científico - el SARS CoV-2 es una estafa, tal y como se nos va presentando por parte de la OMS & compañía de Davos:

Is COVID-19 A Hoax?​

Spoiler: Investigación científica sobre el cómo de la estafa del Covid-19. Postulados de Kox, el virus "aislado", etc

by Iain Davis
Sunday, 21st February 2021
Fact checkers and official media talking heads accuse anyone who suggests that "COVID is a hoax" of being COVID deniers, conspiracy theorists and of exhibiting a callous disregard for lives allegedly lost to the disease.
When Piers Corbyn addressed a crowd in Liverpool in October last year, the Liverpool Echo reported his words as follows:

This Covid-19 virus is a hoax. There may have been something around in China, was it the same thing, was it a bio-weapon, who knows. But it was used to unleash the most monstrous power-grab the world has ever seen.

He was questioning the official narrative we have been given about COVID-19, openly declaring his doubt about both its origin and the nature of the disease. However, the thrust of his argument was political. The "hoax" Piers Corbyn was referring to was the exploitation of COVID-19 to justify the seizure and centralisation of authoritarian political power.
In response to this allegation, the Echo reported:

Mr Corbyn's speech came two days after the brother of Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson died following a battle with severe Covid-19.
Yesterday the ECHO also reported the death of Liverpool music legend Hambi Haralambous, who posted a warning to his Facebook friends at the end of September.
The post included a photo of him in his hospital bed wearing a bubble-like ventilation helmet, connected to an oxygen supply and an array of medical equipment, alongside the simple warning: "To all my Facebook friends who think Covid is a hoax. Think again."

The insinuation is obvious: in suggesting that COVID-19 was a "hoax", Piers Corbyn, and all those who agreed with him, were disrespecting the memory of those who have died "with" COVID. This argument deploys a number of logical fallacies, the two most obvious being appeal to emotion and the strawman.
Instead of a rational argument, mainstream media were relying upon powerful imagery and sorrow. Their intention was to illicit an emotional response in the reader. They then falsely alleged that by questioning COVID-19, Piers Corbyn and the gathered crowd were disrespecting the lives lost. This was an attempt to claim moral superiority.
The use of such propaganda techniques seems to have been deliberate and calculated. They were designed to stop logical consideration of the arguments, increasing the chance that the core allegation of a political power grab would be discarded by the reader as unthinkable, obscene or a disgusting slur; to create a false belief based upon emotion rather than rationalism.
The pejorative loading of "hoax" presents a significant problem for critics who are trying to reach a wider audience. Anyone who questions lockdowns and the statistical or scientific evidence, supposedly informing policy, can then be accused of COVID denial. This is another loaded term which exploits the appeal to emotionfallacy. The allusion to Holocaust denial is obvious.

Appeal to Authority​

Collectively, this litany of logical fallacies, incessantly deployed by mainstream media, culminate in the central falsehood of appeal to authority. We must not question what government and global health authorities tell us about COVID-19. We must trust them because the authorities have a special and profound grasp of reality: one we must all appreciate. Questioning authority has become heretical.
Despite appearances, the science surrounding COVID-19 is not settled and the medical profession are not all of one mind. The government have selected a small band of scientific advisors and have ignored every other strand of scientific and medical opinion. Their grasp of the truth is no better than anyone else’s.
There are valid reasons to ask if COVID-19 exists and we will explore them in this article. We do so because neither certainty nor consensus is a core principle of science and reason.

Has SARS-Cov-2 Been Isolated?​

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the isolation, or not, of SARS-CoV-2. The argument proposed by critics is that unless something can be separated from other genetic material, in its purified form, it cannot be said to have been isolated.

Transmission electron microscopic image of an isolate from the first U.S. case of COVID-19, formerly known as 2019-nCoV.
If it hasn't been isolated for study how can its independent existence be established? If the existence of SARS-CoV-2 can’t be established, then where does that leave COVID-19?
People have been at pains to point out that Koch's Postulates have not been met for SARS-CoV-2. These describe the conditions that must be met in order for a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease to be established:
(1) The microorganism must be found in diseased but not healthy individuals;
(2) The microorganism must be cultured from the diseased individual;
(3) Inoculation of a healthy individual with the cultured microorganism must recapitulated the disease;
(4) The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased individual and matched to the original microorganism.
Robert Koch, alongside Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister, are considered the founders of germ theory. This describes the concept that disease is caused by invading microorganisms. It is the basis for modern, western allopathic medicine.
Germ Theory views the human body as an uninfected biological system that must be defended against external attack. Should microorganisms (germ - viruses) invade the system, then they need to be destroyed.
Our natural immune system can't always do this, resulting in disease that can sometimes be fatal. Medicine must intervene, either by protecting the system against attack (often using vaccines) or by destroying the invader (drugs, surgery, radiation, chemotherapy etc.)

Robert Koch
Robert Koch came to believe that his first condition wasn't valid after he discovered claimed asymptomatic cholera and typhoid. This has led some to suggest that Koch's postulates somehow don't count and that those who ask if COVID-19 exists are idiots for suggesting they should. Laughing heartily at the veneration of 19th century science and exulting in how far we have advanced since then, they fail to offer a better definition of causality themselves.

What is Disease?​

We have advanced so far that there isn't even a widely accepted formal definition of disease, let alone what causes it. However from the Encyclopedia Britannica we have:

Disease, any harmful deviation from the normal structural or functional state of an organism, generally associated with certain signs and symptoms and differing in nature from physical injury.

A symptom is some physical or psychological change which can be observed. This may be experienced by the infected person, for example the dry cough associated with COVID-19, or it could be something imperceptible, such as painless tumour growth.
A sign is the potential evidence of something. A positive RT-PCR test is a sign that you are, or have been in the past, infected with SARS-CoV-2. It doesn't mean you have COVID-19. A doctor would need to consider both signs and symptoms to make a diagnosis.
This questions the concept of asymptomatic disease. Modern medicine commonly screens for disease without symptoms; early screening for cancer for example. However, this screening is looking for signs of a potential diseased not necessarily the disease itself, though that may also be present. Concerns have been raised that this results in over-diagnosis with people undergoing high risk treatments for a disease they don't have.
COVID-19 symptoms are hardly unique. The NHS list them as:

• a high temperature
• a new, continuous cough
• a loss or change to your sense of smell or taste

Most people with SARS-Cov-2 have at least one of these symptoms.
Just one of these symptoms, which could be attributable to practically any respiratory illness, bacterial infection, allergy or even air pollution is supposedly sufficient for a doctor to at least suspect COVID-19. When combined with a positive test then, based upon the available evidence, a diagnosis of COVID-19 seems likely.
Perhaps Robert Koch was too hasty to abandon his first postulate. Certainly it is very hard to see how anyone can be said to have a disease based upon signs alone. Yet that is exactly how COVID-19 has been attributed in an unknown number of alleged "cases".

Koch’s Postulates Updated​

In 1937, with the new emerging science of virology, Thomas M Rivers offered a new version of Koch's Postulates. Rivers' amended postulates required that the following conditions be met to prove a virus caused a disease:
1. Isolation of virus from diseased host
2. Cultivation of virus in host cells
3. Proof of filterability
4. Produce same disease in host
5. Re-isolation of virus
6. Detection of a specific immune response to virus
This was necessary because a virus could not possibly meet Koch's criteria. Viruses are incapable of replication outside of a host cell or in any neutral medium. Isolation, as suggested by Koch, is therefore not feasible for a virus.

Thomas M Rivers
As science progressed, with the DNA revelations of Watson and Crick in 1953, further amendments were made to the proof demonstrating viral causation of a disease. In 1996 Fredricks and Relman published an update of Rivers Postulates for the viral DNA age:
1. A nucleic acid sequence belonging to a putative pathogen should be present in most cases of an infectious disease. Microbial nucleic acids should be found preferentially in those organs or gross anatomic sites known to be diseased, and not in those organs that lack pathology.
2. Fewer, or no, copies of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should occur in hosts or tissues without disease.
3. With resolution of disease, the copy number of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should decrease or become undetectable. With clinical relapse, the opposite should occur.
4. When sequence detection predates disease, or sequence copy number correlates with severity of disease or pathology, the sequence-disease association is more likely to be a causal relationship.
5. The nature of the microorganism inferred from the available sequence should be consistent with the known biological characteristics of that group of organisms.
6. Tissue-sequence correlates should be sought at the cellular level: efforts should be made to demonstrate specific in situ hybridization of microbial sequence to areas of tissue pathology and to visible microorganisms or to areas where microorganisms are presumed to be located.
7. These sequence-based forms of evidence for microbial causation should be reproducible.
Modern science appears to have moved us a long way from the proof of causality suggested by Koch to the far less categorical possibilities offered by Fredricks and Relman. Science rarely deals in certainty and new evidence must be accounted for. This tends to shift it towards greater complexity.
Nonetheless, we shouldn't assume that added uncertainty necessarily moves us closer to the truth. Especially when fundamental concepts, such as causality for a disease, have alternative explanations.

Again, Has SARS-Cov-2 Been Isolated?​

It wasn't critics of the COVID-19 narrative who started the debate about claimed "isolation." Following the World Health Organisation's (WHO's) classification of COVID-19 (2019-nCoV renamed COronaVIrus Disease 2019), their laboratory testing guidance said:

The etiologic agent [causation for the disease] responsible for the cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan has been identified as a novel betacoronavirus, (in the same family as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV) via next generation sequencing (NGS) from cultured virus or directly from samples received from several pneumonia patients.

In the WHO's Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCov Situation Report 1, they noted:

The Chinese authorities identified a new type of coronavirus, which was isolated on 7 January 2020……On 12 January 2020, China shared the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus for countries to use in developing specific diagnostic kits.

The WHO were claiming that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had been isolated and they gave the impression that genetic sequences were identified from the isolated sample. Diagnostic kits were subsequently calibrated to test for this virus and distributed globally. However, the WHO also stated:

Working directly from sequence information, the team developed a series of genetic amplification (PCR) assays used by laboratories.

The Wuhan scientists developed their genetic amplification assays from "sequence information" not from an isolated sample of any virus. The WHO cited their work as proof of isolation. Yet it was the Wuhan research scientists themselves who stated:

The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch's postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.

They had pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genome together by matching fragments (nucleotide sequences) with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. Using de novo assembly, they subsequently employed quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) to sequence 29,891-base-pair (bp) that collectively shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV. As they found more than 29,000 bp the genome was considered complete.
SARS-CoV (SARS-CoV-1) was discovered in 2003 in Hong Kong by scientists who studied 50 patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). They took samples from two of these patients and developed thirty cloned cultures in fetal monkey liver cells. Analysis revealed that there was genetic material of "unknown origin" in one of these thirty cloned samples.
The Hong Kong team examined this unknown material and found a 57% match to bovine coronavirus and murine hepatitis virus. They concluded it must be from the Coronaviridae family. The researchers stated:

Primers for detecting the new virus were designed for RT-PCR detection of this human pneumonia-associated coronavirus genome in clinical samples. Of the 44 nasopharyngeal samples available from the 50 SARS patients, 22 had evidence of human pneumonia-associated coronavirus RNA.

While all of the Hong Kong patients were diagnosed with symptoms of SARS only half of them tested positive for the SARS-CoV-1 virus. To date, we don't know why the other half didn't.
With a 57% sequence match to known coronavirus, 43% of the genetic material in SARS-CoV-1 was unaccounted for. The new genome was then registered as GenBank Accession No. AY274119.
The Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and Prevention and the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre published the SARS-CoV-2 genome as Genbank Accession No. MN908947.1. It was a 79.6% genetic sequence match to a 57% genetic sequence match of a suspected betacoronavirus found in one of thirty cloned samples taken from two patients in Hong Kong in 2003.
This was the basis for the WHO's claim that SARS-CoV-2 was isolated on 7 January 2020.
Isolation did not mean separation but rather genomic sequencing, and the Wuhan team that conducted the research were the first to point out that Koch's Postulates hadn't been met for SARS-CoV-2, rendering the sneering rejection of related criticisms as unscientific rather absurd.

Drosten to the Rescue​

The WHO then used a paper published by Corman Drosten et al as the basis for their RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV. This defined the RT-PCR tests used the world over to detect SARS-CoV-2 in tested samples. Many scientists consider the Corman Drosten paper to be so poor they have requested its immediate withdrawal from publication.
Among the deluge of criticisms, including an apparent lack of peer review, no use of negative controls and the notable absence of any standard operational procedure, the scientists observed:

The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 … is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China, because at the time neither control material of infectious ("live") or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors. To date no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full length RNA thereof.

Based on Corman Drosten et al, the subsequent WHO protocols define the short nucleotide sequences which are supposed to specify the genetic fragments used as primers and probes in the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Until the recent move towards Lateral Flow Devices, alleged case numbers were almost exclusively based upon these tests.

Christian Drosten
The RT-PCR test was supposed to enable the genetic signature of the virus to be identified in communities around the world. The scientists who criticised the Cormen Drosten paper stated:

[Primers and probes] must be specific to the target-gene you want to amplify..for virus diagnostics at least 3 primer pairs must detect 3 viral genes (preferably as far apart as possible in the viral genome) … Although the Corman-Drosten paper describes 3 primers, these primers only cover roughly half of the virus' genome … Therefore, even if we obtain three positive signals..in a sample, this does not prove the presence of a virus.

This concept of specificity is not shared by the World Health Organisation. The WHO's test guidelines. for SARS-CoV-2 state:

An optimal diagnosis consists of a NAAT [nucleic acid amplification test ] with at least two genome-independent targets of the SARS-CoV-2; however, in areas where transmission is widespread, a simple single-target algorithm can be used … One or more negative results do not necessarily rule out the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

When a team of Moroccan researchers investigated the epidemiology of Moroccan cases of SARS-CoV-2 they found that just 9% tested positive for three genes, 18% were positive for two and 73% percent for just one. Although, reliant upon the WHO protocols, an unknown number may have been positive for none.
The WHO do not require the detection of three or even two viral genes, one is fine. In fact a negative result is still considered a possible indicator of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The repeating of tests is encouraged, presumably until a positive test is returned.
Given that Karry Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, stated that his technologycould "find almost anything in anybody," and that "it doesn't tell you that you are sick," repeated testing is likely to provide a positive result eventually. The UK government's COVID-19 case numbers are actually their claimed number of positive tests. Their testing regime is adapted from the WHO protocols and its guidelines. This alone provides sufficient scientific doubt to question if these numbers are plausible. It is not the only reason.

BLAST It!​

When the researchers from the Spanish medical journal D-Salud ran the WHO's specified nucleotide sequences through the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool(BLAST), which allows a comparison with published nucleotide sequences stored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) genetic database (called GenBank), they found the WHO protocols matched numerous microbial sequences and genetic fragments of human chromosomes.
For example, a BLAST search for the vital RdRp SARS-CoV-2 sequence revealed ninety-nine human chromosome with a 100% sequence identity match and one hundred matched microbes, with a 100% sequence identity match. The Orf1ab (E gene) returned ninety results with a 100% sequence identity match to human chromosomes. A microbial search of the target for the SARS-CoV-2 E gene found ninety-two microbes with a 100% match.
The so called unique genetic markers for SARS-CoV-2, recorded in the WHO protocols, are not unique at all; literally finding anything in anybody. This does not mean that SARS-CoV-2 is absent but it casts considerable doubt on the process. Indeed the whole concept of viruses can be questioned.

Terrain Theory​

Just as Koch, Pasteur and Lister can be seen as the formative minds behind germ theory so Claude Bernard and Antoine Bechamp proposed an entirely different model of disease called terrain theory. Rather than seeing germs (bacteria, fungi, archaea & virus - or the microbiota) as external threats to be repelled, Bechamp and Bernard considered them to be part of human physiology.
Terrain theory is fiercely ridiculed by scientific orthodoxy and the allopathic medical establishment. With a global pharmaceutical and healthcare industry worth trillions of dollars, based upon the idea that viruses and other microbiota attack people, perhaps that isn't surprising. However modern mainstream science appears to be unavoidably adding some weight to terrain theory.
Research by the scientists who participated in the National Institute of Health Human Microbiome Project (HMP) discovered that only 43% of our bodies consist of human cells. The other 57% are microbiota, more commonly called germs (not to be confused with germ cells). Researchers from the HMP stated:

The microorganisms that live inside and on humans (known as the microbiota) are estimated to outnumber human somatic and germ cells by a factor of ten. Together, the genomes of these microbial symbionts (collectively defined as the microbiome) provide traits that humans did not need to evolve on their own. If humans are thought of as a composite of microbial and human cells, the human genetic landscape as an aggregate of the genes in the human genome and the microbiome, and human metabolic features as a blend of human and microbial traits, then the picture that emerges is one of a human supra-organism.

Germs are very much part of our physiology, just as Bechamp and Bernard contended. In fact, they appear to be the dominant part.
If more than half of our physiology is comprised of germs it is difficult to understand how they can be considered simply as invading threats. Within our virome (which is part of our microbiome), viruses in particular appear to number in the trillions.
Given that the field of virology has apparently studied less than 1% of these viruses it seems remarkable that the few viruses that necessitate drug treatments just happen to be within this small minority of known pathogens. Presumably the other 99% are all benign.

Cytopathic Effect​

Bechamp and Bernard thought that microbes (germs) were pleomorphic (capable of physically adapting - morphing - to suit their environment). They considered them to be a vital component of physiology and not external threats.
They hypothesised that their morphology was dependent upon the terrain of the human body. Their form and function was seen as response to the condition of the human host. Where that terrain was unbalanced (toxiotic), perhaps due to poor diet or environmental poisons, germs (including viruses - although they didn't know of them at the time) could start the catabolic (disintegration) processes of cells. Modern virologists call this the cytopathic effect.
Thus good health was seen as being much more about prevention than cure. Good nutrition, a clean water supply, a pollution free environment, general fitness, psychological and spiritual health were considered more important in combating disease than destroying parasitic microorganisms. While germs (such as viruses) were still seen to exacerbate and contribute towards cytopathic effects (cell death) it was the toxiotic state of the terrain (conditions), not the germ, that instigated this potentially fatal cascade.
Further evidence seemingly supporting terrain theory can be seen in the public health records. Vaccines exemplify the allopathic model as they are said to be a barrier against invading viruses. Yet a 1977 study by the Boston Department of Sociology found that more than 90% of the huge improvements in U.S public health occurred prior to 1950 — before the widespread use of vaccines.
Improvements in sanitation, water security, diet, income and access to services, were found to be by far the most significant factors. The study estimated that as little as 1% to 3.5% of the improvements could be directly attributed to allopathic medical interventions, of which vaccination were but one facet.
A 2000 study by John Hopkins University and the Center for Disease Control (CDC)corroborated these findings:

… vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century … nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.

Huge reductions in disease and mortality occurred during this period that had little to do with allopathic medical advances. Terrain theorists suggest that inequality and deprivation breed disease, not because pathogens fester in slums but because people fester in slums.
Dr Rudolph Virchow, the renowned father of modern pathology was strongly opposed to the germ theory of Koch, Pasteur and Lister. He saw disease as a political issue, with its roots firmly in inequality of opportunity and resultant poverty. He said "Medicine is a social science, and politics is nothing else but medicine on a large scale.” Perhaps it isn't only pharmaceutical corporations and healthcare providers who have a vested interest in the total rejection of terrain theory.
It is equally true to point out, though, that those who believe in the importance of the terrain often attack germ theory. Perhaps this adversarial approach fails to appreciate the relative strengths and weaknesses in both disease models. While the truth is absolute, we don't have much chance of discovering it with ego and the denial of evidence blocking the path.

Is COVID-19 a Hoax?​

To suspect that COVID-19 is a "hoax" is not to dismiss the very real impact the events of the past twelve months have had on families across the UK. Clearly many thousands have died and those deaths have been attributed to a respiratory disease called COVID-19.
No one who criticises the evidence base for COVID-19 is denying that, and they are certainly not dismissing the pain felt by the bereaved.
Until the late 19th century people quite regularly died of "consumption." It wasn't until the development of germ theory that it was realised that this was Tuberculosis.
Koch, Pasteur and Lister weren't disrespecting the lives lost to consumption by questioning the nature of disease. They were examining the medical and scientific evidence and forming scientific theories based upon those observations.
Herein lies the problem for anyone who questions the official COVID-19 narrative. We are living in a time where rational inquiry itself is under attack. It seems that to question the validity of COVID-19 is verboten. Yet clearly, there are justifiable reasons for doing so.
The fake moral outrage of the mainstream media, fact checkers and professional "debunkers," is a defence mechanism and a propaganda technique. It isn't designed to combat the claims of a relatively small group of sceptics; its purpose seems to be to stop the much larger group of somewhat sceptical people looking at the evidence.

You can read more of Iain's work at In This Together.

Is COVID-19 A Hoax?

Is COVID-19 a hoax? Does asking this question make someone a COVID denier? Does considering the possibility that COVID doesn't exist evidence a callous disregard for lives allegedly lost to the disease?

www.ukcolumn.org

 

[el porqué de las cosas]

¿Por qué existe una correlación entre el despliegue de la vacuna y el aumento de la mortalidad por COVID-19?

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/why-there-correlation-between-vaccine-rollout-and-increased-covid–19-mortality

Las curvas de mortalidad se ven disparadas justo a partir del inicio de la "vacunación".

El importantísimo artículo, repleto de datos y consideraciones científicas, con sus respectivas referencias oficiales aquí:
(Lo podéis traducir on line con deepl.com)

Spoiler: La corelacion entre vacunacion y aumento der mortalidad por COVID 19

Why Is There A Correlation Between The Vaccine Rollout And Increased COVID–19 Mortality?​

by Iain Davis
Tuesday, 2nd February 2021
A number of unusual death events have been reported in care homes across the country since the beginning of the vaccine rollout. Officially, any connection to the vaccines has been denied and they have all been taken as evidence of the spread of new variant COVID–19.
The new Coronavirus variant tale, commonly offered by the mainstream media, asserts that SARS–CoV–2 consistently evolves into an ever more dangerous iteration of itself. If that were true, it would turn decades of virology, immunology and epidemiology on its head, and in any case, as we shall see, any such claim is unsupported by the the statistics.
The so called British variant was first discovered in September 2020o we can look at four distinct periods to see if we can observe its effect. Let's look at the period from the start of the alleged global pandemic to the end of the first hard lockdown.
Until 10 May 2020, the UK state tested 1,655,281 people. From this, they identified 210,500 so called cases (a positive test result). This resulted in 98,799 COVID–19 hospital admissions. There were 32,960 claimed COVID–19 deaths during the same period.
Therefore, the percentage chance of a test discovering an alleged "case" of COVID–19 was 12.7%. The claimed chance of one of these "cases" leading to hospitalisation was 46.9%, and the confirmed "case" risk of dying (Case Fatality Rate — CFR) was a staggering, and frankly unbelievable, 15.6%.
Next, we can consider the period from 11 May 2020 to 30 September 2020. During the summer months, you would expect the raw numbers for any respiratory illness to be much lower. This period takes us up the point where the new "variants of concern" were well established.
There were 20,738,550 tests given, resulting in 235,334 cases and 43,926 hospitalisations. A total of 9,046 people died during this period. The percentage chance of a test finding a case was 1.1%, with an 18.7% chance of subsequent hospitalisation. The CFR had dropped to 3.8%.
Now, let's look at the period of new variant activity up to the start of the vaccine rollout. As we were heading towards winter here, we might expect a general increase in disease contagion and severity.
Between 1 October and 9 December 2020, there were 21,218,805 tests carried out, finding 1,315,529 cases. Of these, 92,999 people were hospitalised and 21,674 died. The case discovery rate was 6.2%, the hospitalisation rate was 7.1% and the CFR was 1.6%.
The chances of a positive test had increased, suggesting a more contagious COVID–19 variant than seen during the summer. However, the new variants of SARS–CoV–2 were nearly 7 times less transmissible than observed during the initial spring outbreak. The chance of hospitalisation was lower, and they were also less than half as deadly as the summer variants and nearly ten times less lethal than the spring variants.
The data shows that the new variants discovered in the autumn of 2020 were both less contagious and less lethal than the variants encountered in the initial spring outbreak. They were notably more contagious than the variants that persisted during the summer, but were far less dangerous.
Finally, let's look at the recent period since the rollout of the vaccine. From 10 December 2020 to 31 January 2021, there were 25,982,406 tests, which discovered 1,995,048 cases. This led to 154,019 hospitalisations and 42,038 so called COVID–19 deaths.
The case rate rose from 6.2% to 7.6%, continuing the trend of increasing transmission with the new prevalent variants, though it remained much lower than during the spring. Yet strangely, hospitalisation rose to 7.7% and the CFR jumped from 1.6% to 2.1%.

UK Government - Daily COVID-19 Mortality
These figures are very difficult to reconcile from a new variant perspective. During October, November and early December, the new variants had accounted for an increased rate of transmission — but significantly lower rates of hospitalisation and mortality. The disease risk trend continued to decline, even in comparison to former summer variants.
During the vaccine rollout, despite continued falling mortality rates in early December, the new COVID–19 variants suddenly changed behaviour. Hospitalisation rates increased by more than 8% and the mortality risk shot up by over 31%.
Harsher winter conditions are expected to account for more numbers of hospitalisations and deaths, but not to fundamentally change the characteristics of the resultant disease. Some other factor must have been at work during the vaccine rollout.

Less Lethal​

Viruses are effectively parasites; there is no evolutionary advantage for them to kill their hosts. Consequently, virus variants lead to new predominant strains which infect more hosts while killing fewer of them. More lethal variants tend to lose out to less lethal ones. This is why some form of coronavirus accounts for approximately 30% of common colds.
Up until the vaccine rollout, the reduction in lethality is clearly identifiable in the statistics. So where has all the fear and alarm come from about the British, Brazilian, South African, Kent, and who knows how many more variants?
Once again the UK government were reliant upon their preferred experts at Imperial College London (ICL) for their new variant alarm. ICL came up with another computer simulation, showing some scary predictions about the B.1.1.7 "global lineage variant."
ICL said the sub-variant of B.1.1.7 (N501Y) was up to 70% more transmissible. They were wrong again, or as usual, but the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) used ICL’s "science" to provide some legitimacyto the governments claim that the COVID–19 pandemic was still raging.
ICL and NERVTAG designated N501Y as a Variant of Concern (VoC). Amid all the panic, few seemed to notice that there wasn't any evidence that these scary variants presented any additional risk.
Writing about the newly discovered British variant in December, physicians from Johns Hopkins Medical Centre explained why there was no reason to panic:

Mutations in viruses ... are neither new nor unexpected ... This particular strain was detected in southeastern England in September 2020. In December, it became the most common version of the coronavirus, accounting for about 60 percent of new COVID–19 cases ... We are not seeing any indication that the new strain is more virulent or dangerous in terms of causing more severe COVID–19 disease.

Professor Michael Yeadon also observed that the notion of greater risk from variants of SARS–CoV–2 took no account of existing human immunity. Even if a variant spread more readily, it could only do so among an ever dwindling number of potential hosts.
Moreover the SARS–CoV–2 genome is vast in comparison to the tiny genetic variations that are allegedly so lethal. A recent study of T-cell immunity by Californian scientists demonstrated how the human immune system is able to adapt to the new SARS–CoV–2 variants. The scientists found:

By attacking the virus from many angles, the body has the tools to potentially recognise different SARS–CoV–2 variants.

The human immune system normally defends itself against the whole virus, not just one specific genetic component. It does this by breaking the complete virus down into its constituent nucleotide sequences. Prepared to resist each and every one of these genetic signals, it won't be fooled by any minor genetic mutation in one spike protein. Professor Yeadon stated:

What is happening in the name of saving lives simply doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

It is difficult to understand how the experts at ICL couldn't work this out for themselves. The ICL team were led by Prof. Erik Volz. Just as they did after releasing their wildly inaccurate COVID–19 models in the spring, they immediately started backpedaling on their claims that the new variant was up to 70% more transmissible.
The claim of 70% increased transmission came from a comparison made between models for N501Y and A222V. Speaking to the COVID–19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium about how these models worked, Volz said:

[The] model fit is not particularly good ... there are lots of outliers early on and there are lots of outliers quite late ... we wouldn't expect that a logistical growth model is necessarily appropriate in this case.

Volz and the ICL team then used a model that was "not particularly good" to make the comparison anyway, adding that their simulations had to work with "very noisy sampling." Volz pointed out that data was limited and the inappropriate datasets were incomplete. He said it was too early to tell with any accuracy what the impact of N501Y might be.
None of this prevented the UK Prime Minister from using ICL's "not particularly good" science to allege the new variants were up to 70% more transmissible.
A media feeding frenzy ensued, with an ever growing list of variants being flung around. Perhaps emboldened by this, Boris Johnson then said the new variants were 30% more deadly too. Even the mainstream media reported the scientific objections to that one. NERVTAG stepped in to defend the Prime Minister.
While NERVTAG chair Prof. Peter Horby acknowledged there was no data to back up Mr Johnson's claim and that the risk of him being right was "very, very small,"he offered a weird defence on Boris’s behalf.
Horby hypothesised that if the government hadn't made a baseless claim which later, by some miraculous chance, turned out to be true, they could be accused of a cover-up.
Notwithstanding this unfathomable argument, at the most basic epidemiological level, the new variant narrative was wrong. The statistics prove it. They also show that the sharp increase in mortality which correlates precisely with the COVID–19 vaccine rollout cannot easily be explained by blaming new variants.

Correlation In A Data Vacuum​

Correlation does not prove causation but it is reason for investigation. So perhaps we can anticipate a report from the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the coming days and weeks.
The MHRA were certainly anticipating significant numbers of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from the COVID–19 vaccines. They tendered for an AI software solution to meet the projected need. The MHRA stated:

The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid–19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) ... it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA's legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid–19 vaccine.

A £1.5m contract was awarded to Genpac UK to augment the MHRA's "Yellow Card" vaccine ADR monitoring system. The contract was signed in early November 2020, providing Genpac UK the opportunity to upgrade the Yellow Card software in time for Phase One rollout of the COVID–19 vaccines.
The MHRA report the ADR notifications they receive through their interactive Drug Analysis Profiles (iDAP) system. To date, and for some unknown reason, there are no available iDAP reports for any of the COVID–19 vaccines. The MHRA state:

Information regarding suspected adverse reactions to vaccines is not currently available via the iDAPs but is available upon request.

Despite numerous requests for this data, the MHRA have yet to release any information. Given the apparent correlation between increased mortality and the vaccine rollout, this is inexplicable. Clearly, the MHRA were anticipating a possible correlation: they invested in bespoke software to deal with the eventuality.
The MHRA informed the Financial Times that the COVID–19 vaccines had undergone rigorous testing. This was a disingenuous statement. None of the COVID–19 vaccine are close to completing any clinical trials. They are not licensed by the MHRA and do not have marketing authorisation.
They have been distributed in the UK thanks to legislative changes to Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012 (as amended). These changes included the removal of all liability from manufacturers and distributors.
This came as a great relief to pharmaceutical corporation executives. As Gary Nabel, chief scientific officer at Sanofi, highlighted:

You're talking about vaccines that have potential liabilities, it's an unknown unknown. As big as a 30,000-person trial is, when these go out into the world of millions of people, things will happen.

Mr Nabel fondly recalled the wise words of the famous vaccine developer Maurice Hilleman:

Every time I launch a new vaccine, I hold my breath for the first 30 million doses.

On 8 December, Margaret Keenan became the first woman in the world to receive a COVID–19 vaccine. The UK government stated that it would take a few days to get Phase One of the vaccine rollout up and running nationally. They started publishing data on numbers of vaccinated people from 11 January 2021.
The BBC reported that all care homes in England had been offered the vaccine by the end of January. This was in keeping with a report on 27 January 2021 from the National Care Forum (NCF) that 95% of English care homes had received the vaccine. BBC Scotland reported that well over half of the care homes in Scotlandhad been vaccinated by 7 January. A completed care home vaccine program in Scotland also seems highly likely.
Up to 10 January 2021, the UK governments reported that 2,286,572 people had received their first dose inoculations. The Health Secretary Matt Hancock confirmed this figure and highlighted the government's newly published Vaccine Delivery Plan.
The Vaccine Delivery Plan was based upon the advice of the Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). Their stated priority for the vaccine rollout in the UK was set in early December 2020, before distribution began. Care home residents and staff were the first to be vaccinated. The JCVI advised:

For both Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca, the vaccine should first be given to residents in a care home for older adults and their carers, then to those over 80 years old as well as frontline health and social care workers, then to the rest of the population in order of age and clinical risk factors.

A 2017 report from the Competition and Markets Authority estimated that there were 410,000 care home residents in the UK. Unfortunately, due to the disparate nature of mixed public and private provision, there is no official data for the number of older care home residents. However, it is reasonable to estimate 450,000 or fewer care home residents in the UK in 2020.
Clearly the Phase One priority groups were first and foremost older residents in a care homes followed by all those aged 80 years of age or older. With nearly 2,300,000 people vaccinated by 10 January, this would seem to easily account for the 450,000 care home residents in the UK.

The COVID–19 Vaccine Mortality Correlation​

We know that 2,300,000 people had been vaccinated by 10 January in the UK. We also know that there are approximately 450,000 UK care home residents and that they were the priority for the vaccine. We also have reports of high level of vaccine coverage by the last week of January 2021.
With a vaccine rollout commencing on 8 December and first phase completion by late January, it is reasonable to surmise that the majority of care home residents had been vaccinated by mid-January. The precise extent of the coverage in a region would appear to have been largely dependent upon when the local vaccination programme began.
The Office of National Statistics estimated the UK population of over-80s to be 3,362,599 in 2019. The vaccine priority group of over-80s who live in care homes represents approximately 13.4% of the national population of over-80s.
The UK COVID–19 Vaccine Monitoring Report records the percentage of all those over 80 years old who received a COVID–19 vaccine between 8 December 2020 and 10 January 2021. By 10 January, the lowest vaccine rollout completion in England was 27.9% in the South East region, and the highest was 43.8% in the North East and Yorkshire. Again, this would appear to be more than sufficient to have completed a high proportion of care home vaccinations.

UK Government Vaccine Distribution for the Period 08/12/20 - 10/01/21
By 19 January, the Care Quality Commission were reporting a 46% jump in COVID–19 care home deaths in England. They said the increase in cases was in line with the community spread of infection. They didn't mention that it was also inline with the community spread of vaccines.
It is possible that some unknown new variant may account for this, but statistics from the NHS for mortality in the over-80s age group also reveals a clear correlation between a sharp increase in mortality and vaccine distribution. As discussed above, this increase followed a period of declining mortality in the same age group. Known variants do not explain this.

NHS England COVID-19 Mortality 01/03/20 - 20/01/21
On 19 January, Vaccine Deployment Minister Nadhim Zahawi said that the vaccine rollout was "a race against deaths." He claimed that half of of England's care home residents were yet to receive the vaccine. He didn't mention that many vaccinated care homes had also seen an increase in mortality.
Pemberley House care home in Basingstoke suffered a lethal outbreak that coincided with their vaccination rollout. Although 22 residents died, the MHRA said the vaccines were not responsible. An unnamed spokesperson from the MHRA said:

We are saddened to hear about any deaths which have occurred since receiving Covid–19 vaccination. However, our surveillance does not suggest that the Covid–19 vaccines have contributed to any deaths.

That surveillance is the Yellow Card system. The MHRA's surveillance amounts to someone reporting a suspected vaccine ADR to them. Allegedly, the MHRA then make a note of the ADR. However, unless they then launch an investigation, order a post mortem, analyse blood samples, speak to witnesses and so on, their surveillance amounts to next to nothing.
There is no evidence that any investigation occurred for any of the residents who died in the Pemberley care home following the vaccine rollout. Absent an investigation, the MHRA's surveillance based confidence is meaningless. Their statements seem like platitudes rather than indicating any genuine concern, or even interest.
The definition of a COVID–19 death in the UK is death from any cause where COVID–19 was mentioned on the death certificate in the last 28 days. This means the decedents tested positive for the SARS–CoV–2 virus within 28 days of death, not that they necessarily had COVID–19 disease.
Lockdown critics and those sceptical of the government's COVID–19 statistics have long argued that there is frequently no clear evidence that a death attributed to COVID–19 wasn't caused instead by other underlying comorbidities. For this, they have been accused of being heartless and uncaring, indifferent to COVID–19 deaths.
In a subsequent article reporting 24 deaths at Pemberley and another nine at Seagrave House care home, an MHRA spokesperson was quoted as saying:

It is not unexpected that some of these people may naturally fall ill due to their age or underlying conditions shortly after being vaccinated.

If someone dies within 28 days of a vaccination, it is never considered a vaccine death. Without a post mortem, we can't know that a death was caused by a vaccine. The same could be said for COVID–19 as a cause of death. However, if the government used the same 28-day qualifying criteria for deaths following vaccines, many suspected vaccine deaths would be recorded and reported.
By 17 January, the Norwegian Medicines Agency had reported 33 fatal suspected vaccine ADRs, but none of these were related to the vaccine; the 55 post-COVID–19 vaccine fatalities reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) were all unrelated to the vaccine; the deaths of two Danish vaccine recipients, were also unrelated, as was the death of a 41-year-old Portuguese nurse who died two days after her vaccine; no vaccine blame was attributed following the death of an Orange County, California, health worker after his vaccine, whose widow — remarkably — allegedly said he would take the vaccine again; when a 32-year-old Mexican doctor suffered catastrophic inflammation of the brain after receiving his vaccine, this had nothing to do with his jab; and when a Miami obstetrician became unwell after his vaccine and died soon thereafter of resultant ITP, a known vaccine side-effect, this wasn't attributable to the vaccine either.
In the U.S., the St. Anthony nursing home (Auburn, New York) reported an outbreak of COVID–19 which started on 21 December. 32 residents died, with 20 dying in one week between the 5 and 12 January. Their vaccination programme started on 22 December, though this had nothing to do with any of the deaths.
When twelve people died and 51 were infected in a COVID–19 outbreak at West Park Care Home in Fife in Scotland, STV news reported that this followed the residents' inoculation with the COVID–19 vaccine. NHS Fife's director of public health, Dona Milne, spoke about the significant strides they had made in the county to protect the most vulnerable with their completion of the first round of vaccinations in care homes.
Yet other media reports of the same cluster of COVID–19 deaths in the same care home made no mention of the vaccinations. They reported full lockdowns, emergency situations and alarming COVID–19 death tolls. They spoke to NHS teams and local public health officials — but omitted to report that all of the deceased had almost certainly been vaccinated.
How did they know the correlation was irrelevant? Why didn't they think it was in the public interest to report this?
On both sides of the Atlantic, the mainstream media are extremely reticent about even hinting at any criticism of vaccines. In order to encourage black and minority ethnic communities in the U.S. to take the vaccination, ABC News reported Baseball legend Hank Aaron's vaccination. When he sadly passed away two weeks later, the mainstream media eulogies forgot to mention his much-publicised promotion of COVID–19 vaccination. The original story from ABC News was then removed from their archives.
Consequently, we would be foolish if we didn't consider what other crucial facts may have been omitted from reports of sudden fatal outbreaks in UK care homes. Are the claims that these occurred before vaccination programmes were underway credible?
On 19 January 2021, the Guardian reported a significant cluster of deaths in a Lincolnshire care home. They stated that 18 of 27 residents at The Old Hall Care Home died in the run-up to Christmas. They noted that "the deaths were so sudden [that] staff did not have the chance to administer end-of-life treatment or arrange for loved ones to say goodbye."
Four days earlier, on 15 January, a BBC report of the same deaths stated that the Old Hall residents were anticipating receiving the life-saving vaccine. The Guardianmade no mention of vaccination and the BBC were keen to stress that none of the decedents had been vaccinated. It seems there was no correlation in this case. However, the mainstream media's frequent expediency with the truth, especially when it comes to vaccines, prompts doubt.
The NHS reported that Lincolnshire was one of the first counties in the UK to commence the vaccine rollout. It was an early adopter, with its programme starting on 8 December 2020, the same day that Margaret Keenan received her vaccine. If the Old Hall residents had not been vaccinated, it seems they were among the unlucky few.

Death on the Rock​

The British overseas territory of Gibraltar provides a study in microcosm. Government of Gibraltar COVID–19 statistics show that their first case was recorded on 18 March 2020, with the first death occurring on 1 November. Total deaths had risen to six by 22 December, when the new B.1.1.7 variant was first identified. Between 22 December and 10 January, the new variant accounted for a further six deaths, bringing the total to 12.
Gibraltar started its vaccine rollout on 10 January 2021. By 30 January 2021, COVID–19 mortality on the Rock had risen to 75. This constituted a 525% increase in the death rate over a twenty-day period, following nearly ten months of prior infections carrying off a handful. This order-of-magnitude increase corresponded precisely with the vaccine rollout.

Gibraltar Mortality Statistics from virusncov.com
Speaking on 29 January, with the death count standing at 73, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar gave a press conference. Having expressed his sorrow, and mourning "the highest toll in lives arising from one cause" in Gibraltar's history, the Chief Minister encouraged the press to see this catastrophe in context. He then informed the press:

In Gibraltar we have now finalised the first dose inoculation of the four most at risk cohorts and the frontline ... We are now starting to provide the second dose to our four priority categories ... We will tomorrow receive a further delivery of the Pfizer vaccine for this purpose, once again on the wings of the RAF angels.

The Fact-Checkers were quick to deny any link to the vaccines. They cited a statement from the Government of Gibraltar, which claimed only six vaccinated individuals died. This claim was not a fact.
The Chief Minister said their vaccination programme followed the JCVI priority. In just nineteen days, they had finalised the first dose inoculation of the four most at risk cohorts. That means every Gibraltarian over the age of 70 and those at high clinical risk were vaccinated.
Report after report in the local media described how the Elderly Residential Service was destroyed by the deaths that began mounting rapidly on 10 January. As just one example, on 17 January, with 13 dying in two days, the Gibraltar Chronicle reported:

All but three of those who died this weekend were in the care of the Elderly Residential Services. The youngest in their early 70s, the eldest in their late 90s. All were recorded as being deaths from Covid–19.

Speaking on 26 January, Chief Minister Fabian Picardo said:

These Gibraltarians who are sadly losing their lives to this virus are the same people who have survived the evacuation.

The evacuation of Gibraltar took place in the summer of 1940.
The next day, Fabien Picardo claimed that just six of the 61 people who died in the 19-day period between the start of the vaccine rollout and his wholly unbelievable statement had been vaccinated. This despite the fact that a total of twelve Gibraltarians had died of COVID–19 in the previous ten months.
The Fact-Checkers checked nothing, researched nothing, and simply used Picardo's spurious assertions to defend the vaccine rollout. In doing so, like the MHRA, they genuinely exhibited a callous disregard both for the truth and the lives lost. They weren't in the least bit interested.
It is possible, if unlikely, that the marked and rapid increase in mortality seen in COVID–19 affected communities around the world may be explained by new variants. But it appears, wherever you look, that a dramatic mortality increase correlates with COVID–19 vaccination programmes.
The numerous anomalies and contradictions suggest we aren't being given the full story. If vaccine adverse reactions were expected, where are they?
Correlation does not prove causation — but ignoring correlation signifies denial. We should not be afraid to ask a perfectly legitimate question:
Why is there a correlation between the vaccine rollout and increased COVID–19 mortality?

 

[el porqué de las cosas]

Escuchad esto, de la boca del mismísimo Mr. Davos, Klaus Schwab (la cara visible del capital transnacional que perpetra "los ajuste" "sostenibles"), ¿preparados para parte dos del Gran Rese...ROBO :





"Todos conocemos, pero no siempre prestamos la suficiente atención, el aterrador escenario de un ciberataque global que llevaría a la paralización completa de la energía, el transporte, los servicios hospitalarios y nuestra sociedad en su conjunto. La crisis del covid-19 es, en comparación, una pequeña perturbación comparada con un ciberataque grave. Tenemos que preguntarnos, en una situación así, cómo pudimos permitir que esto ocurriera a pesar de toda la información sobre la posibilidad y la gravedad de un ataque que implicara tales riesgos. La ciberdelincuencia y la cooperación mundial deben estar en primera línea de la agenda global. »

¿Recordais la simulacion de una pandemia del Event 201, del otoño de 2019?

Pues ya tienen programado para Julio hacer la simulación - entrenamiento, a este punto -, del inminente Cyber-Mega-Ataque-Pandemia-Global, cortesía el Cyber Polygon de Davos, por supuesto (https://www.weforum.org/projects/cyber-polygon)

From “Event 201” to “Cyber Polygon”: The WEF’s Simulation of a Coming “Cyber Pandemic”

Last year, the World Economic Forum teamed up with the Russian government and global banks to run a high-profile cyberattack simulation that targeted the financial industry, an actual event that would pave the way for a “reset” of the global economy.

unlimitedhangout.com

Nouveau Monde — La quatrième phase de Schwab

Nous connaissons tous, mais nous n’y accordons pas toujours suffisamment d’attention, le scénario effrayant d’une cyberattaque mondiale qui conduirait à l’arrêt complet de l’alimentation électrique…

nouveau-monde.ca

 

[Family Album]

Escuchad esto, de la boca del mismísimo Mr. Davos, Klaus Schwab (la cara visible del capital transnacional que perpetra "los ajuste" "sostenibles"), ¿preparados para parte dos del Gran Rese...ROBO :





"Todos conocemos, pero no siempre prestamos la suficiente atención, el aterrador escenario de un ciberataque global que llevaría a la paralización completa de la energía, el transporte, los servicios hospitalarios y nuestra sociedad en su conjunto. La crisis del covid-19 es, en comparación, una pequeña perturbación comparada con un ciberataque grave. Tenemos que preguntarnos, en una situación así, cómo pudimos permitir que esto ocurriera a pesar de toda la información sobre la posibilidad y la gravedad de un ataque que implicara tales riesgos. La ciberdelincuencia y la cooperación mundial deben estar en primera línea de la agenda global. »

¿Recordais la simulacion de una pandemia del Event 201, del otoño de 2019?

Pues ya tienen programado para Julio hacer la simulación - entrenamiento, a este punto -, del inminente Cyber-Mega-Ataque-Pandemia-Global, cortesía el Cyber Polygon de Davos, por supuesto (https://www.weforum.org/projects/cyber-polygon)

From “Event 201” to “Cyber Polygon”: The WEF’s Simulation of a Coming “Cyber Pandemic”

Last year, the World Economic Forum teamed up with the Russian government and global banks to run a high-profile cyberattack simulation that targeted the financial industry, an actual event that would pave the way for a “reset” of the global economy.

unlimitedhangout.com

Nouveau Monde — La quatrième phase de Schwab

Nous connaissons tous, mais nous n’y accordons pas toujours suffisamment d’attention, le scénario effrayant d’une cyberattaque mondiale qui conduirait à l’arrêt complet de l’alimentation électrique…

nouveau-monde.ca

Lo del cyber polygon lo mencionó la Dr Martinez Albarracin en el video de su entrevista a canal 5 que colgó @Batsheba . Y me suscitó preguntas.

Parece ser que supuestamente ( todo supuestamente) llegará. Como en Blade Runner, el apagón de 10 días que eliminó información. Pero lo pone en la web del foro económico. Así que alertan y quien avisa no es traidor.

Suponiendo que ocurre y a estas alturas de la película ya no me extraña nada, cómo podemos protegernos o evitar males mayores?

Almacenando comida? Agua?
Sacando la pasta del banco? Porque en el artículo en francés pone que se podrían vaciar los depositos. Y un apagón significaría la quiebra del banco., las bolsas no funcionarían, la crisis en mayúscula y el caos.

Si esto lo unimos con la inflación anunciada por el BCE para marzo, el precio astronómico de fletar contenedores des Asia ( exportacion e importaciones) y la negativa de china de exportar tierras raras....

A bote pronto es lo primero y más necesario.

Se me va la pinza otra vez.....?????

 

[Mayleen]

Uyyy pero, ¿qué me dices?

La ONU admite que se ha usado a <<la pandemia como pretexto para, reprimir, abolir libertades y silenciar voces disonantes>>

La ONU admite que se ha usado a "la pandemia como pretexto para reprimir, abolir libertades y silenciar voces disonantes" | EuskalNews - La actualidad sin censura

Suscribiros a nuestro canal de Telegram, donde colgamos todas y cada una de las noticias que publicamos: https://t.me/s/euskalnews?before=7 Más noticiones de los que los medios tracionionales no se harán eco. Resulta que ayer mismo, lunes, el Secretario General de la...

euskalnews.com

Cualquier día les cascan la verdad en toda la cara y ¿qué hacen esos creyentes aferrimos de mascarilla con sus vidas? Sin ver a su familia, los abuelos un año sin ver a sus nietos, familiares fallecidos y, sin poder verlos, tus hijos con mascarilla en pleno desarrollo de su sistema inmune, PCRs a niños de 1 año, no poder abrazar a tu familiar porque lo has dejado en el hospital y jamás lo volviste a ver, vacunar a tu abuela y que te diga que no quiere y a los 2 días la mandaste al otro barrio porque "es por tu salud" "por el bien de todos" En fin, el viruh!! Cada un@ sabrá lo que se cree que se manipula y lo que no.

Un abrazo muy fuerte a tod@s las primis y besazo enorme a las que no nos creemos ni la mitad ?

 

[Batsheba]

Tiene cara culo, será por eso.

No falla. Este tío quiere darle a la humanidad todas las collejas que le dieron a él en el cole y en la jai escul.

 

[Batsheba]

¿Sabes que tiene Asperger?, me enteré ayer.
Está piradísimo este hombre, que se retire ya.

10 emprendedores famosos que tienen Síndrome de Asperger - Emprendedores News

Muchas de las mentes más brillantes de la historia tienen síndrome de Asperger. Emprendedores como Bill Gates y genios como Steven Spielberg lo padecen.

emprendedoresnews.com

Si, resulta que según algunos como tiene síndrome Asperger habría que perdonárselo todo al tipo.

 

[Mayleen]

Hombre!!! La zona covid de un hospital VACIA, como desde hace meses seguro y, ¿ahora meten cámaras en un hospital? ¿Por qué no las metieron en diciembre? jajajajajaja!!! Leer los comentarios porque no tienen desperdicio ?

 

[SirenaVarada]

Hombre!!! La zona covid de un hospital VACIA, como desde hace meses seguro y, ¿ahora meten cámaras en un hospital? ¿Por qué no las metieron en diciembre? jajajajajaja!!! Leer los comentarios porque no tienen desperdicio ?

Claro hay que preparar el 8 M. Es que parece que cada vez hay menos miedo y menos cifras.... habrá que sacar a la gente en manifestación para volver a decir que estamos fatal y para volver a echarnos la bronca de lo mal que lo hacemos.

Prim@s últimamente no escribo apenas porque la verdad estoy bastante desanimada, ójala este circo acabe pronto.

 

[Family Album]

Covid19, iatrogenia y autoinmunidad final - Cauac Editorial

Este quizá es el momento más decisivo de todos para compartir información y ayudar a que nuestros familiares y amigos entiendan algunas cosas de vital importancia. Ahora que tanta gente en nuestro entorno y en todo el mundo está recibiendo presión para "vacunarse" estamos aún a tiempo de ayudar a…

cauac.org

El último trabajo de la Dr Martinez Albarracin

 

[Family Album]

Australia, abucheos del público cuando la mujer habla de vacunas