Big Pharma CANADA Children COVID-19 Disturbing experimental doses gene therapies Headline News Hoax Intelwars LIES Mainstream media mislabeled Moderna mRNA Pfizer plandemic profoundly sick society propaganda Scam scamdemic Study test on babies test subjects United States vaccines

Moderna Begins Testing It’s Gene Therapy “Vaccine” On Children As Young As 6 Months!

Big Pharma company Moderna has begun testing its experimental mRNA gene therapy “vaccine” on children. Moderna Inc. said it has begun delivering experimental doses of its COVID-19 vaccine to children as part of a study to determine whether it is safe and effective in those as young as six months.

According to a report by Al Jazeera, the trial aims to enroll about 6,750  child volunteers in the United States and Canada. The US’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority are collaborating with the company, Moderna said in a statement.

This is incredibly disturbing. The mainstream media is stating this is a good thing, however, it seems like these kids are going to be a part of a giant experiment that has the potential of going very wrong.

In the first stage of the trial, researchers will test various doses of vaccine to see which works best. Study participants between the ages of 2 and 11 will receive either 50 or 100 microgrammes per dose, while those ages six months to just under 24 months will get 25, 50m, or 100 microgrammes per dose.

All doses will be administered twice, 28 days apart.

For the sake of comparison, each Moderna dose for adults contains 0.5 milliliters of the vaccine, equivalent to 500 microgrammes. –Al Jazeera

Pfizer and BioNTech are already testing their COVID-19 vaccine in children as young as 12. Their initial clinical trial included 16 and 17-year-olds, and the vaccine is currently the only one authorized for use for minors in the US.

Operation Warp Speed: Big Pharma To Test COVID-19 Vaccine On Children As Young As 12

Contrary to What the Media is Telling You, Freedom Does Not Come from a Vaccine

This is to assess the safety of these gene therapies labeled vaccines. So they don’t know what is going to happen to these children, yet they want parents to willingly enroll their children in this study knowing that doing so can result in permanent damage to their child, or their child’s death.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. Jiddu Krishnamurti

And we live in a profoundly sick society. We had better wake up soon.


The post Moderna Begins Testing It’s Gene Therapy “Vaccine” On Children As Young As 6 Months! first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

American national elections studies Intelwars Jordan Peterson Left-wing violence political violence poll Right wing violence Study

Jordan Peterson shares poll showing white liberals embrace using violence to pursue political goals more than conservatives

Following the summer of regular riots in American cities by Black Lives Matter and Antifa members as well as the January storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters, there is debate about which side of the political spectrum embraces violence to achieve their goals. A poll found that white liberals are far more likely to support using violence to advance their political agenda.

The new data was provided by the American National Elections Studies, which was established by the National Science Foundation in 1977. The Time Series Study has been conducted before and after U.S. general elections since 1948. The 2020 ANES Time Series Study was carried out by the University of Michigan and Stanford University.

Participants were asked: “How much do you feel it is justified for people to use violence to pursue their political goals in this country?” Respondents could answer with “Not at all,” “A little,” “A moderate amount,” A lot,” and “A great deal.” The study has a total of 8,280 interviews that were conducted before the 2020 presidential election.

Bestselling author and University of Toronto psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson shared an eye-opening revelation from the 2020 ANES Time Series Study. On his Twitter page, Peterson shared a graph from the poll showing responses from white American adults across the political spectrum from “very liberal” to “very conservative.”

The graph shows each political demographic and the percentage of respondents who answered “Not at all” to the question: “How much do you feel it is justified for people to use violence to pursue their political goals in this country?” The graph shows the percentage of white Americans who would never consider using violence to advance their political goals.

The survey found that 95.8% of “very conservative” white respondents said violence should never be used to pursue a political ambition, which was up from 93.3% in 2016. “Conservative” respondents were nearly identical, with 95% disavowing political violence in 2020 and 93.3% in 2016.

However, on the other end of the political spectrum, leftists are more likely to embrace political violence as a means to an end. According to the poll, only 66.5% of “very liberal” white respondents said it was wrong to use violence to attain their political goals. That means that over a third of “very liberal” Americans would justify using some or a “great deal” of violence to pursue their political goals. In the 2016 survey, the percent of “very liberal” respondents willing to endorse political violence was much higher at 86.9%.

There were 82.8% that identified as “liberals” who were against political violence, down from 88.1% in 2016.

The survey found that 85.8% of “moderates” said political violence should never be used, down one percentage point from four years ago.

The 2020 ANES Time Series Study found that Republicans were less accepting of using violence for political gains compared to Democrats and independents. Along racial lines, white Americans were the least to support using violence to pursue political goals compared to Asians, Hispanics, and blacks.

Climate Change Climate crisis Do solar panels cause pollution Global Warming Intelwars Science Solar farms Solar plants solar power Study

Study warns solar farms could unleash unintended consequences on the environment, including global warming

A new study finds there could be unintended consequences of constructing massive solar farms in deserts around the world. The eye-opening research claims that huge solar farms, such as in the Sahara, could usher in environmental crises, including altering the climate and causing global warming.

The study was carried out by Zhengyao Lu, a researcher in Physical Geography at Lund University, and Benjamin Smith, director of research at the Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment at Western Sydney University. The results of their research were published in a Feb. 11 article in The Conversation.

Solar panels are darker colors such as black and blue to attract and absorb more heat, but they are usually much darker than the ground around the solar panel. The post cites an article that claims most solar panels are between 15% and 20% efficient in converting sunlight into usable energy. The researchers assert that the rest of the sunlight is returned to the surrounding environment as heat, “affecting the climate.”

The article notes that in order to replace fossil fuels, solar farms would need to be enormous — covering thousands of square miles, according to this article. Solar farms of this magnitude potentially present environmental consequences, not just locally but globally.

Authors of a 2018 study say that climate models show that installing ample numbers of wind turbines would double precipitation in the Sahara desert, and solar panels would increase precipitation by 50%. The researchers came to this conclusion by determining that the solar panels and wind turbines would decrease the albedo on the land surface. Albedo is the fraction of light that is reflected by a body or surface.

From The Conversation:

The model revealed that when the size of the solar farm reaches 20% of the total area of the Sahara, it triggers a feedback loop. Heat emitted by the darker solar panels (compared to the highly reflective desert soil) creates a steep temperature difference between the land and the surrounding oceans that ultimately lowers surface air pressure and causes moist air to rise and condense into raindrops. With more monsoon rainfall, plants grow and the desert reflects less of the sun’s energy, since vegetation absorbs light better than sand and soil. With more plants present, more water is evaporated, creating a more humid environment that causes vegetation to spread.

Turning the Sahara desert into a lush, green oasis could have climate ramifications around the planet, including affecting the atmosphere, the ocean, the land, changing entire ecosystems, altering precipitation in Amazon’s rainforests, inducing droughts, and potentially triggering more tropical cyclones.

The good-intentioned effort to lower the world’s temperature could potentially do the opposite and increase the planet’s temperature, according to the researchers.

Covering 20% of the Sahara with solar farms raises local temperatures in the desert by 1.5°C according to our model. At 50% coverage, the temperature increase is 2.5°C. This warming is eventually spread around the globe by atmosphere and ocean movement, raising the world’s average temperature by 0.16°C for 20% coverage, and 0.39°C for 50% coverage. The global temperature shift is not uniform though – the polar regions would warm more than the tropics, increasing sea ice loss in the Arctic. This could further accelerate warming, as melting sea ice exposes dark water which absorbs much more solar energy.

The authors conclude their article by stating renewable energy solutions “may help society transition from fossil energy, but Earth system studies like ours underscore the importance of considering the numerous coupled responses of the atmosphere, oceans and land surface when examining their benefits and risks.”

Coronavirus COVID-19 Intelwars pandemic Recovered covid patients Reuters Study

New study suggests ‘vast majority’ of people infected with COVID-19 see ‘at least six months’ of protection after recovery

A new U.K.-based study has found that the majority of people who were previously infected with COVID-19 have very high levels of antibodies for six months or more following an initial infection, possibly protecting them from a second infection for that time period.

What are the details?

On Wednesday, Reuters reported that Naomi Allen, professor and chief scientist at the U.K. Biobank — where the study was carried out — said that long-lasting antibodies prompt researchers to believe reinfection during that period of time will be rare.

The study was carried out on 20,000 volunteers and was composed of a combination of existing U.K. Biobank participants and their adult children and grandchildren over the age of 18 years.

The resulting report pointed out, “Among participants who had tested positive for previous COVID-19 infection, 99% retained antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 for three months, the results showed. After the full six months of follow-up in the study, 88% still had them.”

“The vast majority of people retain detectable antibodies for at least six months after infection with the coronavirus,” Allen explained. “Although we cannot be certain how this relates to immunity, the results suggest that people may be protected against subsequent infection for at least six months following natural infection.”

According to Sky News, Allen added, “More prolonged follow-up will allow us to determine how long such protection is likely to last.”

The study also found that the proportion of the U.K. population with antibodies “rose from 6.6% at the start of the study period in May/June 2020 to 8.8% by November/December 2020.”

Sky News reported that despite the findings, researchers insist that there is still a possibility that they can pass the virus on to others during the period following convalescence.

Professor Rory Collins, U.K. Biobank’s principal investigator, added, “Both with vaccines and indeed with past infection, we don’t yet know what impact that has on the ability to be carrying the virus and transmitting to others.”

He added, “One important message both for people who have been infected, and for people being vaccinated, is you may be protected, to some extent, but you may still put others at risk.”

algorithms artificial intelligence biases Censorship DISINFORMATION Facebook flaws Headline News Intelwars MISINFORMATION pre-crime Social Media Study Systems Technology thought crime totalitarian Website

Another “Pre-Crime” AI System Claims It Can Predict Who Will Share Disinformation Before It’s Published

This article was originally published at Activist Post. 

We previously have covered the many weighty claims made by the progenitors of A.I. algorithms who claim that their technology can stop crime before it happens. Similar predictive A.I. is increasingly being used to stop the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and general “fake news” by analyzing trends in behavior and language used across social media.

However, as we’ve also covered, these systems have more often than not failed quite spectacularly, as many artificial intelligence experts and mathematicians have highlighted. One expert in particular — Uri Gal, Associate Professor in Business Information Systems, at the University of Sydney, Australia — noted that from what he has seen so far, these systems are “no better at telling the future than a crystal ball.”

Please keep this in mind as you look at the latest lofty pronouncements from the University of Sheffield below. Nevertheless, we should also be aware that — similar to their real-world counterparts in street-level pre-crime — these systems most likely will be rolled out across social media (if they haven’t been already) regardless, until further exposure of their inherent flaws, biases, and their own disinformation is revealed.

AI can predict Twitter users likely to spread disinformation before they do it

A new artificial-intelligence-based algorithm that can accurately predict which Twitter users will spread disinformation before they actually do it has been developed by researchers from the University of Sheffield.

  • University of Sheffield researchers have developed an artificial intelligence-based algorithm that can accurately predict (79.7 percent) which Twitter users are likely to share content from unreliable news sources before they actually do it
  • Study found that Twitter users who spread disinformation mostly tweet about politics or religion, whereas users who share reliable sources of news tweet more about their personal lives
  • Research also found that Twitter users who share disinformation use impolite language more frequently than users who share reliable news sources
  • Findings could help governments and social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook better understand user behavior and help them design more effective models for tackling the spread of disinformation

A new artificial-intelligence-based algorithm that can accurately predict which Twitter users will spread disinformation before they actually do it has been developed by researchers from the University of Sheffield.

A team of researchers, led by Yida Mu and Dr. Nikos Aletras from the University’s Department of Computer Science, has developed a method for predicting whether a social media user is likely to share content from unreliable news sources. Their findings have been published in the journal PeerJ.

The researchers analyzed over 1 million tweets from approximately 6,200 Twitter users by developing new natural language processing methods – ways to help computers process and understand huge amounts of language data. The tweets they studied were all tweets that were publicly available for anyone to see on the social media platform.

Twitter users were grouped into two categories as part of the study – those who have shared unreliable news sources and those who only share stories from reliable news sources. The data was used to train a machine-learning algorithm that can accurately predict (79.7 percent) whether a user will repost content from unreliable sources sometime in the future.

Results from the study found that Twitter users who shared stories from unreliable sources are more likely to tweet about either politics or religion and use impolite language. They often posted tweets with words such as ‘liberal’, ‘government’, ‘media’, and their tweets often related to politics in the Middle East and Islam, with their tweets often mentioning ‘Islam’ or ‘Israel’.

In contrast, the study found that Twitter users who shared stories from reliable news sources often tweeted about their personal life, such as their emotions and interactions with friends. This group of users often posted tweets with words such as ‘mood’. ‘wanna’, ‘gonna’, ‘I’ll’, ‘excited’, and ‘birthday’.

Findings from the study could help social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook develop ways to tackle the spread of disinformation online. They could also help social scientists and psychologists improve their understanding of such user behavior on a large scale.

Dr. Nikos Aletras, Lecturer in Natural Language Processing at the University of Sheffield, said:

Social media has become one of the most popular ways that people access the news, with millions of users turning to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook every day to find out about key events that are happening both at home and around the world. However, social media has become the primary platform for spreading disinformation, which is having a huge impact on society and can influence people’s judgement of what is happening in the world around them.

As part of our study, we identified certain trends in user behaviour that could help with those efforts – for example, we found that users who are most likely to share news stories from unreliable sources often tweet about politics or religion, whereas those who share stories from reliable news sources often tweeted about their personal lives.

We also found that the correlation between the use of impolite language and the spread of unreliable content can be attributed to high online political hostility.

Yida Mu, a Ph.D. student at the University of Sheffield, said:

Studying and analysing the behaviour of users sharing content from unreliable news sources can help social media platforms to prevent the spread of fake news at the user level, complementing existing fact-checking methods that work on the post or the news source level.

The study, Identifying Twitter users who repost unreliable news sources with linguistic information, is published in PeerJ. To access the paper in full, visit:

The post Another “Pre-Crime” AI System Claims It Can Predict Who Will Share Disinformation Before It’s Published first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Coronavirus Covid treatment COVID-19 Hydroxychloroquine Intelwars Medicine Study

Peer-reviewed hydroxychloroquine study finds 84% fewer hospitalizations among early treated outpatients

A peer-reviewed study analyzing the effectiveness of a triple drug cocktail including hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients found that the treatment was effective and that it significantly reduced hospitalization and mortality rates for those in the treatment group.

The study, authored by the controversial Dr. Vladimir Zelenko in partnership with two German doctors, was accepted for peer-review and will be published in the December issue of the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. An online-only version of the study was published Oct. 26.

Dr. Zelenko and team, Drs. Roland Derwand and Martin Scholz, sought to describe the outcomes of high-risk patients with laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 who received early treatment with zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin. A total of 141 diagnosed COVID-19 patients were prescribed the triple treatment over a five-day period. They were compared with a control group of 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients who did not receive the treatment.

The study found that treated patients were 84% less likely to be hospitalized than untreated ones. Of 141 treated patients, four were hospitalized, which was significantly fewer than 58 of 377 untreated patients who were sent to the hospital. Additionally, the mortality rate for treated patients was lower. Only one patient in the treatment group died versus 13 patients in the untreated group. The patient who died had a history of cancer and only took one daily dose of the triple therapy before hospital admission.

The anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine has been the subject of intense public debate after President Donald Trump championed it as a potential “game changer” in March just after the onset of the pandemic. Earlier studies conducted in April and May found that the drug had no positive impact on patients. Another study published in Lancet claimed that the drug could be dangerous for some patients, but was later retracted by its authors. A more recent study published in November found patients treated with hydroxychloroquine showed no signs of significant improvement in “clinical status” compared with those given a placebo.

Zelenko and his co-authors claim that their research differentiates itself from other studies that have shown mixed or negative results for hydroxychloroquine by focusing on outpatients treated at an early stage of the disease.

“All studies that used HCQ with rather contradictory results were in hospitalized and often sicker patients,” the study notes. Additionally, this study focuses on using hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc and azithromycin, where other studies may have analyzed the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine by itself.

“What differentiates this study is that patients were diagnosed very early with COVID-19 in an outpatient setting, and only high-risk patients were treated early on,” Derwand said in a news release about the study.

“It’s unfortunate that much of the media coverage surrounding hydroxychloroquine has been negative. These three medications are affordable, available in pill form, and work in synergy against COVID-19,” Zelenko said. “Hydroxychloroquine’s main role is to allow zinc to enter the cell and inhibit the virus’ reproduction. And azithromycin prevents secondary bacterial infection in the lungs and reduces the risk of pulmonary complications.”

“This is the first study with COVID-19 outpatients that shows how a simple-to-perform outpatient risk stratification allows for rapid treatment decisions shortly after onset of symptoms,” Scholz added. “The well-tolerated 5-day triple therapy resulted in a significantly lower hospitalization rate and less fatalities with no reported cardiac side effects compared with relevant public reference data of untreated patients. The magnitude of the results can substantially elevate the relevance of early use, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, especially in combination with zinc. This data can be used to inform ongoing pandemic response policies as well as future clinical trials.”

Coronavirus COVID-19 Intelwars lockdowns Prejudice Racism Study UK working from home

Study claims working from home can lead to increase in racism and prejudice

As the coronavirus spreads throughout the world and many have been forced to transition from working in offices to working from home, a new study claims that working from home actually can lead to an increase in racism and prejudice, BBC News reported.

What are the details?

The study — conducted by polling company Survation for the Woolf Institute, which researches interfaith relations — surveyed 11,701 people in England and Wales last year, the outlet said.

Institute founder Ed Kessler told BBC News that as more people work from home, they risk going “back into isolated silos,” and he added that offices and workplaces are “vital” for improving community relations.

The study suggests that of those who work in shared offices, three-quarters (76%) — regardless of ethnicity — were in an ethnically diverse setting, the outlet said, adding that unemployed people are 37% more likely to only have friends from their own ethnic group.

In addition, the study warns that without the establishment of alternative settings to offices, opportunities for social mixing between different religious and ethnic groups will be greatly reduced, BBC News said.

The study also examined opinions on diversity, the outlet said:

  • While nearly three-quarters of non-black or non-Asian respondents were comfortable with a close relative marrying a black or Asian person (74% and 70%), fewer than half (44%) said they were comfortable with the idea of a close relative marrying a Muslim person, BBC News noted.
  • The report also indicates a majority of Muslims were uncomfortable with a close relative marrying a Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, or Sikh person — or someone of no religion. Around a third of Muslim respondents (38%) said they were uncomfortable with a close relative marrying a Christian person, the outlet said.

“Muslims were both the primary target for ‘uncomfortable’ responses, but also the primary source,” the report said, BBC News noted. In other words, the study indicated Muslims are the most likely group to hold negative attitudes towards people of other religions as well as the most likely target of such attitudes, the outlet added.

Is there hope?

Hadiya Masieh, who is Muslim, became close friends with Samuel Rosengard, an Orthodox Jew, after working together, BBC News said.

Rosengard told the outlet that while he’d never held racist or Islamophobic views, he may have had “misconceptions” about Muslim communities.

“Meeting Hadiya has really helped clarify where my thinking can be askew,” he noted to BBC News.

Masieh agreed, telling the outlet that for her “it was more of a political thing about Israel and Palestine,”

But working together has led to a close friendship, BBC News noted.

“It was just a very natural relationship that we formed because we had the exact same agenda and passions,” she told the outlet. “We were both from very different backgrounds, and the idea of Israel and Palestine was a hot topic. But we were able to discuss that in a way that was understanding of each other.”

Rosengard added to BBC News, “Before COVID we would have regular discussions about these kinds of issues. And also identifying common cultural traits between Jewish and Muslim communities and areas of agreement and disagreement. Hadiya and I would often start off conversations just bumping into each other in the open plan office and then head off for a coffee. But that just doesn’t happen. So that is a loss.”

body autonomy Coronavirus efficacy emerency use auhorization Fear forced Headline News Intelwars LIES Mainstream media Military Moderna panic Pfizer solution Study third wave vaccines Violence

Moderna Sent Their Stock Soaring By Announcing Their COVID Vaccine is 95% Effective

Moderna has announced that their COVID-19 vaccine is 95% effective, and word of that caused their stock to skyrocket. This news comes just one week after Pfizer and BioNTech said their shot was more than 90 percent effective.

Pfizer has already begun mass production of its vaccine anticipating an emergency use authorization. The results from the Phase 3 study also indicated Moderna’s vaccine can help ward off “severe cases of the virus”, a key development as the United States allegedly grapples with a record-setting surge in infections and hospitalizations.  This is the mainstream media’s mass panic-induced “third wave” that they have been fear-mongering over.  The goal appears to be to panic people into takin this concocted injection and lockdown to make sure small businesses go under. 

The so-called interim analysis “has given us the first clinical validation that our vaccine can prevent COVID-19 disease, including severe disease,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement, calling the results a “pivotal moment” in the vaccine’s development.

Whether that’s true or not is up for debate. We are being asked to take the mainstream media and Big Pharma’s word for it.  Not surprisingly though, the announcement sent Moderna’s stock price soaring more than 12 percent in premarket trading to $100.33 as of 7:19 a.m.  It isn’t about money or control though… just ask the media.

Massachusetts-based Moderna said it will ask the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency approval of the shot “in the coming weeks” after it collects more data on the vaccine’s efficacy and safety. Pfizer has similarly said it could seek an emergency use authorization by the end of the month.

Moderna released the results after an independent safety board examined data from 95 participants in the 30,000-person study who contracted COVID-19. Just five of those 95 patients had received both doses of the vaccine before catching the virus, while the other 90 had gotten a placebo, the company said.

Eleven of those sick participants developed severe cases of coronavirus, but none had received the vaccine, a sign that the shot is effective at preventing serious infections, according to the company. –The New York Post

But only 5 got the vaccine…5. This is a serious facepalm moment, and people really need to start understanding what’s being said here. This is not proof of anything, let alone a 95% effective rate. The lies are coming at us so fast now, it’s almost impossible to keep up.

Stay alert and prepared.  More is coming. We need to brace ourselves.


The post Moderna Sent Their Stock Soaring By Announcing Their COVID Vaccine is 95% Effective first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

CDC control Coronavirus COVID-19 Dr. anthony fauci enslavement face masks Headline News illness ineffective Intelwars liars in suits mask wearing masks don't work Occult outbreak Politicians power Religious Rituals Study symbolism symptomatic Transmission tyranny viral wake up

CDC Study: Most COVID-19 Cases Were Admitted Mask Wearers

A new study released by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released the findings of a new study, in which the overwhelming number of new coronavirus cases came from people who religiously wear masks. The study, which was released in September and ignored by mainstream media and politicians found that masks are ineffective at the prevention of viral infections.

Read the entire study here.

The study, which was conducted in the United States in July found that when the CDC compared 154 “case-patients,” who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from the same health care facility who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite “always” wearing a mask.

In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public,” the report stated.

In addition, over 14 percent of the case-patients said they “often” wore a face covering and were still infected with the virus. The study also demonstrates that under 4 percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus even though they “never” wore a mask or face covering.

Despite over 70 percent of the case-patient participants’ efforts to follow CDC recommendations by committing to always wearing face coverings at “gatherings with ?10 or >10 persons in a home; shopping; dining at a restaurant; going to an office setting, salon, gym, bar/coffee shop, or church/religious gathering; or using public transportation,” they still contracted the virus. –The Federalist

This more than proves that face masks are ineffective at stopping COVID-19, so why does the CDC still recommend them? Is there something more sinister going on? That’s up to you to decide, but I would personally say it is more than a possibility.

Are Face Masks & COVID Rituals Occultist Symbols For Submission?

The Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci, and many political parasites authorities are still encouraging people to wear masks as well. Several states, cities, and other municipalities have even mandated face masks, citing them as one of the main tools to “slow the spread” of coronavirus and keep case numbers in their area down.

The mainstream media is deliberately ignoring this information, to obviously lay cover for tyrannical politicians seeking more power and control.

The post CDC Study: Most COVID-19 Cases Were Admitted Mask Wearers first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Coronavirus GLobal Intelwars Reopening schools Study

No link between schools reopening and COVID-19 spread, global study finds

There is no clear link between the reopening of schools and a country’s coronavirus infection rates according to a recent global analysis, which suggests that children are not the conduits for spreading the virus as some researchers first thought.

What are the details?

Insights for Education, an independent foundation based in Switzerland, studied 191 countries over a six month period and reported that “while opinion remains divided on when it is safe to reopen schools,” their “analysis shows no correlation between school reopening and a rise in COVID-19 infection rates.”

“It’s been assumed that reopening schools will drive infections, and that closing schools will reduce transmission,” IfE CEO Dr. Randa Gro-Zakhary said in a statement. “But the reality is much more complex.”

Reuters reported:

IfE found that 52 countries that sent students back to school in August and September – including France and Spain – saw infection rates rise during the vacation compared to when they were closed.
In Britain and Hungary, however, infection levels dropped after initial school closures, remained low during the holidays, and began rising after reopening.
Full analysis of these 52 countries found no firm correlation between school status and infections – pointing to a need to consider other factors

“The analysis back up what scientists increasingly believe,” according to The Telegraph, “that children, initially thought to be major potential spreaders of coronavirus infection, do not appear to be playing that role. However, at the same time, there is a growing body of work showing the detrimental effects of keeping kids out of school across the globe.”

IfE warned that it is “vital to address ‘pandemic learning debt'” for some 711 million kids worldwide who remain out of the classroom, along with the children who have already returned to school but could face “further potential closures.”

Grob-Zakhary added, “It is fair to ask at this point, are the risks of staying out of education exceeding those of going back in?”

Brown University Coronavirus COVID-19 Intelwars National covid-19 school response data dashboard Research Study

New study reports a very low risk of coronavirus transmission inside K-12 schools

A new study from Brown University researchers finds that there is minimal evidence to support the idea that the coronavirus is easily transferred inside K-12 school buildings.

What are the details?

As highlighted by The Hill, researchers — who collaborated with school administrators across the nation on a new National COVID-19 School Response Data Dashboard — released the data from the study on Wednesday.

The study finds that there is a “relatively small degree of spread among staff and students.”

Researchers drew their conclusions based on data received from more than 550 schools in 46 states across the country over a two-week period beginning Aug. 31.

The study found that just 0.23% of students had confirmed or suspected cases of coronavirus. The study also found that the confirmed or suspected rate among school staff was 0.51%. Solely confirmed cases were even lower at 0.076% for students and 0.15% for teachers.

According to a Wednesday report from the Washington Post, researchers at the university said such reports could suggest a possible return to classes may not be as risky as previously assumed.

Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told the outlet, “Everyone had a fear there would be explosive outbreaks of transmission in the schools. In colleges, there have been. We have to say that, to date, we have not seen those in the younger kids, and that is a really important observation.”

Emily Oster, a professor at Brown University who assisted in creating the dashboard, told the Post that the findings should quell concerns surrounding a possible return to school amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Oster said that while the research indicates that rates of spread in K-12 schools are certainly “much lower” when compared to other areas, it doesn’t mean schools should become complacent in implementing safety strategies.

“I don’t think that these numbers say all places should open schools with no restrictions or anything that comes close to that,” she warned. “Ultimately, school districts are going to have different attitudes toward risk.”

Sara Johnson, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine associate professor of pediatrics, told the outlet that schools should stagger the return of children and teachers back “slowly and carefully” amid the pandemic.

“These data are promising, but COVID is still a very big threat to people,” she told the outlet in a statement.

What else?

New research from Science Magazine found that children and adolescents are at a significantly lower risk of contracting coronavirus when compared to other age groups.

The research, released on Monday, also warned that school closures could negatively impact children’s health and well-being.

“In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools,” a portion of the report read. “There is now an evidence based on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children’s wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help, because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.”

black bar California Censorship Conspiracy Fact and Theory DEW Dutchsinse Earthquakes energy beam Headline News Intelwars live live feed oregon Prepare proof Study Videos Youtube

Are Directed Energy Weapons Starting Fires In California and Oregon!?

A Directed Energy Weapon was caught on a live stream going right into a fire in California. Then there was another shown igniting a fire in Oregon. Now, there’s a black censorship line through the beam.  What is going on?!

YouTuber Dutchsinse has discovered something unbelievable while looking at the fires in the Western United States and studying the earthquakes occurring around the world. When it’s first noticed, Dutchsinse called it “some kind of ray or beam of some kind.”

If you have trouble seeing, it at first, adjust the brightness on your device. But it is an incredible find.

The video below is a shorter version and has been brightened so the DEW can be seen better.

After this, Dutchsinse discovered another DEW last night.  That’s at least two nights in a row. This one appears to come from the ocean and into a fire that has just started in Oregon.

After this was discovered, Dutchsinse noticed that someone decided to “censor” the beam by literally putting a black censorship bar right over the heat signature.

The energy beam which was beaming down has been BLACKED OUT ON PURPOSE— LOOK CLOSE wth????? To try to hide it… they tried to match the black of the background but.. because its a live feed grey black its impossible to perfectly match.. so now we have a black line hiding the original beam HAHAHAHAHAAH ? Look close you’ll see it! the black censorship line over it ! hahahahah epic fail. –Dutchsinse, YouTube Community post

Source: Dutchsinse, YouTube

The website used to discover this can be found here.

Is this just a coincidence this happened two nights in a row? Is this just a coincidence these beams go into the fires? Is it just a coincidence that there’s now a censor bar over the beams?

How many coincidences do we need?

If this is not a DEW, what the hell is it?

The post Are Directed Energy Weapons Starting Fires In California and Oregon!? first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

face masks Facial Recognition Facial Recognition Technology Intelwars Masks Study

Masks thwart facial recognition systems up to 50% of the time, US agency says

As millions of Americans wear face coverings to protect themselves and others from the spread of COVID-19, law enforcement agencies have been confronted with the additional challenge of identifying masked individuals during investigations.

“There’s a reason criminals wear masks,” Tim Miller, a former Secret Service agent who now works in security consulting, told WPEC-TV in May. “[An] investigation is hindered right away because the face is something witnesses will identify quickly.”

The outlet was reporting on the trend of police agencies taking to social media to seek help from the public in identifying masked thieves and assailants. That same concern exists for law enforcement seeking to identify the criminal rioters taking advantage of protests across the country in recent weeks.

It’s a legitimate concern

In a recent preliminary study, the National Institutes of Science and Technology found that existing facial recognition systems are thwarted by pandemic masks as frequently as 50% of the time.

NIST has reportedly been working alongside the U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security’s science division to study the problem.

In this most recent study, NIST tested existing software by digitally drawing masks onto faces in a database of border crossing photos before comparing those photos against another database of unmasked people seeking visas.

They tested 89 algorithms supplied by tech firms and academic labs by scanning 6.2 million images of about 1 million people.

As a point of comparison, the agency said that competent systems under ideal conditions turn out failure rates of only 0.3%. But when confronted with masks, “many otherwise competent algorithms failed between 20% to 50% of the time.”

The preliminary study only tested facial recognition systems that were created prior to the pandemic, so the hope is that further study into newly developed technologies will produce better results.

One company that has improved such a technology since the start of the pandemic is Apple, which updated its Face ID technology to allow users to more easily unlock their phone’s home screen with a mask on.

There’s another side to things

Wearing a face mask to frustrate facial recognition systems is not necessarily something only beneficial to criminals, however. Individuals seeking privacy from surveillance state tactics may find news that masks protect one’s identity a positive development.

For example, the Associated Press notes that even before the pandemic mask-wearing had “become a hallmark of protesters in Hong Kong, even at peaceful marches, to protect against tear gas and amid fears of retribution if they were publicly identified.”

As a part of the communist government’s crackdown on pro-democracy protests in the city, a ban on masks was implemented.

Coronavirus COVID-19 Intelwars intensive care unit Research Study

COVID-19 patients’ ICU death rates are quickly dropping: Study

ICU patients who are being treated for coronavirus are dying less often than they were when compared to the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

What are the details?

New research published in medical journal Anaesthesia reports that a significant decrease in COVID-19 mortality has occurred since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

Researchers add that the decrease is at least partially due to better hospital care.

The study is based on analysis of 24 studies that involved more than 10,000 patients across Asia, Europe, and North America.

The research, led by Professor Tim Cook of England’s Royal United Hospitals Bath, revealed that the overall mortality rate of coronavirus ICU patients fell from approximately 60 percent since the end of March to 42 percent by the end of May.

Cook is also a consultant in anesthesia and intensive care medicine at Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust.

Cook and other study authors said that “rapid learning that has taken place on a global scale due to the prompt publication of clinical reports early in the pandemic” has impacted the disease’s mortality rate for the better.

“It may also be that ICU admission criteria have changed over time, for example, with greater pressure on ICUs early in the pandemic surge,” authors wrote.

The study added, “There were no significant effects of geographical location, but reported ICU mortality fell over time. Optimistically, as the pandemic progresses, we may be coping better with COVID-19.”

The study also notes that its key findings regarding COVID-19 and ICU stints are likely to indicate that lengthy ICU stays take time to be reflected in the data. The research points out that 20 percent of U.K. ICU admissions have lasted more than 28 days, while 9 percent have gone beyond 42 days.

“The important message, however, is that as the pandemic has progressed and all these factors combine, survival of patients admitted to ICU with COVID-19 has significantly improved,” the study added.

Cook, in a statement of his own, said, “The important message is that as the pandemic has progressed and various factors combine, survival of patients admitted to ICU has significantly improved.” He also cautioned, however, that while mortality rates in ICU patients seem to be decreasing, the disease is still more dangerous and damaging when compared to other viruses that cause pneumonias.

“The in-ICU mortality from COVID-19, at around 40 per cent, remains almost twice that seen in ICU admissions with other viral pneumonias, at 22%,” the report added.

Anything else?

Dr. Eric Cioe Pena, director of global health at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, New York, issued a statement on the research, warning people against complacency.

In a statement to Health Day, Pena said, “Any successful treatment, when not coupled with good public health measures to keep the new case rate below the limit of existing health care resources, will erase any gains made over the last few months by simply overwhelming the ICUs that have just become better at treating COVID-19.”

Pena added that the study, on the whole, “rightly concludes something that we expect: As we learned more about this virus and its effect on the critically ill, we became better at treating it and its complications.”

(H/T: Reuters)

Coronavirus COVID-19 herd immunity Intelwars Research Study

New study on COVID-19 antibodies suggests that immunity fades within weeks, authors say it puts a ‘nail in the coffin’ of herd immunity

A new study from the U.K. finds that immunity against COVID-19 fades within weeks, putting a “nail in the coffin” of the idea of herd immunity, according to the study’s authors.

What are the details?

The research, carried out by scientists at King’s College London, determined that a COVID-19 patient’s level of antibodies peaked three weeks after symptoms appeared and then in some cases faded away altogether.

Research notes that in some cases, a patient’s level of antibodies was entirely “undetectable” after three months.

The study, conducted on antibody response of 90 patients and health care workers at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, found that 60 percent of those tested had “potent” levels of antibodies during their COVID-19 battles, but just 17 percent had the same level of antibodies three months later.

The study also noted that it appears COVID-19 can reinfect people even if those infected developed antibodies in their initial infection.

According to Business Insider, “The potency of the antibodies fell by as much as 23 times over the three months … and in some cases were undetectable at the end of that period of time.”

One of the study’s authors said that the findings put “another nail in the coffin of the dangerous concept of herd immunity.”

The study has not been peer-reviewed at the time of this writing.

What else?

In a statement, Professor Jonathan Heeney, a virologist at the University of Cambridge, said that the idea of herd immunity is dangerous — especially when it comes to COVID-19.

“I cannot underscore how important it is that the public understands that getting infected by this virus is not a good thing,” he said. “Some of the public, especially the youth, have become somewhat cavalier about getting infected, thinking that they would contribute to herd immunity.”

“Not only will they place themselves at risk, and others, by getting infected, and losing immunity, they may even put themselves at greater risk of more severe lung disease if they get infected again in the years to come,” he insisted.

Anything else to know?

This study has come out on the heels of a Spanish study, which claimed the same result: Antibody protection against COVID-19 reinfection significantly declines in a good many patients.

The study found that just five percent of people tested maintained antibodies several weeks following infection.

In a statement, the study’s authors said, “In light of these findings, any proposed approach to herd immunity through natural infection is not only highly unethical, but also unachievable.”

a pill advancements aliments Alternative Medicine Big Pharma choices conditions demand harming Headline News illness implications Intelwars Magic Mushrooms Marijuana mental conditions natural Psychedelics Research Schedule 1 drugs shroom boom Study therapies treat symptoms

Demand For Alternative Medicine Could END Big Pharma

When it comes to the number of Americans on medications offered by Big Pharma, it’s staggering. People are beginning to demand alternative options and more choices when it comes to their own health, and that could lead to incredible innovative solutions to the problem of Big Pharma.

Many people used to tell those who looked for more natural and holistic remedies for their conditions that they were crazy and should just trust Big Pharma.  Yet the tides are turning, as most know the pharmaceutical companies are interested in doping people up and controlling symptoms instead of curing ailments. They are also borderline cruel with the prices they charge.

Big Pharma: Hooking People On Drugs And Hiking Prices 667%

Not-So-Shocking Poll: Americans Hate The Government Almost As Much As They Hate Big Pharma

According to Healthline, the term “alternative medicine” is out, and “integrative medicine” is in.

Patients are simply demanding more options. People want to choose how they take care of their health and increasing numbers are viewing prescription drugs for every minor thing as more harmful than good.

The Most Medicated Country In The World: 46% Of Americans Have Taken A Pharmaceutical Drug Within The Last 30 Days

In the past few years, many doctors and conventional healthcare institutions in the United States have shown a new acceptance of treatments and philosophies that historically have not been part of mainstream medicine.

Proponents explain that integrative medicine addresses the full range of a patient’s physical, emotional, spiritual, and environmental influences. It also deploys therapies that extend beyond the surgeries and drugs that have historically defined the American medical establishment.

In 1994, Dr. Andrew Weil, the Harvard-educated physician, author, lecturer, and internationally recognized pioneer of integrative and holistic health, founded the Program in Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona.

This was years before most people had even heard of integrative medicine.

“Patients are dissatisfied with the small amount of time they get with their doctors and with doctors who prescribe a pill for every ill,” Weil said. “The integrative medicine movement is not a rejection of conventional methods. But patients are saying that the conventional model is not working, that it’s broken. And they are right.” –Healthline

As people continue to turn their backs on the medical establishment that is keeping them sick and dependent on their drugs, more and more are willing to look into alternatives, such as the decriminalization of marijuana and psychedelics. Actually, there’s a “shroom boom” going on right now, and it could lead to immense progress when it comes to the treatment of alcohol and tobacco additions and depression. More research is needed, of course, but as regulations on some previously banned substances are loosened, more studies on the efficacy of those substances can be completed.

If things continue the way they have been, and more turn from the addictive and harmful substances often pushed by Big Pharma, we may actually see a rebound in our overall health.

COVID-19 Intelwars Men coronavirus Study

Study may help explain why men are more susceptible to COVID-19 than women

Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, researchers and public health officials have been puzzled by a simple fact: Men appear to be more likely to catch COVID-19 than women, and when they do catch it, they are more likely to suffer severe complications.

In every country that demographic data is available, men represent a majority of coronavirus cases and deaths. The discrepancy was perhaps first noticed in Italy where almost 70% of coronavirus deaths were male patients.

A number of theories have been floated as possible reasons for this, including overall poor health habits among men. However, researchers in Europe believe they may have found the actual cause.

According to a study released on Monday in the European Heart Journal, men have higher concentrations in their blood of a key enzyme, called angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is believed to play a key role in how COVID-19 attacks a patient’s lungs.

Researchers cautioned that their study was conducted before the coronavirus pandemic, so they were not able to evaluate whether coronavirus patients generally or coronavirus patients with significant complications had higher levels of ACE2 in their bloodstream.

However, according to Reuters, one of the study’s co-authors stated, “When we found that one of the strongest biomarkers, ACE2, was much higher in men than in women, I realised that this had the potential to explain why men were more likely to die from COVID-19 than women.”

Of particular importance, doctors have at times been wary of prescribing or continuing administration of a class of drugs called CE inhibitors, which are widely prescribed to patients with a variety of medical conditions. However, the study concluded that ACE inhibitors do not lead to higher ACE2 concentrations in the blood and therefore, the study concluded, “our findings do not support the discontinuation of these drugs in COVID-19 patients.”

This finding means that patients with diabetes, congestive heart failure and kidney disease — who are already at higher risk of mortality from COVID-19 — can continue their regular ACE inhibitor regimen, which may help to reduce mortality in those patients from their underlying conditions.

Coronavirus COVID-19 Intelwars Research Science Study

Scientists say they’ve identified mutated COVID-19 strain — and issue a dire warning about new contagion

Scientists say they have discovered what they believe is a mutated strain of COVID-19 — and are now warning that this new strain could be way more contagious than plain old coronavirus.

What are the details?

According to a Tuesday report in the Los Angeles Times, researchers say that a new “mutant” strain of coronavirus has emerged.

The study, led by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, reveals that the new strain is more contagious than versions that spread in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. In addition to being more contagious, the new strain could reportedly make people more vulnerable to a second infection after a “first bout with the disease.”

The study was published on Thursday in BioRxiv and has yet to be peer-reviewed, but researchers said they felt an “urgent need for an early warning” to advise people of the potential danger of the new strain.

The outlet reported, “Wherever the new strain appeared, it quickly infected far more people than the earlier strains that came out of Wuhan, China, and within weeks, it was the only strain that was more prevalent in some nations. … The new strain’s dominance over its predecessors demonstrates that it is more infectious.”

“The report was based on a computational analysis of more than 6,000 coronavirus sequences from around the world, collected by the Global Initiative for Sharing All Influenza Data,” the Times added. “Time and time again, the analysis found the new version was transitioning to become dominant.”

At the time of this writing, researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimate at least 3,606,038 COVID-19 cases have been confirmed around the world, with at least 252,151 deaths because of the virus.

What else?

Study leader Bette Korber — who is a computational biologist — addressed the study on her Facebook page, the outlet reported.

“The story is worrying, as we see a mutated form of the virus very rapidly emerging, and over the month of March becoming the dominant pandemic form,” Korber wrote. “When viruses with this mutation enter a population, they rapidly begin to take over the local epidemic, thus they are more transmissible.”

She also pointed out that she is very concerned over the study’s results.

“This is hard news,” she continued, “but please don’t only be disheartened by it. Our team at LANL was able to document this mutation and its impact on transmission only because of a massive global effort of clinical people and experimental groups, who make new sequences of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) in their local communities available as quickly as they possibly can.”

Korber said that it is of utmost importance to remain aware and with a fluid, working knowledge of the disease and its metamorphosis.

“We cannot afford to be blindsided as we move vaccines and antibodies into clinical testing,” Korber insisted. “Please be encouraged by knowing the global scientific community is on this, and we are cooperating with each other in ways I have never seen … in my 30 years as a scientist.”

control COVID-19 Data Draconian elitists enslavement facts feelings Headline News human rights Intelwars John Ioannidis LIES lockdowns population propaganda Reality shutdowns social distancing Standford Study tyranny

There is NO Empirical Evidence for These Lockdowns

This article was originally published by Wilfred Reilly at The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. 

Several weeks ago, one of the USA’s better quantitative scientists, John Ioannidis of Stanford, made a critically important point. During the coronavirus pandemic, ‘we are making decisions without reliable data’, he said.

As Ioannidis and others have pointed out, we do not even know the actual death rate for COVID-19. Terrifying and widely cited case-fatality rates like ‘three percent’ come from comparing known fatalities to the small pool of people who have officially been tested. Those test cases are mostly made up of sick and symptomatic people or those who had direct contact with someone known to have had Covid-19 – rather than to the far larger pool of people who may have had a mild version of the disease. Because of the same denominator problem, we also don’t know the true infection rate. A recent German study indicates this could be as high as 15 percent.

Finally, we do not seem to know the effectiveness of the various strategies adopted by national and regional governments to respond to the disease – ranging from the advocacy of social distancing to full-on lockdowns.

This piece tackles that question. As a professional political scientist, I have analyzed data from the Worldometers Coronavirus project, along with information about the population, population density, median income, median age and diversity of each US state, to determine whether states that have adopted lockdowns or ‘shelter in place’ orders experience fewer COVID-19 cases and deaths than those which pursue a social-distancing strategy without a formal lockdown. I then briefly extend this analysis to compare countries. In short, I do not find that lockdowns are a more effective way of handling coronavirus than well-done social-distancing measures.

The most basic way to test this thesis is by direct comparison. As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in-place orders, instead imposing social-distancing restrictions such as banning large gatherings and mandating six-foot spacing gaps and maximum customer limits inside all retail stores. Those seven states are Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. These states reported 1,620, 2,141, 952, 343, 1,311, 2,542 and 288 cases of COVID-19 respectively as of 3:40pm EST on 16 April – for an average of 1,321 cases. The states reported 37, 60, 21, 9, 7, 20, and 2 deaths respectively, for an average of 22.3 deaths. Throwing in South Carolina, which did not adopt a shelter-in-place order until 6 April, and still allows most religious services, does not dramatically alter these figures – these states averaged 1,613 cases and 33 deaths.

How do these states measure up to the rest of the US? Rather well. According to Worldometers, by the same time the number of officially tested COVID-19 cases across the US states – including Guam, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC – ranged from 226,343 in New York to 135 in Guam. The average number of COVID cases in a US state was 12,520. The state-by-state number of deaths varied from 16,251 (New York) to two (Wyoming), with the average figure for deaths being 642. Removing the outlier case of New York state, where roughly half of all US COVID-19 deaths have taken place, shifted these figures downward somewhat – to 8,408 cases and 342 deaths in the average state. However, the social-distancing states experienced substantially fewer cases and deaths than the lockdown states, even with New York out of the mix.

An advocate of lockdowns could object that the social-distancing states are little places, located in America’s ‘flyover land’. While this charge might be based as much on the bias as reality – Utah, Nebraska and South Carolina are sizable places – the next step of my analysis was to adjust for population, using a standard deaths-per-million metric. In alphabetical order, the seven social-distancing states experienced 12, 19, 11, 12, 8, 7, and three deaths per million – for an average of 10 deaths per million when you exclude South Carolina and 12 with South Carolina included.

Again, these numbers compare very favorably to the US as a whole, despite adjusting for population. Across all US states, the number of deaths per million varied from 828 (New York) to three (Wyoming), for an average of 69. With New York removed from the mix, the hardest-hit remaining state was New Jersey, with 8,480 cases and 396 deaths. The average number of cases-per-million across the states minus New York was 1,392 and the average number of deaths-per-million was 54. Comparing the social-distancing states plus South Carolina to US states minus New York, the social-distancing states experienced 663 fewer cases per million and 42 fewer deaths per million on average than the lockdown states.

Next, I ran a regression model. For those unfamiliar with academic statistical methods, regression – in this case, linear regression – is a computerized mathematical technique that allows researchers to measure the influence of one variable on another with all of the other factors that might be relevant held constant. In this case, the variables for each state included in my model were: population, population density, median income, median age, diversity (measured as the percentage of minorities in a population), and the state’s COVID-19 response strategy (0 = lockdown, 1 = social distancing). The data set used to construct this model is available for anyone to request it.

The question the model set out to ask was whether lockdown states experience fewer COVID-19 cases and deaths than social-distancing states, adjusted for all of the above variables. The answer? No. The impact of state-response strategy on both my cases and death measures was utterly insignificant. The ‘p-value’ for the variable representing strategy was 0.94 when it was regressed against the deaths metric, which means there is a 94 percent chance that any relationship between the different measures and COVID-19 deaths was the result of pure random chance.

Fair Use Excerpt. Read the whole article here.

already widespread antibody tests confirmed cases control Coronavirus COVID-19 Data disobey don't ask permission Dr. Barbara Ferrer fatality rate Fear freedom Government Headline News Health Intelwars LIES manipualtion Neeraj Sood panic reopen the economy Research Santa clara county scaring the public Study

Anit-Body Study Shows COVID-19 Is Already “Widespread” & Death Toll Much Lower Than We Were Told

We are being lied to all day every day by the mainstream media and government officials. We are supposed to be in a state of panic and fear, yet the numbers (even the manipulated numbers) don’t warrant such a reaction.

A coronavirus antibody study released Monday found that the novel coronavirus infection rate in Los Angeles County “far exceeds” the number of confirmed cases, meaning that the fatality rate is also “much lower” than previously thought, just like every human with the capacity to think on their own has already determined.  We destroyed the economy and people’s lives for something that is turning out to be no worse than the common cold.

The preliminary results of research conducted by USC and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found that about 4.1% of the county’s adult population carries the COVID-19 antibody, about 28 to 55 times higher than the 7,994 confirmed cases reported in early April.

A similar study released last week by Stanford University showed a similar phenomenon in Santa Clara County, finding that 2.8% to 4.2% of residents tested carrying antibody resistance to the virus, a percentage that far exceeded the number of recorded cases.

Adjusted for the margin of error, the percentage of adults with the antibody ranges from 2.8% and 5.6%, which translates to between 221,000 and 442,000 adults. The county had recorded 617 deaths from the virus as of Monday, according to The Washington Times. Keep in mind how they are counting the deaths too:

BOMBSHELL: MN Senator Reveals HHS “Coaching Document” On How To OVERCOUNT Coronavirus Cases

Another COVID-19 Whistleblower: A Montana Dr. Says Government Is Drastically Overstating Deaths

However, instead of admitting to being wrong and the failure of the lockdowns, government health officials are doubling down on the fear. “These results indicate that many persons may have been unknowingly infected and at risk of transmitting the virus to others,” said Dr. Barbara Ferrer, director of the public health department, in a press release.

They want us living in fear of each other and needing enslavement to continue on. But it’s time to move on without the government’s permission. Free men don’t ask permission anyway.

“We haven’t known the true extent of COVID-19 infections in our community because we have only tested people with symptoms, and the availability of tests has been limited,” said USC professor and lead investigator Neeraj Sood. “The estimates also suggest that we might have to recalibrate disease prediction models and rethink public health strategies.”

You think? You mean killing people’s livelihoods was a bad idea? You don’t say. These people have been proven to be lying fear mongers and we shouldn’t be obeying their commands at all anymore. Civil disobedience has already begun and it’s going to get worse and wider spread as these lies continue to come out.  This was never about health, it’s always been about control.  They don’t have control if no one obeys their commands.

The mainstream media and government continue to spin this as some sort of excuse to exercise control over our lives.  Even with the numbers not on their side, they are moving the goalposts of control and if we don’t start moving on without them, we’ll be fastening the shackles around our own ankles.

The SHTF, not because of a pandemic, but because of the government’s ability to panic the public while we complied with their draconian and tyrannical orders that have destroyed what took a lifetime to build.

Coronavirus COVID-19 Covid-19 in wastewater Covid-19 titers Intelwars pandemic Research Study Wastewater

Massachusetts finds ‘significantly higher than expected’ levels of coronavirus in wastewater; actual number of cases could be much larger: report

New research has exposed the existence of “significantly higher than expected” levels of the coronavirus in Massachusetts wastewater.

Such research has prompted some scientists to speculate that many more people have the coronavirus than previously believed.

According to Newsweek, such research is not uncommon.

“Wastewater analysis of this kind has previously been used by scientists to track other infectious diseases, as well as substance abuse in a given population,” the outlet reported. “Now, several research groups around the world have started using this method to look for the novel coronavirus in a bid to estimate how many people are infected in a community.”

So what does this mean?

The study, published on medRxiv, was conducted by Biobot Analytics, but it has not yet been peer-reviewed.

The biotech company carried out the research between March 18 and March 25 at a “major urban treatment facility” in Massachusetts.

Researchers revealed that “[v]iral titers observed were significantly higher than expected based on clinically confirmed cases in Massachusetts as of March 25.”

Mariana Matus, CEO of Biobot as well as one of the study’s authors, told Stat News that the company shared the information with the Boston Public Health Commission as well as the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

“They could believe that [our] numbers could be correct and not out of the realm of possibility,” Matus said. “It was interesting that our estimation was definitely higher than the number of confirmed cases in the area.”

Eric Alm, another study author, said that the public is not necessarily at a heightened risk because of the virus titer level in the wastewater.

“Even if those viral particles are no longer active or capable of infecting humans, they may still carry genetic material that can be detected using an approach called PCR (polymerase chain reaction), which amplifies the genetic signal many orders of magnitude, creating billions of copies of the genome for each starting virus,” Alm said.

He continued, “We use a technique called qPCR or quantitative PCR to estimate how many copies of SARS-COV-2 specific genomes are present in a given sample.”

At the time of this writing, at least 18,941 cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed in Massachusetts, and at least 503 have died because of the virus.

(H/T: Fox News)

Americans Coronavirus COVID-19 Fear Intelwars Pew Research Prayer Religion Study

Study: Droves of Americans are turning to prayer in the face of COVID-19 fear and uncertainty

A new
report says that more than half of Americans are praying that COVID-19 will quickly come to an end.

What are the details?

The new poll from the Pew Research Center reports that more Americans are turning to prayer to fight the coronavirus outbreak.

“The virus also has impacted Americans’ religious behaviors,” the poll notes. “More than half of all U.S. adults (55%) say they have prayed for an end to the spread of coronavirus. Large majorities of Americans who pray daily (86%) and of U.S. Christians (73%) have taken to prayer during the outbreak — but so have some who say they seldom or never pray, and people who say they do not belong to any religion (15% and 24%, respectively).”

The poll reports that 82% of evangelicals have prayed for an end to the COVID-19 outbreak — which is unsurprising, but 26% of religious “nones” — or “nothing in particular” — self-report that they, too, have been turning to prayer as a means to end COVID-19. The poll also reports that at least 15% of people who say they seldom to never pray are also praying for an end to the deadly pandemic.

At least 40% of Americans who say they attend church on a monthly basis now say that they have been virtually attending worship services online or via television on a regular basis.

To note, the poll finds that “Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say their personal life has changed in a major way as a result of the coronavirus outbreak: About half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (51%) say this, compared with 38% of Republicans and those who lean to the GOP.”

The survey, taken by 11,537 Americans, was conducted between March 19-24.

You can read the poll’s full findings

What else?

As pointed out by the
Washington Examiner, nearly half of the United States believes that the COVID-19 outbreak is a “wake-up call” from God.

A new national survey for The Joshua Fund — which was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates — says that 44% of people polled believe that the virus should encourage people to “turn back to faith in God.”

Further, 29% of people surveyed said they believe that the coronavirus pandemic indicates that humans are living in “the ‘last days.'”

The poll notes that of all people surveyed, 30% of Jewish Americans, 30% of Democrats, 39% of Republicans, 40% of African Americans, and 50% of Hispanics believe that the COVID-19 outbreak is indicative of the end of days.

In a statement, Joshua Fund founder Joel C. Rosenberg says, “Americans in near full lockdown are anxious, and understandably so. Yet millions are turning to God, the Bible, and Christian sermons for answers, some of them for the first time. That may be the most important silver lining in this crisis so far.”

McLaughlin & Associates conducted the survey from March 23-26 on 1,000 likely American voters.

Coronavirus crash economic collapse Economy epidemiologist experts fall fear mongering Forecasting Government government power grab Headline News Imperial College of London Intelwars lockdowns Mainstream media newer model Oxford University Shut-down Study Sunetra Gupta totalitarian TOTALITARIANISM UNITED KINGDOM Western world

New Oxford Study Hidden By Mainstream Media: Millions Already Infected, Recovered, & Immune

A new Oxford study said that millions of people in the United Kingdom (and therefore, in other countries) have likely already gotten the coronavirus, recovered from it, and are immune. But the mainstream media doesn’t want this information to get out, and some went to work quickly telling people “not to believe it.”

A newer model, which predicts the progression of the novel coronavirus, set off governments’ reactions around the globe and has systematically ruined lives across the Western world (not because of the virus, but the reaction to it).  pandemic produced by researchers at Imperial College London set off alarms across the world and was a major factor in several governments’ decisions to lock things down. But a new model from Oxford University is challenging its accuracy, the Financial Times reports.

The head of the study, professor Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford theoretical epidemiologist, said she still supports the U.K.’s decision to shut down the country to suppress the virus even if her research winds up being proven correct. But she also doesn’t appear to be a big fan of the work done by the Imperial College team. “I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” she said.

The acceptance of the original model was to ensure people would be quickly living a life in fear and one without a source of income to combat the totalitarian measures that have already been implemented and are still coming our way. Some media outlets say this newer model relies on assumptions so we should disregard it, yet the original model that has forced lockdown and an economic crash is relying on the same thing. Assuming no one has had the infection, and forcing everyone into a frenzied panic to prevent it.

If Gupta’s work is accurate, that would likely mean a large swath of the population has already built up immunity to the virus and locking them down is pointless. Theoretically, then, social restrictions could ease sooner than anticipated. What needs to be done now, Gupta said according to the Financial Times, is a whole lot of antibody testing to figure out who may have contracted the virus. Her research team is working with groups from the University of Cambridge and the University of Kent to start those tests for the general population as quickly as possible.

The worst part about this model is not the study itself, but the desperate attempts to hide it, or render it invalid to ensure the public remains in a state of fear.

Best prepared Coronavirus Coronavirus america Coronavirus outbreak Coronavirus us COVID-19 global health Global health security index Intelwars Johns Hopkins pandemic Study survey trump Trump coronavirus

US was ranked the best-prepared country for a pandemic in late 2019 by a Johns Hopkins study

The United States was ranked the best-prepared country in the world to face a global pandemic in a study released by the Nuclear Threat Initiative and Johns Hopkins Center for Health and Security in late 2019.

The findings, detailed in the 2019 Global Health Security Index, appear to challenge the claims made by Democrats in recent weeks that the Trump administration left the country ill-prepared and dangerously vulnerable to the spread of the novel coronavirus.

The president even touted the study during a White House press briefing last month.

What are the details?

To produce the findings, researchers analyzed 195 countries around the world, working with “an international advisory panel of 21 experts from 13 countries to create a detailed and comprehensive framework of 140 questions, organized across 6 categories, 34 indicators, and 85 subindicators to assess a country’s capability to prevent and mitigate epidemics and pandemics.”

The six categories were prevent, detect, respond, health, norms, and risk.

The U.S. scored highly and ranked near the top in all six categories, and scored extraordinarily well in indicators such as risk communication, data integration, biosafety, biosecurity, and emergency preparedness and response planning.

Critics were quick to point out the single area in which the study found the U.S. lagging behind the rest of the world: “health care access.” According to the GHS Index, the U.S. ranks 175th out of the 195 countries surveyed in this area.

“And I think we all kind of know why,” Priya Bapat, an Economist Intelligence Unit consultant, told Business Insider last month in reference to the country’s rejection of socialized health care for all.

At the same time, the U.S. ranked at the top in the health category as a whole due to high scores in health capacity, medical countermeasures, communication, infection control, availability of equipment, and the capacity to test.

Anything else?

Trump has been taking significant heat over the country’s supposed lack of preparedness to combat the virus of late, as media outlets and Democratic lawmakers pile on, raising the alarm over equipment shortages and a lack of testing.

But in response, the president has argued that misinformation coming from critics is what’s leading to public distrust, not an actual lack in preparedness.

The Trump team published a document over the weekend rebutting several claims made by Democratic front-runner and former Vice President Joe Biden. The document included false claims that the president called the coronavirus a “hoax,” that he rejected World Health Organization testing kits, and that he cut Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding.

(H/T: Fox News)