The COVID-19 CRISIS
Last Update: 6 December, 2023
Please see our related page on Conventional Medicine Clearfacts
Here are clear and important facts on the COVID-19 crisis to understand and share to protect life:
Ultimately, socal restriction of health people offers no medical safety but only shows arbitrary puppet-like control of Government over the Public.
As for Masks specifically:
These disadvantages should be recognized as existing when considering mask mandates, rather than evaluating maks mandates as if there is no cost to them except people's pride about their freedoms.
Besides the freedom, cost, enverionmental, communication, and inconvenience disadvantages, the medical disadvantages of extended mask use, especially in unprofessionals, and especially when there is no mandated time to have them off, include:
When the masks are incapable of filtering the particles you intend to filter out, there is really no benefit to even begin to counterbalance all of these disadvantages.
FACT: COVID-19 Disease poses no serious risk to the vast majority of people
Video 11 May 2020: UK Gov't confirms Covid19 harmless to VAST MAJORITY of people
FACT: The COVID-19 crisis could have been easily averted.
It was grossly mishandled by governments following the ridiculous and often unprecedented advice of experts they appointed, ignoring many existing remedies and most common sense. Example artile September 06, 2022: The COVID pandemic was entirely unnecessary. Cures were available. The medical profession is responsible for the murders of huge and growing numbers of people
FACT: There is no rational reason to automatically trust scientific literature, the scientific community, scientists advise, or to call trusting anyone a trust of 'science'.
Science is not the trust of anyone, not even scientists; trust of someone is the realm of religion.
Science is a method of finding truth which relies on hypotheses tested by well-designed repeatable experimentats. The scientific method was created to get away from needing to trust anyone. In fact, science is specifically based on distrust, espeically that experiments are designed to be repeatable by anyone else (to test them) and that they attempt to disprove (not prove) a hypotheses.
Science is criticism. Only by testing our hypotheses and beliefs for flaws can we hope to advance. Silencing criticism stops science and becomes a religious climate where everyone either says nothing or only says what supports the existing belief.
Criticism saves lives by testing narratives for flaws, without which testing they would be adopted blindly.
Criticizm of COVID-19 narratives should be welcome, not punished, if we follow science and care about finding fault with what we believe or do.
When the Establishment demands silencing of criticism, calling it dangerous or misleading or even costing lives, we should be asking why the narrative needs protection from criticism?
Freedom of expression isn't a thorn in the side of society to allow enemies to say unhelpful things, but is a necessary window for criticism so that we can detect, correct, and improve flaws which we don't yet recognize.
FACT: Officials are not people to automatically trust.
No one but God should be trusted. With anyone else, we need to test the truth and sense of what they're saying before we follow it.
Neither does it make sense for a People to elect someone as their representative, and then suddenly consider them infallible and all-knowing because they elected them.
FACT: It's rational to be opposed to vaccines, even all vaccines.
There is too much effort on the COVID-19 anti-vax side for people to claim that they're not against vaccines in general, or that they do trust science.
Being against all vaccines shouldn't be a controversial position. We have such a wonderful, innate, and proven immune system that we're far better off supporting it with the natural things it requires rather than artificially tamper with it. We do not need any vaccine to be healthy, but we do need our immune system to work well, and this should not be controversial.
FACT: Just because information comes officials doesn't mean that their only incentive for the Public's wellbeing.
For example, when governments are already committed to huge vaccine orders, to supply it for the entire population and years into the future, what do you think their incentive is in reacting to any reports of vaccine harm? Similarly, when they award themselves dictatorial power based on COVID-19 fear, is their incentive to relieve the Public of that fear, or keep that fear going?
When medical industry leaders support COVID-19 fear, or advocate for vaccination, do they profit from COVID-19 spending or the vaccination program? Might this affect the advice they give the Public?
However when your friend or family member comes to you with health information, do you think their incentive is to help you be well or sick?
Should you really listen only to officials, or should you listen to friends and family also, or maybe even examine the evidence yourself without trusting anyone?
FACT: It's extremely dangerous when Government takes a fiercely positive position on any pharmaceutical product.
These products have risks, and we depend on Government regulation to remain suspicious of any such product, and especially be ready to pull any product from the market on any significant harms without worrying about saving their face.
Unforutnately there is no level of vaccine harm which Governments have indicated they will stop the COVID-19 vaccination program.
FACT: The COVID-19 threat, and its remedy, however touted as science, is based on unscientific principles.
These failures include:
FACT: The COVID-19 social restrictions were accepted based on fear.
Fear was the justification used by Government to insitute radical measures to supposedly save lives from the supposed threat.
No virus masked us, locked us down, vaccinated us, turned our Government into dictatorship, or bankrupted our economy. Government did all that on excuse of terror of a an invisible threat as revealed to the Public by their own appointed experts, supported by leaders of the established scientific and medical industry.
Nazi officer Hermann Goering, remarked, at the time of the Nuremberg trials,
FACT: We were wrong to follow experts.
The expert-recommended social restrictions and vaccines, despite great sacrifices on many levels, did not end or obviously mitigate the pandemic.
It only grew as more variants and waves were announced despite Public compliance to expert orders and vast majority acceptance of vaccines.
We should have had more confidence to stand up to experts; just because an expert says something wrong doesn't make it right.
If experts are not responsible for their advice, should we take that into consideration when evaluating their advice? In particular: even if someone is an expert in the field, if they are not personally responsible for their advice, it makes that advice unreliable.
If the social restrictions were ineffective, why did we do them?
If the experts were wrong, at what point are they responsible for their advice?
If the experts didn't know, how are they experts?
Rather experts were horribly wrong in the COVID-19 crisis, which they often admit, in the face of great and unnecessary social losses. For example:
FACT: No direct evidence of the existence of any COVID-19-causing virus has been found.
There is no evidence that a COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has ever been isolated by anyone, even though that is a logically necessary prerequisite to anyone claiming to have identified the virus, or sequenced its genetic code, or calibrate any test specifically for it. In this video, and this follow-up video, Dr. Andrew Kaufman discusses the original scientific paper announcing COVID-19 the supposed virus to the world (downloadable here), exposing the slipshod science used. Other articles on this include:
No one is known to have an isolated sample of COVID-19 virus; in fact inability to source a sample was how some researchers got to suspect that something was wrong. Examples include:
Supposed photographs of COVID-19 virus are arbitrary labelling of photographs of exosomes not proven to be causes of disease.
Further resources on this argument that there is no COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and/or that the COVID-19 pandemic is a hoax include:
FACT: The COVID-19 PCR test is fraudulent.
It was designed was without access to any sample of the supposed COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, neither was it calibrated to any sick person. For this evidence, please download the FDA document here, search it for "were available for CDC use", and read the sentence you find. A related article, ie. discussing this problem, is here.
In addition to that, a co-inventor of PCR, Dr. Kary Mullis, against his own incentive to promote the usefulness of what he discovered, made it clear that the test CANNOT diagnose illness: Inventor of COVID test calls Fauci a liar, says it ‘doesn’t tell you that you’re sick’.
This article discusses its uselessness in detail: COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless
PCR is prone to false positives when run at too high a cycle rate, which is exactly how it was recommended to be run. Example article: High-cycle PCR tests do not properly diagnose covid-19, were weaponized to terrorize nations and deprive personal liberties.
Yet despite all these facts, individuals and society at large were held at ransom, even locked down by order, simply and solely over the number of daily positive PCR test results.
FACT: Enough testing can create a statistical pandemic without requiring any virus to actually exist.
As long as infection of a person by a virus is determined only by a test, even without showing any symptoms (as in COVID-19), and assuming there is no perfect test withouth false positive results, then all that would be required for a pandemic to grow statistically is to select a test which sometimes gives false-positive results, and then test enough people for enough of them to show positive to be a pandemic. After that, it only takes growing the amount of people tested to grow the statistics-based pandemic, or stopping the testing to end the pandemic.
This is the basic idea behind the video, Morgan Freeman narrates the entire PANDEMIC in 6 minutes!:
FACT: COVID-19 is not the first virus hoax perpetrated on the Public.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that COVID-19 is a hoax, as so many times virologists have promoted public scares of some new dreaded virus and demanded widespread vaccination or radical treatment as the only solution for, after which we find out that the death toll didn't happen, not even when there was no vaccine. For example:
The exaggerated H1N1 scare and excessive Government spending based on that fear:
An outbreak hoax was perpetrated on the public before, complete with social restrictions and medical treatments, based on PCR tests: The epidemic that wasn’t: In 2006, doctors used PCR testing to cause mass hysteria over a “whooping cough” outbreak that didn’t even exist
And now the COVID-19 scare, perpetrated on models of exponential public death, and a vaccine which does nothing but harm. A clue that something is wrong with the rollout is how satisfied public officials remain with the vaccine no matter how ineffective it is or how harmful it is.
FACT: Contrary to the official timeline, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has existed in scientific literature, under that name, since at least as far back as 2006.
What ever SARS-CoV-2 is, it's not new.
Here's the free 2006 article by Chinese scientists mentioning data on the SARS-CoV-2 virus as shown in its Figure 1: Preparation of a Chimeric Armored RNA as a Versatile Calibrator for Multiple Virus Assays (see on right side):
But we've been ecouraged to believe that the COVID-19-causing virus (SARS-CoV-2) was only first discovered since it appeared in a Wuhan outbreak in 2019, which would eventually become the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic:
It's worth notiong that there are no cases of SARS-CoV-2 reported in wild animals (as this scientific paper (as an example) reveals in its abstract).
So since SARS-CoV-2 was used in scientific research by at least as far back as 2006, and since it didn't exist in the wild, wouldn't that mean it had to come from a lab, and that the Public has been horribly mislead on this critical fact?
FACT: In other ways, the official story behind the COVID-19 virus and/or vaccines is literally impossible.
It's too shady for anyone responsible to go along with it.
According to the official timeline, COVID-19 is a diseased cause by a 'novel' coronavirus given the unique name SARS-CoV-2, for which the first cases were seen in China in December 2019, and the virus was first revealed to the rest of the world in early January 2020. Considering that:
FACT: The COVID-19 vaccination mandates are a violation of at very least the basic premise of the Nuremberg code, if not its letter.
The code is a set of ten ethical rules for human experitmentation.
The following three principles (of the ten) were clearly violated:
 The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
It's certainly not voluntary consent once the vaccines were mandated, such as for: travel, dining at restaurants, or employment. That falls under the 'coercion' wording, above.
Of course harms were expected. At the time of the vaccination program rollout, they were known to cause close to 1300 adverse effects. After the vaccination program started, the Government has been keeping track of many adverse effects and deaths following vacination.
Since officials have no apparent level Public harm or death at which they will stop the vaccination program, and real harms published by Government, and mounting, this rule is broken.
Hasn't anyone picked up on this? Yes, many people have noticed the violations, but the defense popularly offered is that the Code doesn't apply because it's regulation of human experimentation and the COVID-19 vaccination program is not 'human experimentation' (example of this defense here). They say that since the vaccines are authorized, it's not an experiment.
This argument fails for three reasons:
FACT: The promise that the COVID-19 vaccine would stop virus transmission, and thereby protect others and end the pandemic, was a lie.
Pfizer's representative admitted that the vaccine wasn't even tested for stopping transmission prior to the rollout. Article Oct 24 2022: ‘Speed of Science’ — A Scandal Beyond Your Wildest Nightmare
FACT: Physicians who speak or seem to act contrary to the pro-vaccine narrative are typically subject to punishments from superiors or Government.
So in case you've been wondering why more physicians aren't speaking out, now you know a reason.
FACT: It's dangerous to install software which is not from the creator of your operating system.
We know this in computing, but we've been slow to realize this concerning genetic vaccines (which are an attempt to install programming, ie. software, into our cells). The danger in both cases is that you don't really know what's in that code. In the case of biology, the creator is the Creator of life, ie. God: it's dangerous to allow anyone else to reprogram your life code.
There are concerns that howevermuch the vaccines code for spike protein, and besides the risks of that, the vaccines may also code for the production of venom within the body. Supporting references include:
FACT: Pharmaceutical companies ran the pre-clinical and clinical trials of their own COVID-19 vaccines; this was the data the Government relied on for deciding vaccine approval.
Example article: Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines 95% effective in clinical trials
The incentive for fraud, especially with the extreme profitability of government-forced-market COVID-19 vaccines, was/is tremendous.
FACT: The COVID-19 vaccination program fits the definition for genocide.
Here are the requirements for 'genocide' and how the COVID-19 vaccination program meets them:
(There are many reported harms, in both types of harms and the number of people affected; please see the vaccine section of our main presentation on the COVID-19 Crisis for details.)
For example, you can see how many people had their heart stop (cardiac arrest) following COVID-19 vaccination on this official webpage of the Canadian Government. It's really specific that way.
It must also be deliberate when Government and the medical industry strongly recommend pregnant women take it when the manufacturer product monographs, which the same Government offers for download by health professionals, show the risk to pregnant women as unknown. We will use the example of Canada:
Related article Nov 18, 2022: Giving experimental COVID jabs to pregnant women has been the greatest medical disaster in history
The American Government doesn't protect the American Public any better. For example:
The WHO also recommended this vaccine for pregnant women: WHO green-lights mRNA vaccine experimentation on pregnant women and newborn infants
The risk is real; besides the fact that pregnant women deserve an extra cautious medical approach, many miscarriages have been reported following COVID-19 vaccination:
It must also be deliberate if a dose or new dose was approved for public distribution despite the product being shown to those regulatory authorities to be harmful:
It must also be deliberate if relevant data was deliberately withheld from the Public because the Public might reject the vaccines if they knew it:
It must be deliberate if officials won't stop the vaccination program, nor even tone down the public assurances of that the vaccine is 'safe', no matter the harms:
It is deliberate and reckless to skip vaccine trials whose purpose is to expose risks before rollout to the Public.
It must be deliberate if the COVID-19 vaccine injections are toxic by design:
It must be deliberate when even admitted detection by governmnt health agencies of undisclosed contamination of COVID-19 vaccines with DNA plasmids and a sequence from cancer-linked SV40 somehow isn't enough to motivate them to immediately recall the COVID-19 vaccines from the market. Example articles:
Genocide Requirement 3: Specific groups are targetted (up to and including the entire nation). Although the entire adult population of the nation was eventually directed to be vaccinated, and later children also, certain specific groups were encouraged to be vaccinated first and foremost, based on their medical vulnerability, but they just happened to also be groups which the Government has an obligation to make payments to/for:
There are reports that vaccinations were seggregated by race, raising the possibility that a different formulation was given to different races: WHY ARE BLACKS GETTING A DIFFERENT COVID VACCINE THEN WHITES?.
Genocide Requirement 4: We can assume that a label of 'genocide' requires that the harm is not knowingly and freely consented to. True consent requires informed free will, which is impossible when the Public is deceived as to the risks (eg. simply told it is 'safe'), or is coerced to take the injection (eg. mandated to accept the vaccine or lose your lifelihood and not even be allowed the usual employment insurance), or when the information inserts provided with the vaccines are blank.
Genocide Double-Down: The killing is shown all the more deliberate when Government resists evidence that the vaccines might be spiking death rates to continue the vacination program regardless.
This is usually by an inversion of the precautionary principle (which is, where harms follow an intervention, the burden of proof must be on the intervention, ie. to prove no link to the harms, rather than the other way). When challenged with evidence of harms following COVID-19 vaccination, it is typical for officials behind the COVID-19 program to dismiss it with the argument that no matter how unusual the rate, they are not necessarily due to the vaccine and make to effort to investigate what they are due to. Example video Dec 6, 2023: NZ Government Doubles Down on Vaccine Democide. Even worse, Government hasn't interrupted the COVID-19 vaccination program despite some deaths actually being medically confirmed, by autopsy, to have been caused by the COVID-19 vaccine:
Other COVID-19 vaccine genocide references:
FACT: The COVID-19 vaccination program fulfills all of the criteria of the Bradford Hill Criteria of Causation to connect the vaccine with deaths.
FACT: Myocarditis is a serious condition.
The Public has been mislead by the Establishment to think that although myocarditis is a risk of the COVID-19 vaccination, it is somehow nothing to worry about, because it's either 'rare' or 'mild' or that affected patients tend to 'recovery quickly'.
There is an incentive. It should be obvious that, since the Public is aware that myocarditis is linked to COVID-19 vaccination, that if myocarditis was recognized as serious, then it would motivate people to stop receiving vaccines.
It should also be obvious that anything affecting your heart must be serious, because it is the most life-dependent system of the body: in fact having a pulse or not is what determines clinical death.
Is the person's heart going to be the same as before? We should question the definition of what 'recovery' means when used in assurances that most patients 'recover' from myocarditis. It might not mean cure ie. that the the heart is restored to how it was before the disease. More likely it means only that the patient has improved enough to be discharged from hospital.
What the Establishment says:
What the independent media says:
FACT: Human genetic alteration has potentially dire non-medical consequences also:
Morality: The genetic code inserted into the human body by the vaccine is by definition a reprogramming of your body, but are they morally authorized to do that? When you update software on your electronic device, aren't you supposed to be suspicious of installing any software which is not from the manufacturer? Who is the manufacturer of the human body?
Spiritual Implications: Spiritual implications are the most serious because they are potentially eternal. A physical alteration can have spiritual consequences when you accept it, out of your free will, to happen to you. Spiritual consequences are only negated if the change is absolutely forced upon you without any opportunity to choose anything. This may be why the Government has been pushing so hard to encourage and coerce people to get the vaccination, but not actually hold them down and vaccinate them against their will. However coerced with pressures, ultimately the Government wants us to agree to the injection first, presumably so that our destruction will be thorough on all levels.
FACT: The Public is typically not permitted to see the entire contracts your Government has made with the vaccine manufacturers.
Maybe you are allowed to see a redacted form, or nothing at all.
This is very suspicious because there should be no reason for secrecy in a medical intervention to save lives.
FACT: Some of the Government agencies most strongly supportive of public COVID-19 vaccination, and on which the Government most relies for that kind of advice, did not have vaccine mandates within their organization and don't know how many of their staff are vaccinated or not.
FACT: The different batches (or 'lots') of the same vaccine are not the same.
The assumption that different batches of vaccine are formulated the same was a fatal mistake. As consumers, we are just too used to the same manufactured product from the same company being exactly the same in every way even if bought at opposite ends of the country years apart. This goes for everything from DVDs to soft drinks.
Different formulation within the same product, in a community where people are more than accustomed to the same product always having a consistent formulation, helps the vaccines avoid implication despite great harms happening. If everyone who received the vaccine had a serious reaction, it would be easy for the average person to perceive the danger. If, however, only 1 in 20 people were giving a dangerous formulation, and the other 19 a placebo, most people wouldn't even know someone who was vaccine injured, and even if they did, and even if they suspected the vaccine, based on the assumption of product consistency, it would be difficult to explain why 19 other people are healthy.
Without extensive forensic testing, and without the Public being allowed to read the contracts which vaccine manufacturs have with our governments, there is know way to know the mechanism of how this could be working with the COVID-19 vaccines.
Detecting this phenomenon usually takes a compilation fo the data over many vaccinations and sorting it for batch number; fortunately, some people have done just that:
Using your vaccination certificate, you can actually look up the batch you received to see statistics on its harms:
FACT: The medical industry won tremendous money and acclaim for initiating and maintaining the COVID-19 narrative.
Public coffers were opened wide, to spend literally any amount of money, through incentives such as:
Waiting on their every word to see how they advise we live tomorrow to 'stay safe' from the invisible threat they encourage us to worry about.
Widespread praise as 'heroes' of society.
FACT: The medical industry can expect to make much more money off of a multi-dose series of injections, if one injection proves inadequate.
Why make something that actually works if the Government will simply mandate more doses if it doesn't?
FACT: Rather than simply rely on their supposed safety, the manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccines secured immunity to legal liability for any side effects resulting from these products of theirs.
Neither the people making the vaccines, nor the officials and telling you the vaccines are 'safe', are responsible if it harms you. Example article from CNBC: You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won't compensate you for damages either
As Brazilian president Bolsonaro put it, in explaining why he won't take the vaccine, if you turn into a crocodile, it's your problem.
If the vaccines are safe, why do its manufacturers need their legal immunity secured before you take the shot?
FACT: The medical industry can expect to make a lifetime of revenue off of people disabled for life by any vaccine.
Someone permanently medically disabled by definition would be dependent on medical services for the rest of their life. Of course those medical services we can expect to come from the medical industry, and that they won't be in much position to haggle price. Rather they are turned into a major revenue stream for the industry.
Since the medical industry is made legally immune for liability for such harms, they stand only to gain money, and not to lose it, if someone is vaccine injured.
FACT: Officials and experts alerting the Public have been wrong many, many times in past: horribly wrong and to our harm.
Examples include: why the Lusitania was sunk (yes it had munitions on board), the reality of the 4 August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident (initiating the Vietnam war now officially admitted to not have happened), fluoride scare (supposedly catastrophic tooth decay if we don't add this poison to public drinking water: an early example of Government-mandated medication for the Public), 70s petroleum-exhaustion scare (that supposedly we'd completely run out long before now), AIDS scare (was supposed to decimate the population), Y2K scare (was supposed to bring us back to the stone age), H1N1 scare, SARS scare, allegation that Iraq had WMDs, and now the COVID-19 scare: just to name a few.
FACT: Many media outlets providing positive coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine were paid by the Government to advertise it.
FACT: The Establishment launched an aggressive campaign to label any criticism of the pro-vaccine narrative as 'misinformation' and obstruct the sharing of such information, without opportunity for debate or to defend the information presented.
The World Health Organization compared the sharing of information to the spread of disease by using the term 'infodemic' to label and attack criticism as though free speech is a kind of disease.
The attack on criticism generally ignored the evidence and arguments presented against the narrative, and discouraged listening to family and friends, while directing the population to only rely on official sources for truth.
This conveniently ignored the fact that the pro-vaccine officials already made themselves legally immune for harms resulting from that advice and those products, while family and friends tend to have more vested interest in your wellbeing. As for medical industry experts, that industry actually profits more the more medically dependent you become.
Other example articles:
Here is why the censorship of vaccine criticism worked against truth and the Public interest:
FACT: The COVID-19 vaccines are INEFFECTIVE to protect against COVID-19 (if it even exists)
There wasn't even any medical benefit to being vaccinated that a rational person should consider significant.
Health officials now insist that someone vaccinated, even fully vaccinated, for COVID-19 can still contract and spread the virus, even to the point that they should still wear masks and engage is social precautions identical or almost idential to the
FACT: The assurances from Government that although the vaccines were approved quickly, they were approved thoroughly, ignores the need for a long timeframe to know the long-term harms.
You simply can't 'speed up' knowing the long-term harms by a faster evaluation process: by definition, long-term harms are seen only over the passage of a long time. For example, you can't know 10-year harms in a 1-year evaluation process, no matter your credentials (except if you're God).
FACT: COVID-19 symptoms are so broad and unspecific that many different diseases and no disease could be called COVID-19.
Reported symptoms ranged from seizures to trouble breathing, to fatigue, to even no symptoms at all being considered a symptom of COVID-19.
In particular, cold and flu were touted to have nearly or completely disappeared during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many believe that cold and flu were symply rebranded as COVID-19 to conincide with political narrative.
Neither were the symptoms consistent: the earliest reports out of China showed people falling over on the street and having seizures, dead bodies littering the pavement; that is not what was seen in the West with supposedly the same disease. It could not be the same disease.
The 5G rollout occurred in many places at approximately the same time as the pandemic, making it virtually impossible to disern the possible harms of 5G radiation on the Public without attributing them to COVID-19. However since the COVID-19 virus doesn't exist, suddenly that comparison becomes easier.
FACT: COVID-19 death and hospitalization numbers were inflated by such a loose definition to be included in the count that it made the count meaningless.
COVID-19 cases were tallied by including anyone testing positive for COVID-19, whether that was the reason for their death or hospitalization or not, and even if it certainly was known not to be the cause.
In addition, physicians could also declare a COVID-19 diganosis 'presumptively' without even any test being performed.
In other words, what were publicly reported as 'COVID-19 death' and 'COVID-19 hospitalization' statistics did not mean 'COVID-19-caused death' and 'COVID-19-caused hospitalization' counts, as they seemed to mean, but actually meant 'COVID-19-positive death' and 'COVID-19-positive hospitalization' counts, because the COVID-19 positivity was independent of the medical event in question.
It means that the 'COVID-19 death' and 'COVID-19 hospitalization' numbers did not actually correspond to any harm caused by COVID-19, and so should not have been interpreted as a measure of danger of harm to the Public from the disease or anything to fear. Put another way, if 100 people die of causes clearly unrelated to COVID-19 (such as an explosion), but test COVID-19 positive, is that really fair justification to, for example, lock down the society?
FACT: Telling the Public to wait 12 to 18 months for relief to maybe be invented was a sacrificial decision which did not match the immediate nature of the threat.
If there's any threat killig people now, it is tantamount to murder for authorites to tell people to wait for a remedy to be invented instead of using what we have now. That's like a house being on fire and the fire department telling the homeowners to wait for a new type of fire extinguisher which might be developed in a year, or the development could fail. For immediate threats killing people now, only remedies available now are appropriate.
Does it really make sense that no vitamin, mineral, or drug we had already available would have made any difference, considering that many things support the immune system, and the immune system, even without any help, nearly always conquers COVID-19? Of course not.
Worse, vaccine development isn't guaranteed, and in particular a vaccine for SARS-Cov-1 (SARS virus, the closest relative to SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19 virus) FAILED to be developed.
Staking everyone's lives on something which might never be developed, and would take at least 12 months even if it could be, was reckless.
FACT: Many other remedies were immediately and cheaply available and publicly known.
FACT: There is no reason to expect that different COVID-19 vaccines, being based on a variety of fundamentally different technologies, are equally safe or equally effective.
Apparently based on the premise that they are equal, in the UK, patients aren't even allowed to choose which vaccine they receive; the NHS website says this: "You cannot usually choose which vaccine you have. If you book online, you'll only be offered appointments for vaccines that are suitable for you."
If Government cared about the Public, they would identify which vaccine is best and guide us to it only, rather than protecting market share for every vaccine manufacturer they have a COVID-19 vaccine contract with.
FACT: Different COVID-19 vaccines indeed showed different rates of reported harms.
Did your Government and health provider reveal this to you in helping you to make an informed vaccination decision?
Here is a figure from this page of the Government of Canada website in August 2023:
FACT: Adverse Events following Any Vaccination are Underreported:We can see from this official document from the USA's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), that "fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported" (page 6, here's an article on the story).
FACT: There are reports of COVID vaccine adverse events being underreported or deleted from the Government/Public reporting systems.
FACT: COVID politics allow harms which happen within 14 days of vaccination not to be counted as vaccine harms.
This is because a person is not considered 'vaccinated' until 14 days from the injection. On paper it's like the vaccine never happened.
FACT: Due to data on serious and lethal harms following COVID-19 vaccination being publicly available, a court in Paris has ruled that taking a COVID-19 vaccine is legally an act of suicide.Article: Life insurer refuses to cover vaccine death.
FACT: Many medical professionals question or oppose the narrative that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe. It is far from a consensus.
FACT: Surviving one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine doesn't mean you will survive the next dose.
One of the basic principles of immunity is the body reacting stronger the next time it's exposed to the same thing.
This is the premise vaccines themselves are based on: trying to expose the body to an antigen it will react to much stronger and faster next time, on the assumption that next time will be the real virus.
Guess what happens if that 'next time' of exposure is another dose of the same vaccine, and if your prior reaction was a bad one. If you had a bad reaction to a vaccine, you risk an even worse reaction if you take the exact same vaccine again.
If you didn't notice anything bad on the first dose, but there was something bad, then you're blind to this risk.
Here is a video disussing one mechanism of why the second dose might hit you harder than the first one: Dr Sucharit Bhakdi.
Perceiving the warning or not, people have been harmed or killed following COVID-19 vaccination on a second, third, or fourth dose, even if they survived the first one:
FACT: The genetic COVID-19 vaccines (eg. Pfizer's) are gene therapy.
gene therapy (article: Is the Associated Press Lying About Gene Therapy Shots?
This makes them radically different from traditional 'vaccine' technology.
FACT: There is a real danger of mRNA vaccines interacting with and/or changing a patient's DNA despite all claims that this is impossible.
Concerns about a risk of alteration to human DNA from genetic vaccines has been strongly dismissed by Government and other official sources, but the risk is real.
The dismissal is based on an oversimplified biological model rather than checking to see if it's happened. Although cellular information usually flows from DNA to RNA to protein, our science is well aware of mechanisms by which RNA can turn into DNA; for example, retroviruses do this on every infection.
It doesn't help that COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is engineered to resist the rapid degradation which natural mRNA is normally prone to, such as by replacing uridine nucleotides in the mRNA sequence with artificial nucleotide N1-methyl-pseudouridine nucleotides (because they allow transcription but resist degradation). This is nothing natural.
Reporting from those who have actually checked for conversion into DNA have found evidence that it is happening: Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Goes Into Liver Cells and Is Converted to DNA: Study.
It's interesting that Government gives this kind of assurance for the mRNA vaccines, while being silent about any DNA modification potential of the other vaccines.
FACT: The COVID-19 vaccines which are abased on 'Adenovirus' (also called 'Viral Vector') technology are designed to introduce DNA to patients' bodies as their mechanism of action, and not only DNA, but deliver it right into the nucleus of cells.
Here's detail on how adenoviruses work: Wikipedia
There's no reason to think that this DNA introduction won't be permanent.
Official sources typically omit mention of DNA at all while 'informing' the Public of how adenovirus vector vaccines work:
Fortunately at least the Wikipedia 'COVID-19 Vaccine' page, under the sub-heading 'Adenovirus vector vaccines' on COVID-19 vaccines preserves the truth of these adenovirus vaccines delivering DNA into the nucleus: "These vaccines are examples of non-replicating viral vector vaccines, using an adenovirus shell containing DNA that encodes a SARS‑CoV‑2 protein."
It is also inconsistent that the inactivate virus, subunit, and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine types are called by the format of the instructions they deliver, rather than the mechanism of delivery (for example lipid nanoparticles), but the Adenovirus COVID-19 vaccines are instead referred to by their delivery system.
FACT: Even according to the official narrative, mortality due to COVID-19 drops so dramatically with decreasing age that children are almost completely safe from dying from COVID-19 without any interventions.
Yet Governments have been making an urgent push for the approval and vaccination of children.
The only rational explanation is that it is some kind of child sacrifice cult:
FACT: The World Health Organization violated accepted public health principles in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
FACT: Resentment aimed at the COVID-unvaccinated for supposedly burdening the medical system ignores clearly deliberate healthcare system abuses.
There has been a mainstream narrative building resentment against COVID-unvaccinated individuals for supposedly burdening the healthcare system (which the vaccine supposedly prevents). Example articles:
Nobody refuses a free vaccine because they want to destroy their health, but to protect their health according to what they believe is true (for example, please see table 3 of this study). Both sides seem to understand that the vaccine 'hesitant' side, as it is called, hesitates for lack of trust in the nature, safety, and/or efficiency of the vaccine. Refusing COVID vaccination is a choice for greater health based on a belief, flawed or not, that the vaccine puts health at unacceptalbe risk. The vaccine hesitant are not people who are knowingly abusing their health by refusing vaccines, but believe (right or wrong) that they are making a healthy choice.
Yet there are people who deliberately abuse their health, and healthcare systems have not refused to keep supporting their medical bills. There are many people who chronically smoke, chronically abuse alcohol, chronically consume narcotics. Others fail at committing suicide and need emergency care. Others take up dangerous sports and/or fail to use safety equipment adequately (eg. seatbelts) and need emergency care following accidents. Whatever the medical treatments required to support them in their chosen unhealthy lifestyle, is typically paid for by medical systems, and, so long as legal, they are never coerced by physicians or politicians or police to stop their unhealthy habits out of respect for their personal choice.
Even if it were true (for argument's sake) that the unvaccinated burden the healthcare system more, we should not be punished for making a choice we believe (right or wrong) is for our better health, when there are many other peopel who clearly and deliberately make terminal health choices at public funding for their healthcare bills and no one expecting them to change: not in the past and not now. Put another way, if there is a resentment that people who refuse vaccination run a risk of becoming patients in the respiratory hospital ward, and if the unvaccinated deserve to be punsihed for that, then definitely those who smoke should be treated no better. After all, the packages of cigarettes have clear medical warnings right on them.
FACT: The choice to avoid COVID-19 vaccination actually did not burden healthcare systems and was not socially irresponsible.
The vaccines did not prevent infection or transmission, as originally promised, and so could not stop the pandemic. This Covid video is perfection…
Therefore the unaccinated were wronfully maligned. Article: New Study: Unvaccinated Wrongly Maligned
Here's a video of someone coming to a similar realization based on tough personal experience: ‘The Unvaccinated were the smart ones’…
In fact, if anything, the vaccinated have been burdening the healthcare system. Ignoring the treatment they need for vaccine harm, and the costs of the vaccine and all future boosters, even with COVID itself there's been a burden of vaccinated people on the healthcare system:
FACT: Officials have given no indication that ANY amount of harm from the vaccines is reason to stop the vaccination program.
On the contrary, at least the Canadian one has admitted there is NO LEVEL OF DEATH at which they will stop the vaccination program: COVID Vaccines: No Death Toll Threshold for Withdrawal From Market, Says Canadian Official Behind Vaccine Authorization
With other products, a small amount of injuries or deaths is enough to pull it from the market. But that's when there's a genuine concern for safety, such as there is for pets for example: Israel wants to HALT rabies vaccine for animals after just 10 adverse events, but won’t stop covid vaccines for humans after hundreds of thousands of injuries and deaths.
FACT: Many people accepted COVID-19 vaccines they didn't want solely because of the coercion.
Such practices included:
That is not the way a free society is supposed to work.
Therefore it's not a free society.
FACT: There is plently of evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips for tagging the Public.
Please see our comprehensive presentation for links but in brief:
FACT: The COVID-19 virus is officially reported to be airborne.
That makes the 6 foot / 2 meter social distancing orders useless abuses of power.
See Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): How is it transmitted? and notice where it says 'long-range'. Or see this article 25 Nov, 2022: WHO chief scientist reveals key Covid blunder
That means the particles would linger in the air for hours: Airborne transmission of respiratory viruses
That means that social distancing is of no value to protect us. You would need a positive pressure suit to protect you, or indoor social distancing on the order of perhaps hundreds of feet.
It also means that locking people down inside is the worst thing to do, especially for multi-unit dwellings which share air. Getting outside is the best readily available way to greatly reduce airborne particles arising from other people.
Assuming you believed and followed social distancing as for your protection, that means you've either been fooled into getting much closer to others than is safe, or the threat is imaginary.
FACT: Government-appointed health experts are still Government.
Government has often insisted they are only acting on the advice of health experts, but when they appoint those experts, it's really just something they are doing themselves at their own discreation. It is an excuse to usurp power.
FACT: Many human rights were broken in Governments' measures to supposedly keep the Public safe from COVID-19.
If we review the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we find that 15 of 30 articles listed there were broken in the COVID-19 pandemic, namely articles: 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, and 27 were broken (such as the Article 18 right to worship in community with others being broken by lockdown orders; click here for a deeper discussion).
FACT: World governments enacting similar and unprecedented human rights suspensions at the same time on the same nonsense excuse without citizen referendum proves there is such a thing as global government conspiracy against the People.
It is no longer a delusion (if it ever was) to believe that Government conspiracies are possible, but a delusion to believe they are impossible. This crisis is the proof.
FACT: It's an immoral attack on humanity to mandate an irreversible and/or risky medical procedure for someone else.
If that someone else can be harmed or killed by an action you coerce them to do, then it's like forcing someone else to play russion roulette.
FACT: Even those who support medical mandates for the current vaccine may regret the precedent of Government mandating medical treatments.
The whole idea of mandates is to compel some people who don't want it to accept it.
There may come a day, treatment, or dose that you do not want, but you can be caught in the system of mandated medical treatments that you previously supported. Even if you miss the next mandated dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, for your disobedience you will be put under the same punishments you approved for those who refused the first dose.
(Holy Bible, KJV, Psalms 141:10)
FACT: Human rights are easy to lose but difficult to gain.
It took thousands of years to get Government to allow us the rights we had before the pandemic.
We gave half of them up on a 2-week promise to flatten the curve of a line on a page.
Since then we wait every month to see how we are allowed to live.
FACT: Your personal security in society absolutely depends on your human rights.
Your personal wealth and security absolutely depends on your human rights! Otherwise you are just building up a pile for someone else to easily take away.
FACT: If you lose the right to decide your own medical treatments the other rights don't matter in practice.
This is because you can be killed or silenced at any time by whoever does the mandating. Even just a change of dose of medication can kill. It doesn't help that euthanasia and shock treatment are both considered medical treatments.
FACT: It is contrary to the incentive of Government to award human rights.
Government is typically the counterparty, in human rights for the Public, such that any rights we gain mean a loss for Government.
For example, if we have a right for personal property, it restricts Government from seizing our stuff whenever they want.
For this reason we cannot trust Government to award us human rights. Rather we should watch to ensure they aren't encroaching on them.
FACT: There is a moral duty to disobey cruel or nonsensical orders.
This moral principle is the basis of the fourth Nuremberg Principle of international law, which states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." For example, when we put Nazi officers on trial, we didn't allow the defense that they were 'just following orders'.
We should hold ourselves to at least a high a moral standard when evaluating if we were right to lock down, mask, and inject our own children, for example, because we were 'just following orders'.
To our shame, we also obeyed to:
All these were in exchange for nothing (failed promises): none of these measures stopped the pandemic, now in its 7th wave as of this writing.
Human beings should have more sense and integrity than to submit to any order. We were wrong to shame others for not obeying the 'rules'. Such rules were a shame to obey.
FACT: Citizens in a democratic society have a duty not only to decide issues, but verify the information on which those decisions are based.
It's not good enough to make the wrong decision, because you were decieved, because you didn't bother to check or hear counterarguments.
FACT: Anyone who suspends human rights is morally guilty of crimes against humanity.
These rights are supposed to be inalienable, so to suspend them is an attack on humanity.
FACT: Government 'emergency' powers are dictatorship (at least for that time).
A virus shouldn't justify immediate transformation of a democracy to dictatorship, but that's exactly the main mistake of the COVID crisis.
FACT: Having used it sucessfully in the COVID-19 crisis, Government has precedent to use Government-appointed experts' warnings to give themselves 'emergency powers' again.
FACT: The majority of citizens around the world gave passive, implied, or even explicit signs of approval to the Government for COVID-related human rights suspensions.
This was done by either:
Re-election of Quebec premier François Legault, who instituted arguably the most severe COVID restrictions in North America, and threatened to impose a health tax on the COVID-unvaccinated (but not on, for example, smokers).
Re-election of Quebec premier François Legault, who instituted arguably the most severe COVID restrictions in North America, and threatened to impose a health tax on the COVID-unvaccinated (but not on, for example, smokers).
Watching voters consistently reward tyranny with their vote is extremely disturbing on many levels.
FACT: We can't expect the Establishment to stop the pandemic themselves when it has worked so well for them to gain in power and/or profit.
Let's consider it by sector:
Big business gained in that the largest in-person stores, and those with distribution centers ready for quick widespread delivery, were generally allowed to remain open while most small businesses were forced to close.
FACT: Belief that Government is an all-powerful immovable force is the basic false belief required to maintain a totalitarian regime.
When people actually believe that objection is futile they stop even somuch as objecting to any order no matter how immoral or nonsensical. That's what totalitarian regimes depend on. That's when people will even re-elect the same people who oppress them, even when given a secret voting ballot.
FACT: Objection would have stopped the mandates and social restrictions.
The only laws which can stand are the ones which the Public accepts.
It's important to note that the mandates and social restrictions were a matter of Government order not anything a virus did to us.
Although objection was rare, when enough people did object to Governments' COVID-19 pandemic orders, those orders were quickly rescinded to yield to the objection.
Victory over tyranny didn't require attending a rally, or going to jail, or being shot, as some people might imagine activism requiring, but instead reversing the course of government only took a small group of the population simply voicing their objection about it to Government rather than voicing their objection only to friends, or to store owners, or remaining silent.
Put another way, the only reason the Government was able to suspend half our human rights at their discretion in the COVID-19 crisis was that almost no one bothered to notify Government of their disapproval, and that's even in democratic societies, where citizens have a right and a duty to speak up in this way. Rather than even once say 'no', we went through a tremendous amount of daily inconvenience and suffering in social restrictions we didn't want, hoping they would somehow go away on their own, despite their silent compliance legally implying our approval.
This even though our democratic systems provide convenient and inexpensive means of contacting our elected representatives.
The result was that the dictatorial ('emergency') Government powers and the Government-ordered social restrictions (oppressions) were extended again and again, ad nauseum, simply due to lack of almost anyone objecting to them, despite having the right, reason, duty, and convenient peaceful mechanism to do object.
The phenomenon of obeying ridiculously harmful and senseless orders from authority, without voicing any objection, despite knowing you have a right and means to object, is an incomprehensible phenomenon worthy of psychological study in the hopes of eventually understanding it.
FACT: Officials have made it clear that the COVID-19 pandemic is their 'Opportunity' to change our society into what they (not us) envision for us.
FACT: The globaist plan is to enslave everyone in a worldwide technocracy of extreme surveillance with no human rights or even free will.
The globalist plan is publicly known to include taking everything you have away: You will own nothing but be happy
Though generally not triggered yet, some regions have been quietly passing laws which give them sweeping emergency powers to the point that they can do virtually whatever they want to you, your family, and your property, so long as they invoke the word 'emergency' when doing it. Examples include:
There are hints that the Government intends to come into your house and take family members away. This include:
Beyond that, they apparently want to merge humanity with technology in such an intense way that even your thoughts will be monitored: The Great Reset | The Entire Great Reset Agenda Explained In 17 Minutes (Featuring Biden, Schwab, Harari, Musk, Gates, WEF, etc.)
FACT: Compliance to the oppressive COVID-19 Government agenda can only enslave us more (not less), because it is an agenda to enslave.
Officials have made it clear that they will not allow us to go back to the old 'normal' social model (eg. rights and freedoms) which we were used to.
Therefore, if you want a society where you're not constantly ordered how you're allowed to live or breathe by Government, compliance will not take you there. Compliance to Government agenda purposed to take away your rights and freedoms slowly but permanently can only help to achieve their goals not yours.
FACT: Society learned the WRONG LESSON from the horrors of the Jewish Holocaust.
The less our sociery learned is something like this: we must never allow one identifiable group of people to dehumanize, experiment on, or kill another one.
But in the COVID-19 crisis, the Israeli government was one of the most aggressive countries to impose vaccine mandates and a proof-of-vaccination system on its own people, despite the dehumanising mechanism of action (reprogramming human genetics), horrific harms known in the short-term, and no data on long-term harms. Somehow dehumanising, experimenting on, and killing a large number of people was accepted so long as it's done without racial discrimination by your own government!
It's also worth noting that the Jewish Holocaust was an action by their own government, ie. the ruling Government of the region, rather than an action by individuals or mobs.
The relevant lesson we should have learned, and can learn now, regarding these holocausts is something like this: we must never allow any humans to be dehumanized, experimented on, or killed in innocence by anyone INCLUDING by their own government.
FACT: It's a lot easier to escape a trap before it is fully formed.
Once all the parts of the New World Order are in place, in statuatory law and precedent, and in functional new social system, those establishments make it far more difficult to reverse them than before these take place.
Just like with The Tholian Web, the window to object is before the trap completely closes, not after.
FACT: The COVID-19 crisis established a new social principle that expert advice must always override individual, democratic, and Government rights and choice.
By this diabolically clever argument, when experts said social restrictions were needed, the only responsible thing to do seemed to be for everyone else to follow, since no non-expert has standing to argue with an expert. Based on this thinking, experts directed Governments, even to suspend human rights, and disobedient individuals were despised as being irrationally stubborn (to expert advice) and needing to be coerced.
That would be like an economic experts tell you that you are not permitted to sell your house because that would depress prices and therefore be a danger to yourself and other homeowners.
It didn't seem to matter that many independent experts disagreed with the government-appointed experts, the fact that they weren't government-appointed being considered a lower level of credibiltiy and therefore, presumably, knowledge.
It didn't seem to matter that the Government actually appointed the same medical experts it portrayed as needing to obey the advise of. Allegations of conflict of interest was ignored as a distrustful wild conspiracy theory.
It didn't even matter when these appointed experts admitted that they were only reading what they were given to read: WARMINGTON: Top Ontario doctors' hot-mic moment spreads fast.
When experts are appointed and given scripts to read which individuals and governments are expected to follow and without limit, who is writing that script? Whoever they are, they rule in that situation.
FACT: The Government is leaving the door open to perpetrating something like the COVID-19 pandemic response again and maybe worse next time.
This is in terms of: lack of any apology but rather pats on the back, in terms of support for a WHO Pandemic Treaty (essentially for international centralization of social restrictions under medical guise), and in terms of voting down legislation which would prevent it (example article: Tory Private Member's Bill to Prevent Future COVID Vaccine Mandates Fails in Parliament).
There are also some laws which would give local goverments tremendous power in the event of a pandemic: more than was used during COVID-19 and presumably they intend to use it eventually. One example is the wording in the 'Public Health Act' section 52.6(1) of Alberta (another Canadian province):
CONCLUSIONS: What reasonable conclusions can we draw from these facts which will help us make decisions in our lives and our societies?
Other Fact Summaries on the COVID-19 Crisis:
Article Mar 24, 2023: 40 Facts You NEED to Know: The REAL Story of “Covid”
CLEARSIGHT: How to understand this issue correctly in 5 seconds starting with only a conventional understanding:
Still don't get it? Try this: If you think Government was justified to suspend human rights to defend us from a threat, then YOUR attitude is the first crime against humanity because there is supposed to be NO acceptable reason to suspend human rights. They are supposed to be INALIENABLE. Government-suspendable human rights are NO HUMAN RIGHTS AT ALL because it's FROM the Government that we need human rights protected.
CLEARQUESTION: Is there anything you won't surrender to fear of an invisible threat?
This is the central question of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the point which Government kept testing.
For fear, will you surrender your:
About 'CLEARFACTS': Respond.is 'Clearfacts' presentations are an attempt to pick out just those facts from an issue which are of the greatest importance to protect life with any evidence they reasonably require. They are not an attempt to address all important aspects of an issue, but are a intended as a tool for sharing truth: getting the most important and incontestable points across to other people while consuming the minimum of their attention. Although the presentation does include hyperlinks, it is presented in black print on white background for easy printing, with the following QR code for easy sharing (a link to this webpage):
Back to main (comprehensive presentation) COVID Page
Back to website Homepage