Generalfox.com

Who can you Trust?

We should be able to trust all of the information, after all, it is being recorded by doctors, hospitals, and presented by the media and supported by the government. Unfortunately it would seem this is not the case. Let’s start with the Doctors.

Doctors – but Doctors “speaking out against the narrative” are being silenced

When we become sick, we turn to doctors for advise and guidance – we are taught to trust them as children. So it should be extremely concerning to you to find out that the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology, Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out in an interview about the scientific censorship that is running rampant in medical journals. He describes it as a three-step process:

1. Third parties complain about physicians who are treating COVID-19 patients early on in the disease. Dr. Malone states that it is almost never patients who complain.
2. Once the complaint is made, medical boards are obligated to open an investigation. “Basically, physicians are accused of … the sin of administering licensed drugs off-label, which is about 30% of all prescriptions are off label.
3. These complaints are then filed with the medical boards, and once a investigation process is initiated, the press is alerted, which subsequently writes multiple articles about the physician being investigated, which destroys their reputation. With the credibility of hte physician having been destroyed, they are typically fired from their hospital for creating a controversy. They are often kicked out of their medical practice group and basically forced to become free agents.

This systematic attack deprives those doctors accused, of their ability to earn a living while frightening others who might speak out into remaining silent. Meanwhile, scientific journals have financial motivation to print only research that’s favorable to the pharmaceutical industry, as they are the ones buying favorable ones. Dr. Malone states, “They don’t have to advertise or buy stock in one of these companies.”. Pharmaceutical companies buy very large numbers of reprints of papers that are favorable to their position, which are then distributed to physicaian’s offices. Reprints “don’t come cheaply” meaning that “the journals end up with a large fraction of their revenue coming from the sale of these reprints to pharmaceutical companies.”. As the scientific journals rely on this revenue — there is a major motivation to continue printing research that’s favorable to Big Pharma. “It’s another nefarious way that the pharmaceutical industry has figured out how to exert influence by bending the law,” he explains. “They don’t have to disclose the conflict of interest because it’s not a direct payment.”.

Throughout 2020 doctors, hospitals, and clinics were encouraged, if not pressured to make the diagnoses of COVID-19 if they thought it was probable or presumed. Without a need for a test, and with symptoms being so broad-based, the numbers of reported infections and deaths were extremely high. Here is a link. And here is a RollingStone article.

Here is a doctor speaking out about many concerns that he has regarding how the pandemic was handled, Dr. Peter McCullough in his testimony to the Texas Senate HHS Committee.

Nurses – Whistleblowers

With this I reference an article I read about a VC Nurse that spoke out about some of the adverse side-effects seemingly linked to these vaccines (Article here, titled: “More VC Nurses Blow Whistle on ‘Overwhelming’ Numbers of Heart Attacks, Clotting, Strokes“. The article reports that local hospitals are scrambling to provide patient care due to nurse shortages caused by people exiting the health care profession. The person being interviewed mentions being “out of ratio” for the last three shifts (based on the State of California’s maximum allowable nurse-to-patient ratio for safely delivering care). It was also reported that most newly-hired nurses “are not capable of safely managing patients” but due to the personnel shortages they are being thrust early into this environment. She says, “The hospital is like, ‘We need to fill these spots. We’re getting killed.’ So they release all these people who’ve been training for two to three months. Normally you train four to six months.”. She furthers, “To be honest, I feel like our hospital is on the brink of — we’re barely able to function right now. That’s how bad it is.”. Unfortunately there is mention of medical mistakes having been made. She notes that even the physical space is being taxed by the influx of patients with life-threatening health conditions. The hospital is even putting patients in staging areas of operating rooms.

A critical care nurse at an ICU in a Ventura County hospital (USA), also came forward and noted that “When you give someone informed consent, you are supposed to give them all the risks and benefits, and all options. …. I feel like with the vaccine, they don’t give you the risks. They say, ‘Take this vaccine. It’s for the good of the community.’ They won’t be honest about it because it will drive down vaccination numbers. Every other medical product we give, we inform them fully. I don’t understand what it is about the Covid vaccine. They are so adamant about giving it.”. He says further, “The doctors don’t question anymore. … None question whether the vaccine causes myocarditis, pericarditis and the strokes that are coming in. If they don’t toe the line, they could lose their medical license. They do what they do because they have bills to pay. I’m disappointed because you have a handful of doctors who will question the narrative, but the rest go along.”.

Observation: Was it smart to fire nurses unwilling to partake in a medical experiment, only to then have to allow nurses sick with COVID-19 to work??

Question: I question the morality of this – as a Nurse you can either be un-employed and per your education be essentially unable to find any work until you renew your education (if age and finance allow), OR, you can partake in a medical experiment. Of course, while you think about this, please ignore that other various government employees are exempt from having to take these experimental vaccines.

Hospitals – Data manipulation?

Across two interviews, Dr. Robert Malone states that throughout his professional career he has worked for many years closely with the US Government – and he is now trying to speak out about the manipulation of data that is occurring at multiple levels. “There are strong disincentives for physicians to report information.” he says (including at the local level), and there are also strong incentives for hospitals in the US to over-report COVID-19 releated deaths. “The average cost of hospitalized COVID per patient, the average case cost, is between $300,000 and $400,000.”. This cost is partially driven by the antiviral drug remdesivir, which they’re required to give because it is the licensed product in the USA. “Remdesivir requires a multiday stay in order to provide the infusion. So by requiring remdesivir, the hospitals are getting more revenue from hospitalized patients. So there is an additional payment if the diagnosis is SARS-CoV-2.”.

“So that’s how we end up with these grossly overinflated risk analyses for the virus. And we ended up with grossly underinflated and under-reported vaccine adverse events, because there are so many disincentives to reporting any of them. And then if they even get reported who tests whether or not they’re valid and makes a determination? It’s the CDC … There’s also multiple reports of mass deletion of adverse events by the Israeli government.”.

This raises concern about our ability to trust them.

The Media?

I watched an interview on the news on January 10, 2022 where they stated the “hospital is at capacity with ICU patients” with most of those people being unvaccinated. Dr. Mike Haddad, Chief of Staff at Bluewater Horizon hospital in Sarnia stated that they have, out of a grand total of 14 beds – 10 of them are filled with individuals with COVID-19. Of those 10 patients he did not provide a number as to how many were un-vaccinated – just that the majority of them were not vaccinated. He then stated that the per the rest of the hospitalization in general (reason for visits was not defined), it is around 60% unvaccinated and 40% vaccinated.

People are usually either emotional or logical thinkers. In watching this ‘news’ segment, I was disappointed to see it emotionally driven. While watching this news segment I learned / wondered:

• Per the entire Sarnia, Ontario community, there were 10 people in ICU – 4 people were in ICU for other reasons.
• The interviewer then asked what the un-vaccinated in the ICU were talking with the Doctor about – were they expressing regret for not having been vaccinated? This question is akin to asking people standing outside in the dark, watching their house burn down, how they feel – are they sad??
• If I was unvaccinated and nervous about getting the vaccine, I would have much rather the reporter help me undertand why there were vaccinated people in ICU. I’d also want a precise number, than than a generalization.
• The next question was focused on that the hospital is in an area with lower vaccination rates and that the population had been urged to become vaccinated, with the reporter asking if there had been an uptick in the vaccination rate following that communication. The Doctor advised that the vaccination rate of the community was at 80% while the province of Ontario is at 83% – and encouraged everyone to be vaccinated. While I understand a desire to reduce the number of people in hospitals I was more concerned about why there is only a 20% spread between the vaccinated and unvaccinated counts?
• I noticed there were no other comparisons to Ontario numbers / statistics…

Wanting to know how this Sarnia hospitals numbers compared against the rest of Ontario, I checked Ontario’s COVID-19 website (below):

Obervation: I believe this sensationalized, emotionally driven ‘news’ segment to be nothing more than a push to convince people to get their vaccinations. I’m way more interested in understanding why there are more vaccinated people in ICU than un-vaccinated, and the same for hospital visitation counts. However, I will encourage that when you look at these numbers, that you consider that these counts are drawn from a percentage of the total population having been vaccinated, and those not (it’s not a 50/50 split).

In case we don’t want to admit there to be bias in the media, here is a great article by the Western Journal, correcting a NPR news blast seemingly having a Liberal slant. By now we should all be aware that the news outlets are owned by the same companies that have sway in our governments, thus they will have a bias – would you let a company provide news against your sponser or a sister company? This is already well documented, so I will instead bring focus to something that you are probably not aware of: I found an interesting read – a newly released Rasmussen Reports poll which found that viewers of conservative cable news channels better understand the risk of death from COVID-19 than those who watch liberal channels such as CNN and MSNBC. Rasmussen also determined that:

• 30% of American adults overall correctly estimated the death rate as being less than 2%, while 20% believed it to be between 2% and 5%.
  • 17% thought the rate ranged between 5% and 10%, and 19% believed it to be greater than 10%.
  • Those who reported watching conservative outlets tended to more accurately state the death rate.
  • “More viewers of Newsmax (40%) and Fox News (34%) correctly estimated the COVID-19 mortality rate than viewers of CNN (22%) or MSNBC (24%)”, according to Rasmussen.
  • 21% of One America News (OAN) viewers estimated the coronavirus mortality rate correctly.
  • 38% of those who do not watch cable news responded with the right rate.
• A similar breakdown was present between Republicans and Democrats, with the latter being more likely to overestimate the risk of death from COVID-19.
  • 28% of Democrats think over 10% die after being diagnosed with the illness, while just 14% of Republicans believe the death rate is that high.
• Rasmussen also determined a wide disparity in trust of pubic health officials regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, based on the media outlets the person watched.
  • Overall, 37% of American adults, “believe public health officials are lying about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.”.
  • “The highest levels of distrust are among those who say they most often watch conservative channels.
  • 62% of Newsmax viewers think public health officials are lying about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, as do 60% of OAN viewers and 49% of Fox News viewers.”, Rasmussen reported.
  • “Only 26% of CNN viewers and 25% of MSNBC viewers believe officials are lying about vaccine safety.”

Unfortunately I have grown to dis-trust the news. Most people have become aware that news agencies are owned by larger corporations or individuals that have policital motivations. Most individuals are understanding that these companies would therefore not report on something that was against the narriative of the company or their paying advertisers. After taking some psychology and communications courses I have learned about tactics used to discredit individuals being interviewed, and have seen it in play. Here is a great example of someone knowledgeable reviewing an interview that had been clearly scripted in a way to discredit the individual being interviewed (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4) – you may or may not watch the news differently afterwards. Always remember, the social games that are played between people, can be used by anyone or group of people to manipulate individuals, groups, crowds, and etc..

The Government?

I’d love to suggest that we blindly trust our ‘leaders’, however governments have performed experiments on the general public without their consent or knowledge – and have generally gotten away with it. Unfortunately I can cite MANY unethical experiments having been performed – such as one where the US Military performed live tests to determine how far air-borne pathogens penetrate into cities, and their effectiveness. Or this wonderful experiment carried out by the US Department of Energy and researchers at Vanderbilt University which gave 800 unsuspecting pregnant women radioactive pills, exposing the women to radiation 30 times higher than natural radiation (about the same as an X-ray – this dosage was not considered unsafe at the time). In fact, here is a partial list of some prior classified experiments the US Government has performed on unwilling subjects – with periodic assistance from other allied nations, such as Canada.

I’d also like to point out that the government has initiated disinformation studies, such as Operation Mockingbird, to study ways to coerce the general population into believing a presented bias or false information. I would wonder why this money would not have instead been spent on ensuring truths are always presented – are we not worth the truth or is it that they cannot lead to truths?

So while I was disappointed when I read an article by Blaze Media that the US Government paid USD $1 Billion dollars to hundreds of media companies to advertise the COVID-19 vaccines and provide positive vaccine coverage, I was not shocked. In their Freedom of Information Act request it was revealed that the government had purchased advertising from major news networks including: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, New York Post, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed News, Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations, who were collectively publishing countless articles and videos regarding the vaccines. They were nearly all uniformly positive about the vaccines efficacy and safety and advertising per a “comprehensive media campaign“. I read that the campaigns included “influencers” from “communities hit hard by COVID-19” and “experts” like US White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and other academics to be interviewed and to promote vaccination in the news. This effort was timed with the availability of the vaccines. My concern is that though virtually all of these newsrooms produced stories covering the COVID-19 vaccines, there was no disclosure that taxpayer dollars were flowing to these companies. When Blaze Media reached out for comments they were advised that common practice dictates that editorial teams operate independently of media advertising departments so news teams felt no need to make this disclosure. I further read that “fear-based vaccine ads” from the US Department of Health and Human Services featured “survivor” stories from COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized in intensive care units were covered by CNN and discussed on ABC’s “The View”.

Further, this COVID-19 Public Education Campaign also used word of mouth marketing with goal of having “trusted messengers and influencers” speak with news organizations to “provide factual, timely information and steps people can take to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.”. This resulted in various government officials being frequently quoted by reporters covering the COVID-19 pandemic, offering factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety. For instance, an October article from BuzzFeed News featured the “essential facts” about who could get a COVID-19 booster shot reported pro-vaccine statements from US CDC director Rochelle Walensky, US FDA official Peter Marks, US Department of Human Health and Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, and the US University of California, San Francisco epidemiologist George Rutherford. This article stressed how studies show “boosters work” and cited US FDA data suggesting getting a booster shot “can reestablish strong protection against the virus.”. BuzzFeed News advised everyone age 65 or older, people with health conditions that put them at high risk of severe illness from COVID-19 to get vaccine boosters, in accordance with guidance from the CDC. In this, the New York Times has advised that even children are being targeted, with influencers being paid to advertise the vaccines to their children followers. The US Government enlisted an army of more than 50 Twitch streamers, YouTubers, TikTokers and even the 18-year-old pop star Olivia Rodrigo, with each of them having enormous online audiences. Local US State and governments had similar campaigns, in some cases paying “local micro influencers” (those having between 5,000 to 100,000 followers) up to USD $1,000 a month to promote Covid-19 vaccines.

The Los Angeles Times featured advice from experts on how readers could convince vaccine-hesitant people to change their minds – provisioning those having already been convinced with the tools necessary to convince others. The Washington Post covered “the pro-vaccine messages people want to hear.”, while Newsmax reported how the vaccines have “been demonstrated to be safe and effective” and “encouraged citizens, especially those at risk, to get immunized.”.

I wonder how ‘conflicts of interest’ to this funded provisioning of information would have been handled by these news agencies? Perhaps this explains why, whenever I watched, news agencies were always pushing stories relative to becoming vaccinated – in fact, in the section “The Media” above, I critique one such “news story”. And let’s not forget that as this went on, Tech Giants were censoring any negative vaccine information – or had their ‘Fact Checkers’ (who they admitted were only offering their “Opinions”) working to discredit any negative vaccine information or alternate treatments.

Re: the influencers – Personally I always find it disturbing when anyone resorts to influencing children in any way – it is my point of view that if you cannot convince an adult then keep your idea away from the kids. I thought this to be generally viewed as ‘unethical’? I do not believe this type of negative-reinforcement psychology should have been used on the children, for those who did not ‘join the club’ were obviously ‘left out’. After reading the New York Times article mentioned above I wondered if these influencers would have done anything if there had not been any financial reward?

The Military?

Since the military is under the jurisdiction of, and taking direction from, the government, and the government instantiated these tests through various agencies, then I’ll suggest that we not just directly trust any of them. Especially considering if this article is true, referencing information obtained by the Freedom of Information Act, that Canadian military leaders used the pandemic to test propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghanistan war, on Canadian citizens. The campaign called for “shaping” and “exploiting” information. The Canadian military claimed this was needed to head off civil disobedience by Canadians during the COVID-19 pandemic and to bolster government messages.

I read where US New York Governor Cumo sent over 6,000 COVID-19 hospital patients into nursing homes (for the elderly), which of course pushed up the count of those having perished in Nursing Homes (to 15,000 at the time of writing).

Question: Why would you push patients infected with a virus in with the elderly???

On the opposite side of this, here are two US State Senators working to reaffirm public trust in the government! Two state senators are alleging statistical manipulation by two government health agencies. According to The Epoch Times, Oregon state Sens. Kim Thatcher and Dennis Linthicum (USA) sent a letter to acting U.S. Attorney Scott E. Asphaug asking him to open a grand jury investigation into the reporting of coronavirus statistics by the CDC and the FDA. Bailey Kuykendoll works for the organization behind the petition, Stand for Health Freedom, and has stated, “I’m not sure there has ever been an allegation of government wrongdoing on this scale”. (Article here) In the letter, the lawmakers said a whistleblower alleged in sworn testimony that deaths and injuries recorded in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System “may be under-reported by a factor of five.”. Additionally, the senators said the COVID-19 tests used by the CDC and the FDA could be producing an outsized number of false positives. As well, one of the parameters in the test (known as the cycle threshold) may be contributing to “inflated numbers of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.”. The Epoch Times reported that “Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Michael Mina told The New York Times that tests with too high of a threshold may detect not just live viruses but also genetic fragments.”. The threshold should be 30 cycles at most, and while the senators have said the cycle threshold for vaccinated people is currently set at 28 by the CDC, the threshold for unvaccinated people is set at 40 by the FDA. This is leading to increased false positives among the unvaccinated and fewer reported “breakthrough” cases among the vaccinated. The senators said, “These facts make it virtually impossible for the public to trust the data they are being presented and the public health policies based upon this data.”.

Regarding COVID-19 treatments, the senators have said they are “profoundly concerned that the scientific literature continues to provide empirical evidence that safe and effective treatments and management strategies for COVID infections exist but are not being made available to Americans most in need.”. The senators note that while the vaccines are generally “helpful”, the rising number of breakthrough cases shows that they are not a cure-all for every American. For this reason, they said the CDC and FDA should provide other treatment options instead of, or in addition to, these vaccines. According to Just the News, the lawmakers have named Vitamin D and Ivermectin as treatments being withheld by the government agencies. It was noted that while these treatments have been proven safe, any Doctor prescribing them may be fined or have their license revoked.

Another issue raised by the senators is the propensity of the tests to identify people as COVID-positive even if they have already recovered from the virus. “The ability to definitively diagnose who is infectious and distinguish them from who is not is paramount in assessing the situation and ensuring the people in immediate need receive the skilled care they deserve.”, the letter said. “This essential aspect of infective spread management is plunged into chaos. Our brave frontline healthcare workers are effectively handcuffed when the PCR tests we are providing them are both inaccurate and unable to distinguish who is infectious from who may have been previously infected but recovered.”.

Lastly, the senators reiterated the importance of our country’s founding documents in the most trying times. They have also said, “A crisis does not pre-empt the Constitutions of our country or state. … A crisis makes the Constitutions more applicable and, when followed in good faith, engenders public trust.”. At the time of writing, a grand jury investigation has not yet been opened in response to the petition.

Fact checkers?

Fact Checkers are not all what they were purported to be. While at first they seemed believable, as time elapsed people started to investigate them (“follow the money”) and noticed financial and political motivations. By now it should be well known that Facebook outsources its “fact checking” to third party organizations such as “Climate Feedback” and allows their decisions to affect censorship on the Facebook platform.  In court filings, Facebook has argued that its “fact checks” are not factual, they are “protected opinion.”. Thus, Facebook’s attorneys have argued that the “fact check” on the video was an “opinion” and not an actual fact. This was most likely done because libel law protects opinions from defamatory liability. A copy of the filing can be found here. So now we know Fact Checkers are not actually checking facts – they are simply offering an opinion – and therefore any posts being affected by this measure are being done because they do not match the “opinion” of the fact checker that is acting on behalf of Facebook. I believe this to be un-trustable – equatable to nothing more than a form of advertising.

Here is a video by Candace Owens, discussing how she was censored on FaceBook using “Fact Checkers”.

I encourage you read this open letter from The BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg – I offer a summary below:

• A former employee of Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial, began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.
• The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write an article that was published after legal and external peer reviews.
• BMJ readers were unable to share the article, or had their social media posts flagged with warnings advising “Independant fact checkers say this information could mislead people.”. Facebook warned individuals repeatedly sharing “False Information” might have their posts moved lower in news feeds.
• Facebook readers were directed to a “Fact Check” performed by “Lead Stories”, which BMJ found to be inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible.
  • failed to provide any assertions of fact that the BMJ article got wrong
  • Lead Stories article having a nonsensical title, and did not mention having found any false or untrue yet marked the BMJ story as “Flaws Reviewed”, posting under a URL containing the phrase “Hoax-alert”
  • labelled The BMJ as a “news blog”
• The BMJ also highlighted the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence. They suggested that rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, Zuckerberg instead delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.

Of course, with other “Fact Checkers” working for other companies (like news agencies), which are also owned by larger companies, I find myself reading the fact checkers information, and then performing my own check – having found that the fact checkers were wrong.

The Numbers?

When they talk about ‘The Numbers’ – you should always recall a few key things:

• Nurses were either fired or have been resigning to take less stressful work in other occupations or as travel nurses.
• Nurses that were vaccinated can still get COVID-19. And they are working while sick.
• Hospitals were reducing bed counts long prior to COVID-19 – wings have been closed to shave costs.
  • Of course this means that the bed count is less, and when they say that a hospital is at capacity, this actually means that the remaining beds (which were already mostly prior consumed by every-day activities) are now at a “critical level”.
  • And you need to consider how many beds and the type of visit.
  • So when the news anchor promotes their story, remember that the entire hospital was not fully open with every single possible bed, examining, and operation room available, that it was fully staffed with no absences, and is now filled to capacity with COVID-19 cases. This is what lead to random social media posts by individuals roaming around hospitals and filming all the empty rooms and beds.
  • Article here.
• In 2020, while the media ranted about the number of COVID-19 cases, it appears that the seasonal flu all but disappeared… This raises suspicion as to the number of COVID-19 cases reported as many symptoms are the same between the two.
• The CDC stopped tracking “breakthrough cases” of covid-19, so moving forward, respiratory symptoms are classified as something entirely different for students who are “fully-vaccinated” with the covid-19 spike protein mRNA. The only students who are required to take a covid-19 test are the ones who exempted themselves from the vaccine mandate. Today, all the “fully-vaccinated” students can skip the covid-19 test and call their sickness “the flu.”
• The numbers are assuming a 100% success rate in diagnosis. Of course, there is always room for error:
  • poor quality of the specimen, because it contains too little patient material
  • the specimen was collected late in the course of the disease, or the specimen was taken from a body compartment that did not contain the virus at that given time
  • the specimen was not handled and/or shipped appropriately
  • the cycle threashold used during the test
  • technical reasons inherent in the test, e.g. PCR inhibition or virus mutation
  • clerical errors
  • cross-contamination
  • equipment calibration
• It has been reported that nearly 200,000 COVID test kits were recalled after they produced a huge number of false positives. Of course, this skews the numbers, but how and what was the overall porportional impact?

The Numbers – PCR Testing

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC has recommended a PCR test cycle threshold (CT) of 40. This flies in the face of scientific consensus, which has long been that a CT over 35 will produce 97% false positives, essentially rendering the test useless. Even Dr. Fauci advised that by using a Ct of 35 or more the chances of the test material being replication accurate is miniscule. (Article). In mid-May 2021, the CDC finally lowered its recommended CT count, but only for patients who have received one or more COVID shots. So, if you received a COVID vaccine, the CDC’s guidelines call for your PCR test to be run using a CT of 28 or less. But if you are unvaccinated, then your PCR test would be run using a CT of 40, which grossly overestimates the true prevalence of infection. The end result is that unvaccinated individuals who get tested were FAR more prone to get false positives, while those who have received the jab were more likely to get an accurate diagnosis of infection.

And a Yale Doctor brought to light that the CDC was only accepting submissions for vaccinated people: “For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)”. Here is a link that has a link to the CDC provided document that was later withdrawn and replaced with another completely different document.

So it is interesting to note that in a US New York State Lab, 50% of positives were measured using a cycle threashold of greater than >35!! As well, in US Massachusetts, 85 to 90% of positives were measured using a cycle threashold of greater than 30!! It is also VERY interesting to note that the cycle threashold is never included in the results that are sent to the clinicians – so they are blind as to the basis of the test results.

Recording classifications – too imprecise?

The CDC defines you as being vaccinated only after the 14th day of your having received the second vaccination shot. Therefore, should anything happen to you (side-effects, getting COVID-19, etc.) prior to that time, then it is reported as un-vaccinated. While this seems logical if it takes that much time to work through your system and for you to become ‘vaccinated’, the problem is that if you have any adverse affects from the jabs prior (including death), then it is reported as ‘unvaccinated’. This artificially inflates these counts, making it appear that the unvaccinated are having these issues, rather than identifying whether the person was truely unvaccinated, under-going vaccination, or fully vaccinated. It is disappointing that they did not break out these numbers better.

It’s hard for us, the general public, to make a decision as to whether to be ‘vaccinated’ or not when we are being presented with numbers that are not being uniformly generated. We need the numbers to be un-biased!

Read the next section, “Alternate Treatments“.