When we were first made aware of the Chinese Flu in November 2019, we took steps to protect our boys, and took the matter very seriously. In March 2020, we posted an article addressing what we believed at the time, based on information provided to us, to be a pandemic and a threat (see “What you need to know about COVID-19”)
But the more we looked into the matter and the more we gathered data independently, the more we realized nothing made sense. Ultimately reaching the conclusion, several months down the road, and based on extensive research, intel, and analysis, that COVID-19 wasn’t what governments and mainstream media wanted us to believe it was.
Death Rate lower than that of Common Flu
The most significant factor with the Coronavirus was the survival rate. Higher than that of the common flu. FHI (Norwegian Institute of Public Health) had estimated that 100,000 people in Norway got COVID. 316 of them died. This was a survival rate of 99.7%. With the ones dying often having underlying conditions (See: Situational awareness and forecasting for Norway from FHI/NIPH - Norwegian Institute of Public Health). COVID-19, simply wasn’t, after all, the killer it had been depicted to be.
There was also the consideration that far too many deaths were attributed to COVID-19 incorrectly. In most jurisdictions, anyone dying of anything but who tested positive for COVID-19 within 28 days (with an inherently unreliable test) was indeed deemed to have died of COVID-19.
Unreliable PCR tests
The very claim of a pandemic was also revisited after research had shown that PCR tests were inherently faulty, causing too many false positives, and thus incorrectly inflating case numbers (See: External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results). As a matter of fact, PCR tests were so unreliable that they would return a positive with mere exposure to the common cold of flu virus. Hence why the flu had essentially disappeared from the world in 2020… All the cases had been incorrectly recorded as COVID-19. In other words, the case numbers provided by governments simply were not factual.
Pandemic requiring restrictions?
So, with a death rate lower than the common flu, as well as unreliable PCR tests recording far too many false positives, is the Chinese Flu an actual pandemic? Does COVID-19 justify the unprecedented restriction across the world?
Our position is that current restrictions are not justified under the circumstances, and even if they were, they do not work and have no basis in science or facts.
With respect to masks
A Danish study by Rigshospitalet (primary hospital and health authority in København) has found no clear evidence face masks protect wearer from Covid-19 infection (See: Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers.) Additionally, in Sydney in 2003 during the SARS epidemic, businesses and individuals could be fined up to $100k for advertising masks as effective against viral transmission (See: Farce mask: it's safe for only 20 minutes.) As for clothe masks, they lead to 3 times the rate of contamination for influenza-like illnesses (See: A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers.) Worse yet, the latest study even points to masks in general increasing transmission: Transmission of coronaviruses is through small droplets. Not cough and thus larger droplets. Masks do not filter smaller droplets, but actually aerosol the larger ones… (See: Particle sizes of infectious aerosols: implications for infection control.)
In addition to wearing masks not preventing transmission of the Chinese Flu, and even most likely increasing the risk of transmission, the wearing of masks, especially on the long term, leads to a wide array of adverse conditions, from a dramatic increase of bacterial pneumonia, to interference in the developmental health of children.
What about the lockdowns?
Now, a peer reviewed study by Stanford researchers has found that mandatory lockdowns do not provide more benefits to stopping the spread of COVID-19 than voluntary measures such as social distancing (See: Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19.) The fact that lockdowns simply don’t work was also established by other studies (See: COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink.)
In addition, lockdowns have truly catastrophic consequences. Beyond economic destruction, they are killing more people, adults, children and elderly alike, than COVID-19 ever will, through suicide, depression, poverty, misery, drug overdose, loneliness, lack of medical care. Lockdowns are also causing long-lasting mental, psychological and health damage on populations, particularly children.
Are the vaccines the solution?
We also do not believe, under the circumstances, that a vaccine is necessary. Even though we are normally all for vaccines (See: Vaccinations.) Vaccines are indeed a balance of risks and benefits. If there is no true pandemic, and if the outcome of COVID-19 is likely to be mild at worst, there is no justification to take a risk with a vaccine, especially a vaccine that has not followed proper development protocols, that is based on a new and unproven technology, and that isn’t, at the end of the day, actually, a vaccine. The Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” in fact do not prevent contamination or transmission, and are supposed to merely decrease the severity of the symptoms. Ultimately, while we are normally all in favor of vaccines (most of us probably have more vaccines that you knew existed), it is a big no for the COVID-19 vaccines so far (See: COVID Vaccine an Existential Threat.)
At the end of the day, everyone shall also have full control of what goes into their body, and thus, the right to refuse a vaccine. For this reason, we are wildly opposed to the concept of a vaccine passport, which is essentially a backdoor to making the vaccine mandatory, as a lack of passport would deprive people from access to services.
Conclusions
Ultimately, we see COVID-19 as possibly the greatest fraud perpetrated in human history. A very convenient fraud as well that is allowing sociopaths such as Schwab, Gates and Bezos to try to implement a new world order of human slavery and misery.
We also believe that the measures taken under the excuse of COVID-19 are not only violating the most fundamental and constitutional rights of citizens around the world, but constitute at this point a crime against humanity.
And by the way, the claim by mainstream media and people at large that women “leaders”, such as the infamous Bonnie Henry, Theresa Tam, and Jacinda Ardern, have handled the pandemic much better than their male counterparts is utter BS, debunked by the latest study (See: Gender in the time of COVID-19: Evaluating national leadership and COVID-19 fatalities.)
May those responsible eventually be held accountable as were the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials.