Cases may not have been active cases, hospitalisations may not be due to SARS-CoV-2, and deaths may be due to various causes related or unrelated to SARs-CoV-2. We will never know for sure. Why? Because the PCR cycle threshold for testing PCR “positive” in Middle Earth was 40 to 45, ensuring that most tested people would test positiveeven in the total absence of contamination (a very tall order).
For questioning Covid restrictions, Georgetown Law suspended me from campus, forced me to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, required me to waive my right to medical confidentiality, and threatened to report me to state bar associations. The Dean of Students claimed that I posed a “risk to the public health” of the University, but I quickly learned that my crime had been heretical, not medical.
These galling testimonies aside, it’s not surprising why Rochelle Walensky was picked to be CDC Director. On the surface, she’s articulate and presentable. So it’s a real testament as to how far public health has fallen over these last three years that someone in her position would be telling these kinds of falsehoods and defending such atrocious policies.
All the time, money and research sunk into attempts to develop bioweapon countermeasures caused everyone involved to view Covid as a golden opportunity. In fact, governments, pharmaceutical companies and NGOs invested in biodefense research were determined that the Covid genetic vaccines would “succeed” no matter what. They were not trying to murder anyone, but they also did not plan to stop or slow down, regardless of incidental injuries or death.
Vaccine Harms Are Biodefense Plan’s Collateral Damage Read More
Eight leading critics of the United States’s COVID-19 response have called for an investigation of the many failures of policy architects and key decision makers — at institutions ranging from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration to universities and hospitals — over their repeated mishandling of the pandemic.
In the early months of the pandemic, scientists concerned about lockdowns feared “coming out” in public. The GBD partners took one for the B team and did the dirty work. They paid a heavy price for it, including the loss of some personal friendships, but they held their ground. In print, on air, and on social media, Bhattacharya continues to describe lockdowns as “the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 years,” with catastrophic health and psychological harms that will play out for a generation.
Focused Protection: Jay Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff Read More
The lockdowns did not improve health outcomes. They did devastate economic outcomes. And economics is part of health which in turn is a reflection of the quality of life. The same results pertain however we shuffle the data: adjusting by age, adjusting by population, adjusting by population density. The conclusion is completely undeniable. Lockdowns were a disaster and they achieved nothing in terms of their stated purpose.
There was a coup d’état in this country that presented itself under the innocuous banner of “public health.” Our country’s most powerful forces – including information centers, unelected officials, and multinational corporations – worked together to unravel the protections of the Constitution. Among them was the longstanding precedent of the right to travel and its replacement by tyrannical house arrests.
The Norfolk Group working independently with the support of Brownstone Institute developed a comprehensive review of critical issues to be addressed in view to assess pandemic management as it was conducted in 2020-21 and as it may be conducted next time.
Gabrielle Bauer joins Jeffrey Tucker, founder and president of Brownstone Institute for an interview about her new book, Blindsight Is 2020: Reflections on Covid Policies from Dissident Scientists, Philosophers, Artists, and More
Blindsight Is 2020: Gabrielle Bauer reports on the resistance with Jeffrey Tucker Read More
Members of the U.S. Congress are conducting such an inquiry, and their efforts require the help of physicians, scientists and public health policy experts to identify key policy decisions and provide a rationale for investigating those policies and the officials and government agencies that devised and implemented them, with the ultimate goal of meaningful reform.
It is absolutely frightening that major medico-legal organisations have issued advice to doctors to be wary about participating in intellectual freedom and that even reporting on evidenced-based scientific data might put them in peril of being professionally ‘disappeared’ if that data doesn’t conform with the government’s ‘messaging’. Is that what the community at large expects?
