혼돈의 미국 300 - 정부의 코로나 대책에 저항하는 이들이 끊이지않는데, 왜그러나요?

전 해군 외과의사 : 코로나-19는 미국을 '굴복'시키는 것을 목표로 하는 완벽한 생물무기로 작용한다

Former Navy Surgeon: COVID-19 Acts As Perfect Bioweapon Aimed to ‘takedown’ America
By Patrick Delaney
Feb 2, 2021 - 10:35:23 PM

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-navy-surgeon-covid-19-acts-as-perfect-bioweapon-aimed-to-takedown-america

SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

 

생물 무기를 연구한 전 해군 외과의사는 우한 코로나 바이러스가 가해자일 뿐만 아니라 실제 공격이 일어나고 있다는 인식까지도 감추는 군사 진화의 다음 단계를 표방한다는 증거가 있다고 말합니다.
현재 네브래스카 주 오마하에서 정형외과 수술 및 노화방지 의학을 시행하고 있는 미국 의사 및 외과 의사 협회의 전 회장인 리 메리트 박사는 1월 14일 뉴아메리칸과의 인터뷰에서 "우리는 전쟁 중이다"라고 믿고 있다고 밝혔다.

그녀는 "우리는 약 30년 전에 중국군 장군들이 말한 것과 같은 비 전통적인, 제한없는 기막힌 전쟁을 하고있다, "고 말했다. 메리트 Merritt 박사는 이러한 공격이 중국에서 오는 것이라고 믿지 않는다고 강조했지만, 그녀는 중국 공산당이 이 공격의 "준 군사화 전술"을 제공한다고 말했습니다.

 

UNITED STATES, February 2, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) - A former Navy surgeon who studied bioweapons says there is evidence that the Wuhan coronavirus represents the next stage in military evolution, which veils not only the assailants but even the perception that an actual attack is occurring.

Dr. Lee Merritt, former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons who currently practices orthopaedic surgery and anti-aging medicine in Omaha, Nebraska, stated in a Jan. 14 interview with New American that she believes "we are at war."

"We're in an unconventional, unrestricted war, the kind that the military Chinese generals talked about 30 years ago," she said. Though Dr. Merritt emphasized that she didn't believe these attacks were just coming from China, she did say that,  in her opinion, the CCP provides "the proximate militarization" of this attack.

 

"전쟁은 시간이 지남에 따라 변했습니다, "라고 그녀는 설명했습니다. "우리는 클럽으로 서로의(머리) 를 때리기 시작했고 세트 플레이 set-piece 전투에 나섰습니다. 그리고 나서 우리는 미국인으로서 게릴라 전쟁을 개척하고 나무 뒤에서 총을 쏘았고 영국인은 비신사적이라고 생각했습니다. "
그녀는 "하지만 우리 생애동안 전쟁은 미국이 ISIS 나 알- 카에다와 싸울 때" 군사분쟁 4.0 "이라고 부르는 것으로 진화했다고 주장했습니다." 그리고 당신은 그 전투에서 적이 누군지 알고 있었는데 ... 상비군 ...하지만 지금 벌어지는 전쟁에서 누가 자금을 지원하는지를 모릅니다, 또 누가 무기를 보냈는지, 누가 실제로 훈련을 하고 있는지 몰랐기 때문에 적이 누구인지 100 % 확신하지 못했습니다. "

 

"Warfare has changed over time," she explained. "We started just hitting each other over (the head) with clubs and then we went to set-piece battles, and then we as Americans kind of pioneered guerilla warfare, shooting (from) behind trees, and the British thought that was unsportsmanlike."

"But in our lifetime," she claimed, warfare has evolved to what she calls "military conflict 4.0" when the U.S. was fighting ISIS or Al-Qaeda, "and you knew who maybe the enemy was... because they appeared like a standing army ... but you really were not 100% sure who the enemy was because you didn't know who was funding them, who was sending them weapons, who was really doing the training."

 

애리조나 의학 협회의 이사이기도 한 메리트 Merritt는 다음 단계 전쟁은 그녀가 "전쟁 5.0"이라고 부르는 것이라고 추측했습니다. "전쟁 5.0"은 "너무 은밀해서 적이 누구인지 몰랐을 뿐만 아니라 당신이 공격당하고 있다는 사실조차 몰랐습니다.” 코로나 전쟁이라고 말만 했을 뿐인데, 그것은 마치 자연스러운 것처럼 보였습니다.”
무기 배포는 종종 전쟁에서 큰 도전이라고 그녀는 제안했습니다. "우리가 핵 시대에 접어들었을 때 우리는 쉽게 핵무기를 배포할 수 없었습니다. 우리는 그들을 (비행기에서) 일본 도시로 떨어뜨려야 했습니다." 군사 공학의 어려운 부분은 "유도 미사일"의 개발이라고 그녀는 말했다.

 

Merritt, who also served on the board of the Arizona Medical Association, speculated that the next step is something she called, "warfare 5.0" which utilized "a weapon that was so stealth that not only did you not know who the enemy was, you didn't even know you were being attacked," as it "looked like nature."

Distributing weapons is often a great challenge in warfare, she suggested. "When we came into the nuclear age, we could not easily distribute nuclear weapons. We had to drop them (from planes) onto the Japanese cities." The difficult part of military engineering, she said, is the development of "the guidance missile."

 

배포하기 매우 어려운 탄저병을 포함한 생물 무기의 경우도 마찬가지라고 그녀는 말했다.
"그러니 미사일을 만들어 보자, "고 외과의사는 말했다. "미사일은 코로나 바이러스입니다. 이 바이러스는 ... 전염성이 높고 아주 작은 입자 바이러스입니다. 선전이 무엇이든 간에 숨길 수는 없습니다. 플라스틱 작은 스크린 뒤에 숨지 마세요 ... 믿을 수 없을 정도로 전염되지만 (또한) 매우 무해합니다. "

이제 이 "미사일"에 추가하여 메리트 Merritt는 "기본적으로 탄두입니다. 탄두는 ACE2 경로에 부착되는 작은 단백질입니다, "라고 말했습니다. 이 단백질은 심장과 폐로 들어가 "당신을 죽일 수 있습니다".

 

This is also the case with bioweapons, including anthrax which is very difficult to distribute, she said.

"So, let's make a missile," said the surgeon, "and the missile is coronavirus, which is a... highly transmissible, very small particle virus. It can't be masked away no matter what the propaganda is, you can't hide from it behind a plastic little screen... It's just incredibly transmissible, but it is (also) very benign."

Now add to this "missile," Merritt opined, "basically, the warhead. And the warhead is a little protein that they tacked on, that attaches to your ACE2 pathways." These proteins can then get into one's heart and lungs, and "it can kill you."

 

이 전쟁의 배후에있는 사람들은 이 무기를 사용하여 "두려움을 일으키고, 공포는 인구의 믿을 수없는 심리적 조작자"라고 그녀는 말했습니다. "그들은 우리 경제를 무너뜨렸고, 이 멍청한 마스크 쓰기로 우리 아이들 세대를 무너뜨리고 있으며, 온갖 방식으로 우리를 해치고 있으며,  시점에서 그것은 엉뚱한 일입니다."

메리트는 기쁜 소식은 코로나 COVID-19가 "그다지 치명적이지는 않다, "고 말합니다. 두 번째로 "우리는 실제로 매우 잘 작동하는 치료법을 가지고 있습니다. 모든 선전과 의료인을 위조하려는 시도에도 불구하고 그들이 붙잡은 문학, 그리고 그들이 동의하지 않는 것을 그냥 무시하려는 시도, 우리는 그것에 대한 치료를 받았으며 실제로 효과가 있습니다. "
그녀가 추천하는 치료법은 HCQ (hydroxychloroquine)와 기생충 구충제 이버멕틴 ivermectin으로 모든 사람이 복용할 것을 권장합니다.

 

Those behind this warfare have used this weapon "to create fear, and fear is an incredible psychological manipulator of populations," she said. "They've taken down our economy, they're taking down a generation of our children with these stupid masks, they're damaging us in all sorts of ways, and it is a psyop at this point."

The good news, Merritt says, is that COVID-19 is "not that all deadly," and secondly, "we actually have a treatment for this that works extremely well. In spite of all the propaganda, and the attempts to falsify the medical literature, which they have gotten caught at, and the attempts to just dismiss anything they don't agree with, we have treatment for it, and it really does work."

The treatment she referrers to is hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin, which she recommends everyone should have on hand.

 

메리트 Merritt는 "이러한 모든 바이러스 성 공기매개 질병에 대한 효과적인 치료법이 있다면 690 억 달러의 백신 산업의 성과가 제로 0 가 되기" 때문에 이 치료법이 대중에게 숨겨져 있다고 믿고 있습니다.

둘째, 그녀는 이러한 무기와 정책의 테러 효과가 안전하고 저렴하며 효과적인 치료로 무력화 될 것이라고 말했습니다.
"만약 우리가 지금이 다차원적 전쟁의 일환으로 생물 전쟁을 하고 있다면, 당신이 뒷주머니에 치료를 받으면 그들은 바이러스로 당신을 위협할 수 없습니다,"라고 그녀는 말했습니다.
메리트 Merritt는 또한 그녀가 "실험용 생물학적 제제"라고 부르는 바이러스 및 mRNA vaccines 백신이 "완벽한 이원 무기"역할을 할 수 있다고 설명했습니다.

 

Merritt believes this treatment has been hidden from the public, because a "$69 billion vaccine industry goes to zero if you have an effective treatment for all of these viral airborne diseases."

And, secondly, she states the terrorism effect of these weapons and policies would be neutralized by safe, inexpensive and effective treatments.

"If we are in biowarfare right now-as a part of this multidimensional warfare-if you have a treatment in your back pocket, they cannot terrorize you with ... viruses," she said.

Merritt also explained that the virus and mRNA vaccines, which she calls "experimental biologics," can serve as "a perfect binary weapon."

 

그녀는 이 새로운 기술은 "당신의 신체가 특정한 일을 하도록 지시하는 컴퓨터 프로그램과 같다"고 설명합니다.
그러나 주의해야 할 점은 "내가 mRNA가 프로그래밍된 것이 무엇인지 정확히 알 수있는 방법이 없다는 것입니다. ... 의사들은 그 데이터를 얻을 수 없습니다"라고 그녀는 말했습니다. 아는 사람들은 "이 프로젝트의 맨 위에 있는 사람들" 입니다.
"그래서 내가 중국이고 우리 군대를 무너뜨리고 싶었다면 그건 쉽습니다 .... 나는 mRNA를 ... 자연에 존재하지 않는 것으로 만들고 2 년 후에 (병원체 mRNA와 호환됨) 면역강화 죽음을 유발합니다. 그래서 그것은 지연된 죽음입니다. 그것이 이원 독이 무엇인지 입니다. 그들은 지연됩니다. 제가 여러분에게 파트 1을 주면, 그 다음은 떠날 수 있습니다. 두 번째 부분과 접촉하고 죽습니다. 그리고 당신은 나를 추적할 수 없습니다, "라고 Merritt는 설명했습니다.

 

This new technology, she explains, is "like a computer program that tells your body to do certain things."

The caution, however, is there "is no way I know exactly what that mRNA is programmed to (do) ... The doctors can't get at that data," she said. The ones who know are, "the guys at the very top of this project."

"So, if I were China, and I wanted to take down our military, that's easy.... I make the mRNA ... into something that doesn't exist in nature, and then two years later I release the (pathogen compatible with the mRNA) and it causes this immune enhancement death. So, it is a delayed death. That is what binary poisons are. They're delayed. I give you part one, then I can walk away, and then you accidentally get in contact with part two and die. And you can't trace it to me," Merritt explained.

 

좋은 소식은 그들이 "미사일"로 코로나 바이러스를 사용하는 한 하이드록시 클로로퀸 (HCQ)과 이버멕틴과 같은 치료법이 효과적이어야 한다는 것입니다.
그녀는 또한 모든 사람이 활동적으로 활동하고 "각 주의 주지사가 HCQ 또는 ivermectin을 어떤 식으로든 방해하지 않도록 확실히 확인해야 함을" 권장했습니다.
그녀는 요양원 당국이 이러한 저렴한 치료법으로 주민들을 치료하고 또 코로나에 대비해야 한다고 말했습니다. "우리는 일주일에 5 달러로 생명을 구할 수 있습니다."
마지막으로 그녀는 "마스크가 예방에 작동하지 않는다"고 다시 확인했습니다.
"그래서, 이것이 이 일에 대한 나의 큰 전반적인 견해인데, 그런 미끼 대응책은 미국의 붕괴 계획 takedown의 일부라고 생각합니다."라고 그녀는 말했습니다.
LifeSiteNews는 광범위한 코로나COVID-19 백신 리소스 페이지를 제작했습니다. 여기에서 확인하세요.

 

The good news, she says, is that so long as they use a coronavirus for their "missile," therapies like hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin should be effective.

She also encouraged all to become active and "ensure your governors are not impeding HCQ or ivermectin in any way."

Nursing home authorities, she said, should be prophylaxing their residents with these inexpensive treatments. "We could be saving lives for $5 a week."

Finally, she again affirmed, "Masks don't work."

"So, that's my big overall view on this thing, and I do think it is a part of a takedown of America," she said.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.

RELATED:

Frontline Doctors: Experimental vaccines are ‘not safer' than COVID-19

 

***

 

코로나 COVID 전쟁의 안개 – 건강을 폐쇄하다

The Fog Of COVID War – Locking Down The Healthy
By Dr. Joseph Mercola
Feb 2, 2021 - 10:43:09 PM

https://www.wakingtimes.com/the-fog-of-covid-war-locking-down-the-healthy/

 

• January 27th 2021

Dr. Mercola, Guest
Waking Times

"전쟁의 안개"는 전투 중에 발생할 수있는 불확실성, 혼돈 및 혼란을 설명하는 데 사용되는 용어입니다. 전투에 참전했다고 생각한 것이 뒤집혀서 일종의 정지된 현실에서 결정을 내리려고 할 때 판단이 흐려질 수 있습니다.

 

The "fog of war" is a term used to describe the uncertainty, chaos and confusion that can occur during battle. What you thought was true entering into the battle may be turned upside down, clouding your judgment as you try to make decisions in a sort of suspended reality.

 

미국 경제 연구소 (AIER)의 편집 책임자인 제프리 터커에 따르면, 당신은 지금 전쟁의 안개인 코로나 COVID 전쟁의 안개 속에서 살고 있습니다. 전략과 목표 사이의 관계입니다. 좌절감과 방향 감각 상실이 명확성과 합리성을 대체하기 때문에 이론적 근거조차 파악하기 어렵습니다. "1

You're living in a fog of war right now - a fog of COVID war - according to Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER): "It is often unclear who is making decisions and why, and what the relationships are between the strategies and the goals. Even the rationale can become elusive as frustration and disorientation displace clarity and rationality."1

이 설명은 일반적으로 전투의 방향 감각 상실을 위해 예약되었지만 이제는 코로나 COVID-19 질병 완화를 둘러싼 안개에 혼란스럽게 잘 적용됩니다. 구체적인 예가 필요하다면 마스크 사용이 권장되지 않았던 2020년 1월부터 여러 분야에서 마스크가 의무화되는 2020 년 12 월까지 안내하는 비디오 타임라인을 시청하십시오 .2

This description is typically reserved for the disorientation of battle but now applies disturbingly well to the fog surrounding COVID-19 disease mitigation. If you'd like a concrete example, watch the video timeline above, which takes you from January 2020, when mask use was discouraged, to December 2020, when masks have become mandatory in many areas.2

 

3 월 : 안면 마스크는 신종 코로나 바이러스로부터 보호 할 수 없습니다

March: Face Masks Cannot Protect Against the New Coronavirus

 

2020 년 2 월 세계 보건기구 (WHO) 본부의 감염 예방 및 통제 컨설턴트인 프란시스 Christine Francis가 일회용 안면 마스크를 들고있는 동영상에 등장했습니다. 그녀는 "이와 같은 의료용 마스크는 단독으로 사용하면 신종 코로나 바이러스로부터 보호할 수 없습니다. WHO는 특정 경우에만 마스크 사용을 권장합니다."3

이러한 특정 사례에는 기침, 발열 또는 호흡 곤란이 있는 경우가 포함됩니다. 즉, 적극적으로 아프고 증상을 보이는 경우입니다. "이러한 증상이 없다면 마스크가 아프지 않은 사람들을 보호한다는 증거가 없기 때문에 마스크를 쓰지 않아도 됩니다, "라고 그녀는 계속했습니다.

 

In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at the World Health Organization headquarters, was featured in a video, holding up a disposable face mask. She said, "Medical masks like this one cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone ... WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases."3

Those specific cases include if you have a cough, fever or difficulty breathing. In other words, if you're actively sick and showing symptoms. "If you do not have these symptoms, you do not have to wear masks because there is no evidence that they protect people who are not sick," she continued.

2020 년 3 월, 미국 외과의는 "진지한 사람들-마스크 구입을 중지하십시오!"라는 메시지를 트윗하면서 공개적으로 동의했습니다. 2020 년 3 월 31 일 현재 WHO는 증상이없는 사람들을위한 안면 마스크 사용에 대해 "증거 없음"을 언급하면서 여전히 일반 대중의 코로나 바이러스 감염을 예방하는 데 효과적이지 않다고 말합니다. 이러한 마스크 사용은 COVID-19 전파를 방지합니다 .5

In March 2020, the U.S. Surgeon General publicly agreed, tweeting a message stating, "Seriously people - STOP BUYING MASKS!" and going on to say that they are not effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus.4 As of March 31, 2020, WHO was still advising against the use of face masks for people without symptoms, stating that there is "no evidence" that such mask usage prevents COVID-19 transmission.5

6 월 : 대중은 마스크를 써야한다

June: Public Should Wear a Face Mask

 

2020 년 6 월 6 일까지 정부의 코로나 대책 기조가 바뀌었습니다. WHO는 "진보하는 증거"를 인용하면서 WHO의 총장인 테드로스 Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus와 함께 정부에 전파가 널리 퍼져있고 신체적 거리를 두기가 어려운 곳에서 일반 대중이 마스크를 착용하도록 장려하도록 정부에 권고하면서 권고를 뒤집었습니다.

이러한 격려는 여러 분야에서 의무화되었으며 이를 준수하지 않는 사람들에게는 벌금이 부과될 수 있습니다. 예를 들어, 캘리포니아 주 훔볼트 카운티에서는 공공 장소에서 안면 마스크를 착용하라는 명령을 위반한 사람은 누구나 $ 50 ~ $ 1,000의 벌금형을 받을 수 있으며 / 또는 위반이 발생한 날마다 90 일의 징역형에 처해질 수 있습니다 .

매사추세츠 주 살렘에서는 아파트 건물 내부의 공용 공간을 포함하여 공공 장소에서 마스크를 착용하지 않은 경우 벌금이 부과될 수 있습니다 . WHO가 건강한 일반 대중을 위해 마스크에 대한 입장을 바꾸도록 만들었다는 증거는 무엇입니까? 단 2 개월? 이것은 명확하지 않지만 흥미로운 발전이 발생했습니다.

By June 6, 2020, the rhetoric had changed. Citing "evolving evidence," WHO reversed their recommendation, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO's director general, advising governments to encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult.6

This encouragement turned into mandates in many areas, with threats of fines for those who did not comply. In Humboldt County, California, for instance, anyone who violated the order to wear face coverings in public could be fined $50 to $1,000 and/or face 90 days in jail for each day the offense occurred.7

In Salem, Massachusetts, you could also be fined for not wearing a mask in public, including the common areas inside an apartment building.8 What's the evolving evidence WHO referred to that made them reverse their position on masks for the healthy general public over a period of just two months? This remains unclear, but an interesting development did occur.

WHO : 무증상 전파 '매우 희귀  (번역 생략)

WHO: Asymptomatic Transmission ‘Very Rare'

During a June 8, 2020, press briefing - just two days after Ghebreyesus advised healthy people to start wearing masks - Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO's technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that people who have COVID-19 without any symptoms "rarely" transmit the disease to others.9

WHO's interim guidance from June 5, 2020, supports Kerkhove's statement, noting, "Comprehensive studies on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms."10

If this is the case, though, the recommendation that healthy, asymptomatic people wear face masks or be locked down in their homes makes no sense, highlighting just one instance of the ongoing "COVID fog."

Not to be called out on their blatant contradictions, on June 9, 2020, Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO's emergencies program, quickly backpedaled Van Kerkhove's statement, saying the remarks were "misinterpreted or maybe we didn't use the most elegant words to explain that."11 Van Kerkhove also stated that the data she mentioned only came from a "small subset of studies," and added:12

"I wasn't stating a policy of WHO or anything like that. I was just trying to articulate what we know. And in that, I used the phrase ‘very rare,' and I think that that's misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare."

천만명, 무증상 전염 사례 1 건이 아님

10 Million People, Not One Case of Asymptomatic Transmission

After WHO's asymptomatic spread debacle, talk of this topic died down considerably.13 But, quietly, a landmark study involving 9,899,828 million residents of Wuhan, China, was published in Nature Communications.14 The participants were tested for COVID-19 between May 14, 2020, and June 1, 2020.

No new symptomatic cases, and 300 asymptomatic cases, were identified. Among the 300 asymptomatic cases, 1,174 close contacts were identified, and not one of them tested positive for COVID-19.

Additionally, of the 34,424 participants with a history of COVID-19, 107 individuals (0.31%) tested positive again, but, importantly, none were symptomatic. As noted by the authors, "Virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and repositive cases, indicating no ‘viable virus' in positive cases detected in this study."15 Tucker explained:16

"The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci's previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but does not drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000."

A meta-analysis of 21,708 at-risk people, of which 663 were COVID-19 positive and 111 were asymptomatic, also found that asymptomatic transmission rates may actually be "lower than those of many highly-publicized studies."17 They suggested the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases is 1 in 6, and found the relative risk of asymptomatic transmission was 42% lower than the risk of symptomatic transmission.

In a preprint version of their study, the researchers noted, "Our estimates of the proportion of asymptomatic cases and their transmission rates suggest that asymptomatic spread is unlikely to be a major driver of clusters or community transmission of infection ..."18 As Tucker noted:19

"We keep hearing about how we should follow the science. The claim is tired by now. We know what's really happening.

The lockdown lobby ignores whatever contradicts their narrative, preferring unverified anecdotes over an actual scientific study of 10 million residents in what was the world's first major hotspot for the disease we are trying to manage. You would expect this study to be massive international news. So far as I can tell, it is being ignored."

무증상 확산이 드물다면 왜 마스크 쓰기와 봉쇄인가?

If Asymptomatic Spread Is Rare, Why Masks and Lockdowns?

Widespread asymptomatic spreading is the only reason that lockdowns and mask usage among the healthy make sense. For months, health officials have been perpetuating the myth of asymptomatic spreading to escalate fear.

Now, as people are increasingly eager to return to some sense of normalcy, a mutated SARS-CoV-2 strain, which is supposedly more virulent, is said to have emerged and resulted in new, more severe lockdown restrictions in the U.K.20

This perpetuation of fear has extended far beyond the initial purpose of the lockdowns, which was to flatten the curve and avoid overstressing hospitals. As Tucker pointed out, however, this has gradually changed such that now we're facing lockdowns indefinitely:21

"The initial round of lockdowns was not about suppressing the virus but slowing it for one reason: to preserve hospital capacity. Whether and to what extent the ‘curve' was actually flattened will probably be debated for years but back then there was no question of extinguishing the virus. The volume of the curves, tall and quick or short and long, was the same either way. People were going to get the bug until the bug burns out (herd immunity).

Gradually, and sometimes almost imperceptibly, the rationale for the lockdowns changed. Curve flattening became an end in itself, apart from hospital capacity. Perhaps this was because the hospital crowding issue was extremely localized in two New York boroughs while hospitals around the country emptied out for patients who didn't show up: 350 hospitals furloughed workers."

Science is what should be used to dictate policy, but this isn't what's occurring. Ongoing testing of asymptomatic people is adding to the problem, as positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests are also being used as justification for keeping large portions of the world locked down.

The problem is a positive PCR test does not mean that an active infection is present. The PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, the genetic snippets are so small they must be amplified in order to become discernible.

What this does is amplify any, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA that might be present to the point that the test reads "positive," even if the viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive. These "positive" cases are keeping the pandemic narrative going.

Case in point, between March 22 and April 4, 2020, 215 pregnant women admitted to a hospital in New York City were screened on admission for symptoms of COVID-19 and tested for the virus. Only 1.9% of the women had fever or other COVID-19 symptoms, and all of those women tested positive.

Of the remaining women who were tested even though they had no symptoms, 13.7% were positive. This means that, overall, 87.9% of the women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had no symptoms,22 and the overwhelming research suggests they likely wouldn't have transmitted the virus to others, either.

마스크는 효과가 없다

Masks Are Ineffective

What does the science say about masks for preventing COVID-19 infection? The first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.

The "Danmask-19 Trial," published November 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine,23 found that among mask wearers 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same - 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.

Rational Ground also looked at COVID-19 cases from May 1, 2020 to December 15, 2020, in all 50 U.S. states, with and without mask mandates. Among states with no mask mandates, 17 cases per 100,000 people per day were counted, compared to 27 cases per 100,000 people per day in states with mask mandates24 - COVID-19 cases were higher in areas with mask mandates than without.

The findings further call into question the effectiveness of mandated masks for preventing COVID-19, as does a case-control investigation of people with COVID-19 who visited 11 U.S. health care facilities. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report revealed factors associated with getting the disease,25 including the use of cloth face coverings or masks in the 14 days before becoming ill.

The majority of them - 70.6% - reported that they "always" wore a mask, but they still got sick. Among the interview respondents who became ill, 108, or 70.6%, said they always wore a mask, compared to six, or 3.9%, who said they "never" did, and six more, or 3.9%, who said they "rarely" did.

Taken together, this shows that, of the symptomatic adults with COVID-19, 70.6% always wore a mask and still got sick, compared to 7.8% for those who rarely or never did.26

안개를 통해 보기

Seeing Through the Fog

An abundance of evidence suggests that locking down the healthy and mandating mask usage for those without symptoms is irrational, at best, and dangerous, at worst, considering both masks and lockdowns are associated with ill effects of their own.27 According to Tucker:28

"With solid evidence that asymptomatic spread is nonsense, we have to ask: who is making decisions and why? Again, this brings me back to the metaphor of fog. We are all experiencing confusion and uncertainty over the precise relationship between the strategies and the goals of panoply of regulations and stringencies all around us.

Even the rationale has become elusive - even refuted - as frustration and disorientation have displaced what we vaguely recall as clarity and rationality of daily life."

Living in such a fog can be intimidating, but the purpose of this article is not to spread more fear but, rather, to empower you with information. The fog of war, after all, is not always an impediment. It can also be used to gain advantage,29 and seeing through the fog is the first step to winning the war.