40 Facts You NEED to Know: The REAL Story of “Covid”
/from thefreeonline on 21st Aug 23 by Kit Knightly at OffGuardian.. memes added
We first published our hugely popular cribsheet in September of 2021 in response to dozens – even hundreds – of reader requests for sources and data.
It was intended as a resource and link dump as much as an article, and intentionally free of interpretation, editorialising or opinion.
262 Comments
We repost the OffGuardian cribsheet in honour of ERIS, the latest of at least 237 Covid variants promoted by the WHO
“Any dedicated detective would’ve guessed from the start that Covid 19 is just a nasty flu variety, let loose to promote mRNA vaccines, but few dared predict the vaccine might cause an ongoing tidal wave of death and misery..”
***
The response was incredible, within weeks it became our most-viewed article of all time, and it has maintained steady traffic ever since.
But time moves on, and as new data was published and new facts came to light, it became clear we needed to update the piece – not just in terms of facts, but in terms of approach.
So, here are all the updated key facts and sources concerning the alleged “pandemic”, to help you get a grasp on what has happened to the world since January 2020, and assist in the enlightenment of any of your friends who might be still trapped in the New Normal fog.
MENU
Symptoms – Diagnosis & PCR Tests – “Cases” & “Deaths” – Lockdowns – Ventilators – Masks – Vaccines – Mortality Data – Planning & Deception – Motives & Profits – Conclusion
*
Part I: Symptoms
NEW!1. “Covid19” and the flu have IDENTICAL symptoms. There are no symptoms or collections of symptoms unique or specific to “Covid” and only “Covid”. All “Covid” symptoms are common to many other diseases and conditions, including the collection of common respiratory infections colloquially known as “the flu”.
This is readily admitted by mainstream sources and “experts”, who routinely describe “Covid” symptoms as “flu like”.
According to the US Center for Disease Control’s own website comparing “Covid” and the flu:
You cannot tell the difference between flu and COVID-19 just by looking at the symptoms alone because they have some of the same symptoms.
While the UK’s NHS states:
The symptoms [of Covid] are very similar to symptoms of other illnesses, such as colds and flu.
While all mainstream sources couch the admission in soft language – “some of the same symptoms”, “very similar” – the truth is the symptoms are identical. The only points of difference ever observed are equivocations on severity and onset time.
This article from Health Partners highlights that “Covid” can be both more severe OR milder than the flu, noting that “Covid” can sometimes “feel more like a cold”
While according to the Mayo Clinic, in their article on “Covid” vs the flu, the only difference in symptoms is that they “appear at different times”.
*
NEW!2. “Ground glass opacities” are NOT unique to “Covid”. Early in the pandemic, it was reported that medical imaging revealed what they call “ground glass opacity” in the lungs of suspected “Covid” cases and that this was being used to diagnose patients, but ground glass anomalies are not unique to “Covid”.
According to a German paper published in the Radiologie journal in 2010:
Ground glass opacity (GGO) is defined as diffuse pulmonary infiltration [which can be caused by] edema, airspace and interstitial pneumonia. non-infectious pneumonitis as well as tumor manifestations. Physiological processes, such as poor ventilation of dependent lung areas and effects of expiration can also present as ground glass opacity.
In 2012 the Journal of Respiratory Care published a paper on “The Imaging of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome” which described GGOs thus [emphasis added]:
Ground-glass opacification on CT is a non-specific sign that reflects an overall reduction in the air content of the affected lung
In 2022, the Lancet published a case study from an Indian doctor literally titled “Ground glass opacities are not always COVID-19”.
Another article, published by Health.com in May 2022, underlines that:
Ground-glass opacities (GCOs) aren’t specific to COVID-19 […] they can show up due to other conditions and infections
In short, GGOs are a common presentation of pulmonary illness or injury, and are associated with pneumonia, pneumonitis, tuberculosis, and many other conditions.
*
NEW!3. A loss of smell and taste is NOT unique to “covid”. As with GGOs, it has been widely reported that a loss of the sense of taste and sense of smell is the telltale sign of “Covid”, but that is a known symptom of many upper respiratory infections.
According to a 2001 article published on the website of the Univerity of Connecticut School of Medicine:
In adults, the two most common causes of smell problems that we see at our Clinic are: (1) Smell loss due to an ongoing process in the nose and/or sinuses such as nasal allergies and (2) smell loss due to injury of the specialized nerve tissue at the top of the nose (or possibly the higher smell pathways in the brain) from a previous viral upper respiratory infection.
Many common medical conditions are known to cause both acute and chronic damage to the sense of smell and taste, according to the UK’s NHS:
Changes in sense of smell are most often caused by a cold or flu, sinusitis (sinus infection) [or] allergies (like hay fever)
*
Part II: Diagnosis & PCR Tests
NEW!4. It is not possible to clinically diagnose “Covid19”. Clinical diagnosis is the practice of diagnosing a disease based on a unique symptom or collection of symptoms. Wiktionary defines it as:
The estimated identification of the disease underlying a patient’s complaints based merely on signs, symptoms and medical history of the patient rather than on laboratory examination or medical imaging.
Since “Covid19” has no unique symptomatic profile[1], and since ALL major symptoms of “Covid” can potentially apply to literally every common respiratory infection, it is impossible to diagnose “Covid19” based on symptoms.
*
NEW!5. Lateral flow tests are unreliable. Throughout the “pandemic” the most frequently used “self-test” for “Covid” were Lateral Flow Tests (LFTs). These tests are highly unreliable, and known to return positive test results from household liquids such as fruit juice and soda.
Children in the UK frequently “broke” their LFTs using vinegar or coca-cola in order to create false-positive tests and get a few days off school.
In February 2022, an “expert” told The Guardian that LFTs could create false positives based on the diet of the person being tested, or through “cross-reacting” with a different virus.
In February 2022, it was also reported by a team of “experts” from Imperial College that LFTs can “miss” infectious people. In other words, the official position is that LFTs produce false negative results AND false positive results.
Further, it is acknowledged – and the subject of explainer articles – that LFT and PCR results will often contradict one another. Meaning you can test positive on one, but not the other.
In short, lateral flow tests are of almost no diagnostic value whatsoever.
*
6. PCR tests were not designed to diagnose illness. The Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is described in the media as the “gold standard” for “Covid” diagnosis.
But Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the process, never intended it to be used as a diagnostic tool and said so publicly:
PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”
*
7. PCR Tests have a history of being inaccurate and unreliable. The “gold standard” PCR tests for “Covid” are known to produce a lot of false-positive results, by reacting to DNA material that is not specific to Sars-Cov-2.
A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day. In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold viruses. Some tests in the US even reacted to the negative control sample.
The late President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, submitted samples of goat, pawpaw and motor oil for PCR testing, all came back positive for the virus.
As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was unreliable. Dr Wang Cheng, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television “The accuracy of the tests is only 30-50%”. The Australian government’s own website claimed “There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.” And a Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests were “unreliable” and should not be used for diagnosis.
The unreliability of PCR tests is not unique to “Covid”, either. A 2006 study found PCR tests for one virus responded to other viruses too. In 2007, reliance on PCR tests resulted in an “outbreak” of Whooping Cough that never actually existed.
You can read detailed breakdowns of the failings of PCR tests here, here and here.
*
8. The CT values of the PCR tests are too high. PCR tests are run in cycles, the number of cycles you use to get your result is known as your “cycle threshold” or CT value. Kary Mullis said: “If you have to go more than 40 cycles[…]there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”
The MIQE PCR guidelines agree, stating: “[CT] values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported”.
Dr Fauci himself even admitted anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable.
Dr Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California, Riverside, told the New York Times: Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive…I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive…A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35″.
In the same article Dr Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the limit should be 30, and the author goes on to point out that reducing the CT from 40 to 30 would have reduced “covid cases” in some states by as much as 90%.
The CDC’s own data suggests no sample over 33 cycles could be cultured, and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious.
Despite this, it is known almost all the labs in the US are running their tests at least 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45. The NHS “standard operating procedure” for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles.
Based on what we know about the CT values, the majority of PCR test results are at best questionable.
*
9. The World Health Organization (Twice) Admitted PCR tests produced false positives. In December 2020 WHO put out a briefing memo on the PCR process instructing labs to be wary of high CT values causing false positive results:
when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.
Then, in January 2021, the WHO released another memo, this time warning that “asymptomatic” positive PCR tests should be re-tested because they might be false positives:
Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
These announcements coincided with the initial launch of the “covid vaccines”.
*
10. The scientific basis for ALL “Covid” tests is questionable. The genome of the Sars-Cov-2 virus was supposedly sequenced by Chinese scientists in December 2019, then published on January 10th 2020. Less than two weeks later, German virologists (Christian Drosten et al.) had allegedly used the genome to create assays for PCR tests.
They wrote a paper, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR, which was submitted for publication on January 21st 2020, and then accepted on January 22nd. Meaning the paper was allegedly “peer-reviewed” in less than 24 hours. A process that typically takes weeks.
Since then, a consortium of over forty life scientists has petitioned for the withdrawal of the paper, writing a lengthy report detailing 10 major errors in the paper’s methodology.
They have also requested the release of the journal’s peer-review report, to prove the paper really did pass through the peer-review process. The journal has yet to comply.
The Corman-Drosten assays are the root of every “Covid” PCR test in the world. If the paper is questionable, every PCR test is also questionable.
*
Part III: “Cases” & “Deaths”
11. Huge numbers of “Covid cases” are “asymptomatic”. Early in the “pandemic” it was reported that the majority of “Covid cases” never exhibited any symptoms. In March 2020, studies done in Italy were suggesting 50-75% of positive Covid tests had no symptoms. Another UK study from August 2020 found as much as 86% of “Covid patients” experienced no viral symptoms at all.
A Chinese paper from March 2020 found over 80% of “asymptomatic cases” were actually false positive test results.
In short, the vast majority of “cases” during the first year of the “pandemic” were people who never got sick at all.
Following a WHO directive to re-test asymptomatic cases [9] in January 2021 – just as the “vaccines” were first rolled out – the percentage of “asymptomatic cases” has been reportedly lower, approximately 40%.
*
NEW!12. “Covid case” numbers are inherently meaningless. From the onset of the “pandemic”, a “Covid case” has been defined in terms guaranteed to artificially inflate statistics.
The World Health Organization’s definition of a “confirmed case” is anyone who gets a positive PCR result, regardless of symptoms or personal history. Further, it is known that many health agencies around the world – including the US CDC – include “probable cases” in their statistics.
The WHO defines a “probable case” as anyone who meets the “clinical criteria” (ie has flu-like symptoms) and has been in contact either a “confirmed case” OR another “probable case”:
Probable Case: A patient who meets clinical criteria AND is a contact of a probable or confirmed case, or linked to a COVID-19 cluster.”
As established above, PCR tests do not work and produce false positives. Lateral flow tests also produce false positives. It is known these tests may even give contradictory results for the same person at the same time. “Covid19” also lacks a unique symptom profile, ruling out clinical diagnosis.
If you cannot reliably test for the disease in a lab, and cannot identify it via a unique symptom profile, and many “cases” are recognised as “asymptomatic”, then “Covid19” becomes a label with no meaning.
Absent any kind of reliable diagnostic method, case statistics for any disease are inherently meaningless.
*
13. “Covid deaths” were created by statistical manipulation. Since “Covid” case statistics are inflated [12] it naturally follows that “Covid” death statistics would be likewise unreliable. In fact it was noted from the very beginning of the “pandemic” that “Covid death” counts were being artificially inflated.
According to the UK’s Health Standards Agency, the WHO defined a “Covid death” in the following terms:
A COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 disease (eg. trauma).
Throughout the “pandemic” many countries around the globe went even further and defined a “Covid death” as a “death by any cause within 28/30/60 days of a positive test”.
Healthcare officials from Denmark, Italy, Germany, the UK, US, Northern Ireland and others have all admitted to this practice:
The US CDC even records “probable” Covid deaths in their statistics.
Removing any distinction between dying of “Covid”, and dying of something else after testing positive for Covid will naturally lead to completely meaningless numbers of “Covid deaths”.
British pathologist Dr John Lee was warning of this “substantial over-estimate” as early as April 2020. Other mainstream sources have reported it, too.
Considering the huge percentage of “asymptomatic Covid infections” [11], the well-known prevalence of serious comorbidities [30] and the fact all “Covid tests” are entirely unreliable [II], this renders the “Covid” death numbers a completely meaningless statistic.
*
Part IV: Lockdowns
14. Lockdowns do not prevent the spread of disease. There is little to no evidence lockdowns have any impact on limiting “Covid deaths”. If you compare regions that locked down to regions that did not, you can see no pattern at all.
“Covid deaths” in Florida (no lockdown) vs California (lockdown)
“Covid deaths” in Sweden (no lockdown) vs UK (lockdown)
A pre-print meta-analysis from Johns Hopkins University found lockdowns had almost no impact at all on “Covid19” mortality, while another paper on the “Determinants of COVID-19 Fatalities” published in April of 2021 found:
little evidence that lockdowns reduced fatalities
*
15. Lockdowns kill people. There is strong evidence that lockdowns – through social, economic and other public health damage – are deadlier than the alleged “virus”.
Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19 described lockdowns as a “global catastrophe” in October 2020:
We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…] it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”
A UN report from April 2020 warned of 100,000s of children being killed by the economic impact of lockdowns, while tens of millions more face possible poverty and famine.
Unemployment, poverty, suicide, alcoholism, drug use and other social/mental health crises are spiking all over the world. While missed and delayed surgeries and screenings have already seen increased mortality from heart disease, cancer and other conditions in many countries around the world.
A World Bank report from June 2021 estimated close to 100 million people had been plunged extreme poverty by so-called “anti-Covid measures”.
As of January 2023, healthcare services the world over are still experiencing chaotic backlogs in treatment and diagnosis. The knock-on effects of lockdown will likely hurt public health for years.
The impact of lockdown could account for any observed increases in excess mortality.[33]
*
NEW!16. Babies born during lockdown have lower IQs. A study done at Brown University found that children born after March 2020 had, on average, IQs 21 points lower than previous generations, concluding:
questions remain regarding the impact of the work-from-home, shelter-in-place, and other public health policies that have limited social interaction and typical childhood experiences on early child neurodevelopment.
This mirrors reports in older children (aged 4-5) of stunted development of social skills and inability to read facial cues.
*
Updated17. Hospitals were never unusually overburdened. The main argument used to defend lockdowns is that “flattening the curve” would prevent a rapid influx of cases and protect healthcare systems from collapse. But most healthcare systems were never close to collapse at all.
In March 2020 it was reported that hospitals in Spain and Italy were overflowing with patients, but this happens every flu season. In 2017 Spanish hospitals were at 200% capacity, and 2015 saw patients sleeping in corridors. A JAMA paper from March 2020 found that Italian hospitals “typically run at 85-90% capacity in the winter months”.
In the UK, the NHS is regularly stretched to breaking point over the winter.
As part of their Covid policy, the NHS announced in Spring of 2020 that they would be “re-organizing hospital capacity in new ways to treat Covid and non-Covid patients separately” and that “as a result hospitals will experience capacity pressures at lower overall occupancy rates than would previously have been the case.”
This means they removed thousands of beds.
Yes, during an alleged deadly pandemic, they actually reduced the maximum occupancy of hospitals.
Despite this, the NHS never felt pressure beyond your typical flu season, and at times actually had 4x more empty beds than normal.
In both the UK and US millions were spent on temporary emergency hospitals that were never used.
An article in Health Policy in November 2021 found that, in all of Western Europe, the “surge capacity” of ICU beds was exceeded for only one day – in Lombardy on April 3rd 2020.
*
18. There was a massive increase in the use of “unlawful” DNRs. Watchdogs and government agencies reported huge increases in the use of Do Not Resuscitate Orders (DNRs) in the years 2020-2021.
As early as March 2020, when the “pandemic” was still in its early stages, there were already papers appearing in mainstream journals predicting “unilateral” DNR usage, something which had “rarely had a role prior to Covid”:
clinicians in some health care settings may unilaterally decide to write a DNR order. This latter approach is not uniformly accepted and, prior to COVID-19, it rarely had a role. During this pandemic, however, in extreme situations such as a patient with severe underlying chronic illness and acute cardiopulmonary failure who is getting worse despite maximal therapy, there may be a role for a unilateral DNR to reduce the risk of medically futile CPR to patients, families, and health care workers.
In the US, hospitals considered “universal DNRs” for any patient who tested positive for Covid, and whistleblowing nurses have admitted the DNR system was abused in New York.
In the UK there was an “unprecedented” rise in “illegal” DNRs for disabled people, GP surgeries sent out letters to non-terminal patients recommending they sign DNR orders, whilst other doctors signed “blanket DNRs” for entire nursing homes.
A study done by Sheffield University found over one-third of all “suspected” Covid patients had a DNR attached to their file within 24 hours of hospital admission.
A paper published in the journal “Public Health Frontiers” in May 2021, made the “ethical” case for “unilateral” use of DNRs in Covid patients:
Some countries were forced to adopt a unilateral DNR policy for certain patient groups […] In the current difficult situation…difficult decisions are to be made. Societal rather than individual benefits might prevail.
Blanket use of coerced or illegal DNR orders could account for any increases in mortality in 2020/21.[33]
*
Part V: Ventilators
Updated19. Ventilation is NOT a treatment for respiratory infections. Mechanical ventilation is not, and never has been, recommended treatment for respiratory infection of any kind. In the early days of the pandemic, many doctors came forward questioning the use of ventilators to treat “Covid”.
Writing in The Spectator, Dr Matt Strauss stated:
Ventilators do not cure any disease. They can fill your lungs with air when you find yourself unable to do so yourself. They are associated with lung diseases in the public’s consciousness, but this is not in fact their most common or most appropriate application.
German Pulmonologist Dr Thomas Voshaar, chairman of the Association of Pneumatological Clinics said:
When we read the first studies and reports from China and Italy, we immediately asked ourselves why intubation was so common there. This contradicted our clinical experience with viral pneumonia.
Despite this, the WHO, CDC, ECDC and NHS all “recommended” Covid patients be ventilated instead of using non-invasive methods.
This was not a medical policy designed to best treat the patients, but rather to reduce the hypothetical spread of Covid by preventing patients from exhaling aerosol droplets, this was made clear in officially published guidelines.
*
20. Ventilators kill people. Putting someone on a ventilator who is suffering from influenza, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or any other condition which restricts breathing or affects the lungs, will not alleviate any of those symptoms. In fact, it will almost certainly make it worse, and will kill many of them.
Intubation tubes are a potential source of an infection known as “ventilator-associated pneumonia”, which studies show affects up to 28% of all people put on ventilators, and kills 20-55% of those infected.
Mechanical ventilation is also damaging to the physical structure of the lungs, resulting in “ventilator-induced lung injury”, which can dramatically impact quality of life, and even result in death.
Experts estimate 40-50% of ventilated patients die, regardless of their disease. Around the world, between 66 and 86% of all “Covid patients” put on ventilators died.
According to the “undercover nurse”, ventilators were being used so improperly in New York, they were destroying patients’ lungs:
This policy was negligence at best and potentially deliberate murder at worst. This misuse of ventilators could account for any increase in mortality in 2020/21 [33]
*
Part VI: Masks
Updated21. Masks don’t work. At least a dozen scientific studies have shown that masks do nothing to stop the spread of respiratory viruses.
One meta-analysis published by the CDC in May 2020 found “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”.
A Canadian review from July 2020 found “limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections”.
Another study with over 8000 subjects found masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.”
There are literally too many to quote them all, but you can read them: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Or read a summary by SPR here.
While some studies have been done claiming to show mask do work for Covid, they are all seriously flawed. One relied on self-reported surveys as data. Another was so badly designed that a panel of experts demanded it be withdrawn. A third was withdrawn after its predictions proved entirely incorrect.
The WHO commissioned its own meta-analysis in the Lancet, but that study looked only at N95 masks and only in hospitals. [For a full rundown on the bad data in this study click here.]
Aside from scientific evidence, there’s plenty of real-world evidence that masks do nothing to halt the spread of disease.
For example, North Dakota and South Dakota had near-identical “case” figures, despite one having a mask mandate and the other not:
In Kansas, counties without mask mandates actually had fewer Covid “cases” than counties with mask mandates. And despite masks being very common in Japan, they had their worst flu outbreak in decades in 2019.
Not only do masks not work, but it was widely known they did not work before 2020.
A 2016 literature review published in the Journal of Oral Health found:
there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection.
(This study was quietly removed from the journal’s website in June 2020, because it was “no longer relevant in the current climate”.)
Another study, published in 2020 but carried out in 2019, found:
no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
In his 2020 review, “Masks Don’t Work”, Dr Denis Rancourt cites studies from 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016, 2017 and 2019…none of which found any significant benefit at all from wearing a mask.
And, most tellingly, in their own report on influenza from 2019, the WHO itself noted that:
there is no evidence that [masks are] effective in reducing transmission
*
Updated22. Masks are bad for your health. Wearing a mask for long periods, wearing the same mask more than once, and other aspects of cloth masks can be bad for your health. A long study on the detrimental effects of mask-wearing was recently published by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Dr. James Meehan reported in August 2020 he was seeing increases in bacterial pneumonia, fungal infections, and facial rashes.
Masks are also known to contain plastic microfibers, which damage the lungs when inhaled and may be potentially carcinogenic.
Childen wearing masks encourages mouth-breathing, which results in facial deformities.
People around the world have passed out due to CO2 poisoning while wearing their masks, and some children in China even suffered sudden cardiac arrest.
Moreover, masks may actually increase the likelihood of respiratory disease, a trial of cloth masks from 2015 found that:
Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in an increased risk of infection.
While a new study published in July 2022 found that masks, especially those worn more than once, were breeding grounds for both bacteria and fungal microbes.
Another peer-reviewed paper on mask effectiveness, from April 2022, found:
While no cause-effect conclusions could be inferred from this observational analysis, the lack of negative correlations between mask usage and COVID-19 cases and deaths suggest that the widespread use of masks […] was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Moreover, the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.
*
Updated23. Masks are bad for the planet. Millions upon millions of disposable masks have been used per month for over a year. A report from the UN found the Covid19 pandemic will likely result in plastic waste more than doubling in the next few years., and the vast majority of that is face masks.
The report goes on to warn these masks (and other medical waste) will clog sewage and irrigation systems, which will have knock-on effects on public health, irrigation and agriculture.
A study from the University of Swansea found “heavy metals and plastic fibres were released when throw-away masks were submerged in water.” These materials are toxic to both people and wildlife.
Another study, published in 2022, found that:
disposable face masks and plastic gloves could pose an ongoing risk to wildlife for tens if not hundreds of years.
*
Part VII: Vaccines
24. Covid “vaccines” are totally unprecedented. Before 2020 no successful vaccine against a human coronavirus had ever been developed.
Following the advent of “Covid”, we allegedly made over 20 of them in 18 months.
Scientists have been trying to develop a SARS and MERS vaccine for years with little success. Some of the failed SARS vaccines actually caused hypersensitivity to the SARS virus. Meaning that vaccinated mice could potentially get the disease more severely than unvaccinated mice. Another attempt caused liver damage in ferrets.
Whereas the theory behind traditional vaccines is that exposing the body to a weakened strain of a microorganism will trigger an immune response, many of these new Covid “vaccines” are mRNA vaccines.
mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines theoretically work by injecting viral mRNA into the body, where it replicates inside your cells and encourages your body to recognise, and make antigens for, the “spike proteins” of the virus.
mRNA vaccines have been the subject of research since the 1990s, but before 2020 no mRNA vaccine was ever approved for use on humans.
Yet, following the advent of Covid, two different companies made two supposedly “safe and effective” mRNA vaccines within weeks of each other.
*
Updated25. “Covid vaccines” do not confer immunity or prevent transmission. It is readily admitted that Covid “vaccines” do not confer immunity from infection and do not prevent you from passing the disease onto others. Indeed, an article in the British Medical Journal highlighted that the vaccine trials were not designed to even try and assess if the “vaccines” limited transmission.
The vaccine manufacturers themselves, upon releasing the untested mRNA gene therapies, were quite clear their product’s “efficacy” was based on “reducing the severity of symptoms”.
In October 2022 Pfizer executive Janine Small, testifying in front of the EU parliament, admitted that Pfizer never even tested if their vaccine prevented transmission of “Covid” prior to its release to the public.
*
Updated26. The vaccines were rushed and have unknown long-term effects. Vaccine development is a slow, laborious process. Usually, from development through testing and finally being approved for public use takes many years. The various vaccines for Covid were all developed and approved in less than a year.
Moderna’s own website admits “it normally takes 10-15 years to develop a vaccine”, but boasts of producing their SpikeVax “within 2 months”
Obviously, there can be no long-term safety data on chemicals that are less than a year old.
Pfizer even admits this is true in the leaked supply contract between the pharmaceutical giant, and the government of Albania:
the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known
Further, none of the vaccines have been subject to proper trials. Many of them skipped early-stage trials entirely, and the late-stage human trials have either not been peer-reviewed, have not released their data, will not finish until 2023 or were abandoned after “severe adverse effects”.
*
27. Vaccine manufacturers have been granted legal indemnity should they cause harm. The USA’s Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) grants immunity until at least 2024.
The EU’s product licensing law does the same, and there are reports of confidential liability clauses in the contracts the EU signed with vaccine manufacturers.
The UK went even further, granting permanent legal indemnity to the government, and any employees thereof, for any harm done when a patient is being treated for Covid19 or “suspected Covid19”.
Again, the leaked Albanian contract suggests that Pfizer, at least, made this indemnity a standard demand of supplying Covid vaccines:
Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer […] from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses
*
NEW!28. Covid “vaccines” carry a significant risk of adverse side effects. The experimental Covid vaccines have potentially caused dozens of severe conditions in millions of people. These include myocarditis (especially in young boys), blood clots, allergic reactions, skin conditions, Bell’s Palsy, menstrual irregularities and more. [For a detailed breakdown of these conditions, click here]
The US CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has received twice as many reports since the covid vaccine rollout than all previous years combined.
Source: OpenVAERS
*
Part VIII: Mortality Data
Updated29. The survival rate of “Covid” is over 99%. Government medical experts went out of their way to underline, from the beginning of the pandemic, that the vast majority of the population are not in any danger from Covid.
……………………
Continue Reading HERE…
Mortality Data – Planning & Deception – Motives & Profits – Conclusion
40 Facts You NEED to Know: The REAL Story of “Covid”
The Free 
