Tag Archives: CDC

The FDA’s Cushy Relationship With The Pharmaceutical Industry

Ryan DeLarme,
September 12th, 2021

People are rushing to tout the recent FDA approval of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine as if it were some great scientific victory. The troubling part is that the institution’s shady history seems to be all but forgotten.

No matter how you slice it, the Pharmaceutical industry is the central engine of the global health establishment. The industry’s larger corporations (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, etc.) provide funding for the FDA, the CDC, the WHO; they do this both directly and through NGOs like the EPDA. It was recently reported that pharmaceutical giants are raking in the money with the sale of their novel and inadequately tested COVID-19 vaccines. Pfizer expects to earn $33.5 billion in 2021. J&J estimates its full-year COVID-19 vaccine sales to be $2.5 billion while Moderna forecasts $19.2 billion. These enormous figures will be grossly surpassed when one considers the forthcoming round of booster shots and the profits those will yield. 

When it comes to lobbying money spent in 2021, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America group ranks number three nationally. Interestingly, the fourth, fifth, and sixth positions are also members of the health establishment. These are the American Hospital Association, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and the American Medical Association, respectively. Pfizer by itself is number 15.

The ties between the FDA and Big Pharma run deep, their relationship has become so symbiotic that neither could exist without the other unless massive reforms were to take place. Big Pharma relies on the FDA to approve and rush their products to market and the FDA relies on Big Pharma to receive its funding. Not only that but there seems to be a revolving door of FDA Commissioners landing on the boards of these Pharmaceutical companies. 

Scott Gottlieb, who stepped down as FDA Commissioner in the spring of 2019, soon found himself sitting comfortably on Pfizer’s board of directors.  Gottlieb’s predecessor, DR. Margaret Hamburg, landed a cushy position on the board of Directors for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Steven Hahn, the former FDA Commissioner under Donald Trump, wound up at Flagship Pioneering; the venture capital firm that launched Moderna. 

The list goes on and on, in fact, 9 out of the last 10 FDA commissioners —representing nearly four decades of agency leadership— have gone on to work for pharmaceutical companies. The lone exception was David Kessler, who joined the ranks in academia before eventually settling in his current position as chair of the board of directors at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Criticism towards the modern medical-industrial complex has triggered many arguments, this is particularly true in the age of COVID. Regardless of whatever stance you take on any medical debate, it is undeniable that the industry operates in the same mafia-esque fashion as the Media, Big Tech, and Big Government.

Infection Fatality “Estimates” For Covid-19 Via CDC: .00003%, .0002%, .005% & .054%

Arjun Walia
September 25th, 2020

The CDC has released “scenarios” based on a set of numerical values for biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 illness, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The emphasize they are are not predictions of estimated impact. Why is there so much conflicting information out there when it coms to COVID-19? Does the politicization of science play a role?

The CDC has a page on their website titled “Covid-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios.” According to them, “Each scenario is based on a set of numerical values for biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 illness, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. These values—called parameter values—can be used in models to estimate the possible effects of COVID-19 in U.S. states and localities. This document was first posted on May 20, 2020, with the understanding that the parameter values in each scenario would be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19.  The September 10 update is based on data received by CDC through August 8, 2020.”

The Pandemic Planning Scenarios according to the CDC, are “designed to help inform decisions by public health officials who use mathematical modeling, and by mathematical modelers throughout the federal government.  Models developed using the data provided in the planning scenario tables can help evaluate the potential effects of different community mitigation strategies (e.g., social distancing).  The planning scenarios may also be useful to hospital administrators in assessing resource needs…”

In their latest update, age-specific estimates of Infection Fatality Ratios have been updated, one parameter measuring healthcare usage has been replaced with the median number of days from symptom onset to positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and a new parameter has been included: Ratio of Estimated Infections to Reported Case Counts, which is based on recent serological data from a commercial laboratory survey in the U.S.

Scenarios 1 through 4 are based on parameter values that represent the lower and upper bounds of disease severity and viral transmissibility (moderate to very high severity and transmissibility). The parameter values used in these scenarios are likely to change as we obtain additional data about the upper and lower bounds of disease severity and the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Scenario 5 represents a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States, with the same caveat: the parameter values will change as more data become available.

The CDC emphasizes the following:

The scenarios are intended to advance public health preparedness and planning.  They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19.  The parameter values in each scenario will be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19.  Additional parameter values might be added in the future (e.g., population density, household transmission, and/or race and ethnicity).

For complete information regarding COVID-19 planning scenarios from the CDC, you can click here.

More Info on COVID-19 Infection/Fatality: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “An important characteristic of an infectious disease, particularly one caused by a novel pathogen like SARS-CoV-2, is its severity, the ultimate measure of which is its ability to cause death. Fatality rates help us understand the severity of a disease, identify at-risk populations, and evaluate quality of healthcare.”

In early August, they provided a scientific brief explaining how it’s calculated, and how difficult it is to calculate and list all of the variables involved. You can read that here.

The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” In their article, they stated the following:

The public has been made aware of the number of COVID-19 deaths and reported cases that have occurred since the beginning of the current pandemic; however, the number of unreported cases has not been widely known or publicized. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that more than one-third of SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that can lead to COVID-19) infections are asymptomatic, meaning that initial estimations of its severity were grossly overestimated. Now, for the first time, Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) has collated data from U.S. antibody studies and produced an educational document outlining how an accurate case-fatality rate (CFR) requires antibody studies in order to guide and measure medical care and public health policies.

Similar to CDC estimations, PIC’s analysis results in a COVID-19 CFR of 0.26%, which is comparable to the CFRs of previous seasonal and pandemic flu periods. “Knowing the CFR of COVID-19 allows for an objective standard by which to compare both non-pharmaceutical interventions and medical countermeasures,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC’s founder and president. “For example, safety studies of any potential COVID-19 vaccine should be able to prove whether or not the risks of the vaccine are less than the risks of the infection.

“Regardless of proof of safety, however, a potential COVID-19 vaccine should only be voluntary, in order to safeguard a patient’s human right to determine what will happen with his or her body,” said Dr. Miller.

You can view the PIC’s educational document assessing COVID-19 severity and how they came to their conclusion, here. Obviously the data is always delayed and things are constantly changing with regards to COVID-19 numbers.

Another variable is the fact that deaths being attributed to COVID-19 may not even be a result of COVID-19. You can read more about that and see some examples here.

John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old, explaining how that number rises significantly for people who are older, as with most other respiratory viruses. You can read more about that and access that here.

Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University, is one of many who have criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus. He has shared his experience thus far:

Almost all of the science we were hearing, for example like organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) was wrong…This has been a disgraceful situation for science..Reports were released openly, shared by email, and all I got back was abuse. And you got to see that everything I said in that first six weeks was actually true and for political reasons, we as scientists let our views be corrupted. The data had very clear things to say. Nobody said to be “let me check your numbers” they all just said “stop talking like that.”

More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19. They are also confused at what’s going on. You can read more about that here.

A common theme during this pandemic has been many of the world’s leading scientists in the field criticizing the measures taken by governments for something that may not be as severe as it’s been made out to be.

An article published in the British Medical Journal  has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus. You can access that and read more about it here

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing, multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way up to today.

Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. – Bhakdi. You can read more about him here.

The Takeaway: We have to ask ourselves, why are so many experts in the field being completely censored. Why is there so much information being shared that completely contradicts the narrative of our federal health regulatory agencies and organizations like the WHO? Why are we being made to believe that there is no solution for this except for a vaccine? Why is it so hard to find out what’s going on these days, and why is there so much conflicting information out there? Does the politicization of science play a role?

CDC: Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

CDC

Note: Provisional death counts are based on death certificate data received and coded by the National Center for Health Statistics as of August 26, 2020. Death counts are delayed and may differ from other published sources (see Technical Notes). Counts will be updated every Wednesday by 5pm. Additional information will be added to this site as available.

List of Topics

  1. Age and sex
  2. Race and Hispanic origin by jurisdiction and by age
  3. Place of death
  4. Comorbidities
  5. Excess deaths
  6. State and county data files

For the Index of Provisional COVID-19 Mortality Surveillance and Ad-hoc Data Files, click here.

Age and sex

Table 1 has counts of death involving COVID-19 and select causes of death by sex and age group for the United States.  For data on sex and age at the state level,  Click here to download.  For data on sex and age by week,  Click here to download.

Data on deaths involving COVID-19 among ages 0–18 are available here:  Click here to download.

Table 1. Deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), pneumonia, and influenza reported to NCHS by sex and age group. United States. Week ending 2/1/2020 to 8/22/2020

https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMTIxNTM3N2QtNjZiNy00NGRhLWE3Y2QtNzBiMzc4YjBhZTg1IiwidCI6IjljZTcwODY5LTYwZGItNDRmZC1hYmU4LWQyNzY3MDc3ZmM4ZiJ9

Race and Hispanic origin

Data by race and Hispanic origin are available at the national, state, and county level. Data by race and Hispanic origin is also available by age at the national and state level. Click here to visit the NCHS Health Disparities: Race and Hispanic origin page.

Place of death

Table 2 presents death counts of COVID-19 and other select causes of death by the place of death. For data on place of death at the state level,  Click here to download.

Table 2. Deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), pneumonia, and influenza reported to NCHS by place of death, United States. Week ending 2/1/2020 to 8/22/2020.*

Comorbidities

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups. For data on comorbidities,  Click here to download.

Table 3. Conditions contributing to deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), by age group, United States. Week ending 2/1/2020 to 8/22/2020.*

Excess deaths

See the NCHS Excess Deaths Data Visualization.

This data visualization presents data on weekly counts of all-cause mortality by jurisdiction of occurrence. Counts of deaths in the most recent weeks are compared with historical trends to determine whether the number of deaths in recent weeks is significantly higher than expected.

State and County Data Files

Weekly Counts of Deaths by State and Select Causes

  • Final data for 2014–2018  – Weekly counts of leading causes of death based on final underlying cause mortality data for years 2014–2018.
  • Provisional data for 2019–2020  – Weekly counts of leading causes of death based on provisional underlying cause mortality data for 2019–2020, updated weekly.

Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts in the United States by County 

  • This file includes deaths involving COVID-19 (coded to ICD–10 code U07.1) and total deaths per county. Counties included in this table had 10 or more COVID-19 deaths at the time of analysis.

Understanding the Numbers: Provisional Death Counts and COVID-19

Provisional death counts deliver the most complete and accurate picture of lives lost to COVID-19. They are based on death certificates, which are the most reliable source of data and contain information not available anywhere else, including comorbid conditions, race and ethnicity, and place of death.

How it Works

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) uses incoming data from death certificates to produce provisional COVID-19 death counts. These include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

NCHS also provides summaries that examine deaths in specific categories and in greater geographic detail, such as deaths by county and by race and Hispanic origin.

COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.

Why These Numbers are Different

Provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Counts by NCHS often track 1–2 weeks behind other data.

  • Death certificates take time to be completed. There are many steps to filling out and submitting a death certificate. Waiting for test results can create additional delays.
  • States report at different rates. Currently, 63% of all U.S. deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, but there is significant variation between states.
  • It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80% of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded by a person, which takes an average of 7 days.
  • Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths.

Things to know about the data

Provisional counts are not final and are subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as more records are received and processed.

Provisional data are not yet complete. Counts will not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for more recent periods. However, we can estimate how complete our numbers are by looking at the average number of deaths reported in previous years.

Death counts should not be compared across states. Some states report deaths on a daily basis, while other states report deaths weekly or monthly. State vital record reporting may also be affected or delayed by COVID-19 related response activities.

For more detailed technical information, visit the Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Technical Notes page.

Zuckerberg, Facebook & Three “Fact-Checkers” Sued For Government Sponsored Censorship

Joe Martino
August 18, 2020

Children’s Health Defense sues Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Inc and three different “fact-checkers” for censoring information CHD shares. Is it time to question our perceptions given the fact may have been shaped by false information coming from the mainstream media and fact checkers?

How much of what you believe is going on within the world’s current events is actually true? Do you think you would make different decisions if your perception was missing important bits of information that change any given story? This is an important question right now, as much of what people think is happening comes from mainstream media or “fact-checkers,” and much of the time, it’s only a small piece to the story that doesn’t truly inform people.

Ongoing Facebook censorship is forcing the hand of independent organizations who have had enough of the platform’s allowance of independent “fact-checkers” to decide what is true and not true on Facebook, and also for unjustly destroying the trust these organizations work for years to build.

What Happened: Children’s Health Defense, led by Robert F Kennedy Jr., has sued Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook INC, and three “fact-checkers” (SCIENCE FEEDBACK, POYNTER INSTITUTE, and POLITIFACT) for censoring CHD’s content on Facebook. CHD cited 1) FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS (BIVENS); 2) LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); 3) RICO FRAUD (18 U.S.C. § 1962); 4) DECLARATORY RELIEF as their official complaints.

As posted on the CHD website:

Facebook acknowledges that it coordinates its censorship campaign with the WHO and the CDC. While earlier court decisions have upheld Facebook’s right to censor its pages, CHD argues that Facebook’s pervasive government collaborations make its censorship of CHD a First Amendment violation. The government’s role in Facebook’s censorship goes deeper than its close coordination with CDC and WHO. The Facebook censorship began at the suggestion of powerful Democratic Congressman and Intelligence Committee Chairman Representative Adam Schiff, who in March 2019 asked Facebook to suppress and purge internet content critical of government vaccine policies. Facebook and Schiff use the term “misinformation” as a euphemism for any statement, whether truthful or not, that contradicts official government pronouncements. The WHO issued a press release commending Facebook for coordinating its ongoing censorship campaign with public health officials. That same day, Facebook published a “warning label” on CHD’s page, which implies that CHD’s content is inaccurate, and directs CHD followers to turn to the CDC for “reliable, up to date information.” This is an important First Amendment case that tests the boundaries of government authority to openly censor unwanted critique of government.

Why It Matters: Many Facebook users are unaware that their perceptions about world events are manufactured by powerful interests and not facts. While people utilize news platforms and social media to get their news, they often don’t have the time nor take the action of verifying the claims from any news source. Mainstream media is often blindly trusted, and anything on Facebook labeled as ‘false’ is filed away in the mental category of “never trust this website or other stories of this same topic.” These perceptions then inform the decisions people make in their lives. Everything from what politicians to support, what products are safe, whether to vaccinate their children, and so on.

Are we allowing powerful corporations, with direct interests in public acceptance and belief in certain ideas to regulate what information is true? Can we honestly say that our beliefs and perceptions around certain current events are grounded in facts? Have we been told all the facts? Or are some left out due to censorship?

The Real World Results of Censorship

The fact that Science Feedback is on this list is somewhat a personal pleasure for me, as here at CE we have dealt a great deal with the ‘fact-checking’ company. They happen to be an organization that all too often uses the ‘strawman claim’ to debunk our material. They look at a piece of content they wish to censor, they then create a claim that isn’t said in the content but relates to the content’s subject, then they proceed to debunk the claim they created. The end result is a grey box on Facebook covering the news content and claiming it’s false. This immediately kills virality and casts a great deal of doubt over our work. Since the vast majority of people don’t read fact-checking ‘debunks’, they never get to see that fact-checkers don’t actually debunk all stories, they simply make it appear that they do.

Fact-checkers have cost our company over a million dollars a year in revenue since 2017, forcing us to have to lay off more than 70% of our staff. They’ve cut traffic to our website by over 90% as well. YouTube did the same on Jan 1st 2018 when they shut off traffic to our videos.

Google also virtually shut off our search engine traffic on May 1, 2020, as seen in the graph below. Prior to this period, they had already been declining our search traffic. This was the most drastic shut-off.

The results of a coordinated effort from major tech companies to censor our work has made it incredibly difficult to provide the trusted high-value service we worked for over a decade to build. Since all of this, we have created our own platform called CETV that is the primary means by which viewers/readers can support our work.

The Takeaway

We will continue to update you with what happens with this court case as it proceeds. The ‘war on consciousness’ and public perception has been ongoing for years, but seems to be culminating as shadow government powers are exposed over the course of time. This public awakening to what happens behind the scenes in our world is a powerful and primary process in the overall evolution of humanity’s consciousness. As we expose and do away with a world built on separation, conflict, and ego, we awaken to a consciousness that wishes to create a world of unity, connection, and thrivability.

Understanding what’s going on here is all part of the process.

“COVID-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless” Says Bulgarian Pathology Association

Arjun Walia,
July 15th, 2020

The Bulgarian Pathology Association has taken the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is “scientifically meaningless.” This comes after the president of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, Dr. Stoian Alexov, said that European pathologists haven’t identified any antibodies that are specific for  SARS-CoV-2.

He criticized the World Health Organization (WHO) and called them “a criminal medical organization” for creating fear and hysteria without, according to him, providing any verifiable scientific proof of a pandemic.  He made these statements sharing his observations in a video interview summarizing the consensus of participants in a webinar on COVID-19 on May 8, 2020, with the European Society of Pathology. It was conducted by Dr. Stoycho Katsarov, chair of the Center for Protection of Citizens’ Rights in Sofia and a former Bulgarian deputy minister of health. The video is on the BPA’s website, which also highlights some of Dr. Alexov’s key points.

This may seem confusing as it goes against information that’s been published. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) claims that “Potent antibodies found in people recovered from COVID-19.” (source) So it’s understandable how many people would not agree with the stance of the association, and claim that it is indeed false, and that’s an understandable perception, but should we dismiss the reasoning? They are experts in their field.

According to Alexov, himself and his colleagues have not been able to determine a different pathology of those whom they’ve examined that have said to have passed away from Covid-19 compared to those who passed away from the flu.

Things become more clear as to why the Association has taken the position it has, when we take a look at the science, and an article that goes into more detail.

Why This Is Important/The Science

Is this “fake news?” No, because it’s quite clear that the Bulgarian Pathology Association does take this stance. The fact that they said “COVID-19 PCR tests are scientifically meaningless” is true. Whether or not they are correct, would obviously be heavily debated given the fact that again, it seems quite clear that antibodies have indeed been identified. Or have they?

So, what’s their reasoning for such a statement?

They cite an article published in “Off Guardian” that makes some very interesting points. Below is a tidbit from what the article has in it, you really have to actually read the article to get a full understanding.  It’s extremely well-sourced, full of detail and uses not only a number of scientific publications to back up their claims, but also statements from a number of scientists in the field. Again, I recommend you read the entire article here to get the full scope of their reasoning.

In it, they state:

So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.

Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.

The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

They go deep into the science as to why they believe what they do.

We also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:

[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”

And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:

I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]

This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2

They then go on to explain a little deeper the science of PCR testing.

In the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel“ file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”

And:

This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

And the FDA admits that:

positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.

Again, it’s easy to see why the Bulgarian Pathology Association cited this article. Once again, to get the full reasoning and picture as to why the testing being used around the world is useless and can’t actually truly identify this virus and people who are infected with it here.

Part of the reason why this information is so shocking to people is that mainstream media has been choosing to only talk about certain topics, thus many people are not aware of how divided the scientific community is on this issue.

The Takeaway

What’s going on here? Prior to reading the article linked in this one, it seems that testing was simple, that you simply test, and get a result. You can test for a current viral infection, or test for antibodies. I was actually suspicious earlier on in the pandemic when I came across a publication suggesting that up to 75 percent of asymptomatic people are actually false positives. (source)

This was my first introduction to the thought that the testing may not be accurate. Then, there are other strange facts like fruit and animals testing positive for the virus, which also hints at foul play. You can read more about that here.

Now recently there are reports of manipulated data coming out of Florida as some labs had their numbers completely wrong.

Why is there so much controversy surrounding this pandemic? Why are experts in this area being censored if their views and research oppose that of the World Health Organization and our federal health regulatory agencies?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves, do we want to keep relying on corrupt organizations for important information about what’s happening? Why does humanity continue to trust organizations that have a lock track record of deceit, fraud and corruption?

Why do we believe that these organizations actually act in humanity’s best interests? Why are claims constantly made by these organizations, and simply believed, even when there is so much evidence that counters what we are getting from them?

Why do we continue to follow their instructions, obey and comply even when it’s not clear if these measures are for the best interests of the individual and the whole?

What is going on here?

These are all very important questions to ask, and the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in a lot more people asking a lot more questions.