During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a clear and coordinated effort by the establishment to propagate a certain narrative – one that does not align with reality.
This has been done using three main tools – 1. The media, 2. Social media platforms, and 3. So called ‘independent’ fact-checkers (many of which are funded by the likes of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which also happens to fund many of the labs making the COVID-19 vaccine).
The mainstream media, by reporting only on certain aspects of an issue or ignoring the issue (and yes, the science) outright, has denied the public access to important and necessary information.
Identified in this article are six aspects of the pandemic that urgently need balanced and honest reporting.
1. The Effectiveness of Face Masks
Many countries around the world have mandated the wearing of face masks. We are told that these mandates are in line with “the science”, but is that really true?
The highest quality research on mask effectiveness for combating COVID-19 that we currently have available is a large-scale, Danish randomized controlled trial. The study found masks to have no measurable effect on preventing COVID-19 transmission.
This aligns with previous RCT studies done on face masks for preventing influenza and influenza-like illness which all yielded similar results. It should be noted that randomized controlled trials are the accepted gold standard when it comes to effectiveness research.
Up until April 2020, the WHO itself explicitly cautioned against the use of face masks in the community setting citing lack of evidence.
This begs the question, what ‘science’ is being followed that backs the widespread use of face masks? As stated by both Dr. Denis Rancourt and Dr. Carl Heneghan from the Center for Evidence Based Medicine, studies showing positive effects are either observational studies heavily prone to bias, or computer models with no bearing on reality.
In fact, a recent observational study on masks had to be withdrawn because the reported decrease in infection rate was reverted.
So why were masks mandated in the first place? Why do they continue to be enforced when the evidence clearly shows they don’t work and may be harmful to health? Besides the ‘follow the science’ rhetoric, what rationale do governments/health authorities have for enforcing their use?
 https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331693/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.3-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (page 1, ”Community settings”)
The continual endorsement of lockdowns by the media represents not only a lack of investigative research but a criminal agenda to deceive the public.
While many reporters claim that it is the virus responsible for threatening our democracy, this is not so. Currently, the biggest threats to freedom and democracy are the incompetent politicians and advisors who continually deny the science in favour of implementing senseless restrictions.
A recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers of Public Health found that the stringency of measures put in place to fight the pandemic, including lockdowns, did not correlate with a lower COVID-19 death rate.
Irish engineer and nutrition expert, Ivor Cummins has put together a startling collection of scientific studies – 40 at the time of writing – that show lockdowns to either be a) ineffective and/or b) incredibly dangerous.
As an example, many excess cancer deaths are predicted to occur in the UK due to the reduction in cancer detection and treatment. Collateralglobal.org has created a comprehensive repository for similar studies with a focus on the collateral damage lockdowns have or will cause. At the time of writing, there are in excess of 90 such studies.
Professor David Nabarro from the WHO made a plea to world leaders to stop using lockdowns as the primary tool for controlling the virus. He also said that we may have a doubling of world poverty and child malnutrition by next year.
Why are governments instituting lockdowns if they are not backed by science and are causing poverty and death far in excess of what would have occurred otherwise? Why have the media not criticised such draconian and destructive measures?
3. Mortality Statistics
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality data has been reported in such a way as to incite fear and panic. No attempt has been made by the media to put mortality statistics into context and present the public with a well-rounded picture of the overall impact of COVID-19 on daily mortality, which has been miniscule.
For example, mortality data provided by Euromomo show that the majority of countries in Europe have had no excess mortality this year, yet this is never reported by the media.
Massive inconsistencies in worldwide COVID cases counts and mortality has also been completely ignored by mainstream media. For example, an examination of COVID mortality by British mathematician Andrew Mather reveals the virus to be 166x more deadly in the West than in the far East. This defies all logic and as yet there is no sufficient explanation for why this is the case.
When comparing New York City and Singapore, two densely populated cities, Mather notes that the death rate per 100m population is almost 500x higher in New York City. Despite these analyses being extremely simple to carry out, the media have refused to investigate this or even comment on these suspiciously huge differences in COVID mortality around the world.
Another inconsistency (out of many) pointed out by Mather is that in the UK, the peak for cases and the peak for deaths occurred on the same date, indicating no delay between a COVID diagnosis, hospitalization and death. This kind of statistical impossibility would indicate a problem with death reporting or even outright fraud.
Another question being ignored is why is it that some of the world’s most powerful first world nations, with the best healthcare systems (USA, UK, Belgium) are the worst hit when it comes to COVID cases and mortality? Yet countries in Africa and Southeast Asia, where poverty, dense living conditions, and malnutrition is commonplace, have been largely unaffected. This makes no logical sense.
Finally, in most countries that counted excess mortality, it is limited to a brief and sharp spike early in the year (usually around April). This is highly anomalous and does not correspond with a viral cause.
Investigative journalist Torsten Engelbrecht and medical doctor Claus Kohnlein have identified the increased use of potentially dangerous pharmaceutical drugs as a likely culprit.
Why have authorities and journalists not realized that 3/4 of the world has virtually no COVID? Why is there no explanation for the discrepancy in death rates between the West and the far East? Why have authorities made it seem that ‘COVID-19’ is the only cause of excess mortality without considering other factors like the overuse of ventilators and antiviral drugs?
References (mortality statistics)
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gor5CGWN4r0 (all parts)
4. Virus Existence and Infectivity
It seems to be the case that many people who lambaste others for questioning the pathogenicity or indeed existence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus have themselves neglected to analyse the science with a critical eye. In fact, many journalists are content to blindly accept the words of doctors or other so-called ‘experts’ without doing any research themselves.
This is not ‘truth’ or ‘science’, it is faith. This problem is compounded by a century of germ theory dogma, propagated by the pharmaceutical industry and mainstream medical schools.
Virologists accept that to prove the existence of a virus, you must purify the viral particles. In fact, in Brent Leung’s documentary on the HIV virus, he asks Dr. Luc Montagnier what the purpose of purification is. Montagnier explicitly answers, “to make sure you have a real virus”.
Purification refers to removing all substances and cellular debris so that you are left with a solution containing pure virions. Once you have obtained a pure sample of virions, these should then be inoculated into animals and reisolated to prove they are infectious. Although the method of purification (density gradient centrifugation) is described in virology textbooks, we are yet to locate a study where it has been carried out for SARS-Cov-2.
Without purification, the SARS-Cov-2 virus cannot be sequenced from end to end and fully chemically described. Indeed, studies reveal that the virus’s genome was pieced together using computer algorithms and decided by “consensus”.
To labour this point about purification, Fredricks and Relman, in their paper titled Sequence-Based Identification of Microbial Pathogens: a Reconsideration of Koch’s Postulates, state that (emphasis added): “…with only amplified sequence available, the biological role or even existence of these inferred microorganisms remains unclear.”.
Though These sequences are claimed to be unique to a novel virus called SARS-Cov-2, this is unprovable without purification. And even then, proper control experiments would need to be carried out to confirm this. In fact, many of these sequences are direct matches for genes found in other microbes or human chromosomes.
Some scientists have gone one step further to claim that SARS-Cov-2 has not only been proven to exist and be infective/pathogenic but also satisfies Koch’s postulates. This cannot be the case, because as stated by Fredricks and Relman, “The absence of a purified intact microorganism prevents experimental reproduction of disease (Koch’s third postulate).”
There are further (glaring) inconsistencies with studies that claim to satisfy the postulates. Dr. Andrew Kaufman, who has experience conducting medical research, has conducted an in-depth analysis of such studies and subsequently labelled them as scientific/medical fraud.
The CDC study referenced earlier states that cytopathic effects were only observed in monkey kidney cells and not in human cell lines, a highly anomalous finding with no sufficient explanation.
Furthermore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that electron microscope images claimed to show the SARS-Cov-2 virus particles actually show extracellular vesicles or ‘exosomes’.
Previous studies have noted the similarity in morphology, function, and composition of ‘viruses’ and exosomes. Exosomes are also known to be released by cells when they are under stress from toxins, including antibiotics, which are added to cell cultures in most SARS-Cov-2 studies.
Some experts have postulated that all so-called ‘viruses’ are really exosomes and instead of being the cause of disease, they are produced as a consequence of it.
Therefore, the existence of SARS-Cov-2 is uncertain and there is no evidence to suggest it causes COVID-19.
Is the SARS-Cov-2 ‘virus’ merely a concept born from computer modeling, PCR testing, and predictive genetic sequencing? Why has the virus not been purified? Where is the proof that sequences claimed to come from a new virus aren’t from microbes or products of metabolism? Where is the evidence to suggest the ‘virus’ causes illness? Why have adequate control experiments not been performed?
 White DO, Fenner FJ. (1986). Medical Virology. San Diego, Academic Press. pp. 655.
 http://theperthgroup.com/OTHER/ENVCommentary.pdf (page 16 & 37)
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY1cmB8T_1I (& “The Contagion Myth” book)
In a letter written by the Perth Group concerning the existence of the HIV virus, they write the following (the logic holds true for SARS-Cov-2 as well):
“[without purification] how can one know that the “HIV” proteins and nucleic acids belong to this virus and not to the impurities such as other viruses or non-viral material?”
“[without purification] how can one claim that the effects, if any of “HIV” are caused by “HIV” and not by impurities?”
The original PCR test used to detect SARS-Cov-2 was developed by a German scientist called Christian Drosten. The test was developed before the release of virus sequences and the authors state that they (emphasis added) “relied on social media reports announcing detection of a SARS-like virus. We thus assumed that a SARS-related CoV is involved in the outbreak.”
It’s important to understand what this means. A test that has been used to diagnose millions of people around the world was created without any clinical evidence of a new virus. At best this is unscientific and irresponsible. At worst it is blatant fraud. In fact, a recent scientific report has emerged heavily criticizing this paper and providing evidence of “several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws”.
As discussed earlier, lack of purification means it’s impossible to discern from where these sequences really originated. Furthermore, neither professor Drosten nor the Chinese virologists carried out the necessary control experiments to test whether these sequences were ‘viral’ in origin or part of normal human metabolism. Virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka has outlined what such controls would look like and insists that such an experiment would bring an abrupt halt to the pandemic.
In Tanzania, the president dismissed PCR tests as faulty when samples from both a goat and a papaya returned a positive result[4.
Another factor that greatly affects the accuracy of PCR testing is the ‘cut off’ value, also called Ct. Even if we assume the sequences being tested do in fact come from a virus, then the higher the Ct value, the greater the chance of a false-positive result.
Doctor Anthony Fauci has admitted that a Ct over 35 is problematic while failing to realize that the FDA itself recommends a CT of 40. This important fact has been completely ignored by the media and global health authorities, many of which have not openly stated at what Ct their PCRs are set.
A study published in The Lancet estimated the false positive rate in the UK to be between 0.8% and 4%. Although this may seem low, when taking into account the low prevalence of the virus, this could amount to a significant proportion of false positives.
Thankfully, the PCR testing charade may begin to fall apart as a Portuguese court recently ruled the tests “unreliable”.
Seeing as lockdowns and other restrictions are being put into place on the back of high COVID “case” counts (i.e. positive tests), why have these glaring problems with testing not been addressed? Why have authorities relied on fraudulent tests to make important decisions and policies that affect millions of people’s lives? Why have the media been silent?
Throughout this entire ‘pandemic’ health authorities have told us that the only way to combat the spread of the ‘virus’ is a vaccine. Governments around the world have invested billions of dollars into vaccine development and pharmaceutical companies have been working furiously to get a vaccine ready in record time.
The media has been quick to tell us that vaccine trials have been a roaring success, but is this really true? An article written by Peter Doshi in the British Medical Journal reveals that vaccine trials were not set up to measure the vaccine’s ability to save lives or prevent infection, nor did they measure efficacy in important subgroups, such as the elderly.
It’s also worth noting that immunocompromised individuals, children, and adolescents were largely excluded from the trials. And long-term effects were not assessed.
Finally, Doshi notes that media reports of “95% efficacy” come from a relative risk reduction and not an absolute risk reduction. What does this mean? Essentially, vaccine companies used some creative math to make their vaccine sound really great.
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines, which have never been used before on humans or animals. These vaccines make use of an experimental technology aimed to introduce viral RNA into cells. It is alleged that the cells then manufacture viral proteins against which the immune system can mount a response.
AstraZeneca’s vaccine candidate uses DNA to deliver the viral sequence. With DNA, it has to enter the nucleus first and this presents a host of possible problems. In Moderna’s white paper on mRNA vaccines they state that (emphasis added): “once inside the nucleus, DNA vaccines have a risk of permanently changing a person’s DNA.” Furthermore, AstraZeneca’s vaccines caused two cases of transverse myelitis during trials.
Another shocking fact? Pfizer’s CEO sold millions of dollars in shares shortly after the positive data from their phase 3 trial was announced.
At least five of the COVID-19 candidate vaccines, including the AstraZeneca vaccine, use aborted foetal cells. These cells come from one of two lines – HEK-293 (kidney cells from a foetus aborted in 1972) or PER.C6 (retinal cells from a foetus aborted in 1985).
Vaccine manufacturers Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline both have histories of corruption and fraud. Both companies have paid billions of dollars in fines related to healthcare, bribery, safety, and false claims. Furthermore, vaccine manufacturers will not be liable for any injuries caused by their vaccines and the NHS has announced that GPs in the UK will be paid $16.69 for every shot they administer.
Considering the timeframe in which these vaccines have been developed, it would be downright stupid of anyone to assert that they were safe. The unknown health effects, especially long-term, of such experimental and rushed vaccines should have health authorities and journalists extremely worried, especially considering that they are planned to be administered to millions of people.
In fact, using the human population as guinea pigs for an experimental injection (one that can never be ‘undone’) to protect against what amounts to a sniffle may be the stupidest idea in the history of the world. For those concerned about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, the label ‘anti-vaxxer’ does not apply. Instead, they should be hailed as “common-sensers”.
Finally, it is worth noting the blatant neglect of the role of nutrition and a healthy lifestyle in the prevention of ‘COVID-19’, and indeed all illness.
Governments and health authorities have neglected to educate the public on important matters such as vitamin D sufficiency, a healthy diet, and nutritional supplementation. Vitamin D is deficient in around 60% of the population, causing immunosuppression, and excess inflammation.
Recent research on vitamin D reveals that it should be the standard of care for everyone suffering from the symptoms of COVID-19. Other nutritional interventions have also shown a marked benefit for the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms including intravenous vitamin C.
Studies have also revealed a correlation between zinc deficiency and COVID-19 complications. The media has not only been quiet about these facts but has made a concerted effort to ridicule and discredit any health professional that advocates for alternative treatments.
Why are vaccines hailed as the “only” measure to stop the ‘pandemic’ when it is clear that nutritional interventions are far superior in terms of safety, efficacy, and cost? Why have the dangers of such an experimental injection not been adequately communicated to the public? If the vaccine is ‘safe and effective’ why have vaccine manufacturers refused to be held liable for any injuries caused by it? How can doctors provide ‘informed consent’ if they are being paid to vaccinate people?