The most sensational fact of the whole COVID-19 affair is that
the data on the basis of which
the drastic measures were taken
(Society lockdown)
on the occasion of the 2020 Coronavirus epidemic
WAS CLEARLY WRONG
(as the institutions later admitted)
.
That is,
if we had paid attention to the real data,
drastic measures such as the Society lockdown
would not have been taken,
AND LIFE WOULD BE CONTINUED
AS ON THE OCCASION OF ALL THE INFLUENCES
of the past years (while now the Western Society is at the most critical point of the last century).
It therefore
seems necessary to put us in a condition
in which this does not happen again.
(but unfortunately, seeing how government institutions have continued to support the thesis of the need for a state of emergency even after weeks that it was clarified that the emergency had no reason to exist, it seems likely that this situation will happen again in the future).
.
And if we want to make sure that the institutions do not create catastrophic damage again today, it is necessary to ask
how it was that the state of emergency was declared
– which caused catastrophic damage to society –
even if Institutions could not have known
that in reality was there no emergency?
1) THE SCIENTIFIC QUESTION: HOW WRONG (FALSE) DATA WAS DIFFUSED
Why the Institutions (for example WHO and national managers such as Dr Fauci) who should have known that the data they disclosed were they wrong,y declared to the emergency situation?
The erroneousness of the data disclosed by the “scientific” Institutions was already evident when the Lockdown measures were taken: there were already important scientific Institutions which had announced that they had detected that it was a simple influence (see a list of souces in the next paragraphs).
It was already known that it was a disease that could be dangerous only for particularly vulnerable people such as the elderly, and people afflicted by other serious diseases (the institutions that published these results were the ones that had more say than others, because for example because they were the Nations that had already passed the epidemic brilliantly).
.
In summary, here is what initially the most authoritative sources showed:
● Countries that, like South Korea and Taiwan, were the first to be affected by the epidemic, and have solved the problem in the quickest and most effective way: it is a normal flu [see “Coronavirus cases have dropped sharply in South Korea. What’s the secret to its success?” – sciencemag.org]
● the most authoritative sources such as the Scientists who faced the spread of the epidemic at the forefront, such as Dr. Gismondo, director of the most important laboratory of analysis of the swabs of Cornonavi rus in Italy [see Article] said from the beginning that it was a normal flu.
.
This picture of a “not worrying normal influence” was subsequently confirmed by authoritative scientific studies – published in the reference scientific journals – which further demonstrated the falsity of those original data (these new studies will continue for years, see updates on “HOLISTICA Coronavirus monitoring”):
● already at the end of March on the Lancet – Wikipedia:” the world’s oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals “- a group of Scientists demonstrates how the data released to justify measures such as lockdown are highly erroneous. see Article on Lancet]
And a group of scientists presents a study to the German government that comes to the same conclusions (in both cases the death rates presented will further decrease with the collection of new data) [see this Article] [
● studies on “closed environments”, in which it is easy to produce statistics, confirm that Coronavirus is a normal influence: see the studies on the Diamond Princess cruise ship (quarantined).
● admissions of institutions such as the WHO through the Italian representative [see the Article]
● the revelations from those who made mass esting (as South Korea did at the beginning, and as other countries did) it turned out that the millions were infected, and therefore the percentage of deaths was extremely lower than to that previously indicated [initially a percentage of 3.4% was indicated, but then it was verified that it is actually 0.1%, or an ordinary influence).
.
From a purely rational point of view, the fact that institutions and people (e.g. WHO or the head of Dr. Fauci) have continued to support the state of emergency can only mean one of two things:
● or they have low intelligence,
● or they are driven by specific interests that do not coincide with those of the Citizens.
.
Note that
● the responsibilities to be attributed to the institutions (WHO, Dr. Fauci, government institutions and parties that have supported the lockdown even after the emergence of the truth about Coronavirus, etc …) are not less in the case of incompetence (or “poor intelligence “), Since the damage was done in any case…
● that carried out by the “scientific” Institutions is a real manipulation of data, since Citizens were made to believe that Lockdown measures were really necessary.
The case of the USA is particularly significant: President Trump’s idea was that there was no need to implement special measures, but the “scientific” institutions – Dr Fauci – made him believe that if it had not declared the lockdown he would been responsible for 2.2 million deaths). <see Article>
Of course
political leaders who continued to support the Society lockdown thesis after the end of March 2020 are still responsible for continuing to produce a narrative
aimed at convincing the populations that things were much more serious than they were in. reality, and therefore that the “repression” measures implemented against them were necessary (note that in this case the civil rights enshrined in the Constitutions were suspended!).
.
Another important responsibility of the institutions has emerged: them (for example the CDC – US health protection agency) have forced hospitals to include in the list of Coronavirus deaths people on whom they had not done any tests (and who could be many for other reasons). see Sources
What are the various consequences of data “manipulation” on Coronavirus?
The state of emergency (the Society lockdown) is the most evident result of the error made by those who have not consulted data based on scientific evidence.
But such “manipulated” data disseminated by the institutions (knowingly or not) have created other problems, such as the more subtle one: the lack of awareness of people about the actual reality (that is, about the falsity of data). Problem that has continued over time thanks to the support of the mainstream media, which
put people in condition
to perceive a danger as real
which in fact does not exist.
<see The emergency that does not exist (Dr. Fauci as Orson Welles)>
Or
“false truths” were created in people’s heads,
under which they have profoundly changed,
in a negative way,
their way of life.
What are the false truths of the institutions?
Some of these falsehoods:
■ false – Coronavirus mortality is very high: in reality the numbers (the death rate) tell us that it was a normal influence (this is confirmed by data published later) see Sources
.The fact is that the numbers of deaths due to normal flu (identical to those of the Coronavirus) are not usually published, and therefore those who see them for the first time are horrified: that is
in previous years no one thought
of bringing the populations into poverty
to avoid the spread of an epidemic of flu.
The problem is twofold:
● previous years, nothing has been done to reduce flu deaths (which could have been done by providing the elderly with equipment such as portable respirators – on Amazon for 500 $ – or devices for telemedicine applications).
● this year measures have been taken that have produced catastrophic consequences for populations: consequences that not only significantly lower the quality of life of people, but which are responsible for many deaths that would not have happened without such measures.
Note that in reality not only the other years the same number of people died from the flu: similar figures are those of annual deaths for many other causes against which the governmental institutions have never tried to remedy (the number more significant is that of hospital deaths due to treatment errors – both in Italy and in the USA).
.
■ false – the problem of the danger of contagion: the specter of the danger of contagion was used both originally, for the current lockdown, and subsequently to delay the opening of the company.
But
in reality there is no “danger” of the infection,
as:
– there is only the possibility of taking a normal flu (which for the vast majority of people is asymptomatic, and which can actually be dangerous for 1% of people, vulnerable subjects who die of influenza every year – people that with the lockdowns were practically sentenced to die).
– the outbreak of influenza epidemics is practically unavoidable: as has been shown by the statistics that emerged in the case of Coronavirus, most of the population had already contracted the disease (which developed asymptomatically) before the start of the lockdown.
.
Having operated thinking about the “danger of contagion” has produced paradoxical consequences: in 2020 a part of the population did not catch the virus and therefore the epidemic has a longer course, since by reopening the society the virus starts to infect those who are not was still infected (in previous years, which the entire population was immunized for taking the virus – mostly asymptomatically).
Recall that letting the virus spread can produce fewer deaths than in previous years if you start taking precautions to protect vulnerable individuals.
.
■ false – the need to test the population: the need to “map” – as with tests whit swabs –
seems to be necessary
just because the fake data released by the institutions
mistakenly made you think
that the spread of this influence
is a danger to society.
But it has actually been proven that
– the spread of the virus is not a problem (where the most vulnerable individuals are protected), but it is indeed the way to ensure that the flu epidemic is extinguished.
– the virus spreads with such rapidity that it is not possible to trace its diffusion (in reality it has emerged that when Institutions intervenes to “fight the virus” a large part of the population was already infected, although never showing symptoms)
– who is “positive” on the test represents only a danger for the most vulnerable individuals (who are 1% of the population, and are easily identifiable). While it does not represent any danger for the Society in general (vulnerable individuals can be protected with non-catastrophic measures such as those related to lockdown).
One thing that is not taken into account is that a vulnerable individual – in a real Democracy – must be able to decide to take a risk for his own health: that is, he must be able to decide whether to choose a condition of hyper-protection or a condition that allows him to enjoy the last years of one’s life, for example, freely seeing grandchildren (remember that if older people have the right tools at home, they don’t risk so much) [see interview with the vice governor of Texas]
.
■ false – a vaccine is required to implement a full reopening of the Society.
– The vaccine for any form of flu is a utopia (in fact it is an ideology: an ideal that cannot be achieved, but which is used to achieve a given goal).
The vaccine cannot be created because Coronavirus (the flu virus) changes rapidly, and the vaccine is extremely targeted, and cannot work on the mutated virus. So, as it takes several months to develop a vaccine, it will always be “late” (when the vaccine is released, the next flu epidemic will already be underway, caused by a mutated virus that will no longer be intercepted by that vaccine).
– by observing the maps of the most serious outbreaks of Coronavirus (such as that of Bergamo, Lombrarida, Italy) it is noted that these outbreaks correspond to areas where the institutions have carried out massive vaccination campaigns.
– it should also be borne in mind that the vaccine is significantly less effective for older people (over 70 years of age). [see Article]
