The Blog

2020-

2020-12-31 a
MAINSTREAM MENDACITY

Blood in the streets … American People Series
#20 Die, 1967 Faith Ringgold

The Vicious, Fictitious Narratives of 2020

Though I am not a consumer of the mainstream media, this morning I listened to National Propaganda Radio for about two hours to know the progressive mindset at this late hour when liberty hangs in the balance.

Their news readers, bar none, are mendacious and malignant. Pandemic porn poured out of the twin speakers painting a plague scene worthy of Hieronymus Bosch. Their delusions of electoral purity are stronger than ever. Their hatred of Donald Trump and the millions who voted for him is still visceral. They speak fluent Newspeak.

They must be laughing at the credulous rubes they imagine believe their every word.

Their comeuppance is nigh. It will not be enough to tar and feather them.

What should we do with them? And what should we do to the many enemies of liberty who have destroyed so many lives and livelihoods this year?

I shall shun them, treating them like moral lepers and imagining them to be wearing a scarlet letter on their tattered robes. Do with them what you please, but do it quickly.

Below are excerpts from two articles, to highlight their legions of lies. Search here if you seek more.

(please read the entire original)

Who Killed George Floyd?

Minnesota’s attorney general needs to pay attention to the available evidence, which in this case is incontrovertible.

In the death of George Floyd, the State of Minnesota has charged former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin with second-degree murder and former officers Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng, and Tou Thao with aiding and abetting that murder. But, as will be shown in detail below, the physical, scientific, and electronically recorded evidence in the case overwhelmingly and conclusively proves that these defendants are not guilty of the charges and, in fact, played no material role in bringing about Floyd’s death.

Instead, the evidence proves that, when he first encountered the police, George Floyd was well on his way to dying from a self-administered drug overdose. Moreover, far from publicly, brazenly, and against their own self-interest slowly and sadistically killing Floyd in broad daylight before civilian witnesses with video cameras, the evidence proves that the defendants exhibited concern for Floyd’s condition and twice called for emergency medical services to render aid to him. Strange behavior, indeed, for supposedly brutal law officers allegedly intent on causing him harm.

Similarly, the evidence recorded by the body cameras worn by the police conclusively establishes that Floyd repeatedly complained that he couldn’t breathe before the police restrained him on the ground. As documented by Floyd’s autopsy and toxicology reports, his breathing difficulty was caused not by a knee on his neck or pressure on his back, but by the fact that he had in his bloodstream over three times the potentially lethal limit of fentanyl, a powerful and dangerous pain medication known to shut down the respiratory system and cause coma and death. He also had in his system a lesser dose of methamphetamine, which can cause paranoia, respiratory distress, coma, and death.

Beyond those findings, his autopsy disclosed no physical injuries that could in any way account for his demise.

... So why couldn’t Floyd breathe, and how did he die? The clear answers to those questions are to be found in his toxicology report, which overwhelmingly and unerringly supports the conclusion that Floyd’s breathing difficulties and death were the direct and undeniable result of his ingestion of fentanyl mixed with methamphetamine.

... In other words, by the time he first encountered the police, Floyd had already rendered himself a dead man walking and was only minutes away from expiring.

So, who killed George Floyd? He did.

The only crime here has been the prosecution’s shockingly incompetent investigation of Floyd’s death. In charging and continuing to prosecute these defendants, Minnesota’s attorney general has failed to take into account the most important and material evidence in the case, i.e., the fact that Floyd’s inability to breathe started while he was still upright and mobile and the scientific proof that his death was the direct and inescapable result of a massively fatal overdose of a powerful and dangerous drug known to cause, in the words of the toxicology report, “severe respiratory depression, seizures, hypotension, coma and death.”

The proof of the defendants’ innocence is undeniable. But given the violence and rioting that has followed in the wake of Floyd’s death, will it be possible for these defendants to receive justice? In other words, will there be a judge or jury with enough integrity and courage to defy the mob and, in recognition of the clear and overwhelming exculpatory evidence, set these wrongfully accused men free? (read more)

(please read the entire original)

... The Cuckolding

With an earlier, eerily “prescient” Gates Foundation/World Economic Forum pre-game simulation on October 18th, 2019, already in hand, January 10th 2020 dawned, a day that will live in the annals of credulity. WHO “reported” an outbreak in China caused by a “novel” coronavirus. Already, by January 17th, WHO was recommending the Corman-Drosten PCR test as the “gold standard” for detecting C-19, before the paper making the case for it was even published!

Drosten’s own academic bona fides have since been questioned, and that is now being litigated. Certainly, little enough scrutiny was proffered on that front.

By the 21st of January, the paper was submitted to the currently besieged (for their lack of rigor, candor and demonstrated lack of transparency) journal, Eurosurveillance. It was allegedly “peer reviewed” in two days, something specialists say would take at least three months. One of the many “intrigues” surrounding the test, is that when it was being worked on,

the genetic material of the virus still had to be sequenced.

Ergo, without virus material available, the PCR test was designed using the genomic sequence of the 2003 SARS-CoV, alleging “close genetic relatedness” (though in impact on humans, very different viruses). And yet the test seemed to have been worked on since November! Why? And no one has investigated, therefore, how they got such a precise tip-off?

There was also blatant conflict of interest, with probity touting Germany taking noxious ethical short-cuts. Drosten and his co-author Dr. Reusken, are both on the editorial board of afore-said magazine, Eurosurveillance. And to top off the corrosive brew,

the company that developed the test was already
distributing them to the supply chain before the
pandemic was announced!

Into “lockdown” we went, with “positive tests” being conflated with cases. We were being told there was a Molotov cocktail of rising cases, mysterious “asymptomatic” transmission, lack of pre-existing immunity and widespread susceptibility. Except for the first initially, the second is more than doubtful on facts, and the next two are blatantly false. That over 80% of those contracting this virus had no symptoms or mild symptoms was clearly evident but became more a statistical footnote.

Then, it emerged fairly swiftly that mortality followed an age gradient, this was remarked upon by various researchers, eminent ones from Yale and Stanford among them. Our accumulated scientific and public health knowledge (which never included masks or lockdowns) was swatted away, and disinformation and confusion were rampant and magnified through media enablers. And this pandemic follows the course of ‘natural mortality’ rather than afflicting the young as its predecessors did.

Though data, including a perfect “case study” of the Diamond Princess Cruise ship (analyzed impeccably and the findings continue to “hold water” today), contradicted the panic porn, and refuted a “one size fits all approach,” catastrophically governments went for an “umbrella approach,” even when the age profile of above 65 with pre-existing conditions was quite incontestable by then. And the “curve flattening” which justified temporary incursions into liberties, morphed into “eradication” and “permanent war” on a middling pathogen, tarted up through extravagant modeling to seem seminal.

When the projections failed, and when venues that never shut down, were not overwhelmed, particularly Sweden and Japan as instances, they were either scorned or ignored. Sweden’s two year mortality rate in 2019–2020 is one of the lowest in the last 10 years in fact!

Then came June, as everything seemed to be heading towards a manageable norm, the “asymptomatic transmission” mantra was trotted out, “cases” rather than mortality became the new bugaboo. The ludicrous WHO/Corman-Drosten protocol recommended a cycle amplification, Ct setting of 45 (which at that level has also produced positive tests for goats and pawpaw fruit), therefore, allowing the test to “detect” viral debris or “strands” which could not testify to contagiousness or illness at all.

There was also the issue of lab contamination, inherent “false positives” in tests, which all get magnified by mathematical distortion when prevalence in a population goes down, as it has virtually everywhere, amplifying the impact of “every” false positive.

Finally, finally, in the month of November, there was more concerted focus on rapid Antigen tests that actually focus on contagiousness, though these are still being unfairly sidelined of course, as they are cheap, replicable, and accurate — reducing the economic plunder as well as the terror regime, so little to recommend them; despite being championed in the UK, and at Harvard through highly distinguished medical champions.

Numerous scientists have mounted a challenge to the PCR mafia norms, and we await the outcome of their challenge. The grounds for the challenge by 20 plus eminent scientists should be “headline news” everywhere and is not even mentioned in mainstream media.

The quite crippling “10 errors” in the PCR test they
identify are scientifically and medically damning and
any proper peer review would have picked them up
at the outset.

Many of the errors are already catalogued (amplification, false positives, lab contamination, lack of a clear protocol, and more), but a review of the full landscape of concerns is well worth your attention (Corman-Drosten Review Report).

It’s Not the Pathogen!

It has become a quaint affectation to say, “COVID has caused…” and then we have a litany of bankruptcies, medical knock-on effects, mental distress and more.

This is absurd. It has caused nothing, it just “is.”
What has “caused” anything has been our political
and personal response to it.

... Remember, 99.95% recovery rate if you’re under 70. So that this dominates our discourse, our lives, our decision making, our economics, our holidays, our celebrations, our rights, is beyond belief, and our sniveling acquiescence awaiting “deliverance” from “authority” is a chilling demonstration of how readily “free” people can surrender to being dominated — anything other than having to think. Ergo, we harken back to Eric Fromm’s monumental discussion of how the most advanced and developed nation in Europe succumbed to the frothing extremities of Hitler’s National Socialism. And it was entitled, Escape from Freedom.

And if the question were to be put, does mass incarceration of citizens, strangling your economy, and blowing up educational opportunity, “save” lives? Very few would automatically say “yes!” Study after study shows “lockdown” has produced no benefit.

There was The Lancet in July, a weekly peer reviewed medical journal founded in 1823. Fifty countries were studied, and overwhelmingly found no correlation between “lockdown” intensity or timing or perseverance and mortality reductions. In fact, the summary is fairly damning:

“…government actions such as border closures, full
lockdowns, and a high degree of COVID-19 testing
were not associated with statistically significant
reductions in number of critical cases or overall mortality.”

There was also Frontiers in Public Health, in November. Researchers crunched data from 160 countries in the first eight months of the pandemic to determine how various factors (public health, demographics, government policy, economy, environment) correlated to C-19 mortality. Their conclusion again is fairly definitive:

“Stringency of measures settled to find pandemia,
including lockdown, did not appear to be linked to
death rate.”

Less analytical, but with similar findings was the Tel Aviv University study in October (published then) on the website medRxiv in which researchers analyzed mobility data from iPhones and found no statistical link between lockdown severity and C-19 fatalities.

“We would have expected to see fewer C-19 fatalities
in countries with tighter lockdown, but the data reveals
this is not the case.”

All of these were anticipated by an analysis reported in Bloomberg in May from the University of Oxford’s Bavatnik School of Government, which tracked “first wave” stringency measures across Europe (actually if the virus was already wafting around end of 2019, what we are calling “first wave” was most likely “third wave” and only notable for the exacerbation of grief through our misguided policies). Yet again, COVID mortality did not appear to be associated with “lockdown” stringency.

And since most of the “spread” happens in tight, indoor environments, not in germicidal sunshine and air, why “locking” people in was ever considered a bright idea is confounding. And since virtually everyone recovers, and despair and gloom manifestly and measurably inhibit our immune system, why being engaged (and still prudent) and living life would not have been the better bet, or indeed the only sane initial bet before foreclosing the survival of our way of life and the literal economic survival of millions, beggars sanity.

... The vagaries of the vaccines, which can address the very vulnerable at best, and which seem to be stockpiling symptoms and side-effects and have set a hellish precedent for bypassing animal trials and not assessing long term impact, can have a palliative benefit, for some a medical benefit, but it will make no difference overall. One mutation and we’re back in the dock. But then it’s self-constructed, and we really do have the keys. (read more)

______________________

Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL,
______________________