humansarefree--2020-07-02--Ron Paul: The Media is Lying About the ‘Second Wave’ of Coronavirus

For months , the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media kept a morbid Covid-19 “ death count ” on their front pages and at the top of their news broadcasts .
The coronavirus outbreak was all about the number of dead .
The narrative was intended to boost governors like Cuomo in New York and Whitmer in Michigan , who turned their states authoritarian under the false notion that destroying people ’ s jobs , freedom , and lives would somehow keep a virus from doing what viruses always do : spread through a population until eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ death count ” was always the headline .
But then all of a sudden early in June the mainstream media did a George Orwell and lectured us that it is all about “ cases ” and has always been all about “ cases.
” Death , and especially infection fatality rate , were irrelevant .
Why ?
Because from the peak in April , deaths had decreased by 90 percent and were continuing to crash .
That was not terrifying enough so the media pretended this good news did not exist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ case ” numbers climbed .
This is not rocket science : the more people you test the more “ cases ” you discover .
Unfortunately our mainstream media is only interested in pushing the “ party line.
” So the good news that millions more have been exposed while the fatality rate continues to decline – meaning the virus is getting weaker – is buried under hysterical false reporting of “ new cases.
” Unfortunately many governors , including our own here in Texas , are incapable of resisting the endless lies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting Americans again through the nightmare of forced business closures , mandated face masks , and restrictions of Constitutional liberties based on false propaganda .
In Texas the “ second wave ” propaganda has gotten so bad that the leaders of the four major hospitals in Houston took the extraordinary step late last week of holding a joint press conference to clarify that the scare stories of Houston hospitals being overwhelmed with Covid cases are simply untrue .
Dr. Marc Boom of Houston Methodist said the reporting on hospital capacity is misleading .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re concerned that there is a level of alarm in the community that is unwarranted right now.
” In fact , there has been much reporting that the “ spike ” in Texas cases is not due to a resurgence of the virus but to hospital practices of Covid-testing every patient coming in for any procedure at all .
If it ’ s a positive , well that counts as a “ Covid hospitalization.
” Why would hospitals be so dishonest in their diagnoses ?
Billions of appropriated Federal dollars are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of “ Covid cases ” they can produce .
As I ’ ve always said , if you subsidize something you get more of it .
And that ’ s why we are getting more Covid cases .
Let ’ s go back to the original measurements used to scare Americans into giving up their Constitutional liberties : the daily death numbers .
Even though we know hospitals have falsely attributed countless deaths to “ Covid-19 ” that were deaths WITH instead of FROM the virus , we are seeing actual deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a half .
Declining deaths are not a great way to push the “ second wave ” propaganda , so the media and politicians have moved the goal posts and decided that only “ cases ” are important .
It ’ s another big lie .
Resist propaganda and defend your liberty .
That is the only way we ’ ll get through this .

by Ron Paul
For months, the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media kept a morbid Covid-19 “death count” on their front pages and at the top of their news broadcasts.
The coronavirus outbreak was all about the number of dead.
The narrative was intended to boost governors like Cuomo in New York and Whitmer in Michigan, who turned their states authoritarian under the false notion that destroying people’s jobs, freedom, and lives would somehow keep a virus from doing what viruses always do: spread through a population until eventually losing strength and dying out.
The “death count” was always the headline.
But then all of a sudden early in June the mainstream media did a George Orwell and lectured us that it is all about “cases” and has always been all about “cases.”
Death, and especially infection fatality rate, were irrelevant. Why?
Because from the peak in April, deaths had decreased by 90 percent and were continuing to crash. That was not terrifying enough so the media pretended this good news did not exist.
With massive increases in testing, the “case” numbers climbed. This is not rocket science: the more people you test the more “cases” you discover.
Unfortunately our mainstream media is only interested in pushing the “party line.”
So the good news that millions more have been exposed while the fatality rate continues to decline – meaning the virus is getting weaker – is buried under hysterical false reporting of “new cases.”
EXCLUSIVE BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Broderick who attacked @GreatGameIndia for Coronavirus Bioweapon story has been fired for plagiarism for the same piece including 11 others.https://t.co/00mRUnBoFX — GreatGameIndia (@GreatGameIndia) June 28, 2020
Unfortunately many governors, including our own here in Texas, are incapable of resisting the endless lies of the mainstream media.
They are putting Americans again through the nightmare of forced business closures, mandated face masks, and restrictions of Constitutional liberties based on false propaganda.
In Texas the “second wave” propaganda has gotten so bad that the leaders of the four major hospitals in Houston took the extraordinary step late last week of holding a joint press conference to clarify that the scare stories of Houston hospitals being overwhelmed with Covid cases are simply untrue.
Dr. Marc Boom of Houston Methodist said the reporting on hospital capacity is misleading.
He said, “quite frankly, we’re concerned that there is a level of alarm in the community that is unwarranted right now.”
In fact, there has been much reporting that the “spike” in Texas cases is not due to a resurgence of the virus but to hospital practices of Covid-testing every patient coming in for any procedure at all. If it’s a positive, well that counts as a “Covid hospitalization.”
Why would hospitals be so dishonest in their diagnoses?
Billions of appropriated Federal dollars are being funneled to facilities based on the number of “Covid cases” they can produce.
As I’ve always said, if you subsidize something you get more of it. And that’s why we are getting more Covid cases.
Coronavirus & The Deep State – UNITAID, Gilead Sciences & WuXi AppTech https://t.co/nRViWOm84F a través de @GreatGameIndia — Erik Del Bufalo (@ekbufalo) June 28, 2020
Let’s go back to the original measurements used to scare Americans into giving up their Constitutional liberties: the daily death numbers.
Even though we know hospitals have falsely attributed countless deaths to “Covid-19” that were deaths WITH instead of FROM the virus, we are seeing actual deaths steadily declining over the past month and a half.
Declining deaths are not a great way to push the “second wave” propaganda, so the media and politicians have moved the goal posts and decided that only “cases” are important. It’s another big lie.
Resist propaganda and defend your liberty. That is the only way we’ll get through this.


humansarefree--2020-07-02--New Video Reveals Planned Parenthood Admitting Under Oath Babies Are Born Alive

PETITION : Demand Planned Parenthood return $ 80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund !
Sign the petition here .
( LifeSiteNews ) – The pro-life investigators of the Center for Medical Progress ( CMP ) released a new video Tuesday containing footage from the sworn testimony of abortion industry officials admitting that they are aware of babies having been born alive , and suggesting that they are murdered soon after .
In the new video , Advanced Bioscience Resources ( ABR ) procurement manager Perrin Larton , one of the figures featured in CMP ’ s very first undercover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fetuses are delivered after attempted abortions “ once every couple months , ” which is a far cry from the prevailaing abortion industry narrative that such cases are extraordinarily rare .
As to whether “ intact ” means a child is still alive when the procurement technician comes in to “ do a dissection ” for the desired tissue samples , Larton denies seeing signs of movement , but admits , “ I can see hearts that are not in an intact POC [ product of conception ] that are beating independently.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nucatola , former Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America ( PPFA ) , who was also seen in the original CMP videos .
Nucatola became infamous for admitting that Planned Parenthood is “ making money off of this ” despite laws against profiting from human tissue , and that abortionists know how to get around the ban on partial-birth abortion .
“ I ’ m sure I have ” had patients deliver a “ nonviable fetus , ” she admits , meaning a “ fetus that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially evasive about defining viability , offering that it depends on a case-by-case basis , based on many criteria , and that it “ depends on where you work.
” She ultimately offers a few examples of factors to consider , most of which are not related to any fatal condition on the part of the baby : “ estimated fetal weight , gestational age , the health of the fetus , ” and , notably , “ the availability of interventions.
” Jon Dunn , CEO of Planned Parenthood Orange & San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only recall one decades-old instance of a baby being delivered alive after an attempted abortion .
In that case , he claims , the child was kept comfortable , and that he or she naturally died in a “ matter of seconds , ” meaning there would not have been time to call 911 for life-saving support anyway .
“ This is something that every obstetrician-gynecologist deals with on rare occasion , ” Dunn says .
“ It is their medical judgment what to do in that circumstance.
” “ How long will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associates to sell living children inside and outside the womb and then kill them through organ harvesting ?
” CMP project lead David Daleiden asked .
“ The DOJ has vigorously prosecuted the sale of eagle body parts .
Surely selling human body parts after cutting them out of an infant with a beating heart is at least as grave of a crime.
” CMP ’ s original bombshell expose of Planned Parenthood ’ s sale of aborted babies ’ body parts occurred late into former President Barack Obama ’ s second term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have to worry about a federal investigation .
Late in 2017 , the Trump administration requested documents from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee ’ s review of the case , which led many pro-lifers to hope Planned Parenthood would finally face justice .
But no charges were ever brought .
In June 2019 , 67 members of Congress wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray seeking an update on the investigation , including why no actions have been taken yet .
Neither the FBI nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the state of the investigation since .

PETITION: Demand Planned Parenthood return $80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund! Sign the petition here.
(LifeSiteNews) – The pro-life investigators of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a new video Tuesday containing footage from the sworn testimony of abortion industry officials admitting that they are aware of babies having been born alive, and suggesting that they are murdered soon after.
In the new video, Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) procurement manager Perrin Larton, one of the figures featured in CMP’s very first undercover videos, says that “intact” fetuses are delivered after attempted abortions “once every couple months,” which is a far cry from the prevailaing abortion industry narrative that such cases are extraordinarily rare.
As to whether “intact” means a child is still alive when the procurement technician comes in to “do a dissection” for the desired tissue samples, Larton denies seeing signs of movement, but admits, “I can see hearts that are not in an intact POC [product of conception] that are beating independently.”
Also testifying under oath was Dr. Deborah Nucatola, former Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), who was also seen in the original CMP videos.
Nucatola became infamous for admitting that Planned Parenthood is “making money off of this” despite laws against profiting from human tissue, and that abortionists know how to get around the ban on partial-birth abortion.
“I’m sure I have” had patients deliver a “nonviable fetus,” she admits, meaning a “fetus that’s not capable of survival.” Nucatola is initially evasive about defining viability, offering that it depends on a case-by-case basis, based on many criteria, and that it “depends on where you work.”
She ultimately offers a few examples of factors to consider, most of which are not related to any fatal condition on the part of the baby: “estimated fetal weight, gestational age, the health of the fetus,” and, notably, “the availability of interventions.”
Jon Dunn, CEO of Planned Parenthood Orange & San Bernardino Counties, testifies that he can only recall one decades-old instance of a baby being delivered alive after an attempted abortion.
In that case, he claims, the child was kept comfortable, and that he or she naturally died in a “matter of seconds,” meaning there would not have been time to call 911 for life-saving support anyway.
“This is something that every obstetrician-gynecologist deals with on rare occasion,” Dunn says. “It is their medical judgment what to do in that circumstance.”
“How long will public authorities permit Planned Parenthood and their associates to sell living children inside and outside the womb and then kill them through organ harvesting?” CMP project lead David Daleiden asked.
“The DOJ has vigorously prosecuted the sale of eagle body parts. Surely selling human body parts after cutting them out of an infant with a beating heart is at least as grave of a crime.”
CMP’s original bombshell expose of Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted babies’ body parts occurred late into former President Barack Obama’s second term, so naturally the abortion giant didn’t have to worry about a federal investigation.
Late in 2017, the Trump administration requested documents from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s review of the case, which led many pro-lifers to hope Planned Parenthood would finally face justice. But no charges were ever brought.
In June 2019, 67 members of Congress wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray seeking an update on the investigation, including why no actions have been taken yet.
Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department has updated the public on the state of the investigation since.


humansarefree--2020-07-02--Forbes Censors Award-Winning Environmentalist’s Apology Over Three-Decade ‘Climate Scare’ – So Here

Forbes Censors Award-Winning Environmentalist’s Apology Over Three-Decade ‘Climate Scare’ – So Here It Is

Forbes has decided to unpublish an article by award-winning climate activist Michael Shellenberger , in which he apologizes “ for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years.
” On behalf of environmentalists everywhere , I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years .
Climate change is happening .
It ’ s just not the end of the world .
It ’ s not even our most serious environmental problem .
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this .
I have been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmentalist for 30 .
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony , and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report , I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public .
Here are some facts few people know : • None The Amazon is not “ the lungs of the world ” • None Fires have declined 25 % around the world since 2003 • None The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — humankind ’ s biggest use of land — hasdeclined by an area nearly as large as Alaska • None The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests , not climate change , explain why there are more , and more dangerous , fires in Australia and California • None Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain , Germany , and France since the mid-1970s • None Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor • None We produce 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter • None Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change • None Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels • None Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “ industrial ” agriculture I know that the above facts will sound like “ climate denialism ” to many people .
But that just shows the power of climate alarmism .
In reality , the above facts come from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by or accepted by the IPCC , the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( FAO ) , the International Union for the Conservation of Nature ( IUCN ) and other leading scientific bodies .
Some people will , when they read this imagine that I ’ m some right-wing anti-environmentalist .
I ’ m not .
At 17 , I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution .
At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women ’ s cooperatives .
In my early 20s I lived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers fighting land invasions .
At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia .
I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network .
At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California .
In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $ 90 billion into them .
Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking out against the climate scare .
Partly that ’ s because I was embarrassed .
After all , I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist .
For years , I referred to climate change as an “ existential ” threat to human civilization , and called it a “ crisis.
” But mostly I was scared .
I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding .
The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public .
I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist , good man , and friend of mine , Roger Pielke , Jr. , a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations .
Why did they do that ?
Because his research proves natural disasters aren ’ t getting worse .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of control .
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “ The world is going to end in twelve years if we don ’ t address climate change.
” Britain ’ s most high-profile environmental group claimed “ Climate Change Kills Children.
” The world ’ s most influential green journalist , Bill McKibben , called climate change the “ greatest challenge humans have ever faced ” and said it would “ wipe out civilizations.
” Mainstream journalists reported , repeatedly , that the Amazon was “ the lungs of the world , ” and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off .
As a result , half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct .
And in January , one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change .
Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is .
I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter .
After we talked about the science she was reassured .
But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus , understandably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to speak out .
I knew that writing a few articles wouldn ’ t be enough .
I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence .
And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book , Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All .
It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism .
At 400 pages , with 100 of them endnotes , Apocalypse Never covers climate change , deforestation , plastic waste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nuclear energy , and renewables .
Some highlights from the book : • None Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress • None The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food , particularly meat , on less land • None The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium • None 100 % renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today ’ s 0.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should want cities , farms , and power plants to have higher , not lower , power densities • None Vegetarianism reduces one ’ s emissions by less than 4 % • None Greenpeace didn ’ t save the whales , switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did • None “ Free-range ” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 % more emissions • None The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial , political , and ideological motivations .
Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests .
Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “ sustainable.
” And status anxiety , depression , and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been , often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Will Apocalypse Never make any difference ?
There are certainly reasons to doubt it .
The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s , and do not seem disposed to stop .
The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever .
But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will , if not come to an end , have diminishing cultural power .
The coronavirus pandemic is an actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” into perspective .
Even if you think we have overreacted , Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe .
Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibilitythrough the repeated politicization of science .
Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform .
Facts still matter , and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications .
Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad for renewables .
The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to .
The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment .
Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists , conservationists , and environmental scholars .
“ Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book , ” writes Richard Rhodes , the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the most important book on the environment ever written , ” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley .
“ We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias , ” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy , Steve McCormick .
“ But too often we are guilty of the same .
Shellenberger offers ‘ tough love : ’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid , self-defeating mindsets .
Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will help develop the ‘ mental muscle ’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful , but an attainable , future.
” That is all I hoped for in writing it .
If you ’ ve made it this far , I hope you ’ ll agree that it ’ s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist , progressive , and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism .
I further hope that you ’ ll accept my apology .

Forbes has decided to unpublish an article by award-winning climate activist Michael Shellenberger, in which he apologizes “for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years.”
On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years . Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:
Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — hasdeclined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture
I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.
In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.
Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.
I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California.
In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions
But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”
But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding.
The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.
I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.
But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”
The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”
Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.
As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.
Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.
I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.
And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.
Some highlights from the book:
Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
“Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants
Why were we all so misled?
In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism
Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.
Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.
The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.
The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.
But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.
The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.
Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibilitythrough the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.
Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications .
Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.
The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.
The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars.
“Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.
“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick.
“But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets.
Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”
That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.
I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.


humansarefree--2020-07-02--Why COVID19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “ positive ” patients , whereby “ positive ” is usually equated with “ infected.
” But looking closely at the facts , the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2 .
At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16 , 2020 , the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said : We have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , test , test.
” The message was spread through headlines around the world , for instance by Reuters and the BBC .
Still on the 3 of May , the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words : Test , test , test — that is the credo at the moment , and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction .
But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts .
And as Walter Lippmann , the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said : “ Where all think alike , no one thinks very much.
” So to start , it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself , the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction ( PCR ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn ’ t .
Moreover , it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with .
Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “ sensitivity ” [ 1 ] and “ specificity ” — by comparison with a “ gold standard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As an example , for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself .
But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake , for example , stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “ How accurate is the [ COVID-19 ] testing ?
” : If we had a new test for picking up [ the bacterium ] golden staph in blood , we ’ ve already got blood cultures , that ’ s our gold standard we ’ ve been using for decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test against that .
But for COVID-19 we don ’ t have a gold standard test.
” Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this .
In her paper “ Interpreting a COVID-19 test result ” , published recently in The British Medical Journal , she writes that there is a “ lack of such a clear-cut ‘ gold-standard ’ for COVID-19 testing.
” But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis , or instead of pointing out that only a virus , proven through isolation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard , Watson claims in all seriousness that , “ pragmatically ” COVID-19 diagnosis itself , remarkably including PCR testing itself , “ may be the best available ‘ gold standard ’ .
” But this is not scientifically sound .
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test , there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19 , as even people such as Thomas Löscher , former head of the Department of Infection and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and member of the Federal Association of German Internists , conceded to us [ 2 ] .
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19 , COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson ’ s statement — can not be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard .
In addition , “ experts ” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation , i.e .
an unequivocal virus proof , can be the gold standard .
That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “ may be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19 , and also whether the virus itself , that is virus isolation , wouldn ’ t be the best available/possible gold standard .
But she hasn ’ t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests .
And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points , either , though she wrote us on June 2nd : “ I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being of viral origin Now the question is : What is required first for virus isolation/proof ?
We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from .
As textbooks ( e.g.
, White/Fenner .
Medical Virology , 1986 , p. 9 ) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state , particle purification — i.e .
the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object , as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus , and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus .
The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive , which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it can not determine where these particles came from .
That has to be determined beforehand .
And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences ( in this case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a RNA virus ) , we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus .
And to know that , correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed .
Hence , we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses .
But not a single team could answer that question with “ yes ” — and NB.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step .
We only got answers like “ No , we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification ” ( see below ) .
We asked several study authors “ Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus ?
” , they gave the following responses : Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs ( EMs ) is the end result of the experiment , meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles , then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral .
( In this context , it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “ isolation ” in their papers , but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation ( purification ) process .
Consequently , in this context the term “ isolation ” is misused ) .
Thus , the authors of four of the principal , early 2020 papers claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris , pure or impure , or particles of any kind .
In other words , the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith , not fact .
We have 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” [ 3 ] 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
In addition , there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19 .
In order to establish a causal connection , one way or the other , i.e .
beyond virus isolation and purification , it would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that satisfies the four Koch ’ s postulates .
But there is no such experiment , as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian .
The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them .
But even researchers claiming they have done it , in reality , did not succeed .
One example is a study published in Nature on May 7 .
This trial , besides other procedures which render the study invalid , did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , the alleged “ infected ” laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia , which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there .
And the slight bristles and weight loss , which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible , not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself , but also because the weight went back to normal again .
Also , no animal died except those they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s not forget : These experiments should have been done before developing a test , which is not the case .
Revealingly , none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 — the Robert Koch-Institute ( RKI ) , Alexander S. Kekulé ( University of Halle ) , Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager ( German Society for Virology ) , the aforementioned Thomas Löscher , Ulrich Dirnagl ( Charité Berlin ) or Georg Bornkamm ( virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich ) — could answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified , how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus ?
Particularly , if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can “ stress ” the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable — an aspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983 .
It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten , Germany ’ s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19 , advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be “ accepted ” ( not validated ! )
by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic .
But we didn ’ t get answers until June 18 , 2020 , after months of non-response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer .
Regarding our question “ Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out ?
, ” the Charité concedes that they didn ’ t use purified particles .
And although they claim “ virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus , ” in their paper ( Corman et al . )
they state : RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system ( Roche , Penzberg , Germany ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral RNA mini kit ( QIAGEN , Hilden , Germany ) , ” Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral .
Incidentally , the Corman et al .
paper , published on January 23 , 2020 didn ’ t even go through a proper peer review process , nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls — although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid .
It is also certain that we can not know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have the virus , proven by a method which is independent of the test ( having a solid gold standard ) .
Therefore , it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results .
For example , already in February the health authority in China ’ s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19 , started to test “ negative , ” and then tested “ positive ” again .
A month later , a paper published in the Journal of Medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “ negative ” , “ positive ” and “ dubious ” .
A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “ positive ” to “ negative ” back to “ positive ” at least once , and up to five times in one patient .
Even Wang Chen , president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences , conceded in February that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 50 per cent accurate ” ; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO ’ s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22 , 2020 , saying that : It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [ Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR ] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.
” In other words , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests can really detect a viral infection , the tests would be practically worthless , and would only cause an unfounded scare among the “ positive ” people tested .
This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value ( PPV ) .
The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly “ positive ” ( ie .
has the supposed virus ) , and it depends on two factors : the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease in whom the test is correctly “ negative ” ( a test with a specificity of 95 % incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people ) .
With the same specificity , the higher the prevalence , the higher the PPV .
In this context , on June 12 2020 , the journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt published an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios .
The results must , of course , be viewed very critically , first because it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a solid gold standard , as outlined , and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson , which is potentially worthless , as also mentioned .
But if you abstract from it , assuming that the underlying specificity of 95 % is correct and that we know the prevalence , even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have “ a shockingly low ” PPV .
In one of the three scenarios , figuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the PPV was only 30 percent , which means that 70 percent of the people tested “ positive ” are not “ positive ” at all .
Yet “ they are prescribed quarantine , ” as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically .
In a second scenario of the journal ’ s article , a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is assumed .
In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent , meaning that 22 percent of the “ positive ” tests are false “ positives.
” That would mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million people who are currently considered “ positive ” worldwide — supposing that the true “ positives ” really have a viral infection — we would get almost 2 million false “ positives.
” All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA , for instance , concede in their files that the so-called “ SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests ” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis .
In the “ CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus ( 2019-nCoV ) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel “ file from March 30 , 2020 , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms ” This test can not 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 cause of disease.
” Remarkably , in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Creative Diagnostics [ 5 ] .
To quote another one , in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al .
protocol — and distributed by Roche we can read : These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection ” For research use only .
Not for use in diagnostic procedures.
” Where is the evidence that the tests can measure the “ viral load ” ?
There is also reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roche and others can not even detect the targeted genes .
Moreover , in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are “ qualitative ” tests , contrary to the fact that the “ q ” in “ qPCR ” stands for “ quantitative.
” And if these tests are not “ quantitative ” tests , they don ’ t show how many viral particles are in the body .
That is crucial because , in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body .
That is to say , the CDC , the WHO , the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called “ viral load , ” i.e .
how many viral particles are in the body .
“ But this has never been proven .
That is an enormous scandal , ” as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out .
This is not only because the term “ viral load ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ what is viral load ?
” at a dinner party , people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream .
They ’ re surprised to learn it ’ s actually RNA molecules .
Also , to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is “ burdened ” with a disease-causing virus , the following experiment would have had to be carried out ( which has not yet happened ) : You take , let ’ s say , a few hundred or even thousand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test.The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they ’ re in .
The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples .
In each case , they say which virus they found and how much of it they found .
Then , for example , in patients 29 , 86 , 199 , 272 , and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus .
Now we un-blind those patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies .
But are they really sick — or are they fit as a fiddle ?
With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer , I finally got the Charité to also answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al .
— the so-called “ Drosten PCR test ” — is a quantitative test .
But the Charité was not willing to answer this question “ yes ” .
Instead , the Charité wrote : If real-time RT-PCR is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Charité in most cases these are [ … ] limited to qualitative detection.
” Furthermore , the “ Drosten PCR test ” uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary assay , while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as confirmatory assay .
According to Corman et al.
, the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses , while the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled “ SARS-CoV-2 ” .
Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viruses , at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm , recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “ positive ” even if just the E-gene assay ( which is likely to detect all Asian viruses ! )
gives a “ positive ” result .
This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as specific .
That change of algorithm increased the “ case ” numbers .
Tests using the E-gene assay are produced for example by Roche , TIB Molbiol and R-Biopharm .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more meaningless Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a “ cycle quantification ” ( Cq ) value of over 35 , and some , including the “ Drosten PCR test ” , even have a Cq of 45 .
The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples .
“ Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported , ” as it says in the MIQE guidelines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments ” , a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR , also called quantitative PCR , or qPCR .
The inventor himself , Kary Mullis , agreed , when he stated : If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene , there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.
” The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin , Professor of Molecular Medicine , a world-renowned expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book A-Z of Quantitative PCR which has been called “ the bible of qPCR.
” In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that “ the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal , because they may be either too low ( eliminating valid results ) or too high ( increasing false “ positive ” results ) .
” And , according to him , a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high , it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background , for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes , and hence there is a higher probability of false positives .
Moreover , among other factors that can alter the result , before starting with the actual PCR , in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 , the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA ( cDNA ) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “ RT ” at the beginning of “ PCR ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ widely recognized as inefficient and variable , ” as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper .
Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way .
For example , he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process ( RNA to cDNA ) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely , even by a factor of 10 ( see above interview ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubled at every cycle , even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result , annihilating the test ’ s reliable informative value .
So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests—even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity ?
Certainly , the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with even a spark of scientific understanding .
Thus , the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations .
NB , the WHO , for example has financial ties with drug companies , as the British Medical Journal showed in 2010 .
And experts criticize “ that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued , even grown “ since then .
The CDC as well , to take another big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Finally , the reasons and possible motives remain speculative , and many involved surely act in good faith ; but the science is clear : The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “ positive ” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide .
And a “ positive ” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well , because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toxic drugs and invasive intubations .
Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal , as we have outlined in the article “ Fatal Therapie.
” Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures , while the “ COVID-19 ” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases , redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “ positive ” test result whose value could not be more doubtful .

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”
But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.
Unfounded “Test, test, test,…” mantra
At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:
We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”
The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC.
Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:
Test, test, test — that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”
This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.
But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
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.
Lack of a valid gold standard
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.
This is a fundamental point.
Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”[1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.
As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:
If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.
In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.
That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard.
But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”
No proof for the RNA being of viral origin
Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.
As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.
The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.
And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.
Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.
But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).
We asked several study authors “Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”, they gave the following responses:
Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.” Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.” Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.” Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”
Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.
That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused).
Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.
We have 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.”[3]
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.
In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.
In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch’s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian.
The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have done it, in reality, did not succeed.
One example is a study published in Nature on May 7. This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet any of the postulates.
For instance, the alleged “infected” laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there.
And the slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight went back to normal again.
Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies. And let’s not forget: These experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not the case.
Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 — the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) — could answer the following question I have sent them:
If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus?
Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can “stress” the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable — an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983.
It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany’s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be “accepted” (not validated!) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.
But we didn’t get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.
Regarding our question “Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?,” the Charité concedes that they didn’t use purified particles.
And although they claim “virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus,” in their paper (Corman et al.) they state:
RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany),”
Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral.
Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn’t even go through a proper peer review process, nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls — although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid.
Irrational test results
It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.
For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.
A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative”, “positive” and “dubious”.
A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.
Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:
It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.”
In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded scare among the “positive” people tested.
This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).
The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly “positive” (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly “negative” (a test with a specificity of 95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).
With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.
In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt published an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios.
The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.
But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have “a shockingly low” PPV.
In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested “positive” are not “positive” at all. Yet “they are prescribed quarantine,” as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically.
In a second scenario of the journal’s article, a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is assumed. In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent, meaning that 22 percent of the “positive” tests are false “positives.”
That would mean: If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered “positive” worldwide — supposing that the true “positives” really have a viral infection — we would get almost 2 million false “positives.”
All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called “SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
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 cause of disease.”
Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics[5].
To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol — and distributed by Roche we can read:
These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection”
And:
For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”
Where is the evidence that the tests can measure the “viral load”?
There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even detect the targeted genes.
Moreover, in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are “qualitative” tests, contrary to the fact that the “q” in “qPCR” stands for “quantitative.” And if these tests are not “quantitative” tests, they don’t show how many viral particles are in the body.
That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body.
That is to say, the CDC, the WHO, the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called “viral load,” i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. “But this has never been proven. That is an enormous scandal,” as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out.
This is not only because the term “viral load” is deception. If you put the question “what is viral load?” at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream. They’re surprised to learn it’s actually RNA molecules.
Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is “burdened” with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out (which has not yet happened):
You take, let’s say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test.The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in. The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and how much of it they found. Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick — or are they fit as a fiddle?
With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the Charité to also answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. — the so-called “Drosten PCR test” — is a quantitative test.
But the Charité was not willing to answer this question “yes”. Instead, the Charité wrote:
If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charité in most cases these are […] limited to qualitative detection.”
Furthermore, the “Drosten PCR test” uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary assay, while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as confirmatory assay.
According to Corman et al., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses, while the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled “SARS-CoV-2”.
Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “positive” even if just the E-gene assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses!) gives a “positive” result.
This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as specific.
That change of algorithm increased the “case” numbers. Tests using the E-gene assay are produced for example by Roche, TIB Molbiol and R-Biopharm.
High Cq values make the test results even more meaningless
Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a “cycle quantification” (Cq) value of over 35, and some, including the “Drosten PCR test”, even have a Cq of 45.
The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.
“Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” as it says in the MIQE guidelines.
MIQE stands for “Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments”, a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.
The inventor himself, Kary Mullis, agreed, when he stated:
If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”
The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin, Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR which has been called “the bible of qPCR.”
In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that “the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too high (increasing false “positive” results).”
And, according to him, a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.
If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is a higher probability of false positives.
Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR.”
But this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,” as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper.
Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way.
For example, he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process (RNA to cDNA) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by a factor of 10 (see above interview).
Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test’s reliable informative value.
So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests—even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity?
Certainly, the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under lockdown, not least because these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with even a spark of scientific understanding.
Thus, the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations. NB, the WHO, for example has financial ties with drug companies, as the British Medical Journal showed in 2010.
And experts criticize “that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued, even grown“ since then. The CDC as well, to take another big player, is obviously no better off.
Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “positive” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide.
And a “positive” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article “Fatal Therapie.”
Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.


humansarefree--2020-07-02--Apiject CEO Says Their Will Be At Least 100 Million Doses Ready To Inject Of A Chip Vaccine To The P

Apiject CEO Says Their Will Be At Least 100 Million Doses Ready To Inject Of A Chip Vaccine To The Public

Conversation about a coronavirus vaccine often includes discussion and speculation about a potential RFID chip placed inside the vaccine itself @ @ @ @ @ will it take place ?
Jay Walker , CEO of Apiject , joins Lorie Johnson @ @ @ @ @

Inventor Jovan Pulitzer joined radio host Monica Matthews on Thursday after his explosive testimony in the Georgia Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Elections on Wednesday.
Jovan Pulitzer destroyed Georgia’s corrupted 2020 election process and results during the hearing on Wednesday.
Pulitzer explained how he can look at the Georgia ballots and determine almost immediately if a ballot is fraudulent or not. Pulitzer notes that he can look at 500,000 ballots in a couple hours.
Pulitzer then broke into a Dominion Voting Machine real-time during the hearing.
Then following the hearing the subcommittee unanimously passed a motion to audit Fulton County’s absentee ballots with the process Pulitzer outlined during the hearing.
During Thursday’s discussion with Monica Matthews the two discussed the process of exposing ballot fraud via technology along with very heartfelt personal reasons every American should demand the integrity of this election be upheld.
Pulitzer also confirmed that China is in fact, online with a GA polling station TODAY.
Then Jovan Pulitzer dropped this bomb!
Pulitzer told Monica Matthews that as soon as he was tasked with auditing the Fulton County ballot trucks pulled up to the facility and the ballots were being loaded into the trucks and were being shredded.
Jovan Pulitzer:
“I’d like your permission of you and your fine audience that as I answer you that I have your permission to piss you off… The very minute that order went through and that order was followed, and all the legal notices were done, it didn’t even take four hours later where moving trucks with this stuff was backed up to those buildings trying to get rid of the evidence.”
Where the hell is the FBI and DOJ?
Do we have law enforcement anymore in this country?
Or is their only purpose to harass conservatives?
By Jim Hoft, Guest writer