humansarefree--2020-09-03--ALL 77 NFL Players Who Tested Positive for COVID-19 Were False Positives – They Didn’t Really Have I

ALL 77 NFL Players Who Tested Positive for COVID-19 Were False Positives – They Didn’t Really Have It

The National Football League ( NFL ) recently stated that there were 77 positive tests for COVID-19 .
This caused a lot of noise in the mainstream media , but it was shortly revealed that all of these tests were actually false positives .
Jon R. Cohen , M.D.
, the Executive Chairman of BioReference Laboratories , the testing partner of the NFL , released a statement explaining that these false-positives were due to an isolated contamination in the New Jersey lab .
“ On August 22 , BioReference Laboratories reported an elevated number of positive COVID-19 PCR test results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clubs .
“ The NFL immediately took necessary actions to ensure the safety of the players and personnel .
Our investigation indicated that these were most likely false positive results , caused by an isolated contamination during test preparation in the New Jersey laboratory .
“ Reagents , analyzers and staff were all ruled out as possible causes and subsequent testing has indicated that the issue has been resolved .
All individuals impacted have been confirmed negative and informed.
” We normally wouldn ’ t cover a story like this , but I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the testing used to identify the virus and the discrepancy that lies behind it .
For example , a study published in Clinical Microbiology Reviews in 2006 highlights : Although the clinical manifestations of respiratory tract disease are easily recognized , the etiological agent responsible for disease is often not identified .
For community-acquired pneumonia , a microbiological diagnosis can be made in < 50 % of cases ( 83 , 102 , 140 ) .
In the pediatric population , respiratory syncytial virus ( RSV ) , parainfluenza viruses , and influenza @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bronchiolitis and lower respiratory tract infections ( LRTI ) .
However , in a third of these cases of LRTI in children , an infectious agent can not be identified ( 27 , 135 ) .
In nearly half of upper respiratory illnesses ( URI ) in children , an infectious cause can not be determined ( 86 ) .
The etiology of a majority of LRTI is thought to be viral ( 39 ) , yet in only 40 % of cases can a viral agent be identified , even with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 70 ) .
This means that it ’ s very hard to identify a virus , and it ’ s not as simple as it ’ s being made out to be .
Testing positive for the virus doesn ’ t always mean you have the virus , instead it could mean that you may have the virus , but it ’ s unclear .
When it comes to covid , it ’ s not an unorthodox question whether or not a large majority of “ positive ” tests we are seeing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an accurate number of how many people actually have covid .
On the flip side , it seems generally accepted in the scientific community that many more people have been infected than what the numbers show , similar to other respiratory viruses , which in turn drives the infection fatality way down , somewhere on par with the seasonal flu .
You can read more about that here .
That being said , again , it doesn ’ t seem like this virus is easily identified according to some information .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is “ scientifically meaningless.
” This comes after the president of the Bulgarian Pathology Association , Dr. Stoian Alexov , said that European pathologists haven ’ t identified any antibodies that are specific for SARS-CoV-2 .
He criticized the World Health Organization ( WHO ) and called them “ a criminal medical organization ” for creating fear and hysteria without , according to him , providing any verifiable scientific proof of a pandemic .
He made these statements sharing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consensus of participants in a webinar on COVID-19 on May 8 , 2020 , with the European Society of Pathology .
It was conducted by Dr. Stoycho Katsarov , chair of the Center for Protection of Citizens ’ Rights in Sofia and a former Bulgarian deputy minister of health .
The video is on the BPA ’ s website , which also highlights some of Dr. Alexov ’ s key points .
This may seem confusing as it goes against information that ’ s been published .
For example , the National Institutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Potent antibodies found in people recovered from COVID-19.
” ( source ) So it ’ s understandable how many people would not agree with the stance of the association , and claim that it is indeed false , and that ’ s an understandable perception , but should we dismiss the reasoning ?
They are experts in their field .
Furthermore , films like Plandemic , which you can watch here , show how many years ago the virus was actually patented , or at least another type of coronavirus..
Does this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the human body , but not as well within the human body ?
I don ’ t know , which is why I am confused with regards to many things that have surfaced about the new coronavirus during the pandemic .
The idea that we can ’ t identify the virus contradicts with a lot of information , and vice versa .
Things are not clear , and that ’ s what happens when we live in a world that lacks transparency , one in which science and become extremely politicized and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bulgarian Pathology Association cite an article published in “ Off Guardian ” that makes some very interesting points .
Below is a tidbit from what the article has in it , you really have to actually read the article to get a full understanding .
It ’ s extremely well-sourced , full of detail and uses not only a number of scientific publications to back up their claims , but also statements from a number of scientists in the field .
Again , I recommend you read the entire article here to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In it , they state : So to start , it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself , the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction ( PCR ) technology , did not think alike .
His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993 .
Unfortunately , Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74 , but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection .
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a manufacturing technique , being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times , and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses .
How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn ’ t .
They go deep into the science as to why they believe what they do .
We also contacted Dr Charles Calisher , who is a seasoned virologist .
In 2001 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ younger generation ” from several veteran virologists , among them Calisher , saying that : [ modern virus detection methods like ] sleek polymerase chain reaction [ … ] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies , which animals carry it , [ or ] how it makes people sick .
[ It is ] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.
” And that ’ s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I know of no such a publication .
I have kept an eye out for one.
” [ 4 ] This actually means that one can not 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 I also recall coming across a study that purported more than half of those who tested positive for the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That study has since been retracted but you can access it here .
How Dangerous Is The Virus ?
I don ’ t know .
The death rate for COVID-19 , according to many experts , is right on par with the seasonal flu .
This is a narrative that has become quite clear as we ’ ve progressed through this pandemic , and there are many examples .
The Physicians For Informed Consent ( PIC ) recently published a report titled “ Physicians for Informed Consent ( PIC ) Compares COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” According to them , the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26 % .
You can read more about that here .
John P. A. Ioannidis , a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old , explaining how that number rises significantly for people who are older , as with most other respiratory viruses .
You can read more about that and access that here .
Furthermore , the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as covid deaths when covid was not really the clear cause of the death , also has more people questioning what is happening here .
You can read more about that story and see specific examples here .
These numbers really show how much the original models supported by the World Health Organization ( WHO ) were completely off , and in reality did nothing but contribute to unnecessary fear , panic and hysteria .
These original models were the justification for worldwide global lockdown , and now that the fatality rate has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream media is focusing on cases .
The question is , again , can we trust the testing ?
I don ’ t know , but I do know there is a lot of discrepancy when it comes to testing for these types of respiratory viruses .
It can be difficult to really understand what ’ s going on .
On top of that , we now have a digital “ fact-checker ” that is making its way around the internet that is censoring information and perspectives that contradict the ones given to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO ) .
Should we not be able to examine information for ourselves and determine what ’ s really going on ?
Is this pandemic being used , similar to other global catastrophes , to impose more control measures on the human population , like Edward Snowden and many others have alluded to ?
Are you staying calm , and peaceful when trying to have a discourse with someone who offers an alternative perspective ?
Why are things in our world so unclear ?
Why do we continue to rely on big interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , why do we hand over our consciousness to them instead of doing our own research ?
Why are so many people divided in separated when it comes to their beliefs with regards to what is happening with the new coronavirus ?
Why do some issues on our planet , like elite-level child trafficking get absolutely no media attention when other topics do ?
Why are we being discouraged from asking questions that don ’ t fit the frame ?
Why are films like plandemic being banned everywhere , and heavily criticized and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media without them every addressing the actual points made in the film ?
Why are organizations like ours being censored and demonetized so much ?

The National Football League (NFL) recently stated that there were 77 positive tests for COVID-19. This caused a lot of noise in the mainstream media, but it was shortly revealed that all of these tests were actually false positives.
Jon R. Cohen, M.D., the Executive Chairman of BioReference Laboratories, the testing partner of the NFL, released a statement explaining that these false-positives were due to an isolated contamination in the New Jersey lab.
“On August 22, BioReference Laboratories reported an elevated number of positive COVID-19 PCR test results for NFL players and personnel at multiple clubs.
“The NFL immediately took necessary actions to ensure the safety of the players and personnel. Our investigation indicated that these were most likely false positive results, caused by an isolated contamination during test preparation in the New Jersey laboratory.
“Reagents, analyzers and staff were all ruled out as possible causes and subsequent testing has indicated that the issue has been resolved. All individuals impacted have been confirmed negative and informed.”
We normally wouldn’t cover a story like this, but I believe it’s important to highlight the testing used to identify the virus and the discrepancy that lies behind it.
For example, a study published in Clinical Microbiology Reviews in 2006 highlights:
Although the clinical manifestations of respiratory tract disease are easily recognized, the etiological agent responsible for disease is often not identified. For community-acquired pneumonia, a microbiological diagnosis can be made in <50% of cases (83, 102, 140).
In the pediatric population, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza viruses, and influenza virus are known as the major causes of bronchiolitis and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). However, in a third of these cases of LRTI in children, an infectious agent cannot be identified (27, 135).
In nearly half of upper respiratory illnesses (URI) in children, an infectious cause cannot be determined (86). The etiology of a majority of LRTI is thought to be viral (39), yet in only 40% of cases can a viral agent be identified, even with use of state-of-the-art genomic amplification methods (70).
This means that it’s very hard to identify a virus, and it’s not as simple as it’s being made out to be. Testing positive for the virus doesn’t always mean you have the virus, instead it could mean that you may have the virus, but it’s unclear. When it comes to covid, it’s not an unorthodox question whether or not a large majority of “positive” tests we are seeing in some countries really don’t reflect an accurate number of how many people actually have covid.
On the flip side, it seems generally accepted in the scientific community that many more people have been infected than what the numbers show, similar to other respiratory viruses, which in turn drives the infection fatality way down, somewhere on par with the seasonal flu. You can read more about that here.
That being said, again, it doesn’t seem like this virus is easily identified according to some information. For example, The Bulgarian Pathology Association has taken the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is “scientifically meaningless.”
This comes after the president of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, Dr. Stoian Alexov, said that European pathologists haven’t identified any antibodies that are specific for SARS-CoV-2.
He criticized the World Health Organization (WHO) and called them “a criminal medical organization” for creating fear and hysteria without, according to him, providing any verifiable scientific proof of a pandemic. He made these statements sharing his observations in a video interview summarizing the consensus of participants in a webinar on COVID-19 on May 8, 2020, with the European Society of Pathology.
It was conducted by Dr. Stoycho Katsarov, chair of the Center for Protection of Citizens’ Rights in Sofia and a former Bulgarian deputy minister of health. The video is on the BPA’s website, which also highlights some of Dr. Alexov’s key points.
This may seem confusing as it goes against information that’s been published. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) claims that “Potent antibodies found in people recovered from COVID-19.” (source)
So it’s understandable how many people would not agree with the stance of the association, and claim that it is indeed false, and that’s an understandable perception, but should we dismiss the reasoning? They are experts in their field.
Furthermore, films like Plandemic, which you can watch here, show how many years ago the virus was actually patented, or at least another type of coronavirus.. Does this mean that it can be identified outside of the human body, but not as well within the human body?
I don’t know, which is why I am confused with regards to many things that have surfaced about the new coronavirus during the pandemic. The idea that we can’t identify the virus contradicts with a lot of information, and vice versa. Things are not clear, and that’s what happens when we live in a world that lacks transparency, one in which science and become extremely politicized and used to push various agendas.
The Bulgarian Pathology Association cite an article published in “Off Guardian” that makes some very interesting points. Below is a tidbit from what the article has in it, you really have to actually read the article to get a full understanding.
It’s extremely well-sourced, full of detail and uses not only a number of scientific publications to back up their claims, but also statements from a number of scientists in the field. Again, I recommend you read the entire article here to get the full scope of their reasoning.
In it, they state:
So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.
Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.
How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
They go deep into the science as to why they believe what they do.
We also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:
[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”
And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:
I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]
This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2
I also recall coming across a study that purported more than half of those who tested positive for the virus and were asymptomatic may be false positives. That study has since been retracted but you can access it here.
How Dangerous Is The Virus? I don’t know.
The death rate for COVID-19, according to many experts, is right on par with the seasonal flu. This is a narrative that has become quite clear as we’ve progressed through this pandemic, and there are many examples.
The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%.
You can read more about that here.
John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old, explaining how that number rises significantly for people who are older, as with most other respiratory viruses. You can read more about that and access that here.
Furthermore, the fact that deaths in many countries have been counted as covid deaths when covid was not really the clear cause of the death, also has more people questioning what is happening here. You can read more about that story and see specific examples here.
These numbers really show how much the original models supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) were completely off, and in reality did nothing but contribute to unnecessary fear, panic and hysteria.
These original models were the justification for worldwide global lockdown, and now that the fatality rate has dramatically declined and has remained low, mainstream media is focusing on cases.
The question is, again, can we trust the testing? I don’t know, but I do know there is a lot of discrepancy when it comes to testing for these types of respiratory viruses.
The Takeaway
It can be difficult to really understand what’s going on. On top of that, we now have a digital “fact-checker” that is making its way around the internet that is censoring information and perspectives that contradict the ones given to us from the World Health Organization (WHO).
Should we not be able to examine information for ourselves and determine what’s really going on? Is this pandemic being used, similar to other global catastrophes, to impose more control measures on the human population, like Edward Snowden and many others have alluded to?
Are you staying calm, and peaceful when trying to have a discourse with someone who offers an alternative perspective? Why are things in our world so unclear?
Why do we continue to rely on big interests to tell us what’s happening, why do we hand over our consciousness to them instead of doing our own research?
Why are so many people divided in separated when it comes to their beliefs with regards to what is happening with the new coronavirus?
Why do some issues on our planet, like elite-level child trafficking get absolutely no media attention when other topics do? Why are we being discouraged from asking questions that don’t fit the frame?
Why are films like plandemic being banned everywhere, and heavily criticized and deemed a conspiracy theory by the mainstream media without them every addressing the actual points made in the film? Why are organizations like ours being censored and demonetized so much?
Source: Collective-evolution.com


humansarefree--2020-09-03--Australian Study: Bee Venom Kills Breast Cancer Cells

Bee venom is effective in killing aggressive breast cancer cells , an astonishing new study from an Aussie scientist has found .
Results revealed the venom – from honeybees sourced in Western Australia , England and Ireland – rapidly destroyed triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-enriched breast cancer cells .
The scientist behind the research , Dr Ciara Duffy , said a specific concentration of honeybee venom could kill 100 per cent of cancer cells .
She said the treatment had minimal effects on normal cells .
“ The venom was extremely potent , ” she said .
Dr Duffy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research and The University of Western Australia , used the venom from 312 bees to test the effect on the clinical subtypes of breast cancer , including types with limited treatment options .
The key ingredient was the compound melittin , naturally occurring in the venom , which Dr Duffy said can be reproduced synthetically .
“ We found that melittin can completely destroy cancer cell membranes within 60 minutes , “ she said .
“ No-one had previously compared the effects of honeybee venom or melittin across all of the different subtypes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She said melittin in honeybee venom also had another remarkable effect : within 20 minutes , melittin was able to substantially reduce the chemical messages of cancer cells that are essential to cancer cell growth and cell division .
“ We looked at how honeybee venom and melittin affect the cancer signalling pathways , the chemical messages that are fundamental for cancer cell growth and reproduction , and we found that very quickly these signalling pathways were shut down , ” she said .
Western Australia ’ s chief scientist , Professor Peter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incredibly exciting observation ” .
“ It provides another wonderful example of where compounds in nature can be used to treat human diseases , ” he said .
Dr Duffy ’ s research was conducted as part of her PhD .
“ I began with collecting Perth honeybee venom , ” she said .
“ Perth bees are some of the healthiest in the world .
“ The bees were put to sleep with carbon dioxide and kept on ice before the venom barb was pulled out from the abdomen of the bee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

Bee venom is effective in killing aggressive breast cancer cells, an astonishing new study from an Aussie scientist has found.
Results revealed the venom – from honeybees sourced in Western Australia, England and Ireland – rapidly destroyed triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-enriched breast cancer cells.
The scientist behind the research, Dr Ciara Duffy, said a specific concentration of honeybee venom could kill 100 per cent of cancer cells.
She said the treatment had minimal effects on normal cells.
“The venom was extremely potent,” she said.
Dr Duffy, from the Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research and The University of Western Australia, used the venom from 312 bees to test the effect on the clinical subtypes of breast cancer, including types with limited treatment options.
The key ingredient was the compound melittin, naturally occurring in the venom, which Dr Duffy said can be reproduced synthetically.
“We found that melittin can completely destroy cancer cell membranes within 60 minutes,“ she said.
“No-one had previously compared the effects of honeybee venom or melittin across all of the different subtypes of breast cancer and normal cells.”
She said melittin in honeybee venom also had another remarkable effect: within 20 minutes, melittin was able to substantially reduce the chemical messages of cancer cells that are essential to cancer cell growth and cell division.
“We looked at how honeybee venom and melittin affect the cancer signalling pathways, the chemical messages that are fundamental for cancer cell growth and reproduction, and we found that very quickly these signalling pathways were shut down,” she said.
Western Australia’s chief scientist, Professor Peter Klinken, said it was an “incredibly exciting observation”.
“It provides another wonderful example of where compounds in nature can be used to treat human diseases,” he said.
Dr Duffy’s research was conducted as part of her PhD.
“I began with collecting Perth honeybee venom,” she said.
“Perth bees are some of the healthiest in the world.
“The bees were put to sleep with carbon dioxide and kept on ice before the venom barb was pulled out from the abdomen of the bee and the venom extracted by careful dissection.”
Source: News.com.au


humansarefree--2020-09-03--Google is Protecting BLM Domestic Terrorists by Hiding Negative Search Results

If you try to search for anything truthful about Black Lives Matter ( BLM ) on Google , the search engine ’ s autocomplete feature has been deliberately programmed to turn up no results , we have learned .
What we call truthful , of course , Google calls “ negative ” or “ misinformation , ” which naturally is the justification behind the tech giant ’ s latest censorship endeavor , which aims to prevent truth-seekers from learning the dark truth about this Marxist movement .
Try it out for yourself to see what happens .
According to Breitbart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typed the letters “ BLM ” into Google , followed by the letters “ is , ” the only suggestion returned was “ BLM israel , ” which he says is “ unusual for a popular search term and suggests that a list of suggestions formerly existed but was removed.
” When this writer typed the letters “ BLM ” into Google , sure enough the only returned result was “ blm israel , ” which in and of itself is strange considering that BLM has no seeming connection to Israel , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even weirder is that when you type “ BLM is ” into Google followed by a space , nothing shows up in autocomplete .
Much like how Google does not want people to watch the Plandemic film ( watch Plandemic 2 here ) , it likewise does not want anyone investigating BLM .
This is apparent from the fact that normally something would show up in autocomplete , if not an extensive list of somethings .
Even Yahoo !
tells the truth about BLM being a terrorist organization According to Google , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ auto-generated module that pulls up suggestions based on the popularity and frequency of various search terms .
Seeing as how BLM and Black Lives Matter is arguably one of the most popular search terms currently , Google ’ s autocomplete should be pulling up all sorts of suggestions .
Instead , it is pulling up nothing , which is highly suspicious .
The same is true when typing “ Black Lives Matter ” followed by “ is ” into Google , which pulls up only two autocomplete suggestions : “ black lives matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ black lives matter is a revolutionary peace movement.
” In DuckDuckGo , on the other hand , typing “ BLM is ” pulls up a slew of suggestions .
The privacy-focused competitor of Google makes search suggestions such as : “ blm is Marxists ” and “ blm is a cancer , ” which are more than likely an actual reflection of the actual search terms that millions of web users are typing .
DuckDuckGo also pulls up numerous conservative websites like Breitbart News when searching for “ BLM is funded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Google , where Breitbart has been totally blacklisted .
On the other hand , the first links to come up on Google when searching for “ BLM is funded by ” are those provided by none other than far-left Wikipedia , which of course paints BLM in a positive light .
Read : 1 .
The Proof That George Soros And His Open Society Foundations Have Been Funnelling Money To Black Lives Matter 2 .
George Soros Foundation Announces ‘ Doubling Down ’ On Funding ‘ Black-Led Justice Organizations ’ 3 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soros Even Yahoo !
and Bing are more honest than Google , showing some “ negative ” results when searching for “ BLM is.
” The first autosuggestion for “ BLM is ” on Yahoo !
actually pulls up “ blm is a terrorist organization , ” which is more than likely what plenty of people are there searching .
Google , it turns out , is the only major search engine that patently censors these types of results , creating the illusion that everyone who matters is in full support of BLM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives are against the movement .
Google Search Last Year : Organic Products Are “ A Lie ” , GMOs Are “ Good For You ” And Supplements Are “ Scams ” In Latest Anti-Health Search Manipulation As you may recall , Google did a similar thing back in 2016 to searches involving failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton .
Users who tried to find “ negative ” information about Hillary were instead shown only “ positive ” results , or no results at all .

If you try to search for anything truthful about Black Lives Matter (BLM) on Google, the search engine’s autocomplete feature has been deliberately programmed to turn up no results, we have learned.
What we call truthful, of course, Google calls “negative” or “misinformation,” which naturally is the justification behind the tech giant’s latest censorship endeavor, which aims to prevent truth-seekers from learning the dark truth about this Marxist movement.
Try it out for yourself to see what happens. According to Breitbart News‘ Allum Bokhari, when he typed the letters “BLM” into Google, followed by the letters “is,” the only suggestion returned was “BLM israel,” which he says is “unusual for a popular search term and suggests that a list of suggestions formerly existed but was removed.”
When this writer typed the letters “BLM” into Google, sure enough the only returned result was “blm israel,” which in and of itself is strange considering that BLM has no seeming connection to Israel, at least as far as we know.
Even weirder is that when you type “BLM is” into Google followed by a space, nothing shows up in autocomplete.
Much like how Google does not want people to watch the Plandemic film (watch Plandemic 2 here), it likewise does not want anyone investigating BLM.
This is apparent from the fact that normally something would show up in autocomplete, if not an extensive list of somethings.
Even Yahoo! tells the truth about BLM being a terrorist organization
According to Google, the platform’s autocomplete feature is an auto-generated module that pulls up suggestions based on the popularity and frequency of various search terms.
Seeing as how BLM and Black Lives Matter is arguably one of the most popular search terms currently, Google’s autocomplete should be pulling up all sorts of suggestions. Instead, it is pulling up nothing, which is highly suspicious.
The same is true when typing “Black Lives Matter” followed by “is” into Google, which pulls up only two autocomplete suggestions: “black lives matter is not a design challenge” and “black lives matter is a revolutionary peace movement.”
In DuckDuckGo, on the other hand, typing “BLM is” pulls up a slew of suggestions. The privacy-focused competitor of Google makes search suggestions such as: “blm is Marxists” and “blm is a cancer,” which are more than likely an actual reflection of the actual search terms that millions of web users are typing.
DuckDuckGo also pulls up numerous conservative websites like Breitbart News when searching for “BLM is funded by,” something that would never happen on Google, where Breitbart has been totally blacklisted.
On the other hand, the first links to come up on Google when searching for “BLM is funded by” are those provided by none other than far-left Wikipedia, which of course paints BLM in a positive light.
Read:
1. The Proof That George Soros And His Open Society Foundations Have Been Funnelling Money To Black Lives Matter
2. George Soros Foundation Announces ‘Doubling Down’ On Funding ‘Black-Led Justice Organizations’
3. Black Lives Matter: Produced By George Soros
Even Yahoo! and Bing are more honest than Google, showing some “negative” results when searching for “BLM is.”
The first autosuggestion for “BLM is” on Yahoo! actually pulls up “blm is a terrorist organization,” which is more than likely what plenty of people are there searching.
Google, it turns out, is the only major search engine that patently censors these types of results, creating the illusion that everyone who matters is in full support of BLM, and that only “racist” conservatives are against the movement.
Google Search Last Year: Organic Products Are “A Lie”, GMOs Are “Good For You” And Supplements Are “Scams” In Latest Anti-Health Search Manipulation
As you may recall, Google did a similar thing back in 2016 to searches involving failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Users who tried to find “negative” information about Hillary were instead shown only “positive” results, or no results at all.
Reference: Clearnewswire.com


humansarefree--2020-09-03--Countries That Used HCQ to Treat Covid-19 Saw a 73% Lower Fatality Rate – Fauci, CDC and FDA Have Co

Countries That Used HCQ to Treat Covid-19 Saw a 73% Lower Fatality Rate – Fauci, CDC and FDA Have Conspired to KILL Americans

An ongoing study that keeps track of how the nations of the world are faring with the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) contains some eye-opening revelations about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) .
In all areas where HCQ is used – the United States is not one of them , thanks to Anthony Fauci and the left – the official death rate from the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) is a shocking 73 percent lower , on average , than in areas where HCQ is prohibited .
When HCQ is used early , the death rate from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study reveals – up to 77.3 percent lower than in places like the U.S. and Canada where HCQ is off limits , in fact .
What this all suggests , of course , is that Fauci , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) , and all other entities currently in the way of HCQ being made available to Americans are guilty of murder .
This is ironic when considering that the left is blaming President Donald Trump for the 180,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 ) – a number that has since been reduced about 95 percent by the CDC , which recently indicated that there have actually only been a few thousand deaths in people who were diagnosed with the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) while having no other pre-existing conditions .
All in all , the death rate associated with the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) appears to be exceptionally low , and even lower in areas of the world where HCQ is used early to treat patients .
Be sure to check out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ STILL bashing HCQ as ineffective and dangerous Despite having already been caught lying about the alleged dangers and ineffectiveness of HCQ in treating the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) , the medical deep state is still at it in bashing this simple , inexpensive generic drug .
Most recently , a paper published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection , the official journal of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases ( ESCMID ) , claims that taking HCQ with the antibiotic drug azithromycin does not lower mortality in Wuhan coronavirus ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in combination with azithromycin , the study contends , HCQ is not effective and sometimes increases the risk of mortality .
This stands in stark contrast to the experience of Dr. Stella Immanuel , who says she has successfully treated hundreds of Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) patients with HCQ .
“ I ’ m here because I have personally treated over 350 patients with COVID , ” Dr. Immanuel stated during the America ’ s Frontline Doctors ( AFD ) event that was widely censored from social media after its initial airing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients that have high blood pressure , patients that have asthma , all people , ” she added .
“ We ’ ve not lost one patient !
And on top of that , I ’ ve put myself , my staff , and many doctors that I know on hydroxychloroquine for prevention.
” A quick internet search for the latest news on HCQ only suggests the opposite , however .
Article after article , and study after study , has absolutely nothing good to say about HCQ , likening it to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it out of the hands of patients desperately in need of a cure .
Meanwhile , President Donald Trump ’ s “ Operation Warp Speed ” plan to unveil new Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) vaccines at “ warp speed ” is moving right along , with the first marketable candidates to be ready for mass distribution in a matter of just a few more months – possibly even in time for the election , according to statements recently made by Trump to the media .

An ongoing study that keeps track of how the nations of the world are faring with the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) contains some eye-opening revelations about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
In all areas where HCQ is used – the United States is not one of them, thanks to Anthony Fauci and the left – the official death rate from the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is a shocking 73 percent lower, on average, than in areas where HCQ is prohibited.
When HCQ is used early, the death rate from the Wuhan coronavirus is even lower, the study reveals – up to 77.3 percent lower than in places like the U.S. and Canada where HCQ is off limits, in fact.
What this all suggests, of course, is that Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and all other entities currently in the way of HCQ being made available to Americans are guilty of murder.
This is ironic when considering that the left is blaming President Donald Trump for the 180,000 reported deaths from the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) – a number that has since been reduced about 95 percent by the CDC, which recently indicated that there have actually only been a few thousand deaths in people who were diagnosed with the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) while having no other pre-existing conditions.
All in all, the death rate associated with the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) appears to be exceptionally low, and even lower in areas of the world where HCQ is used early to treat patients.
Be sure to check out the full C19Study for yourself.
Medical establishment STILL bashing HCQ as ineffective and dangerous
Despite having already been caught lying about the alleged dangers and ineffectiveness of HCQ in treating the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), the medical deep state is still at it in bashing this simple, inexpensive generic drug.
Most recently, a paper published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection, the official journal of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID), claims that taking HCQ with the antibiotic drug azithromycin does not lower mortality in Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) patients.
Both alone and in combination with azithromycin, the study contends, HCQ is not effective and sometimes increases the risk of mortality.
This stands in stark contrast to the experience of Dr. Stella Immanuel, who says she has successfully treated hundreds of Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) patients with HCQ.
“I’m here because I have personally treated over 350 patients with COVID,” Dr. Immanuel stated during the America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) event that was widely censored from social media after its initial airing.
“Patients that have diabetes, patients that have high blood pressure, patients that have asthma, all people,” she added.
“We’ve not lost one patient! And on top of that, I’ve put myself, my staff, and many doctors that I know on hydroxychloroquine for prevention.”
A quick internet search for the latest news on HCQ only suggests the opposite, however.
Article after article, and study after study, has absolutely nothing good to say about HCQ, likening it to a death drug for the purpose of keeping it out of the hands of patients desperately in need of a cure.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” plan to unveil new Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) jjabs at “warp speed” is moving right along, with the first marketable candidates to be ready for mass distribution in a matter of just a few more months – possibly even in time for the election, according to statements recently made by Trump to the media.
Source: Clearnewswire.com


humansarefree--2020-09-03--New California Bill Would Lower Penalties for Adults Who Have Sexual Relations With A Minor

A new bill headed to Governor Gavin Newsom ’ s desk would lower penalties for adults who have consensual sex with a minor if the offender is within 10 years of age with the victim .
SB 145 passed in both houses of the State Legislature late Monday evening .
“ If signed into law , a 24-year-old could have sexual relations with a 15-year-old child without being required to register as a sex offender , ” State Senator Shannon Grove wrote in a tweet .
Under current law , while it is illegal for an adult to have consensual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 years old , who can not legally give consent , vaginal intercourse between the two does not require the offender to be listed on the state ’ s sex offender registry , as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor .
Instead , the judge has the discretion to decide , based on the facts of the case , whether the sex offender registration is warranted .
Other forms of intercourse such as oral and anal intercourse require sex offender registration .
State Senator Scott Wiener @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the existing law “ disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration since LGBT people usually can not engage in vaginal intercourse.
” “ California ’ s sex offender registry continues to draw that distinction — an antiquated , outdated , leftover distinction — that somehow oral sex is worse than vaginal sex , ” Wiener said .
The bill was sponsored by the Los Angeles County District Attorney ’ s Office .
( … ) According to the bill ’ s language , the goal of SB 145 is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.
” Critics of the bill argue that rather than amending existing law to include vaginal intercourse with a minor as an act that requires mandatory sex offender registration , the bill aims to make all criminal sex acts with a minor over 14 equal by providing offenders with an opportunity to evade mandatory registration .
“ Any sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gonzalez .
“ I don ’ t care who it is between or what sex act it is .
That being said , I can not in my mind as a mother understand how sex between a 24-year-old and a 14-year-old could ever be consensual .
”

A new bill headed to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk would lower penalties for adults who have consensual sex with a minor if the offender is within 10 years of age with the victim.
SB 145 passed in both houses of the State Legislature late Monday evening.
“If signed into law, a 24-year-old could have sexual relations with a 15-year-old child without being required to register as a sex offender,” State Senator Shannon Grove wrote in a tweet.
Under current law, while it is illegal for an adult to have consensual sex with a teenager between 14 and 17 years old, who cannot legally give consent, vaginal intercourse between the two does not require the offender to be listed on the state’s sex offender registry, as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor.
Instead, the judge has the discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether the sex offender registration is warranted.
Other forms of intercourse such as oral and anal intercourse require sex offender registration.
State Senator Scott Wiener, who presented the bill, said the existing law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse.”
“California’s sex offender registry continues to draw that distinction — an antiquated, outdated, leftover distinction — that somehow oral sex is worse than vaginal sex,” Wiener said.
The bill was sponsored by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. (…)
According to the bill’s language, the goal of SB 145 is to “exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.”
Critics of the bill argue that rather than amending existing law to include vaginal intercourse with a minor as an act that requires mandatory sex offender registration, the bill aims to make all criminal sex acts with a minor over 14 equal by providing offenders with an opportunity to evade mandatory registration.
“Any sex is sex,” argued Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez. “I don’t care who it is between or what sex act it is. That being said, I cannot in my mind as a mother understand how sex between a 24-year-old and a 14-year-old could ever be consensual.”
Source: FoxLA.com (excerpts)


humansarefree--2020-09-03--Epidemiologist: COVID-19 Fatality Rate ‘Worst Miscalculation’ in Human History

Ronald B .
Brown , Ph.D. , from the School of Public health and Health Systems at the University of Waterloo , Canada , recently stated that the COVID-19 fatality rate is the “ worst miscalculation in the history of humanity.
” Brown is currently completing his second doctorate degree this time in epidemiology at the University of Waterloo .
Not long ago , Brown published a paper in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , titled “ Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation.
” In the paper he provides data and information he collected from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the World Health Organization ( WHO ) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) to data from independent scientists and Congressional testimony .
He states that “ Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation , most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate.
” Below is a statement Brown recently gave to John C. A. Manley , a journalist who was the first to cover the story : The subject of this article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , although it is not as obvious from the title .
The manuscript cites the smoking-gun , documented evidence showing that the public ’ s overreaction to the coronavirus pandemic was based on the worst miscalculation in the history of humanity , in my opinion .
My manuscript underwent an intensive peer-review process .
You are the first media guy who has responded to my invitation .
Dr. Brown added that CDC and WHO documents show that the case fatality rate for influenza was similar to the coronavirus , implying that the lockdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2017-2018 influenza season in the United States did not “ receive the same intensive media coverage as COVID-19.
” He points out that “ the accuracy of coronavirus tests rushed into production during the pandemic were unknown.
” And he explores how the media began focusing on an increase in coronavirus cases while ignoring the decrease in death rates .
The Bulgarian Pathology Association has taken the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is “ scientifically meaningless.
” They cite an article explaining the science .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why This Is Important Dr. Brown is not the only one raising these points , yet it seems nobody really knows these facts because they are constantly ignored by mainstream media , who is simply presenting us with one perspective that doesn ’ t seemed to be based on science and data at all in my opinion .
It makes one wonder , what ’ s really going on here ?
Why are deaths not a result of the coronavirus being marked as coronavirus deaths , even when it ’ s clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause ?
This has been observed across the globe .
A number of the world ’ s doctors and top experts in the field have been raising their concern with regards to the measures taken to combat the novel coronavirus .
For example , Michael Levitt , a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University recently criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the pandemic .
You can read more about that here .
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the “ Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee ” to investigate what ’ s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19 , expressing the same sentiment .
They came together to investigate the severity of the virus , and whether or not the actions taken by governments around the world , and in this case the German government , are justified and not causing more harm than good .
You can access the full english transcripts on the organizations website if interested .
This group has been giving multiple conferences in Germany , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Heiko Schöning , one of the organizations leaders , stated that “ We have a lot of evidence that it ( the new coronavirus ) is a fake story all over the world.
” To put it in context , he wasn ’ t referring to the virus being fake , but simply that it ’ s no more dangerous than the seasonal flu ( or just as dangerous ) and that there is no justification for the measures being taken to combat it .
You can read more about the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent report published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus .
Reported case fatality rates , like the original official 3.4 % rate from the World Health Organization , caused horror , panic and hysteria and were also meaningless .
Many scientists and doctors in North America are also expressing the same sentiments .
For example , The Physicians For Informed Consent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titled “ Physicians for Informed Consent ( PIC ) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.
” According to them , the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26 % .
You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here .
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi , a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing , multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly , exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us .
Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19 ?
I assert that the answer is simply , no .
– Bhakdi .
You can read more about him here .
John P. A. Ioannidis , a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate “ is close to 0 percent ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years old .
You can read more about that here .
He and several other academics from the Stanford School of Medicine suggest that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza , and published their reasoning in a study last month .
You can find that study and read more about that story here .
This list goes on , and on , and on , and on..So why don ’ t we hear anything about it ?
Why are scientists , doctors and experts being heavily censored for sharing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like us being punished and demonetized for writing about it ?
What ’ s going on here ?
Is there another agenda at play ?
Is NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden right about the fact that governments are using this pandemic to place more measures upon the population that take away our rights , all under the guise of good will ?
Why haven ’ t these measures been taken for other respiratory viruses that infect just as many , and kill just as many people and more than Covid-19 every single year ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a discussion around , especially when our right to even speak is slowly being taken away .
Facebook fact-checkers have made it quite clear that any information that does not come from the WHO or federal health regulatory agencies should not be considered as reliable .
Why is there so much information being shared that completely contradicts the narrative of our federal health regulatory agencies and organizations like the WHO ?
Is there a battle for our perception happening right now ?
Is our consciousness being manipulated ?
Why is there so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear ?
Why are alternative treatments that have shown tremendous amounts of success being completely ignored and ridiculed ?
What ’ s going on here , and how much power do governments have when they are able to silence the voice of so many people ?
Should we not be examining information openly , transparently , and together ?
Is the new coronavirus , like 9/11 , a catalyst for a shift in human consciousness .
Are people ‘ waking up ’ as a result of what has , is and will transpire @

Ronald B. Brown, Ph.D., from the School of Public health and Health Systems at the University of Waterloo, Canada, recently stated that the COVID-19 fatality rate is the “worst miscalculation in the history of humanity.”
Brown is currently completing his second doctorate degree this time in epidemiology at the University of Waterloo.
Not long ago, Brown published a paper in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, titled “Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation.”
In the paper he provides data and information he collected from his research, he compared informational texts from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to data from independent scientists and Congressional testimony.
He states that “Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate.”
Below is a statement Brown recently gave to John C. A. Manley, a journalist who was the first to cover the story:
The subject of this article is disruptive, to say the least, although it is not as obvious from the title.
The manuscript cites the smoking-gun, documented evidence showing that the public’s overreaction to the coronavirus pandemic was based on the worst miscalculation in the history of humanity, in my opinion.
My manuscript underwent an intensive peer-review process. You are the first media guy who has responded to my invitation.
Dr. Brown added that CDC and WHO documents show that the case fatality rate for influenza was similar to the coronavirus, implying that the lockdowns were pointless.
His paper questions why the 2017-2018 influenza season in the United States did not “receive the same intensive media coverage as COVID-19.”
He points out that “the accuracy of coronavirus tests rushed into production during the pandemic were unknown.” And he explores how the media began focusing on an increase in coronavirus cases while ignoring the decrease in death rates.
The Bulgarian Pathology Association has taken the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is “scientifically meaningless.” They cite an article explaining the science. You can read more about that here.
Why This Is Important
Dr. Brown is not the only one raising these points, yet it seems nobody really knows these facts because they are constantly ignored by mainstream media, who is simply presenting us with one perspective that doesn’t seemed to be based on science and data at all in my opinion.
It makes one wonder, what’s really going on here?
Why are deaths not a result of the coronavirus being marked as coronavirus deaths, even when it’s clear that that the coronavirus was not the cause? This has been observed across the globe.
A number of the world’s doctors and top experts in the field have been raising their concern with regards to the measures taken to combat the novel coronavirus.
For example, Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University recently criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the pandemic. You can read more about that here.
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, expressing the same sentiment.
They came together to investigate the severity of the virus, and whether or not the actions taken by governments around the world, and in this case the German government, are justified and not causing more harm than good.
You can access the full english transcripts on the organizations website if interested.
This group has been giving multiple conferences in Germany, in one of the most recent, Dr. Heiko Schöning, one of the organizations leaders, stated that “We have a lot of evidence that it (the new coronavirus) is a fake story all over the world.”
To put it in context, he wasn’t referring to the virus being fake, but simply that it’s no more dangerous than the seasonal flu (or just as dangerous) and that there is no justification for the measures being taken to combat it. You can read more about the story here.
Another example would be a recent report published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus.
Reported case fatality rates, like the original official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, caused horror, panic and hysteria and were also meaningless.
Many scientists and doctors in North America are also expressing the same sentiments.
For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.”
According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing, multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way up to today.
Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. – Bhakdi.
You can read more about him here.
John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate “is close to 0 percent” for people under the age of 45 years old.
You can read more about that here. He and several other academics from the Stanford School of Medicine suggest that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza, and published their reasoning in a study last month. You can find that study and read more about that story here.
This list goes on, and on, and on, and on..So why don’t we hear anything about it? Why are scientists, doctors and experts being heavily censored for sharing this information?
Why are media outlets like us being punished and demonetized for writing about it? What’s going on here? Is there another agenda at play?
Is NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden right about the fact that governments are using this pandemic to place more measures upon the population that take away our rights, all under the guise of good will?
Why haven’t these measures been taken for other respiratory viruses that infect just as many, and kill just as many people and more than Covid-19 every single year?
These are important questions to ask and have a discussion around, especially when our right to even speak is slowly being taken away.
Facebook fact-checkers have made it quite clear that any information that does not come from the WHO or federal health regulatory agencies should not be considered as reliable.
The Takeaway
Why is there so much information being shared that completely contradicts the narrative of our federal health regulatory agencies and organizations like the WHO?
Is there a battle for our perception happening right now? Is our consciousness being manipulated? Why is there so much conflicting information if everything is crystal clear? Why are alternative treatments that have shown tremendous amounts of success being completely ignored and ridiculed?
What’s going on here, and how much power do governments have when they are able to silence the voice of so many people? Should we not be examining information openly, transparently, and together?
Is the new coronavirus, like 9/11, a catalyst for a shift in human consciousness. Are people ‘waking up’ as a result of what has, is and will transpire?
Source: Collective-evolution.com


humansarefree--2020-09-04--7 Reasons We Obey Authority

7 Reasons We Obey Authority

Rebels are a very important part of society , but they rarely get the recognition they deserve .
They help us break through old norms and keep us from falling into groupthink .
However , human nature urges most of us to remain in our comfort zone even when it means less freedom or more difficult problems down the road .
Why is it the case that so many people ignore the outside world or pass it off as somebody else ’ s problem until it reaches their own doorstep ?
In a recent video , Brittany Sellner ( Brittany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven reasons men obey authority , even when it is against their best interest .
“ As everybody knows , habits are extremely difficult to break and even if we have gripes about the state of things , accepting our imperfect reality seems better to us than taking on the daunting prospect of change .
“ Conversely… habit ceases to be a reason for obedience in times of political crisis ; kind of similar to what we are experiencing now as a consequence of Covid .
Despite many of us not wanting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forcibly altered for us.
” “ The second reason for obedience is moral obligation which is obviously a motive that is very often found in religion , but politically speaking… some see it as a moral obligation to : 1 ) ‘ obey for the good of society , ’ 2 ) ‘ due to the ruler having superhuman factors such as being a supernatural being or a deity , ’ which isn ’ t something that I think applies to too many Americans… 3 ) People see it as a moral obligation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ command as being legitimate , owing to its source an issuer ’ .
For example , a mayor or a police officer [ would be considered under this reason ] , and 4 ) People see it as a moral obligation to obey due to ‘ conformity of commands to accepted norms.
’ For example , most people believe that a command such as not committing murder is a moral command and therefore , they obey it.
” “ The third reason for obedience is self-interest and this is perhaps one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most big corporations are immoral and seek to piggy-back off of current social and political trends in order to gain money , status , and approval .
“ Just look at all the corporations that suddenly became ‘ champions of social justice ’ after the death of George Floyd ; none of them gave a crap about police brutality and Black Lives Matter until it became in their interest to care .
This self-interest can of course also extend to individuals .
Famous and non-famous people have a lot to gain by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also a negative self-interest wherein the person doesn ’ t obey simply because they ’ re going to gain something but so they won ’ t lose everything : their reputations , jobs , social standing and future career prospects.
” “ The fourth reason for obedience is psychological identification with the ruler , meaning that people have a close emotional connection with the ruler , regime , or the system .
I imagine you would have encountered a lot of this in , for example , Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extremely common one today and that is ‘ zones of indifference , ’ meaning that even if people are not fully satisfied with the state of things , they have a margin of indifference or a margin of tolerance for the negative aspects of their society and government.
” “ The sixth reason for obedience is the most obvious reason… and that is ‘ fear of sanctions , ’ which generally involve the threat or the use of some form of physical violence against the disobedient subject and induce obedience by power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on people simply through their fears.
” “ Lastly , the seventh and final reason for obedience is the absence of self confidence among subjects , meaning that many people simply don ’ t have sufficient confidence in themselves , their judgement , and their capacities to make themselves capable of disobedience and resistance .
“ Thanks to the internet , I observe this motive quite often .
Thousands of people decry on the daily that they ’ re miserable with the state of things and yet they do nothing because they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead , to organize a peaceful protest , to start a movement and so on.
” Although authority can be legitimate and meaningful , resistance to unnecessary acts of violence or draconian government injustice is often better for the individual and his society and shows greater character than inaction .
Although this is certainly not a comprehensive list , perhaps it will help you to better understand your own role in life and greater society .

Rebels are a very important part of society, but they rarely get the recognition they deserve. They help us break through old norms and keep us from falling into groupthink.
However, human nature urges most of us to remain in our comfort zone even when it means less freedom or more difficult problems down the road.
Why is it the case that so many people ignore the outside world or pass it off as somebody else’s problem until it reaches their own doorstep?
In a recent video, Brittany Sellner (Brittany Pettibone before she married) describes the seven reasons men obey authority, even when it is against their best interest.
#1 Habit
“As everybody knows, habits are extremely difficult to break and even if we have gripes about the state of things, accepting our imperfect reality seems better to us than taking on the daunting prospect of change.
“Conversely… habit ceases to be a reason for obedience in times of political crisis; kind of similar to what we are experiencing now as a consequence of Covid. Despite many of us not wanting to alter our habits, our habits were forcibly altered for us.”
#2 Moral Obligation
“The second reason for obedience is moral obligation which is obviously a motive that is very often found in religion, but politically speaking… some see it as a moral obligation to:
1) ‘obey for the good of society,’
2) ‘due to the ruler having superhuman factors such as being a supernatural being or a deity,’ which isn’t something that I think applies to too many Americans…
3) People see it as a moral obligation to obey because they ‘perceive the command as being legitimate, owing to its source an issuer’. For example, a mayor or a police officer [would be considered under this reason], and
4) People see it as a moral obligation to obey due to ‘conformity of commands to accepted norms.’ For example, most people believe that a command such as not committing murder is a moral command and therefore, they obey it.”
#3 Self-Interest
“The third reason for obedience is self-interest and this is perhaps one of the more common motives nowadays. For example, most big corporations are immoral and seek to piggy-back off of current social and political trends in order to gain money, status, and approval.
“Just look at all the corporations that suddenly became ‘champions of social justice’ after the death of George Floyd; none of them gave a crap about police brutality and Black Lives Matter until it became in their interest to care.
This self-interest can of course also extend to individuals. Famous and non-famous people have a lot to gain by falling in line, or… there is also a negative self-interest wherein the person doesn’t obey simply because they’re going to gain something but so they won’t lose everything: their reputations, jobs, social standing and future career prospects.”
#4 Psychological Identification with the Ruler
“The fourth reason for obedience is psychological identification with the ruler, meaning that people have a close emotional connection with the ruler, regime, or the system. I imagine you would have encountered a lot of this in, for example, Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.”
#5 Zones of Indifference
“The fifth reason for obedience is an extremely common one today and that is ‘zones of indifference,’ meaning that even if people are not fully satisfied with the state of things, they have a margin of indifference or a margin of tolerance for the negative aspects of their society and government.”
#6 Fear of Sanctions
“The sixth reason for obedience is the most obvious reason… and that is ‘fear of sanctions,’ which generally involve the threat or the use of some form of physical violence against the disobedient subject and induce obedience by power merely coercive, a power really operating on people simply through their fears.”
#7 Absence of Self Confidence
“Lastly, the seventh and final reason for obedience is the absence of self confidence among subjects, meaning that many people simply don’t have sufficient confidence in themselves, their judgement, and their capacities to make themselves capable of disobedience and resistance.
“Thanks to the internet, I observe this motive quite often. Thousands of people decry on the daily that they’re miserable with the state of things and yet they do nothing because they have no confidence in their personal ability to lead, to organize a peaceful protest, to start a movement and so on.”
Although authority can be legitimate and meaningful, resistance to unnecessary acts of violence or draconian government injustice is often better for the individual and his society and shows greater character than inaction.
Although this is certainly not a comprehensive list, perhaps it will help you to better understand your own role in life and greater society.
Watch Brittany Sellner’s analysis on BitChute:

By Phillip Schneider, Guest writer


humansarefree--2020-09-04--Ben Rich, Lockheed Martin and UFOs

Ben Rich, Lockheed Martin and UFOs

Ben R. Rich , brilliant scientist , aeronautical engineer and Father of Stealth is more of an enigma now than he was during his lifetime .
He is most noted for designing a stealth fighter-plane that flew undetected by radar and for his role as the second director of Lockheed Martin ’ s top-secret Skunk Works program .
Born in 1925 , Rich passed away in 1995 with controversy still brewing among his friends , critics and those who heard him speak publicly about whether or not he believed in UFOs and extraterrestrials .
Many questions remain unanswered .
Was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he admitted that he knew that extraterrestrials and UFO visitors are real ?
Did he publicly mean it when he claimed that , “ We now have the technology to take ET home , ” or was it a joke ?
Is there credibility to other statements attributed to him in which he allegedly claimed technology learned at Roswell was used to influence the development of top secret U.S. aircraft ?
Are the alleged communications from Rich to his friend John Andrews credible ?
With Rich ’ s last breath , definitive answers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lockheed Martin ’ s Advanced Development Projects ( ADP ) , known officially as Skunk Works , was a secret aeronautical research facility in Burbank , California .
The founder and first director of Skunk Works was Clarence “ Kelly ” Johnson , who was the designer of a U.S. spy plane called the U-2 .
Ben Robert Rich joined Skunk Works in 1954 and helped design various aircraft , including a prototype that could reach speeds more than 1,300 mph .
He became the second director of Skunk Works , holding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1991 .
Rich was best known for his design of the first operational stealth aircraft , which are aircraft that are undetectable by radar .
According to one source , “ Nearly all of the programs he worked on began as top-secret projects… that were tested at the infamous Area 51 in Nevada , focus of much UFO lore.
” Rich received many awards through the years , including the award from the Department of Defense for Distinguished Public Service .
After his retirement , he continued to speak around the country on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe things he said at those public events support his belief in UFOs and ETs .
Others say he was only “ joking ” with some of his comments .
There are also letters he wrote to a friend and evidence of an important phone conversation he had just a few days before his death ; both shed light on his UFO and ET beliefs .
The Deathbed Confession Of Area 51 Scientist & Lockheed Senior : UFOs , Anti-Gravity And Aliens John Andrews was a Lockheed engineer and personal friend of Ben @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion that UFOs existed in a letter he wrote to Rich , asking Rich to share his own opinion .
Andrews claimed that Rich responded that he believed “ there are two types of UFOs , the ones we build , and the ones they build…I am a believer in both categories .
I feel everything is possible .
Many of our man-made UFOs are “ Un-Funded Opportunities.
” Rich underlined the “ UFO ” in “ Un-Funded Opportunities , ” but gave no explanation .
Rich continued , stating that most “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roswell spacecraft .
Rich wrote that he believed the American public “ could not handle the truth ” about UFOs and ETs .
However , he changed his mind toward the end of his life and felt that keeping the secret could be more of a danger to “ citizens ’ personal freedom under the United States Constitution than the presence of off-world visitors themselves.
” “ We already have the means to travel among the stars , but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to benefit humanity… Anything you can imagine , we already know how to do.
” At the end of the speech , Rich said , “ We now have the technology to take ET home.
” Critics say that Rich either did not make the comment about taking ET home or he was not serious if he did say it .
They point out that Rich first used that statement to conclude his speech in 1983 , shortly after the Steven Spielberg film E.T .
: The Extraterrestrial hit the big screen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a joke and received a positive audience response , so he continued to use it .
Critics discount the reports of two reputable witnesses at the 1993 speech who spoke with Rich after the speech was over .
Jan Harzan and Tom Keller , both engineering alumni of UCLA and UFO enthusiasts , caught up with Rich after his speech and asked him to explain his “ taking ET ” home comment .
The following oft-reported exchange occurred .
Harzan reported that Rich said , “ We know how to travel to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the equations and it won ’ t take a lifetime to do it.
” Harzan laments that Rich “ didn ’ t say what the equations were , ” so Harzan pursued questioning Rich on “ the workings of interstellar propulsion systems.
” Rich turned to Harzan and asked , “ How does ESP work ?
” Harzan replied , “ I don ’ t know .
All points in space and time are connected ?
” Rich said , “ That ’ s how it works.
” According to Harzan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harzan interpreted Rich ’ s comments to mean that U.S. scientists are aware of the existence of “ interstellar propulsion technology ” which involves a known set of equations .
Critics say it was just Rich ’ s way of continuing the joke .
James Goodall , aerospace journalist and an in-demand public speaker , became friends with Ben Rich .
Goodall states that he spoke with Rich about 10 days before Rich died .
The conversation took place over the phone while Rich was in the USC Medical Center in Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Jim , we have things out in the desert that are fifty years beyond what you can comprehend .
If you have seen it on Star Wars or Star Trek , we ’ ve been there , done that , or decided it wasn ’ t worth the effort .
They have about forty-five hundred people at Lockheed Skunk Works .
What have they been doing for the last 18 or 20 years ?
They ’ re building something.
” Ben Rich was a brilliant engineer whose contributions to the aerospace industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His inquisitiveness continued throughout his life .
Even critics who question whether he made some of the comments attributed to him believe that , at a minimum , he believed in “ the existence of other intelligent life in the universe ” even though he thought it likely to be distant and definitely mysterious .
You can become a member of the Gaia community and have access to their exclusive library of original series , films & documentaries .

Ben R. Rich, brilliant scientist, aeronautical engineer and Father of Stealth is more of an enigma now than he was during his lifetime.
He is most noted for designing a stealth fighter-plane that flew undetected by radar and for his role as the second director of Lockheed Martin’s top-secret Skunk Works program.
Born in 1925, Rich passed away in 1995 with controversy still brewing among his friends, critics and those who heard him speak publicly about whether or not he believed in UFOs and extraterrestrials.
Many questions remain unanswered. Was there a Ben Rich deathbed confession where he admitted that he knew that extraterrestrials and UFO visitors are real?
Did he publicly mean it when he claimed that, “We now have the technology to take ET home,” or was it a joke?
Is there credibility to other statements attributed to him in which he allegedly claimed technology learned at Roswell was used to influence the development of top secret U.S. aircraft? Are the alleged communications from Rich to his friend John Andrews credible?
With Rich’s last breath, definitive answers to these questions were lost forever.
Ben Rich and Skunk Works
Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Projects (ADP), known officially as Skunk Works, was a secret aeronautical research facility in Burbank, California.
The founder and first director of Skunk Works was Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, who was the designer of a U.S. spy plane called the U-2.
Ben Robert Rich joined Skunk Works in 1954 and helped design various aircraft, including a prototype that could reach speeds more than 1,300 mph.
He became the second director of Skunk Works, holding that position from 1975 until his retirement in 1991.
Rich was best known for his design of the first operational stealth aircraft, which are aircraft that are undetectable by radar.
According to one source, “Nearly all of the programs he worked on began as top-secret projects… that were tested at the infamous Area 51 in Nevada, focus of much UFO lore.”
Rich received many awards through the years, including the award from the Department of Defense for Distinguished Public Service. After his retirement, he continued to speak around the country on the achievements of Skunk Works.
Some believe things he said at those public events support his belief in UFOs and ETs. Others say he was only “joking” with some of his comments.
There are also letters he wrote to a friend and evidence of an important phone conversation he had just a few days before his death; both shed light on his UFO and ET beliefs.
The Deathbed Confession Of Area 51 Scientist & Lockheed Senior: UFOs, Anti-Gravity And Aliens
Communications Between John Andrews and Ben Rich
John Andrews was a Lockheed engineer and personal friend of Ben Rich. Andrews expressed his own personal opinion that UFOs existed in a letter he wrote to Rich, asking Rich to share his own opinion.
Andrews claimed that Rich responded that he believed “there are two types of UFOs, the ones we build, and the ones they build…I am a believer in both categories. I feel everything is possible. Many of our man-made UFOs are “Un-Funded Opportunities.”
Rich underlined the “UFO” in “Un-Funded Opportunities,” but gave no explanation.
Rich continued, stating that most “biomorphic” aerospace designs were inspired by Roswell spacecraft. Rich wrote that he believed the American public “could not handle the truth” about UFOs and ETs.
However, he changed his mind toward the end of his life and felt that keeping the secret could be more of a danger to “citizens’ personal freedom under the United States Constitution than the presence of off-world visitors themselves.”
Ben Rich’s Standard Speech: True Comments or Jokes?
During a 1993 Alumni Speech at UCLA, Rich stated:
“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an Act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity… Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do.”
At the end of the speech, Rich said, “We now have the technology to take ET home.”
Critics say that Rich either did not make the comment about taking ET home or he was not serious if he did say it. They point out that Rich first used that statement to conclude his speech in 1983, shortly after the Steven Spielberg film E.T.: The Extraterrestrial hit the big screen.
The comment at that time was made as a joke and received a positive audience response, so he continued to use it.
Critics discount the reports of two reputable witnesses at the 1993 speech who spoke with Rich after the speech was over. Jan Harzan and Tom Keller, both engineering alumni of UCLA and UFO enthusiasts, caught up with Rich after his speech and asked him to explain his “taking ET” home comment. The following oft-reported exchange occurred.
Harzan reported that Rich said, “We know how to travel to the stars. We found an error in the equations and it won’t take a lifetime to do it.”
Harzan laments that Rich “didn’t say what the equations were,” so Harzan pursued questioning Rich on “the workings of interstellar propulsion systems.”
Rich turned to Harzan and asked, “How does ESP work?”
Harzan replied, “I don’t know. All points in space and time are connected?”
Rich said, “That’s how it works.”
According to Harzan, Rich then turned and walked away. Harzan interpreted Rich’s comments to mean that U.S. scientists are aware of the existence of “interstellar propulsion technology” which involves a known set of equations. Critics say it was just Rich’s way of continuing the joke.
Ben Rich’s “Deathbed Confession”
James Goodall, aerospace journalist and an in-demand public speaker, became friends with Ben Rich. Goodall states that he spoke with Rich about 10 days before Rich died.
The conversation took place over the phone while Rich was in the USC Medical Center in Los Angeles where Goodall claims that Rich said:
“Jim, we have things out in the desert that are fifty years beyond what you can comprehend. If you have seen it on Star Wars or Star Trek, we’ve been there, done that, or decided it wasn’t worth the effort. They have about forty-five hundred people at Lockheed Skunk Works. What have they been doing for the last 18 or 20 years? They’re building something.”
Ben Rich was a brilliant engineer whose contributions to the aerospace industry are still out of this world. His inquisitiveness continued throughout his life.
Even critics who question whether he made some of the comments attributed to him believe that, at a minimum, he believed in “the existence of other intelligent life in the universe” even though he thought it likely to be distant and definitely mysterious.
Source: Gaia.com
You can become a member of the Gaia community and have access to their exclusive library of original series, films & documentaries.


humansarefree--2020-09-04--Facebook Censors Defense of ‘Unite for Freedom’ Protest

Jill Kirkwood posted this on Facebook .
It was censored .
Can you think of a single good reason why ?
If you find yourself ‘ disapproving ’ of the massive protest in London yesterday which was ignored by the BBC ( yet they reported on the Berlin protest ) , if you find yourself agreeing with the completely distorted and misleading propaganda/ disinformation in some other trashy tabloids , if you find yourself believing that we were all a big group of fascists , because there was ( apparently but not seen by me ) , a fascist flag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( which had nothing to do with us and was away from the main body of people ) , despite the fact that one of our main concerns is the loss of freedom resulting from the policies of this oppressively authoritarian government , shame on you .
We were all there because we question government .
When the masses are supporting kids wearing masks in schools , we are the people who have spent entire evenings trawling through peer reviewed science and censored information and are wondering who makes these decisions when more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it now turns out that every one of the supposed Covid deaths had serious underlying conditions .
We are the people who have spent months of our spare time studying independent epidemiologists who are ignored by the media and who are saying that more lockdowns will result in a 15 million NHS backlog and resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths , more increases in domestic abuse and rocketing suicides .
We are the people who are asking why are we destroying the mental health of millions of healthy people by fining them for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freely meeting up with who they want to , in any location , when they are not at risk , but at the same time BLM protests where statues were pulled down get the police kneeling and full support from the establishment .
We are the ‘ mad conspiracy theorists ’ who have studied the origins of the PCR test , and understand that entire areas are being locked down based on either false-positive results , or positive results that have not detected a live virus , but dead remnants of viral fragments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ .
I can tell you from being at the protest yesterday that I am absolutely fuming at how this diverse group of intelligent and well informed , sane human beings are being deliberately smeared and ridiculed .
I have had it with what is going on in this country .
Sometimes I feel like screaming with frustration , particularly at the insane desire to follow nonsensical rules without questioning .

by Brian Shilhavy
Massive crowds took to the streets of London yesterday to protest against COVID tyranny.
Video footage from the air and on the ground show massive crowds:
#londonprotest What an amazing day today in London. It felt like the biggest march yet, an amazing atmosphere with so many brilliant and lovely people. Well done everyone. Picadilly Circus rammed…. pic.twitter.com/KEjOkvCirG — Gerard (@BytePedia) June 26, 2021
Right now in London – people from across Britain are making themselves heard. A diverse mixture of ages & families calling for Freedom
& No Covid ID schemes We need to be fully #OpenForAll everywhere #NoVaccinePassports anywhere #backtonormal #EnoughIsEnough #londonprotest pic.twitter.com/ZY2dWpM6lI — Alan D Miller (@alanvibe) June 26, 2021
I like the sign this woman is holding in the first frame of the video clip below:
We’re Not From the Left or Right We’re From the Bottom and We’re Coming for Those on TOP!
It appears that race and political affiliation were put aside in this protest, which is what is needed if the masses are going to have any effect against the Globalists:
#londonprotest well today’s protest even got coverage on BBC, ITV and Sky. What are they up to? They ignored the protests on 15/5/21 and 29/5/21. Possibly this was the biggest one yet? #freedom #TakeOffYourMask pic.twitter.com/b5NwZmrobV — SIMON FORRESTER (@SimonPForrester) June 26, 2021
Saving the children from the bioweapon shots seemed to be a common theme:
People dancing to the song by British Rock Band Pink Floyd “Brick in the Wall”:
We won't be just another brick in the wall nor our children. Ever. To the last "bullet" if necessary✊#londonprotest pic.twitter.com/kI2xkMGcGu — Dario (@Lacic79L) June 26, 2021
And where are similar protests in the USA?
Oh, that’s right. You have to go to a public school board meeting to see parents up in arms about COVID measures because they want to keep using the Nanny State’s school system to babysit their children so they don’t have to.
And if we do see protests, they will probably be much smaller than this one in London today, with BLMers on one side and Trump supporters on the other, and they won’t be protesting against the Globalists, but fighting each other instead.
If the masses do rise up together to overthrow tyranny, I’d bet on the UK over the US any day. It looks like they are fairly unified in taking down Boris Johnson and the rest of the hoodlums in Parliament.


humansarefree--2020-09-04--‘Largest Crowd in German History’ Rises Up Against Bill Gates and Big Pharma

Forty thousand gather in Berlin to protest tyrannical , economy-destroying coronavirus restrictions .
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke to an enormous crowd of “ plandemic ” protestors in Berlin on Saturday .
In his speech , Kennedy mentioned a million protestors ( he may have been referring to the global total , who were gathered in at least 25 cities around the world .
The BBC reported 38,000 in Berlin .
The crowd took over the streets signs reading “ masks are muzzles , ” “ stop corona-madness ” and “ new normal = new fascism.
” Kennedy said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were telling people he came to Berlin “ to speak to about five thousand Nazis.
” “ But I look at this crowd and I see the opposite of Nazism .
I see people of democracy .
People who want open government … We want health officials who don ’ t have financial entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry , who are working for us , not Big Pharma.
” “ We found out when we started fighting the pharmaceutical companies that they had a lot of people on their team .
They had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put in 5g .
They had Google on their side – and Google is a vaccine company .
Google makes vaccines – it makes flu vaccines and Covid vaccines .
“ We were wondering why is Google censoring us ?
Why won ’ t Google let us put any truth about the pharmaceutical industry .
Facebook began censoring us .
Instagram .
Vimeo .
Youtube.
” “ These are all international companies .
They want to use this pandemic to inspire us with fear so we will accept control and obedience .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been able to go on television in the United States .
The TV stations won ’ t let me , because their revenues come from the pharmaceutical companies .
“ Out of 22 ads during the evening news station , 17 are paid for by pharma .
Anderson Cooper works for Merck… All of the news anchors that call themselves journalists are actually pharmaceutical reps .
”

Forty thousand gather in Berlin to protest tyrannical, economy-destroying coronavirus restrictions. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke to an enormous crowd of “plandemic” protestors in Berlin on Saturday.
In his speech, Kennedy mentioned a million protestors (he may have been referring to the global total, who were gathered in at least 25 cities around the world. The BBC reported 38,000 in Berlin.
The crowd took over the streets signs reading “masks are muzzles,” “stop corona-madness” and “new normal = new fascism.”
Kennedy said that “the corrupt American mainstream media” were telling people he came to Berlin “to speak to about five thousand Nazis.”
“But I look at this crowd and I see the opposite of Nazism. I see people of democracy. People who want open government … We want health officials who don’t have financial entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry, who are working for us, not Big Pharma.”
“We found out when we started fighting the pharmaceutical companies that they had a lot of people on their team. They had the Telecom companies, who were trying to put in 5g. They had Google on their side – and Google is a jjab company. Google makes jjabs – it makes flu jjabs and Covid jjabs.
“We were wondering why is Google censoring us? Why won’t Google let us put any truth about the pharmaceutical industry. Facebook began censoring us. Instagram. Vimeo. Youtube.”
“These are all international companies. They want to use this pandemic to inspire us with fear so we will accept control and obedience. For 15 years, I have not been able to go on television in the United States. The TV stations won’t let me, because their revenues come from the pharmaceutical companies.
“Out of 22 ads during the evening news station, 17 are paid for by pharma. Anderson Cooper works for Merck… All of the news anchors that call themselves journalists are actually pharmaceutical reps.”
Reference: Returntonow.net