thelibertybeacon--2020-08-02--Trickery, Fakery and Bare-faced lies: a mind-blowing expose of the Coronavirus psyop

The extent of the government ’ s mendacity beggars belief but the fact is we are being lied to with malice aforethought on almost every key aspect of this “ pandemic ” .
The following article gives an excellent summary of the various Coronavirus falsehoods and misrepresentations being currently perpetrated by a British government evidently gone somewhat batty in its effort to enrich its pals by keeping the pandemic charade going long after more than half the citizenry have seen through it .
My advice to the gang of loons who have hijacked the nation ’ s governance is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiasco in one piece , get honest and straight now while you still have the chance .
In the meantime , let ’ s see if we can state in summary a good in-a-nutshell layman ’ s understanding of what is happening .
This is not always easy as so much conflicting or misleading data is out there .
The creation of a chaos of information that can overwhelm anyone who tries to arrive at a reasoned understanding is part and parcel of the Coronavirus psyop .
A bright , confident and well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desired .
A cowed , fractious and muddled citizenry is desired .
Nevertheless here are some facts that will help you penetrate the smokescreen of confusion .
The COVID 19 mortality stats are FALSE , Very false and they have been false from Day One of the COVID Fiasco .
The government has known from the beginning that they are false .
The purpose of falsifying the mortality stats is to make a serious enough illness appear to be a terrifying mass killer .
The PCR test is unreliable in that it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negatives .
Moreover there are discrepancies between labs in the way samples are processed as the technology is not reliably standardised .
A positive result , even when accurate , DOES NOT NECESSARILY PROVE THE PRESENCE OF THE VIRUS ( see the article below ) .
The government knows this yet makes a big scary deal out of “ all these positive tests ” proving that the virus is spreading and does not see fit to clarify this point for the citizenry .
The fact that many more tests are being done results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise ) .
The increased number of positives is used as “ evidence ” that the “ disease is spreading ” .
This explains why at the same time reported ( falsely or otherwise ) fatalities are dropping sharply .
It is also significant that the media narrative has switched from the daily bludgeoning of the citizenry with frightening but FALSE death stats , to alarming reports on “ how the disease is still spreading ” – and the fact that its death rate is commensurately lower than we were given to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not test just for COVID19 but for ANY of the seven or so family of Coronaviruses ( that includes the common cold ) of which the relatively serious COVID19 virus is just one .
The other type of test , is the anribody test .
Here a positive means only that one might have had one of the Corona viruses at some point in the past .
Social distancing rules are based on someone ’ s opinion , NOT scientific evidence .
The same goes for mask wearing .
The government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is FALSE Lack of clarity on what exactly the test results mean enables the government and media to use them as a desperate CPR for their flatlining smoke-and-mirrors epidemic .
The following 11 COVID assumptions are based on fear and ignorance , not evidence .
Operation Coronavirus is a battle of perception .
the assumptions people make about COVID , how dangerous it is , how it spreads and what we need to do to stop it – are running rampant , running far more wildly than the supposed virus SARS-CoV2 itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surrounding this ‘ pandemic ’ has achieved its aim .
Besieged with a slew of contradictory information coming from all angles , people in general have succumbed to confusion .
Some have given up trying to understand the situation and found it is just easier to obey official directives , even if it means giving up long-held rights .
Below is a list of commonly held COVID assumptions which , if you believe them , will make you much more likely to submit to the robotic , insane and abnormal conditions of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact tracing , monitoring , surveillance , mask-wearing , social distancing , quarantine and isolation , with mandatory vaccination and microchipping to come .
Assumption 1 : The Method of Counting COVID Deaths is Sensible and Accurate A grand assumption of the COVID plandemic is that the numbers are real and accurate , especially the death toll .
Yet , nothing could be further from the truth .
We have had confirmation after confirmation after confirmation ( in nations all over the world ) that authorities are counting the deaths in a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it makes no sense if you want to be sensible or accurate , but it makes perfect sense if you are trying to artificially inflate the numbers and create the impression of a pandemic where there is none .
The sleight of hand is achieved by counting those who died with the virus as dying from the virus .
This one trick alone is responsible for vastly skewing the numbers and turning the ‘ official ’ death count into a meaningless farce devoid of any practical value .
Assumption 2 : The PCR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covered in previous articles , the PCR test ( Polymerase Chain Reaction ) was invented by scientist Kary Mullis as a manufacturing technique ( since it can able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times ) , not as a diagnostic tool .
COVID or SARS-CoV2 fails Koch ’ s postulates .
The virus which shut the world down has still to this day never been isolated , purified and re-injected , or in other words , has never been 100 % proven to exist , nor 100 % proven to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When used to determine the cause of a disease , the PCR test has many flaws : • There is no gold standard to which to compare its results ( COVID fails Koch ’ s postulates ) ; • It detects and amplifies genetic code ( RNA sequences ) but offers no proof these RNA sequences are of viral origin ; • PCR is not detecting a virus per se , but rather a small shattered part of the viral genome .
The test comes back positive as long as there are tiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the PCR method amplifies the tiniest fraction of the viral genetic material .
The virus may be deactivated or dead , but the PCR test won ’ t tell you ; • The PCR test can give a completely opposite result ( positive or negative ) depending upon the number of cycles or amplifications that are used , which is ultimately arbitrarily chosen .
For some diseases , if you lower the number of cycles to 35 , it can make everyone appear negative , while if you increase them to above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive ; • Many patients switch back and forth from positive to negative when taking the PCR test on subsequent days ; and • Even a positive result does not guarantee the discovered ‘ virus ’ is the cause of the disease !
In summary , the PCR test doesn ’ t identify or isolate viruses , doesn ’ t provide RNA sequences of pathogens , offers no baseline for comparison with patient samples , and can not determine an infected from an uninfected sample .
That is staggeringly useless !
Here is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “ sensitivity ” and “ specificity ” — by comparison with a “ gold standard , ” meaning the most accurate method available .
As an example , for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself .
But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake , for example , stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “ How accurate is the [ COVID-19 ] testing ?
” : If we had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bacterium ] golden staph in blood , we ’ ve already got blood cultures , that ’ s our gold standard we ’ ve been using for decades , and we could match this new test against that .
But for COVID-19 we don ’ t have a gold standard test.
” Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this .
In her paper “ Interpreting a COVID-19 test result ” , published recently in The British Medical Journal , she writes that there is a “ lack of such a clear-cut ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here is the admission about the PCR test by the CDC and FDA : Accurate would be about the last word I would use to describe COVID PCR testing , yet it is currently the standard test worldwide for COVID .
Another magnificent example of many COVID assumptions .
Go figure .
Assumption 3 : The Antibody Test for COVID is Accurate If you realized by reading the last section that the COVID PCR tests are flawed and meaningless , get ready for more absurdity with the COVID antibody tests .
They are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As I covered in the article COVID Antibody Tests : Here Comes More Trickery and Fakery , there are numerous reasons why the antibody tests don ’ t really work and can be interpreted any way you want : • Old blood samples contain COVID antibodies , so if a test find antibodies , they may have been there for years or decades .
There is no way to tell if they were recently acquired ; • Like the COVID PCR test , they generate many false positive results ; • They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be specific for COVID ; • Antibodies don ’ t actually prove immunity , since there are people who fight off disease with little or no antibodies , and conversely , there are those with high antibody titers or counts , but who still get sick ; and • The results can be interpreted any way you want .
The presence of antibodies could mean you ’ re safe and immune to future COVID waves , or conversely , it could mean you ’ re dangerous ( sick and infected right now ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interpretation .
Hmmm … all these COVID assumptions are not exactly reassuring , are they ?
Someone skeptical of the alternative view I am painting here may ask at this point : well if COVID is not that dangerous , how come cases keep rising ?
The answer is simple : because there is more testing .
The more we test , the more cases we will find , because this ‘ virus ’ ( really an RNA sequence ) is far more widespread than we have been told , and there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been told ( which shows it ’ s not that dangerous ) .
As discussed in previous articles , there is really no proof that people didn ’ t have this particular RNA sequence for years or decades before the test , so the test results are quite meaningless .
That aside , a general rule of thumb is that wherever there are people trying to gain power , there will be fraud , and COVID testing is no exception .
It has been exposed that tens of thousands of coronavirus tests have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but probably happening in many places ) .
This article explains that the Additionally , the COVID tests are using the PCR method as discussed above in COVID Assumption 3 , which has many flaws , including the flaw of results flipping back and forth depending on the number of cycles , as this previously quoted article states : A month later , a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ dubious ” .
A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “ positive ” to “ negative ” back to “ positive ” at least once , and up to five times in one patient .
Taking people ’ s temperature by pointing a gun at their head is blatant conditioning .
It sends the subliminal message that the State is all powerful and can aim a gun-like device at your head , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submit .
On a practical level , taking people ’ s temperatures has no effect in stopping viral spread .
Even if someone has an elevated temperature , what does that mean ?
There is a natural variation in human body temperatures ; everyone operates at a slightly different temperature .
Besides , even if your temperature is elevated , that could be because you were just exercising , running to catch a flight , just had an angry conversation with someone , just got the phone after a stressful call , had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Think about all the things that make you stressed and irritated , or raise your blood pressure , which could lead to an elevated temperature !
One particular piece of propaganda hammered in hard to people ’ s brains which is still doing great damage is the idea that anyone could be a carrier and could therefore infect anyone else .
This has the effect of making people anxious , scared and even paranoid in just going about their daily life .
However the idea that asymptomatic people can spread the disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This Chinese study A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers published in May 2020 exposed 455 subjects to asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV2 .
None of the 455 were infected !
WHO ( World Health Organization ) official Dr. Maria van Kerkhove was reported by MSM CNBC saying the following last month in June ( though she later backtracked her comments ) : Of the many COVID assumptions floating around , these next two are based on the idea that children are a significant source of COVID spread .
They are not !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ aged 0-17 years have 0.02-0.06 % share of world COVID deaths , which is essentially zero .
Meanwhile , CDC stats show that “ among 149,082 ( 99.6 % ) cases for which patient age was known , 2,572 ( 1.7 % ) occurred in children aged < 18 years ” which is likewise a tiny fraction .
With this in mind , why on Earth would the CDC issue these draconian guidelines ( pictured above and also found at this link in full ) for American schoolchildren , if not to condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a Good Idea for Government to Abduct Kids from COVID-Positive Parents Governmental abduction of children using COVID as a pretext has begun .
This article from June 17th 2020 reports how the “ LA County Dept .
of Children and Family Services ( DCFS ) recommended that the court remove [ a ] child from their physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19 .
This is a non-offending parent .
The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained.
” Let that sink in for a minute .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents just because a parent showed a COVID-positive result on a ( deeply flawed ) test !
Can anyone spell T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y ?
This is the outcome of the sinister and oxymoronic warning given by WHO official Michael Ryan in March , that people would be removed from their families in a “ safe and dignified ” way .
Ryan said : Mercola.com reports that the CDC is recommending newborns be separated at birth from their parents for COVID testing .
How bad does it have to get before people wake up to what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID assumptions is that all this social distancing or physical distancing is backed by solid scientific evidence .
It ’ s not .
Whether it ’ s 6 feet , 1.5 meters or 2 meters , the virus seems to be able to jump different distances depending upon what country it is in .
The article There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule states : The penultimate assumption for today is the wonderful topic of masks , or face diapers and face nappies as many have started calling them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many are still clinging to is that it is ‘ respectful ’ to wear masks because masks protect healthy individuals from getting sick from viruses .
As covered in the previous article Unmasking the Truth : Studies Show Dehumanizing Masks Weaken You and Don ’ t Protect You , masks are designed for surgeons or people who are already sick , not for healthy people .
They stop sick people spreading a disease through large respiratory droplets ; they do nothing to protect well people .
In fact , they restrict oxygen flow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which in turns leads to fatigue , weakness and a lower immunity .
With a lower immunity comes … more susceptibility to disease .
As I previously wrote , the masks many people are wearing – homemade from cloth – are a joke if you think they will stop a virus which is measured in nanometers ( nanometer = 10–9 meters , or 0.000000001 meters ) .
They won ’ t stop a virus but they will assuredly become a hotbed for microbes to develop due to the warm and humid conditions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s what Dr. Russell Blaylock had to say : Assumption 11 : We Live in a World of Indiscriminate Killer Viruses The biggest assumption of this entire scamdemic is that viruses are indiscriminate killers which can cross species and jump bodies through the air to infect people .
In fact , the nature of the humble virus has been totally misunderstood by mainstream science , fueled by the Medical Industry which promotes germ theory and the myth of contagion to keep you in fear and to raise demand for its toxic products ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , the cells die of starvation and poisoning ( since they are separated from energy and nutrients from the body , and since toxic antibiotics are injected into the cell culture ) , not from being infected by a virus .
This great video presentation entitled Viral Misconceptions : The True Nature of Viruses is well worth watching .
It outlines many stunning truths about the nature of viruses , such as : – Viruses are created from within your cells ; they do not come from outside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of systemic toxicity , not because the body has been invaded by an external threat – Viruses dissolve toxic matter when body tissue is too toxic for living bacteria or microbes to feed upon without being poisoned to death .
Without viruses , the human body couldn ’ t achieve homeostasis and sustain itself in the face of systemic toxicity – Viruses are very specific .
They dissolve specific tissues in the body .
They do this with the assistance of antibodies – The more toxicity you have in your body , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The only vector transmission of a virus is through blood transfusion or vaccines ; otherwise , viruses can not infect you by jumping from one body to another – Viruses are discriminatory by nature , made by the body for a specific purpose .
They are not indiscriminate killers – The RT-PCR test ( PCR test for short ) observes genetic material left over by the virus , not the virus itself ( see assumption 2 ) Conclusion : Time to Question all Your COVID Assumptions The good news is that these are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closely , you will realize the entire official narrative on COVID is a house of cards built on sand .
It can not stand up to close scrutiny .
This knowledge is the key to remaining sane and free in a COVID-crazed and brainwashed world .
Spread the word .
Evidence , information and knowledge will dispel assumptions and ignorance .
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com .
Makia is on Steemit and FB .
The above article is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Articles for much more !

The extent of the government’s mendacity beggars belief but the fact is we are being lied to with malice aforethought on almost every key aspect of this “pandemic”.
The following article gives an excellent summary of the various Coronavirus falsehoods and misrepresentations being currently perpetrated by a British government evidently gone somewhat batty in its effort to enrich its pals by keeping the pandemic charade going long after more than half the citizenry have seen through it.
My advice to the gang of loons who have hijacked the nation’s governance is, if you want to emerge from this fiasco in one piece, get honest and straight now while you still have the chance.
In the meantime, let’s see if we can state in summary a good in-a-nutshell layman’s understanding of what is happening.
This is not always easy as so much conflicting or misleading data is out there. The creation of a chaos of information that can overwhelm anyone who tries to arrive at a reasoned understanding is part and parcel of the Coronavirus psyop. A bright, confident and well informed citizenry in broad agreement is not desired. A cowed, fractious and muddled citizenry is desired.
Nevertheless here are some facts that will help you penetrate the smokescreen of confusion.
The COVID 19 mortality stats are FALSE, Very false and they have been false from Day One of the COVID Fiasco. The government has known from the beginning that they are false. The purpose of falsifying the mortality stats is to make a serious enough illness appear to be a terrifying mass killer.
The PCR test is unreliable in that it is prone to give false positives and false negatives. Moreover there are discrepancies between labs in the way samples are processed as the technology is not reliably standardised. A positive result, even when accurate, DOES NOT NECESSARILY PROVE THE PRESENCE OF THE VIRUS (see the article below). The government knows this yet makes a big scary deal out of “all these positive tests” proving that the virus is spreading and does not see fit to clarify this point for the citizenry.
The fact that many more tests are being done results in many more positives (false or otherwise). The increased number of positives is used as “evidence” that the “disease is spreading”. This explains why at the same time reported (falsely or otherwise) fatalities are dropping sharply. It is also significant that the media narrative has switched from the daily bludgeoning of the citizenry with frightening but FALSE death stats, to alarming reports on “how the disease is still spreading” – and the fact that its death rate is commensurately lower than we were given to believe is not mentioned.
The tests do not test just for COVID19 but for ANY of the seven or so family of Coronaviruses (that includes the common cold) of which the relatively serious COVID19 virus is just one.
The other type of test, is the anribody test. Here a positive means only that one might have had one of the Corona viruses at some point in the past.
Social distancing rules are based on someone’s opinion, NOT scientific evidence.
The same goes for mask wearing.
The government’s claim to be “following the science” is FALSE
Lack of clarity on what exactly the test results mean enables the government and media to use them as a desperate CPR for their flatlining smoke-and-mirrors epidemic.
The following 11 COVID assumptions are based on fear and ignorance, not evidence. Operation Coronavirus is a battle of perception.
COVID assumptions –
the assumptions people make about COVID, how dangerous it is, how it spreads and what we need to do to stop it – are running rampant, running far more wildly than the supposed virus SARS-CoV2 itself. The coldly calculated campaign of propaganda surrounding this ‘pandemic’ has achieved its aim.
Besieged with a slew of contradictory information coming from all angles, people in general have succumbed to confusion. Some have given up trying to understand the situation and found it is just easier to obey official directives, even if it means giving up long-held rights.
Below is a list of commonly held COVID assumptions which, if you believe them, will make you much more likely to submit to the robotic, insane and abnormal conditions of the New Normal – screening, testing, contact tracing, monitoring, surveillance, mask-wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation, with mandatory vaccination and microchipping to come.
Assumption 1: The Method of Counting COVID Deaths is Sensible and Accurate
A grand assumption of the COVID plandemic is that the numbers are real and accurate, especially the death toll. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. We have had confirmation after confirmation after confirmation (in nations all over the world) that authorities are counting the deaths in a way that makes no sense. Well, it makes no sense if you want to be sensible or accurate, but it makes perfect sense if you are trying to artificially inflate the numbers and create the impression of a pandemic where there is none. The sleight of hand is achieved by counting those who died with the virus as dying from the virus. This one trick alone is responsible for vastly skewing the numbers and turning the ‘official’ death count into a meaningless farce devoid of any practical value. Assumption 2: The PCR Test for COVID is Accurate As I covered in previous articles, the PCR test (Polymerase Chain Reaction) was invented by scientist Kary Mullis as a manufacturing technique (since it can able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times), not as a diagnostic tool. COVID or SARS-CoV2 fails Koch’s postulates. The virus which shut the world down has still to this day never been isolated, purified and re-injected, or in other words, has never been 100% proven to exist, nor 100% proven to be the cause of the disease. When used to determine the cause of a disease, the PCR test has many flaws: There is no gold standard to which to compare its results (COVID fails Koch’s postulates); It detects and amplifies genetic code (RNA sequences) but offers no proof these RNA sequences are of viral origin; PCR is not detecting a virus per se, but rather a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left, because the PCR method amplifies the tiniest fraction of the viral genetic material. The virus may be deactivated or dead, but the PCR test won’t tell you; It generates many false positive results; The PCR test can give a completely opposite result (positive or negative) depending upon the number of cycles or amplifications that are used, which is ultimately arbitrarily chosen. For some diseases, if you lower the number of cycles to 35, it can make everyone appear negative, while if you increase them to above 35, it can make everyone appear positive; Many patients switch back and forth from positive to negative when taking the PCR test on subsequent days; and Even a positive result does not guarantee the discovered ‘virus’ is the cause of the disease! COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless: In summary, the PCR test doesn’t identify or isolate viruses, doesn’t provide RNA sequences of pathogens, offers no baseline for comparison with patient samples, and cannot determine an infected from an uninfected sample. That is staggeringly useless! Here is a quote from the article “Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available. As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”: If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.” Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”“
Here is the admission about the PCR test by the CDC and FDA:
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms …this test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
Accurate would be about the last word I would use to describe COVID PCR testing, yet it is currently the standard test worldwide for COVID. Another magnificent example of many COVID assumptions. Go figure.
Assumption 3: The Antibody Test for COVID is Accurate
If you realized by reading the last section that the COVID PCR tests are flawed and meaningless, get ready for more absurdity with the COVID antibody tests. They are also known as serology or serological tests. As I covered in the article COVID Antibody Tests: Here Comes More Trickery and Fakery, there are numerous reasons why the antibody tests don’t really work and can be interpreted any way you want:
Old blood samples contain COVID antibodies, so if a test find antibodies, they may have been there for years or decades. There is no way to tell if they were recently acquired; Like the COVID PCR test, they generate many false positive results; They test for antibodies which may not even be specific for COVID; Antibodies don’t actually prove immunity, since there are people who fight off disease with little or no antibodies, and conversely, there are those with high antibody titers or counts, but who still get sick; and The results can be interpreted any way you want. The presence of antibodies could mean you’re safe and immune to future COVID waves, or conversely, it could mean you’re dangerous (sick and infected right now). It’s all about the interpretation.
Hmmm … all these COVID assumptions are not exactly reassuring, are they?
Assumption 4: The COVID Case Count is Rising
Someone skeptical of the alternative view I am painting here may ask at this point: well if COVID is not that dangerous, how come cases keep rising?
The answer is simple: because there is more testing.
The more we test, the more cases we will find, because this ‘virus’ (really an RNA sequence) is far more widespread than we have been told, and there are far more asymptomatic people than we have been told (which shows it’s not that dangerous). As discussed in previous articles, there is really no proof that people didn’t have this particular RNA sequence for years or decades before the test, so the test results are quite meaningless.
That aside, a general rule of thumb is that wherever there are people trying to gain power, there will be fraud, and COVID testing is no exception.
It has been exposed that tens of thousands of coronavirus tests have been double counted (in the UK, but probably happening in many places). This article explains that the
“discrepancy is in large part explained by the practice of counting saliva and nasal samples for the same individual twice.”
Additionally, the COVID tests are using the PCR method as discussed above in COVID Assumption 3, which has many flaws, including the flaw of results flipping back and forth depending on the number of cycles, as this previously quoted article states:
” … it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results. For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.
A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative”, “positive” and “dubious”.
A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.
Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that: “It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.” ”
Assumption 5: Thermal Imaging/Screening for COVID is Effective
Taking people’s temperature by pointing a gun at their head is blatant conditioning. It sends the subliminal message that the State is all powerful and can aim a gun-like device at your head, and you are powerless to do anything but submit.
On a practical level, taking people’s temperatures has no effect in stopping viral spread. Even if someone has an elevated temperature, what does that mean? There is a natural variation in human body temperatures; everyone operates at a slightly different temperature. Besides, even if your temperature is elevated, that could be because you were just exercising, running to catch a flight, just had an angry conversation with someone, just got the phone after a stressful call, had to discipline a disobedient child, etc. Think about all the things that make you stressed and irritated, or raise your blood pressure, which could lead to an elevated temperature!
In this way it is similar to the antibody test; it can show a result, but the result can be interpreted in so many ways that it renders the result pointless in terms of science (although there is a very much a point in terms of control).
Assumption 6: Asymptomatic People Can Spread the Disease
One particular piece of propaganda hammered in hard to people’s brains which is still doing great damage is the idea that anyone could be a carrier and could therefore infect anyone else.
This has the effect of making people anxious, scared and even paranoid in just going about their daily life. However the idea that asymptomatic people can spread the disease is not something to worry about. This Chinese study A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers published in May 2020 exposed 455 subjects to asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV2. None of the 455 were infected!
WHO (World Health Organization) official Dr. Maria van Kerkhove was reported by MSM CNBC saying the following last month in June (though she later backtracked her comments):
““From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.””
Assumption 7: Making Schools Adopt Insanely Restrictive Measures Will Stop COVID Spread
Of the many COVID assumptions floating around, these next two are based on the idea that children are a significant source of COVID spread. They are not! The figures from WorldOMeter state that children aged 0-17 years have 0.02-0.06% share of world COVID deaths, which is essentially zero. Meanwhile, CDC stats show that “among 149,082 (99.6%) cases for which patient age was known, 2,572 (1.7%) occurred in children aged <18 years” which is likewise a tiny fraction. With this in mind, why on Earth would the CDC issue these draconian guidelines (pictured above and also found at this link in full) for American schoolchildren, if not to condition and dehumanize them?
Assumption 8: It’s a Good Idea for Government to Take Abduct Kids from COVID-Positive Parents
Governmental abduction of children using COVID as a pretext has begun. This article from June 17th 2020 reports how the “LA County Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that the court remove [a] child from their physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19. This is a non-offending parent. The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained.”
Let that sink in for a minute. The State stole a child from his/her parents just because a parent showed a COVID-positive result on a (deeply flawed) test! Can anyone spell T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y? This is the outcome of the sinister and oxymoronic warning given by WHO official Michael Ryan in March, that people would be removed from their families in a “safe and dignified” way. Ryan said:
“In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units. Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”
Mercola.com reports that the CDC is recommending newborns be separated at birth from their parents for COVID testing.
How bad does it have to get before people wake up to what is happening?
Assumption 9: Social Distancing is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence
Another of the baseless COVID assumptions is that all this social distancing or physical distancing is backed by solid scientific evidence. It’s not. Whether it’s 6 feet, 1.5 meters or 2 meters, the virus seems to be able to jump different distances depending upon what country it is in. The article There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule states:
“The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine the reliability of their findings.”
Meanwhile UK governmental advisor Robert Dingwall said:
“We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population …I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-metre rule was conjured up out of nowhere … Well, there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for a one-metre distance which comes out of indoor studies in clinical and experimental settings. There’s never been a scientific basis for two metres, it’s kind of a rule of thumb. But it’s not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.” Of course, the assumption that social distancing works is based on the underlying assumption that there is a distinct and isolated virus SARS-CoV2 which is contagious and is the sole cause of all the disease – which has not been proven. Assumption 10: Mask Wearing for Healthy People is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence
The penultimate assumption for today is the wonderful topic of masks, or face diapers and face nappies as many have started calling them. One of the COVID assumptions that many are still clinging to is that it is ‘respectful’ to wear masks because masks protect healthy individuals from getting sick from viruses.
This is patently false.
As covered in the previous article Unmasking the Truth: Studies Show Dehumanizing Masks Weaken You and Don’t Protect You, masks are designed for surgeons or people who are already sick, not for healthy people. They stop sick people spreading a disease through large respiratory droplets; they do nothing to protect well people. In fact, they restrict oxygen flow leading to under-oxygenation (hypoxia), which in turns leads to fatigue, weakness and a lower immunity. With a lower immunity comes … more susceptibility to disease. As I previously wrote, the masks many people are wearing – homemade from cloth – are a joke if you think they will stop a virus which is measured in nanometers (nanometer = 10–9 meters, or 0.000000001 meters). They won’t stop a virus but they will assuredly become a hotbed for microbes to develop due to the warm and humid conditions. For the scientifically minded, here’s what Dr. Russell Blaylock had to say:
“The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.”
Assumption 11: We Live in a World of Indiscriminate Killer Viruses
The biggest assumption of this entire scamdemic is that viruses are indiscriminate killers which can cross species and jump bodies through the air to infect people.
In fact, the nature of the humble virus has been totally misunderstood by mainstream science, fueled by the Medical Industry which promotes germ theory and the myth of contagion to keep you in fear and to raise demand for its toxic products (Big Pharma petrochemical drugs and vaccines).
Viruses have been demonized. As discussed in earlier articles such as Deep Down the Virus Rabbit Hole – Question Everything , virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka exposed the truth that viruses do not cause disease. Lanka famously won a 2017 Supreme Court in Germany where he proved that measles was not caused by a virus. Lanka writes
“Since June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus … according to scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out … These control experiments have never been carried out by official science to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with allegedly “infected” material.
In other words, the cells die of starvation and poisoning (since they are separated from energy and nutrients from the body, and since toxic antibiotics are injected into the cell culture), not from being infected by a virus. This great video presentation entitled Viral Misconceptions: The True Nature of Viruses is well worth watching. It outlines many stunning truths about the nature of viruses, such as:
– Viruses are created from within your cells; they do not come from outside the body
– They arise as a result of systemic toxicity, not because the body has been invaded by an external threat
– Viruses dissolve toxic matter when body tissue is too toxic for living bacteria or microbes to feed upon without being poisoned to death. Without viruses, the human body couldn’t achieve homeostasis and sustain itself in the face of systemic toxicity
– Viruses are very specific. They dissolve specific tissues in the body. They do this with the assistance of antibodies
– The more toxicity you have in your body, the more viral activity you will have
– The only vector transmission of a virus is through blood transfusion or vaccines; otherwise, viruses cannot infect you by jumping from one body to another
– Viruses are discriminatory by nature, made by the body for a specific purpose. They are not indiscriminate killers
– The RT-PCR test (PCR test for short) observes genetic material left over by the virus, not the virus itself (see assumption 2)
Conclusion: Time to Question all Your COVID Assumptions
The good news is that these are assumptions not facts. When you look closely, you will realize the entire official narrative on COVID is a house of cards built on sand. It cannot stand up to close scrutiny. This knowledge is the key to remaining sane and free in a COVID-crazed and brainwashed world. Spread the word. Evidence, information and knowledge will dispel assumptions and ignorance.
*****
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and FB.
Sources:
*https://www.bitchute.com/video/9GWhQ4v9H53E/
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5f_6ltv7oI
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fic2dlKlhw
*https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-19-umbrella-term-fake-pandemic-not-1-disease-cause/
*https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
*https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
*https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-antibody-tests-here-comes-more-trickery-fakery/
*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/tens-thousands-coronavirus-tests-have-double-counted-officials/
*https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219423/
*https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html
*https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
*https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6914e4.htm
*https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/schools.html
*https://parentalrights.org/it-finally-happened-child-taken-due-to-covid-19/
*https://www.bitchute.com/video/CMPsWxDDTwMo/
*https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/09/newborns-and-coronavirus.aspx
*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/15/no-scientific-evidence-support-disastrous-two-metre-rule/
*https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/25/two-metre-social-distancing-rule-conjured-nowhere-professor-claims-12609448/
*https://thefreedomarticles.com/unmasking-the-truth-masks-weaken-dont-protect-you/
*https://thefreedomarticles.com/deep-down-virus-rabbit-hole-question-everything/
*https://davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Paper-Virus-Lanka-002.pdf
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWYQS3LFlE
*https://medium.com/@vernunftundrichtigkeit/coronavirus-why-everyone-was-wrong-fce6db5ba809 (Beda Stadler)
The above article is from The Freedom Articles
Visit the Freedom Articles for much more!


thelibertybeacon--2020-08-02--Here’s One Economic Stimulus Proposal That Wouldn’t Cost Taxpayers Trillions

Congress isn ’ t known for learning from its mistakes .
So , it ’ s not exactly shocking that despite the many failures of their last effort , lawmakers from both parties are pushing for another massive relief bill to stimulate the economy amid COVID-19 and the continued economic fallout .
The GOP has at least expressed a desire to keep the spending package under $ 1 trillion .
( You know , just a measly $ 7,000 per taxpayer ) .
Meanwhile , the Democrats ’ bill comes in at $ 3 trillion , a whopping $ 21,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can ’ t afford either .
The federal government is already set to run an astounding $ 3.7 trillion deficit this year .
The scale of this figure might not be immediately obvious , but consider that at the very peak of the 2008 financial crisis under President Obama we only ran a $ 1.4 trillion deficit .
This will result in future generations , not the septuagenarians in Congress , facing higher taxes , lower economic growth , and reduced opportunity .
Indeed , the already bleak trajectory of our public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic and Congress ’ s massive response bills .
The federal government is now set to hit a 100 percent ratio between debt and the size of the economy—considered a red flag among economists—this fiscal year .
But what if there was a way to further stimulate the economy without compounding our debt crisis ?
It won ’ t satisfy either party ’ s partisan policy wishlist , but if the federal government really wanted to jump-start the economy without further burdening taxpayers it could do so by abolishing barriers to international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start unilaterally by rolling back the tariffs he has imposed on goods such as washing machines , solar panels , aluminum , and steel .
According to Tax Foundation estimates , eliminating these tariffs would increase the size of the economy by $ 58 billion , raise wages , and prevent the destruction of 180,000 jobs .
This reform would decrease the federal government ’ s tax revenue marginally and thus cause some additional debt , but the expense certainly pales in comparison to trillion-dollar stimulus packages .

Hey Congress: Here’s One Economic Stimulus Proposal That Wouldn’t Cost Taxpayers Trillions
Here’s a proposal for another kind of stimulus that would do much more good and cost much, much less.
By: Brad Polumbo
Congress isn’t known for learning from its mistakes. So, it’s not exactly shocking that despite the many failures of their last effort, lawmakers from both parties are pushing for another massive relief bill to stimulate the economy amid COVID-19 and the continued economic fallout.
The GOP has at least expressed a desire to keep the spending package under $1 trillion. (You know, just a measly $7,000 per taxpayer). Meanwhile, the Democrats’ bill comes in at $3 trillion, a whopping $21,000 per taxpayer.
But the truth is we can’t afford either.
The federal government is already set to run an astounding $3.7 trillion deficit this year. The scale of this figure might not be immediately obvious, but consider that at the very peak of the 2008 financial crisis under President Obama we only ran a $1.4 trillion deficit. This will result in future generations, not the septuagenarians in Congress, facing higher taxes, lower economic growth, and reduced opportunity.
Indeed, the already bleak trajectory of our public finance only looks worse now due to the pandemic and Congress’s massive response bills. The federal government is now set to hit a 100 percent ratio between debt and the size of the economy—considered a red flag among economists—this fiscal year.
But what if there was a way to further stimulate the economy without compounding our debt crisis? It won’t satisfy either party’s partisan policy wishlist, but if the federal government really wanted to jump-start the economy without further burdening taxpayers it could do so by abolishing barriers to international trade en masse.
President Trump could start unilaterally by rolling back the tariffs he has imposed on goods such as washing machines, solar panels, aluminum, and steel. According to Tax Foundation estimates, eliminating these tariffs would increase the size of the economy by $58 billion, raise wages, and prevent the destruction of 180,000 jobs. This reform would decrease the federal government’s tax revenue marginally and thus cause some additional debt, but the expense certainly pales in comparison to trillion-dollar stimulus packages.


thelibertybeacon--2020-08-02--George Soros pours out $116,000 to support St. Louis prosecutor

Liberal billionaire George Soros has contributed $ 116,000 to a political action committee supporting St. Louis prosecutor Kimberly Gardner , whose pursuit of Missouri ’ s former GOP governor and a couple who displayed their guns during Black Lives Matters protest have stirred national controversy and legal repercussions .
A Missouri Ethics Commission filing on Saturday showed the Soros donation to the Missouri Justice and Public Safety PAC formed to support Gardner , and indicated the liberal philanthropist was the sole donor to the group so far .
The PAC reported it has spent about $ 104,393 so far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Soros ’ donation allowed the group to pay off prior debts it incurred in supporting Gardner , who faces a primary this Tuesday , the new report showed .
You can review the latest report here .
Gardner , a Democrat , was elected in 2016 and supported by Soros-funded PACs , which financially back several prosecutors across America on a progressive criminal justice reform platform .
In recents weeks , Gardner has garnered national attention for criminally summoning Mark and Patricia McCloskey for brandishing their guns when Black Lives Matters demonstrators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 28 .
The incident has been elevated to a national conversation about Second Amendment rights , Missouri “ Castle Doctrine ” of protecting one ’ s home , and if the prosecution was political .
In recent weeks , President Trump , Missouri Gov .
Michael Parson , Missouri U.S .
Senator Josh Hawley , and Missouri U.S. Attorney General Eric Schmitt have all weighed in on the controversy .
Parson has said he will pardon the McCloskeys .
Schmitt wants to dismiss the case .
The McCloskeys ’ attorney , Joel Schwartz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both Gardner and her office from prosecuting the McCloskeys based upon conflict of interest .
It argues that Gardner ’ s campaign has used the McCloskeys ’ incident to further her own financial , personal , and professional gain because Gardner sent out campaign solicitations for her re-election mentioning the McCloseys .
Michael Vachon , a Soros spokesperson , told Just the News that the PACs he is funding have never denied that they supported prosecutors like Gardner for criminal justice reform .
( TLB ) published this article with permission of John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pictorial content added by ( TLB ) Click Here to read about the staff at Just the News The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built this project with our own funds as we grew .
We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB ) Comment Policy : As a privately owned web site , we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam , advertising , vulgarity , threats of violence , racism , or personal/abusive attacks on other users .
This also applies to trolling , the use of more than one alias , or just intentional mischief .
Enforcement of this policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrators .
Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning .
Disclaimer : TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner .
We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “ fair use ” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political , health , economic and social issues .
The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “ fair use ” you must request permission from the copyright owner .

George Soros pours $116,000 into PAC supporting controversial St. Louis prosecutor
Kimberly Gardner’s conduct in prosecuting a former governor and a couple accused of brandishing guns has stirred national attention.
By Christine Dolan
Liberal billionaire George Soros has contributed $116,000 to a political action committee supporting St. Louis prosecutor Kimberly Gardner, whose pursuit of Missouri’s former GOP governor and a couple who displayed their guns during Black Lives Matters protest have stirred national controversy and legal repercussions.
A Missouri Ethics Commission filing on Saturday showed the Soros donation to the Missouri Justice and Public Safety PAC formed to support Gardner, and indicated the liberal philanthropist was the sole donor to the group so far.
The PAC reported it has spent about $104,393 so far, including about $77,804 directly on Gardner. Soros’ donation allowed the group to pay off prior debts it incurred in supporting Gardner, who faces a primary this Tuesday, the new report showed.
You can review the latest report here.
Gardner, a Democrat, was elected in 2016 and supported by Soros-funded PACs, which financially back several prosecutors across America on a progressive criminal justice reform platform.
She drew national attention when she filed criminal charges against then-Republican Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, forcing him to resign, only to reveal later she did not have evidence to substantiate her allegations. She is facing investigation for her conduct in the Greitens case, and her former chief investigator is awaiting trial on tampering charges.
In recents weeks, Gardner has garnered national attention for criminally summoning Mark and Patricia McCloskey for brandishing their guns when Black Lives Matters demonstrators trespassed onto their private neighborhood on June 28.
The incident has been elevated to a national conversation about Second Amendment rights, Missouri “Castle Doctrine” of protecting one’s home, and if the prosecution was political.
In recent weeks, President Trump, Missouri Gov. Michael Parson, Missouri U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, and Missouri U.S. Attorney General Eric Schmitt have all weighed in on the controversy.
Parson has said he will pardon the McCloskeys. Schmitt wants to dismiss the case.
The McCloskeys’ attorney, Joel Schwartz, filed a motion recently to dismiss both Gardner and her office from prosecuting the McCloskeys based upon conflict of interest. It argues that Gardner’s campaign has used the McCloskeys’ incident to further her own financial, personal, and professional gain because Gardner sent out campaign solicitations for her re-election mentioning the McCloseys.
Michael Vachon, a Soros spokesperson, told Just the News that the PACs he is funding have never denied that they supported prosecutors like Gardner for criminal justice reform.
_________
THE FACTS INSIDE OUR REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK
*********
(TLB) published this article with permission of John Solomon at Just the News
Some emphasis and pictorial content added by (TLB)
Click Here to read about the staff at Just the News
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-08-02--Is Pain An Opinion?

Is Pain An Opinion?

All pain is real , but it ’ s also true that it ’ s “ made by the brain ” and that we can exert some control over it .
Alternative medicine — including music therapy — is full of pain-relief claims .
Although some are simply too good to be true , the oddities of pain can explain why others hold up , as well as why my trumpet playing helps .
One thing we tend to believe about pain , but is wrong , is that it always stems from a single , fixable source .
Another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source to our brains by “ pain nerves.
” That ’ s so wrong it ’ s called “ the naive view ” by neuroscientists .
In truth , pain is in our brain .
Or as the author and University of California , San Diego , neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran put it , “ Pain is an opinion.
” We feel it because of how our brain interprets input transmitted to it from all our senses , not necessarily because of the inherent properties of the input itself .
There are no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Anyone who has willed themselves to not feel a tickle as ticklish can appreciate the difference between stimulation and our perception of it .
Pain can be experienced and relieved in phantom limbs .
Discomfort and swelling increase when people believe a painful hand or knee is larger .
They decrease when it seems smaller , for example in a distorted image or based on virtual reality technology .
Injections are less painful when we don ’ t watch them .
Using our brains , we can exert some control over it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not so surprising because every perception we have is the brain ’ s best guess at interpreting what is happening and what we should do about it .
On the other hand , the feeling of pain is overwhelmingly palpable , corporeal — when you have pain , you have it somewhere .
Nobody wants to hear , let alone believe , it ’ s made in our head .
“ Many pain patients say , ‘ I know my pain is real because I can feel it , ' ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pain researcher at the University of South Australia .
“ All pain is real , no matter what is causing it .
But also , all pain is made by the brain in response to the information available to it.
” According to his work and that of others , the degree of pain is not a reliable indicator of the severity of injury .
And sometimes there is pain without any tissue damage at all .
An extreme example came from a 1995 report in the British Medical Journal .
A builder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which penetrated his boot ’ s sole , the tip visibly protruding from its top .
To relieve his excruciating pain , doctors administered fentanyl and a sedative .
But , when they removed the boot , the doctors discovered that the nail had passed between his toes , leaving his foot unharmed .
There are many studies that find that the fear or catastrophizing of pain contributes to a greater feeling of pain .
When our brain decides to interpret a sensation as painful , it also sends a signal back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nerve endings can chemically change in response to signals from the brain .
Pain is more like a conversation between the brain and the body .
And like verbal conversations , it can be heated or calm .
If something in the mind — fear — can make pain worse , can some other thoughts or mood make it better ?
Yes , to an extent .
For example , pain can be lessened when we feel safe .
An early demonstration of this fact came from a study in JAMA in 1956 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ II soldiers were compared with civilians with similar injuries .
Though 83 percent of the civilians requested narcotic pain killers , only 32 percent of the soldiers did .
One interpretation of these results is that the soldiers felt safer just being off the battlefield , and that the relative sense of safety diminished their feeling of pain .
Love , like safety , can also ease pain .
For example , a study published in Pain Medicine found that people who spend a greater portion of their day thinking about a romantic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pictures of that partner than those less preoccupied with their partner .
Other studies show that pain is reduced when partners hold hands .
Mr. Moseley has made the brain ’ s role in pain part of his life ’ s work .
“ The longer pain persists , the more sensitive the pain system becomes , ” he said .
“ That ’ s what the nervous system does : It learns .
Understanding this complex relationship , along with re-engaging the body , is the first step toward loosening pain ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cure all .
We can ’ t think away all pain .
For one , we don ’ t fully control our thoughts .
Just as you can ’ t relax when told “ to just relax , ” you can ’ t become pain free just by telling yourself your brain is exacerbating your pain .
Even the happiest , calmest optimists experience pain .
For another , many people experiencing chronic pain are also experiencing other stressors that cause them to feel less safe and secure — feelings that exacerbate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pain aren ’ t just a little stressed , they are a lot stressed , ” said Paul Ingraham , who has made a career explaining the science of chronic pain and injury rehab .
“ They ’ re stressed by the pain itself and also by major life challenges and socioeconomic problems that no one could solve with anything less than years of effort and maybe a miracle or two.
” Some stressors that exacerbate pain , as well as contribute to other health problems , are not so easily removed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ feature of life , and it makes pain worse .
This points to the importance of addressing mental health alongside physical health .
A recent systematic review of 202 clinical trials of non-pharmacological pain treatments found that those with evidence of effectiveness included approaches that addressed the mind , not just the body .
According to the report , published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality , these were “ consistently associated with durable slight to moderate improvements in function and pain , ” at least for some conditions .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety can be achieved relatively easily .
For example , deep breathing or listening to or playing music are relatively simple and inexpensive , and without harmful side effects .
Others , like improving your social life or leaving a stressful job , take more work and can be more disruptive .
Some might consider consulting professionals specializing in cognitive behavioral therapy and other mindfulness techniques aimed at addressing the brain-pain relationship .
Although all these can be of some help , they won ’ t eliminate all pain in all people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer short-term relief .
Related article : 20 Sources of Pain In The Body Are Each Directly Tied To Specific Emotional States

Is Pain An Opinion?
By: Austin Frakt
All pain is real, but it’s also true that it’s “made by the brain” and that we can exert some control over it.
Alternative medicine — including music therapy — is full of pain-relief claims. Although some are simply too good to be true, the oddities of pain can explain why others hold up, as well as why my trumpet playing helps.
One thing we tend to believe about pain, but is wrong, is that it always stems from a single, fixable source. Another is that pain is communicated from that source to our brains by “pain nerves.” That’s so wrong it’s called “the naive view” by neuroscientists.
In truth, pain is in our brain. Or as the author and University of California, San Diego, neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran put it, “Pain is an opinion.” We feel it because of how our brain interprets input transmitted to it from all our senses, not necessarily because of the inherent properties of the input itself. There are no nerves dedicated to sensing and transmitting pain.
Anyone who has willed themselves to not feel a tickle as ticklish can appreciate the difference between stimulation and our perception of it. Pain can be experienced and relieved in phantom limbs.
Discomfort and swelling increase when people believe a painful hand or knee is larger. They decrease when it seems smaller, for example in a distorted image or based on virtual reality technology. Injections are less painful when we don’t watch them. Using our brains, we can exert some control over it.
On the one hand, this is not so surprising because every perception we have is the brain’s best guess at interpreting what is happening and what we should do about it. On the other hand, the feeling of pain is overwhelmingly palpable, corporeal — when you have pain, you have it somewhere. Nobody wants to hear, let alone believe, it’s made in our head.
“Many pain patients say, ‘I know my pain is real because I can feel it,'” said Lorimer Moseley, a clinical scientist and pain researcher at the University of South Australia. “All pain is real, no matter what is causing it. But also, all pain is made by the brain in response to the information available to it.”
According to his work and that of others, the degree of pain is not a reliable indicator of the severity of injury. And sometimes there is pain without any tissue damage at all.
An extreme example came from a 1995 report in the British Medical Journal. A builder jumped onto a nearly six-inch nail, which penetrated his boot’s sole, the tip visibly protruding from its top. To relieve his excruciating pain, doctors administered fentanyl and a sedative. But, when they removed the boot, the doctors discovered that the nail had passed between his toes, leaving his foot unharmed. There are many studies that find that the fear or catastrophizing of pain contributes to a greater feeling of pain.
When our brain decides to interpret a sensation as painful, it also sends a signal back to the body that intensifies that feeling. Nerve endings can chemically change in response to signals from the brain. Pain is more like a conversation between the brain and the body. And like verbal conversations, it can be heated or calm.
If something in the mind — fear — can make pain worse, can some other thoughts or mood make it better? Yes, to an extent.
For example, pain can be lessened when we feel safe. An early demonstration of this fact came from a study in JAMA in 1956. In it, wounded World War II soldiers were compared with civilians with similar injuries. Though 83 percent of the civilians requested narcotic pain killers, only 32 percent of the soldiers did. One interpretation of these results is that the soldiers felt safer just being off the battlefield, and that the relative sense of safety diminished their feeling of pain.
Love, like safety, can also ease pain. For example, a study published in Pain Medicine found that people who spend a greater portion of their day thinking about a romantic partner experience more pain reduction when viewing pictures of that partner than those less preoccupied with their partner. Other studies show that pain is reduced when partners hold hands.
Mr. Moseley has made the brain’s role in pain part of his life’s work. “The longer pain persists, the more sensitive the pain system becomes,” he said. “That’s what the nervous system does: It learns. Understanding this complex relationship, along with re-engaging the body, is the first step toward loosening pain’s grip.”
It’s not a cure all. We can’t think away all pain. For one, we don’t fully control our thoughts. Just as you can’t relax when told “to just relax,” you can’t become pain free just by telling yourself your brain is exacerbating your pain. Even the happiest, calmest optimists experience pain. For another, many people experiencing chronic pain are also experiencing other stressors that cause them to feel less safe and secure — feelings that exacerbate pain.
“Most people with chronic pain aren’t just a little stressed, they are a lot stressed,” said Paul Ingraham, who has made a career explaining the science of chronic pain and injury rehab. “They’re stressed by the pain itself and also by major life challenges and socioeconomic problems that no one could solve with anything less than years of effort and maybe a miracle or two.” Some stressors that exacerbate pain, as well as contribute to other health problems, are not so easily removed. For many, anxiety is an unavoidable feature of life, and it makes pain worse.
This points to the importance of addressing mental health alongside physical health. A recent systematic review of 202 clinical trials of non-pharmacological pain treatments found that those with evidence of effectiveness included approaches that addressed the mind, not just the body. According to the report, published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, these were “consistently associated with durable slight to moderate improvements in function and pain,” at least for some conditions.
Some stress reduction and promotion of feelings of safety can be achieved relatively easily. For example, deep breathing or listening to or playing music are relatively simple and inexpensive, and without harmful side effects. Others, like improving your social life or leaving a stressful job, take more work and can be more disruptive. Some might consider consulting professionals specializing in cognitive behavioral therapy and other mindfulness techniques aimed at addressing the brain-pain relationship.
Although all these can be of some help, they won’t eliminate all pain in all people, and in many cases they can only offer short-term relief.
••••
Related article: 20 Sources of Pain In The Body Are Each Directly Tied To Specific Emotional States
••••
The above published article (Is Pain An Opinion?) was originally created and published by Prevent Disease and is republished on this website with permission and attribution to the author Austin Frakt and preventdisease.com. Visit the site of origin to access references and sources.
••••
•••• Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-08-02--CIA Fabricated Russiagate “Evidence”, Says Former NSA Tech Chief [Video]

An important public statement was made on July 27th by Bill Binney , the U.S .
Governments top expert on the internet , and on computer hacking .
He had been the Technical Director of the NSA when he quit and became a whistleblower against that Agency while George W. Bush was the U.S. President and invaded Iraq on the basis of faked evidence .
Binney has now laid out , in this speech , the evidence that he wants to present in court against Barack Obama ’ s CIA , that it defrauded Americans to believe in “ Russiagate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hacked ’ the computers of Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party officials and fed that information to Wikileaks and other organizations ) .
Binney cites evidence , which , if true , conclusively proves that Russiagate was actually created fraudulently by the CIA ’ s extensive evidence-tampering , which subsequently became covered-up by the Special Counsel Robert Mueller , in his investigations for the Democratic Party ’ s first ( and failed ) try at impeaching and removing from office U.S. President Donald J. Trump .
Here is the transcript of his 10-minute speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the meaning of technical phrases , and also boldface for emphasis of his key findings , and I place into [ brackets ] explanatory amplifications of my own ) , summarizing why he is convinced that the CIA ( under President Barack Obama ) did this frame-up against Russia , ‘ Russiagate ’ — it ’ s a case that he is seeking to present to Congress , and in court , and to debate in public , instead of to continue to be hidden from the public ; he wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this evidence , so that the public will be able to see it , and evaluate it , for themselves : Basically the problem is that I can ’ t seem to get the forensic evidence into a court or up into the mainstream of evidence for defeating-refuting Russiagate .
The point is that in the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity we have a bunch of technical people including Kirk Wiebe and I and some others and some affiliates that were in the UK who also joined the analysis process , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wikileaks , because the allegation from the beginning is that Russia hacked the DNC and gave the emails to Wikileaks to publish .
So , we looked at those emails , to see if there was something there that might give us some idea of how Wikileaks got that data .
Well , in all the 35,813 emails that they posted in three batches , one [ batch was ] downloaded according to last modified times on the 23rd of May , and another on the 25th of May , and one [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of 2016 .
Now , all those files , all 35,813 , had a last modified time that was rounded off [ rounded up ] to an even [ the next-higher ] second , so they all ended up in even [ meaning complete or full , not fractional ] seconds .
Now , if you know anything about data processing and data storage and things of that nature , there is a program that was quite common in the past [ including 2016 ] using what ’ s called fat file @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is a process that when doing a batch process of data and transferring it to a storage device like a thumb drive or a CD-ROM , it rounds off the last modified time to the nearest even [ next-higher ] second , so that ’ s exactly the property we found in all that data posted by Wikileaks .
Now , that said very simply this data was downloaded to a storage device a CD-ROM or a thumb drive and physically transported before Wikileaks could post it , so that meant it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no rounding off to the next-higher second , as it would be if it ’ s a file that ’ s been carried over the internet ] , no matter how you look at it .
We ’ re looking at the forensic evidence that says the DNC emails were not hacked , they were downloaded and physically transported to Wikileaks .
And , then , we had the other issue , [ which was ] with Guccifer 2 .
Now , Guccifer 2 came out shortly after , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails on Hillary Clinton , and so on , and the DNC .
Well , we looked at all the material that Guccifer 2 posted and [ he ] was saying here are the hacks that I did on the DNC .
He claimed he did one on the fifth of July , and one on the first of September , of 2016 .
Well , when you start looking at that — and we looked at the files — he posted a series of files , with file names , the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a timestamp at the end of the file .
Then , the next file number of characters and timestamp , and so on , for I don ’ t know how many thousands of files .
So , we looked at all those files , and we ran a program to calculate the transfer rate of all that data , because all you have to do is look at between the two time stamps , the file name and the number of characters in the file , and take the difference between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that ’ s the transfer rate for that number of characters , so we found that the variations ran from something like 19 to 49.1 megabytes per second .
Now , that means for 19 to 49 million characters per second , and [ yet ] the world wide web would not support that rate of transfer , not for anybody who ’ s just , you know , a hacker coming in across the net , trying to do it .
They won ’ t support that kind [ speed ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we could be wrong [ and ] that it could be done , and so we said okay , we ’ re going to try it .
So , we organized some hackers in Europe , to try to transfer a data set from the U.S. over to Europe , to see how fast we could get it there , and we tried it from Albania , and Serbia , a couple of places in the Netherlands , and London .
Well , we got various rates , but the highest rate we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Jersey and one in London , and that was [ the one which had gone at ] 49.1 megabytes per second , and it went at 12 megabytes per second , which is one-fourth the rate , little less than one-fourth the rate necessary to do the transfer at the highest rate that we saw in the Guccifer 2 data , which meant it didn ’ t go across the net , so , in fact , the file rate transfers couldn ’ t .
We were nowhere near the maximum rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this had been a hack ] .
And so we said , okay , if anybody has a way of getting it there , let us know , and we ’ ll help you try to get to do that , and so far no one has ever come forward to dispute either the facts on the DNC data last file , modified file times , nor the transfer rates , for the Guccifer 2 .
Plus , there ’ s another factor with Guccifer 2 , there ’ s actually two more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the five July data , and the one September data , if you ignored a date and hour they could merge like you ’ re shuffling a deck of cards the holes in the five July data timing were filled by data from the first September , that said to us that Guccifer 2 was playing with the data , separating in the two files , saying he made two different acts and and doing a range change on the date and the hour on the one file , so this to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the part of Guccifer 2 .
Then , there ’ s another factor : when Guccifer 2 put out some from files on 15 june of 2016 , with the signatures of Russian saying it ’ s a Russian hack , our fellows in the UK looking at the data found five of those files at a minimum , I don ’ t know they ’ re through yet looking , but they found five files that Guccifer 2 posted on the 15th of June with Russian signatures saying the Russians did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same five files posted by Wikileaks from a Podesta emails and they did not have the Russian signatures , so that meant Guccifer 2 was inserting Russian signatures to make it look like the Russians did the [ alleged ] hack .
Well , if you go back to the Vault 7 release from Wikileaks again , from CIA , and you look , they have this Marble framework program that will modify files to look like someone else did the hack , and who were the countries that they had the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Marble framework program ?
Well , one was Russia , the other was China , North Korea , Iran , and Arab countries .
Well , to us , then , that means that the fabrication of the insert of the Russian signatures means that somebody modified the file and made it look like it fits the Marble framework definition of doing that kind of activity , which thus says all of this boosts with two materials pointing back now to CIA , as the origin of it , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and none of it points to Russia .
In fact , we can ’ t even find anything that points to Russia , when in fact the Mueller indictment , or the Mueller report , and that Rosenstein indictment , named some that they called trolls for the Russian government , the IRA , the Internet Research Agency , out of St. Petersburg , and Russia , they named it in a court document , and , well , the IRA over there said we are no way near , we are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian government , so they sent lawyers in to challenge that in the court of law here in the U.S. , and the court charged the government to prove it , and they couldn ’ t , they couldn ’ t prove anything , and so the judge basically reprimanded them and said you were never to mention the IRA as in any way affiliated with the Russian government again , so their whole case was falling apart .
Everything looked like the rooks were two potato , was a fabrication , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications , fabrication , and even if you look at some of the testimony that came out from the Crowdstrike CEO [ hired by the Democratic National Committee ] , I think his name was Sean Henry , he said we we had no indications of exfiltrating the data , but we had evidence that it was exfiltrated .
Now , if he ’ s talking about the last modified times as an indication of exfiltration , which it was but it wasn ’ t from a hack it was from a download @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indication it was done locally as were the Guccifer 2 data that couldn ’ t go across the net .
It was a download locally .
All that stuff happened locally .
In fact , some of the data and the Guccifer 2 material had all the time stamps indicating it was done on the East Coast of the United States , we had one in Central time , and one on the West Coast , but most of them fell on the East Coast , so it implied that all this stuff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was happening on the East Coast , and that really pointed right back at CIA , as the origin of all this fabrication .

An important public statement was made on July 27th by Bill Binney, the U.S. Governments top expert on the internet, and on computer hacking. He had been the Technical Director of the NSA when he quit and became a whistleblower against that Agency while George W. Bush was the U.S. President and invaded Iraq on the basis of faked evidence.
Binney has now laid out, in this speech, the evidence that he wants to present in court against Barack Obama’s CIA, that it defrauded Americans to believe in “Russiagate” (the allegation that Russia ‘hacked’ the computers of Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party officials and fed that information to Wikileaks and other organizations). Binney cites evidence, which, if true, conclusively proves that Russiagate was actually created fraudulently by the CIA’s extensive evidence-tampering, which subsequently became covered-up by the Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in his investigations for the Democratic Party’s first (and failed) try at impeaching and removing from office U.S. President Donald J. Trump.
Here is the transcript of his 10-minute speech (and I add links to explanations of the meaning of technical phrases, and also boldface for emphasis of his key findings, and I place into [brackets] explanatory amplifications of my own), summarizing why he is convinced that the CIA (under President Barack Obama) did this frame-up against Russia, ‘Russiagate’ — it’s a case that he is seeking to present to Congress, and in court, and to debate in public, instead of to continue to be hidden from the public; he wants to show, and publicly to debate, this evidence, so that the public will be able to see it, and evaluate it, for themselves:
Basically the problem is that I can’t seem to get the forensic evidence into a court or up into the mainstream of evidence for defeating-refuting Russiagate. The point is that in the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity we have a bunch of technical people including Kirk Wiebe and I and some others and some affiliates that were in the UK who also joined the analysis process, and we were looking at the files posted by Wikileaks, because the allegation from the beginning is that Russia hacked the DNC and gave the emails to Wikileaks to publish. So, we looked at those emails, to see if there was something there that might give us some idea of how Wikileaks got that data. Well, in all the 35,813 emails that they posted in three batches, one [batch was] downloaded according to last modified times on the 23rd of May, and another on the 25th of May, and one [other] on the 26th of August, of 2016. Now, all those files, all 35,813, had a last modified time that was rounded off [rounded up] to an even [the next-higher] second, so they all ended up in even [meaning complete or full, not fractional] seconds. Now, if you know anything about data processing and data storage and things of that nature, there is a program that was quite common in the past [including 2016] using what’s called fat file formatting file allocation, table formatting, which is a process that when doing a batch process of data and transferring it to a storage device like a thumb drive or a CD-ROM, it rounds off the last modified time to the nearest even [next-higher] second, so that’s exactly the property we found in all that data posted by Wikileaks. Now, that said very simply this data was downloaded to a storage device a CD-ROM or a thumb drive and physically transported before Wikileaks could post it, so that meant it was not a hack [since there’s no rounding off to the next-higher second, as it would be if it’s a file that’s been carried over the internet], no matter how you look at it. We’re looking at the forensic evidence that says the DNC emails were not hacked, they were downloaded and physically transported to Wikileaks.
And, then, we had the other issue, [which was] with Guccifer 2. Now, Guccifer 2 came out shortly after, you know, Julian Assange announced that he had emails on Hillary Clinton, and so on, and the DNC. Well, we looked at all the material that Guccifer 2 posted and [he] was saying here are the hacks that I did on the DNC. He claimed he did one on the fifth of July, and one on the first of September, of 2016. Well, when you start looking at that — and we looked at the files — he posted a series of files, with file names, the numbers of characters in the file, and a timestamp at the end of the file. Then, the next file number of characters and timestamp, and so on, for I don’t know how many thousands of files. So, we looked at all those files, and we ran a program to calculate the transfer rate of all that data, because all you have to do is look at between the two time stamps, the file name and the number of characters in the file, and take the difference between the times [start-time versus end-time], and that’s the transfer rate for that number of characters, so we found that the variations ran from something like 19 to 49.1 megabytes per second. Now, that means for 19 to 49 million characters per second, and [yet] the world wide web would not support that rate of transfer, not for anybody who’s just, you know, a hacker coming in across the net, trying to do it. They won’t support that kind [speed] of transfer, and some people thought we could be wrong [and] that it could be done, and so we said okay, we’re going to try it. So, we organized some hackers in Europe, to try to transfer a data set from the U.S. over to Europe, to see how fast we could get it there, and we tried it from Albania, and Serbia, a couple of places in the Netherlands, and London. Well, we got various rates, but the highest rate we got was between the data center in New Jersey and one in London, and that was [the one which had gone at] 49.1 megabytes per second, and it went at 12 megabytes per second, which is one-fourth the rate, little less than one-fourth the rate necessary to do the transfer at the highest rate that we saw in the Guccifer 2 data, which meant it didn’t go across the net, so, in fact, the file rate transfers couldn’t. We were nowhere near the maximum rate that [would have been necessary if this had been a hack]. And so we said, okay, if anybody has a way of getting it there, let us know, and we’ll help you try to get to do that, and so far no one has ever come forward to dispute either the facts on the DNC data last file, modified file times, nor the transfer rates, for the Guccifer 2.
Plus, there’s another factor with Guccifer 2, there’s actually two more with Guccifer 2 data, the first of the five July data, and the one September data, if you ignored a date and hour they could merge like you’re shuffling a deck of cards the holes in the five July data timing were filled by data from the first September, that said to us that Guccifer 2 was playing with the data, separating in the two files, saying he made two different acts and and doing a range change on the date and the hour on the one file, so this to us was also an indication of fabrication on the part of Guccifer 2. Then, there’s another factor: when Guccifer 2 put out some from files on 15 june of 2016, with the signatures of Russian saying it’s a Russian hack, our fellows in the UK looking at the data found five of those files at a minimum, I don’t know they’re through yet looking, but they found five files that Guccifer 2 posted on the 15th of June with Russian signatures saying the Russians did this because of a signature they found the same five files posted by Wikileaks from a Podesta emails and they did not have the Russian signatures, so that meant Guccifer 2 was inserting Russian signatures to make it look like the Russians did the [alleged] hack. Well, if you go back to the Vault 7 release from Wikileaks again, from CIA, and you look, they have this Marble framework program that will modify files to look like someone else did the hack, and who were the countries that they had the ability to do that, in the in the Marble framework program? Well, one was Russia, the other was China, North Korea, Iran, and Arab countries. Well, to us, then, that means that the fabrication of the insert of the Russian signatures means that somebody modified the file and made it look like it fits the Marble framework definition of doing that kind of activity, which thus says all of this boosts with two materials pointing back now to CIA, as the origin of it, that’s the basic evidence we have, and none of it points to Russia.
In fact, we can’t even find anything that points to Russia, when in fact the Mueller indictment, or the Mueller report, and that Rosenstein indictment, named some that they called trolls for the Russian government, the IRA, the Internet Research Agency, out of St. Petersburg, and Russia, they named it in a court document, and, well, the IRA over there said we are no way near, we are not in any way associated with, the Russian government, so they sent lawyers in to challenge that in the court of law here in the U.S., and the court charged the government to prove it, and they couldn’t, they couldn’t prove anything, and so the judge basically reprimanded them and said you were never to mention the IRA as in any way affiliated with the Russian government again, so their whole case was falling apart. Everything looked like the rooks were two potato, was a fabrication, the alleged hack and so on, all applications, fabrication, and even if you look at some of the testimony that came out from the Crowdstrike CEO [hired by the Democratic National Committee], I think his name was Sean Henry, he said we we had no indications of exfiltrating the data, but we had evidence that it was exfiltrated. Now, if he’s talking about the last modified times as an indication of exfiltration, which it was but it wasn’t from a hack it was from a download, so that download then is an indication it was done locally as were the Guccifer 2 data that couldn’t go across the net. It was a download locally. All that stuff happened locally. In fact, some of the data and the Guccifer 2 material had all the time stamps indicating it was done on the East Coast of the United States, we had one in Central time, and one on the West Coast, but most of them fell on the East Coast, so it implied that all this stuff [both Wikileaks and Guccifer 2] was happening on the East Coast, and that really pointed right back at CIA, as the origin of all this fabrication.