wakingtimes--2020-11-14--Want to See a Concert? Ticketmaster Wants You To Prove That You’ve Been Vaccinated First

Want to See a Concert ?
Ticketmaster Wants You To Prove That You ’ ve Been Vaccinated First Get the latest Waking Times articles delivered to your inbox .
Sign up here .
This week , the stock market exploded and Americans were given a renewed sense of hope when pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced that their new COVID-19 vaccine showed a 90 % efficacy rate on an initial clinical trials .
According to Pfizer , the results of their Phase 3 trial , shows its vaccine is far more effective than the seasonal flu shot — which had a dismal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018-19 flu season , according to Centers for Disease and Control statistics .
After news of Pfizer ’ s purported vaccine success , the concert ticket giant , Ticketmaster announced a rather controversial move .
Hoping to resume the concert scene in 2021 , Ticketmaster has been working on a framework that will make concertgoers prove they have received the vaccine before attending a show .
If you can not prove vaccination , you can not enter the show unless , of course , you get tested within a 24-72 hour window beforehand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giant .
As it is against the law for unauthorized outside parties to view an individual ’ s health record , Ticketmaster will rely on three separate components for their plan — which is still in its development stages .
According to their plan , the Ticketmaster digital ticket app , third party health information companies like CLEAR Health Pass or IBM ’ s Digital Health Pass and testing and vaccine distribution providers like Labcorp and the CVS Minute Clinic will work together to determine your concert eligibility .
Here ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After purchasing a ticket for a concert , fans would need to verify that they have already been vaccinated ( which would provide approximately one year of COVID-19 protection ) or test negative for coronavirus approximately 24 to 72 hours prior to the concert .
The length of coverage a test would provide would be governed by regional health authorities — if attendees of a Friday night concert had to be tested 48 hours in advance , most could start the testing process the day before the event .
If it was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be tested the same day of the event at a lab or a health clinic .
Once the test was complete , the fan would instruct the lab to deliver the results to their health pass company , like CLEAR or IBM .
If the tests were negative , or the fan was vaccinated , the health pass company would verify the attendee ’ s COVID-19 status to Ticketmaster , which would then issue the fan the credentials needed to access the event .
If a fan tested positive or didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they would not be granted access to the event .
There are still many details to work out , but the goal of the program is for fans to take care of vaccines and testing prior to the concert and not show up hoping to be tested onsite .
Ticketmaster would not store or have access to fans ’ medical records and would only receive verification of whether a fan is cleared to attend an event on a given date .
Different states will have different requirements .
The main role of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to collect data from testing and medical providers and deliver status updates to partner companies in a secure , encrypted way that complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ( HIPAA ) .
Currently , the FDA has not approved any third party companies to distribute real time vaccination data but Ticketmaster president Mark Yovich told Billboard he expects demand for digital screening services to skyrocket once a vaccination is ultimately approved and distributed .
While this will certainly be a controversial issue , the idea of a private company asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their event is not immoral , as you are not being forced to attend .
That being said , however , many people — even those who will be lining up first to receive the vaccine — will likely refuse to have their private medical information handed between multiple parties just to see a concert .
What ’ s more , though the 90 % efficacy rate touted by Pfizer is certainly welcome to many , the track record by those making this claim is less than stellar .
Pfizer has paid out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact was party to the largest health care fraud settlement in US history .
The pharmaceutical giant paid out $ 2.3 billion in 2009 to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products But that was only a single case , this company has a track record dating back decades that includes everything from bribing government officials to illegally testing products on children to making false claims about drugs and illegally marketing them — leading to multiple deaths .
Despite making the largest payout in history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the carpet since 2009 multiple times for misleading the public about their drugs — up to and including vaccines .
Nevertheless , Americans have short memories and seemingly couldn ’ t care less about the criminal past of a company who is claiming 90 % efficacy for a vaccine that was developed and tested in less time than any vaccine in the history of medicine .
Americans would do well to research the last time a vaccine was fast-tracked with limited testing .
As the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cutter Incident : How America ’ s First Polio Vaccine Led to a Growing Vaccine Crisis : While a vaccine for COVID-19 would certainly be welcomed by many , the idea of rushing this in depth process which normally takes years or decades to complete , could prove to be utterly catastrophic .
We should probably heed his advice .
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA .
This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world .
Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project .
Follow @ MattAgorist on Twitter , Steemit , and now on Minds .
**This article ( Want to See a Concert ?
Ticketmaster Wants You To Prove That You ’ ve Been Vaccinated First ) was originally published at The Free Thought Project and is re-posted here with permission .
**

Want to See a Concert? Ticketmaster Wants You To Prove That You’ve Been Vaccinated First
Matt Agorist, The Free Thought Project
Waking Times
This week, the stock market exploded and Americans were given a renewed sense of hope when pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced that their new COVID-19 vaccine showed a 90% efficacy rate on an initial clinical trials.
According to Pfizer, the results of their Phase 3 trial, shows its vaccine is far more effective than the seasonal flu shot — which had a dismal efficacy rate of 29 percent during the 2018-19 flu season, according to Centers for Disease and Control statistics.
After news of Pfizer’s purported vaccine success, the concert ticket giant, Ticketmaster announced a rather controversial move. Hoping to resume the concert scene in 2021, Ticketmaster has been working on a framework that will make concertgoers prove they have received the vaccine before attending a show.
If you cannot prove vaccination, you cannot enter the show unless, of course, you get tested within a 24-72 hour window beforehand and submit this information to the concert giant. As it is against the law for unauthorized outside parties to view an individual’s health record, Ticketmaster will rely on three separate components for their plan — which is still in its development stages.
According to their plan, the Ticketmaster digital ticket app, third party health information companies like CLEAR Health Pass or IBM’s Digital Health Pass and testing and vaccine distribution providers like Labcorp and the CVS Minute Clinic will work together to determine your concert eligibility.
As Billboard reports:
Here’s how it would work, if approved: After purchasing a ticket for a concert, fans would need to verify that they have already been vaccinated (which would provide approximately one year of COVID-19 protection) or test negative for coronavirus approximately 24 to 72 hours prior to the concert. The length of coverage a test would provide would be governed by regional health authorities — if attendees of a Friday night concert had to be tested 48 hours in advance, most could start the testing process the day before the event. If it was a 24-hour window, most people would likely be tested the same day of the event at a lab or a health clinic. Once the test was complete, the fan would instruct the lab to deliver the results to their health pass company, like CLEAR or IBM. If the tests were negative, or the fan was vaccinated, the health pass company would verify the attendee’s COVID-19 status to Ticketmaster, which would then issue the fan the credentials needed to access the event. If a fan tested positive or didn’t take a test to verify their status, they would not be granted access to the event. There are still many details to work out, but the goal of the program is for fans to take care of vaccines and testing prior to the concert and not show up hoping to be tested onsite. Ticketmaster would not store or have access to fans’ medical records and would only receive verification of whether a fan is cleared to attend an event on a given date. Different states will have different requirements. The main role of companies like health pass companies will be to collect data from testing and medical providers and deliver status updates to partner companies in a secure, encrypted way that complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Currently, the FDA has not approved any third party companies to distribute real time vaccination data but Ticketmaster president Mark Yovich told Billboard he expects demand for digital screening services to skyrocket once a vaccination is ultimately approved and distributed.
“We’re already seeing many third-party health care providers prepare to handle the vetting — whether that is getting a vaccine, taking a test or other methods of review and approval — which could then be linked via a digital ticket so everyone entering the event is verified,” Yovich said.
While this will certainly be a controversial issue, the idea of a private company asking for your compliance to voluntarily participate in their event is not immoral, as you are not being forced to attend. That being said, however, many people — even those who will be lining up first to receive the vaccine — will likely refuse to have their private medical information handed between multiple parties just to see a concert.
What’s more, though the 90% efficacy rate touted by Pfizer is certainly welcome to many, the track record by those making this claim is less than stellar. Pfizer has paid out billions in health care fraud fines and in fact was party to the largest health care fraud settlement in US history.
The pharmaceutical giant paid out $2.3 billion in 2009 to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products
“Pfizer violated the law over an extensive time period. Furthermore, at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws,” Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts said at the time.
But that was only a single case, this company has a track record dating back decades that includes everything from bribing government officials to illegally testing products on children to making false claims about drugs and illegally marketing them — leading to multiple deaths. Despite making the largest payout in history, Pfizer has continued to be called to the carpet since 2009 multiple times for misleading the public about their drugs — up to and including vaccines.
Nevertheless, Americans have short memories and seemingly couldn’t care less about the criminal past of a company who is claiming 90% efficacy for a vaccine that was developed and tested in less time than any vaccine in the history of medicine.
Americans would do well to research the last time a vaccine was fast-tracked with limited testing. As the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine wrote in its peer-reviewed paper titled The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to a Growing Vaccine Crisis:
In April 1955 more than 200 000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.
While a vaccine for COVID-19 would certainly be welcomed by many, the idea of rushing this in depth process which normally takes years or decades to complete, could prove to be utterly catastrophic.
“Getting safety issues wrong with a COVID-19 vaccine could set us back for years or even decades,” says vaccine expert Richard Malley, MD.
We should probably heed his advice.
About the Author
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.
**This article (Want to See a Concert? Ticketmaster Wants You To Prove That You’ve Been Vaccinated First) was originally published at The Free Thought Project and is re-posted here with permission.**


wakingtimes--2020-11-16--Battered Souls #018 with Angela Ditch – Flow Consciousness for Trying Times

Battered Souls # 018 with Angela Ditch – Flow Consciousness for Trying Times Get the latest Waking Times articles delivered @ @ @ @ @ up here .
Angela Ditch is a master Kundalini yoga instructor and the creator of @ @ @ @ @ system incorporates ancient healing practices and a modern scientific understanding of the brain and nervous @ @ @ @ @ optimal wellness and happiness .
Having overcome the stressful effects of being born with a @ @ @ @ @ spent years learning tools and techniques to master personal energy and learn how to be @ @ @ @ @ .
Visit us on the web – Battered Souls

Battered Souls #018 with Angela Ditch – Flow Consciousness for Trying Times
Angela Ditch is a master Kundalini yoga instructor and the creator of Flow Tribe. Her teaching system incorporates ancient healing practices and a modern scientific understanding of the brain and nervous system to help people achieve optimal wellness and happiness.
Having overcome the stressful effects of being born with a hypersensitive nervous system, Angela spent years learning tools and techniques to master personal energy and learn how to be comfortable in her own skin.
Visit FlowTribe.ca
Find Angela on Facebook
————————————
Visit us on the web – Battered Souls
Stop by Dylan’s site – Waking Times
————————————
Support Battered Souls with Cryptos!
BITCOIN – 1PgkuMTxVwVEhgbKuXQQ1Qi8kYzsX2fn68
ETHEREUM – 0xaec9c156C492d964Ad6C8bD1377152b85Be230F6
————————————


wakingtimes--2020-11-17--Masks Delay Inevitable Acceptance Of COVID-19 Reality

Get the latest Waking Times articles delivered to your inbox .
Sign up here .
Nine months into the COVID-19 pandemic , the bitter conflict about mask wearing continues .
In my view , the reason for this is because the science behind the mask mandates is never addressed by the politicians and public health professionals making the recommendations , and the media have completely given up on their journalistic duty .
What you end up with is Dr. Anthony Fauci saying things like “ the data on mask wearing speaks for itself , ” 1 without telling you that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that universal mask wearing does not prevent the spread of viral illness .
The remedy would be journalistic investigation , but the mainstream media clearly doesn ’ t fulfill that role anymore .
It ’ s one thing to rely on opinion and unsubstantiated belief when making decisions for your own self .
It ’ s another when opinion is used to justify public health mandates .
When we ’ re talking about the health of billions of people , science really should guide the decisions made , and that means actually taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ literature .
In the featured video , Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , founder of Children ’ s Health Defense , interviews investigative journalist Jeremy Hammond , who has written extensively about foreign policy , finance , vaccines and , more recently , pandemic response measures .
In the interview , they review a range of questions , including : Where did SARS-CoV-2 come from ?
Is it possible that it was the result of gain-of-function research ?
What is the end goal of global measures such as lockdowns and universal mask wearing ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ health , or is there some other agenda at play ?
With regard to mask wearing , what does the science say about their effectiveness against viral illnesses ?
Are there any drawbacks , such as ill health effects ?
Should children wear masks even though their risk of severe COVID-19 illness and death is virtually nonexistent and they ’ re not a significant vector for spread ?
What are the larger societal consequences of mask wearing ?
What impact do the media have on how the public perceives mask orders , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for these draconian freedom-robbing measures ?
As noted by Kennedy , one commonly used tactic is to claim scientific consensus ; that somehow , the science is unequivocal and can not be disputed .
It ’ s important to understand that this is nonsense .
Science is never “ settled , ” and it ’ s exceptionally rare to end up with a scientific consensus on anything , because there are almost always two or more sides to any given inquiry .
Arguing for scientific consensus is particularly egregious and ludicrous when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete opposite of what they say it does !
It ’ s really nothing short of “ gaslighting ” 2 — a term used to describe a particularly insidious form of psychological manipulation in which victims are systematically fed false information that makes them question what they know to be true .
Over time , the victim becomes increasingly unable to discern truth from falsehood as they start doubting their own perceptions .
What Does the Science Say ?
With regard to universal mask wearing , the bottom line , Hammond says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these recommendations .
Under certain conditions , in certain settings , they can be modestly helpful , but by and large , there ’ s no support for the idea that people wearing masks everywhere they go will reduce infection rates and save lives .
Hammond points out that even the World Health Organization , in its June 5 , 2020 , guidance3 on face mask use , noted that there ’ s no direct evidence that universal masking of healthy people is an effective intervention against respiratory illnesses .
According to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that cloth masks “ should only be … used by infected persons … in community settings and not for prevention.
” 5 However , like Fauci , the WHO has vacillated on a number of measures , and in its October 20 , 2020 , update,6 the WHO is now back to urging people to use masks “ as part of a comprehensive strategy of measures to suppress transmission and save lives.
” And , despite the fact that there are no quality standards for cloth masks at all , they recommend wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a higher risk group .
Medical grade masks are only recommended for those over 60 , people with underlying health conditions , those who feel ill and/or those caring for an ill family member .
A policy review paper7 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020 — the Center for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s journal — also found no evidence to support universal mask wearing as a protective measure in non-health care settings .
According to the authors : Another meta-analysis and scientific review8 — which focused on randomized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was led by respected researcher Thomas Jefferson , cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration — posted on the prepublication server medRxiv in April 2020 , found that , compared to no mask , mask wearing in the general population or among health care workers did not reduce influenza-like illness ( ILI ) cases or influenza .
In one study , which looked at quarantined workers , it actually increased the risk of contracting influenza , but lowered the risk of ILI .
They also found there was no difference between surgical masks and N95 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article9 for the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine ( CEBM ) , posted July 23 , 2020 , in which he provides a brief review of these studies .
In it , he also bemoans the fact that lack of scientific evidence is being hidden by politics .
In an October 28 , 2020 , Wall Street Journal opinion piece,10 Joseph Ladapo , an associate professor at UCLA ’ s David Geffen School of Medicine , points out that “ A hallmark of COVID-19 pandemic policy has been the failure of political leaders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their actions , ” and that includes mask mandates .
Speaking of videos showing how speaking disperses potentially contaminated droplets , for each such video , there ’ s another showing the other side of the argument .
For example , the video below shows how the vapors from an e-cigarette flows right through the surgical mask .
If vapor can flow through , airborne viruses do too .
Ladapo does highlight one study published in Health Affairs in June 2020 , which found that U.S. states with universal mask mandates saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of positive COVID-19 tests compared to states that did not mandate masks .
Over time , even “ modest reductions can translate into large differences , ” he notes .
Maybe , maybe not .
Consider what Jefferson notes in his CEBM article:12 Either way , even if masks do reduce infection rates somewhat , that ’ s still different from suggesting that universal mask wearing will bring the pandemic to an end .
Now , while it may be tempting to hitch the entire pro-mask argument on that Health Affairs study , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and in this case , other investigations have found states ’ mask rules appear to have had nothing to do with infection rates after all .
In his article14 “ These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID , ” Yinon Weiss points out that “ No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows , cases all fall and rise around the same time.
” To see all of the graphs , check out Weiss ’ article15 or Twitter thread.16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring home the point : Masks Can not Shield Us From Harsh Realities Perhaps the least scientific recommendation of all is the rule to wear masks outdoors .
A contact-tracing study17 that looked at 318 COVID-19 outbreaks involving at least three people found that just one single incident could be traced back to outdoor transmission .
The most recent evidence of all , which would bring us quite a bit closer to settling the argument about masks is a Danish randomized controlled trial of 6,000 people that sought to prove the usefulness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem appears to be that it didn ’ t , because the researchers can ’ t get it published .
According to the researchers , the study will be published as soon as “ someone dares to do so.
” Considering the argument against mask wearing has been the lack of evidence , if this COVID-19 specific trial actually shows that it works , why would journals refuse to publish it ?
The controversy has been covered in a Twitter thread19 by Alex Berenson , a former New York Times reporter .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently only available in German , reveals that it found mask wearing resulted in tens of millions of contaminations that can occur each day as people use the masks inappropriately , touch their faces and neglect to wash their hands .
For this reason , universal mask wearing may actually do more harm than good .
This is clearly important information that should be disseminated to the general public , yet medical journals are preventing that from happening .
As reported by the CEBM,21 several trials are currently registered in which they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks against COVID-19 .
Time will tell what the findings will be , and if we ’ ll ever find out about them .
Kennedy and Hammond also discuss evidence suggesting chronic mask wearing has its risks and may lead to other unintended health effects , such as : In closing , a recent CDC analysis reveals 85 % of patients testing positive for COVID-19 wore face masks “ often ” or “ always ” in the two weeks preceding their positive test .
It ’ s not a randomized controlled trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it does tell us that , by and large , face masks do not appear to offer very good protection .
If they did , infection would favor the non-wearers .
Meanwhile , mask mandates strip us of our individual sovereignty and humanity .
As noted by Hammond , mask mandates really appear to be more about teaching us to obey orders , no matter whether they make sense to anyone or not .
It ’ s about teaching compliance and , unfortunately , many who have never looked at the science aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by shaming those who don ’ t comply .
I predict it is likely that , at some point in the future , a tradeoff will be offered : Mask mandates will be dropped provided everyone gets vaccinated .
By then , many may be willing to take just about anything as long as they don ’ t have to wear a mask anymore .
I would encourage you to read up on the many open questions relating to fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines before making your decision .
Overall , it seems the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a devious trade is to engage in civil disobedience now , and go unmasked .

Masks Delay Inevitable Acceptance Of COVID-19 Reality
Dr. Mercola, Guest
Waking Times
Nine months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the bitter conflict about mask wearing continues. In my view, the reason for this is because the science behind the mask mandates is never addressed by the politicians and public health professionals making the recommendations, and the media have completely given up on their journalistic duty.
What you end up with is Dr. Anthony Fauci saying things like “the data on mask wearing speaks for itself,”1 without telling you that virtually all studies published to date show that universal mask wearing does not prevent the spread of viral illness. The remedy would be journalistic investigation, but the mainstream media clearly doesn’t fulfill that role anymore.
It’s one thing to rely on opinion and unsubstantiated belief when making decisions for your own self. It’s another when opinion is used to justify public health mandates. When we’re talking about the health of billions of people, science really should guide the decisions made, and that means actually taking a cold hard look at the scientific literature.
http://youtu.be/A9xE4fpYUMI
A Journalist Investigates
In the featured video, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder of Children’s Health Defense, interviews investigative journalist Jeremy Hammond, who has written extensively about foreign policy, finance, vaccines and, more recently, pandemic response measures.
In the interview, they review a range of questions, including: Where did SARS-CoV-2 come from? Is it possible that it was the result of gain-of-function research? What is the end goal of global measures such as lockdowns and universal mask wearing? Is it really all about protecting public health, or is there some other agenda at play?
With regard to mask wearing, what does the science say about their effectiveness against viral illnesses? Are there any drawbacks, such as ill health effects? Should children wear masks even though their risk of severe COVID-19 illness and death is virtually nonexistent and they’re not a significant vector for spread?
What are the larger societal consequences of mask wearing? What impact do the media have on how the public perceives mask orders, and just how do the media manufacture consent for these draconian freedom-robbing measures?
As noted by Kennedy, one commonly used tactic is to claim scientific consensus; that somehow, the science is unequivocal and cannot be disputed. It’s important to understand that this is nonsense. Science is never “settled,” and it’s exceptionally rare to end up with a scientific consensus on anything, because there are almost always two or more sides to any given inquiry.
Arguing for scientific consensus is particularly egregious and ludicrous when the bulk of the evidence actually demonstrates the complete opposite of what they say it does!
It’s really nothing short of “gaslighting”2 — a term used to describe a particularly insidious form of psychological manipulation in which victims are systematically fed false information that makes them question what they know to be true. Over time, the victim becomes increasingly unable to discern truth from falsehood as they start doubting their own perceptions.
What Does the Science Say?
With regard to universal mask wearing, the bottom line, Hammond says, is that the science does not support these recommendations. Under certain conditions, in certain settings, they can be modestly helpful, but by and large, there’s no support for the idea that people wearing masks everywhere they go will reduce infection rates and save lives.
Hammond points out that even the World Health Organization, in its June 5, 2020, guidance3 on face mask use, noted that there’s no direct evidence that universal masking of healthy people is an effective intervention against respiratory illnesses. According to the WHO:4
“Meta-analyses in systematic literature reviews have reported that the use of N95 respirators compared with the use of medical masks is not associated with any statistically significant lower risk of the clinical respiratory illness outcomes or laboratory-confirmed influenza or viral infections …
At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
At the time, WHO recommended that cloth masks “should only be … used by infected persons … in community settings and not for prevention.”5 However, like Fauci, the WHO has vacillated on a number of measures, and in its October 20, 2020, update,6 the WHO is now back to urging people to use masks “as part of a comprehensive strategy of measures to suppress transmission and save lives.”
And, despite the fact that there are no quality standards for cloth masks at all, they recommend wearing a fabric mask unless you’re in a higher risk group. Medical grade masks are only recommended for those over 60, people with underlying health conditions, those who feel ill and/or those caring for an ill family member.
Policy Review Found No Support for Universal Masking
A policy review paper7 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020 — the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s journal — also found no evidence to support universal mask wearing as a protective measure in non-health care settings. According to the authors:
“Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza …
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids …
There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.
Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza … In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission.”
Another meta-analysis and scientific review8 — which focused on randomized controlled studies rather than observational ones and was led by respected researcher Thomas Jefferson, cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration — posted on the prepublication server medRxiv in April 2020, found that, compared to no mask, mask wearing in the general population or among health care workers did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases or influenza.
In one study, which looked at quarantined workers, it actually increased the risk of contracting influenza, but lowered the risk of ILI. They also found there was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators.
“In countries with active community transmission and no herd immunity, nothing short of inhumane lockdowns can stop the spread of COVID-19, so the most sensible and sustainable path forward is to learn to live with the virus. Shifting focus away from mask mandates and toward the reality of respiratory viral spread will free up time and resources to protect the most vulnerable Americans. ~ Professor Joseph Ladapo”
Jefferson also wrote an interesting article9 for the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), posted July 23, 2020, in which he provides a brief review of these studies. In it, he also bemoans the fact that lack of scientific evidence is being hidden by politics.
Policy Makers Lean on Low Quality Evidence
In an October 28, 2020, Wall Street Journal opinion piece,10 Joseph Ladapo, an associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, points out that “A hallmark of COVID-19 pandemic policy has been the failure of political leaders and health officials to anticipate the unintended consequences of their actions,” and that includes mask mandates.
“First, consider how the debate has evolved and the underlying scientific evidence. Several randomized trials of community or household masking have been completed,” Ladapo writes.
“Most have shown that wearing a mask has little or no effect on respiratory virus transmission11 … In March, when Anthony Fauci said, ‘wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better’ but ‘it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think it is,’ his statement reflected scientific consensus, and was consistent with the World Health Organization’s guidance.
Almost overnight, the recommendations flipped. The reason? The risk of asymptomatic transmission. Health officials said mask mandates were now not only reasonable but critical. This is a weak rationale, given that presymptomatic spread of respiratory viruses isn’t a novel phenomenon in public health …
The public assumes that research performed since the beginning of the pandemic supports mask mandates. Policy makers and the media point to low-quality evidence, such as a study of COVID-19 positive hairstylists in Missouri or a Georgia summer camp with an outbreak.
These anecdotes, while valuable, tell us nothing about the experience of other hairdressers or other summer camps that adopted similar or different masking practices. Also low-quality evidence: Videos of droplets spreading through air as people talk, a well-intended line of research that has stoked fears about regular human interactions.”
Speaking of videos showing how speaking disperses potentially contaminated droplets, for each such video, there’s another showing the other side of the argument. For example, the video below shows how the vapors from an e-cigarette flows right through the surgical mask. If vapor can flow through, airborne viruses do too.
http://youtu.be/CeBGxKcV2CQ
Do Masks Reduce Infection Rates?
Ladapo does highlight one study published in Health Affairs in June 2020, which found that U.S. states with universal mask mandates saw a 2% reduction in growth rates of positive COVID-19 tests compared to states that did not mandate masks. Over time, even “modest reductions can translate into large differences,” he notes. Maybe, maybe not. Consider what Jefferson notes in his CEBM article:12
“Norway’s Institute for Public Health reported that if masks did work then any difference in infection rates would be small when infection rates are low: assuming 20% asymptomatics and a risk reduction of 40% for wearing masks, 200,000 people would need to wear one to prevent one new infection per week.”
Either way, even if masks do reduce infection rates somewhat, that’s still different from suggesting that universal mask wearing will bring the pandemic to an end.
“The most reasonable conclusion from the available scientific evidence is that community mask mandates have — at most — a small effect on the course of the pandemic. But you wouldn’t know that from watching cable news,” Ladapo writes.
“Claims that low mask compliance is responsible for rising case counts are also not supported by Gallup data,13 which show that the percentage of Americans reporting wearing masks has been high and relatively stable since June. Health officials and political leaders have assigned mask mandates a gravity unsupported by empirical research.”
Now, while it may be tempting to hitch the entire pro-mask argument on that Health Affairs study, remember that good science must be reproducible, and in this case, other investigations have found states’ mask rules appear to have had nothing to do with infection rates after all.
In his article14 “These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID,” Yinon Weiss points out that “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.” To see all of the graphs, check out Weiss’ article15 or Twitter thread.16 Here are just a select few to bring home the point:
Masks Cannot Shield Us From Harsh Realities
Perhaps the least scientific recommendation of all is the rule to wear masks outdoors. A contact-tracing study17 that looked at 318 COVID-19 outbreaks involving at least three people found that just one single incident could be traced back to outdoor transmission.
“By paying outsize and scientifically unjustified attention to masking, mask mandates have the unintended consequence of delaying public acceptance of the unavoidable truth,” Ladapo writes in his WSJ opinion article.18
“In countries with active community transmission and no herd immunity, nothing short of inhumane lockdowns can stop the spread of COVID-19, so the most sensible and sustainable path forward is to learn to live with the virus.
Shifting focus away from mask mandates and toward the reality of respiratory viral spread will free up time and resources to protect the most vulnerable Americans …
Until the reality of viral spread in the U.S. … is accepted, political leaders will continue to feel justified in keeping schools and businesses closed, robbing young people of the opportunity to invest in their futures, and restricting activities that make life worthwhile.”
Journals Refuse to Publish Negative Mask Study
The most recent evidence of all, which would bring us quite a bit closer to settling the argument about masks is a Danish randomized controlled trial of 6,000 people that sought to prove the usefulness of face masks against COVID-19 infection. The problem appears to be that it didn’t, because the researchers can’t get it published.
According to the researchers, the study will be published as soon as “someone dares to do so.” Considering the argument against mask wearing has been the lack of evidence, if this COVID-19 specific trial actually shows that it works, why would journals refuse to publish it?
The controversy has been covered in a Twitter thread19 by Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter. A cursory translation of the study,20 which is currently only available in German, reveals that it found mask wearing resulted in tens of millions of contaminations that can occur each day as people use the masks inappropriately, touch their faces and neglect to wash their hands.
For this reason, universal mask wearing may actually do more harm than good. This is clearly important information that should be disseminated to the general public, yet medical journals are preventing that from happening. As reported by the CEBM,21 several trials are currently registered in which they are looking to assess the effectiveness of various masks against COVID-19. Time will tell what the findings will be, and if we’ll ever find out about them.
Undisclosed Mask Dangers
Kennedy and Hammond also discuss evidence suggesting chronic mask wearing has its risks and may lead to other unintended health effects, such as:
• Lung damage and pathological consequences from inhaled mask fibers — One paper22,23 that has yet to undergo peer-review suggests mask fibers can pose a health risk when inhaled. According to the authors: “If even a small portion of mask fibers is detachable by inspiratory airflow, or if there is debris in mask manufacture or packaging or handling, then there is the possibility of not only entry of foreign material to the airways, but also entry to deep lung tissue, and potential pathological consequences of foreign bodies in the lungs … If widespread masking continues, then the potential for inhaling mask fibers and environmental and biological debris continues on a daily basis for hundreds of millions of people. This should be alarming for physicians and epidemiologists knowledgeable in occupational hazards.” • Aggravation of asthma — Another potential concern is related to the plastics used. For example, surgical masks are made of polypropylene,24 a known asthma trigger.25 If you have asthma, wearing a surgical mask could potentially worsen your condition. • “Mask mouth” (tooth decay, gum line recession and potent bad breath) is an effect dentists around the world have raised alarm about. Dr. Rob Ramondi, a dentist and cofounder of One Manhattan Dental told the New York Post:26 “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before. About 50% of our patients are being impacted by this.” • Hypoxia-related complaints such as fatigue, headaches, shortness of breath and anxiety.27,28 • Increased infection risk — According to Dr. Russel Blaylock, face masks “pose serious risks to the healthy,” as the mask can lead to a concentration of viruses in the nasal passages where they can “enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.” Frequent touching of your face and mask can also increase the infection risk.
Majority of People Testing Positive Are Faithful Mask Wearers
In closing, a recent CDC analysis reveals 85% of patients testing positive for COVID-19 wore face masks “often” or “always” in the two weeks preceding their positive test. It’s not a randomized controlled trial, which is the gold standard, but it does tell us that, by and large, face masks do not appear to offer very good protection. If they did, infection would favor the non-wearers.
Meanwhile, mask mandates strip us of our individual sovereignty and humanity. As noted by Hammond, mask mandates really appear to be more about teaching us to obey orders, no matter whether they make sense to anyone or not. It’s about teaching compliance and, unfortunately, many who have never looked at the science aid and abet the technocratic overlords’ cause by shaming those who don’t comply.
I predict it is likely that, at some point in the future, a tradeoff will be offered: Mask mandates will be dropped provided everyone gets vaccinated. By then, many may be willing to take just about anything as long as they don’t have to wear a mask anymore.
I would encourage you to read up on the many open questions relating to fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines before making your decision. Overall, it seems the best way to avoid having to make such a devious trade is to engage in civil disobedience now, and go unmasked.


wakingtimes--2020-11-17--How They’ll Fake The Success Of The COVID Vaccine

How They ’ ll Fake The Success Of The COVID Vaccine Get the latest Waking Times articles delivered to your inbox .
Sign up here .
I ’ ve described how the major clinical trials of the COVID vaccine are designed to prevent nothing more than a cough , or chills and fever [ 1 ] [ 2 ] .
The whole plan to gain FDA approval of the vaccine is a stark fraud .
Now let ’ s move on to the next con : how to make it seem the vaccine is a roaring success .
Brief background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presented a complete case to show the SARS-CoV-2 virus was never proved to exist in the first place [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] .
So the whole idea of a vaccine is a non-sequitur , an absurdity .
Likewise , the PCR test for “ the virus ” is a fraud on several levels [ 11 ] : For example , the number of “ cycles ” for which the test is set is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge amplification of the tissue sample taken from the patient .
When you blow up that tissue sample above 34 cycles , you get gigantic numbers of false-positive results , even by the standards of the test .
Fauci has admitted it .
I ’ ve pointed out that FDA guidelines nevertheless recommend doing the test at up to 40 cycles .
This alone explains reports of “ rising COVID case numbers.
” Let ’ s say Pfizer and then Moderna win FDA approval to release their vaccines in the US .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shipping , millions of doses move out , and soon , an extraordinary number of Americans are lining up to take the shot .
After a suitable period of time , the elite medical planners will change the way the PCR test is done .
The number of cycles will be drastically reduced .
That order will go out to labs in the US .
What does this mean ?
It means that far fewer positive test results will occur .
Therefore , the trend of “ new COVID cases ” will stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then it will fall .
This rigging will be heralded as proof that that vaccine is producing a victory over the virus .
That will automatically cause a significant drop in the number of cases .
The drop will be attributed to the salutary effect of the vaccine .
For purposes of lockdowns and general clampdowns [ 12 ] , to promote more fear and punish areas where the economy is “ too open , ” a reverse-technique can be applied : Make PCR tests adjust their cycles UPWARD , thus producing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new cases.
” Needless to say , any and all serious harm and death caused by the vaccine anywhere will be attributed to “ the pandemic disease.
” And there you have it .
Simple , brutal , criminal , and controlled from the federal level .
A strategy for making it seem the COVID vaccine is effective , and saved the day .
Here is a backgrounder I wrote on the subject of COVID vaccine fraud : Making a vaccine look like it ’ s a champion isn ’ t difficult for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of strategies .
Of course , these fraudulent strategies would be serious crimes .
But when has that stopped the CDC or the World Health Organization ?
In no particular order—- ONE : Rework the definition of a “ COVID case.
” Presently , the CDC absurdly allows doctors to diagnose a person with COVID who has a cough , or chills and fever , and lives in an area where cases are being claimed .
No test necessary .
So change this practice , once the vaccine is approved .
Demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cough alone is not enough .
Chills and fever must also be present .
Require fever to be above 100 .
These and other changes would automatically shrink the number of cases .
The drop in numbers would be attributed to the vaccine .
This “ definitional shrinking ” was , in fact , deployed in the 1950s , after the introduction of the polio vaccine .
TWO : Order a change in the way the PCR diagnostic test is done .
The practice of amplifying the original test sample from the patient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The greater the number of cycles , the more likely the test will result in a COVID diagnosis .
Therefore , order a reduced number of cycles for all testing labs .
THREE : Quietly restrict the present hospital practice of arbitrarily writing “ COVID ” on patient case and death files .
FOUR : Cook up and publish false studies showing more and more people are developing immunity to the virus .
Attribute this to the vaccine .
SEVEN : Using the compliant press , simply issue bald declarations that the vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the many instances of injury and death from the vaccine .
When necessary , claim COVID was the cause .
NINE : Warn that the wonderful vaccine-derived immunity is not permanent , and frequent booster shots are necessary .
TEN : Rework the definition of “ vaccine-acquired immunity.
” Even a very weak antibody response from the shot would qualify as “ protective immunity.
” ELEVEN : Huge numbers of people with ordinary flu-like illness , pneumonia , and other traditional lung infections are being called “ COVID.
” Change this practice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people “ flu , ” “ pneumonia , ” etc .
COVID case numbers will drop .
Claim the drop is the effect of the vaccine .
TWELVE : Presently , millions of so-called COVID cases have “ co-morbidities.
” These are prior serious health conditions which are , in fact , the true causes of illnesses and death .
Of course , this is denied .
But after the vaccine is introduced… scale back the practice of counting all these ill and deceased co-morbid patients as “ COVID.
” Case and death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the reason .
THIRTEEN : After the vaccine is introduced , slow down testing for a brief period .
This will automatically reduce the rate of new cases .
Attribute the decline to the vaccine .
Committing these crimes are a walk in the park for public health agencies .
And appointing official mouthpieces to carry lies to the public is as easy as training little Faucis to sit up and bark .
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections , THE MATRIX REVEALED , EXIT FROM THE MATRIX , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California .
He maintains a consulting practice for private clients , the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power .
Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize , he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years , writing articles on politics , medicine , and health for CBS Healthwatch , LA Weekly , Spin Magazine , Stern , and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe .
Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to audiences around the world .
You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine .
This article ( How They ’ ll Fake The success Of The COVID Vaccine ) was originally created and published by Jon Rappaport ’ s Blog and is re-posted here with permission .
Like Waking Times on Facebook .
Follow Waking Times on Twitter .

How They’ll Fake The Success Of The COVID Vaccine
Jon Rappoport, Guest
Waking Times
I’ve described how the major clinical trials of the COVID vaccine are designed to prevent nothing more than a cough, or chills and fever [1] [2].
The whole plan to gain FDA approval of the vaccine is a stark fraud.
Now let’s move on to the next con: how to make it seem the vaccine is a roaring success.
Brief background: My readers know I’ve presented a complete case to show the SARS-CoV-2 virus was never proved to exist in the first place [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. So the whole idea of a vaccine is a non-sequitur, an absurdity. Likewise, the PCR test for “the virus” is a fraud on several levels [11]:
For example, the number of “cycles” for which the test is set is a key factor. Each cycle is a huge amplification of the tissue sample taken from the patient.
When you blow up that tissue sample above 34 cycles, you get gigantic numbers of false-positive results, even by the standards of the test. Fauci has admitted it. I’ve pointed out that FDA guidelines nevertheless recommend doing the test at up to 40 cycles. This alone explains reports of “rising COVID case numbers.”
Let’s say Pfizer and then Moderna win FDA approval to release their vaccines in the US. With the military doing the logistics of shipping, millions of doses move out, and soon, an extraordinary number of Americans are lining up to take the shot.
After a suitable period of time, the elite medical planners will change the way the PCR test is done. The number of cycles will be drastically reduced. That order will go out to labs in the US.
What does this mean? It means that far fewer positive test results will occur.
Therefore, the trend of “new COVID cases” will stop rising. It will level off, and then it will fall.
This rigging will be heralded as proof that that vaccine is producing a victory over the virus.
There is another strategy: change the definition of “a case of COVID.” Make the new definition, in terms of clinical symptoms, more restrictive. Something like this would do the trick: “The patient must exhibit a body temperature of at least 100 for 48 consecutive hours.”
That will automatically cause a significant drop in the number of cases. The drop will be attributed to the salutary effect of the vaccine.
For purposes of lockdowns and general clampdowns [12], to promote more fear and punish areas where the economy is “too open,” a reverse-technique can be applied:
Make PCR tests adjust their cycles UPWARD, thus producing huge numbers of positive results and “new cases.”
“Well, in South Dakota, we have to mandate at least 100,000 more vaccinations in each of the following ‘hot spots,’ where case numbers have suddenly escalated. And we must lock down those areas immediately…”
Needless to say, any and all serious harm and death caused by the vaccine anywhere will be attributed to “the pandemic disease.”
And there you have it. Simple, brutal, criminal, and controlled from the federal level. A strategy for making it seem the COVID vaccine is effective, and saved the day.
Here is a backgrounder I wrote on the subject of COVID vaccine fraud:
Making a vaccine look like it’s a champion isn’t difficult for public health agencies. There are a number of strategies.
Of course, these fraudulent strategies would be serious crimes. But when has that stopped the CDC or the World Health Organization?
In no particular order—-
ONE: Rework the definition of a “COVID case.” Presently, the CDC absurdly allows doctors to diagnose a person with COVID who has a cough, or chills and fever, and lives in an area where cases are being claimed. No test necessary.
So change this practice, once the vaccine is approved. Demand testing for a diagnosis. State that cough alone is not enough. Chills and fever must also be present. Require fever to be above 100.
These and other changes would automatically shrink the number of cases. The drop in numbers would be attributed to the vaccine.
This “definitional shrinking” was, in fact, deployed in the 1950s, after the introduction of the polio vaccine.
TWO: Order a change in the way the PCR diagnostic test is done. The practice of amplifying the original test sample from the patient occurs in cycles, or jumps. The greater the number of cycles, the more likely the test will result in a COVID diagnosis. Therefore, order a reduced number of cycles for all testing labs.
Outcome? Fewer COVID diagnoses. Fewer case numbers. “The vaccine is working.”
THREE: Quietly restrict the present hospital practice of arbitrarily writing “COVID” on patient case and death files.
FOUR: Cook up and publish false studies showing more and more people are developing immunity to the virus. Attribute this to the vaccine.
FIVE: Another type of false study—“the transmission of the virus from person to person is slowing, thanks to the vaccine.” SIX: Pump up the success of issuing Immunity certificates after vaccination. “People are feeling safer now. More businesses are reopening…”
SEVEN: Using the compliant press, simply issue bald declarations that the vaccine is a success.
EIGHT: Hide the many instances of injury and death from the vaccine. When necessary, claim COVID was the cause.
NINE: Warn that the wonderful vaccine-derived immunity is not permanent, and frequent booster shots are necessary.
TEN: Rework the definition of “vaccine-acquired immunity.” Even a very weak antibody response from the shot would qualify as “protective immunity.”
ELEVEN: Huge numbers of people with ordinary flu-like illness, pneumonia, and other traditional lung infections are being called “COVID.” Change this practice. Go back to calling many of these people “flu,” “pneumonia,” etc. COVID case numbers will drop. Claim the drop is the effect of the vaccine.
TWELVE: Presently, millions of so-called COVID cases have “co-morbidities.” These are prior serious health conditions which are, in fact, the true causes of illnesses and death. Of course, this is denied. But after the vaccine is introduced… scale back the practice of counting all these ill and deceased co-morbid patients as “COVID.” Case and death numbers will drop. Claim the vaccine is the reason.
THIRTEEN: After the vaccine is introduced, slow down testing for a brief period. This will automatically reduce the rate of new cases. Attribute the decline to the vaccine.
Committing these crimes is a walk in the park for public health agencies.
And appointing official mouthpieces to carry lies to the public is as easy as training little Faucis to sit up and bark.
About the Author
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
This article (How They’ll Fake The success Of The COVID Vaccine) was originally created and published by Jon Rappaport’s Blog and is re-posted here with permission.
SOURCES:
[1] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/11/11/covid-vaccine-revelation-sinks-like-a-stone-disappears/
[2] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/09/24/covid-vaccine-clinical-trials-doomed-to-fail-fatal-design-flaw/
[3] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/08/the-smoking-gun-where-is-the-coronavirus-the-cdc-says-it-isnt-available/
[4] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/09/covid-the-virus-that-isnt-there-the-root-fraud-exposed/
[5] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/12/the-fake-coronavirus-and-the-missing-study-the-secret-in-plain-sight/
[6] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/13/yet-another-case-of-the-missing-virus-they-lied-and-locked-down-the-world/
[7] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/15/if-the-virus-isnt-there-why-do-they-believe-it-is/
[8] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/19/dr-tom-cowan-explores-the-covid-virus-invented-out-of-sheer-nonsense/
[9] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/22/the-virus-that-isnt-there-genetic-sequencing-and-the-magic-trick/
[10] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/26/the-missing-virus-answering-critics-objections/
[11] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/11/06/smoking-gun-fauci-states-covid-test-has-fatal-flaw/
[12] http://www.rt.com/usa/506308-biden-covid19-advisor-lockdown/


wakingtimes--2020-11-17--Don’t Call The Cops. Especially If Your Loved Ones Are Old, Disabled or Have Special Needs

Don ’ t Call The Cops .
Especially If Your Loved Ones Are Old , Disabled or Have Special Needs Get the latest Waking Times articles delivered to your inbox .
Sign up here .
They shot at him fourteen times .
Walter Wallace Jr.—a troubled 27-year-old black man with a criminal history and mental health issues—was no saint .
Still , he didn ’ t deserve to die in a hail of bullets fired by two police officers who clearly had not been adequately trained in how to de-escalate encounters with special needs individuals .
Wallace wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police confronted him—yet neither cop attempted to use non-lethal weapons on Wallace , who appeared to be in the midst of a mental health crisis .
In fact , neither cop even possessed a taser .
Wallace , fired upon repeatedly by both officers , was hit in the shoulder and chest and pronounced dead at the hospital .
Wallace ’ s death is yet one more grim statistic to add to that growing list of Americans—unarmed , impaired or experiencing a mental health crisis—who have been killed by police trained to shoot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also a powerful reminder to think twice before you call the cops to carry out a welfare check on a loved one .
Especially if that person is autistic , hearing impaired , mentally ill , elderly , suffering from dementia , disabled or might have a condition that hinders their ability to understand , communicate or immediately comply with an order .
Particularly if you value that person ’ s life .
There are some things that don ’ t change .
Even as the nation grapples with the twin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , there are still deadlier forces at play .
This is one of them .
At a time when growing numbers of unarmed people have been shot and killed for just standing a certain way , or moving a certain way , or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun , or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer ’ s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety , even the most benign encounters with police can have fatal consequences .
Unfortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thus ready to shoot first and ask questions later—increasingly pose a risk to anyone undergoing a mental health crisis or with special needs whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent or require more finesse than the typical freeze-or-I ’ ll-shoot tactics employed by America ’ s police forces .
Just last year , in fact , Gay Plack , a 57-year-old Virginia woman with bipolar disorder , was killed after two police officers—sent to do a welfare check on her—entered her home uninvited , wandered through the house shouting her name , kicked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the terrified woman hiding in a dark bathroom and wielding a small axe , and four seconds later , shot her in the stomach .
That ’ s all the time it took for the two police officers assigned to check on Plack to decide to use lethal force against her ( both cops opened fire on the woman ) , rather than using non-lethal options ( one cop had a Taser , which he made no attempt to use ) or attempting to de-escalate the situation .
This is what happens when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge , jury and executioner .
This is what happens when you indoctrinate the police into believing that their lives and their safety are paramount to anyone else ’ s .
Suddenly , everyone and everything else is a threat that must be neutralized or eliminated .
In light of the government ’ s ongoing efforts to predict who might pose a threat to public safety based on mental health sensor data ( tracked by wearable data such as FitBits and Apple Watches and monitored by government agencies such as HARPA , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , encounters with the police could get even more deadly , especially if those involved have a mental illness or disability .
Indeed , disabled individuals make up a third to half of all people killed by law enforcement officers .
( People of color are three times more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts . )
If you ’ re black and disabled , you ’ re even more vulnerable .
A study by the Ruderman Family Foundation reports that “ disabled individuals make up the majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attract widespread attention .
This is true both for cases deemed illegal or against policy and for those in which officers are ultimately fully exonerated… Many more disabled civilians experience non-lethal violence and abuse at the hands of law enforcement officers.
” For instance , Nancy Schrock called 911 for help after her husband , Tom , who suffered with mental health issues , started stalking around the backyard , upending chairs and screaming about demons .
Several times before , police had transported Tom to the hospital , where he was medicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This time , Tom was tasered twice .
He collapsed , lost consciousness and died .
In South Carolina , police tasered an 86-year-old grandfather reportedly in the early stages of dementia , while he was jogging backwards away from them .
Now this happened after Albert Chatfield led police on a car chase , running red lights and turning randomly .
However , at the point that police chose to shock the old man with electric charges , he was out of the car , on his feet , and outnumbered by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Georgia , campus police shot and killed a 21-year-old student who was suffering a mental health crisis .
Scout Schultz was shot through the heart by campus police when he approached four of them late one night while holding a pocketknife , shouting “ Shoot me !
” Although police may have feared for their lives , the blade was still in its closed position .
In Oklahoma , police shot and killed a 35-year-old deaf man seen holding a two-foot metal pipe on his front porch ( he used the pipe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Despite the fact that witnesses warned police that Magdiel Sanchez couldn ’ t hear—and thus comply—with their shouted orders to drop the pipe and get on the ground , police shot the man when he was about 15 feet away from them .
In Maryland , police ( moonlighting as security guards ) used extreme force to eject a 26-year-old man with Downs Syndrome and a low IQ from a movie theater after the man insisted on sitting through a second screening of a film .
Autopsy results indicate that Ethan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , likely caused by a chokehold .
In Florida , police armed with assault rifles fired three shots at a 27-year-old nonverbal , autistic man who was sitting on the ground , playing with a toy truck .
Police missed the autistic man and instead shot his behavioral therapist , Charles Kinsey , who had been trying to get him back to his group home .
The therapist , bleeding from a gunshot wound , was then handcuffed and left lying face down on the ground for 20 minutes .
In Texas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a baton to subdue a 7-year-old student who has severe ADHD and a mood disorder .
With school counselors otherwise occupied , school officials called police and the child ’ s mother to assist after Yosio Lopez started banging his head on a wall .
The police arrived first .
In New Mexico , police tasered , then opened fire on a 38-year-old homeless man who suffered from schizophrenia , all in an attempt to get James Boyd to leave a makeshift campsite .
Boyd ’ s death provoked a wave of protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio , police forcefully subdued a 37-year-old bipolar woman wearing only a nightgown in near-freezing temperatures who was neither armed , violent , intoxicated , nor suspected of criminal activity .
After being slammed onto the sidewalk , handcuffed and left unconscious on the street , Tanisha Anderson died as a result of being restrained in a prone position .
And in North Carolina , a state trooper shot and killed a 29-year-old deaf motorist after he failed to pull over during a traffic stop .
Daniel K. Harris was shot after exiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feared he might be reaching for a weapon .
These cases , and the hundreds—if not thousands—more that go undocumented every year speak to a crisis in policing when it comes to law enforcement ’ s failure to adequately assess , de-escalate and manage encounters with special needs or disabled individuals .
While the research is relatively scant , what has been happening is telling .
Over the course of six months , police shot and killed someone who was in mental crisis every 36 hours .
But there were also important distinctions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court , as might be expected , has thus far continued to immunize police against charges of wrongdoing when it comes to use of force against those with a mental illness .
In a 2015 ruling , the Court declared that police could not be sued for forcing their way into a mentally ill woman ’ s room at a group home and shooting her five times when she advanced on them with a knife .
The justices did not address whether police must take special precautions when arresting mentally ill individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires “ reasonable accommodations ” for people with mental illnesses , which in this case might have been less confrontational tactics . )
Where does this leave us ?
For starters , we need better police training across the board , but especially when it comes to de-escalation tactics and crisis intervention .
A study by the National Institute of Mental Health found that CIT ( Crisis Intervention Team ) -trained officers made fewer arrests , used less force , and connected more people with mental-health services than their non-trained peers .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , police need to learn how to slow confrontations down , instead of ramping up the tension ( and the noise ) .
In Maryland , police recruits are now required to take a four-hour course in which they learn “ de-escalation tactics ” for dealing with disabled individuals : speak calmly , give space , be patient .
One officer in charge of the Los Angeles Police Department ’ s “ mental response teams ” suggests that instead of rushing to take someone into custody , police should try to slow things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with them .
Increasingly , funds are being directed towards technologies that support predictive policing and behavioral and health surveillance .
For instance , HARPA ( a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon ’ s research and development arm DARPA ) would take the lead in identifying and targeting “ signs ” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches , Fitbits , Amazon Echo and Google Home .
The Trump Administration has already awarded contracts worth $ 22.8 million to seven major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and machine learning connected to smartphone apps , wearable devices and software that can identify and trace contacts of “ infected individuals , ” keep track of “ verified ” COVID-19 test results , and monitor the health states of infected and “ potentially ” infected individuals .
It wouldn ’ t take much for these nascent predictive programs to give rise to healthcare versions of red flag gun laws , which allows the government to preemptively take action against individuals who may be perceived as potential threats .
Where the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies , the courts and the police .
In the end , while we need to make encounters with police officers safer for people with suffering from mental illness or with disabilities , what we really need—as I point out in my book Battlefield America : The War on the American People—is to make encounters with police safer for all individuals all across the board .
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t Call The Cops .
Especially If Your Loved Ones Are Old , Disabled or Have Special Needs ) was originally published .
He is the author of A Government of Wolves : The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto .

Don’t Call The Cops. Especially If Your Loved Ones Are Old, Disabled or Have Special Needs
John W. Whitehead, Rutherford
Waking Times
“Anyone who cares for someone with a developmental disability, as well as for disabled people themselves [lives] every day in fear that their behavior will be misconstrued as suspicious, intoxicated or hostile by law enforcement.”—Steve Silberman, The New York Times
They shot at him fourteen times.
Walter Wallace Jr.—a troubled 27-year-old black man with a criminal history and mental health issues—was no saint. Still, he didn’t deserve to die in a hail of bullets fired by two police officers who clearly had not been adequately trained in how to de-escalate encounters with special needs individuals.
Wallace wasn’t unarmed—he was reportedly holding a knife when police confronted him—yet neither cop attempted to use non-lethal weapons on Wallace, who appeared to be in the midst of a mental health crisis. In fact, neither cop even possessed a taser. Wallace, fired upon repeatedly by both officers, was hit in the shoulder and chest and pronounced dead at the hospital.
Wallace’s death is yet one more grim statistic to add to that growing list of Americans—unarmed, impaired or experiencing a mental health crisis—who have been killed by police trained to shoot first and ask questions later.
It’s also a powerful reminder to think twice before you call the cops to carry out a welfare check on a loved one. Especially if that person is autistic, hearing impaired, mentally ill, elderly, suffering from dementia, disabled or might have a condition that hinders their ability to understand, communicate or immediately comply with an order.
Particularly if you value that person’s life.
There are some things that don’t change. Even as the nation grapples with the twin distractions of political theater and a viral pandemic, there are still deadlier forces at play.
This is one of them.
At a time when growing numbers of unarmed people have been shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety, even the most benign encounters with police can have fatal consequences.
Unfortunately, police—trained in the worst case scenario and thus ready to shoot first and ask questions later—increasingly pose a risk to anyone undergoing a mental health crisis or with special needs whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent or require more finesse than the typical freeze-or-I’ll-shoot tactics employed by America’s police forces.
Just last year, in fact, Gay Plack, a 57-year-old Virginia woman with bipolar disorder, was killed after two police officers—sent to do a welfare check on her—entered her home uninvited, wandered through the house shouting her name, kicked open her locked bedroom door, discovered the terrified woman hiding in a dark bathroom and wielding a small axe, and four seconds later, shot her in the stomach.
Four seconds.
That’s all the time it took for the two police officers assigned to check on Plack to decide to use lethal force against her (both cops opened fire on the woman), rather than using non-lethal options (one cop had a Taser, which he made no attempt to use) or attempting to de-escalate the situation.
The police chief defended his officers’ actions, claiming they had “no other option” but to shoot the 5 foot 4 inch “woman with carpal tunnel syndrome who had to quit her job at a framing shop because her hand was too weak to use the machine that cut the mats.”
This is what happens when you empower the police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
This is what happens when you indoctrinate the police into believing that their lives and their safety are paramount to anyone else’s.
Suddenly, everyone and everything else is a threat that must be neutralized or eliminated.
In light of the government’s ongoing efforts to predict who might pose a threat to public safety based on mental health sensor data (tracked by wearable data such as FitBits and Apple Watches and monitored by government agencies such as HARPA, the “Health Advanced Research Projects Agency”), encounters with the police could get even more deadly, especially if those involved have a mental illness or disability.
Indeed, disabled individuals make up a third to half of all people killed by law enforcement officers. (People of color are three times more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts.) If you’re black and disabled, you’re even more vulnerable.
A study by the Ruderman Family Foundation reports that “disabled individuals make up the majority of those killed in use-of-force cases that attract widespread attention. This is true both for cases deemed illegal or against policy and for those in which officers are ultimately fully exonerated… Many more disabled civilians experience non-lethal violence and abuse at the hands of law enforcement officers.”
For instance, Nancy Schrock called 911 for help after her husband, Tom, who suffered with mental health issues, started stalking around the backyard, upending chairs and screaming about demons. Several times before, police had transported Tom to the hospital, where he was medicated and sent home after 72 hours. This time, Tom was tasered twice. He collapsed, lost consciousness and died.
In South Carolina, police tasered an 86-year-old grandfather reportedly in the early stages of dementia, while he was jogging backwards away from them. Now this happened after Albert Chatfield led police on a car chase, running red lights and turning randomly. However, at the point that police chose to shock the old man with electric charges, he was out of the car, on his feet, and outnumbered by police officers much younger than him.
In Georgia, campus police shot and killed a 21-year-old student who was suffering a mental health crisis. Scout Schultz was shot through the heart by campus police when he approached four of them late one night while holding a pocketknife, shouting “Shoot me!” Although police may have feared for their lives, the blade was still in its closed position.
In Oklahoma, police shot and killed a 35-year-old deaf man seen holding a two-foot metal pipe on his front porch (he used the pipe to fend off stray dogs while walking). Despite the fact that witnesses warned police that Magdiel Sanchez couldn’t hear—and thus comply—with their shouted orders to drop the pipe and get on the ground, police shot the man when he was about 15 feet away from them.
In Maryland, police (moonlighting as security guards) used extreme force to eject a 26-year-old man with Downs Syndrome and a low IQ from a movie theater after the man insisted on sitting through a second screening of a film. Autopsy results indicate that Ethan Saylor died of complications arising from asphyxiation, likely caused by a chokehold.
In Florida, police armed with assault rifles fired three shots at a 27-year-old nonverbal, autistic man who was sitting on the ground, playing with a toy truck. Police missed the autistic man and instead shot his behavioral therapist, Charles Kinsey, who had been trying to get him back to his group home. The therapist, bleeding from a gunshot wound, was then handcuffed and left lying face down on the ground for 20 minutes.
In Texas, police handcuffed, tasered and then used a baton to subdue a 7-year-old student who has severe ADHD and a mood disorder. With school counselors otherwise occupied, school officials called police and the child’s mother to assist after Yosio Lopez started banging his head on a wall. The police arrived first.
In New Mexico, police tasered, then opened fire on a 38-year-old homeless man who suffered from schizophrenia, all in an attempt to get James Boyd to leave a makeshift campsite. Boyd’s death provoked a wave of protests over heavy-handed law enforcement tactics.
In Ohio, police forcefully subdued a 37-year-old bipolar woman wearing only a nightgown in near-freezing temperatures who was neither armed, violent, intoxicated, nor suspected of criminal activity. After being slammed onto the sidewalk, handcuffed and left unconscious on the street, Tanisha Anderson died as a result of being restrained in a prone position.
And in North Carolina, a state trooper shot and killed a 29-year-old deaf motorist after he failed to pull over during a traffic stop. Daniel K. Harris was shot after exiting his car, allegedly because the trooper feared he might be reaching for a weapon.
These cases, and the hundreds—if not thousands—more that go undocumented every year speak to a crisis in policing when it comes to law enforcement’s failure to adequately assess, de-escalate and manage encounters with special needs or disabled individuals.
While the research is relatively scant, what has been happening is telling.
Over the course of six months, police shot and killed someone who was in mental crisis every 36 hours.
Among 124 police killings analyzed by The Washington Post in which mental illness appeared to be a factor, “They were overwhelmingly men, more than half of them white. Nine in 10 were armed with some kind of weapon, and most died close to home.”
But there were also important distinctions, reports the Post.
“This group was more likely to wield a weapon less lethal than a firearm. Six had toy guns; 3 in 10 carried a blade, such as a knife or a machete — weapons that rarely prove deadly to police officers. According to data maintained by the FBI and other organizations, only three officers have been killed with an edged weapon in the past decade. Nearly a dozen of the mentally distraught people killed were military veterans, many of them suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their service, according to police or family members. Another was a former California Highway Patrol officer who had been forced into retirement after enduring a severe beating during a traffic stop that left him suffering from depression and PTSD. And in 45 cases, police were called to help someone get medical treatment, or after the person had tried and failed to get treatment on his own.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, as might be expected, has thus far continued to immunize police against charges of wrongdoing when it comes to use of force against those with a mental illness.
In a 2015 ruling, the Court declared that police could not be sued for forcing their way into a mentally ill woman’s room at a group home and shooting her five times when she advanced on them with a knife. The justices did not address whether police must take special precautions when arresting mentally ill individuals. (The Americans with Disabilities Act requires “reasonable accommodations” for people with mental illnesses, which in this case might have been less confrontational tactics.)
Where does this leave us?
For starters, we need better police training across the board, but especially when it comes to de-escalation tactics and crisis intervention.
A study by the National Institute of Mental Health found that CIT (Crisis Intervention Team)-trained officers made fewer arrests, used less force, and connected more people with mental-health services than their non-trained peers.
As The Washington Post points out:
“Although new recruits typically spend nearly 60 hours learning to handle a gun, according to a recent survey by the Police Executive Research Forum, they receive only eight hours of training to de-escalate tense situations and eight hours learning strategies for handling the mentally ill. Otherwise, police are taught to employ tactics that tend to be counterproductive in such encounters, experts said. For example, most officers are trained to seize control when dealing with an armed suspect, often through stern, shouted commands. But yelling and pointing guns is ‘like pouring gasoline on a fire when you do that with the mentally ill,’ said Ron Honberg, policy director with the National Alliance on Mental Illness.”
Second, police need to learn how to slow confrontations down, instead of ramping up the tension (and the noise).
In Maryland, police recruits are now required to take a four-hour course in which they learn “de-escalation tactics” for dealing with disabled individuals: speak calmly, give space, be patient.
One officer in charge of the Los Angeles Police Department’s “mental response teams” suggests that instead of rushing to take someone into custody, police should try to slow things down and persuade the person to come with them.
Third, with all the questionable funds flowing to police departments these days, why not use some of those funds to establish what one disability-rights activist describes as “a 911-type number dedicated to handling mental-health emergencies, with community crisis-response teams at the ready rather than police officers.”
Increasingly, funds are being directed towards technologies that support predictive policing and behavioral and health surveillance. For instance, HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) would take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home. The Trump Administration has already awarded contracts worth $22.8 million to seven major corporations to develop artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning connected to smartphone apps, wearable devices and software that can identify and trace contacts of “infected individuals,” keep track of “verified” COVID-19 test results, and monitor the health states of infected and “potentially” infected individuals.
It wouldn’t take much for these nascent predictive programs to give rise to healthcare versions of red flag gun laws, which allows the government to preemptively take action against individuals who may be perceived as potential threats. Where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.
In the end, while we need to make encounters with police officers safer for people with suffering from mental illness or with disabilities, what we really need—as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People—is to make encounters with police safer for all individuals all across the board.
About the Author
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, where this article (Don’t Call The Cops. Especially If Your Loved Ones Are Old, Disabled or Have Special Needs) was originally published. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto.