COVID-19: A Legal & Historical Retrospective

Written by John O'Sullivan on September 25, 2021. Posted in Current News

The following is a summary of an excellent paper which may become a template for litigants suing corrupt government agencies, vaccine companies and shill politicians. It appears in the October 2021 edition of IPAK PHPI. [1]

Abstract: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on August 23, 2020, “For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19 , on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”[1]

For a nation tormented by restrictive public health policies mandated for healthy individuals and small businesses, this is the most important statistical revelation of this crisis. This revelation significantly impacts the published fatalities count due to COVID-19. More importantly, it exposes major problems with the process by which the CDC was able to generate inaccurate data during a crisis.

The CDC has advocated for social isolation, social distancing, and personal protective equipment use as primary mitigation strategies in response to the COVID-19 crisis, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the promise of inexpensive pharmaceutical and natural treatments. These mitigation strategies were promoted largely in response to projection model fatality forecasts that have proven to be substantially inaccurate. Further investigation into the legality of the methods used to create these strategies raised additional concerns and questions.

Why would the CDC decide against using a system of data collection & reporting they authored, and which has been in use nationwide for 17 years without incident, in favor of an untested & unproven system exclusively for COVID-19 without discussion and peer-review?

Did the CDC’s decision to abandon a known and proven effective system also breach several federal laws that ensure data accuracy and integrity?

Did the CDC knowingly alter rules for reporting cause of death in the presence of comorbidity exclusively for COVID-19? If so, why?

Introduction All federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are lawfully required to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and the Information Quality Act (IQA).

Data being collected, analyzed, and published by any federal agency is required to meet the highest standards for accuracy, quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity as defined by the PRA, IQA, as well as additional guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).[2][3][4][5][6]

The key to initiating legal regulatory oversight of all proposed changes to data collection, publication, and analysis is the Federal Register. Each Federal agency is required to submit a formal change proposal to the Federal Register before enacting their proposed changes. By submitting a change proposal to the Federal Register, federal agencies open the minimum 60-day public comment and peer-review process.

Additionally, it is the “change proposal submission” to the Federal Register that alerts the OMB that legal oversight of the process has been initiated. Federal agencies that make changes to how they collect, publish, and analyze data without alerting the Federal Register and OMB as a result, are in violation of federal law. The CDC published guidelines on March 24, 2020 that substantially altered how cause of death is recorded exclusively for COVID-19. This change was enacted apparently without public opportunity for comment or peer-review.

As a result, a capricious alteration to data collection has compromised the accuracy, quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of their published data, leading to a significant increase in COVID-19 fatalities. This decision by the CDC may have subverted the legal oversight of the OMB as Congressionally authorized by the PRA & IQA as well.[7][8]

COVID-19 Data Historical Timeline A historical timeline of events is presented relative to the PRA, IQA, cause of death reporting, and how the COVID-19 crisis has unfolded as a result. Please note that all data, including statistical projections produced by any entity outside of federal regulatory law, must go through strict federal procedures for OMB oversight before being used by any federal agency for any purpose.

These regulatory laws apply to the use of data being published at the university level, such as the COVID-19 projection models developed by the Institute for Health Metrics Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington. All federal agencies must abide by the laws in place before they can use external data from any source to inform the public or develop legislation or policy.

December 11, 1980 – Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) becomes law (44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3521, Public Law 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812). PRA establishes the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). PRA authorizes OIRA to establish information collection policies for all federal agencies, including the CDC.[2]
May 22, 1995 – PRA is amended (44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3521, Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 182). PRA amendment confirms that the OIRA has authority over all data collected by and shared between federal agencies, including the CDC. PRA amendment also affirms that OIRA has authority over all data provided to the public.[3][4]
October 1, 2002 – Information Quality Act (IQA) takes effect (Section 515 of the Congressional Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 Public Law 106-554). All federal agencies, including the CDC, are required to be in full compliance with guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has been authorized by Congress to have its OIRA branch enact executive oversight for all data collected, analyzed, and published by federal agencies.[5][6]
2003 – CDC publishes Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting and Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death. These handbooks would immediately become the nationwide standard illustrating exactly how cause of death should be recorded in cases of comorbidity for all death certificates. These handbooks have been used successfully for 17 years without need of update. They remain in use today for all causes of death except where involvement of COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed. When involvement of COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed, the March 24th, 2020 COVID19 Alert No. 2 guidelines are used instead. [7][8]
August 22, 2005 – The Virology Journal publishes research demonstrating that hydroxychloroquine, “has strong antiviral effects on SARS-COVprimate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.” The research is acknowledged and lauded by Dr. Anthony Fauci.[9] • 2014 – Dr. Anthony Fauci authorizes $3.7 million of scientific funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) “for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.”[10]
2019 – Dr. Anthony Fauci authorizes an additional $3.7 million of scientific funding to the EcoHealth Alliance via the NIAID and NIH for “a second phase of the project” that included gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.[10] • October 18, 2019 – Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosts Event 201, a highlevel pandemic exercise in New York, NY. [11]
November 17, 2019 – China records 1st known case of COVID-19.[12]
November 30, 2019 – Deadline passes for any federal agency to submit 60-day notice to Federal Register for ‘Proposed Data Collection Submitted For Public Comment and Recommendations’ that would enable the use of IHME projection data to inform the public and enact federal policy.[13] • January 21, 2020 – CDC confirms 1st known case of COVID-19 in US.[14]
January 24, 2020 – Deadline passes for CDC and/or National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) to submit 60-day notice to Federal Register for ‘Proposed Data Collection Submitted For Public Comment and Recommendations’ that would become known as the March 24th COVID-19 Alert No. 2.[13][15]
January 29, 2020 – Whitehouse Coronavirus Task Force is established and included Dr. Anthony Fauci (NIAID), Dr. Robert Redfield (CDC), and Derek Kan (OMB). Primary data being used to forecast the situation and brief the President is sourced from the IHME in potential violation of the PRA & IQA.[16]
February 14, 2020 – Deadline passes for CDC to submit 60-day notice to Federal Register for ‘Proposed Data Collection Submitted For Public Comment and Recommendations’ that would become known as their April 14th adoption of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) COVID-19 Position Paper. The CSTE is an independent, privately funded, non-governmental organization and has no legal approval to provide data for policy development without adhering to strict regulatory laws governing the use of non-governmental data.[13][16]
March 9, 2020 – CDC alerts American citizens over the age of 60 and with comorbidities (pre-existing conditions) that they are likely at a higher risk for fatality if SARSCOV-2 virus is contracted.[17]
March 26, 2020 (March 7, 2020 Initial Pre-Publish Date) – Imperial College of London research team, led by Dr. Neil Ferguson, publishes COVID-19 predictive model incorrectly asserting 2.2 million Americans will die due to SARS-COV-2 virus in 2020 if no mitigation strategies are employed. Dr. Neil Ferguson is on record confirming that his research team had shared their wildly inaccurate projections with the White House COVID-19 Task Force approximately 1 week prior to publication. The data projections shared were neither peer-reviewed, nor submitted to the Federal Register to initiate a 60-day public comment period as required by law. As a result, the OMB was not able to approve the use of these projections, which makes their use by any federal agency, for any reason, illegal. Dr. Neil Ferguson had previously and severely overestimated fatality data in earlier predictive models for Bird Flu, Mad Cow Disease, and Swine Flu.[19][20] [21]
April 13, 2020 – US Surgeon General Jerome Adams confirms that the Whitehouse COVID-19 Task Force has terminated the use of IHME Predictive Contagion Models in favor of actual data collected from each US State Health Department. [22]
April 14, 2020 – Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford publishes COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence research confirming SARSCOV-2 virus had spread much wider than initially realized and most people infected developed natural, adaptive immunity. This study ques-tions the necessity of continued use of IHME Predictive Contagion Models. [23]
April 14, 2020 – In potential violation of the PRA & IQA, the CDC adopts the CSTE COVID-19 Position Paper, significantly altering standard established medical criteria for diagnosis, exclusively for COVID-19 . In doing so, the CDC bypasses federal oversight by the OIRA once again.[16][18] • April 24, 2020 – National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancels funding on previously supported gain-of-function research for bat coronaviruses. [10]
June 13, 2020 – CDC initiates PCR testbased strategy requiring all patients that need hospitalization for any reason be tested at time of entry regardless of symptoms. A patient testing positive is categorized as a new COVID-19 case and hospitalization. Patients testing positive are required to be PCR tested every 24 hours until they have 2 consecutive negative PCR tests at least 24 hours apart. There are no data collection guidelines within the CSTE Position Paper adopted by the CDC on April 14, 2020 to prevent the same patient being counted multiple times. Additionally, there are no data collection guidelines published separately by the CDC to explicitly prevent the same hospitalized patient from being inaccurately counted as a new case and hospitalization each time they are tested while hospitalized.[24]
June 13 thru July 16, 2020 – Over this 34- day time period using the CDC test-based strategy nationwide, current hospitalizations more than doubled while 678,720 Americans recovered, and 21,323 Americans passed away. [State & Territory Health Departments] • July 15, 2020 – Health and Human Services (HHS) assumes control of COVID-19 data collection from the CDC. [25] • July 17, 2020
August 23, 2020 – The CDC reports 32,582 total fatalities for New York state. The New York State Department of Health reports 25,282 for the same day. This is an inflated discrepancy by the CDC of 7,300 fatalities that they cannot justify, and another example of how the data they are publishing is compromised.[30][81]
March 24, 2020 – In potential violation of the PRA & IQA, the CDC issues COVID-19 Alert No. 2, significantly altering cause of death reporting exclusively for COVID In doing so, the CDC bypasses federal oversight by the OIRA.[15][18] case of definitive reinfection, or a person being contagious with the SARS-COV-2 virus for longer than 10 days following initial symptom presentation, the CDC no longer recommends daily testing for hospitalized patients. The CDC has also reduced the amount of quarantine time recommended for definitive o r suspected exposure from 14 days to 10 days. Patients can now be released from the hospital once symptoms abate. The CDC officially moves from a PCR test-based strategy to a more traditional symptom-based strategy of differential diagnosis that incorporates corroborative PCR testing when appropriate.[24][26][27]
July 17, 2020 – Dr. Sin Hang Lee publishes Testing for SARS-COV-2 in cellular components by routine nested RT-PCR followed by DNA sequencing confirming concerns that demonstrate SARS-COV-2 PCR testing is 50% reliable at best. CDC confirms that, ‘Although replication-competent virus was not isolated 3 weeks after symptom onset, recovered patients can continue to have SARSCOV-2 RNA detected in their upper respiratory specimens for up to 12 weeks.’[26][28] • July 17 thru August 20, 2020 – Over this 34-day time period using the CDC symptom based strategy nationwide, current hospitalizations declined by 15,717 Americans. While more Americans passed away during this time period than during the previous 34- day time period, many of these fatalities can be attributed to Americans being hospitalized from June 13th to July 16th and miscategorized as a COVID-19 case without having COVID-19 symptoms. Between July 17 and August 20, 3,656,822 Americans recovered, and 34,616 Americans passed away. Infection rate, fatality rate, and recovery rate improved significantly during both time periods.[State & Territory Health Departments]

Did the CDC Violate Federal Law?

3.1 Basis for Allegations That the CDC Violated the Law The CDC’s rules for data collection, published data, and statistical analyses are legally required to comply with the laws established by the Information Quality Act (IQA), enacted by Congress in December 2000 as Section 515 of Public Law 106- 554, which required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to “provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminates by Federal agencies,” and the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which is codified at 44 USC 3501 et seq.[33][34]

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for ensuring each federal agency is in compliance with the IQA & PRA. [35][36][37[38] The process by which any federal agency can propose changes in data collection, data publishing, and data analysis to ensure compliance is governed by 44 USC 3506 (c)(2)(A) which states, ”except as provided under subparagraph (B) or section 3507(j), provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register, and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information, to solicit comment to—” and 44 USC 3506 (d)(3), ” provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products. . . ;”

Neither of the exceptions is applicable in this case. We are concerned that the CDC has violated federal IQA & PRA law and, in doing so, bypassed essential oversight by the OMB/OIRA, who are legally empowered by Congress with ensuring information compliance for all federal agencies. Following review of the Federal Register for proof of the 60-day notice for ‘Proposed Data Collection Submitted For Public Comment and Recommendations’, zero evidence was found demonstrating that the CDC abided by the laws established by the IQA & PRA.[39]

All federal agencies are required to submit notification for data collection, publication, or analysis to the Federal Register BEFORE gaining approval from the OMB/OIRA to ensure they are in compliance with the IQA & PRA and therefore, approved to implement the proposed changes. Based upon the complete absence of Federal Register records for ‘Proposed Data Collection Submitted For Public Comment,’ at no point, did the CDC inform the OMB/OIRA or allow for 60 days of public comment in the following unilateral decisions that attempted to bypass Federal oversight.

We allege that the complete absence of the appropriate Federal Register records is evidence that the CDC knowingly and willingly violated the IQA & PRA.

As a direct consequence of implementing the two documents below without OMB approval, there was significant inflation of COVID-19 case and fatality data. 1. On March 24th, the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), under the direction of the CDC, issued ‘COVID-19 Alert No. 2 ’ to all physicians, medical examiners and coroners as guidelines for making significant changes as to how cause of death was to be reported on death certificates exclusively for COVID-19.[15]

This decision was made despite pre-existing rules, approved by the OMB, issued by the CDC, and in use nationwide for at least 17 years without incident. These rules are published as, 2003 CDC’s Medical Examiners’ & Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting and the CDC’s Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death.

Considering these handbooks have been approved by the OMB and in use without incident for 17 years, there was no justifiable reason for the CDC to implement these changes, bypass the oversight of the OMB, and fail to provide 60-days for public comment, as they are legally obligated to do.

By failing to act in accordance with Congress’ clear intent as to how an agency may propose changes to data collection as codified in 44 USC 3506 (c)(2)(A), there is no record of information the CDC relied upon to make its decision to change how deaths are reported.

Previous reports detailed the substantial changes on how causes of death were forcibly modified by the CDC through the NVSS, and how together, both federal agencies inflated the a actual number of COVID-19 fatalities by approximately 90.2% through July 12th, 2020.[18]

We believe this deliberate decision by the CDC and NVSS to deemphasize pre-existing comorbidities, in favor of emphasizing COVID-19 as a cause of death, is in violation of 44 U.S. Code 3504 (e)(1)(b), which states the activities of the Federal statistical system shall ensure “the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes.”

In doing so, the CDC and NVSS have compromised the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of data, and concomitantly usurped the oversight of the “Authority and Functions of the Director of the OMB/OIRA”.[40]

On April 14th, the CDC adopted a position paper authored by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), a 501c (6) non-profit organization, with the assistance of 4 CDC-employed subject matter experts (Dr. Susan Gerber, Dr. Aron J. Hall, Sandra Roush, & Dr. Tom Shimabukuro).

This document was sanctioned by Dr. Robert R. Redfield, Director of the CDC.[16] Not only does this appear to be a potential conflict of interest, it also bypasses the OMB oversight for the IQA & PRA, as directed by Congress and is rife with ex parte communications. Ex parte communications in general violate ethical standards.

By employing a non-governmental organization (CSTE), free from the oversight of the OMB and the laws detailed by Congress via the IQA & PRA, the CDC bypassed the oversight of the OMB Director’s Information Resources Management policies, plans, rules, regulations, procedures, and guidelines for public comment.

We allege this is a violation of 44 U.S. Code 3517(a), which requires an agency to provide interested persons an “early and meaningful opportunity to comment.”[41]

This violation has inevitably resulted in COVID-19 data for cases, hospitalizations, and fatalities being artificially elevated, and definitively compromises prudent decision making at federal and state executive levels. This includes policy enforcement for a public health crisis that may not have existed had the CDC abided by the laws that ensure the accuracy of data collection.

Implications for Public Health Policy

As a result of state policies based on potentially compromised data published and promoted by the CDC, Americans have lost jobs and businesses in historically unprecedented numbers. At the peak of the crisis, an estimated 20.5 to 42 million Americans had lost their jobs without having any voice in the decision-making process due to shelter in place mandates issued by every state with the exceptions of Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah & Wyoming.[30][31]

Anxiety, depression, suicide rates, domestic violence, and alcoholism have all reportedly risen significantly due to the economic hardships brought on by how state governors decided to exercise their authority in response to the potentially compromised data published by the CDC.[32] Tens of thousands of Americans have died without access to potentially life-saving medications like hydroxychloroquine or nutrient therapies like intravenous Vitamin C.

Couple this with the tragic reality that so many Americans passed away alone, without the comfort of their family members, and the collateral damage of our one-size fits all policies becomes even more unpalatable.[47] All non-COVID related healthcare priorities have also suffered including elective surgeries, proper monitoring of medications, and checkups for the elderly and our children.

De-prioritizing all non-COVID cases created collateral damage that far outweighs the infective damage of the SARSCOV-2 virus. Public health policies that create more collateral damage while attempting to avoid an infection with a 99.05% rate of recovery in the vast majority of citizens must be objectively investigated and critically questioned if the goal of living in a healthy society is to be realized.

Conclusions Arguing over what the most accurate COVID fatality count may be is an exercise in futility without intimate knowledge of case history and accompanying certificates of death, and it is the exact reason we entrust these determinations to the skill of our licensed professionals.

With the inclusion of probable fatalities and significant changes made to how certificates of death are recorded exclusively for COVID-19 , scientific objectivity demands that we acknowledge the data presented is inaccurate. Federal agencies have a legal obligation to provide the most accurate data to the public, fellow agencies, and policy makers they are advising, and they have a responsibility to abide by every federal law.

This responsibility to collect, analyze, and publish data accurately, transparently, and with unquestionable integrity increases exponentially during a national crisis. It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis.

Further federal investigation is justified by the magnitude of the crisis and the collateral damage generated by policies based upon projection data that was unproven and never peer reviewed. If the data being reported was indeed compromised by the CDC’s perplexing decision to abandon proven data collection and reporting practices in favor of untested methods, then all public health policies based upon these inaccurate data must be reexamined.

[PSI Editor’s note: the above comprises selected extracts from the original paper. Please access the original document to see the entire presentation].

[1] COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective, Henry Ealy et al., Public Health Policy, and The Law Volume 2:4-22, October 12, 2020, https://www.ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/C19dataCollection-C+FL-HistPerspec.pdf

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (6)

dariusmarley

September 25, 2021 at 1:05 pm | #

Hey there! I’m currently donating FREE studio time for AMERICA FIRST media projects. I’ve been a full-time voiceover guy since 2010. If you have any questions, just ask. I’m really easy to work with.

Reply
Moffin

September 25, 2021 at 7:56 pm | #

https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-wuhan-covid-docs-contradict-fauci-ex-state-dept-official

Reply
Andy

September 25, 2021 at 10:43 pm | #

Nice presentation John.

Reply
Richard Noakes

September 26, 2021 at 12:55 am | #

1 big thing: Our COVID destiny
We’re almost certainly going to have to live with the coronavirus, in some form, for the foreseeable future. What that means will be shaped in large part by what we do now.
Why it matters: More than half of the world — and a substantial portion of Americans — remains unvaccinated. Getting these rates up could mean the difference between the virus becoming a back-burner nuisance, or something that continues to define our lives for years to come.
“You either eradicate, you eliminate it in certain countries, or you control it generally. We want to do better than just control. We want to be on the brink of elimination,” Anthony Fauci told Axios.
Between the lines: The future will be determined by three main variables: vaccination rates, variants and the duration of immunity.
· Everyone who lives through the pandemic is likely to acquire some form of immunity to the virus. “Sooner or later, you’re either going to have been infected or you’re going to be vaccinated,” Fauci said.
· The big question is whether we’ll be in danger if and when we’re exposed to the virus in the future — either because it’s mutated into a variant that can escape our immunity, or because that immunity has faded over time.

VaVariants and vaccination rates are intricately tied together. The fewer people that are vaccinated, the more the virus spreads, and the greater the chances of it mutating into a version that can evade immune protection.
· “If a large part of the world is not vaccinated or infected, you’re going to end up having this continual circulation of variants that will be a threat even to countries that are vaccinated,” Fauci said.
Yes, but: It’s still unknown how long immunity lasts. Although we could, in theory, offer booster shots to the population every year in perpetuity, that’s a heavy lift.
· “I really do hope that it’s going to be a three-dose vaccine. It may be that intermittently you have to get boosted,” Fauci said, adding that he doubts people will need an annual booster shot.
Some voluntary mask wearing will likely stick around. So will the expectation that if you’re sick, you should stay home.
The bottom line: “If the rest of the world, the developed world, pitches in, and we get essentially 70% of the world vaccinated as we finish 2022, that could make a major, major determinant of what’s going to happen with COVID,” Fauci said.
Whatever living with the virus looks like, Delta-level surges aren’t considered to be sustainable for the public or the hospitals that will treat the seriously infected.
Why it matters: A major determinant of how seriously we’ll take the coronavirus in the future is how many hospitalizations and deaths it’s causing — and whether our health system can handle the load.
What they’re saying: “There is one scenario in which we have a double respiratory virus season each year,” former CDC Director Tom Frieden said.
“The striking thing is that certain things work really well for both of them, especially masks, but possibly ventilation and other measures,” he added.
The big picture: More than 100,000 people are still being infected daily, and hospitals in hot spots have been swamped with COVID patients over the last few months.
Most of the people being hospitalized are unvaccinated
Me: You are unvaccinated until after 14 days have passed from the shot, so if you get ill or die, during that time, it is not the vaccine, but because you are unvaccinated.
Axios – continues:
Even if the coronavirus continues to kill as many people as the flu does in any given year — which would be a drastic reduction in today’s death rate — that would be bad news for the health care system.
“We know that hospitals get busy during respiratory viral season … and I think this will be added to that. You can imagine it getting more busy,” said Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
Some hospitals would struggle to handle the burden, particularly rural and safety net hospitals.
Between the lines: Longer-term COVID hospitalization rates depend significantly on how long vaccine- or infection-acquired immunity to the virus lasts, and how many people remain susceptible to severe disease.
We’ve learned to live with tens of thousands of flu deaths a year without any major disruptions to our lives. But if vaccination rates don’t get high enough, and if immunity isn’t long-lasting, COVID death rates could meet or exceed annual flu deaths.
“I think we would similarly tolerate that if that’s all we got out of COVID. But I don’t think that’s all we’re going to get out of COVID, even with vaccinations,” said Zeke Emanuel, vice provost for global initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania.
If hospitalizations remain high over time, we have two basic options: To keep changing our behavior based on risk level, like we have been for the last year and a half, or to bolster hospital capacity.
The latter is “a mark of tragedy, not a mark of victory,” Emanuel said.
Me: “Even if the coronavirus continues to kill as many people as the flu does in any given year” – The Flu is a Coronavirus (Wiki) and a Coronavirus is the Flu, so how can the Flu/Coronavirus be more dangerous than itself?
Herd Immunity will not work and is a fallacy, because we are all animals on this planet, but, we are animals of the species Human, whereas other species have different names respective to ours and vaccinating one species, means that viruses will switch between species at will and viruses will survive and get better at infecting us, as they have for millions of years.
Variants, driven by vaccines, do not solve the problem, but only makes it worse – do my free salt warer cure nasal flush and stop Covid dead – it is the only way to stop Covid, because vaccines won’t do that and the “true purpose” of vaccines have yet to be discovered, by us, the multitude.
“Introduction of the Experimental Test Pill”, I mentioned previously – Pfizer are so sure that they will get AMA/CDC approval for it, they are already producing it in large (untested) quantities:
Axios, continues:
One major tool that we’ve been missing in the coronavirus fight is a pill that people could take right after they’ve been diagnosed with the virus. It may not be that far off.
Why it matters: An effective antiviral pill could prevent an infected person from ever getting sick, or at least from requiring hospitalization. It’s not a substitute for vaccination, but it would make living with the coronavirus safer.
Driving the news: Clinical trials for at least three promising antivirals are underway, and results may be available as soon as late fall or winter, KHN reports.
The only antiviral we currently have is remdesivir, which must be given intravenously to coronavirus patients who are already sick enough to be hospitalized.
The bottom line: The ideal future is one where people don’t get sick from the coronavirus because it’s no longer around. But a future in which people can get sick but avoid hospitalization or death isn’t bad either.
Axios
Me: Why it matters: “An effective experimental, untested, antiviral pill could prevent an infected person from ever getting sick, or at least from requiring hospitalization – like vaccines for example”
If an antiviral pill could stop everyone from getting sick (and my free salt water cure does that for free), why a vaccine then? (Rubbing my head in confusion – the above is all double speak)
The vaccines for the common cold, or the Flu, are not to stop you from catching the Flu/Coronavirus, but to stop it from becoming Flu/Coronavirus/Covid and nothing else.
The vaccines for Coronavirus/Flu are not to stop you from catching Coronavirus/Flu, but to stop it from becoming Coronavirus/Flu/Covid and nothing else.
So “if” Flu/Coronavirus and Coronavirus/Flu are the same thing, then why are deaths from the Flu/Coronavirus/Covid, higher than deaths from Coronavirus/Flu/Covid, when no test is made to determine which Covid you have got, unless one Covid suits all?
AND if an experimental test pill, not used in humans or animals yet, can stop the Flu/Coronavirus from happening, why do you need vaccines at all?
Which my free salt water cure does by killing the Coronavirus before it gets to be Covid anything – so no pill necessary.
Me thinks, those who take these vaccines have been manipulated and pushed into vaccines which have a very different purpose, given the lipid and graphene contents in them and that has nothing to do with Covid, as above, as reports from Israel indicate.
Richard (smile)

Reply
Richard Noakes

September 26, 2021 at 12:57 am | #

“Do as I say, Not as I do”: Dr. Fauci: “Heck, No, I Haven’t Been Vaccinated”
By Michael Baxter from REAL RAW NEWS
The Deep State’s primary Covid-19 vaccine peddler, Dr. Anthony Fauci, boasted to colleagues at the NIH that he has not taken and will not take the Covid jab, said a former NIH employee who claims Fauci personally fired him in June for “violating or considering to violate non-disclosure agreements” pertaining to vaccination protocols.
Our source, who wishes to remain anonymous at this time, told Real Raw News that he’d been wrongfully terminated—unjustifiably because he never signed non-disclosure paperwork on the Institute’s Covid-19 policies. And the reason he never signed said paperwork is that he had worked for NIH’s Division of AIDS, which was largely excluded from Covid-19 plandemic response meetings and vaccine development.
For ease of reading, RRN will refer to our source as Brian Stowers. RRN has vetted Stowers’ education and employment history, and we found no reason to believe he had a vendetta against Fauci or that he would engage in deception; his credentials seemed unimpeachable. As a Level 2 lab technician, his primary duty at the NIH was spinning blood through a centrifuge and passing results to his superiors. Nothing glamorous.
Although he had no exposure to Covid-19 data, he had been exposed to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s hubris and overbearing presence.
“At least once a week, Fauci made rounds through the departments. He liked to stick his nose in everyone’s business, belittle and ridicule people for no good reason. Anyway, on February 15, 2021, about two months after the FDA gave emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s vaccine, Fauci strolls into our department and tells us that we ought to encourage our friends and family to get vaccinated at the earliest possible date. But he tells us lab workers—there were about 9 in the lab at that moment—to delay getting vaccinated until, as he put it, ‘we see what happens,’” Stowers said.
A long, uncomfortable silence followed Fauci’s statement, our source added.
According to him, one lab worker asked Fauci why the vaccine was safe for friends and family but not for NIH employees.
“Fauci’s face turned red. He was clearly angered by the question. He started berating us, telling us we weren’t qualified to question his judgement. If we didn’t follow his guidance, we’d be jeopardizing the health of our friends and family, Fauci told us. He was on a tirade for like 5 minutes, and cussing like a sailor,” Stowers said.
Then Stowers asked Fauci, respectfully, whether he had been vaccinated.
“What kind of question is that? Not that it’s any business of yours, but, no, heck no, I haven’t been vaccinated. And I don’t plan to be, at least not for a long time, if at all…If I take the vaccine and get sick from it, then what? I’m too important here to take that risk. You all are, too—that’s why I’m telling you to wait. But you can be replaced; I’m irreplaceable. The administration needs me to helm this response,” Fauci reportedly said.
Four months later, unexpectedly, Stowers received a termination letter claiming he had violated the Institute’s confidentiality clause. The notice bore Fauci’s handwritten signature.
“I knew fighting would be pointless. I got 6-month’s severance package and figured that would be enough to hold me until I found new work, and I have,” Stowers said.
In closing, Stowers said Fauci never wore a mask inside NIH facilities, only when, in Fauci’s words, “outsiders and interlopers and media” were nearby.
Real Raw News

Reply
Richard Noakes

September 26, 2021 at 1:01 am | #

Countries that buy Pfizer’s vaccine undertake to break the law
Leaked information from confidential agreements that vaccine manufacturer Pfizer concluded with a large number of buyer countries, revealed slave contracts that violate legislation in each and every country. Buyers undertake to break all laws that stand in the way of mass vaccination. The buyers also undertake to bear all costs and all responsibility for the experimental jabs and waive the right to breach the agreement.
Published: August 8, 2021, 12:09 pm
In history’s largest medical experiment with “vaccines” that have not been approved for use in humans, it is the buyers’ responsibility to defend Pfizer for causing harm, leaked documents showed. Pfizer has escaped all liability and is indemnified, arguing that side effects and the long-term effects of the injections are unknown – to the company as well. Pfizer thus admits that an insufficiently tested product is being pushed in literally billions of doses on the world market.
This means that all responsibility for costs, healthcare, etc. due to vaccine damage – no matter how large and onerous – is passed on to the taxpayers in the countries that have signed the agreements. Since the agreements put each country’s own laws out of play, they have all been signed at government level. The design of the agreements is an important explanation for why the propaganda for mass vaccination is of a totalitarian nature and does not allow for debate or questioning.
In view of the fact that the majority of those now in hospital for Covid-19 are fully vaccinated – a situation that buyers could never have anticipated – the agreements certainly appear to be criminal. The buyer countries have been forced to sign the blank agreements, without knowing what they were actually buying.
On July 28 , NBC Chicago reported that 169 people in Illinois died and 644 were hospitalized for Covid-19. Everyone was fully vaccinated. Israel with 9,3 million inhabitants was among the first to sign an agreement with Pfizer. The vaccination rate in the country is 55 percent, and 11 051 469 vaccine doses have been distributed. On June 30, the alarming news broke that fully vaccinated patients accounted for half of Covid adults hospitalized in Israel. In just over a month, the numbers have increased dramatically.
Albania’s agreement with Pfizer
Even from Iceland, which has a vaccination rate of as much as 71,1 percent, there are worrying reports that the majority of hospitalized Covid-19s have been fully vaccinated. Vaccines that have been presented as “safe” and painted as the only salvation in the pandemic, have turned out to be the opposite. Pfizer had good reason to force binding agreements with buyer countries before the truth about the “vaccines” started emerging. One of the top managers in the WHO, Mariangela Simao, admit that people can not feel safe just because they have taken the jab. Vaccines are not enough to prevent the spread of infection.
Israeli Ehden Biber, a cyber security expert, has revealed Pfizer’s agreement with the buyer countries.
It is Israeli cyber security expert, Ehden Biber, who lives in England, that is responsible for the sensational leak regarding the agreements of Pfizer and its customers. Unsurprisingly, the explosive information he recently shared on Twitter on this issue was immediately deleted.
The basis of Biber’s revelation is Albania’s agreement with Pfizer, which was published in the newspaper Gogo.al in January. Curiously, not a single journalist investigated the leak or found it interesting enough to report on.
“They should be ashamed,” said Ehden Biber, who has also leaked Pfizer’s agreements with the EU, Israel, Brazil (signed by Roberto Ferreira Dias, head of the logistics department) and the Dominican Republic. The agreements are designed in the same way, only with different pricing based on what countries could endure. Albania pays $12 per dose, the United States $19,5 per dose and Israel $62 per dose.
“Netanyahu [Israel’s former prime minister] is certainly a magician – he made Israel pay $62 per vaccine dose – five times more than Albania – and got people to worship him for the lousy deal,” noted Biber.
A group of independent investigative journalists in South America has revealed that Pfizer in negotiations with Brazil and Argentina, among others, demanded that the country provide state assets such as embassy buildings and military bases as a guarantee for future costs for possible lawsuits.
The negotiations have been marked by conflicts and delays, and government officials have stated that they were being held hostage by “life-saving vaccines”. After protracted and divisive controversies, Argentina did not sign an agreement until 27 July with Pfizer for about 20 million vaccine doses.
Pfizer has negotiated with more than a hundred countries and signed agreements with a dozen countries in Latin America that have been forced to agree to the company’s outrageous demands. The industry’s greed and abuse are all the clearer in light of the fact that Pfizer and other vaccine manufacturers had received generous grants of hundreds of millions of dollars from several governments throughout the vaccine development process. The German government, for example, gave Pfizer’s business partner BioNTech $445 million.
Sweden has recently obediently agreed to increased prices per vaccine dose in the EU’s latest agreement with Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. For Pfizer/BioNTech, this is an increase from around SEK 160 to SEK 200 per dose. For Moderna from 190 to about 220 kronor, according to the Financial Times.
The reason for the price increase is that the vaccine has been “updated”. Sweden’s “vaccine coordinator”, pharmacist Richard Bergström (with a long history in the pharmaceutical industry) welcomed the price hike. “It’s well worth the money. I call it an ‘all inclusive’ award.”
There is no way out or any way for the buyers to break the agreement if it turns out that the “vaccine” is harmful and large parts of the population suffer from death or other serious side effects. The buyer must complete the agreement and pay the full amount anyway.
Some samples from the confidential agreements
· The purchaser is aware that the efficacy and long-term effects of the vaccine are unknown and that side effects may occur which are not currently known.
· The buyer must pay Pfizer for the ordered doses, regardless of how many you use and regardless of whether Pfizer has the preparation approved by the authorities. ” (This was written before the FDA’s emergency approval of the so-called “vaccines”).
· The buyer hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Pfizer/BioNTech and their subsidiaries indemnified against all claims, documents, claims, losses, damages, debts, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses.
· The buyer must pay all losses, including and without limitation costs for legal fees and other legal costs.
· Buyer must indemnify Pfizer for claims and all losses and must implement this through statutory or regulatory requirements.
· Pfizer has the right to make necessary adjustments to the agreed number of contracted doses and delivery schedule, based on principles decided by Pfizer. The buyer is obliged to agree to any change.
· The agreement must be kept secret for ten years.
· However, for the state of Israel’s agreement with Pfizer, signed by the Israeli Ministry of Health on January 6, a full 30 years of secrecy apply. The reason is unclear.
The Covid vaccines were emergency approved (EUA) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 1, 2020 – in violation of the agency’s own rules. Emergency approval can only be granted if there is no other, effective treatment. Such treatments exist – but were eliminated by medical authorities around the world. The reason was simple: if effective drug treatments were available, the FDA’s emergency approval would be invalidated and the “vaccines” would be illegal.
Both Plaquenil (Hydroxychloroquine) and the 2015 Nobel Prize-winning drug Scatol (Ivermectin) have been shown to be effective and safe. they areb also cheap, because the patents have expired. Ivermectin has been used for 35 years and 4 billion doses have been distributed. But on March 31, the corrupt WHO banned Ivermectin from treating Covid-19 with the argument “insufficient safety”, despite studies showing that Ivermectin, if used at an early stage of the disease, reduced mortality by 74 percent and has 85 percent efficiency if used as prophylaxis.
International health authorities, including the Swedish Medicines Agency, have slavishly complied with the WHO’s injunctions.
Pfizer demanded that embassy buildings and military bases be provided as a guarantee for future costs for possible lawsuits
Mainstream media around the world have contributed to denying patients good and tested treatments by not raising any questions or concerns. Ivermectin was called a “veterinary medicine” and “dangerous”. On May 22, the two reputable medical journals The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine published false articles alleging studies of nearly 100 000 Covid-19 patients in 671 hospitals and six continents. The bottom line was that Hydroxychloroquine was ruled out as an effective Covid-19 treatment.
Their scam came down to sheer political and medical terrorism. When the scam was revealed and the authors of the article Surgisphere, an obscure small business in Illinois, could not show the data on which the article was based, both The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine were forced on June 4 to retract the article and apologize to readers. But by then the system media’s journalists were no longer interested, so the public was never informed about the scam. The publication error nevertheless had serious consequences. The Swedish Medicines Agency banned Plaquenil (Hydroxychloroquine) for indications other than rheumatism. Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were thus sacrificed to prepare the market for the vaccine manufacturers’ multi-billion profits. And in addition, millions of patients with Covid were sacrificed. They all might have recovered if they had received the proven medicines.
Why does any country sign such a slave contract at all and agree to break its own laws?
One explanation is the worldwide mass psychosis and the panic and pressure that erupted at the same time as the Corona pandemic in early 2020.
“The globalist entity Pfizer hates nation states and does not recognize their laws and acts as a government that governs other governments in the world. If you look at the complete lawlessness and meltdown of the once stable institutions around the world, you can see that Big Pharma (the multinational pharmaceutical industry) is being used as a massive brick wall to break down national laws and national sovereignty in all countries,” said Ehden Biber.
“Anyone who takes part in the agreements realizes that there are good reasons for Pfizer to keep it a secret and why they make an effort to hide the details of the agreements.”
The Trusted News Initiative took a decision on 10 December 2020, which in practice means that the media undertakes not to report objectively on Covid vaccines. Photo: The Trusted News Initiative
The FDA thus gave an emergency approval to the so-called “Covid vaccines” on December 1, 2020. Ten days later, TNI (Trusted News Initiative), an association of several of the world’s leading media houses and major online platforms, decided to “pioneer a global vaccine campaign and combat the spread of ‘harmful misinformation’ about vaccines”. It was announced at the World Press Freedom Conference on December 10, 2020.
Business magazine Biz News, reported on the initiative: “In a surprisingly underreported event, many of the world’s biggest media, agreed to promote the global vaccine rollout and focus on combating the spread of harmful vaccine disinformation.”
Thus the world’s most influential media groups have decided to act as megaphones for the interests of the vaccine industry and state pharmaceutical authorities. The agreement explains something that has long been obvious to many media consumers, namely the media’s startling one-sided propaganda for the vaccines.
TNI members are some of the largest and leading media houses and news agencies in the world, including the news agencies AP and AFP, Reuters, British BBC, CBC Canada, European Broadcast Union, Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google, YouTube, The Hindu , Microsoft, Twitter and the Washington Post.
Privately owned online platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google, due to their extreme profitability, evidently colluded with the established media in their efforts to restrict freedom of expression – something that millions of users have experienced in recent years. In Sweden, a seemingly lobotomized and paralyzed journalist corps has so far acted as the megaphones of the Public Health Agency and the vaccine industry and only delivered one-sided vaccine propaganda. The same shills are seen over and over on media platforms, voicing no criticism, opposing views or even questions.
And as if that were not bad enough, one and the same person, James Smith, sits on the board of both Reuters news agency and Pfizer: Two incompatible roles.
James / Jim Smith have incompatible roles. He sits on the board of both Pfizer and the news agency Reuters, one of the media houses that have promised to be at the forefront of the ‘vaccine’ scam. Photos: Reuters, Pfizer
He was previously CEO of Reuters and now calls himself Jim Smith. On Pfizer’s board, he was known as James Smith. In an attempt to hide his dual role, he has removed his image from his LinkedIn profile., but it’s the same person. He is also a member of the International Business Council of the globalist body World Economic Forum.
http://www.freewestmedia.com
Me: The PDF for the secret contract can be found in Google, it appears to be in a foreign language to English, until you read the PDf, which is in English – 56 pages long, from memory – I have a copy on file.

Reply