Approximately 16 months ago, Americans respectfully and dutifully submitted to the guidance provided by assigned trusted voices to navigate the worldwide coronaviral pandemic COVID-19.
As time marched on and terror mounted across the planet, so did a massive global effort by medical scientists, researchists, doctors, virologists, epidemiologists, microbiologists, immunologists, infectious disease experts, and thousands more professionals, to learn and adapt with the goal of ending the pandemic.
This led to legitimate controversies, contradictions, and concerns emerging early relative to the “official” COVID narratives. But to worldwide astonishment, these were aggressively suppressed and ignored by policy makers. Instead, trusted voices that included the entire mainstream media, including social media, developed a pattern of systematic 24/7 info-terror designed to immobilize the public and inspire incurious compliance with extreme mitigations. It could be argued that media's pandemic terror campaign was predesigned and scripted almost identically as showcased in Event 201, Crimson Contagion, and SPARS2025-2028 (see “Still COVID Incurious?” from the May edition of the Reader).
Still, more than a year of mounting evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the foundation propping up the COVID-19 narrative as a global lethal pandemic. Yet this need-to-know information continues unaddressed, ignored, even denounced by a preponderance of health authorities and the public, suggesting a successful assimilation into what qualifies as a COVID Cult.
Interestingly “cult” has a medicine/medical category in its dictionary definition: “Cult [kuhlt] noun 8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.” (Dictionary.com/browse/cult.)
In other words, by official definition, cults can be embodiments of resolute devotion to a singular medical construct to the exclusion of all reasonable query, rationale debate, contravening evidence, and ultimately effective alternative treatments. A perfect example is the indefensible and mystifying suppression of COVID-19 therapeutics boasting hundreds of thousands of successful outcomes in treating COVID in all demographics, such as hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, vitamin D and zinc, for starters.
The hypocrisy of the CDC and FDA permitting experimental injections with mere months of incomplete clinical trials for the entire population, including children, but prohibiting therapeutics that have been successfully used in treating myriad illness and conditions with full FDA approval for decades, but not specifically approved for COVID-19, is unconscionable. Especially considering that effective therapeutics disqualify vaccines from FDA approval and, perhaps more importantly, from Emergency Use Authorizations.
Meanwhile, cultish devotees to COVID-19 most appropriately fit the definition based on an irrational willingness to endanger children with experimental injectable technology masquerading as immunological vaccines.
Studies, including the pharmaceutical manufacturers' own disclaimers, reveal that COVID-based experimental injections do not prevent infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death, but only reduce mild to moderate symptoms.
Breaking research has shown that the “spike protein” thought to be the target antigen for fighting COVID-19 can replicate and leak into the bloodstream, traveling to different organs, including ovaries and reproductive organs, where they congregate and behave instead as toxins by triggering inflammation and causing damage.
Regardless, four frenzied months of something akin to begging the public to get COVID vaccinated, blanketing the public with promotional advertising, corporate and public-sector sponsorship, school facilitation, media campaigns, peer pressure via social media, and bizarre incentives, including financial (such as free ice cream for children and $1 million lotteries for adults) has given rise to as much suspicion as participation, begging the question: Why?
It is marginally understandable how, at first, reasonable adults might consent to incoherent medical protocol(s) out of genuine fear. Especially fear of an unseen killer virus conjured as a lethal pandemic by a consortium of public-health authorities on behalf of global corporate and government interests.
This could only be accomplished through a complicit media abandoning responsible journalism to deliver a relentless barrage of highly scripted messaging with cherry-picked details that are light on data, contextless, confusing, and oblivious to inconsistencies through time.
None of the above is journalism. It is psychosocial engineering with a proven record of effectively terrorizing people into unquestioning compliance and conformity to extreme mitigations and policies even though doing so does far more harm than good. Never mind that submission to any coercive medical policies accomplishes the darker agenda of obliterating human rights, and in America's case, constitutionally protected rights.
But make no mistake: It will all seem like a sunny day compared with the devastation wrought if we allow this unaccountable, unjustifiable experimentation on our kids and irreversible harm is done. Who would take such a foolish risk?
Certainly, a child might where policy-makers have forfeited parental consent for that of the child's in trade for a scoop of ice cream. North Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho, Washington, Arkansas, and the District of Columbia have all granted authority to providers to waive parental consent for children ages 11 and up, and authorize experimental injections for these minors without parents' consent or knowledge. (BeckersHospitalReview.com/public-health/where-children-need-parental-consent-for-covid-19-vaccine.html.)
Parents and grandparents, it is time to snap out of it. Just ask any adult who has been vaccinated, what exactly are the ingredients in the jabs he/she blindly agreed to? You will find precious few who bothered to inquire, let alone who knew going in.
It is one thing, as a consenting adult, to choose to accept the risks of an experimental injection (some known but most unknown) as listed on the consent form he/she signs, acknowledging it is not FDA approved, but authorized strictly under the unique and extreme conditions of emergency use.
It is entirely another thing to accept such potentially ruinous risks for a child, who enjoy zero risk of getting or giving COVID, making any benefit of inoculated immunization medically unnecessary, therefore arguably medical malpractice at best, child abuse at worst, by proceeding with such an odiously unjustifiable policy.
At a minimum, parents and guardians, including school personnel, have a solemn duty to investigate any and all reasonable controversies to satisfactory conclusions before ever subjecting dependent innocents to the dangerous risks that have no rational medical purpose.
This due diligence requires more than directives from superiors and reassurances from health authorities. It demands absolute certainty supported by well-documented, persuasive evidence that overcomes skepticism.
There are compelling positions from the legal arena that argue school personnel and guardians do not enjoy blanket immunity for harm caused by experimental injections they facilitate, any more than do employers who coerce employees for the same.
This is because there are still too many serious controversies that abound in the COVID orbit that have not been convincingly resolved. Instead, substantive evidence is aggressively, systematically suppressed and censored using broadcast, cable, social, and print media. And in some instances, the messengers are oppressed by governments, health authorities, and a growing number of corporate employers leveraging livelihoods. What justifies such deviant behavior in our constitutional republic?
Experimental medicine has robust protections from abuse that no federal, state, or local emergency declaration can overcome. The burden of proof that an emergency exists beyond the discovery period of the first 90 days is critical for justifying the extreme mitigations, especially those associated with COVID throughout 2020 that did such prolonged harm. If ever there was a time for attorneys to recapture the nation's esteem for their craft and industry, it is now. There appears to be a hard line that is about to be crossed, for which the law must prevail in safeguarding constitutionally protected rights. Evidence matters.
It is time once again to give our local health authorities the opportunity to provide definitive answers to persistent concerns, reasonable objections/opposition, and medical contradictions relative to COVID that have yet to be resolved.
This necessary communication between tasked public health stewards and county residents has reached another critical point, especially for parents as implementation of an arguably incoherent public policy of experimental injection of our children looms large.
To their enormous credit, the Scott and Rock Island County Health Departments engaged with our readership last summer by answering initial questions submitted relative to contradictions and controversies with COVID-19 that emerged back then, only to prevail and grow in relevance, today. Their response was robust and greatly appreciated by the Reader, and more importantly by many residents across the entire Quad Cities' community.
It is in that same spirit of cooperation and community dialogue that the Reader submits the following updated questions for clarification by the Scott County and Rock Island Health Departments, with thanks in advance for their valued participation.
Question One: It is well-documented by the FDA and CDC that, even though not FDA-approved for licensure and mass distribution, the emergency use authorization (EUAs) for “mRNA and Vector vaccinations” do not provide recipients inoculated immunity from getting, transmitting, being hospitalized, or dying from COVID-19. Instead, these experimental injections, whether Pfizer Biotech, Moderna, J&J Jannsen, and AstraZeneca, claim only to reduce moderate-to-mild symptoms of COVID19, and this benefit only lasts for approximately two months. Why is this inoculated immunity, with a two-month shelf life, via these experimental injections, considered more medically desirable in achieving herd immunity than achieving it from natural immunity that lasts for a lifetime in COVID-19-recovered people, whose rate of survival from COVID-19 is 99.9 percent?
Question Two: As more people are injected with the COVID “vaccines,” adverse reactions are presenting in greater numbers. This is especially true for COVID-recovered recipients, who later got the jab triggering a condition known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). In essence, ADE is an autoimmune response that causes adverse health consequences in otherwise healthy participants who already possess strong protective natural immunity from having been infected and recovered from COVID. What is the medical rationale for excluding natural immunity in reaching the goal of 70-90-percent herd immunity, instead focusing on inoculated immunity only, causing COVID-recovered people with established natural immunity from COVID-19 and many variants, to unwisely consent to unnecessary inoculated immunity as a matter of policy for achieving global herd immunity goals?
Question Three: Prior to COVID-19, “asymptomatic spread” referred strictly to a much shorter period of “pre-symptomatic spread” (usually one to two days from infection to symptom onset) of respiratory infectious diseases, especially from coronaviruses. Before COVID-19, it was medically accepted that if a person became infected with a coronavirus, but didn't present with symptoms and was never sick, that person already had natural immunity due to: (a) a previous encounter with the same or similar virus; or (b) that person's immune system activated upon encountering the invading virus, effectively beating it into oblivion. Either way, no asymptomatic transmission/spread was possible due to the vanquished viral infection, meaning that person had no infectious virus to transmit.
Most COVID “cases” are confirmed using unreliably high PCR testing cycle thresholds of 40-45 in the Quad Cities (according to Dr. Fauci, anything over 33 is useless). Yet the huge majority of those cases had no epidemiological evidence of infectious disease. In other words, these people were not sick. The explanation for this phenomena has been to label them “asymptomatic cases,” that in turn automatically became asymptomatic carriers, giving birth to the theory of asymptomatic spread.
Even though the large majority of cases were not symptomatic/sick themselves, these people were conveniently labeled as infectious carriers of COVID-19, capable of transmitting COVID to others. Yet curiously, there is not a scintilla of proof for this newly discovered pandemic-causing asymptomatic transmission, nor has it ever been associated with the epidemiology of any previously known respiratory infectious disease, especially from coronoviruses. What proof is there for asymptomatic spread of COVID-19, especially if the 80-90 percent of the cases are not actually confirmed due to faulty PCR testing?
Question Four: To date, asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is only theoretical and never definitively proven as a viable means of transmission, and certainly not proven as causal of a coronaviral pandemic. Studies old and new bear this out. Yet this mode of transmission underpins the COVID narrative, justifying most of the mitigations that flow from it because 80 percent of COVID cases are attributed to asymptomatic spread. Do the Scott and Rock Island County Health Departments use some value for asymptomatic spread as an input in predictive computer modeling to predict cases (e.g. Ro inputs), case rates, death rates, etc., using predictive outcomes that are then used to justify mitigation policy (quarantine, lockdowns, social distancing, masks, etc)? If not, what method(s) are used to account for asymptomatic spread since it is purely theoretical?
Question Five: If and when predictions from computer modeling do not match actual numbers of cases, hospitalizations, deaths, etc., how do you adapt and revise the models/predictions to reflect actual data? What difference/percentages in modeling and actual numbers triggers adjustments to mitigations? What is the usual time delay to account for any differences in predictions and actual data, and for warranted mitigation modifications?
Question Six: What is the rationale for continuing to test using PCR cycle thresholds above 33 to confirm COVID-19 cases in unvaccinated people, and for reducing PCR cycle thresholds to 28 for diagnosing COVID-19 in people who have been previously vaccinated for COVID?
Question Seven: Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) requires: (1) an emergency declaration; (2) no therapeutics available for treatment; (3) the benefit(s) must demonstrably outweigh the risk(s); and (4) limited in duration of time.
If EUAs permit expanded use, how can the original application cover children, who are in an entirely different demographic group, with substantially different medical variables alone, not accounted for in the early trials that were accepted for EUA for adults. This means that safety issues for any demographic, let alone children, cannot have been adequately addressed in such a short period, including for pregnant women.
It is undisputed that children are at zero risk for getting or giving COVID-19, meaning becoming infected and transmitting to adults. Not a single case of a child becoming infected with COVID-19 and transmitting to an adult has ever been recorded, worldwide. With reference to the third requirement, that the “vaccine(s)” seeking EUA must be unequivocal in demonstrating that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, please explain what benefits substantially outweigh any and all risks associated with experimentally injecting children and young adults (0-19 years of age), but most especially children 12 and younger who have zero risk from COVID, yet are at higher risk for potential adverse reactions from the injections? Please be specific.
Question Eight: The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is experiencing an exponential growth in the public's reporting of adverse events from the COVID experimental injections. In the U.S., more than 46,000 adverse effects and 4,400 deaths have been logged in 2021 arising from COVID “vaccines.” The average number of deaths reported to VAERS in a given year is approximately 150. Prior to COVID, a Harvard/CDC collaborative study concluded only 1-10 percent of all adverse events from vaccinations were reported due to a host of weaknesses in the reporting system. What are parents' options when children are harmed from these COVID-19 experimental injections (ie; current adverse reactions such as heart inflammation and blood clotting in younger recipients) if legislated blanket immunity for manufacturers and federal health authorities are unaccountable for liability for harm?
Our sincere thanks for your responses to the above concerns, controversies, and contradictions that continue to persist. The overarching response from myriad trusted voices to these same inconsistencies relative to COVID has been to suppress them and censor public discourse. It is a thoroughly misguided response if health authorities expect to retain the public's trust. The Reader remains committed to the principle of transparent discussion, debate, and sharing of information. We won't always agree, but open communication between all interests, stakeholders, and citizens is what knits us together as a stronger community despite our differences.
See also Nature.com, May 26, 2021: Had COVID? You'll Probably Make Antibodies for a Lifetime (Nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9.)