Too Many of Us Slient About COVID Questions

Too many of us have been silent amid the COVID contradictions for fear of reprisal and/or rejection, even as we watch destruction roll over our communities with impunity. Many of us are convinced on an emotional level that continuously wearing cloth masks, social distancing, and accepting experimental injections are contributing to the greater safety of ourselves and others, regardless of the range of unresolved concerns that plague these mitigation efforts.

On some level, we are uncertain about the mitigations we comply with. We know rationally it is a physical impossibility to prevent micronano-sized viruses from escaping through larger micron-sized holes in masks' cloth. We also know logically that wherever viruses are found in droplets, they are also present in surrounding aerosols that escape with and around droplets, making mask-use statistically insignificant in preventing viral transmission. But we soldier on, ignoring the unintended consequences of our compliance for the comfort of believing we are among the white hats fighting COVID-19.

We also understand that the fundamental purpose of vaccines is to provide immunity against viral infections. If I am vaccinated, I am protected against the virus regardless if those around me are not. That's how it's supposed to work. If the current experimental injections don't provide such immunity, what is their purpose?

There are two ways to achieve herd immunity – natural and inoculated – where the majority of a population is immune to a virus, preventing future infection and transmission, causing the virus to die out. Natural immunity is the biological adaptation within the body, after exposure to a virus, that causes antibodies with memory so that permanent immunity to that virus is established.

Inoculated immunity is the same thing, but achieved through synthetic vaccines that include the attenuated virus to trick the body into manufacturing antibodies that provide immunity without getting sick, although such immunity is not always permanent. While some vaccines represent a phenomenal medical technology when delivered safely and effectively, they can never really match the perfection that is our own innate immune responses to the environment.

What baffles is the bizarre lack of public interest in knowing the more critical details concerning COVID, such as infections are not always cases, asymptomatic transmissibility is just a theory, PCR testing is overstating the number of cases, mask efficacy is wearing thin due to health risks of its own, natural herd immunity has likely been achieved, COVID variants (a.k.a. strains, mutations) are traditionally less virulent, and fully understanding and assessing the known and unknown risks of getting an experimental injection, as opposed of getting COVID-19 and dying based on age and other relevant health conditions, is essential.

Over the past several months, three separate experimental injections became available in the U.S. to inoculate against COVID-19 without FDA Approval. Instead Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson are using the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) only. Understanding the differences between FDA Approval and Emergency Use Authorization is useful when assessing the risks of accepting or rejecting one of the three experimental injections versus getting COVID-19. [NOTE: Vaccines are considered biologics, thereby regulated under the purview of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).]

Because Pfizer and Moderna experimental injections are based on mRNA technology, a brand-new cutting-edge biological that is largely untested and unproven by required medical measures, the need for rigorous trials remains critical before mass distribution receives fully licensed approval, a status. EUA has turned people getting the shots into unwitting participants in required clinical trials, but without the control groups and close surveillance that accompanies such trials.

More importantly, because the COVID-19 pandemic was launched via an egregiously flawed computer model using reckless, arbitrary assumptions, SARS-CoV-2 could very well have been circulating months before it was recognized. Which means there could also very well be significant natural immunity already established throughout the population, and not detected since PCR testing cannot distinguish between remnant virus and active virus.

There are few things more miraculous than bona fide breakthroughs in health and medicinal technologies that advance human health and well-being, nor are there more devastating outcomes when these technologies fail and do irrevocable harm. That is why resolute adherence to trials for these injectibles must remain the standard for ensuring the former, especially since all three manufacturers have full immunity from any liability that arises from vaccine injury. Whether this immunity applies during EAU is unknown as these biologics don't have FDA approval as vaccines, nor is it confirmed that injuries from experimental injections are eligible to participate in the government-funded Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reimbursement program. Regardless, adverse reactions from COVID experimental injections are being reported to VAERS. (,,

FDA Approval essentially means the manufacturer has complied with all FDA's regulations, including completion of rigorous study trials associated with the development of an effective, safe vaccine for mass distribution. The trials are required to be comprehensive, systematically done in phases, after which manufacturer's data must demonstrate unequivocally the vaccine does what it is designed to do, and is conclusively safe for all targeted recipients. This protocol requires time, repetition, adjustments, and takes years to affirmatively meet FDA standards. Vaccines are rarely FDA approved if effective therapeutics/treatments are otherwise available.

Emergency Use Authorization is limited in time (usually six months to one year) and scope. EUA is based on limited trials and testing results, but because a health emergency must exist, specific waivers are given to permit temporary use under more restricted protocols and supervision. EUAs are never given if there are effective therapeutics/treatments otherwise available.

Perhaps this explains corporate media's and social media's sudden targeted negative campaigns against otherwise highly regarded therapeutics that include Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, including supplementation of Vitamins D, C, E, and Zinc. These medications and supplements have proven successful in early treatment of COVID-19 through clinical observation by a vast number of medical professionals worldwide.

Yet these medications were inexplicably discredited by the WHO, CDC, and Dr. Fauci himself as inappropriate therapeutics for COVID-19 despite the evidence to the contrary. Even though these medications were successfully prescribed with demonstrable efficacy, and are infinitely more affordable (under $5), as therapeutics they presented a threat to FDA EUAs and eventual FDA approval of new mRNA vaccines otherwise not permitted if effective treatments already exist.

No one disputes the initial extreme response by government when COVID-19 first emerged. Fortunately, we had mountains of data and evidence to inform us due to our familiarity with coronaviruses, so our advantage was immediately hopeful in applying viable solutions quickly. Such describes the traditional approach that heretofore accompanied our management of infectious disease.

However, authorities deviated from this approach with COVID-19. Instead, the World Health Organization (WHO), in collusion with U.S. health authorities (HHS, CDC, NIH), adopted an action plan taken straight from the combined efforts of at least three separate coronavirus pandemic simulations that took place over the four years proceeding COVID-19 (Event 201 in 2019, SPARS in 2017-2019, and Crimson Contagion in 2019 ).

John Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Bank, IMF, World Economic Forum (Great Reset), Wellness Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations, associated NGOs, various countries' health authorities, marketing giants, Big Pharma execs, M5M and Social Media execs, and other global influencers all participated in Event 201 to game out a coronavirus pandemic simulation that nearly perfectly mimicked the current COVID-19 pandemic.

While the overarching mission of Event 201's simulation was to engage global corporations in public/private partnerships to navigate specific problems identified as arising from a global pandemic, it's most successful vision was the communications apparatus, in which robust attention was given to unified public messaging, including strategies thwarting mis- and disinformation (

Also in 2019, Health and Human Services, the Pentagon, Veterans Affairs, National Security Council, along with 12 states including Illinois, participated in Crimson Contagion. This simulation's focus was on supply-chain problems and emergency powers. In other words, which agencies had the final authority to do what in emergency situations. (

SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 is John Hopkins' much deeper dive into communications strategies for “Medical Countermeasure Communications (MCM). It is a blueprint for gaming out very specific scenarios (as defined by Olgivy and Schwartz 2004) to account for multiple different obstacles and potential varied outcomes, including driving specific outcomes where applicable using media, Internet, social media, celebrities, “trusted voices,” et al. (

Other pre-planning for global crises from a health pandemic can be found in the Rockefeller Foundation's 2010 white paper “Lock-Step,” one of four scenarios included in a compilation, Scenarios For The Future of Technology and International Development, describing a coronavirus pandemic that justifies the imposition of authoritarian controls over travel, work, healthcare, education, food, congregating, and much more. (

Preparedness is a worthy effort. However few of the lessons cited in these simulations, particularly readiness relative to PPE, supply chain weaknesses, et cetera, appear to be as successfully implemented during the current COVID-19 pandemic as Event 201's communications strategies for public compliance.

Event 201 gamed the deployment of highly scripted narratives delivered by media using “trusted voices” and social media using “influencers,” coupled with concentrated filtering of mis- and disinformation (censorship) via tech giants Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon as needed. And as a matter of expediency, John Hopkins generously supplied broadcast and cable media with 201's high-tech digital screens for dramatic, fear-inspiring, 24/7 display of hourly increases in cases, and daily increases in deaths, both nationally and worldwide.

COVID Concerns Still Looming

Because controversies, contradictions, questionable first-time protocols and accommodations, and noteworthy anomalies relative to COVID-19 persist to date, with no balanced effort on the part of health authorities, leadership, or mainstream investigative journalism, to clarify or dispel, it bears revisiting by summarizing as follows:

  • England's Imperial College Professor Neil Ferguson’s wildly inaccurate computer modeling was used to launch the COVID-19 pandemic. Month's later, when the model's data was eventually peer-reviewed, the preposterous findings were ignored by leaderships and health authorities, none of whom made appropriate adjustments, including dialing back the media hysteria or extreme mitigations, instead perpetuating the pandemic status of COVID-19.
  • Almost immediately, the WHO approved a highly sensitive Polymerase Chain Reaction molecular test developed by Germany as the official diagnostic tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease, using amplification Cycle Thresholds as high as 40-45 cts. PCR testing had never before been used as an initial diagnostic tool because it cannot distinguish between live and inactive virus, especially using such high cts, therefore is incapable of determining whether a person is infected with minutiae live virus impossible to culture, or merely has a miniscule presence of dead viral nucleotides (which most animate things have in abundance).
  • Setting excessively high PCR cycle thresholds of 40 and above guarantees exponentially increased numbers of positive test results, of which 80 to 95 percent are estimated to be false-positives. This means millions of positive test results were wrong, instead were actually negative for COVID-19.
  • It is interesting to note that CDC recently issued a new guideline for PCR testing not to exceed 28 cycle thresholds for all people who have received one or more of the three COVID19 emergency injections. PCR testing using 28 cts is expected to generate a much lower number of positive test results, which means a substantial decrease in cases. No doubt credit for the decline will go to the injections, not the lower PCR cts.
  • Another inexplicable accommodation is the CDC defining a “COVID-19 case” as anyone with a positive PCR test result. Prior to COVID, all other infectious diseases required clinical observation of disease symptoms first, then lab testing, finally confirmation by culturing and replicating the virus found in the PCR tests. Why reduce the burden of proof so drastically for COVID-19?
  • As the pandemic gained momentum, the CDC broadened the reporting standards for COVID mortality by permitting coroners and medical examiners nationwide to include on death certificates “with COVID-19” versus “from COVID-19,” and “suspected” versus “confirmed” via autopsy or COVID test. This exponentially increased deaths reported as COVID deaths, even though many of these reported deaths were primarily due to comorbidities. Furthermore, without a prior COVID-19 test, autopsies have not been required to confirm COVID-19 was actually present. It sufficed that it was suspected to be involved.
  • Hospitals are also monetarily incentivized to categorize patient admissions, ICU care, and deaths as COVID deaths by substantial increases in reimbursements for COVID-related care. Most hospitals and healthcare facilities responsibly follow mitigation and care protocols by segregating specific areas and a percentage of beds for COVID care only. However, in some facilities, while COVID beds may be at capacity (with actual patients or based on predictive modeling), the rest of the hospital could be nearly empty, yet resources are reported to be overwhelmed, misleading public perception.
  • The COVID narrative began interchanging “pre-symptomatic” with “asymptomatic” to describe the dangerous unpredictability of COVID-19 transmissibility, turning every human into a potential carrier with no peer driven science to support this claim. Asymptomatic spread (transmissibility) is just a theory never before applied in the management of respiratory infectious disease from coronaviruses because asymptomatic spread has never been epidemiologically associated with coronaviruses, nor ever proven as a verifiable factor.
  • Corporate media relentlessly triggers the world's extreme fear response by hyper-focusing on cases instead of deaths in round the clock COVID pandemic reporting. Number of deaths has always been the definitive measure of the lethality of any epidemic and pandemic, but with COVID-19, that parameter had to be changed for reporting purposes because the physical numbers of deaths due strictly to COVID-19 remain too low to support a dire lethality claim, evidenced by 98.8 percent of the people who get COVID-19 surviving.
  • The actual death rate has been further obscured by the CDC's suddenly combining COVID-19 deaths (C) with deaths from Pneumonia and Influenza (P&I) for an all new mortality category CP&I, co-mingling the actual number of deaths strictly from COVID-19 with Pneumonia and Influenza deaths.
  • It is also extremely curious to note that, for the 2019/20 Influenza Season, the CDC neglected to collect and record all the cases of influenza in the U.S.

One or two of these anomalies does not a conspiracy make, but add them all up and any respectable skeptic would pause. Based on so many significant anomalies and firsts, it is not unreasonable to be suspect of COVID-19 as another respiratory coronavirus, yet nowhere near a pandemic-level event. But instead of tackling the growing insurmountable contradictions to reassure the public with rationale explanations, persuasive counter-arguments, and contravening evidence, health authorities maintain their provocative narratives under the cover of mainstream media's abdication of rigorous investigative journalism and big tech's censorship.

Regardless of motives and agendas perpetuating the dubious COVID narrative, the harm against humanity is real, and now it's coming for our children with proposed experimental injections masquerading as vaccinations against COVID-19.

It is one thing for adults to ignore the risks by ignoring all sides of the research, it's an entirely different matter when it comes to children, who depend on us to do exactly that. EUA experimental injections for children is 100-percent medical malpractice because children are at statistically zero-percent risk of getting COVID-19, therefore have no chance of spreading it either. Not a single case of a child transmitting SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 disease to an adult has been reported worldwide, making zero tolerance nonnegotiable for any degree of risk associated with experimental mRNA injections of our children. Doing so convincingly qualifies as child abuse.

In what universe would it not be medical malpractice to experimentally inject perfectly healthy children, using completely untested new mRNA technology, justified based on an unproven, theoretical assumption of “asymptomatic” transmission, especially for a coronaviral respiratory disease, in order to protect one percent of vulnerable people, most of whom are elderly or have serious underlying conditions, while the remaining 98.8 percent of the world population will survive even if they are infected? This is medical perversion on steroids, and would qualify under any jury's definition of crimes against humanity. (,

A staggering number of Americans incuriously, unquestioningly, still comply with extreme mitigations that range from shuttering their businesses; allowing the side-lining of their children's education for over a year; excessive mask-wearing, arbitrary social distancing, isolation and decongregating, and being denied access to beloved elders in care facilities.

And that's okay; it's your individual decision. But putting the absorption of any part of your risk on the shoulders of children is a moral perversion. If you are a person at risk, make the necessary adjustments to best protect yourself. Do not suppose it is the responsibility of countless healthy children to unnecessarily, disproportionately risk their own health and well being by perpetually masking up or worse, jabbing up, to accommodate you. There are many ways to mitigate your risk without increasing risks of others, especially children.

What the Experimental mRNA Injections Do Not Provide

Before you even think about injecting children with experimental anything, it is incumbent for you to engage in a thorough examination of alternative information, both pro and con, that goes beyond social-media influencers and corporate media's chosen trusted voices. But just for the record, according to the inserts, the health authorities, and the professionals, the current three experimental injections from Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson do not provide protection against COVID because all three:

  • Do not prevent SARS2 infection

  • Do not prevent COVID-19

  • Do not prevent transmission of SARS2 virus

  • Do not prevent transmission of COVID-19

  • Do not eliminate mask-wearing protocol

  • Do not eliminate social distancing

  • Do not provide herd immunity because none provide individual immunity

(Read the inserts for each of these products for these disclaimers, and for potential side effects.)

So what exactly do these experimental injections do? The claim is that these experimental injections will prevent symptoms from becoming severe for the 98.8 percent who will survive regardless, and for the 80 percent who won't otherwise even know they have it.

Iowa Legislature Falling Short on Protecting Rights

In what universe do we accept/comply with any mandates, especially based on unproven evidence, from politicians and bureaucrats that interfere with rights that we possess as part of our humanity, that each of them takes an oath to protect?

No lawmaker has the authority to pledge him/herself to the protection of both the state and the U.S. constitutions, and to the protection of our rights, then conjure laws, rules, and mandates that betray those oaths. We are the final arbiters of such bad faith.

To this end, the Iowa House just passed HF 889and SF 610, prohibiting businesses and government entities from requiring proof of vaccination to enter premises. Exempted from this prohibition are healthcare facilities, including hospitals, surgery centers, clinics, urgent care, and all other facilities as defined in Iowa code. (Information is available at

The vote passed 58 to 35, with some Republican representatives, including Representative Steven Holt, who sponsored the House bill, agreeing to the exemption against a wave of opposition from the public who fear denial of myriad healthcare and emergency services if not vaccinated.

This opposition is understandable, even though the legislatures who voted in favor of including the exemption for healthcare facilities are focused on nursing homes and long-term care facilities. Regardless, their well-meaning focus is woefully short-sighted and non-inclusive of a substantial number of Iowa citizens who remain cautious about getting an experimental injection and prefer to wait for fully licensed FDA approval before assuming the risk(s) that accompany vaccines for portions of the population.

The bill recognizes the inherent rights of Iowa citizens to participate in society unimpeded, while simultaneously protecting privacy regarding specific medical decisions, except, incoherently, where overall healthcare is concerned. It is a highly incongruous exemption, therefore voters are asking the Senate to remove it before passing the otherwise affirming legislation.

If appropriate, perhaps some additional protective protocol can be included for nursing homes and long-term care facilities that provides risk mitigation for our vulnerable elders. Whatever that might be, it must not sacrifice the rest of Iowa residents who are entitled to full access to healthcare that also protects privacy that includes vaccination and experimental injection decisions. This also most emphatically applies to children.

Support the River Cities' Reader

Get 12 Reader issues mailed monthly for $48/year.

Old School Subscription for Your Support

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Old School Subscribe now.

Help Keep the Reader Alive and Free Since '93!


"We're the River Cities' Reader, and we've kept the Quad Cities' only independently owned newspaper alive and free since 1993.

So please help the Reader keep going with your one-time, monthly, or annual support. With your financial support the Reader can continue providing uncensored, non-scripted, and independent journalism alongside the Quad Cities' area's most comprehensive cultural coverage." - Todd McGreevy, Publisher