Dr. Andrew Kaufman Exposes the ‘Omicron Variant’ Scam that Increases Covid Case Numbers

Source: Need To Know   

Dr. Andrew Kaufman explained that in the usual PCR test protocol, there are three primers (fragments of single-stranded DNA), and if all three are positive, it is considered to be a positive test, and the person is diagnosed with Covid. But now the criteria have changed and only two primers are required for a test to be deemed positive. The change in protocol is a way to convert negative results to positive results and call it a new thing, which was named Omicron. The result is an increase in the number of Covid cases.

Dr. Kaufman has shown many times that the SARS-Cov-2 virus has never been isolated, a process of separating it from everything else and viewing it under a microscope, and cannot be proven to exist. Similarly, the new Omicron variant of the Covid virus has yet to be isolated and proven to exist. Omicron is an ‘in silico’ computer-produced genome sequence. There is no clinical test authorized, approved, or available for purchase for any variant! There are no scientific publications studying Omicron.

David Icke summarizes Dr. Andrew Kaufman’s findings in this short video clip:

Link for video:   https://www.bitchute.com/video/zqb47iUluTQl/

Dr. Kaufman’s full interview:

Link for video:   https://www.bitchute.com/video/zKygBnjEzohx/

Fully Vaccinated Countries Had Highest Number of New COVID Cases, Study Shows

A study published Sept. 30, in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Epidemiology Vaccines, found “no discernible relationship” between the percentage of the population fully vaccinated and new COVID cases.

In fact, the study found the most fully vaccinated nations had the highest number of new COVID cases, based on the researchers’ analysis of emerging data during a seven-day period in September.

The authors said the sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences “needs to be re-examined,” especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants.

They wrote:

“Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates. Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on the real-world effectiveness of the vaccines.”

As part of the study, researchers investigated the relationship between the percentage of the population fully vaccinated and new COVID cases across 68 countries and 2,947 U.S. counties that had second dose vaccine, and available COVID case data.

For seven days preceding Sept. 3, researchers computed COVID cases per one million people for each country, as well as the percentage of the population that was fully vaccinated.

Relationship between cases per 1 million people (last 7 days) and percentage of the population fully vaccinated across 68 countries as of September 3, 2021

Notably, Israel with more than 60% of its population fully vaccinated, had the highest COVID cases per 1 million people during the seven-day period.

Iceland and Portugal, with more than 75% of their populations fully vaccinated, had more COVID cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa, where only about 10% of the population is fully vaccinated.

Across U.S. counties, the median new COVID cases per 100,000 people during the seven-day period was similar across the categories of the percentage of the population fully vaccinated.

Percentage of counties that experienced an increase of cases between two consecutive 7-day time periods by the percentage of the population fully vaccinated across 2947 counties as of September 2, 2021

The researchers found a substantial county variation in new COVID cases within categories of the percentage of the population fully vaccinated. There also appeared to be no significant signaling of COVID cases decreasing in counties where a higher percentage of the population was fully vaccinated.

Of the top five counties with the highest percentage of the population fully vaccinated (99.9% – 84.3%), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified four as “high” transmission counties.

Three of the four counties classified as “high” transmission had fully vaccinated rates of 90% or higher. Conversely, of the 57 counties classified as “low” transmission by the CDC, 15 had fully vaccinated rates of 20% or lower.

The findings also showed no discernible association between COVID cases and fully vaccinated rates when a one-month lag was considered, to account for the 14-day period it takes for a vaccine to be considered effective.

The authors suggested a correction to the policy narrative is warranted, as increasing vaccination rates is not enough. “Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on the real-world effectiveness of the vaccines,” they wrote.

The authors cited data from the Ministry of Health in Israel showing the effectiveness of two doses of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine against preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported to be 39% — substantially lower than the reported trial efficacy of 96%.

Emerging research also shows immunity derived from Pfizer’s COVID vaccine may not be as strong as natural immunity acquired through infection.

A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines six months post-immunization has also been reported along with an increasing number of breakthrough cases among the fully vaccinated, the researchers said.

The authors said stigmatizing populations over vaccines can do more harm than good, and non-pharmacological prevention efforts need to be renewed in order to learn to live with COVID “in the same manner we continue to live 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.”

Breakthrough cases significantly underreported as FDA reviews booster data 

The number of vaccinated people testing positive for COVID is on the rise, and doctors in Ohio are reporting more breakthrough cases across hospital systems.

However, only certain types of COVID breakthrough cases are reported at both the state and federal levels, leaving patients with mild cases underreported.

“We estimate anywhere from two to 10 times as many positives that are being reported is the real situation,” said Dr. David Margolius, division director of internal medicine at MetroHealth in Cleveland.

“It’s still rare, but I get a dozen COVID positive cases a day in my basket, and usually three or four of them have been vaccinated,” said Margolius.

The Ohio Department of Health and the CDC only reports breakthrough cases in patients requiring hospital admission, or cases that resulted in death.

The CDC said it made the change in May in order to “maximize the quality of data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public importance.”

As of Sept. 27, the CDC had received reports from 50 U.S. states and territories of 22,115 patients with COVID vaccine breakthrough infection who were hospitalized or died.

The CDC said the number of COVID vaccine breakthrough infections reported to the agency is an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons, especially of asymptomatic or mild infections.

In addition, national surveillance relies on passive and voluntary reporting, and data are not complete or representative, according to the CDC.

Massachusetts health officials on Tuesday reported nearly 4,000 new breakthrough cases over the past week, and 46 more deaths, according to NBC Boston.

In the last week, 3,741 new breakthrough cases were reported, with 125 more vaccinated people hospitalized.

This brings the total number of breakthrough cases in Massachusetts to 40,464 — out of 4.63 million vaccinated people — and the death toll among people with breakthrough infections to 300.

According to the Vermont Daily Chronicle, which cited statistics from Vermont’s Department of Health, 76% of the state’s COVID fatalities in September were breakthrough cases, with just eight of the 33 Vermonters who died being unvaccinated.

As of Tuesday, 88% of all eligible Vermonters age 12 and over had been vaccinated with at least one shot.

Health Department spokesperson Ben Truman said most of the vaccine “breakthrough” fatalities were elderly. Because they were among the first vaccinated, Vermont’s elderly “have had more time to potentially become a vaccine breakthrough case,” he said.

According to The Washington Post, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said Tuesday updated data might make a strong case in support of everyone 18 and older being eligible for the COVID vaccine boosters, but the agency will have to see whether its outside advisers agree.

The remarks from Marks came during a webinar as the FDA prepares to meet Oct. 14 and 15 with its outside advisers to discuss authorizing Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID booster shots.

‘Not Supposed To Happen’: US State With Highest Vaxx Rate Sees Record Surge In Covid Cases

By Ivan Pentchoukov | The Epoch Times 

Vermont, the state with the highest vaccination rate in the United States, is experiencing a CCP virus surge at levels not seen since the pandemic’s peak last winter.

The number of cases in Vermont is at a record level, hospitalizations are close to the records notched last winter, and the state recorded the deadliest day and the second deadliest month of the pandemic in September.

“I think it’s clearly frustrating for all of us,” Michael Pieciak, the commissioner of the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation who monitors CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus statistics for the state.

More than 69 percent of Vermont’s population has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of Sept. 24, according to the CDC, far above the national rate of 56 percent.

The state recorded the highest rate of hospitalizations per 100,000 residents on Sept. 30, breaching a record set on Jan. 31 last year. Eight people died of the CCP virus in Vermont on Sept. 13, the highest grim total recorded since the outbreak of the virus.

In late August, four of ten cases of COVID-19 in Vermont were among vaccinated people, according to a letter signed by 90 employees of the Vermont Health Department, including state Epidemiologist Patsy Kelso.

Gov. Phil Scott (R) lifted the state of emergency in Vermont in June when 80 percent of the population had received at least one shot of the vaccine. He has since indicated he is wary of reimposing the state of emergency.

“We can’t be in a perpetual state of emergency,” Scott said this week.

The four states which follow Vermont in terms of the highest vaccination rates in the nation are also experiencing alarming signs.

The head of UMass Memorial Health, the largest health system in central Massachusetts, said recently that regional hospitals were seeing nearly 20 times more COVID-19 patients than in June and there isn’t an ICU bed to spare. Massachusetts has the fifth-highest vaccination rate in the nation.

In Connecticut, the second most vaccinated state in the U.S., the legislature recently extended the governor’s emergency powers to make it easier to cope with the latest wave of the pandemic.

On Sept. 22, Maine, the third most-vaccinated U.S. state, had nearly 90 people in intensive care units, a pandemic peak for the state.

Dear Dr.Fauci, please explain…

Nasal Irrigation May Help Prevent COVID Hospitalizations

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • A recent preprint study demonstrated that people who used normal saline nasal irrigation were 19 times less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than the national rate; the study used pressure-based nasal irrigation systems
  • In one group, the intervention included povidone-iodine, which some physicians have been using as oral solutions, and nasal irrigation to protect against COVID infection; other health care professionals are using nebulized hydrogen peroxide, and some are using both
  • Since early 2020, some physicians have encouraged individuals and organizations to include hydrogen peroxide in their treatment protocols. In an interview with Dr. David Brownstein, he discusses his protocol that includes vitamins, hydrogen peroxide, and iodine
  • In another short video, Dr. Thomas Levy and I discuss the advantages of using nebulized hydrogen peroxide to your gut microbiome, which is essential to supporting your immune health

A recent preprint study1 demonstrated that people who used a normal saline nasal irrigation were 19 times less likely to require hospitalization for treatment of COVID-19 than the national rate of hospitalizations. You may be familiar with nasal irrigation when it’s referred to as using a Neti Pot.

According to a 2009 article in the American Family Physician,2 nasal irrigation has been an adjunctive therapy for upper respiratory conditions and is currently prescribed after nasal and sinus surgeries.3 Nasal irrigation with a neti pot instills normal saline into your nasal passages with a small device that resembles a teapot.

After inserting the end of the pot in one side of your nose, the solution moves around the sinuses and out the other nostril. For example, flushing out pollen in the nose and sinus cavities helps to manage the symptoms of mild to moderate allergic rhinitis.

While using a neti pot is probably the most recognized over-the-counter method of deep nasal irrigation, one study4 evaluated other irrigation techniques to discover which would more effectively reach the maxillary sinus and frontal recess after endoscopic sinus surgery. They analyzed the results of a metered nasal spray, nebulization, and nasal douching “while kneeling with the head on the floor.”5

Nasal douching is a procedure in which you “sniff” saline into your nostrils,6 and researchers found that it was more effective than a metered nasal spray or nebulized normal saline to reach the sinus cavities.7

If you want to try nasal irrigation with a neti pot, and you’re thinking of making your own saline solution, it’s important to remember to use only distilled, sterile, or cooled boiled water. Tap water can contain bacteria and protozoa that may be safe in the gastrointestinal tract8 but not in your nasal passages, where a free-living microscopic ameba called Naegleria fowleri can trigger a devastating brain infection that is usually fatal.9

Nasal Irrigation With Normal Saline Reduced Hospitalizations

The most recent study10 compared the clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 using normal nasal saline irrigation. The researchers engaged patients who were 55 years or older who tested positive with a PCR test in a community testing site.

They began with a group of 79 patients who were randomized into two groups. The data were then compared against outcomes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national database. In this study, the participants used one of two pressure-based nasal irrigation systems: the NAVAGE or the NeilMed Sinus Rinse.

The participants were then randomly selected to use either one-half teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (alkalinization) with the standard saline rinse twice a day for 14 days or to include 2.5 milliliters (roughly a half-teaspoon) of povidone-iodine 10% solution (antimicrobial) for the same period. The researchers then followed up with each group 14 days after their final intervention.

The primary outcome was hospitalization for COVID-19 within the first 28 days after the intervention began. Secondarily, they tracked symptom resolution, adherence to the intervention, and the side effects that the intervention may have had on the participant. At the end of 28 weeks, 62 patients had completed their research diaries and averaged 1.79 irrigations each day.

After analyzing the results, the researchers found there were no statistical differences in outcomes when the participants used the povidone-iodine antimicrobial wash or alkalized the nasal cavity with sodium bicarbonate. None of the patients assigned to the povidone-iodine wash and only one assigned to the alkalized group had a COVID-19 related hospitalization.

However, resolutions of symptoms in those using the povidone-iodine were more likely. The researchers concluded that the isotonic saline nasal irrigation had a positive effect on reducing hospitalization and “Further research is required to determine if adding povidone-iodine to irrigation reduces morbidity and mortality of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”11

Further study may also be necessary to determine if alkalizing the nasal cavity had an impact on killing the virus and preventing hospitalization as the body’s natural pH is slightly alkaline,12 and most pathogens prefer an acidic environment.13 Clearing the oral cavity of SARS-CoV-2 is also part of the outpatient IMASK protocol from the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.14

Addition of Povidone Iodine May Improve Efficacy

In the 4th century B.C., a student of Aristotle discovered that using iodine-rich seaweed could help sunburn pain.15 One of the first iodine preparations used in the care and treatment of open wounds was Lugol’s solution that contained elemental iodine and potassium. This was used to treat wounds during the American Civil War.

The two most commonly used iodine solutions today are povidone-iodine (PVP-I), which is also known as Betadine, and cadexomer iodine, which is used in wound care to fill cavities. The exact way iodine kills microbes is not well understood but is believed to be associated with the ability to penetrate the microorganisms’ cell wall, which then affects the structure and function.

At the start of 2020, some doctors began using PVP-I in the oral and nasal cavity to shield against COVID-19. Dr. Mostafa Arefin,16 from Dhaka Medical College and Hospital in Bangladesh, published a paper in early 2021 detailing the use of PVP-I for himself and more than 50 other doctors and other health care workers.

During a five- to nine-month period he performed airway surgeries in which SARS-CoV-2 could be expected to be aerosolized, such as tracheostomies, endoscopic sinus surgeries, laryngeal biopsies, and tonsillectomies. At the conclusion, he recommended that doctors, health care workers, COVID-19 patients, and others use an oral and nasal spray to reduce the transmission and as a potential treatment modality.

One study17 published in JAMA in early 2021 investigated the nasopharyngeal application of povidone-iodine to reduce the viral load of people who had COVID-19. Adult outpatients who tested positive with a PCR test cycle threshold less than 20 in the past 48 hours were included.

The group was split into two factions. The control group underwent no intervention. The intervention group used mouthwash and gargle of 25 milliliters (a little over 5 teaspoons) of 1% povidone-iodine solution and then 2.5 milliliters (one-half teaspoon) of nasal solution sniffed into each nostril using a mucosal atomization device.

The participants followed this procedure four times a day for five days. The researchers followed up and found that no one required hospital admission and all but one of the patients had a negative viral titer by the end of Day 3. Thyroid dysfunction did occur in 42% of the patients, but it resolved spontaneously when the treatment was stopped.

It is interesting to note that the study published in JAMA18 used 1% solution, while Arefin and his colleagues used a 0.23% concentration, having found that PVP-I had 99.99% virucidal efficacy at that concentration.19

Hydrogen Peroxide May Reduce Hospitalization, Complications

In early 2020, a joint research team from Italy and the United Kingdom published a paper in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology.20 In April they recognized that “the virus resides in the mucous membranes and is transmitted through the saliva and respiratory droplets” to facilitate viral spread.

The paper recounts how in February 2020, the Italian government recommended sanitizing the environment with 0.5% hydrogen peroxide as it was already in use for both disinfect purposes and to treat oral gingivitis. They cited a 2016 study with the SARS coronavirus,21 which showed the virus stays in mucous membranes for up to two days before moving to the lower respiratory tract.

The team22 identified this delay as a window of opportunity to prevent the onset of symptoms. Because hydrogen peroxide efficiently inactivates coronavirus on inanimate surfaces and since it has been tested in, and is in use, in human health, they proposed that hydrogen peroxide could reduce hospitalization and severity of illness when it was used in the oral and nasal mucosa.

They postulated that gargling three times a day and using a nasal wash and nebulizer twice a day could be safe and effective. In March 2020, a retired professor from the University of Ghana Medical School wrote in a letter to the editor to the BMJ that23 “there is evidence that even 0.5% hydrogen peroxide could inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces.”

And, since hydrogen peroxide has been in use in dental practice for nearly 100 years and in view of its safety, he proposed the World Health Organization add hydrogen peroxide mouthwash and gargling to their preventive protocols.

By May 2020, a word about hydrogen peroxide reached the ears of the Federal Trade Commission, which then began issuing warning letters to those who dared to suggest that hydrogen peroxide was an at-home treatment that may be effective against SARS-CoV-2.24

Nebulized Hydrogen Peroxide Helps Stop Respiratory Infections

In this interview with Dr. David Brownstein, we discussed the protocol he has been using for over 25 years for patients with cold and flu. He is using the same protocol for patients with COVID-19 and at the time of the recording had successfully treated over 220 patients without any deaths and only a few hospitalizations.25

In an open letter26 physician and attorney, Thomas Levy attributes the original concept of nebulizing hydrogen peroxide to Dr. Charles Farr, who “championed” it in 1990. In the letter, he discusses how the extra oxygen atom in hydrogen peroxide is deadly for viruses and how under normal circumstances, your immune cells produce their own hydrogen peroxide.

Yet, when your immune system is overwhelmed with viral replication, it may not be able to produce enough hydrogen peroxide. The original therapy used intravenous administration, which made the process unavailable for most people.

Dr. Frank Shallenberger, known for his research in mitochondrial function and oxygen utilization,27 went on to propose and use nebulize hydrogen peroxide, finding it had an additional advantage since the intervention went directly to the area of the body that was most affected by a virus.

Although Levy recommends using 3% hydrogen peroxide off the shelf and undiluted, I prefer food-grade hydrogen peroxide28 that does not have the additives and stabilizers you find in the products sold at big box stores.

In the interview, Brownstein talks about the change he pioneered to the treatment — which was to add iodine to the nebulized hydrogen peroxide.29 Interestingly, he used nebulized iodine first with his patients and then added hydrogen peroxide to the treatment protocol.

Nebulized Hydrogen Peroxide May Help Your Gut Microbiome

In this video, Levy and I talked about the benefits of using nebulized hydrogen peroxide three to four times a week to improve your gut microbiome. He addresses this as well in his open letter when he writes:30

“As it is a completely non-toxic therapy, nebulization can be administered as often as desired. If done on a daily basis at least once, a very positive impact on bowel and gut function will often be realized as killing the chronic pathogen colonization present in most noses and throats stops the 24/7 swallowing of these pathogens and their associated toxins.

If daily prevention is not a practical option, the effectiveness of this treatment is optimized when somebody sneezes in your face, or you finally get off of the plane after a trans-Atlantic flight. Don’t wait for initial symptoms. Just nebulize at your first opportunity.”

As you know, when your gut microbiome is out of balance, it can severely impact your body’s immune system,31 which in turn influences your potential risk for getting sick with a viral illness. To see how to make the hydrogen peroxide solution and how to use the nebulizer, see the video below. Be sure to bookmark this video and the others on this page as this article will not be available after 48 hours.

Sources and References

CDC Violated Law to Inflate COVID Cases and Fatalities | Dr. Henry Ealy

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com


  • Dr. Henry Ealy and his team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020, quickly realizing the agency was vastly exaggerating fatalities
  • Over-reporting of fatalities was enabled by a March 2020 change in how the cause of death is reported on death certificates. Rather than listing COVID-19 as a contributing cause in cases where people died from other underlying conditions, it was to be listed as the primary cause
  • As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19. Had the long-standing, original guidelines for death reporting been used, there would have only been 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19
  • The CDC violated federal law, as the Paperwork Reduction Act requires data collection and publication to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget. Proposed changes must be published in the Federal Register and be open to public comment. None of these transparency rules were followed
  • We don’t yet know who was responsible for altering the reporting rules in violation of federal law. To identify the culprits, formal grand jury investigation petitions have been sent to all U.S. attorneys and the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting a thorough, independent, and transparent investigation; a direct public effort to gather signatures also commenced on the one-year anniversary of the CDC reporting change

In an interview, Dr. Henry Ealy, ND, BCHN, better known as Dr. Henele, a certified holistic nutritionist and founder/executive community director of the Energetic Health Institute,1 review how U.S. federal regulatory agencies have manipulated COVID-19 statistics to control the pandemic narrative.

He earned his doctorate in naturopathic medicine from SCNM. After graduating from UCLA with a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering, he worked for a major aerospace company as a primary database developer for the International Space Station program. He holds over 20 years of teaching and clinical experience and was the first naturopathic doctor to regularly teach at a major university in the U.S. when he headed up a program at Arizona State University on bioanxiety management.

As he points out, he’s an avid data collector. In October 2020, Henele and a team of other investigators published a paper2 in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, titled, “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective,” which details how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has enabled the corruption of case- and fatality-reporting data in violation of federal law.

Accuracy of Data Is Paramount for Public Health Policies

The team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020. He explains:

“What I started doing on March 12 was going through all the data we could find from the Italian Ministry of Health and South Korea. We couldn’t validate any of the data coming out of China. There was just no independent way to do it. What we were seeing out of Italy and South Korea was that we were going to be concerned about people who are over 60, over 70 years of age with preexisting conditions.

That was the main thing coming out of that data. So, we were expecting the same kind of trends here … I started tracking the data on a daily basis from each state health department, and then making sure that what the CDC was reporting was matching up.

What we started to see, very early on, were some significant anomalies between what the states were reporting and what the CDC was saying. It was concerning, because the variance was growing with each day. We have an old saying: ‘Garbage in equals garbage out.’ And that was the concern, because we knew public health policies are going to be based upon the data, so accuracy is of paramount importance.

Then we started delving in a little deeper into how the CDC was supposedly collecting their data. That’s where we saw the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) March 24 guidelines, which were very concerning, and we saw the CDC adopt the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists paper on April 14.

What was incredibly concerning about this was that it was all done without any federal oversight, and it was all done without any public comment, especially scientific comment. That became increasingly problematic. We started to see discrepancies in the state of New York alone, in the thousands of fatalities.”

Special Rules for COVID-19 Fatalities Were Implemented

Importantly, in March 2020, there was a significant change made to the definition of what a COVID-19 fatality was. As explained by Henele, there’s a handbook on death reporting, which has been in use since 2003. There are two key sections on a death certificate. In the first part, the cause of death is detailed. In the second part, contributing factors are listed.

Contributing factors are not necessarily statistically recorded. It’s the first part, the actual cause of death, that is most important for statistical accounting. March 24, 2020, the NVSS updated its guidelines on how to report and track COVID-19-related deaths.

“They were saying that COVID-19 should be listed in Part 1 for statistical tracking, but [only] in cases where it is proven to have caused death, or was assumed to have caused death,” Henele explains.

“What was really concerning about this document was that it specifically stated that any preexisting conditions should be moved from Part 1, where it has been put for 17 years, into Part 2.

So, it was basically taking this and saying, ‘We’re going to create exclusive rules for COVID-19 and we’re going to do a 180 for this single disease …’ The big problem with that is that now you remove the ability for a medical examiner, a coroner, a physician, to interpret [the cause of death] based upon the collective health history of that patient …

You remove their expertise, and you say, ‘You have to count this as COVID-19.’ That takes on an added measure when you incentivize it financially, and that’s what we saw with some of the Medicare and Medicaid payouts …”

Who’s Responsible?

Who has the authority to do this? The answer is “no one.” A federal agency has the ability to propose a data change, at which time it would be registered in the Federal Register. At that point, federal oversight by the Office of Management and Budget kicks in, and the proposed change is opened up for public comment.

Since they did not register the proposed change, there was no oversight and no possibility for the public to comment on the change. Basically, what happened is that these changes were simply implemented without following any of the prescribed rules. “They acted unilaterally, and that’s not how [it] is supposed to work,” Henele says.

As to who took it upon themselves to alter the reporting rules, we don’t know. To identify the culprits, Henele and his team have sent out formal grand jury investigation petitions to every U.S. attorney and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), requesting a thorough, independent, and transparent investigation.

“We did it at both state and federal levels. We have sent physical copies to every U.S. attorney and their aides. We sent out over 247 mailings in October [2020],” Henele explains. “We sent out an additional 20 to 30 to various people at the Department of Justice …

They would have the ability to call a grand jury, and that grand jury would have the ability to subpoena all those records to determine who were at fault … All we need is one U.S. attorney. All we need is one person at the Department of Justice to take up the cause.”

Dramatic Implications

The consequences of that change in the definition of the cause of death where COVID-19 is involved have been dramatic. For the full implications, I recommend reading through Henele’s peer-reviewed paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.”3

“We’ve accumulated about 10,000 hours of collective team research into this [paper]. It’s been reviewed by nine attorneys and a judge for accuracy. It’s gone through the peer-review process before being published. We feel it’s tight.

On page 20 of the paper, we have a big graphic showing what the estimated actual fatality count should have been as of August 23, 2020. What was reported on August 23 was 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19 …

Had we used the 2003 guidelines, our estimates are that we would have roughly 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19. That’s a significant difference. That’s a difference on the scale of as much as 96%. The range that we calculated was 88.9% to 96% inflation.”

Indeed, this matches up with an admission by the CDC in late August 2020, at which time they admitted that only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.4

“For absolute 100% accuracy, we’d have to do something like what we were just alerted to by a whistleblower in Florida, where they’ve actually gone in and reexamined every single death certificate and the medical records with them. What they found was that roughly 80% of the fatalities were wrongfully classified as COVID-19 fatalities,” Henele says.

Science Foundations Have Been Violated

Mainstream media have justified pandemic measures “based on the science,” yet the very foundation of science has been violated. The ramifications are enormous, from the destruction of local economies and skyrocketing suicide rates to people being forced to die alone, their family members being barred from being at their bedside during their last moments.

“I lost my mother in in 2002,” Henele says. “The grace of it all was that we were able to get her out of the hospital and fulfill her last request, which was to pass away in her bed with family around her. I grieve for every single person who’s lost someone [during this pandemic] who was not able to be there.

Americans should not have to die alone because we’re worried about some virus that they’re telling us is a problem, when the data, even the data that we know to be inflated and fraudulent, still doesn’t suggest the virility that they want us to believe.”

COVID-19 Timeline

In their paper, Henele and his team detail a timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and federal laws that impact data handling. Here’s a summary:

In 1946, certain administrative procedures were implemented. The Administrative Procedures Act requires federal agents and agencies to follow certain rules to get things done. These rules are to ensure transparency in government.

“If you’re a federal agency, you have an obligation to the people of this country to make sure that the data you’re publishing is not only accurate, but that it is transparent,” Henele explains.

In 1980, the Paperwork Reduction Act was written into law. In 1995, the Act was amended, designating the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the oversight body for all federal agencies’ data.

In October 2002, the Information Quality Act was implemented, which doubles down even further on the accuracy and integrity, and data gathering. This act requires federal agencies to meet explicit criteria in order for their data to be published and analyzed.

In 2005, the Virology Journal published research demonstrating that hydroxychloroquine has strong antiviral effects against SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) primate cells. This finding was hailed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Henele notes. In other words, 15 years ago, Fauci admitted that hydroxychloroquine works against coronaviruses. This is a public record.

As reported in “The Lancet Gets Lanced With Hydroxychloroquine Fraud” and “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created,” the myth that this drug was useless at best and dangerous at worst was purposely created using falsified research and trials in which the drug was given in toxic doses.

This fraudulent research was then used to discourage and in some cases block the use of hydroxychloroquine worldwide. As noted by Henele, “It’s not science. We’re in this very weird faith-based model of science, which isn’t science at that point.”

In 2014, Fauci authorized $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). In 2019, WIV received another $3.7 million. In both instances, this funding was for gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
October 18, 2019, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted Event 201, in conjunction with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, and a few other financial partners. November 17, 2019, China recorded the first known case of COVID-19.

“Now, they could be completely unrelated,” Henele says, “but for us, it’s a very incredible coincidence that you run a simulation a month before a pandemic breaks out. It’s a little tough for me to digest as just a coincidence.”

January 29, 2020, the White House installed a coronavirus task force, which included Fauci and then-CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield, as well as Derek Kan, then-deputy director of the OMB.

I found this to be a little interesting,” Henele says. “Why would you need an OMB person on a coronavirus task force?”

March 9, 2020, the CDC alerted Americans over 60 with preexisting conditions that they might be in for a long lockdown out of safety concerns.

March 24, the CDC changed how COVID-19 is recorded on death certificates, de-emphasizing preexisting conditions and comorbidities, and basically calling all deaths in which the patient had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test a COVID-19 death.

“We have, legitimately on record, people who’ve died in a motorcycle accident listed as a COVID-19 death. These are not fictitious things that we’ve made up. Rhode Island had over 80% of their fatalities at one point in either assisted living centers or hospice care. Why are we testing people in hospice care and life care? That’s another interesting question,” Henele says.

April 14, 2020, the CDC adopted a position paper from a nonprofit, the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which identifies every single methodology for how to report a probable COVID-19 case, a confirmed COVID-19 case, an epidemiologically-linked or contact-traced COVID case.

“What’s so incredible about this is the standard of proof for a probable case is literally one cough. That’s all a physician needs, [according to] this document, to validate that that person is a probable COVID case,” Henele says.

“And it gets worse. On Page 6 of that document, Section 7B, it explicitly states that they are not going to define a methodology to ensure that the same person cannot be counted multiple times. So, what we end up with is a revolving door.

Now, in terms of new cases, the same person can be counted over and over and over again, without being tested, without having any symptoms. All they need to do is be within 6 feet of someone [who has been deemed positive for SARS-CoV-2] and then a contact tracer can say, ‘OK, well, that person is [also] positive.’

When we looked at data from last week, roughly 27% of the people who were said to be positive actually had a positive test. That means 73% were just told ‘Yeah, we think you got it.’ And that’s good enough, because we’re in this faith-based model of science, instead of a verifiable framework for science, which we’re supposed to be based on.

That person then cannot go back to work until they show a negative test. Well, let’s say they get tested 13 times. Guess what happens? That’s 13 new cases, when it really should only be one.

So, there are major flaws, and the issue that I think a lot of scientists like myself … have with this document and its adoption is that there was no oversight, and there was no public comment period to question some of the obvious flaws in what they were defining as data collection — let alone to ask a very simple question: ‘You’re the CDC, you’re supposed to be the pinnacle of this.

Why do you need to outsource rules and criteria for data collection to a nonprofit entity?’ That doesn’t make much sense to me.”

Transparency Rules Have Been Grossly Violated

So, what exactly is the connection between the Paperwork Reduction Act and the COVID-19 fatality data? Why is it so important?

“Well, the Paperwork Reduction Act is really about establishing oversight,” Henele explains. “It established the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB, which is under the executive branch. It established them as the key agency for oversight of all data in the entire federal government.

So, when you start seeing IHME [Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation] out of the University of Washington — which is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to the tune of $384 million in two installments — when you see their data being used at federal levels, you go and look at the Federal Register and you say, ‘OK, where is the 30 to 60 days that we were supposed to have to comment on the use of that data?’

Public comment is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act. That’s what it’s all about. What we saw instead was just, ‘Hey, this is what the IHME is putting out there. We’re going to go with it.’ Well, you can’t do that if you’re a federal agency … IHME is … technically an independent organization, but they don’t have any governmental designation.

They’re not a 501(c)(3), they’re not a 501(c)(4), they’re not a 501(c)(6). They’re just this amorphous nongovernmental organization within our country, and it’s kind of concerning. We’re doing more research on that, but it’s very, very concerning because they don’t have anybody to account to.”

Test-Based Strategy Has Been an Egregious Fraud

In addition to the manipulation of fatality statistics, the statistics of “cases” were also manipulated. Traditionally, a “case” is a patient who is symptomatic; someone who is actually ill. When it comes to COVID-19, however, a “case” suddenly became anyone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a PCR test, or worse, assumed positive based on proximity to someone who tested positive.

I’ve detailed this fraud in many previous articles over the past year, including “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “The Insanity of the PCR Testing Saga.” “Cases” were also counted multiple times, as explained above. Henele expounds on this issue, noting:

“The CDC specifically enacted what’s called a test-based strategy, which we’ve never done before in medicine for anything. What that test-based strategy means is if you test positive, you got [COVID-19]. But what they didn’t do for the PCR testing was they didn’t identify the agreed upon number of cycles across all states across all labs that are testing.

What most people don’t know is that the closer you get to zero in terms of cycle times, the more likely that the result is going to be negative. The closer you get to 60, the more likely that it’s going to be positive.

Well, we’ve never seen a document coming out of the FDA, coming out of the CDC, coming out of any of the state health departments, that says, ‘We need all labs to be at this specific cycle [threshold]. And if a person is not deemed positive with that number of cycles, then they are not positive.’ So, there’s just flaw after flaw after flaw.”

Data Manipulation Created COVID-19 Pandemic

Most labs used cycle thresholds above 40 — as recommended by the CDC and the World Health Organization — which exponentially increased the likelihood of a positive test, even among completely healthy and noninfectious individuals. The only justification for all of this is that it was done to perpetuate the narrative that we were in a raging pandemic, which was then used to justify the unprecedented destruction of personal freedom and the economy.

“The thing I have to give the folks that have been involved in this credit for is the incredible number of sleights of hands,” Henele says. “It’s a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here.

And when that happens, it leads to something that is very dangerous scientifically, and very dangerous for public health policy, which is control of data — the ability to manipulate data … and if you can control the data, you get to control the narrative …

If we’re not going to have an absolute, transparent and verifiable data collection process that is based upon accuracy and integrity of that data, then you can turn that [pandemic emergency] dial up and down at your whim. My hope is that the objective scientist within all of us understands that this is bigger than politics. This is beyond it. This is a severely broken system that we have to fix, and we better do it.”

As discussed in many other articles, it appears the COVID-19 pandemic has in fact been a preplanned justification for the implementation of a global technocrat-led control system, which includes a brand-new financial system to replace the central bank-manufactured fiat economy that is now at the end of its functional life. Fiat currency is manufactured through the creation of debt with interest attached, and the whole world is now so laden with debt it can never be repaid.

If people understood how the central banks of the world have pulled the wool over our eyes, we would simply demand an end to the central banks. The currency ought to be created and managed nationally.

The central banks, of course, do not want this reality to become common knowledge, because then they will no longer be able to manipulate all the countries of the world, so they need the economic breakdown to appear natural. For that, they need a global catastrophe, such as a major war, or a fearsome pandemic necessitating the shutdown of economies.

Through this willful manipulation of the case- and fatality statistics, the CDC has been complicit in willful misconduct by generating needless fear that has then been used against you to rob you of your personal freedoms and liberties and help usher in this massive transfer of wealth and global tyranny. As noted by Henele, “People are going to be complicit in their own slavery. People are complicit in putting digital shackles around themselves and really restricting their civil liberties.”

Hopefully, people will begin to understand how pandemic statistics have been, and still are, manipulated to control the narrative and generate unjustified fear for no other reason than to get you to comply with tyrannical measures designed to enslave you, not just temporarily but permanently.

More Information

To understand how we got to this point, please consider reading Henele’s paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.” As noted by Henele:

“I’m looking forward to the day when we look back on this, and go, ‘Oh, we almost fell for one, but we woke up in time and we figured this out. And now we have a good balance of technology, but technology that doesn’t have the right to censor us, technology that doesn’t have the right to control us; we have figured out that having too much control in the hands of too few is not a good recipe for us as a species on this planet.’

We know it doesn’t pass the smell test, so it’s important to get informed and educated and it’s papers like this — and this isn’t the only one out there — that have done the homework. If we’re going to trust someone, it’s important to me that we trust people who’ve done the homework and have no vested interest in the outcome.

My team is a team of volunteers. We all do this in our spare time. We’re not making any money. We’re not going to seek to make any money off of this. We’re doing this because we believe in this country. We love this country and we love the people of this country. When I see people suffering, I have to help. I got to get in and help.

So, if you are an American that wants to help, we are setting up resources for you to be able to get engaged and help us push this forward, maybe grease some of these wheels of justice, so we can get an independent grand jury investigation.”

For additional information, or if you want to help, you can email Henele and his team at COVIDResearchTeam@protonmail.com. You can also use your voice and actions to support an investigation into the CDC’s actions.

Two Easy Ways You Can Take Action

  1. Add your signature to this petition to help mount public pressure to convene a formal grand jury to investigate allegations of willful misconduct by federal agencies during COVID-19 through Stand For Health Freedom, a nonprofit advocacy organization that Henele and his team have collaborated with
  2. Send a pre-drafted, customizable letter through Stand For Health Freedom urging key members of Congress to thoroughly investigate alleged violations of federal law by the CDC that compromised COVID-19 data

Massive Numbers of Flu Cases are Re-Labeled COVID Cases

By Jon RappoportWaking Times

The number of COVID cases has been faked in various ways.

By far, the most extensive strategy is re-labeling. Flu is called COVID.

We don’t need charts and graphs to see this. It’s right in front of our eyes.

The definition of a COVID case allows flu in the door. There is nothing unique about that definition. For example, a cough, or chills and fever, would constitute “a mild case of COVID.”

A positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 would also be required, but as I’ve shown in my recent series on the test, obtaining a false positive is as easy as pie.

All you have to do is run the test in more than 35 cycles. Most labs run the test at 40 cycles. A cycle is a quantum leap in magnification of the swab sample taken from the patient. When you run the test at more than 35 cycles, false-positives come pouring out like water from a fire hose.

So…with ordinary flu symptoms plus a false-positive PCR test…voila, you have a COVID case.

Keep in mind that, overwhelmingly, most COVID cases are mild. In other words, they’re indistinguishable from ordinary flu.

But there is a rabbit hole here, and we can go down that hole much farther. The next question is: what is a flu case? What is it really?

Researcher Peter Doshi did much to answer that question. In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published his shocking report, which created tremors through the halls of the CDC, where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”


You see, the CDC creates one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could only say, with assurance, that 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the old parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of annual flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

But we’re not finished yet. Because…what test were researchers using to decide there were 18 cases of honest flu, in which a virus was found and identified? Answer: unknown.

It’s quite probable the test didn’t really isolate a flu virus at all. It only identified some marker that was ASSUMED, without proof, to be unique to a flu virus.

If so—ZERO cases of actual flu were found in the population.

Instead, what we had was a “flu-like illness.” Chills, cough, congestion, fever, fatigue; the ubiquitous symptoms that describe a billion cases of illness, every year, worldwide.

The cause of those billion cases? There is no single cause. Instead, there are many factors, ranging from sudden weather changes to air pollution to malnutrition to sub-standard sanitation…on and on.

That being the case, we can now say: Many, many cases of FAKE FLU are being relabeled FAKE COVID.

Now we’re getting real.

The medical cartel “discovers” (markets) huge numbers of so-called unique diseases—each disease with a purported specific cause: virus A, virus B, virus C…

For each virus, there must be at least several highly profitable drugs that supposedly kill the germ. And for each germ, there must be a vaccine that prevents the disease.

Billions and trillions in rewards follow.

And so does CONTROL. Control of minds.

Because the population is tuned up by ceaseless propaganda to believe in the rigid one-disease one-germ notion.

And when the time is right, the medical cartel can even claim a new germ is decimating the world, and they must “destroy the village in order to save it.”

Which is the psychotic fiction we are in the middle of, right now.

The Holy Church of Biological Mysticism needs your support. Give them your time, your money, your livelihood, your future, your loyalty, your faith.

If you do, you are their most important product.

About the Author

Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrixclick here.)

This article (Massive Number Of Flu Cases Are Re-labeled COVID Cases) was originally created and published by Jon Rappaport’s Blog and is re-posted here with permission.

Florida Forcing Labs to Report Number of PCR Test Cycles—Game Changer

By Jon Rappoport | NoMoreFakeNews.com

As I’ve reported, COVID testing labs never tell doctors or patients how the PCR test is run. [1]

This means the number of cycles is a secret.

A cycle is a step up in amplification of the tissue sample taken from the patient.

As even Tony Fauci has asserted, tests run at 35 cycles or above are useless. [1] [2] They’re also misleading. The results tend to be positive, meaning the patient is “infected with the virus.” But this is false.

However, as I’ve also reported, the CDC and the FDA recommend that the test should be run at up to 40 cycles. [1] [3] This is a direct hustle. It ensures false positives and higher COVID case numbers—used as justification for lockdowns.

Now, the state of Florida is doing something unheard of. It’s demanding that labs report the “cycle threshold” for every test they run.

Here is the relevant wording in a release from the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, and the state Department of Health, dated December 3, 2020 [4]:

“Cycle threshold (CT) values and their reference ranges, as applicable, must be reported by laboratories to FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately.”

“If your laboratory is not currently reporting CT values and their reference ranges, the lab should begin reporting this information to FDOH within seven days of the date of this memorandum.”

We can assume there is only one reason for this order. The Florida governor and the Department of Health are aware that tests run at 35 cycles or higher are useless and misleading, and they want to stop this crime.

Imagine what happens if the trend of “new COVID cases” in Florida soon takes a sudden dip and keeps on falling—because labs are finally telling the truth. Because their deceptive test results are being rejected. The con will be exposed.

And imagine other states following Florida’s example.

I have a few concerns. The term “cycle threshold” is taken to be more or less synonymous with “number of cycles.” But I would prefer Florida simply say: “All labs must report the number of cycles for each PCR test they run.” For me, that would be clearer.

And then, down in the Florida memo, we have this: “If your laboratory is unable to report CT values and their reference ranges, please fill out the brief questionnaire attached to this memorandum and submit by facsimile to the FDOH’s Bureau of Epidemiology confidential fax line…” [the link to the questionnaire is in [4]]

Unable to report? Why would any lab be unable?

The questionnaire offers two bizarre possibilities. The first: “Although the qualitative result is generated based on a CT value, the assay/instrument does not provide the user [the lab] with the actual CT value—it only provides the qualitative result.”

What?? This indicates the lab’s PCR equipment is internally pre-programmed to run the test at a certain number of cycles, and the lab doesn’t know what that number is, can’t find out, and can’t demand the equipment manufacturer disclose that vital piece of information. ABSURD. We’re dealing with a state secret?

The second item in the questionnaire for labs: “The laboratory does not have a separate mechanism to report the CT value to FDOH [Florida Dept. of Health] since the CT value does not get reported to the submitting provider.”

No mechanism for reporting? SET ONE UP. Email, fax, pencil, and paper, carrier pigeon. Also ABSURD.

As always, the devil is in the details. I’m sure many labs will try to avoid reporting. They don’t want to be exposed as the charlatans they are.

Memo to Florida Governor DeSantis: Don’t let the labs weasel out of this one. Don’t let them give you excuses. Don’t let them off the hook. Failure to report true facts during a public health crisis is a felony. Charge a few labs, drag them into court. Put the fear of prosecution into state labs. You’re on the right track. You’ve made a major breakthrough. You see the con at work. You don’t want your state to be pressured into lockdowns based on fake case numbers derived from deceptive tests. Now make sure your enforcement personnel crackdown on reluctant labs. Go the distance. If labs have equipment pre-set for the number of cycles, and they don’t know how to get inside the equipment to find that number, bring in pros who will do the job for them. I believe you’ll uncover a major scandal. Much of that equipment will be pre-set for 40 cycles. Keep updating the public on what you discover. Blow this crime wide open. Keep a very close eye on your public health officials. Among them, you’ll find agents who don’t want the truth to emerge. They’ll try to sabotage your good efforts every which way they can.



[1] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/03/lockdowns-are-based-on-fraud-open-letter-to-people-who-want-freedom/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE

[3] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[4] https://www.flhealthsource.gov/files/Laboratory-Reporting-CT-Values-12032020.pdf

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Lockdowns Are Based on Fraud: Open Letter to People Who Want Freedom

By Jon Rappoport | NoMoreFakeNews.com

This article is arranged so you see the fraud in more detail as you read further.


The lockdowns are based on high levels of COVID cases.

“We have so many new cases, we have to lockdown.”

This claim is based on the diagnostic PCR test.

The more tests you do, the more positive results come up. A positive result is taken to mean: the person is infected with the virus.

But overwhelmingly, these so-called “infected” people have no symptoms. They are healthy. Nevertheless, each one is called a “COVID case.” This is absurd.

A case should mean the person has clinical symptoms; he is sick.

These people aren’t sick, and there is no indication they will get sick.

So…expand testing, test millions of people, obtain results claiming “infection,” call all these healthy people “cases,” and order lockdowns.

This is a straight-out con. The real goal is lockdowns and economic devastation.


You need one piece of background here.

The PCR test is run in “cycles.” Each cycle is a quantum leap in amplifying or magnifying the original tiny, tiny piece of material taken from the patient’s swab sample. It’s like blowing up a small photo to an amazing size.

The question is: how many cycles should the PCR test be run at? This is a vital issue because the number of cycles changes the result.

July 16, 2020, podcast, “This Week in Virology” [1]: Tony Fauci makes a point of saying the PCR COVID test is useless and misleading when the test is run at “35 cycles or higher.” A positive result, indicating infection, cannot be accepted or believed.

Here, in techno-speak, is an excerpt from Fauci’s key quote (starting at about the 4-minute mark [1]): “…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent [aka accurate] are minuscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

Too many cycles and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.

That’s called a false positive.

What Fauci failed to say in the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles. Not 35.

Therefore, all labs in the US that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in the fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because…

Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false-positive result, and…

The total number of COVID cases in America—which is based on the test—is a gross falsity.

The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.

Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says to run the test up to 40 cycles, in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell.

If anyone in the White House has a few brain cells to rub together, pick up a giant bullhorn, and start revealing the truth to the American people.

“Hello, America, you’ve been tricked, lied to, conned, and taken for a devastating ride. On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down.”

If anyone in the Congress has a few brain cells operating, pull Fauci into a televised hearing and, in ten minutes, make mincemeat out of the fake science that has driven this whole foul, stench-ridden assault on the US economy and its citizens.

All right, here are two chunks of evidence for what I’ve written above. First, we have a CDC quote on the FDA website, in a document titled: “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only.” [2] See pdf page 38 (doc page 37). This document is marked, “Effective: 12/01/2020.” That means, even though the virus is being referred to by its older name, the document is still relevant as of Dec 2020. “For Emergency Use Only” refers to the fact that the FDA has certified the PCR test under a traditional category called “Emergency Use Authorization.”

FDA: “…a specimen is considered positive for 2019-nCoV [virus] if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles ([less than] 40.00 Ct).”

Naturally, MANY testing labs reading this guideline would conclude, “Well, to see if the virus is there in a patient, we should run the test all the way to 40 cycles. That’s the official advice.”

A disastrous inference.

Then we have a New York Times article (August 29/updated September 17) headlined: “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.” [3] Here are the money quotes:

“Most tests set the limit at 40 [cycles]. A few at 37.”

“Set the limit” would usually mean, “We’re going to look all the way to 40 cycles, to see if the virus is there.”

The Times: “This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients…”

Boom. That’s the capper, the grand finale. Labs don’t or won’t reveal their collusion in this crime.

Get the picture?


Now let’s go to published official literature, and see what it reveals. Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.

From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only.” [2]:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of an infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.” (doc page 40)

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans”:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”

Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.


“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID virus, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [6]:

“This product is for research use only and is not intended for diagnostic use.”

Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.

“non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. That’s another indication that the test is useless for determining whether the patient is ill—since millions and millions of viruses must be present, in order to produce illness.

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests, and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.

Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.

CONCLUSION: The PCR test is useless and deceptive. It provides de facto dictators the opportunity to cite “new case levels” and lock down populations, creating economic and human devastation.



[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE

[2] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[3] nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20200301092906/http://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance (for http://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance)

[5] https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

[6] https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/pdf/CD019RT.pdf

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.