Thanks for appreciating it!
I agree that a lot of this is conditioning. I also think there are many who are probably past the point of reason, but I firmly believe there's millions who are just kinda trusting the government and media and going along with it. These are the people I want to reach. I have this grand vision of a "guerrilla marketing" type campaign where signs are (legally!) plastered everywhere possible and distributed around the US like political campaign signs. I feel that most online methods of spreading information that goes against the desired media narrative is censored these day, but it's hard to censor hundreds or even thousands of signs in the physical world.
Thank you, and yes I'd like to get all the sites archived and out those links in there too! I plan on getting more work done over the holidays, because unfortunately time is pretty tight these days.
When I can get the site to a more complete state, I will gladly post it here if there is interest. In the mean time, please let me know what you think!
https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users
https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/whoinhouseassays.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=a_Vy6fgaBPE&feature=youtu.be&t=245
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https:/twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1331500903564775426
https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1331500903564775426
https://mbio.asm.org/content/4/5/e00598-13
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190829150706.htm
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZft4fXhQQ
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/probe/docs/techpcr/
https://time.com/5880255/covid-19-tests-types/
https://nypost.com/2020/04/16/43k-us-millionaires-will-get-stimulus-averaging-1-6m-each/
https://www.aier.org/article/cost-of-us-lockdowns-a-preliminary-report/
https://www.statista.com/chart/18368/weekly-initial-jobless-claims/
https://time.com/5812538/coronavirus-economic-damage-workers/
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/2018-Small-Business-Profiles-US.pdf
https://www.eiu.edu/historia/Lauerman2000.pdf
https://academyofideas.com/2015/11/fear-and-social-control/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-wave-americans-reactions/
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/10/71969/
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/28/asia/japan-suicide-women-covid-dst-intl-hnk/index.html
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2770146
https://time.com/5886228/depression-covid-19-pandemic/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/health/covid-teenagers-mental-health.html
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6945a3.htm?s_cid=mm6945a3_w
https://www.millennialstar.org/federal-judge-reminds-us-the-lockdowns-are-unconstitutional/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-gym-owners-government-building
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michigan-whitmer-memorial-day-husband-boat-request-coronavirus
https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/anthony-fauci-denies-hypocrisy-after-watching-game-without-mask/
https://apnews.com/article/mexico-coronavirus-pandemic-austin-texas-26340eabdc1d450e21ba650e42060f30
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/nancy-pelosi-hair-salon/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/08/nyc-covid-targeted-lockdowns/
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-michigan-governor-gretchen-whitmer-declares-a-3-week-lockdown
https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-net-worth-increases-coronavirus-pandemic-2020-7?op=1
https://www.crainsdetroit.com/economy/lowes-open-flooring-store-not-call-it-toilet-paper-loophole
https://www.foxnews.com/health/mutated-form-coronavirus-more-contagious-less-deadly-experts
https://twitter.com/Terrence_STR/status/1220615475513700357?s=20
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32513410/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
https://time.com/5794729/coronavirus-face-masks/
https://www.newsmax.com/us/surgeon-general-adamsmasks/2020/03/31/id/960679/
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/48/12229
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microbe-census-reveals-ai/
https://www.livescience.com/9469-air-breathe-loaded-microbes.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/testing-overview.html
https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1331500903564775426
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
https://wgntv.com/news/coronavirus/pcr-testing-inventor-speaks-to-wgn-amid-covid-19-pandemic/
Even the WHO (after recommending PCR tests with a high cycle-count of up to 45(!) PCR tests since as early as January 2020) is now backtracking and saying this:
"The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain. Thus, the IFU will state how to interpret specimens at or near the limit for PCR positivity. In some cases, the IFU will state that the cut-off should be manually adjusted to ensure that specimens with high Ct values are not incorrectly assigned SARS-CoV-2 detected due to background noise."
In other words, they're admitting that a very high cycle threshold can lead to false positives.
So what does all this mean? It means that the number of cases can be artificially increased or decreased by adjusting the cycle threshold for detection of the virus markers. This is not a simple binary test where there is a positive or negative outcome; rather, it is a sliding scale and the cutoff for what counts as a case and what doesn't is somewhat arbitrarily decided.
If now, in December 2020 after nearly a year of using high cycle threshold tests, the WHO and others start recommending using lower cycle counts, the number of new cases will magically start to drop.
Imagine you're teaching a class and a passing grade has been achieving an average of 70/100 for a year and 60% of your class is passing. Well, to improve the number of passing students, you decide to drop a passing grade down to a 50/100 and now 80% of your class is passing. Are more students doing better now and learning more? No, of course not. The scale was only changed to make it appear like more students were doing better. This is terribly similar to changing the scale on PCR testing. More or less people aren't automatically getting sick if the cycle threshold has changed. The scale has changed.
It's convenient that the "information notice" about cycle thresholds from the WHO was released on December 14, 2020 or only three days after the FDA approved the first Covid-19 vaccine. What do you think will get credit if the number of new cases start to drop in the coming weeks?
This table skips January. There are more than average deaths this year, but not to the level they'd like you to believe.
This chart gives a nice comparison to an average of the last 5 years. You can also add a lot of countries too!
The chart lets you break it down into age groups, but unfortunately the bottom group is 15-64. I'd like to see under 30 or under 40 as their own group but even up to 64 has pretty low excess deaths this year.
Most people at had to have their eyes open at some point to what is really going on and that had to happen somehow. If this can help even one person have their eyes opened, isn't it worth it?