What follows is a draft of some information I've been compiling and trying to put into an easy to understand, but still detailed website for people to reference when people ask where these "crazy" ideas come from. The website is heavily linked but I can't easily embed all the links in here. Link dump in comments.
LOCKDOWNS Taken in isolation, is the idea of shutting everything down to present the spread of a highly contagious and deadly disease a good idea? In many respects, yes it is. How can a virus spread if people are not traveling and there is as little contact as possible? Back in March and April of 2020, this response may very well have been warranted. There was very little data on the virus, and there were also videos purportedly showing people randomly passing out on the street from this new virus. Are these videos real? We may never know the truth. These could have been propaganda from China intended to instill fear of the virus around the world, or maybe the virus really was that deadly originally and it has now mutated to become less deadly. So, this is not a criticizing of the initial shutdowns of two weeks to one month while everyone scrambled to stop the virus and learn more about it. What does deserve criticizing is how the initial lockdowns were handled and how they have continued for months and months.
So what happened?
Unequal Weights and Measures
In many instances, small locally owned stores were closed, while big box stores like Lowe's were deemed "essential" and allowed to remain open. Store's like Lowe's and Home Depot were allowed to remain open because they contained a few "essential" items, but they also had numerous non-essential items that people shopped for freely. The result? People crowded these stores purchasing non-essential items and embarking on home improvement projects while they were stuck at home while smaller competing mostly locally owned stores were forced to close their doors. This has culminated in some of the richest people adding billions of dollars to their net worth's since the government has given them an unfair advantage during the pandemic.
Stop and ask yourself this: Why has the government in various places picked and chosen which companies and establishments they allow to open for over 8 months now? This has undeniably given big corporations a huge, and unfair advantage, over small businesses that have been forced to shut their doors.
Why have these lockdowns been selectively applied to some stores and not others? What medical reason could there possibly be that makes it "safer" for hundreds of people to be in Walmart walking around and being exposed to all of those people while it is "unsafe" for a handful of people to sit and eat? Even outdoors in some cases? Even more brazen, in one instance a restaurant was forced to close while a film shoot catering tent was literally set up next door and serving food. There is zero scientific or medical reason one would be safe and the other be dangerous.
There has also been a rash of political figures who have enacted or advocated for lockdowns and then broken those very same lockdowns. Nancy Pelosi broke rules to get a haircut and didn't wear a mask for at least a portion of the visit. The mayor of Austin, Texas traveled to Mexico while urging everyone to stay home. Dr. Fauci was caught without wearing a mask while sitting near others. The husband of Governor Whitmer in Michigan tried to break lockdown rules. San Francisco kept city-owned gyms open while forcing all privately-owned gyms to shut down. England has announced that people they think are more important than you are exempt from quarantines.
If the virus is really deserving of lockdowns, they must be applied evenly without regard to whom they are being applied. Even if it were deserving of lockdowns though, you would still have to overcome the fact that they violate American's 1st amendment rights. Even worse, favoritism just goes to show that those in charge of many governments don't really care about your health or safety and/or the virus was never deserving of these lockdowns to begin with. Add link to dangers of the virus here.
These unequal weights and measures are just being used to exert control. Those in charge need to be held accountable for their actions, and each business should be able to make their own decision on whether or not they want to close.
Mental Health
Another side effect of the overreaching lockdowns is the effect that they have on the mental health of the population, especially children and adolescents. Did anyone consider this impact ahead of time? How dangerous would a virus need to be for these side effects to be worthwhile? At what point do the side effects become worse than the pandemic itself?
The CDC released a report showing how mental health emergencies in those under the age of 18 have increased after lockdowns started in 2020 when compared to 2019. Teenagers have described lockdowns as "suffocating." Depression has skyrocketed during lockdowns. One survey showed that the percentage of people showing "strong signs of depression" increased from 8.5% of adults in the USA to nearly 28% in the first few months of lockdowns alone.
Even worse than depression, Japan has seen more suicides than Covid-19 deaths in at least one month this year. Also, One model predicted that up to 75,000 additional deaths could occur in the USA during 2020 due to "Alcohol and Drug Misuse and Suicide." As a side note, these deaths could nefariously be lumped in with Covid-19 related deaths due to how testing is performed (ADD LINK TO TESTING SECTION HERE).
Were these lockdowns initially instituted with ill-intent in mind? We'll probably never know. I truly hope they weren't; however, with the overwhelming evidence of the damage they're cause to the population at large in the name of "public health and safety," there is no excuse for them to have continued as long as they have in some areas.
For those in power with ill-intent, what is the best way to enact sweeping changes that exert unprecedented levels of control would normally never be accepted? How about a virus that is milked for all its worth and then some? I will not ponder on whether or not this virus was intentionally released. This is probably something we'll never know for sure; however, you don't have to look far to see how the situation is being used and abused.
A population where many or even a majority live in abject fear (or at least the media would like to make people feel this way) is a population that is more easily controlled. It seems that the mainstream media and many politicians are constantly rousing up as much fear as possible. They plaster stats of cases and deaths on the front page of every website and by every talking head on TV. Just go search "covid-19 fear" and see how many headlines come up in the search results.
This must stop now. The mental health of those around the world is being wrecked by evil people. Stop watching these channels. Stop visiting these sites. Take a break from everything and realize that you only get one life to live. Find something worth living for and get off the Covid-19 fear train. Your mental health will thank you.
Economic Fallout
The first major point of economic fallout from the lockdown is the direct result of the unequal weights and measures that have been applied. Tens of thousands, over 100,000, or even more small businesses have closed as a result of lockdowns. Perhaps even more will have to close their doors forever by the time this is all over.
As of 2018, small businesses employed over 58 million Americans. What happens when huge swathes of small businesses close for good? But don't think that only small businesses are impacted, many medium to large sized businesses have had huge layoffs in 2020.
This will impact the livelihoods of millions of Americans as we've already seen. As of November, over 20 million are on some type of unemployment benefit. This is not sustainable for those that are struggling to make ends meet. This is not viable for the sustainability of the economy. This is not sustainable due to the unprecedented increase in government debt caused in part by massive "stimulus" that was being sold as a method to help Americans but really just unfairly favored those that were already rich.
Looking at a broader view, it is estimated that over 100 million people could fall into extreme poverty this year due, at least in part, to lockdowns.
So in summary: • The government told you to close your business. • They told you not to open your business. • They passed bills that put the government into unprecedented levels of debt. • This "stimulus" money favored the already rich but painted the government as being your savior. • This "stimulus" money will ultimately be paid back by you. The taxpayer.
The government is not your savior when they give you "stimulus" money that becomes your own, or your children's tax burden later. They become your master and you become their slave as you become more and more dependent on them.
The government shouldn't be in the business of forcing whomever they want to close their doors for extended periods of time with no end in sight in some cases.
PCR TESTING Every day we're bombarded with the rising number of confirmed Covid-19 cases to instill as much fear and panic into the populace as possible, but what does a "confirmed case" really mean? How are they testing for the cases? Is the testing reliable? Do rising case numbers correspond with a rise in deaths?
What are PCR and RT-PCR?
The most prevalent form of testing used in America is the RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) test. The "RT" portion of the test is what is used to convert the RNA into what is called "complimentary DNA," or cDNA for short, which must be done before the PCR is completed. At a very high level summary, the PCR test then takes a section or fragment of DNA (or the cDNA in this case) and then multiplies it by creating a set of copies. This copying is also called a cycle.
Then, that sample is run through the copying process (polymerase chain reaction) again to create copies of the copies. This is another cycle. Generally, this copying process is repeated a certain number of times or cycles until there is enough of the DNA present to be able to study. The coping process is exponential, at least initially, so it is very easy to end with millions of copies that started from a single piece of DNA. As Kary Mullis, the test's inventor, said
"PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something."
There are several varieties of the RT-PCR test that are used around the world to theoretically detect 2019-nCoV (also known as SARS-CoV-2) which is the virus that causes the disease COVID-19. Each of these tests looks for different sections of the RNA though to be unique to 2019-nCoV when looked at together. The CDC's test looks for two markers together. Page 37 of the linked document shows what is considered a positive result:
"When all controls exhibit the expected performance, a specimen is considered positive for 2019-nCoV if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct)."
In other words, if the control test is successful and both markers are found within 40 cycles.
The Problems With RT-PCR
Specificity The first potential problem is with the markers used to identify 2019-nCoV. Since these markers are only portions of the RNA present in the virus, what are the odds that these two sections are present in another virus or organism? Are they specific enough to only identify 2019-nCoV? The CDC (on page 45) says:
"In summary, the 2019-nCoV rRT-PCR assay N1 and N2, designed for the specific detection of 2019-nCoV, showed no significant combined homologies with human genome, other coronaviruses, or human microflora that would predict potential false positive rRT-PCR results."
However, based on data available in that same document, only 20 different viruses were tested to prove they would not generate a false positive. How can we be certain that none of the over 1000 viruses known to infect humans would generate a false result? One study estimates there are at least 320,000 viruses that can infect mammals. How many of these viruses could infect, or be found in, humans? How many relatively benign viruses exist that humans can be infected with that no one knows about? If the virus is relatively benign there wouldn't be much incentive to study it or even an easy way to identify it in the first place.
All of this is to say that we should be at least be skeptical of the chance of a false positive due to a match with some unknown virus or other organism. It would be naïve of anyone to say that with only 2 markers (in the case of the official CDC test), there is no chance of this false positive. There are some places, such as Italy (archive) where they use 3 markers, but only 1 must be positive for it to count as a case. This will lead to an even higher chance of a false positive.
This false positive chance would be reduced if there were to be more required markers in the test. In other words, the larger the amount of RNA you're looking for, the less likely you'll accidentally find something else.
Number of Cycles
Another way to reduce the chance of a false positive would be to look at the number of cycles performed in the test. As mentioned before, the CDC test utilizes 40 cycles. Is this enough cycles? Is it too many? How do you know how many is enough?
Let's take a look at some quotes from doctors. Dr. Fauci:
"If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more that the chances of it being replication competent are miniscule. It’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians. Somebody comes in, and they repeat their PCR, and it’s like a 37 cycle threshold, but you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle. So, I think if somebody does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you got to say, you know, it’s just dead nucleotides, period.”
Kary Mullis (PCR test inventor):
“PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”
Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside:
“I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive."
Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York:
“It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. [cycle threshold] values from all these tests — that they’re just returning a positive or a negative.”
(CONTINUED IN COMMENTS)