A critique on USA government policy to covid19 written from the perspective of a non scientist who’s done a lot of reading.
Maybe an example or two here, which you might take to your next “seeding doubt” conversations that I need you all to have, wherever you are, all the time 😎🤗

https://trialsitenews.com/the-growing-rage-of-the-informed/

Religious exepmption templates, letters and other resources from Orthodox Ethos: https://orthodoxethos.com/post/religious-exemption-resources-and-collections

Supporting the UK govt Covid Narrative

Since March 2020 the govt has used tax payer’s money to fund the cost of over 263 million Covid-19 Tests in the UK.

2.5% of all of those tests were “positive” and 2% of those “positive” cases lead we are told to a death “with” Covid.

This is on average 4 tests for every man, woman and child in the UK

Without our acquiescence to all of this testing they would never have been able to support the “pandemic”.

There is no sign at the moment that this will stop with over 16.5 million tests, we are told, already performed so far in August 2021.

Note: Data includes Pillar 1 -4 tests as provided by the UK govt

Link to the Covid Deaths and Cases: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

The Delta Variant –PHE England

The table above shows the “positive Covid cases” and “Covid deaths” in England from 1st February to 15th August 2021, this is the timescale in which the PHE has been following and reporting on the “Delta variant”.

The worry we are told is that the Covid-19 injections may not protect against the Delta variant and that a booster may be required.

The table shows that six and half months on the “Delta variant” is hardly even on the radar, accounting for just over 6% of all “Covid”deaths in England over this period and less than 17% of all “Covid”cases and is also 15 times “less deadly”.

Why is this story not more convincing, are they relying on people not looking at the data, or is the Delta variant story yet to unfold?

Link to the PHE data: PHE Data

Link to the Covid Deaths and Cases: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

“Excess Deaths” in England and Wales April 2020 to Feb 2021

There were approximately 109k “Excess deaths” in England and Wales from April 2020 to February 2021

These all occurred in a distinct 6 month period, April and May 2020 and then the four months from 1st November 2020 to the end of February 2021.

The UK govt has failed to explain the “excess deaths” of 24k of these people, almost all in April 2020, not included as “Covid deaths”.

Did the excessive use of End of Life Medication, used at record levels in April 2020, result in more deaths than the govt expected?

Did the govt fail to get people up to speed in time with all the Covid testing?

Perhaps there just weren’t enough Covid test kits on the ground to support these “excess deaths” as Covid deaths?

Under 730k Covid tests were performed in April 2020, compared to an average of 15 million tests a month over the last 18 mths.

You can see more analysis on these excess deaths here: https://t.me/robinmg/7460

Link to ONS numbers: ONS

What was happening in months with “excess deaths” in the UK

The Table above shows how in certain months the number of positive test results was way above “normal”. In theory this should be due to high levels of infections in the community.

So given that the govt stated that 20% of all tests performed in April 2020 were positive should we be suspicious? Well if the incidence rate in the community was very high then this may be expected?

However, according to a study done at the time it showed that the incidence rate in April 2020 was around 0.32%. :Study

So as we can see even more false positive rates were dialled in to those April 2020 test results than any other month.

Was this how the govt, despite such low numbers of tests being performed in April 2020, at least managed to secure 24k deaths in April 2020 as “Covid-deaths”.

This “trick” was also applied in other months using excessive "positive results" as you can see below

Table also refers to the commentary in the posts above.

We can see how Covid testing and / or above average numbers of tests performed in a month created much needed positive test results in months where there were “excess deaths” to capture.

Govt claims almost 20% of cases in April 2020 were positive, vs an average of 2.5% of tests being positive over the 18 mths of "the pandemic"

These higher positive rates were not borne out by the incidence rates in studies performed even early on in “the pandemic”.

The govts ongoing analysis on incidence rates is based on more models “Indicative positivity based estimates” as you can see here: ONS Data rather than real world studies one of which can be found here: Study

This study showed from a survey of 35,000 people the household incidence rate peaked on 26 April at 0.32% before ‘stabilising’ at 0.08% by the end of the study period on 28th June.

“Positive” Test Results = Incidence Rate + False Positives

Data in Table is to 23 August 2021: Data

Analysis By Month of UK “Covid Deaths” and “Covid Testing” over the 18mths of the Pandemic

As can be seem from the Table above over the 18 month period of the “pandemic” the six months of “excess deaths” accounted for 85% of all “Covid deaths” , 51% of all positive tests and almost 60% of all Covid testing.

Also see further detail on the posts above:
https://t.me/robinmg/7657
https://t.me/robinmg/7658
https://t.me/robinmg/7659
https://t.me/robinmg/7660
https://t.me/robinmg/7661

Note: Daily numbers for testing and positive results have been included and any adjustments undertaken by the govt in the cumulative numbers has been included in the “Adjustments” line at the bottom of the Table.

Link to the Covid Deaths and Cases: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

Note: tests include Pillar 1-4

“A Londonderry GP is being investigated over comments she made on social media about the Covid-19 vaccination programme”

"Dr Anne McCloskey….expressed concerns about young people being given the vaccine…..The Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) and Western Urgent Care (WUC), where Dr McCloskey works, are now investigating… Dr McCloskey told BBC News NI that she stands by her comments….In the nine-minute video, posted on Sunday, she made a number of claims including that there is not enough evidence that it is safe for young people to be vaccinated”.

Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-58315530

Here is the link to the video mentioned above : https://rumble.com/vlkh35-important.-irish-gp-speakes-out-about-what-she-is-seeing..html

Mike Yeadon also wrote a post yesterday about this video https://t.me/robinmg/7635

International Resources (Non UK):

Help with Covid-19 Related Issues around Masks, Testing and Injections in numerous settings along with Family Financial Disclosure Form and Notice of Liability letter. The more specific UK resources can be found here:

• Family Financial Planning Forms : https://t.me/robinmg/7581
• Help with Covid-19 Related Issues around obtaining Healthcare https://t.me/robinmg/7579
• Help with Covid-19 Related Issues around Universities and Colleges https://t.me/robinmg/7577
• Help with Covid-19 Related Issues around Children: https://t.me/robinmg/7825
• Help with Covid-19 Related Employment Issues- Healthcare, Care Workers and Non Health Care Workers https://t.me/robinmg/7575
• Vaccine Liability and Conditional Acceptance Letters: https://t.me/robinmg/7580

If you know of some we have missed please let us know so we can share them with others too.

We are grateful to all those who have helped put these resources together; we have referenced them in the attached

Defund the BBC - Positive Action

Make sure you are one of the many who are no longer supporting the BBC. Do not give any of your hard earned cash to support them in the tyranny and harm they are supporting across the world and indeed are an integral part of.

There are many sites online that can help such as the one below or just go direct to the TV licensing website Link . The process is quick and simple to do and is a positive action that can be taken by everyone.

Link: https://www.tvlicencestop.co.uk/cancel-your-tv-licence/

I despair if intelligent people are going to fall for this tissue of lies.
The unvaccinated will observe that even their ministry of health is focussing on risks to the vaccinated.
Delta (if it’s real at all) is definitely ten times less lethal than the original sequences.
The obvious solution is not to add further untested & injurious injections, but STOP THE SHOT & make available early treatments. Crisis over.
There’s a reason why they’re going down the repeated injections route & it’s not to do with health.
Dr Mike Yeadon

https://www.bitchute.com/video/gFGvyKQcVtvr/

I apologies for the format because this is from a back & forth email string which messed up formatting.
It’s very important though because liars continual assert that masks work, when it’s been repeatedly shown they have no effect on respiratory virus transmission.
To be clear, I am not the author.
Dr Mike Yeadon

The following is a letter to the editorial board of a small paper from
about 6 months ago:
 
Dear Editor,
 
I’m writing because although I applaud Moshe Hill for his article
suggesting that it is time to get rid of the facemasks, the case presented
was woefully underwhelming. I have refrained from writing until now because
I didn’t think that people were emotionally ready to entertain a systematic
rebuttal against facemasks, but now that the proverbial cat is out of the
bag, and I expect the indignant responses of the illiteratti to his article
will live up to the moniker, that Rubicon has already been crossed.
 
To begin, the conventional wisdom of the worldwide medical and public
policy community prior to Covid, embodied in various papers, studies and
the like, was that facemasks do not inhibit community transmission of
airborne respiratory viruses in any capacity, both as protection and source
control. Examples of such papers include multiple pandemic guidance
protocols from the CDC (2007 & 2017) and from the WHO (2019). This was
reflected in individual studies of facemasks in community settings during
flu or influenza outbreaks, in meta-analysis studies (where the authors
analyze a bunch of studies on one topic or question collectively to see
what the “average” results are), and from historical observation (going
back all the way to the Spanish Flu of 1918 where cloth facemasks similarly
became a commonly used device that in retrospect failed spectacularly,
except that back then, unlike today, the doctors and scientists were honest
enough to admit it). This was even articulated in a 2016 lawsuit in Canada
where the judge ruled that hospitals could not compel nurses to wear
facemasks during severe flu seasons due to the lack of evidentiary basis
demonstrating facemask efficacy in inhibiting the transmission of the flu
in any setting. This “paucity of evidence” remained a generally
acknowledged fact even in most of the new studies conducted/written during
covid in favor of public use of facemasks (as anyone who bothers to read
the studies past the often sensational toplines and abstracts would see).
During SARS-1, Australia actually threatened manufacturers of facemasks
with massive fines for advertising that facemasks offered protection from
contracting SARS. This stance was by no means controversial. Common sense
indicating that a mask where the pores are hundreds of times larger than
the size of a virion or that is not tightly fitted cannot possibly prevent
the infiltration or exfiltration of virions once upon a time was, well,
common.
 
In addition to the mechanistic implausibility for facemasks preventing
aerosolized transmission of viruses (yes, aerosolized, not droplets), it
was further assumed by standard public health policy that facemasks in the
hands of the untrained public posed an *increased* risk of transmission of
the very pathogen that the facemask was attempting to stymie (as stated in
all of the aforementioned papers). The short explanation of this is that
people do not wear and dispose of the masks properly and thus the masks
themselves become a source of viral transmission, and that the
uncontrollable constant touching of the mask surfaces by people provides a
pathway to reinfection for whatever viral particles were either expelled
either from the wearer or from another person that were caught by the mask,
or other sources of cross contamination. The only shortsightedness of this
fear is that they failed to account for the systematic disregarding of
proper mask protocol by so many members of the medical community
([in]famously embodied by the CDC director picking up his mask, putting it

down, holding it up, (then declaring that it provides *more* protection
than a vaccine would!?!), all during a nationally televised hearing in
front of a senate committee). (There are other mechanisms associated with
facemask usage that would plausibly lead to increased transmission, but
that requires its own article.)
 
This disposition against the public at large using facemasks as a method of
both individual protection and as source control was emphatically supported
by the medical and academic community for a few weeks as Covid started to
become a public crisis. If you look at the statements of the various public
figures who inveighed against the public usage of facemasks, you will see
that they generally went far beyond a simple “don’t do it, it’s not that
effective and we need to conserve PPE for healthcare workers” – they were
resoundingly along the lines of “what a stupid idea”, which reflected the
innate, reflexive dismissal grounded in the decades of conventional medical
wisdom on the subject.
 
Fortunately, though, we do not have to rely on untested speculation to
determine whether facemask usage by the public diminished the transmission
of Covid, because there is an avalanche of data from the past year that is
conclusive that facemasks were generally correlated with an increase of
covid incidence and severity by literally every conceivable metric. This is
obvious to anyone with a smidgen of intellectual honesty from a cursory
look at how places that had nearly universal mask compliance did not fare
any better versus those that did not. This, however, doesn’t begin to
capture the real story. When you break down the data by geography and
seasonality, you can see that the basic structure of the “curve” was
identical everywhere, literally, regardless of what policies were in place.
For example, in the US, the contiguous part of the country is broken down
into 5 distinct geographical areas based on climate by NOAA, and the curves
for all of the states and counties in each of these areas are identical.
The only difference between such places is that the curve is larger and
higher in places where there was higher compliance with masks and more
draconian lockdown policies enforced. This remained true even when
disaggregated to a county-by-county level for all 3,143 counties in the US,
as was done by the data analysts at RationalGround. They further discovered
that even when you looked at places that at one point had mask mandates and
at another point did not, irrelevant of which came first, they uniformly
did worse with mask usage than without (and that was true even when
filtering out all of the same confounding factors); and the overall
difference was stark – 17 new confirmed covid infections/100,000 people/day
for the non-mask mandate states/counties vs a whopping 27/100,000
people/day new confirmed covid infections for states/counties with a mask
mandate. These results were often in spite of factors that one would
logically think would tend to cause increased transmission, such as
population density, ie places with higher population density and less mask
usage did better than similarly geographically situated places with lower
population density that had more mask usage. At a minimum, it is as
axiomatic as “correlation doesn’t equal causation” that “lack of
correlation disproves causation” (and it is additionally in violation of
the famous definition of insanity “one who persists in repeating the same
action and thinks this time it will work”). And unlike the studies that
purport to show masks work - sophisticated sophistry disguised by byzantine
regressional analyses that forecloses the possibility of any layperson (and
even many non-laypeople) deciphering the complex equations, these analyses
are reproducible by anyone using the same publicly available data.
 
The absolute failure of facemasks to exhibit any downward impact on covid
rates can’t be dismissed to merely the public’s inability to use masks
properly.

The marines carried out a controlled study where they split a
group of more than 3,000 incoming recruits for basic training into two
units, one of which followed the strictest anti-covid protocols imaginable,
and the other which merely did extra hygiene, but no masks etc. The result?
There wasn’t a statistically significant difference between the two, and
the control group fared slightly better. One thing about army boot camps is
that there is absolute compliance, and they were all appropriately trained
in proper mask protocols, and yet there was no benefit derived from wearing
masks. This was in addition to the Fort Benning outbreak earlier this year,
where despite having these same protocols in place and testing every
recruit prior to commencing with the training camp, the base still suffered
the covid outbreak anyway, implying that even with perfect mask protocol
compliance, facemasks are at best ineffective. (And before anyone thinks
they have obvious responses to these, I suggest you read through the
details, which should preemptively retire these objections.)
 
What about all of the “evidence” that facemasks have reduced covid? The
CDC, responding to a written question by Senator Ted Cruz inquiring what
actual evidence undergirded the CDC’s guidance on facemasks, cited a lone
study by *Goldman Sachs* whose conclusion was that for every 15% of the
population that uses masks (properly and everywhere they “should” be
wearing them), there would be an [additional] 1% less transmission. This
yields a maximum 6.67% reduction possible from public masking, and that’s
still assuming highly unrealistic individual behavior by the public. This
is mathematical-model driven speculation, not real-world “evidence”, and
certainly not based on observation. The study further suffered from
additional serious limitations, notably unsubstantiated – and ridiculous –
inputs among other things. The CDC earlier this year released a “study”
that selectively chose arbitrary start and cut off dates so that the study
only looked at the time period where there was a “lull” between 2 covid
waves while a mask mandate was in place and “concluded” that this was due
to the mask mandates, despite the fact that starting the succeeding week
from the study’s area of analysis there was a massive spike as wave 2 hit,
and that the mask mandates were in place during part, or all depending on
where, of the first wave. To quote one of my favorite lines from the bench,
“to state the proposition bluntly is to refute it decisively”. The CDC
recently released a February 2021 MMWR report
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7006e2.htm> entitled “Decline in
COVID-19 Hospitalization Growth Rates Associated with Statewide Mask
Mandates”, that comically adduced by way of regression analysis that a
decrease in hospitalization rates of growth of up to 5.6% in adults to the
use of facemasks/mask mandates, disregarding the far more salient query of
how do places without mandates/mask usage fare by comparison, which would
have unambiguously refuted the CDC’s entire premise. This is junk science
at its finest. Obviously, I can’t go through every study that’s out there
one by one in this context, but suffice it to say that the rest of the
so-called evidence for facemask efficacy is similarly riddled with the same
rank sophistry and gross incompetence.
 
This is just a cursory overview of the general points against masks, but
there is considerably more to say on every aforementioned assertion. Proper
scientific analysis cannot be performed, or be accurately captured and
distilled, by soundbites and quick repartees. Unfortunately, almost no one,
including the vast majority of public figures making proclamations, bothers
to read the actual analysis contained in the studies and papers they cite
in support of whatever position they’re asserting, and even more shockingly
often fail to look at even the most elementary data at all. To tweak a
famous Churchill line, “never in history has so much been perpetrated by so

few against so many on the basis of so little”.

A paper published 3 months before the first gene-based vaccine gained EUA, and despite several open letters sent to FDA & EMA (including one coauthored with Dr Wolfgang Wodarg) warned of serious toxicity concerns, all ignored.

SARS-CoV-2 binds platelet ACE2 to enhance thrombosis in COVID-19
https://jhoonline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13045-020-00954-7

Whistleblowing healthcare worker claims they have seen more people die due to the Covid-19 Vaccines than from Covid-19 itself

A whistleblowing healthcare worker who worked on Covid wards throughout the alleged Covid-19 pandemic has said he has seen more people die due to the Covid-19 injections than from Covid-19 itself. Abrien Aguirre is a board certified occupational therapist in Hawaii and made the claim in an interview with Hawaii Free Speech News. “I’ve seen…

https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/08/25/whistleblowing-healthcare-worker-more-people-die-vacine-than-from-covid/

Latest Covid-19 Injections Administered in the US - per the CDC


Link: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations