Category: Vaccines

Posted on

CV #37(E): WHO Promoting Universal Masking Of Children As Young As 6

Yes, the World Health Organization has published its own recommendation for children wearing masks. It was released in August, just in time for school to return. There’s no way to describe this other than child abuse.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693
April 6 WHO Guidance On Masks

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
June 5 WHO Guidance On Masks

WHO On Forcing Masks On Children
August 21 WHO Guidance For Masks On Children

WHO On Masks: December 1 Update
December 1 WHO Guidance On Masks

Note: for more context for this article, check Part 37A, and Part 37B. They refer to the April 6, June 5 and December 1 guidelines handed down by the World Health Organization. In short, they still aren’t checking for logical consistency.

January 17, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
March 19, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 WHO-2019-nCoV-Antigen_Detection
WHO: January, March, September 2020 Guidelines
WHO’s January 13, 2021 Posting On Test Guidelines

January 31 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
March 20 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
May 10 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
August 7 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
December 16 Global Surveillance For Human Infection

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
WHO Guidelines Classification Of Death

WHO Case Definition Guidelines

BCCDC: No Idea Actual Error Rate Of PCR Tests
BC COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines (1)
BC COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR

Tricity: Bonnie Henry – False Positives Overwhelming Hospitals
CBC: Bonnie Henry Warning About False Negatives

WHO’s Definition Of “Herd Immunity”
WHO Posting On Herd Immunity Definition
WHO’s Other Definition Of Herd Immunity

3. Outline Of WHO Recommendation

Overview
This guidance provides specific considerations for the use of non-medical masks, also known as fabric masks, by children as a means for source control in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. It also advises on the use of medical masks for children under certain conditions. The document is an annex to the Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19, in which further details on fabric masks can be found.

4. Frequently Asked Questions

Based on this and other factors such as childrens’ psychosocial needs and developmental milestones, WHO and UNICEF advise the following:
.
Children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks. This is based on the safety and overall interest of the child and the capacity to appropriately use a mask with minimal assistance.
.
WHO and UNICEF advise that the decision to use masks for children aged 6-11 should be based on the following factors:

WHO and UNICEF advise that children aged 12 and over should wear a mask under the same conditions as adults, in particular when they cannot guarantee at least a 1-metre distance from others and there is widespread transmission in the area.

In general, children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks. This advice is based on the safety and overall interest of the child and the capacity to appropriately use a mask with minimal assistance. There may be local requirements for children aged 5 years and under to wear masks, or specific needs in some settings, such as being physically close to someone who is ill. In these circumstances, if the child wears a mask, a parent or other guardian should be within direct line of sight to supervise the safe use of the mask.

WHO and UNICEF recommend masks for children as young as 6 years old. But even that is a bit misleading, as there are conditions where it is still expected. Considering all of the lies that go around with this “pandemic”, forcing kids to do this is cruelty.

5. WHO’s Publication For Masking Kids

[Page 1]
Background
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) advise the use of masks according to a risk-based approach, as part of a comprehensive package of public health interventions that can prevent and control the transmission of certain viral respiratory diseases, including COVID-19. Compliance with other measures including physical distancing, hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette and adequate ventilation in indoor settings is essential for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

This guidance provides specific considerations for the use of non-medical masks, also known as fabric masks, by children as a means for source control in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The document is an annex to the WHO’s Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-191 in which further details on fabric masks can be found. This annex also advises the use of medical masks for children under certain conditions. For the purposes of this guidance, children are defined as anyone below the age of 18 years

Currently, the extent to which children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is not completely understood. According to the WHO global surveillance database of laboratory-confirmed cases developed from case report forms provided to WHO by Member States and other studies, 1-7% of COVID-19 cases are reported to be among children, with relatively few deaths compared to other age groups 4-8. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has recently reported the age distribution of COVID-19 among children in the European Union (EU), European Economic Area (EEA) and the United Kingdom (UK); theyreported that as of 26 July 2020, 4% of all cases in the EU/EEA and the UK were among children.

Evidence on the benefits and harms of children wearing masks to mitigate transmission of COVID-19 and other coronaviruses is limited. However, some studies have evaluated the effectiveness of mask use in children for influenza and other respiratory viruses. A study of mask wearing during seasonal influenza outbreaks in Japan noted that the use of masks was more effective in higher school grades (9-12 year old children in grades 4-6) than lower grades (6-9 year old children, in grades 1-3). One study, conducted under laboratory conditions and using non-betacoronaviruses, suggested that children between five and 11 years old were significantly less protected by mask wearing compared to adults, possibly related to inferior fit of the mask. Other studies found evidence of some protective effect for influenza for both source control30 and protection in children, although overall compliance with consistent mask wearing, especially among children under the age of 15, was poor.

Some studies, including studies conducted in the context of influenza and air pollution, found the use and acceptability of mask wearing to be highly variable among children, ranging from very low to acceptable levels and decreasing over time while wearing masks. One study was carried out among primary school children during COVID-19 and reported 51.6% compliance.

Several studies found that factors such as warmth, irritation, breathing difficulties, discomfort, distraction, low social acceptability and poor mask fit were reported by children when using masks. So far, the effectiveness and impact of masks for children during play and physical activity have not been studied; however, a study in adults found that N95 respirator and surgical masks reduced cardiopulmonary capacity during heavy exertion

[Page 2]
The benefits of wearing masks in children for COVID-19 control should be weighed against potential harm associated with wearing masks, including feasibility and discomfort, as well as social and communication concerns. Factors to consider also include age groups, sociocultural and contextual considerations and availability of adult supervision and other resources to prevent transmission.

There is a need for data from high quality prospective studies in different settings on the role of children and adolescents in transmission of SARS-CoV-2, on ways to improve acceptance and compliance of mask use and on the effectiveness of masks use in children. These studies must be prioritized and include prospective studies of transmission within educational settings and households stratified by age groups (ideally <2, 2-4, 5-11 and > 12 years) and with different prevalence and transmission patterns. Particular emphasis must be placed on studies in schools in low- and middle-income settings.

[Page 6]
Monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the use of masks in children
If authorities decide to recommend mask-wearing for children, key information should be collected on a regular basis to accompany and monitor the intervention. Monitoring and evaluation should be established at the onset and should include indicators that measure the impact on the child’s health, including mental health; reduction in transmission of SARS-CoV-2; motivators and barriers to mask wearing; and secondary impacts on a child’s development learning, attendance in school, ability to express him/herself or access school; and impact on children with developmental delays, health conditions, disabilities or other vulnerabilities.

The WHO and UNICEF released their “guidelines” over the summer for how and when children should be forced to wear masks. Although the official cut-off is 5 years old, they make it clear that toddlers under that age might be required to as well.

This is barbaric, and amounts to child abuse. If adults want to play along with this psy-op, that is their decision. However, it should never be imposed on youths. What kind of a sicko comes up with things like that?

Posted on

CV #37(D): WHO Distortions On Positive Cases, Causes Of Death, Surveillance

Let’s take a look into how the World Health Organization defines cases, and causes of death.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

January 17, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
March 19, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 WHO-2019-nCoV-Antigen_Detection
WHO: January, March, September 2020 Guidelines
WHO’s January 13, 2021 Posting On Test Guidelines

January 31 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
March 20 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
May 10 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
August 7 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
December 16 Global Surveillance For Human Infection

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
WHO Guidelines Classification Of Death

WHO Case Definition Guidelines

BCCDC: No Idea Actual Error Rate Of PCR Tests
BC COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines (1)
BC COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR

Tricity: Bonnie Henry – False Positives Overwhelming Hospitals
CBC: Bonnie Henry Warning About False Negatives

WHO’s Definition Of “Herd Immunity”
WHO Posting On Herd Immunity Definition
WHO’s Other Definition Of Herd Immunity

3. Case Definitions Are Quite Subjective

Given the way that the “probable” cases are defined, it’s entirely possible to classify many thousands of people without doing a single test to confirm. Perhaps this is why it’s so vague, in order to generate false positives when needed.

4. Guidelines For Listing Causes Of Death

1. PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT
This document describes certification and classification (coding) of deaths related to COVID-19. The primary goal is to identify all deaths due to COVID-19.
.
A simplified section specifically addresses the persons that fill in the medical certificate of cause of death. It should be distributed to certifiers separate from the coding instructions.

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

In fairness this may just be extremely poor wording. However, it appears that the default position is to count deaths in confirmed OR PROBABLE cases if the death is from an illness COMPATIBLE WITH Covid-19 symptoms, and we should downplay PREEXISTING CONDITIONS that may have contributed.

As with the diagnosing of cases, there is no requirement to have a positive test. Speaks volumes about how shady this method is.

Now there is the disclaimer that it should not be counted if there is a clear alternative, but this appears to be just an afterthought.

C- CHAIN OF EVENTS
Specification of the causal sequence leading to death in Part 1 of the certificate is important. For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included, along with COVID-19, in Part 1. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, as from medical records, or about laboratory testing.

<

p style=”padding: 2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid;”>
D- COMORBIDITIES
There is increasing evidence that people with existing chronic conditions or compromised immune systems due to disability are at higher risk of death due to COVID-19. Chronic conditions may be non-communicable diseases such as coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseas (COPD), and diabetes or disabilities. If the decedent had existing chronic conditions, such as these, they should be reported in Part 2 of the medical certificate of cause of death.

WHO openly admits that people with underlying health problems are at a greater risk of death. This isn’t exactly revolutionary. It does make one ask why it’s necessary to drive up fear like this.

5. Global Surveillance For Infection January 2020

Recommendations for laboratory testing
Any suspected case should be tested. However, depending on the intensity of the transmission, the number of cases and the laboratory capacity, only a randomly selected sample of the suspect cases may be tested.
.
If resources allow, testing may be done more broadly (for instance through sentinel surveillance) to better assess the full extent of the circulation of the virus.
.
Based on clinical judgment, clinicians may opt to order a test in a patient not strictly meeting the case definition, such as for a cluster of acute respiratory illness among healthcare workers.

This of course raises an interesting question: how many of these samples are actually tested? How many are collected and just sit on a shelf somewhere?

If initial testing is negative in a patient who is strongly suspected to have novel coronavirus infection, the patient should be resampled and specimens collected from multiple
respiratory tract sites (nose, sputum, endotracheal aspirate). Additional specimen may be collected such as blood, urine, and stool, to monitor the presence of virus of and shedding of virus from different body compartments.

Doesn’t speak too highly of the test, if the recommendation of a negative result is to retest, based on suspicions. Of course, “strongly suspected” is entirely subjective.

Detecting the presence of a virus being shed? Isn’t that consistent with the claim that viruses are really exosomes, excreted from the body?

6. Global Surveillance For Infection March 2020

Case definitions for surveillance
Case and contact definitions are based on the current available information and are regularly revised as new information accumulates. Countries may need to adapt case definitions depending on their local epidemiological situation and other factors. All countries are encouraged to publish definitions used online and in regular situation reports, and to document periodic updates to definitions which may affect the interpretation of surveillance data.

Probable case
A. A suspect case for whom testing for the COVID-19 virus is inconclusive.
OR
B. A suspect case for whom testing could not be performed for any reason.

The World Health Organization actually suggests that countries can make up their own definitions of what a case is. So much for consistency. Also, inconclusive tests, or cases where tests aren’t performed can be written up as “probable” cases.

7. Global Surveillance For Infection May 2020

Purpose of the document
This document provides an overview of surveillance strategies that Member States should consider as part of
comprehensive national surveillance for COVID-19. This document emphasises the need to adapt and reinforce existing national systems where appropriate and to scale-up surveillance capacities as needed.

Most countries will need to significantly strengthen surveillance capacities to rapidly identify cases of COVID‑19, follow-up their contacts, and to monitor disease trends over time. Comprehensive national surveillance for COVID-19 will require the adaptation and reinforcement of existing national systems where appropriate and the scale-up of additional surveillance capacities as needed. Digital technologies for rapid reporting, data management, and analysis will be helpful. Robust comprehensive surveillance once in place, should be maintained even in areas where there are few or no cases; it is critical that new cases and clusters of COVID-19 are detected rapidly and before widespread disease transmission occurs. Ongoing surveillance for COVID-19 is also important to understand longer-term trends in the disease and the evolution of the virus.

Individuals in the community
Individuals in the community can play an important role in the surveillance of COVID-19. Where possible, individuals who have signs and symptoms of COVID-19 should be able to access testing at the primary care level. Where testing at the primary level is not possible, community-based surveillance, whereby the community participates monitors and reports health events to local authorities, may be helpful for identifying clusters of COVID-19.

Participation in contact tracing and cluster investigations are other important ways in which individuals and communities contribute to the surveillance of COVID-19. Contact tracing is the identification of all persons who may have had contact with an individual with COVID-19. By following such contacts daily for up to 14 days since they had contact with the source case, it is possible to identify individuals who are at high risk of being infectious and/or ill and to isolate them before they transmit the infection to others. Contact tracing can be combined with door-to-door case-finding or systematic testing in closed settings, such as residential facilities, or with routine testing for occupational groups. See Contact tracing guidelines for COVID-19.

This document gives plenty of advice on how to go about doing contact tracing, and these procedures are being used. But it has to be said that the means that they classify cases and deaths throws everything into doubt. A cynic may just wonder if this is just to set up a surveillance apparatus.

8. Global Surveillance For Infection August 2020

[Page 2]
Probable COVID-19 case:
A. A patient who meets clinical criteria above AND is a contact of a probable or confirmed case, or epidemiologically linked to a cluster of cases which has had at least one confirmed case identified within that cluster.
B. A suspected case (described above) with chest imaging showing findings suggestive of COVID-19 disease*
* Typical chest imaging findings suggestive of COVID-19 include the following (Manna 2020):
• chest radiography: hazy opacities, often rounded in morphology, with peripheral and lower lung distribution
• chest CT: multiple bilateral ground glass opacities, often rounded in morphology, with peripheral and lower lung
distribution
• lung ultrasound: thickened pleural lines, B lines (multifocal, discrete, or confluent), consolidative patterns with or without air bronchograms.
C. A person with recent onset of anosmia (loss of smell) or ageusia (loss of taste) in the absence of any other identified cause.
D. Death, not otherwise explained, in an adult with respiratory distress preceding death AND who was a contact of a probable or confirmed case or epidemiologically linked to a cluster which has had at least one confirmed case identified within that cluster.

[Page 3]
3. Definition of death due to COVID-19
A COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery between the illness and death.

4. Recommendations for laboratory testing
Suspected and probable cases should be investigated for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus according to WHO guidance on Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. While recommended response activities are largely the same for probable and confirmed cases, testing of probable cases, where resources allow, is still useful since it can exclude cases and reduce the burden required for isolation and contact tracing.
.
Depending on the intensity of the transmission in a specific location, the number of cases and the laboratory capacity, a subset of suspected or probable cases can be prioritized for testing. WHO has provided recommendations on how to prioritize persons to be tested during community transmission in Laboratory testing strategy recommendations for COVID-19.

So, no tests actually have to be performed in order to consider a person a “probable case”. And if a person who had contact with a “probable case” dies, that person can also be considered one, if there was some respiratory issue.

Death has to be “clinically compatible” with how they believe this illness works. As long as there are no obvious signs (like bullet wounds), a case can be written up as a Covid-19 death. Such a system seems ripe for abuse, especially considering the political agenda being played out here.

9. Global Surveillance For Infection Dec. 2020

[Page 2]
Probable COVID-19 case:
A. A patient who meets clinical criteria above AND is a contact of a probable or confirmed case, or epidemiologically linked to a cluster of cases which has had at least one confirmed case identified within that cluster.
B. A suspected case (described above) with chest imaging showing findings suggestive of COVID-19 disease*
* Typical chest imaging findings suggestive of COVID-19 include the following (Manna 2020):
• chest radiography: hazy opacities, often rounded in morphology, with peripheral and lower lung distribution
• chest CT: multiple bilateral ground glass opacities, often rounded in morphology, with peripheral and lower lung
distribution
• lung ultrasound: thickened pleural lines, B lines (multifocal, discrete, or confluent), consolidative patterns with or without air bronchograms.
C. A person with recent onset of anosmia (loss of smell) or ageusia (loss of taste) in the absence of any other identified cause.
D. Death, not otherwise explained, in an adult with respiratory distress preceding death AND who was a contact of a probable or confirmed case or epidemiologically linked to a cluster which has had at least one confirmed case identified within that cluster.

[Page 3]
3. Definition of death due to COVID-19
A COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery between the illness and death.

4. Recommendations for laboratory testing
Suspected and probable cases should be investigated for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus according to WHO guidance on Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. While recommended response activities are largely the same for probable and confirmed cases, testing of probable cases, where resources allow, is still useful since it can exclude cases and reduce the burden required for isolation and contact tracing.
.
Depending on the intensity of the transmission in a specific location, the number of cases and the laboratory capacity, a subset of suspected or probable cases can be prioritized for testing. WHO has provided recommendations on how to prioritize persons to be tested during community transmission in Laboratory testing strategy recommendations for COVID-19.

The definition of a “Death due to Covid-19” is still the same, and can include people where no test was performed, as long the illness is compatible with what is expected.

It’s interesting that despite all these samples being taken, it seems that the bulk aren’t being tested. By contrast, it seems to be random samples, unless a problem is detected.

10. Is This About Establishing Police State?

What is really going on here? Is all of this contact tracing just an underhanded method of establishing the structure of a surveillance state across the globe? This disease clearly can’t be as deadly as it’s made out to be, if Governments have to artificially inflate the numbers.

Virus likely has never been isolated
Modelling compromised: Imperial College London
Modelling compromised: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Modelling compromised: Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium
No basis for the PCR tests that are used
No evidence that masks actually work as advertised
No evidence, still that masks do anything
No basis for 2 meter “social distancing”
Lobbying behind “non-essential” business determination
No science to what Bonnie Henry does

Politicians and media talking heads are always harping on about “following the science”. Guess what? There isn’t any pushing this so-called pandemic.

Posted on

Omidyar Group; Luminate; Reset; Reset Australia; Push For A Misinformation Ban

The Omidyar Group, started by e-Bay Founder, Pierre Omidyar, is involved in many areas of social change. To address the elephant in the room: it does appear there are legitimate areas that the Omidyar Group and its many affiliates are involved with. However, there is one in particular that needs to be looked at. NGOs are pushing to ban what they call “misinformation” around the so-called “pandemic”.

1. Important Links

https://www.omidyargroup.com/
https://luminategroup.com/
https://www.sandlerfoundation.org/
https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/
https://twitter.com/ausreset/status/1353402187762847746
https://au.reset.tech/
https://www.reset.tech/about/
https://www.reset.tech/people/
https://archive.is/AuwcW
https://www.weforum.org/people/pia-mancini

2. Omidyar Group: Finance Independent Media

Omidyar Group was launched by Pierre Omidyar (who founded e-Bay in 1995), and his Wife, Pam. This NGO has several interests, including promoting a “more informed citizenry”, which sounds fine on the surface. The organizations that Omidyar funds include:

  • Democracy Fund
  • First Look Media
  • Flourish
  • Hopelab
  • Humanity United
  • Imaginable Futures
  • Luminate
  • Omidyar Network
  • Omidyar Network India
  • Ulupono Initiative

The Democracy Fund
The Democracy Fund’s Public Square program invests in innovations and institutions that are reinventing local media and expanding the “public square” to ensure that people can access diverse sources of information and different points of view. The Public Square program supports efforts to combat misinformation deepen individuals’ engagement in civic life though new venues for reasoned debate and deliberation.

First Look Media
First Look Media – a bold independent media company that empowers the most ambitious voices in journalism, arts and entertainment. Launched by eBay founder and philanthropist, Pierre Omidyar, First Look Media today operates across several areas, including an entertainment studio, Topic, which develops, produces and finances feature films, documentaries, television and digital content; the newly launched digital storytelling destination, Topic.com; the award-winning investigative journalism outlet, The Intercept; the critically acclaimed documentary film unit, Field of Vision; and the popular political satire cartoon, The Nib. The company’s first feature film, “Spotlight,” won the 2016 Academy Award® for Best Picture.

Honolulu Civil Beat
Honolulu Civil Beat is an award-winning investigative and watchdog online media enterprise aimed at informing and engaging community members through public affairs and investigative reporting on topics of critical importance to Hawaii.

Humanity United
Humanity United engages and supports media partners, reporters and storytellers to raise awareness and educate key audiences about important social issues. Humanity United supports The Guardian’s media platform titled “Modern Day Slavery in Focus,” a series investigating human trafficking and exploitation around the world.

Luminate
Luminate supports organizations that are committed to defending a vibrant, free press that uncovers the truth and holds power to account. It also works to enable people to shape the decisions that affect their lives and access the services they need, with a focus on those groups that are marginalised or underserved.

Omidyar Network India
Omidyar Network India supports independent journalism that reports on issues concerning citizens and civil society through support such as equity investments in new business models.

The World Post
An advocate for quality journalism, Pierre Omidyar serves on the editorial board of the World Post, a platform for understanding current events through a global lens.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with bringing new voices into the public discussion. Viewpoint diversity is a great thing. However, when such initiatives are used to shut down or gaslight others, there is a serious problem. Omidyar funds Luminate, who in turn funds Reset. It’s unclear if the goals got corrupted, or if this was always the purpose.

It’s also a bit misleading to think that these outfits are really independent, considering they are controlled by the same people.

3. Luminate: Fund For Public Interest Media

Luminate funds and supports non-profit and for-profit organisations and advocates for policies and actions that can drive change. We prioritise delivering impact in four connected areas that underpin strong societies: Civic Empowerment, Data & Digital Rights, Financial Transparency, and Independent Media.

A free press gives people the information they need to participate in the issues shaping their lives. But press freedom is at a low ebb. Research by Freedom House shows that less than 20 percent of the world now benefits from a truly independent media. Journalists are being imprisoned and killed for reporting the truth, while ‘fake news laws’, ostensibly created to prevent misinformation, are instead being used to censor and silence.

Changes in the media market are contributing to the crisis. Dominant ad-driven models reward tech platforms such as Google and Facebook over publications and journalists. Driven by clicks, these models often favour sensationalism over considered reportage, contributing to declining trust in the media, the spread of misinformation, and the increasing polarisation of communities.

A world without depth, independence, and plurality in the media is vulnerable to corruption and authoritarianism. Now, more than ever, we need a strong fourth estate, free from vested interests.

Thankfully, we are seeing shoots of recovery. Innovative business models, such as membership-driven news sites, are emerging that can support editorially independent media outlets. These models are focused on building trust with audiences and improving coverage representation. Meanwhile, data scientists and journalists are increasingly collaborating to uncover stories of public importance hidden within vast tracts of newly available data. This represents an exciting wave of innovation in independent media.

What we do
We support independent media wherever press freedom is under threat. We do this by investing in courageous investigative journalism, fact-checking organisations, and financial models able to support news outlets free from vested interests.

While all of this sounds fine, the devil is in the details. It all really depends if the groups getting these funds are interested in objective truth, or whether they are interested in promoting a narrative they have decided is truth. One such group they fund is Reset (which also funds Reset Australia).

Luminate is in control of many groups, which again, leads to questions about how independent any of this is.

4. Reset’s Censorship Agenda

We are an initiative engaged in programmatic work on technology and democracy. We provide grants and contracts while working alongside partners with a shared policy, technology, and advocacy goal in countries with immediate opportunities for change. We operate internationally to ensure that the commercial interests of Big Tech companies are compatible with the values of robust and resilient democracies.

We must reset the rules to stop Big Tech companies profiting from public harm. We can redirect their ambition and innovation to achieve better goals. Code can be changed, markets can be regulated, democracy can be strengthened.
.
Every other major industry – automotive, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, banking – must follow rules that protect the public interest. The Big Tech companies which now have a huge impact on so much of our daily lives should be no different. Yes, businesses should pursue commercial success. But they should do well by doing good.
.
We believe the internet can once again become a force for good, not a marketplace for manipulation by the highest bidder.

We work to combat digital threats to democracy in two ways.
.
First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies. Our integrated and comprehensive strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, competition, elections, security, taxation, education and public service media. We support research that builds the case for change.
.
Second, we work to develop and communicate a vision of the internet that serves democracy – explaining problems, offering solutions, prototyping new technologies and engaging in education and activism.

To make this clear, Reset doesn’t put forward good ideas that will better shape how society is run. There would be nothing wrong with this. Instead, Reset wants to change the rules of the internet — namely shut down dissenting views — in order to ensure that their ideas win out. This is censorship, plain and simple.

Luminate, a major donor prides itself on funding independent media. Makes one wonder if they have no idea about this, or they know, but support the agenda.

5. Mancini/Wood, World Economic Forum

Pia Mancini
Democracy activist, open source technology sustainer, co-founder & CEO at Open Collective and Chair of DemocracyEarth Foundation. Pia worked in politics in Argentina and developed technology for democracy around the world. Y Combinator Alum, Forum of Young Global Leaders (World Economic Forum), globe-trotter, and Roma’s mum

Poppy Wood
As a consultant on public policy, Poppy leads on Reset’s UK policy and political strategy. Combining her expertise in policy and technology, Poppy’s mission is to maximise Reset’s impact in the UK, and driving its powerful policy agenda. As well as having run multiple technology advisory businesses, supporting some of the world’s leading technology companies and start-ups, Poppy also worked in Downing Street for two years where she was an advisor on public appointments and tech policy. Poppy is a World Economic Forum “Global Shaper” and in 2018 was recognised in Brummell Magazine’s “Ones to Watch” list celebrating London’s high-potential talent.

Interesting that 2 women pushing to prevent criticism (globally), of “misinformation” surrounding the coronavirus are also part of the World Economic Forum, which is promoting lockdowns.

6. Reset Australia, Branch Of RESET

We work to raise awareness and advocate for better policy to address digital threats to Australian democracy in two ways:
.
First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies that align with democratic values in Australia. Our integrated strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, elections, security, child safety and protection from foreign interference. We support research that builds the case for change.
.
Second, we work to build public support for an internet that serves democracy – explaining the issues, co-creating solutions and building public support for change.
.
We are an Australian affiliate of Reset, an initiative working to counter digital threats to democracy across the world. Reset Australia is a not-for-profit charity registered in Australia with close ties to our international partner. We share a common mission and organisational values. Our teams are coordinated in our goals and activities, and we benefit from the knowledge, relationships, and financial resources of Reset’s international network.

Just like their parent company, Reset Australia seems to have little interest in searching for truth. Instead, the media in general — and social media in particular — must change their behaviour in order to comply with how things ought to be. And who is running the organization?

Simon Goff
Simon has deep experience working on some of the world’s most complex problems – crafting new ways to channel the power of culture toward positive social change. Through his career he has built unique partnerships to harness the potential of powerful storytelling to mobilise people to action. He is currently Managing Director and Partner at Purpose, where he has led projects with clients including The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the LEGO Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, Google, Unilever, the World Health Organization, the Red Cross, AGL, and The Fred Hollows Foundation on issues including early childhood development, digital rights, climate change, avoidable blindness, and women’s empowerment.

Ben Scott
Ben is executive director at Reset, where he is responsible for strategic direction, overseeing the coordination of policy, technology and civic engagement work, providing expert counsel on policy development and advocacy. His mission is to push financial, knowledge and relational resources into a global network of organisations working to achieve shared aims. Before starting Reset, he co-led the Stiftung Neue Verantwortung (SNV) in Berlin, helping develop the organisation into a leading tech policy voice in German politics. He was also a Senior Adviser to New America in Washington DC, helping design the Public Interest Technology Initiative, and led the technology policy advisory group for the 2016 Clinton US presidential campaign.

Amit Singh
Amit Singh is a consultant specialising in economics and policy and advises clients in financial services, government and the tech sector. He is a managing director at the consultancy, AlphaBeta. He was previously head of global economic and work policy at Uber in San Francisco. He has also served as senior economic adviser to two Australian Prime Ministers. Earlier in his career, he worked as a capital markets lawyer and co-founded a consumer aggregator with over 350,000 members. He has delivered papers and presentations on digital marketplaces and the future of work at the OECD and ILO.

These aren’t some nobodies here. These people have real connections, and some real political clout. So, if they want to shut down criticism of the Covid-19 narrative, under the guise of “fighting misinformation”, they have a real chance to make it law.

7. Reset Australia’s Censorship Drive

The above screenshots of Reset Australia’s Twitter feed is just a small sample of that they are tweeting and retweeting. They are clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly calling for censorship under the guise of public safety.

Posted on

CV #42(D): WEF/Davos “Great Reset”, “Green New Deal”, And “Stakeholder Capitalism” Are Euphemisms For Global Communism

The “Great Reset” was initially dismissed as a conspiracy theory, and vehemently denied. Now, that it’s out in the open, it’s necessary to restructure society. Pretty opportunistic isn’t it? Wasn’t this all about a virus before? Or is it about implementing an agenda that couldn’t be sold politically before?

Truth about politicians, CEOs, academics and activists colluding is still considered a conspiracy theory. Give it time, and the narrative will shift again. Now there will have been collusion, but it was necessary.

1. WEF Gaslighting Public On Issue Of Trust

The participants at the World Economic Forum keep talking about having to build trust between people. However, this is completely disingenuous, considering the deception and lies at the heart of the matter. Here are important topics, in no particular order.

CENTRAL BANKING
Central Banks Pushing For Digital Currency Implementation
Global Taxation Efforts And Programs Underway
1934 Bank Of Canada Act, Bank For International Settlements
Bank For International Settlements Pushing Green Bonds
Central Banks Network For Greening The Financial System
Usury Involved In Debt-For-Nature Swaps

CLIMATE CHANGE SCAM
Mark Carney, With U.N. Climate Action & Finance
Green New Deal Group Modelling After 2008 Bank Failure
Green Climate Fund, A GLOBAL Green New Deal
New Development Funds: Global Bait-And-Switch
NGOs Meddling In Carbon Tax Court Cases
Paris Accord, A Global Wealth Transfer Scheme

PHARMACEUTICAL LOBBYING
GAVI/Crestview Strategy Lobbying Ottawa
Motion M-132, Pharma Research For Canada And The World
Alberta Pharmaceutical Lobbying
Quebec Pharma Lobbying
Ontario Pharma Lobbying, Bill 160

LACK OF SCIENCE BEHIND PANDEMIC MEASURES
Pandemic Model Donors Have Conflict Of Interest
Virus Has Never Even Been Isolated
WHO Admits PCR Tests Are A Complete Fraud
WHO Admits Little Evidence Masks Work
Business Shut Downs Dependent On Corruption, Lobbying
Ottawa Lies About 2m “Social Distancing”
No Scientific Basis For Limiting Group Sizes
People Recover En Masse Without Vaccines

CENSORSHIP MEASURES
Social Media Collusion On “Pandemic” Narrative
Collusion To Promote Pro-Vaxx Narrative
Proposal To Introduce Laws Against “Misinformation”
Canadian Media Subsidized By Taxpayers, Biased
Fact-Checking Organizations Run By Political Operatives

Speakers at Davos complain that there is far too little trust between people and their leaders. Perhaps addressing some of these issues openly and honestly would help alleviate that. Or how about addressing the next one?

2. Aleksandr Lukashenko Alleges IMF Bribe

Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko publicly accused the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund), of offering a bribe of almost $1 billion U.S. Dollars if he would crash the economy, and impose masks and lockdowns nationwide. Is any of this true?

Before any real trust can be established, honesty is necessary. Is Lukashenko lying, or did the IMF and World Bank manufacture this collapse?

3. Rise Of The Trust Brokers (3rd Parties)

Supposedly, it’s now too difficult and complex for people to manage their own personal data. Hiring 3rd parties to do thinking and decision making may be a better option. Alternatively, an automated system, or artificial intelligence can be put in control instead.

Who’s going to ensure that these 3rd parties are who they claim, and will honour personal information? How will that work with some sort of AI system? Too many questions need answering.

4. Stake Holder Capitalism New Way Of Life

The video is too large to upload here. “Stakeholder Capitalism” is what they want to replace “Shareholder Capitalism”, which is property rights. In short, this agenda is to water down (if not abolish altogether), private property. It’s Communism by any other name.

Don’t worry. You’ll own nothing, have no privacy, and your life will never be better. That predictive programming video came out a few years ago.

That being said, some valid points are made, such as corruption, debt and currency. However, it’s never pointed out that central banking (aided by corrupt politicians), enables such debt slavery. A country’s currency should never be held hostage to foreign private interests.

5. Advancing A New Social Contract

A “Social Contract” is often referred to as agreements within societies. This can refer to the expectation that Governments will provide certain protections and benefits, and citizens will behave in certain ways. Considering the underlying dishonesty of Officials in this “pandemic”, how can they be trusted now?

Historical reference. A social contract is also a reference to then-Ontario Premier Bob Rae imposing certain cuts in the public sector, in order to avoid job losses.

6. Tackling The Inequality Virus

The Covid-19 “pandemic” has also provided to allow a wealth redistribution to take place. Under the guise of fighting racial and gender inequality, these people want to forcibly make things more equal. They quite openly talk about reshaping society.

Also, apparently the virus is racist, since it isn’t killing off whites nearly to the same degree as blacks. Go figure. Perhaps it’s not nearly as deadly when there is equality in society.

7. UN’s Guterres: Pandemic A “Dress Rehearsal”

This “pandemic” is a dress rehearsal for other challenges coming. Antonio Guterres seems almost giddy that this has provided political cover to implement an agenda which could never have been achieved otherwise. If this wasn’t planned out, then it is crass opportunism.

He also says that he plans to vaccinate everyone, saying it’s the key to reopening society.

Interestingly, he also talks about virus mutations, which would render any existing vaccines completely worthless. Considering that WHO recommends AGAINST virus isolation, how would one know they were vaccinating against the correct strain?

Guterres also talks about debt relief, but deliberately omits that most countries participate in private central banking (aided by corrupt politicians). This, above all else, leads to the endless debt slavery that all pay for. Interesting that he talks about environmentally “borrowing” from children and grandchildren, but he leaves out how central banks do much the same thing.

8. Central Banking Is Predatory Lending

Governments and central banks have injected $11 trillion into the global economy, slashed interest rates and purchased large-scale assets to prevent financial collapse due to COVID-19. What monetary and fiscal stabilization policies that have emerged during the crisis should be sustained and scaled up, and how should competition policy be designed in an era of increasing concentration?
.
Speakers: Raghuram G. Rajan, Geoff Cutmore, Alex Cobham, Rain Newton-Smith
.
The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.

The description on the video is misleading. Most countries operate private central banks, which means they are forced to borrow — at interest — in order to fund their needs. $11 trillion was generated out of nothing, but now it’s considered debt. As a consequence, “assets” can now be bought off with artificially created wealth.

They float a solution — allowing borrowing at low rates — but it doesn’t address the corrupt system itself. This is not surprising at this point. Politicians and media talking heads frequently address a symptom (the debt), but never the disease (the monetary system). This is intentional.

9. Bonnie Henry: Not Based On Science

A rare moment of honesty from BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry. Despite a Province-wide ban on gatherings, she admits that none of this is based on science. There’s just vague references to models, a tacit admission that models are not proof or science. Also see TCN TV Network, for more information.

10. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

Posted on

World Economic Forum And Emotional Manipulation To Boost “Vaccine Confidence”

It’s interesting the claim that 73% of people globally support getting the vaccine, while this video is ratioed pretty hard. Small sample size, but still. And if everyone is proud of the work they do, why exactly is the video unlisted?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

YouTube Webinar On Increasing Vaccine Confidence
IRS Charity Tax Records Search
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Heidi Larson’s LinkedIn Page
Vaccine Confidence Project Leadership
Imperial College London And Their Gates Funding
Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, Gates FinancingVaccine Confidence Project Twitter Account
Ben Page’s LinkedIn Page
Tan Chuan’s Profile Page For Yale
Mustafa Alrawi’s LinkedIn Page

3. WEF Talk On Increasing Vaccine Confidence

This 1/2 hour talk was filled with lots of important information. Let’s pull some of the main points out.

To address the elephant in the room: at no point does this panel address vaccine safety, or ways to make them more safe. Instead, it’s all about PERSUADING people that they already are safe. A huge difference.

Heidi Larson works for both the Vaccine Confidence Project, and the London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Those organizations have ties to big pharma, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Larson openly admits that she works with Facebook, monitoring what she calls “misinformation”. She encourages social media companies to delete certain topics under the guise of “safety”.

Providing information no longer enough. In order to convince people, “telling stories” may be seen as a more effective technique to pitch the vaccines.

The best time to “build trust” is supposedly in between pandemics. Does this imply that more are to come?

People who question the official narrative are conspiracy theorists, pushing deliberate and harmful misinformation.

What matters is having a consistent message.

Trust is important, insofar as it enables one to proceed with their agenda without hurdles. It must be maintained, not for altruistic reasons, but to make future acts easier to sell.

4. Gates Foundation Tax Returns

Link to search IRS charity tax records:
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

Is it unfair to vilify the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for their role in advancing the big pharma agenda and mass vaccinations? Not really, once one looks at the actual money involved.

5. Heidi Larson: LSHTM & VCP Operative

Heidi Larson, who appeared on this talk, is both a Professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and the Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project.

The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine has long been a recipient of big money from Gates. Of course, this also applies to Imperial College London, and to VIMC, Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium.

Funders of Vaccine Confidence Project

  • European Commission
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Merck
  • UNICEF
  • University College London

Partners of the Vaccine Confidence Project

  • Brighton Collaboration
  • Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
  • Chatham House
  • European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
  • European Commission
  • European Medicines Agency
  • Facebook
  • Gallup International
  • Imperial College London
  • International Pediatric Association
  • International Vaccine Institute
  • LVCT Kenya
  • National University of Singapore
  • ProMED
  • Public Health England (PHE)
  • Public Health Foundation of India
  • Sabin Vaccine Institute
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Do any of the these partners and funders for the Vaccine Confidence Project looks familiar? Many of the names should set off alarms. While the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation isn’t specifically listed, many of the partners are funded by Gates.

Is there any separation between Vaccine Confidence Project and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine? Aside from overlap in donors, they have many of the same people

  • Prof. Heidi Larson
  • Dr. Pauline Paterson
  • Valerie Heywood
  • Emilie Karafillakis
  • Fiona Sun
  • Kristen de Graaf
  • Simon Piatek
  • Dr. Leesa Lin
  • Gillian McKay
  • Penda Johm
  • Caroline Marshall

Two separate organizations, but many of the same personnel, donors and partners. And they serve to advance the same goals.

6. Ben Page, Chief Executive Ipsos MORI

Interesting omission from Page. Not only is he in charge of Ipsos MORI, a global research firm, he’s also a Council Member of the World Economic Forum. He has in interesting work history, to put it mildly.

7. Professor Tan Chorh Chuan

Chief Health Scientist and Executive Director, Office for Healthcare Transformation, Ministry of Health, Singapore
.
Professor Tan Chorh Chuan was appointed as the inaugural Chief Health Scientist and concurrently, Executive Director of the new Office for Healthcare Transformation in Singapore’s Ministry of Health with effect from 1 January 2018.

Professor Tan’s concurrent appointments include the Chairman of the Board of the National University Health System; member, Board of Directors of the Monetary Authority of Singapore; and member, Board of Directors of Mandai Park Development.

Professor Tan served as President of the National University of Singapore (NUS) from 2008 to 2017. He held the positions of NUS Provost, then Senior Deputy President from 2004 to 2008. He was former Dean of the NUS Faculty of Medicine and served as the Director of Medical Services, Ministry of Health, from 2000 to 2004, in which capacity he was responsible for leading the public health response to the 2003 SARS epidemic. As the inaugural Chief Executive of the National University Health System in 2008, he brought the NUS Medical and Dental Schools and the National University Hospital under single governance. As NUS president, he oversaw the formation of Yale-NUS College.

This is certainly an interesting mix of people: university professor and propagandist (Larson), a Government Official in Singapore (Chuan), a researcher and pollster (Page), and a journalist (Alrawi).

8. Mustafa Alrawi, Assistant Editor, The National

Alrawi has been in various media outlets across the globe over the last 2 decades. Side note: he is formerly a production assistant in 2000 for the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), which receives regular funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

9. This is Psychological Warfare

Nothing in this talk shows any concern that people might be seriously harmed by these experimental vaccines. Instead, the focus is on “pitching” it to the public. Sympathy is feigned, but only for the purposes of learning how other people’s minds work.

Posted on

CV #37(C): WHO’s Own Documents Show It Knew The Entire Time PCR Testing Was A Fraud

The PCR tests (polymerase chain reaction) are held up publicly as this gold standard for testing for infectious diseases. But what does the World Health Organization actually have to say about this?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

January 17, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
March 19, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 WHO-2019-nCoV-Antigen_Detection
WHO: January, March, September 2020 Guidelines
WHO’s January 13, 2021 Posting On Test Guidelines

January 31 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
March 20 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
May 10 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
August 7 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
December 16 Global Surveillance For Human Infection

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
WHO Guidelines Classification Of Death

WHO Case Definition Guidelines

BCCDC: No Idea Actual Error Rate Of PCR Tests
BC COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines (1)
BC COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR

Tricity: Bonnie Henry – False Positives Overwhelming Hospitals
CBC: Bonnie Henry Warning About False Negatives

WHO’s Definition Of “Herd Immunity”
WHO Posting On Herd Immunity Definition
WHO’s Other Definition Of Herd Immunity

Kary Mullis, Creator Of The PCR Test

3. BCPHO Bonnie Henry Getting Duper’s Delight

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie admits that Covid-19 testing is highly flawed and can have a 30% false negative rate. She also admits there’s no science behind her dictate that gatherings of 50 were allowed. Currently visitors and gatherings are prohibited.

That being said, it doesn’t mean this lunatic can’t enjoy a moment of fun now and again. It’s not like she destroyed B.C., or anything like that. The reality is that there is no science behind nearly everything that she’s been doing.

Bonnie is on record saying that she doesn’t support mass testing of asymptomatic people, since false positives could overwhelm hospitals. In other words, she’s fully aware that it doesn’t work.

4. BCCDC Record Shows 30% Error A Hoax

2. What do the test results mean?
 Positive: Viral RNA is detected by NAT and this means that the patient is confirmed to have COVID-19 infection.
A positive NAT does not necessarily mean that a patient is infectious, as viral RNA can be shed in the respiratory tract for weeks but cultivatable (live) virus is typically not detected beyond 8 to 10 days after symptom onset.
 Negative: Viral RNA is not detected in the sample. However, a negative test result does not totally rule out COVID-19 infection as there may be reasons beyond test performance that can result in a lack of RNA detection in patients with COVID-19 infection (false negatives; see below).
 Indeterminate: The NAT result is outside the validated range of the test (i.e., RNA concentration is below the limit of detection, or a non-specific reaction), or this might occur when the sample collected is of poor quality
(i.e., does not contain a sufficient amount of human cells). Indeterminate results do not rule in or rule out
infection

5. What is the clinical sensitivity of the NAT test?
A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity). These and other similar estimates are based on a small number studies that compared the correlation between CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 infection to NAT on upper respiratory tract specimens. In these studies, 20-30% of people with a positive CT scan result had negative NAT results – and as discussed above a number of factors can contribute to false negative results. CT scan is not a gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, and CT scan cannot differentiate amongst the many microbiological causes of pneumonia.
.
Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate).

That comes from the BC CDC, the BC Centre for Disease Control. To summarize, the tests can’t tell for certain whether a person is positive or negative, regardless of the result.

Moreover, the Government can’t tell you what the error rates are either for false positives or false negatives, because they don’t know. When Bonnie Henry says 30%, she is quoting a statistic that is throw around for other viruses. A little transparency would be nice.

5. WHO’s January 17, 2020 Testing Guidance

[Page 1]
3. Specimen collection and shipment Rapid collection and testing of appropriate specimens from suspected cases is a priority and should be guided by a laboratory expert. As extensive testing is still needed to confirm the 2019-nCoV and the role of mixed infection has not been verified, multiple tests may need to be performed and sampling sufficient clinical material is recommended. Local guidelines should be followed regarding patient or guardian’s informed consent for specimen collection, testing and potentially future research.

This is a warning sign. Multiple tests are recommended since a mixed infection cannot be ruled out. How reliable can the test be then>

6. WHO’s March 19, 2020 Testing Guidance

[Page 2/3]
Laboratory-confirmed case by NAAT in areas with established COVID-19 virus circulation.
In areas where COVID-19 virus is widely spread a simpler algorithm might be adopted in which, for example, screening by rRT-PCR of a single discriminatory target is considered sufficient.

One or more negative results do not rule out the possibility of COVID-19 virus infection. A number of factors could lead to a negative result in an infected individual, including:
 poor quality of the specimen, containing little patient material (as a control, consider determining whether there is adequate human DNA in the sample
by including a human target in the PCR testing).
 the specimen was collected late or very early in the infection.
 the specimen was not handled and shipped appropriately.
 technical reasons inherent in the test, e.g. virus mutation or PCR inhibition.

If a negative result is obtained from a patient with a high index of suspicion for COVID-19 virus infection, particularly when only upper respiratory tract specimens were collected, additional specimens, including from the lower respiratory tract if possible, should be collected and tested.

Each NAAT run should include both external and internal controls, and laboratories are encouraged to participate in external quality assessment schemes when they become available. It is also recommended to laboratories that order their own primers and probes to perform entry testing/validation on functionality and potential contaminants.

Even if a person tests negative, it doesn’t mean they are actually negative. Even if they test negative multiple times, it doesn’t mean they are cleared. These tests aren’t even screening for the virus, but rather, just a single marker. And of course, there is this little gem below, from the bottom of page 3.

Viral culture
Virus isolation is not recommended as a routine diagnostic procedure.

It’s not recommended to try to isolate the virus for the purposes of diagnosis. Just checking for a few (or even one) target is considered sufficient. And the test can’t be that reliable when it’s recommended to retest based on suspicion.

7. WHO’s September 11, 2020 Testing Guidance

[Page 5]
Nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)
Wherever possible, suspected active SARS-CoV-2 infections should be tested with NAAT, such as rRT-PCR. NAAT assays should target the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Since there is currently no known circulation of SARS-CoV-1 globally, a sarbecovirus-specific sequence is also a reasonable target. For commercial assays, interpretation of results should be done according to the instructions for use. Optimal diagnostics consist of a NAAT assay with at least two independent targets on the SARS-CoV-2 genome, however, in areas with widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a simple algorithm might be adopted with one single discriminatory target. When using a one-target assay, it is recommended to have a strategy in place to monitor for mutations that might affect performance. For more details, see section below on “Background information on monitoring for mutations in primer and probe regions”.

[Page 6]
Careful interpretation of weak positive NAAT results is needed, as some of the assays have shown to produce false signals at high Ct values. When test results turn out to be invalid or questionable, the patient should be resampled and retested. If additional samples from the patient are not available, RNA should be re-extracted from the original samples and retested by highly experienced staff. Results can be confirmed by an alternative NAAT test or via virus sequencing if the viral load is sufficiently high. Laboratories are urged to seek reference laboratory confirmation of any unexpected results

[Page 7]
Rapid diagnostic tests that detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins (antigens) in respiratory tract specimens are being developed and commercialized. Most of these are lateral flow immunoassays (LFI), which are typically completed within 30 minutes. In contrast to NAATs, there is no amplification of the target that is detected, making antigen tests less sensitive. Additionally, false positive (indicating that a person is infected when they are not) results may occur if the antibodies on the test strip also recognize antigens of viruses other than SARS-CoV-2, such other human coronaviruses.

[Page 8]
Virus isolation is not recommended as a routine diagnostic procedure. All procedures involving viral isolation in cell culture require trained staff and BSL-3 facilities. A thorough risk assessment should be carried out when culturing specimens from potential SARSCoV-2 patients for other respiratory viruses because SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to grow on a variety of cell lines

Some points to take away from here: (a) still not testing for the virus, but for a single target; (b) false positives are still a significant problem; (c) antigen tests cannot distinguish between different viruses; and (d) virus isolation is still not recommended

8. WHO’s January 13, 2021 Testing Guidance

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

More guidance which give legitimate concerns that the tests themselves are completely bogus. If retesting is recommended so readily, what does it say about the reliability of the test? If test accuracy is dependent on community prevalence, what does it say about the test? If “patient history” must be confirmed, then what does it say about the test?

9. Barbara Yaffe: Mouthpiece For Ford/WHO

Interestingly, this research has answered an old question. Ontario Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe has been the butt of many jokes ever since she said that you can get 50% false positives when testing in an area where there isn’t very much Covid. It’s likely that she was simply parroting back one of WHO’s talking points, but wasn’t able to explain it in any sensible manner.

As for those vaccines that are already being rolled out in Canada, Yaffe admits they don’t know if they actually work. It’s a nice bait-and-switch, considering the public has been repeatedly told that testing was a success.

Then again, she just says whatever they write down for her, so there probably isn’t much thinking done at all on her part.

Not much different than Deborah Birx in the United States. If half of your cases are false positives, then there’s something seriously wrong with the test. There’s no good way to spin things.

10. Test’s Creator Denounces Infection Usage

Kary Mullis, the creator of the PCR test, has stated publicly that it was never designed to test for active infection, and hence, is useless for that task. It makes sense, as such a setup wouldn’t be able to distinguish between dead genetic material, and something that was active.

11. WHO Redefines “Herd Immunity”

The World Health Organization was recently called out for changing the definition of “herd immunity”. Previously, it meant immunity from some vaccination, or previous infection. It was changed to only reflect the vaccination option. After the public caught on, however, it was restored to the original version.