By Anna Von Reitz
The “fog of war” is a term used to describe the uncertainty, chaos and confusion that can occur during battle. What you thought was true entering into the battle may be turned upside down, clouding your judgment as you try to make decisions in a sort of suspended reality.
You’re living in a fog of war right now — a fog of COVID war — according to Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER): “It is often unclear who is making decisions and why, and what the relationships are between the strategies and the goals. Even the rationale can become elusive as frustration and disorientation displace clarity and rationality.”1
This description is typically reserved for the disorientation of battle but now applies disturbingly well to the fog surrounding COVID-19 disease mitigation. If you’d like a concrete example, watch the video timeline above, which takes you from January 2020, when mask use was discouraged, to December 2020, when masks have become mandatory in many areas.2
March: Face Masks Cannot Protect Against the New Coronavirus
In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at the World Health Organization headquarters, was featured in a video, holding up a disposable face mask. She said, “Medical masks like this one cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone … WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases.”3
Those specific cases include if you have a cough, fever or difficulty breathing. In other words, if you’re actively sick and showing symptoms. “If you do not have these symptoms, you do not have to wear masks because there is no evidence that they protect people who are not sick,” she continued.
In March 2020, the U.S. Surgeon General publicly agreed, tweeting a message stating, “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” and going on to say that they are not effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus.4 As of March 31, 2020, WHO was still advising against the use of face masks for people without symptoms, stating that there is “no evidence” that such mask usage prevents COVID-19 transmission.5
June: Public Should Wear a Face Mask
By June 6, 2020, the rhetoric had changed. Citing “evolving evidence,” WHO reversed their recommendation, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO’s director general, advising governments to encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult.6
This encouragement turned into mandates in many areas, with threats of fines for those who did not comply. In Humboldt County, California, for instance, anyone who violated the order to wear face coverings in public could be fined $50 to $1,000 and/or face 90 days in jail for each day the offense occurred.7
In Salem, Massachusetts, you could also be fined for not wearing a mask in public, including the common areas inside an apartment building.8 What’s the evolving evidence WHO referred to that made them reverse their position on masks for the healthy general public over a period of just two months? This remains unclear, but an interesting development did occur.
WHO: Asymptomatic Transmission ‘Very Rare’
During a June 8, 2020, press briefing — just two days after Ghebreyesus advised healthy people to start wearing masks — Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO’s technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that people who have COVID-19 without any symptoms “rarely” transmit the disease to others.9
WHO’s interim guidance from June 5, 2020, supports Kerkhove’s statement, noting, “Comprehensive studies on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms.”10
If this is the case, though, the recommendation that healthy, asymptomatic people wear face masks or be locked down in their homes makes no sense, highlighting just one instance of the ongoing “COVID fog.”
Not to be called out on their blatant contradictions, on June 9, 2020, Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO’s emergencies program, quickly backpedaled Van Kerkhove’s statement, saying the remarks were “misinterpreted or maybe we didn’t use the most elegant words to explain that.”11 Van Kerkhove also stated that the data she mentioned only came from a “small subset of studies,” and added:12
“I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that. I was just trying to articulate what we know. And in that, I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare.”
10 Million People, Not One Case of Asymptomatic Transmission
After WHO’s asymptomatic spread debacle, talk of this topic died down considerably.13 But, quietly, a landmark study involving 9,899,828 million residents of Wuhan, China, was published in Nature Communications.14 The participants were tested for COVID-19 between May 14, 2020, and June 1, 2020.
No new symptomatic cases, and 300 asymptomatic cases, were identified. Among the 300 asymptomatic cases, 1,174 close contacts were identified, and not one of them tested positive for COVID-19.
Additionally, of the 34,424 participants with a history of COVID-19, 107 individuals (0.31%) tested positive again, but, importantly, none were symptomatic. As noted by the authors, “Virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and repositive cases, indicating no ‘viable virus’ in positive cases detected in this study.”15 Tucker explained:16
“The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but does not drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.”
A meta-analysis of 21,708 at-risk people, of which 663 were COVID-19 positive and 111 were asymptomatic, also found that asymptomatic transmission rates may actually be “lower than those of many highly-publicized studies.”17 They suggested the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases is 1 in 6, and found the relative risk of asymptomatic transmission was 42% lower than the risk of symptomatic transmission.
In a preprint version of their study, the researchers noted, “Our estimates of the proportion of asymptomatic cases and their transmission rates suggest that asymptomatic spread is unlikely to be a major driver of clusters or community transmission of infection …”18 As Tucker noted:19
“We keep hearing about how we should follow the science. The claim is tired by now. We know what’s really happening.
The lockdown lobby ignores whatever contradicts their narrative, preferring unverified anecdotes over an actual scientific study of 10 million residents in what was the world’s first major hotspot for the disease we are trying to manage. You would expect this study to be massive international news. So far as I can tell, it is being ignored.”
If Asymptomatic Spread Is Rare, Why Masks and Lockdowns?
Widespread asymptomatic spreading is the only reason that lockdowns and mask usage among the healthy make sense. For months, health officials have been perpetuating the myth of asymptomatic spreading to escalate fear.
Now, as people are increasingly eager to return to some sense of normalcy, a mutated SARS-CoV-2 strain, which is supposedly more virulent, is said to have emerged and resulted in new, more severe lockdown restrictions in the U.K.20
This perpetuation of fear has extended far beyond the initial purpose of the lockdowns, which was to flatten the curve and avoid overstressing hospitals. As Tucker pointed out, however, this has gradually changed such that now we’re facing lockdowns indefinitely:21
“The initial round of lockdowns was not about suppressing the virus but slowing it for one reason: to preserve hospital capacity. Whether and to what extent the ‘curve’ was actually flattened will probably be debated for years but back then there was no question of extinguishing the virus. The volume of the curves, tall and quick or short and long, was the same either way. People were going to get the bug until the bug burns out (herd immunity).
Gradually, and sometimes almost imperceptibly, the rationale for the lockdowns changed. Curve flattening became an end in itself, apart from hospital capacity. Perhaps this was because the hospital crowding issue was extremely localized in two New York boroughs while hospitals around the country emptied out for patients who didn’t show up: 350 hospitals furloughed workers.”
Science is what should be used to dictate policy, but this isn’t what’s occurring. Ongoing testing of asymptomatic people is adding to the problem, as positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests are also being used as justification for keeping large portions of the world locked down.
The problem is a positive PCR test does not mean that an active infection is present. The PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, the genetic snippets are so small they must be amplified in order to become discernible.
What this does is amplify any, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA that might be present to the point that the test reads “positive,” even if the viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive. These “positive” cases are keeping the pandemic narrative going.
Case in point, between March 22 and April 4, 2020, 215 pregnant women admitted to a hospital in New York City were screened on admission for symptoms of COVID-19 and tested for the virus. Only 1.9% of the women had fever or other COVID-19 symptoms, and all of those women tested positive.
Of the remaining women who were tested even though they had no symptoms, 13.7% were positive. This means that, overall, 87.9% of the women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had no symptoms,22 and the overwhelming research suggests they likely wouldn’t have transmitted the virus to others, either.
Masks Are Ineffective
What does the science say about masks for preventing COVID-19 infection? The first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.
The “Danmask-19 Trial,” published November 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine,23 found that among mask wearers 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.
Rational Ground also looked at COVID-19 cases from May 1, 2020 to December 15, 2020, in all 50 U.S. states, with and without mask mandates. Among states with no mask mandates, 17 cases per 100,000 people per day were counted, compared to 27 cases per 100,000 people per day in states with mask mandates24 — COVID-19 cases were higher in areas with mask mandates than without.
The findings further call into question the effectiveness of mandated masks for preventing COVID-19, as does a case-control investigation of people with COVID-19 who visited 11 U.S. health care facilities. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report revealed factors associated with getting the disease,25 including the use of cloth face coverings or masks in the 14 days before becoming ill.
The majority of them — 70.6% — reported that they “always” wore a mask, but they still got sick. Among the interview respondents who became ill, 108, or 70.6%, said they always wore a mask, compared to six, or 3.9%, who said they “never” did, and six more, or 3.9%, who said they “rarely” did.
Taken together, this shows that, of the symptomatic adults with COVID-19, 70.6% always wore a mask and still got sick, compared to 7.8% for those who rarely or never did.26
Seeing Through the Fog
An abundance of evidence suggests that locking down the healthy and mandating mask usage for those without symptoms is irrational, at best, and dangerous, at worst, considering both masks and lockdowns are associated with ill effects of their own.27 According to Tucker:28
“With solid evidence that asymptomatic spread is nonsense, we have to ask: who is making decisions and why? Again, this brings me back to the metaphor of fog. We are all experiencing confusion and uncertainty over the precise relationship between the strategies and the goals of panoply of regulations and stringencies all around us.
Even the rationale has become elusive – even refuted – as frustration and disorientation have displaced what we vaguely recall as clarity and rationality of daily life.”
Living in such a fog can be intimidating, but the purpose of this article is not to spread more fear but, rather, to empower you with information. The fog of war, after all, is not always an impediment. It can also be used to gain advantage,29 and seeing through the fog is the first step to winning the war.
In a peer-reviewed study, researchers found global data do not support lockdowns to restrict the spread of SARS-CoV-21 but, rather, suggested less restrictive interventions could reduce the growth of tested “cases.”
As I’ve written, PCR tests don’t distinguish between live viruses and noninfectious viral particles. But, the rising number of positive “cases” have been used to generate fear and control behavior.
The first country to initiate a lockdown to presumably protect public health was China, prompted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).2 Despite protests, the Chinese government used this unprecedented strategy to control the movements of their citizens.
This was only the beginning of global mandatory lockdowns and mask-wearing, business failures, growing unemployment and rising suicide rates. As data continue to demonstrate, the decision to lock down and force citizens to endure different, and potentially more dangerous, consequences has not been the right choice to protect public health.
More Evidence Lockdowns Are Dangerous and Ineffective
A peer-reviewed study by Stanford University showed lockdowns have not provided the expected benefits.3 The team set out to determine if the restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) enacted to control the spread of COVID-19 were potentially less effective than anticipated.
The Stanford team evaluated data from 10 countries4 that had used less restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (lrNPI) and compared those against other countries that implemented mandatory stay at home and business closures, or more restrictive NPIs (mrNPI).5
In nine out of the 10 countries studied, the research found data supported a reduction in the number of cases when any type of NPI was implemented. However, after analysis, they did not find a significant beneficial effect using more restrictive interventions over less restrictive strategies in any of the countries studied.
In other words, the countries that implemented lrNPI such as mask wearing and voluntary social distancing experienced little difference from those implementing mrNPI. They concluded:6
“While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs.
By comparing the effectiveness of NPIs on case growth rates in countries that implemented more restrictive measures with those that implemented less restrictive measures, the evidence points away from indicating that mrNPIs provided additional meaningful benefit above and beyond lrNPIs.”
Political scientist and author Wilfred Reilly, Ph.D., evaluated the data in early 2020 and wrote there’s no empirical evidence the lockdowns have had any effect in reducing the spread of the virus.7 He used publicly available data to compare seven states that had not adopted shelter-in-place orders against those that imposed restrictive interventions.
He found the numbers did not support lockdowns as a means of limiting the spread of the contagion. He also discovered that large, densely populated cities had a higher rate of COVID-19, without respect to the strategy they used. He wrote:8
“The original response to Covid-19 was driven by an understandable fear of an unknown disease. The epidemiologist Neil Ferguson projected that 2.2 million people could die in the US alone, and few world leaders were willing to risk being the one who would allow such grim reaping to occur.
However, as time has passed, new data have emerged. A top-quality team from Stanford University has pointed out that the infection rate for COVID-19 must logically be far higher than the official tested rate, and the fatality rate for the virus could thus be much closer to 0.1 percent than the 2 to 4 percent that was initially expected.”
Early in the pandemic, quantitative scientist John Ioannidis observed that “we are making decisions without reliable data.”9 But, as Reilly points out, these decisions have continued, despite evidence they are not effective. Over 6,000 scientists and 60,000 citizens have signed the Barrington Declaration, calling for a halt to lockdowns, citing “irreparable damage.”10
Food Insecurity and Minority-Owned Businesses Take Big Hit
How is it logical that shutting small businesses while allowing big box stores to stay open can help stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2? The only rhyme or reason to that decision is to move wealth out of the hands of small, privately held businesses into the coffers of multinational corporations.
December 9, 2020, attorney Michael P. Senger published a 30-point post on Twitter, detailing many of the individual and business consequences suffered worldwide from the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.11 The post included a Yelp report that 60% of business closures by September 2020 were now permanent, representing 97,966 businesses.12
Those that have taken the largest hit, according to an article in Forbes published in August 2020, are minority-owned businesses.13 By the end of April 2020, nearly half of all Black-owned small businesses had been eliminated.
According to the New York Fed, a nationally representative data set on small businesses showed an overall drop in active businesses of 22% from February to April 2020, the largest drop recorded. However, during that same time, the number of businesses owned by Blacks dropped by 41%, by Latinos 32%, by Asians 26% and by whites 17%.
Unemployment and small business closures have contributed to long lines at food banks across the U.S. Photos published in an April 12, 2020, article in The New York Times showed miles-long lines in multiple cities outside food pantries that “have become glaring symbols of financial precarity, showing how quickly the pandemic has devastated working people’s finances.”14
Nearly nine months later during the Christmas holiday shopping season, without sufficient evidence that restrictive lockdowns work better than social distancing, governments again initiated lockdowns for small businesses, creating yet another financial hurdle from which more individuals and businesses will have trouble recovering.15
The Harmful Psychological Effects of Lockdowns
As this short film demonstrates, lockdowns and forced shelter-in-place orders not only can be mind-numbing, but can increase the risk of depression and anxiety. A survey done by Mental Health Research Canada16 in early October 2020 found 22% of those surveyed experienced high anxiety levels, which was four times higher than before the pandemic.
In an American Psychological Association survey in August 2020, they found Gen-Zers (born from 1997 to 2015) in the U.S. have been among the hardest hit in regard to mental health.17 Young adults from 18 to 23 reported having the highest level of stress and depression, and 51% of teenagers from 13 to 17 surveyed said the pandemic is making it impossible to plan for the future.
Not surprisingly, the American Medical Association has found the drug overdose epidemic has “grown into a much more complicated and deadly” epidemic.18 In an Issue Brief updated December 9, 2020, the AMA said, “More than 40 states have reported increases in opioid-related mortality as well as ongoing concerns for those with a mental illness or substance use disorder.”19
There has been an unexpected and rising number of young people who have died during 2020.20 Despite their low risk for COVID-19 death, adults from 20 to 44 years had the largest increase in “excess” deaths. This number is defined as “the number of persons who have died from all causes, in excess of the expected number of deaths for a given place and time.”21
Excess deaths in this age group jumped by 26.5%, surpassing the number of excess deaths in older Americans who are at higher risk for a COVID-19 fatality. According to the CDC, these excess deaths were not linked to the coronavirus but, as the Daily Wire reports, it has been suggested they were “largely attributable to deaths of ‘despair,’ or deaths linked to our ‘cure’ for the disease: lockdown measures.”22
During the first four months of the pandemic, Rape Crisis Network Ireland reported rape and child sex abuse had increased sharply and the number of survivors who contacted crisis centers for counseling jumped by 98% from March through the end of June 2020, as compared to 2019.23
CNBC reports that data collected from the British group Women’s Aid revealed 61% of domestic abuse survivors reported their abuse had worsened during lockdown.24 The number of women killed by their domestic partners also doubled during the first three weeks of lockdown in the U.K.25
Suicides Happening During the Pandemic in Greater Numbers
Data from a hospital in Massachusetts showed a dramatic jump in patients who were seeking emergency care after being battered by their domestic partner in the nine weeks from March 11 to May 3, 2020, when schools had been ordered closed by the state.26,27
During those nine weeks, 26 were seen for treatment of domestic abuse injuries including strangulation, stabbing, burns and gunshot wounds, accounting for one less than the number in the same period in 2018 and 2019 combined.
In September 2020, Cook Children’s Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, admitted a record number of 37 pediatric patients who had tried to commit suicide. Dr. Kia Carter, medical director of psychiatry at Cook Children’s, told CBS:28
“September of 2020 has been the highest month ever that we’ve seen suicidal patients admitted to our medical center … Suicide has become the second leading cause of death for kids and adolescents in the last year, versus two years ago when it was the third leading cause of death.”
No Historical Precedence for Lockdowns
The sheer number of people whose lives have dramatically and irrevocably changed during the forced lockdowns with COVID-19 will affect the mental, financial and physical health of the world for years to come. However, as you’ll discover in this short video based on an extensive open letter,29 there has been no historical precedence set for a population-wide lockdown.30
The letter was addressed to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation with courtesy copies sent to the U.K. Security Service, Australian Security Intelligence Organization, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the German Foreign Intelligence Service and the U.S. Department of Justice. In it the writers call for an investigation into major policy decisions, writing:31
“In the course of our work, we have identified issues of a potentially criminal nature and believe this investigation necessary to ensure the interests of the public have been properly represented by those promoting certain pandemic policies.”
Infectious disease specialist Donald Henderson, credited with eradicating smallpox, wrote in Biosecurity and Bioterrorism in 2006 about mitigating the effects of pandemic influenza. The paper concludes:32
“Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.
Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”
The open letter also points out that as of 2019, the World Health Organization’s own guidance did not advise border closures, contact tracing or even quarantining people who were known to have been exposed under any circumstance.33
As each state in the U.S. accepted lockdowns and shuttering businesses, the governor of South Dakota stood firm that the state would remain open and practice social distancing.34
While the rest of the country is floundering financially, South Dakota’s Gov. Kristi Noem revealed in December 2020 that the state “closed the 2020 budget year in June with a $19 million surplus, and our general fund revenues are up by 19.4% right now compared to the same time last year.”35
Added to the state’s financial standing, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, as of January 19, 2021, South Dakota was the 40th state in a list of deaths and recovered cases.36 This is in line with their state ranking by population, which is No. 46.37
Now Is the Time to Fight Against Global Restructuring
TechStartups reported in September 2020 that six companies owned 90% of the news media.38 This means that 90% of the news being consumed is filtered through the lens of large corporations that are intent on protecting their financial interests.
I would caution you to fully evaluate the information being disseminated in the news and on television before accepting it as truth. There are few independent journalists whose focus is on bringing you an unbiased view of events and research, which I discussed in a revealing interview with Sheryl Attkisson in late 2020.
Some of the information you’ll find in my newsletter is not shared through the general media. In fact, it is not in the best interest of the media and those who control the news for you and your friends to have this information. To halt the repercussions of this planned event it will be necessary for you to act on accurate information.
I encourage you to share my newsletter with your friends and family so more people are informed about how they can take control of their health, including what interventions and treatments are effective and which are not.
It’s important to understand that now’s the time to fight back: to resist any and all unconstitutional edicts. Once controlling strategies are in place, it will be too late. Read more about the strategies you can use in your community in “Why Lockdowns Don’t Work and Hurt the Most Vulnerable.”
By Anna Von Reitz
By Anna Von Reitz
BitChute Link for Description, Embed Code, Full-Screen Viewing, & Sharing
I saw these a couple days ago, and now am getting to posting. These are quite aligned with messages I have received (in particular this recent Kp Message) and what I’ve been observing from others. In other words, continue to “Hold the Line”, ‘Hold the Faith”, “Hold the vision”, for the unfolding of events for the liberation of this planet (here, here, here).
I’m posting the Tweets (and links) below the full texts from each.
“I will have a new video analysis in a day or two!
“I would strongly encourage you to relax, have faith and understand that we were briefed on MANY plans where this sequence happens first. One source said “The only problem now is deciding which plan to agree on.”
“I deliberately have held off on commentary yet until I could gather extensive evidence to make an excellent case. That being said, we were given a great clue that we will have to wait about 30 days, tops, to see major action. 26 days to go, max, by this analysis.
“Regarding my previous messages, here is what we all want to avoid: “Since it didn’t happen the way I expected, on the day I expected, it must all be FAAAKE!”
“This is definitely going to happen, folks. I have no doubt. And there is exceptional brilliance in the strategy.”
I will have a new video analysis in a day or two!
I would strongly encourage you to relax, have faith and understand that we were briefed on MANY plans where this sequence happens first.
One source said "The only problem now is deciding which plan to agree on."
— David Wilcock (@david_wilcock) January 24, 2021
I deliberately have held off on commentary yet until I could gather extensive evidence to make an excellent case. That being said, we were given a great clue that we will have to wait about 30 days, tops, to see major action. 26 days to go, max, by this analysis.
— David Wilcock (@david_wilcock) January 24, 2021
Regarding my previous messages, here is what we all want to avoid:
"Since it didn't happen the way I expected, on the day I expected, it must all be FAAAKE!"
This is definitely going to happen, folks. I have no doubt. And there is exceptional brilliance in the strategy.
— David Wilcock (@david_wilcock) January 24, 2021
(Will Justice) Did you know Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate is called the Winter White House or Southern White House?