Covid-19

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease which became a pandemic around January 2020. The worlds' reaction to this disease was to rely heavily on guidelines which did not have any basis on scientific reason or study, which was confirmed true little after the start of 2020.

NGO Guidelines

NGO's like the Center for Disease Control (CDC) provided guidelines without consideration or basis on scientific or tested strategies. What was actually shown was that people's assumptions were correct.

General cloth masks did not do anything. The only really effective mask was the N95 and that faced issues as those who wore them tended to not where them properly.

More recent guidelines from the CDC : Taken from CDC site

CDC recommends that all people use core prevention strategies to protect themselves and others from COVID-19:

• Stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.
  • Although vaccinated people sometimes get infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, staying up to date on COVID-19 vaccines significantly lowers the risk of getting very sick, being hospitalized, or dying from COVID-19.
• Practice good hygiene (practices that improve cleanliness)
• Take steps for cleaner air

When you are sick:

• Use precautions to prevent spread, including staying home and away from others (including people you live with who are not sick) if you have respiratory symptoms.
  • Learn when you can go back to your normal activities.
• Seek health care promptly for testing and/or treatment if you have risk factors for severe illness. Treatment may help lower your risk of severe illness, but it needs to be started within a few days of when your symptoms begin.

Additional Prevention Strategies

In addition, there are other prevention strategies that you can choose to further protect yourself and others.

• Wearing a mask and putting distance between yourself and others can help lower the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
• Testing for COVID-19 can help you decide what to do next, like getting treatment to reduce your risk of severe illness and taking steps to lower your chances of spreading COVID-19 to others.

Safety Protocols

Guidance for the COVID-19 pandemic included many measures to be taken by people across the world. These measures were supported and also disseminated by NGOs like the CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The compulsory safety measures promoted by the NGO's and government leaders included the following:

• Compulsory mask wearing and mandates
• 6 feet (1.83 m) social distancing
• lockdowns
• no large social gatherings
• Non-essential business closures
• Online school
• Lower if not no religious gatherings.

Among other implementation taken by various countries.

NIH Acknowledgment on mishandling

The NIH study published May 30th of 2025, provides insights into the basis on which these measures were implemented.

It describes many things they are now acknowledging as being incorrect and not based on empirical evidence.

Things acknowledged in its conclusion:

• The Use of Mathematical and Computer Models for Policy Advice
• The Use of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) During Pandemics
• The Use of Pharmaceutical Interventions (PIs) During Pandemics
• The Inadvertent Suppression of Valid Scientific Perspectives as a Side Effect of Efforts to Reduce the Spread of Misinformation

On the Use of Mathematical and Computer Models for Policy Advice

The study acknowledges that mathematical and computer models were relied on heavily to implement policies. It discusses that the outputs of these models “is a consequence of the input assumptions, approximations, and data.”

The recommendation for this is “models should be used as a tool to supplement, not replace empirical analysis."

Suggesting that the “Science” was being ignored and these models which showed far worse scenarios were the basis on which they made these measures. These models “should be treated with considerable skepticism.”

On the Use of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) During Pandemics

The Authors have differing views on this subject.

“Conclusion 3: The discouragement of research into the identification of potential treatments using cheap repurposed drugs is disquieting. In particular, two of the candidates (HCQ and ivermectin) had both been widely used for decades before the pandemic and had well-established safety profiles. Therefore, even if neither candidate had any effectiveness, we find the brisk dismissal of research into their potential use disturbing. Conversely, if they were even partially effective at reducing the severity of COVID-19 infections, then the blanket suppression of their use seems even more concerning.”

Above acknowledges the reality that ivermectin among other proposed drugs had long established safety profiles for use among human populations.

"Conclusion 4: It is now apparent that the confident claims of both safety and efficacy/effectiveness made about the COVID-19 vaccines at the start of the vaccination programmes were overly optimistic. These vaccines do not completely preclude infection, or transmission. Some analyses still suggest that the vaccines might reduce the severity of infection, but the evidence for this remains contentious. Meanwhile, it is now clear that the incidence of serious adverse reactions is greater than initially acknowledged. Having reviewed the literature, in hindsight, many researchers had actually been warning of each of the above points–yet their cautions were criticized, penalized, or ignored rather than taken on board.”

Above acknowledges that the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness was drastically overplayed.

"Conclusion 5: The original justification for carrying out population-wide vaccination programs was based on the explicit assumption that vaccinating the population past the theoretical “herd immunity threshold” would substantially reduce viral transmission [16]. Based on this, many governments introduced vaccine mandates or other coercive measures to maximize the vaccine uptake rates [16, 342]. However, even though that justification was invalidated early in the vaccination programs, the programs (and mandates) continued for many countries until late 2022/early 2023. Given the fact that the characteristics of persons at risk of severe COVID-19 were well-defined, a population-wide vaccination program was unnecessary. The realization that there are non-trivial risks of serious adverse reactions associated with many of the vaccines, especially the mRNA and DNA vaccines, turned the vaccination of people at low risk of severe COVID-19 into an unnecessary public-health risk. The use of mandates and other measures to nudge people into being vaccinated also raises considerable ethical and moral problems.”

Above acknowledges that the COVID-19 vaccines were known to not provide the results that were advertised to people, they still were pushed. Not only that, but the serious side effects were also dismissed if not outright ignored.

"Conclusion 6: The autonomy of both patients and their doctors in deciding the most suitable healthcare pathways for each individual was heavily undermined by nationwide health policies that seem to have been heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Patients or doctors who expressed an interest in the use of repurposed drugs were often refused the opportunity. In contrast, patients or doctors who expressed any concern about the suitability of the available COVID-19 vaccines often faced considerable adversity or hostility. Meanwhile, patients who reported adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination experienced “medical gaslighting” and often seemed to encounter a blind spot from authorities when it came to considering the possibility it might have been associated with the vaccines [215, 218].”

Above acknowledges that the right for people to choose and make the best decisions were taken away by government health policies which might have been drastically influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Those facing adverse reactions were met with "medical gaslighting.”

Studies finding measures had no significant effects on the pandemic

Studies published by the National Institute of Health, the institute where Dr. Anthony Fauci served as the NIAID Director from 1984 to 2022, stated that "Public health interventions and non-pharmaceutical measurements were effective in decreasing the transmission of COVID-19.”. Contrary to many studies from other medical institutions which found no evidentiary effect on the measures taken.

A study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation did "not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs.”

A study also stated that the effectiveness of these measures “appear grossly exaggerated.”

Evidence showing negative effects on children and women.

The effects on children are long-lasting. Effecting child development such as speech and developmental delays due to isolation and removal from school environments are accredited as being the cause. Cognitive performance of infants born mid-2020 showed decreases in their cognitive abilities due to delays in social development.

Rates of domestic abuse and violence towards women and children increased during the pandemic due to loss of jobs and isolation.

Evidence showing Non-pharmaceutical measures were ineffective

Lockdowns

“Analysis shows that while infection levels decreased, they did so before lockdown was effective, and infection numbers also decreased in neighbour municipalities without mandates…direct spill-over to neighbour municipalities or the simultaneous mass testing do not explain this…data suggest that efficient infection surveillance and voluntary compliance make full lockdowns unnecessary.”

“Analysis was conducted to assess the impact of timing and type of national health policy/actions undertaken towards COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes…low levels of national preparedness, scale of testing and population characteristics were associated with increased national case load and overall mortality….in our analysis, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”

“Extrapolating pre-lockdown growth rate trends, we provide estimates of the death toll in the absence of any lockdown policies, and show that these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures (as opposed to police-enforced home containment) experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic.”

“Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.”

“Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19…we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less-restrictive interventions.”“After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country.”“In the framework of this analysis, there is no evidence that more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (‘lockdowns’) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain or the United States in early 2020.”

“We therefore conclude that the somewhat counterintuitive results that school closures lead to more deaths are a consequence of the addition of some interventions that suppress the first wave and failure to prioritise protection of the most vulnerable people. When the interventions are lifted, there is still a large population who are susceptible and a substantial number of people who are infected. This then leads to a second wave of infections that can result in more deaths, but later. Further lockdowns would lead to a repeating series of waves of infection unless herd immunity is achieved by vaccination, which is not considered in the model. A similar result is obtained in some of the scenarios involving general social distancing. For example, adding general social distancing to case isolation and household quarantine was also strongly associated with suppression of the infection during the intervention period, but then a second wave occurs that actually concerns a higher peak demand for ICU beds than for the equivalent scenario without general social distancing.”

“Lockdowns do not provide any meaningful benefit and they cause unnecessary collateral damage. Voluntary actions and light-handed accommodations to protect the vulnerable according to comprehensive analysis, not cherry-picked studies with overly short timelines, provide similar, if not better, virus mitigation compared to lockdown policies. Furthermore, contrary to what many keep trying to say, it is lockdowns that are the causal factor behind the unprecedented economic and social damage that has been dealt to society.”

“The Canadian COVID-19 lockdown strategy is the worst assault on the working class in many decades. Low-risk college students and young professionals are protected; such as lawyers, government employees, journalists, and scientists who can work from home; while older high-risk working-class people must work, risking their lives generating the population immunity that will eventually help protect everyone. This is backwards, leading to many unnecessary deaths from both COVID-19 and other diseases.”

Effects of School Closures

“While one would expect the financial, mental, and physical stress due to COVID-19 to result in additional child maltreatment cases, we find that the actual number of reported allegations was approximately 15,000 lower (27%) than expected for these two months. We leverage a detailed dataset of school district staffing and spending to show that the observed decline in allegations was largely driven by school closures.”

“For some children education is their only way out of poverty; for others school offers a safe haven away from a dangerous or chaotic home life. Learning loss, reduced social interaction, isolation, reduced physical activity, increased mental health problems, and potential for increased abuse, exploitation, and neglect have all been associated with school closures. Reduced future income6 and life expectancy are associated with less education. Children with special educational needs or who are already disadvantaged are at increased risk of harm.”

“School closures as part of broader social distancing measures are associated with considerable harms to CYP health and wellbeing. Available data are short-term and longer-term harms are likely to be magnified by further school closures. Data are urgently needed on longer-term impacts using strong research designs, particularly amongst vulnerable groups. These findings are important for policy-makers seeking to balance the risks of transmission through school-aged children with the harms of closing schools.”

“Based on the existing reviewed evidence, the predominant finding is that children (particularly young children) are at very low risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection, and if they do become infected, are at very low risk of spreading it among themselves or to other children in the school setting, of spreading it to their teachers, or of spreading it to other adults or to their parents, or of taking it into the home setting; children typically become infected from the home setting/clusters and adults are typically the index case; children are at very low risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 disease except in very rare circumstances; children do not drive SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 as they do seasonal influenza; an age gradient as to susceptibility and transmission capacity exists whereby older children should not be treated the same as younger children in terms of ability to transmit e.g. a 6 year-old versus a 17 year-old (as such, public health measures would be different in an elementary school versus a high/secondary school); ‘very low risk’ can also be considered ‘very rare’ (not zero risk, but negligible, very rare); we argue that masking and social distancing for young children is unsound policy and not needed and if social distancing is to be used, that 3-feet is suitable over 6-feet and will address the space limitations in schools; we argue that we are well past the point where we must replace hysteria and fear with knowledge and fact.  The schools must be immediately re-opened for in-person instruction, as there is no reason to do otherwise.”

Masks ineffectiveness

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results…the recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use.”

“Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine. Multiple, independent virus strain transmission clusters were identified…all recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors.”

“We conclude that the protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous sub-micrometer-sized aerosols.”

“Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Contradictions from Government officials

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

The Above video shows Dr. Anthony Fauci talking about alternative treatments/medications like hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Fauci states that the drug would have additional information on the drug and its effectiveness against COVID-19. What was found instead was a complete dismissal of the medical community when looking into the efficacy of HCQ from the organization he was the director of. Video owned by Yahoo Finance.