DISARMING THE PCR TEST: THE UNFAIR ISOLATION OF HEALTHY PEOPLE

3 min video providing an easy explanation of how the PCR test works and how so many people were unfairly isolated as a result of false positive tests. The PCR test does not diagnose infectiousness. False positive results inflate the number of cases and deaths related to covid-19 as a result of misattribution.

Lockdowns, social distancing, school and business closures, universal mask wearing, use of face shields and plastic barriers, travel restrictions, the use of PCR tests to diagnose infection, the choice of treatments and the safety and effectiveness of the COVID jabs — all of these countermeasures were based on a combination of lies, fraud and/or willful ignorance
Universal lockdowns have never before been used as a pandemic prevention measure, and for good reason. It doesn’t work. To prevent spread of infection, you isolate those who are actually sick. Healthy people cannot spread infection, so there’s no reason to isolate them
An August 2020 analysis of COVID-19 surveillance data from the top 50 countries in terms of reported cases also concluded that border closures, lockdowns and wide-spread testing had no impact on COVID-19 mortality per million people. Another paper published in 2021 found lockdowns were actually associated with increases in excess mortality
The absence of evidence to support mask wearing for infection control was confirmed from the very beginning by the same agencies and organizations that ended up recommending and/or mandating universal mask wearing
To avoid making the same mistakes in future pandemics, medical crises must not be managed by means of emergency powers. Emergency powers should be used only in case of war

Lockdowns Flattened Economies
As reported by Pandemics Data & Analysis (PANDA)2 — a multidisciplinary initiative that seeks to inform policy — universal lockdowns have never before been used as a pandemic prevention measure, and for good reason. It doesn't work. To prevent spread of infection, you isolate those who are actually sick. That's how it has always been done.

Healthy people cannot spread infection, so there's no reason to isolate them. This is about as common sense as things get, yet the World Health Organization opted to take a page from China, which locked down Wuhan as the infection began to spread.

Lockdowns were, however, a central feature in the Rockefeller Foundation's "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development" report,3 published in May 2010, in which they lay out an international "Lockstep" scenario that details their proposed response to a lethal pandemic.

"After many months of sustained lockdowns throughout the world, we now have empirical evidence demonstrating that they are not only ineffective, but cause greater harm than they seek to prevent and increase mortality. Applying a cure that is worse than the diseases is perhaps the worst manifestation of the mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic," PANDA reports.4

As one would expect, shutting down businesses for extended periods of time leads to businesses going under for impaired cash flow from lack of revenue. There was never any rhyme or reason for shutting down small businesses while keeping large box stores open, other than to shift wealth away from small, private business owners to multinational corporations.

By September 2020,5 163,735 U.S. businesses had closed their doors, and of those, 60% — a total of 97,966 businesses — were permanent closures.6 As noted by attorney Michael P. Senger,7 "That 'leaders' across the world transformed into tyrants, believing they had a right to bankrupt their subjects, is the core evil of lockdown."

Indeed, far from being the great equalizer, COVID-19 has been the greatest wealth transfer scheme in the history of the world. Indeed, you may as well call it what it is: grand-scale asset theft from the poor and middle class.

Lockdowns Had No Effect on Infection Rates or Mortality
Meanwhile, study after study8,9,10 has confirmed that lockdowns had no beneficial impact on infection rates and COVID mortality. Among them, a study from Northern Jutland, which concluded that:11

"… while infection levels decreased, they did so before lockdown was effective, and infection numbers also decreased in neighbor municipalities without mandates. Direct spill-over to neighbor municipalities or the simultaneous mass testing do not explain this.

Instead, control of infection pockets possibly together with voluntary social behavior was apparently effective before the mandate, explaining why the infection decline occurred before and in both the mandated and non-mandated areas."

An August 2020 analysis12 of COVID-19 surveillance data from the top 50 countries in terms of reported cases also concluded that border closures, lockdowns and wide-spread testing had no impact on COVID-19 mortality per million people. Another paper13 published in 2021 found lockdowns were actually associated with increases in excess mortality.

A 2022 literature review and meta-analysis14 of the effects of lockdowns also concluded that "lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality." They have, however, "imposed enormous economic and social costs." As noted by the authors of this review, "lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."