LOCKDOWNS KILL PEOPLE, NOT VIRUSES

Thanks to Dale Steinreich at LRC. 

"He listens to people both inside government--public health officials--and . . . from the academic science, medical scientists, epidemiologists . . ."

Many of the attacks against Trump's handling of the Coronavirus and lockdown are designed to distract from who has the real authority to turn the lockdowns on and off.  When folks claim that Trump isn't following the evidence or the science or the experts, that's a pretty hard one to defend because none of are reporters auditing White House meetings of C-19 Task Force personnel, like Fauci, Redfield, Atlas, and others.  We don't know specifically who Trump is reading or following.  In the clip below, however, Atlas tells us that Trump listens to experts and gets information from scientific journals.  How you can track his decision-making process beyond that is, well, beyond me.  Atlas points to Trump advocating for reopening, but where is that happening?  Why isn't it statewide or country-wide?  If herd immunity is so great, which I am in agreement with its proponents, why are we still hearing about testing and screening badges which is only the preliminary stages for vaccine passports if one ever wants to fly?  It must be a case that there are too many fingers in the pot of COVID with each one profit-seeking on the backs of a crushed economy.  

Atlas says that "Trump stated presciently that the cure cannot be worse than the problem."  

Okay, so that sounds like Trump was a sound, astute advisor to public policymakers on COVID, but was he really?  I like Atlas.  His voice on the White House COVID Task Force is a breath of fresh air against the vaccine-only narrative that Fauci is nursing.  And yet I hear Atlas parrot the same remarks regarding vaccine.  At the 4:02 mark, Atlas says

This is a national strategy the President articulated.  He says it all the time, and in the meantime, he's doing a lot of great things, like as a patient he's showed recently like Operation Warpspeed with new drug development, facilitating the record timing of a safe and effective vaccine that we anticipate very soon. 

"Stopping COVID-19 at all costs is highly destructive."  Atlas is right on this.  

Dr. Scott Atlas:
These lockdowns are a luxury of the rich. The President understands that people need to work, the working-class need their jobs, children need to go to school, it's harmful to do otherwise. || #IngrahamAngle #Covid19 pic.twitter.com/1VTOUHS2OQ

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) October 7, 2020

He continues, 

46% of the top 6 cancers went undiagnosed during the first 3 months of this lockdown.  And what that means is more than half of breast cancers, by the way.  This is just the tip of the iceberg.  It's not just that hospitals were closed, it was that fear was instilled, sort of a frenzy of fear in the American public and all over the world.  What we see is that of the 650,000 people on chemotherapy, half didn't get their chemo.  We had 2/3 of cancer screenings not get done.  Half of child immunizations weren't getting done.  And the other impacts are even more harmful.  25% of kids in the United States, 18-24, one-fourth had suicidal ideation, meaning that they thought of suicide, during the month of June.  I mean this is so destructive, not just to our children who are being harmed by the school closures but really this lockdown would be what I'd call the luxury of the rich.  This is really a class problem here, where the affluent elites don't understand--the President understands--that people need to work.  The working class needs their jobs.  Children need to go to school.  And it's very harmful to do otherwise.  

Ingraham interrupts him, saying

Working-class people are doing better in the states that did not lockdown or already reopened.  What does Biden mean by "national strategy"?  There's a complete fallacy that President Trump is not following the science.  President Trump follows the science.  He listens to people both inside government--public health officials--and he also gets information from the academic science, medical scientists, epidemiologists, from places like Harvard and Stanford and Oxford, top people in the world, and these people agree very much with his strategy--protect the vulnerable as much as we can, and open up because of the harms of that.  This is a national strategy the President articulated.  He says it all the time, and in the meantime, he's doing a lot of great things, like as a patient he's showed recently like Operation Warpspeed with new drug development, facilitating the record timing of a safe and effective vaccine that we anticipate very soon.  

NIH policy regarding COVID is to wear a mask when you cannot social distance? 

So now I have my doubts about Atlas. 

"Instead of pursuing research on treatment, the pharmaceutical industry has focused solely on vaccination"

What I liked about her presentation is that she explains what a lot of the terms thrown around in the war on COVID mean, explanations that you'll never hear from AIDS, and now COVID, pitchman, Fauci.  She explains where the highest numbers of deaths from COVID are coming from.  She explains why in the sub-Sarahan Desert there were no deaths.  She's terrific.  

I am doubling down on the videos here in this post because there's no guarantee that YouTube won't pull the one below.  The original of this video I found at LRC, by Lew Rockwell, a video that is uploaded on Bitchute.  In searching for some details on Dr. Lee D. Merritt, an orthopedist from Onawa, Iowa, I came across this article where the video below was posted.  

From the article, she writes

For decades, physicians have been taught—and have told patients—that antimicrobials do not help viral diseases. But when studying the response of COVID-19 to the antimicrobial agents chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Lee Merritt, M.D., writes, in the fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: “Like Rip Van Winkle, I suddenly awoke, after decades, to a completely new medical reality.” 

That, to me, is a very interesting find.  Turns out that there are more antimicrobials that treat viruses, and she explains how they work. 

In a quick internet search, she found more than 20 scientific papers, written in the last 40 years, on the use of lysosomotropic agents to treat viruses. These agents—which affect the cellular organelle involved in viral penetration and replication, include CQ, HCQ, and the common antibiotic azithromycin.

Several antibiotics, including doxycycline, metronidazole, and ciprofloxacin, have been shown to have activity against many viruses, she writes.

And this statement struck me as profound since she hit the nail on the head.  From a deluge of reporting on cases, deaths, spikes, surges, and so forth, it is all, and I mean all of it including the lockdown to impress upon the world what a grave force we're facing.  I contend that it is bad marketing, marketing by fear to achieve the end of increasing the percentage of vaccinated individuals a hundredfold.  This is not about COVID, which has been proven over and over that it is your standard cold virus and nothing more serious.  She writes, 

Instead of pursuing research on treatment, the pharmaceutical industry has focused solely on vaccination to respond to viral diseases, she observes. But vaccines have drawbacks. Dr. Merritt lists incomplete immunity and “immune enhancement,” which can worsen disease outcomes. 

And this was good:

"Vaccination is not a panacea. It was once the last resort to the treatment of disease. In the age of huge vaccine profit it has become the first choice for every disease,” she states.

Dr. Merritt discusses the “war against hydroxychloroquine.” Politicians and media falsely claimed that HCQ is “experimental”—it has been approved and widely used for more than 65 years—or that “off label” prescribing is illegal—it is common for many drugs.

“Never have I seen such political brawling over a legal pharmaceutical.”

And this just shocks me, leaving my jaw bouncing off the floor.  

Dr. Merritt states that the pharmaceutical truth about the treatment of viral diseases has been suppressed for 40 years by methods including censorship, regulatory capture, and control of research funding. But with COVID, she writes that physicians and patients who have awakened to the “biggest lie” are beginning to say, “Yes, Virginia, antibiotics and other antimicrobials do treat viruses.”

"THE TEST IS FINDING DEAD VIRUS REMNANTS. MOST LABS & GOV'T AGENCIES HIDE THE CYCLE THRESHOLD FROM THE PUBLIC."

We have some BIG problems with our BIG #COVID19 testing regime. pic.twitter.com/3YFJoTBCVF

— RationalGround.com (@Rational_Ground) September 29, 2020

 

Does wearing a medical/surgical mask or cloth face covering cause unsafe oxygen levels or harmful carbon dioxide levels to the wearer? OSHA says No.

Powered by embedfacebookvideo.com & paid targeted traffic

Joining Peggy Hall are Bill Van Zyverden of Vermont and John Jay Singleton of Florida.  Find Peggy's legal documents at the Healthy American's webpage 

LIABILITY

17:46  Business owners, because they think it’s private property, that they can make whatever rules they want.  I don’t understand how they believe that it’s unlimited.  Obviously, the rules you make for operating your store have to comply with the law.  Maybe they don’t get proper consultation advising them of the law. 

But really when you’re in that position, and you want to require someone to undertake a thing, that will affect his health one way or the other—a medical device, medical intervention—moreover, I mean that’s why physicians have insurance, because they have to be held accountable.  But imagine someone who cannot provide informed consent because he’s not a physician. He’s just a private property owner, a business owner, employee, so for him to recommend a medical intervention, he has to be willing to accept the liability that may happen from that.  You can’t just tell somebody to go off and do something and then not be responsible for it, especially if you’re requiring it, which you really shouldn’t be, if you’re breaking the law to require it.  It’s one of their big weaknesses; they cannot get insurance for this liability.  BTW, let me add just one more thing.  On the airlines, here’s a great example, and I forgot which one it is

If you’re a private property owner and you tell someone to engage in a medical intervention, you have to the liability for that.  What happens is they pass out or faint?  Does the property owner have the liability for that?

When you want to require someone to undertake a thing that will affect his health one way or the other, a medical device as medical intervention.  Imagine someone who cannot provide informed consent because he’s not a physician, he’s just a private property owner, business owner, an employee, for him to recommend medical intervention, he has to be willing to accept the liability that may happen from that intervention.  You can’t just tell somebody to go off and do something and then not be responsible for that.  Especially if you’re requiring, you’re breaking the law to require it.  They cannot get insurance for this.  On the airlines, and this is a great example of this.  I think it’s section 205 of title XIV of the CFR, and what it says is the airlines have to provide a certification to the department of transportation, that they have sufficient insurance to carry on their business, and, of course, they have to provide for the safety of the passengers and whomever else, but that pertains to aviation; it doesn’t pertain to medical care.  So they can never meet the certification requirements to engage now in the medical testing and everything else they want to do with the medical aspect of it.  They have to certify their medical insurance.  19:20. 

Some managers and store owners will say in defense of the mask, that if someone in their store catches this disease that the store will be liable.  [John is shaking his head.]  

20:20  California actually has a law for you to be able to sue someone if they give you a communicable disease.  The law came out as a backlash during the AIDS era, and it was designed to create some level of scrutiny for a plaintiff to come forward and say, "Well, my ex-boyfriend gave me AIDS."  And the courts and the plaintiff would have to be able to prove that that was the case.  And here's the issue:  one, you have to know that you have this disease, and how would anyone know they have COVID without any standards for identifying it?  Two, you have to willfully seek to transmit it to another person.  Didn't realize that people can develop dental and skin problems from wearing a mask.  Where does this fit in with an employee who is required to wear a mask?  Excellent question.  

22:30  The store owner's liability.  It's important that we help the store.  

The central issue with regard to masks is twofold: one, people should be able to shop for food freely, mask-free and free of harassment from both store owners and their customers.  Two, free people have the right to work freely, unemcumbered by masks.  Peggy Hall has provided you, me, and everyone else with documents and webpages to press the case on your behalf to secure these rights without reprisal.  In this vain, she has posted some legal remedies.  For work, your remedy is to contact the OSHA branch in your state and file a workplace safety complaint.  She advises you to include the following items in a complaint to OSHA: 

WEARING A MASK VIOLATES THE “GENERAL RULE” and CREATES A WORKPLACE SAFETY HAZARD for these reasons:

1.   Masks obstruct your breathing, possibly bringing it below the OSHA-established levels of oxygen in the atmosphere of 19.5% — thus increasing risk of “IDLH” — Immediate Danger to Life and Health

2.   Masks obscure your vision, increasing the hazard of workplace injuries because of impaired vision.

3.   Masks obscure your verbal communication, increasing the hazard of workplace injuries. Someone might yell, “Danger” but you could not hear it because of the muffles voice under the mask.

4.   Cloth masks increase risk of FIRE HAZARD, with your face going up in flames.

5.   Face Shields increase glare, which can increase risk of vision problems.

6. There is no statutory law or regulation that requires wearing a mask, face covering or face shield, aside from other PPE that might be required in certain industries.

If you are INTIMIDATED or HARASSED by your employer, you can seek legal help with an employment attorney in your own state.  

In California, Larry H. Parker law offices will offer a free consultation and if they take your case, you only pay if there is a settlement. 562-427-2044

This is the part that makes me feel helpless, because what's going to happen is that you're going to get released.  No employer is going to stop their operations solely on your behalf.  None.  

Here OSHA answers the question, at least from a legal standpoint, whether surgical masks lower oxygen.  Their website states: 

Does wearing a medical/surgical mask or cloth face covering cause unsafe oxygen levels or harmful carbon dioxide levels to the wearer?

No. Medical masks, including surgical masks, are routinely worn by healthcare workers throughout the day as part of their personal protective equipment (PPE) ensembles and do not compromise their oxygen levels or cause carbon dioxide buildup. They are designed to be breathed through and can protect against respiratory droplets, which are typically much larger than tiny carbon dioxide particles. Consequently, most carbon dioxide particles will either go through the mask or escape along the mask's loose-fitting perimeter. Some carbon dioxide might collect between the mask and the wearer's face, but not at unsafe levels.

Like medical masks, cloth face coverings are loose-fitting with no seal and are designed to be breathed through. In addition, workers may easily remove their medical masks or cloth face coverings periodically (and when not in close proximity with others) to eliminate any negligible build-up of carbon dioxide that might occur. Cloth face coverings and medical masks can help prevent the spread of potentially infectious respiratory droplets from the wearer to their co-workers, including when the wearer has COVID-19 and does not know it.

Some people have mistakenly claimed that OSHA standards (e.g., the Respiratory Protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.134; the Permit-Required Confined Space standard 29 CFR 1910.146; and the Air Contaminants standard, 29 CFR 1910.1000) apply to the issue of oxygen or carbon dioxide levels resulting from the use of medical masks or cloth face coverings in work settings with normal ambient air (e.g. healthcare settings, offices, retail settings, construction). These standards do not apply to the wearing of medical masks or cloth face coverings in work settings with normal ambient air). These standards would only apply to work settings where there are known or suspected sources of chemicals (e.g., manufacturing facilities) or workers are required to enter a potentially dangerous location (e.g., a large tank or vessel). 

Is this a case closed type of judgment?  I don't think that OSHA is going to concede that surgical masks cause brain damage or dental damage or social isolation.  

this is interesting that OSHA addresses retaliation.  

RETALIATION

What can I do if my employer fires me or takes other action against me for raising workplace safety and health concerns related to COVID-19?

Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC 660(c)) prohibits employers from retaliating against workers for exercising a variety of rights guaranteed under the law, such as filing a safety or health complaint with OSHA, raising a health and safety concern with their employers, participating in an OSHA inspection, or reporting a work-related injury or illness. Additionally, OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program enforces the provisions of more than 20 industry-specific federal laws protecting employees from retaliation for raising or reporting concerns about hazards or violations of various airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, food safety, health insurance reform, motor vehicle safety, nuclear, pipeline, public transportation agency, railroad, maritime, securities, and tax laws.

If you believe you have suffered such retaliation, submit a complaint to OSHA as soon as possible in order to ensure that you file the complaint within the legal time limits, some of which may be as short as 30 days from the date you learned of or experienced retaliation. An employee can file a complaint with OSHA by visiting or calling his or her local OSHA office; sending a written complaint via fax, mail, or email to the closest OSHA office; or filing a complaint online. No particular form is required and complaints may be submitted in any language.

Visit OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program website for more information.

"The blue typical mask depicted in the photograph contains Teflon and other chemicals" and "are 'sterilized' with Ethylene Oxide—a known carcinogen."

"The body excretes waste in three ways: liquid, solid, and gas. Mask-wearing forces us to re-inhale the gaseous waste which includes carbon dioxide and ethanol."  --Robert Wenzel

By Becky Akers

Yep, not only do they inflict maskne [mask-causing acne] and headaches, but masks also upload carcinogens into your lungs, according to Guy Crittenden, a former editor of HazMat Management. He posted this information on Facebook; thanks to David Mueller for sending it my way.

I happen to know a thing or two about masks and safety.  Why? Because for 25 years I was the editor of an award-winning trade magazine called HazMat Management that covered such topics as pollution prevention and compliance with health & safety laws. We routinely published articles on masks, gloves, respirators, and other forms of personal protective equipment (PPE). Now let me tell you a few things about that mask you’re wearing. And please note that what I’m about to share was also stated in the most recent edition of Del Bigtree’s program The Highwire when two OSHA mask experts spoke to the fact that the kinds of masks people are wearing were never (never!) designed to be worn for long periods and doing so is very harmful.

The blue typical mask depicted in the photograph contains Teflon and other chemicals.  A Facebook friend reminds us [that, one] Masks are “sterilized” with Ethylene Oxide—a known carcinogen. Many teachers in various school boards have been experiencing significant symptoms as a direct result of the effects of this chemical.  [Two], the masks contain (not sprayed with) PTFE which makes up Teflon along with other chemicals.  

Wikipedia explains that 

PTFE is a fluorocarbon:  PTFE is a fluorocarbon solid, as it is a high molecular weight compound consisting wholly of carbon and fluorine . . . used as a non-stick coating for pans.

I found and have posted the US patent to allow manufacturers to use PTFE as a filter in commercial masks… “breathing these for extended periods can lead to lung cancer.”

Don’t agree? Argue with the experts at OSHA, which is the main US agency, i.e., its Occupational Health & Safety Agency. These masks are meant to be worn only for short periods, like say if you’re sanding a table for an hour and don’t want to inhale sawdust. They don’t do anything whatsoever to stop the spread of any virus, and the emerging science of virology now understands that viruses aren’t even passed [from] person to person. I know that sounds incredible, but it’s the case that the virus is in the air, you breathe it in, there’s no way to prevent that short of living in an oxygen tent, and if you have a strong immune system you’ll be fine, and if you have a weak immune system you may have to deal with the effects of your immune system working to restore balance within your metabolism.

So let’s say you don’t wear the blue packaged masks, and instead wear a homemade cloth mask—the kind people wear over and over and hang on their rearview mirror and so on. Those masks are completely useless against a virus and are also very dangerous. OSHA would never condone a person wearing a mask of this kind for anything more than the shortest time.  Re-breathing your own viral debris is dangerous to health, and the oxygen deprivation children suffer wearing such masks all day will certainly cause brain damage.  I’m not making this up.  Again, you might say, well, Guy, you’re not a doctor. True, but I did edit that magazine for 25 years. That’s a long time and many articles on masks and PPE. I’ve attended numerous OH&S conferences and listened to experts discussing these matters.

You may hear people saying that surgeons and nurses wear masks like this all day. Um, no. No, they don’t. They’re trained in the proper use of masks, which is to wear them in the OR, then dispose of the mask when they leave that room. Are you aware that operating rooms are actually supplied extra oxygen, to compensate for the reduction in oxygen flow from mask-wearing? To my mind, it’s criminal (not hyperbole) to force children to wear masks all day. Setting aside the very real psychological effects, we’re going to have a generation of brain-damaged children. Ever heard the expression, “Not enough oxygen at birth?” That’s a joke at the expense of a mentally challenged person, but that’s literally what we’re doing. And we’re told it’s to “keep us safe”! We’re told this by doctors who actually don’t know about PPE and laypeople who have no clue.

So, you can choose to believe me or not, but I was the editor for a quarter-century of a magazine that had a strong occupational health and safety mandate, and I can tell you that the mask-wearing currently mandated by governments and private businesses offers no health benefit whatsoever, in no way protects you or anyone else from any virus, and actually, does you damage beyond wearing it for a few minutes. Got that?  Good. Now please share this message and get the conversation going with parents, who must end this masking of children immediately. This is a very serious matter. And related to that, let me just state this doesn’t end for me when the lockdown ends or the masking ends. No, this ends for me when every politician and bureaucrat who inflicted this travesty, this crime against humanity, on the population of Canada (and other affected countries) is in the dock and faces their misdeeds in a court of law.

 

And as for those of you who have put masks on young children, I will have a long memory on that score. A very long memory.

 

END NOTE: The CDC and WHO have acknowledged that asymptomatic people do not spread the virus, so the case for masks for such people is moot in the first place.

Robert Wenzel at TargetLiberty explains

I have been consistently pointing out that there is no significant study regarding what long-term mask-wearing does to the brain or other parts of the body. It is typical of these blunt instrument orders from government that they don't consider all the ramifications of the orders they issue.

My attempts to get answers from the San Francisco mayor, the president of Macy's and OSHA regarding the health ramifications of mask-wearing for prolonged periods have gone unanswered.

This is what I do know. The body excretes waste in three ways liquid, solid, and gas. Mask-wearing forces us to re-inhale the gaseous waste which includes carbon dioxide and ethanol.

You have to be a buffoon to claim that there is no harm from re-inhaling such waste when there are no scientific studies to back up the assertion and there are hints that it is a serious problem for long-term mask wearers---aside from the chemical in the masks themselves that are inhaled as identified by Crittenden.

The deaths of despair (w/ Dr. Benjamin F. Miller, Well Being Trust)

"states with short or no lockdowns performed far better than those with harsh rules IRRESPECTIVE OF THE COURSE OF THE VIRUS"

Sorry, wrong.

The state-by-state evidence from the United States (which as a single country is going to have far fewer confounders) shows that states with short or no lockdowns performed far better than those with harsh rules IRRESPECTIVE OF THE COURSE OF THE VIRUS... https://t.co/UbVTSRI7Jp

— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) October 16, 2020

Danny Roddy & Georgi Dinkov in Q & A Session

You might enjoy this Q & A session with Danny Roddy and Georgi Dinkov, whom I'd never heard of before. Dinkov is extremely knowledgeable. I liked it.  I liked a few topics he discussed.  One was pyruvate for cancer.  A woman took only Pyruvate to cure her Stage 4 cancer.  I guess judgment on it is still out.  

 

I liked how QuaxPodcast introduces him, 

Georgi Dinkov is a computer scientist with a passion for biochemistry and the ideas of Ray Peat.  He has read thousands of studies and opened his own successful online supplement store.  No one knows biochemistry and metabolism quite like Georgi.  We celebrate our 50th episode with an extra-long, nutrition-packed interview for your pleasure.  

In this episode, he shares results from studies that he himself has funded in defiance of the established medical research field.  

He talks about cancer, the breakdown of trust in science, dental health, Michael Phelps, Methylene Blue, Testosterone, and more.  

Interesting to learn that he has his own supplement store.  

I'd never heard of Methylene Blue before.  So what exactly is it, and what are its benefits?  First, it's a dye.  It's first use as a therapeutic was to treat malaria.  The benefits are provided by News-Medical.net, 

Methylene blue is an electron carrier, which allows it to function against malaria and methemoglobinemia and is highly beneficial in cytotoxic situations in the brain as it encourages cellular oxygen consumption and decreases anaerobic glycolysis. 

In effect, it's protective against stroke.  I like it.   

"THEY'VE DECLARED AN EMERGENCY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAD NO REASON TO"

 What an insidious hoax.  Peggy Hall illuminates the crimes of the states,

So they may be misrepresenting the science.  They may be misrepresenting the numbers, and they certainly are misrepresenting in California the fact that, because it's very well-defined in California, an emergency can only be declared when the threat of the event potentially overwhelms the resources available--the personnel, and then the infrastructure.  The fact that the hospitals are shutting down, the fact that healthcare workers are being laid off, okay, that's not my opinion.  And if I were to go into a court of law, I would say, okay, here's the evidence.  These hospitals have closed.  These healthcare workers have been laid off.  We have stockpiles of gowns and PPE, Personal Protective Equipment.  That was another element that the governors highlighted to say, "Here's evidence for an emergency that we don't have the resources."  

 

Peggy Hall of The Healthy American interviews Ohio lawyer, Thomas Renz, who is bringing a lawsuit against Ohio's Republican Governor, Mike DeWine.  Here is a PDF of the suit, filed on behalf of a citizens group, called Ohio Stands Up!  

About Thomas Renz, this was posted at the site, Make Americans Free Again, 

Mr. Renz’s experience with the law began with his mentor, Nuremburg Prosecutor and celebrated international lawyer and scholar, Henry T. King, Jr.

A shortlist of other accomplishments include: being the only American to ever serve as clerk for the Honorable Justice Tarun Chatterjee of the Supreme Court of India, winning the national Trailblazer Award for Political Action, assisting in advocating for numerous state and national legislative and regulatory reforms, and many more. – From Renz Law

Peggy's interview reviews the successes that Tom Renz has had in suing Ohio's governor, Mike DeWine over extrajudicial measures presumed in the lockdown.  I will transcribe a few details of the interview below.  

9:54  1300 public health officials who signed letters that said racism is a greater public health risk than COVID. 

Can’t use a health emergency to suspend the constitution. 

10:37 An emergency doesn’t expand constitutional rights, nor does it decrease them.  The rights remain the same. 

This case is about ensuring that we have those rights. 

12:15  “Discovery” is a critical part of this case. 

12:25  We’re going to ask for the data, the real data, not your translation of the data but the real data, and we’re going to try and make it as public as possible.  With that, the next guy can file this case, then the next guy and the next guy . . . .  once we get done, you can find out whether or not if we did it right.  If we win it, we did it right, great.  If we made a mistake, you can find out where.  But you know what, all the data and effort that we put in won’t be for naught.  The data is there, so even if I am not the greatest attorney in the world and I blow it somewhere, the next guy can pick up where we left and we left a heck of a foundation for them.  

Peggy identifies the first federal lawsuit against health orders in San Diego.  The law firm is Arete Law, and the lawyer is Philip Mauriello, Jr.  KUSI News reported that

A San Diego law firm has filed a federal lawsuit against Dr. Wilma Wooten over her face covering mandate.

Arete Law A.P.C. filed the lawsuit against San Diego County Public Health Officer Dr. Wilma Wooten, Nick Macchione, and Helen Robbins-Meyer, alleging that the requirement to wear a facial covering when in public violates both U.S and California Constitutional rights. 

15:20  All of our data came from the CDC and the ODH, or Ohio Dept. of Health.  We didn't make any of it up.  We posed a very valid question.  If we're right, and we think we are, people's rights are being very much abridged.  The process is set by the courts and the attorneys.  The judge did indicate that he's interested in seeing this done.  That's a good thing.  He seems interested in seeing justice served.  We have an opportunity to do it and it will set a precedent that can be used in other cases.  Tom adds that at the heart of the suit is the question, "When can you declare an emergency?"  He points out that "They've declared an emergency despite the fact that they had no reason to."  

17:47  It's very clear to anyone in Emergency Management, whether you are an Emergency Room doctor or nurse, whether you have worked for the fire department, the police department, it's called EMT.  There are Emergency Management courses you can take.  I learned that there's a pre-emergency phase.  In California, we're prone to earthquakes, there's Earthquake Management, Emergency Management, and all of that.  You can actually become part of an Emergency Management Response Team in your city or county, and you go through training, and they tell you how to prepare for that earthquake, that flood, that disease, that outbreak.  Then you've got the actual emergency.  When the emergency hits, you go through all of your preassigned structures and roles, and so forth.  Then there's something called the Recovery Phase.  You're no longer in the emergency phase: the earthquake is over, the floodwaters have subsided, the fires have stopped burning, the chemical spill has been cleaned up.  It's called Recovery.  And then you have something called Mitigation.  Mitigation is where you look to see what went well, how we can improve on, and how we can plan next time.  Any 3rd Grader can tell you we are in the Recovery and Mitigation phases because there is no emergency.  The reason why they're declaring the emergency is because it is fraud.  It is fraud to get money . . . or to have gained when you've misrepresented the information.  So they may be misrepresenting the science.  They may be misrepresenting the numbers, and they certainly are misrepresenting in California the fact that, because it's very well-defined in California, an emergency can only be declared when the threat of the event potentially overwhelms the resources available--the personnel, and then the infrastructure.  The fact that the hospitals are shutting down, the fact that healthcare workers are being laid off, okay, that's not my opinion.  And if I were to go into a court of law, I would say, okay, here's the evidence.  These hospitals have closed.  These healthcare workers have been laid off.  We have stockpiles of gowns and PPE, Personal Protective Equipment.  That was another element that the governors highlighted to say, "Here's evidence for an emergency that we don't have the resources."  We have abundant resources.  Therefore, as I say, a third-grader could tell us there's no emergency.  The governors themselves have said there's no emergency.  Why?  Because they all have their reopening guidelines.  In California, they call it "Roadmap to Resiliency."  The governor's own words are a de facto declaration of an end to the emergency.  However, the counties and the cities--the state has kicked the can down the road.  In California, the governor has realized that we-the-people are onto him, so he's reissued press releases because they're not official orders, press releases that say, "Oh, we would like it if you would comply.  We hope that you'll be a good citizen and do this."  These are not orders.  So now the counties have issued health orders in terms of distancing and quarantine and all of that, but they also have very loose parameters.  Then the cities have issued emergency ordinances that at least in California are completely unlawful because they violate the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, and then the can gets kicked down the road all the way to the store and the businesses who've now become, as the phrase goes, the strong arm of the law.  The strong arm of the law means they have no legal authority or law enforcement authority to require you to do these [mitigation] measures but they are so oppressive and so belligerent in their outlooks and attitudes, they're so militant, they're so blatantly breaking the law.  So I want to talk about this structure, so we get rid of the governor's emergency, what is that going to look like down the line, what other remedies can we take, and then you and I can talk about our plan for the corporate approach.  

23:05  The governors know they're breaking the law.  They know it's unconstitutional.  They know it's nonsense.  So they're trying to distribute what they're doing.  They're trying to make it a multi-headed animal that no matter where you go you're getting nipped at.  One of the things that we challenge in our suit is the declaration of the emergency and the science itself.  If it's not justified at the state level, it's certainly not going to be justified at any other level.  How do you declare there's an emergency when there's no science or data to back it?  And if the CDC doesn't back it, and arguably the states don't back it, what do you have in the city that allows you to do that?  

"CANCER SCREENING SERVICES HAVE STOPPED, WHICH MEANS WE WILL MISS OUR CHANCE TO CATCH MANY CANCERS WHEN THEY ARE TREATABLE"

from the Tom Woods Show

The number of deaths due to disruption of services is likely to outweigh the number of deaths due to COVID because of the diversion of resources into COVID, says Richard Sullivan of Kings College, London.  The cessation and delay of cancer care will cause considerable avoidable suffering.  Cancer screening services have stopped, which means we will miss our chance to catch many cancers when they are treatable and curable, such as cervical, bowel, and breast.  When we do restart normal service delivery after the lockdown has lifted the backlog of cases will be a huge challenge to the healthcare system.  

We read, October 6, in the Daily Mail coming out of the UK, "Health Secretary, Matt Hancock says, "Cancer patients may only be guaranteed treatment if COVID-19 stays under control."  

Almost 2.5 million people missed out on cancer screenings, referrals, or treatment at the height of lockdown even though the NHS was never overwhelmed."  They have the honesty in the UK to say that.  Experts now fear the number of people dying as a result of the delays triggered by the treatment of Coronavirus patients could end up being responsible for as many deaths as the pandemic itself."  Now we won't see that kind of effect right away.  But it does mean that people who might have lived 15 to 20 years may live just another 3 or 4.  

United Nations reported in April 2020, saying that "Economic hardships generated by the radical interruptions of commerce could result in hundreds of thousands additional child deaths in 2020."  UNICEF later increased that number to 1.2 million child deaths.  At Oxford University, Professor Sunetra Gupta has reminded us several times of the UN's predictions, that as many as 130 million people could be at risk of starvation because of the lockdown because of the possibility of famine in several dozen places around the globe.  

Now, who are the ones who don't care about human life? 

And that's not all.  In Oakland, California we have Benjamin Miller of the Well Being Trust, as co-author on a study of death and despair, that's drug abuse or alcohol abuse or suicide, that an excess of 75,000 deaths would occur, that is above what would normally occur.

The CDC itself estimates that in the United States alone there will be 93,000 excess, non-COVID deaths this year because of what's going on, including over 42,000 from cardiovascular conditions, over 10,000 from diabetes, and 3,600 from cancer.  

A recent UK study found that the risk of death because of C-19 lockdowns increased 53% among seniors with dementia and another 123% among seniors with severe mental illness.  

For four decades, Indian Nobel Peace Laureate, Kailash Satyarthi rescued thousands of children from slavery and human trafficking and he fears that that's going to be reversed.   

For options on treating cancer, start here.