CDC Report: Mask Mandates 98 to 99.5 Percent Ineffective

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report Friday in which it quietly admitted that the mask mandates in America were allegedly responsible for less than a 2 percent decrease in COVID case growth after ONE HUNDRED DAYS. But still the CDC advises wearing masks, despite their own numbers. (READ: CDC Caught Inflating COVID Death Numbers By At Least 1600 Percent While Trump Was President).

The CDC claims that between March 1 and December 31 of 2020 the mask mandates, which were executed in the vast majority of United States counties, stopped COVID case growth rates by one half of one percent after 20 days and by less than 2 percent after 100 days.

NATIONAL FILE REPORTED:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands accused of violating federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers, according to stunning information obtained by NATIONAL FILE.

CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential election played out, according to a study published by the Public Health Initiative of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge. The study, “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective,” was authored by Henry Ealy, Michael McEvoy, Daniel Chong, John Nowicki , Monica Sava, Sandeep Gupta, David White, James Jordan , Daniel Simon, and Paul Anderson. (READ THE LANDMARK RESEARCH HERE)

The CDC is now legally requiring red-blooded Americans to wear face masks on all public transportation as globalists try to push the concept of “double-masking” on the populace. Since the election, the World Health Organization admits that PCR tests are not totally reliable on the first try and a second test might be needed. This corresponds with CDC’s quiet admission that it blended viral and antibody test results for its case numbers and that people can test positive on an antibody test if they have antibodies from a family of viruses that cause the common cold. Hospitals in Florida had so many accuracy complications that Orlando Health had to admit that its 9.4 percent positivity rate got recorded at 98 percent. (READ: The TRUTH About Fauci and Gates And NIH Owning A Stake in the Vaccine).

“The groundbreaking peer-reviewed research…asserts that the CDC willfully violated multiple federal laws including the Information Quality Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Administrative Procedures Act at minimum. (Publishing Journal – Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge / Public Health Policy Initiative) Most notably, the CDC illegally enacted new rules for data collection and reporting exclusively for COVID-19 that resulted in a 1,600% inflation of current COVID-19 fatality totals,” the watchdog group All Concerned Citizens declared in a statement provided to NATIONAL FILE, referring to the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge study.

“The research demonstrates that the CDC failed to apply for mandatory federal oversight and failed to open a mandatory period for public scientific comment in both instances as is required by federal law before enacting new rules for data collection and reporting. The CDC is required to be in full compliance with all federal laws even during emergency situations. The research asserts that CDC willfully compromised the accuracy and integrity of all COVID-19 case and fatality data from the onset of this crisis in order to fraudulently inflate case and fatality data,” stated All Concerned Citizens.

“On March 24th the CDC published the NVSS COVID-19 Alert No. 2 document instructing medical examiners, coroners and physicians to deemphasize underlying causes of death, also referred to as pre-existing conditions or comorbidities, by recording them in Part II rather than Part I of death certificates as “…the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause of death more often than not.” This was a major rule change for death certificate reporting from the CDC’s 2003 Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting and Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death, which have instructed death reporting professionals nationwide to report underlying conditions in Part I for the previous 17 years. This single change resulted in a significant inflation of COVID-19 fatalities by instructing that COVID-19 be listed in Part I of death certificates as a definitive cause of death regardless of confirmatory evidence, rather than listed in Part II as a contributor to death in the presence of pre-existing conditions, as would have been done using the 2003 guidelines. The research draws attention to this key distinction as it has led to a significant inflation in COVID fatality totals. By the researcher’s estimates, COVID-19 recorded fatalities are inflated nationwide by as much as 1600% above what they would be had the CDC used the 2003 handbooks,” stated All Concerned Citizens.

“Then on April 14th, the CDC adopted additional rules exclusive for COVID-19 in violation of federal law by outsourcing data collection rule development to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), a non-profit entity, again without applying for oversight and opening opportunity for public scientific review. On April 5th the CSTE published a position paper Standardized surveillance case definition and national notification for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) listing 5 CDC employees as subject matter experts. This key document created new rules for counting probable cases as actual cases without definitive proof of infection (section VII.A1 – pages 4 & 5), new rules for contact tracing allowing contact tracers to practice medicine without a license (section VII.A3 – page 5), and yet refused to define new rules for ensuring that the same person could not be counted multiple times as a new case (section VII.B – page 7),” stated All Concerned Citizens.

“By enacting these new rules exclusively for COVID-19 in violation of federal law, the research alleges that the CDC significantly inflated data that has been used by elected officials and public health officials, in conjunction with unproven projection models from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), to justify extended closures for schools, places of worship, entertainment, and small businesses leading to unprecedented emotional and economic hardships nationwide. A formal petition has been sent to the Department of Justice as well as all US Attorneys seeking an immediate grand jury investigation into these allegations,” All Concerned Citizens stated.

So…do you still trust the globalist oligarchs?

NATIONAL FILE reported: National Institutes of Health (NIH) own a financial stake in the Bill Gates-funded Moderna Coronavirus vaccine, raising big questions about the supposed impartiality of the federal government’s policy decisions during the Coronavirus outbreak. NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci, a financial ally of Bill Gates whose institute is part of NIH, has been critical of Hydroxychloroquine and the FBI even raided a health spa serving intravenous vitamin C, which are competitors to a vaccine. (RELATED: Eight NIH Coronavirus Panel Experts Disclose Financial Relationships With Price-Hiking Drugmaker Gilead).

“We do have some particular stake in the intellectual property” for the Moderna vaccine stated Francis Collins, the director of NIH, in a revelatory recent Economic Club panel discussion. “One of the vaccines– the one that’s furthest along– what started, actually, at the federal government in our own Vaccine Research Center at NIH– then worked with a biotechnology company called Moderna to get to where we are now, with very impressive Phase I results and getting ready to go into a large-scale trial as early as July. That one, of course, we do have some particular stake in the intellectual property. Others, though, come from companies who’ve invested their efforts into getting them to the point where they might now be ready for a trial,” Collins stated.

Newly published documents from Public Citizen have massive implications. Public Citizen states:

“The U.S. government may jointly own a potential coronavirus vaccine. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has played a critical role in coronavirus research for years. Building off this work, federal scientists have helped design and test mRNA-1273—a vaccine candidate developed in partnership with Moderna.[2] The federal government has filed multiple patents covering mRNA-1273. In this report, we describe two patent applications that list federal scientists as co-inventors.[3] If the government successfully pursued its patent filings, the resulting patents would likely confer significant rights. We also review recently disclosed contracts between NIH and Moderna. The agreements suggest that NIH has not transferred its rights, but instead maintains a joint stake.”

Continue Reading at The National File…

Study: The Association between Vitamin D Status and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

The association between vitamin D status and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is well-investigated but remains to be elucidated. We quantitatively combined relevant studies to estimate whether vitamin D status was related to ASD in this work. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to include eligible studies. A random-effects model was applied to pool overall estimates of vitamin D concentration or odds ratio (OR) for ASD. In total, 34 publications involving 20,580 participants were identified in this present study. Meta-analysis of 24 case-control studies demonstrated that children and adolescents with ASD had significantly lower vitamin D concentration than that of the control group (mean difference (MD): -7.46 ng/mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): -10.26; -4.66 ng/mL, p < 0.0001, I2 = 98%). Quantitative integration of 10 case-control studies reporting OR revealed that lower vitamin D was associated with higher risk of ASD (OR: 5.23, 95% CI: 3.13; 8.73, p < 0.0001, I2 = 78.2%). Analysis of 15 case-control studies barring data from previous meta-analysis reached a similar result with that of the meta-analysis of 24 case-control studies (MD: -6.2, 95% CI: -9.62; -2.78, p = 0.0004, I2 = 96.8%), which confirmed the association. Furthermore, meta-analysis of maternal and neonatal vitamin D showed a trend of decreased early-life vitamin D concentration in the ASD group (MD: -3.15, 95% CI: -6.57; 0.26, p = 0.07, I2 = 99%). Meta-analysis of prospective studies suggested that children with reduced maternal or neonatal vitamin D had 54% higher likelihood of developing ASD (OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.12; 2.10, p = 0.0071, I2 = 81.2%). These analyses indicated that vitamin D status was related to the risk of ASD. The detection and appropriate intervention of vitamin D deficiency in ASD patients and pregnant and lactating women have clinical and public significance.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33383952/

New Study Finds that When we Witness Kindness, We’re Inspired to be Kind Ourselves

When we see someone being kind or generous, it gives us a warm feeling inside. Researchers call this “moral elevation,” and it not only feels good but inspires us to want to do good ourselves.

But how much does witnessing good affect us—and why? A new analysis of decades of research aimed to find the answers. The results suggest that our acts of kindness and generosity, online or offline, can have meaningful ripple effects in our communities.

Researchers synthesized results from 88 experimental studies involving over 25,000 participants to measure how much our own altruism increases after witnessing someone acting “prosocially”—for example, comforting someone who is crying, donating to charity, or acting cooperatively in a competitive game. In the studies, people would read about or see someone act in a kind and helpful way, and then have the opportunity to be kind and generous themselves.

The researchers also wanted to understand the reasons why witnessing goodness inspires people and to identify the factors that increase or decrease their response.

Their analysis showed a moderately strong effect, where people witnessing altruism tended to follow suit themselves. That means that when people model kind and helpful behavior, it has a healthy impact on spreading goodness in a community.

“People resonate when they watch someone do something good,” says the study’s lead researcher, Haesung Jung. “The message that these prosocial behaviors are quite contagious is a really important message that people should know.”

To understand why this kind of modeling inspires people to help others, Jung and her colleagues considered several possible reasons. As an example, they examined whether people in the experiments may have simply been feeling pressured to “look good” by being more giving. But they found this didn’t seem to matter, as people often gave in ways they assumed would be anonymous.

The researchers also considered whether people were just copying behaviors they’d seen someone else doing. But they found that witnesses of kindness often helped in ways that didn’t match what they’d observed. For example, participants might have witnessed a person giving aid to someone who’d fallen on the street and end up donating more to charity when given the opportunity to pay it forward.

“There may be different reasons why people imitate others’ prosocial behavior, but we show that it’s not really about mimicry,” she says. “Instead, they seem to take on the prosocial goal and generalize it to other people and to different forms of generosity.”

In other words, people resonate with the underlying reason for doing good and become motivated themselves to spread the goodness. This suggests that people are prosocial by nature, waiting for inspiration to act.

Interestingly, her analyses showed that it didn’t seem to matter how people witnessed a kind act. They could have read about it, watched a TV show where characters acted altruistically, or actually been present when someone helped another person. The effect was the same: They would act more generously themselves afterward.

Other factors also didn’t matter—like the age of the witness and whether they saw someone giving material help (such as money) or non-material help (such as comfort). This means that so many things we observe, not just the actions of the people around us but things we see in the media or online, may be subtly influencing our behavior.

But there were some factors that did affect how inspired people were to pay it forward. The more time that had passed since people witnessed an altruistic act, the lower their impetus to give.

In addition, women were more likely to want to “pay it forward” than men. Jung was not too surprised by that, as prior research had shown that women were more responsive to kindness modeling and that they tended to “prioritize relating to others and getting along with them.”

Finally, it mattered what kind of response to the kindness people observed. If witnesses saw kind people being praised or even rewarded with money, they were more likely to pay kindness forward themselves. Jung suggests that this can be useful to know if we want altruism to spread.

“It shows we need a social environment where prosocial behavior is positively reinforced in order for people to imitate that behavior more,” she says.

Her research has important implications for society—particularly now, when we need people to act in more prosocial ways by wearing masks and keeping physically distant to prevent the spread of COVID-19. If we use the power of modeling, says Jung, we can build a social norm of collaboration, cooperation, and generosity that will help us solve bigger social problems, including the pandemic and maybe even climate change.

“In organizations, educational settings, and just everyday life, it’s important to highlight kindness, caring, and good social behavior,” says Jung. “Doing good has a much larger impact than people realize.”

Jill Suttie, Psy.D., is Greater Good’s book review editor and a frequent contributor to the magazine. This article was originally published by the Greater Good online magazine.

Report Finds Microwave Energy Likely Made US Diplomats Ill

(AP) A new report by a National Academy of Sciences committee has found that “directed” microwave radiation is the likely cause of illnesses among American diplomats in Cuba and China.

The study commissioned by the State Department and released Saturday is the latest attempt to find a cause for the mysterious illnesses that started to emerge in late 2016 among U.S. personnel in Havana.

The study found that “directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy appears to be the most plausible” explanation for symptoms that included intense head pressure, dizziness, and cognitive difficulties. It found this explanation was more likely than other previously considered causes such as tropical disease or psychological issues. The study did not name a source for the energy and did not say it came as the result of an attack, though it did note that previous research on this type of injury was done in the former Soviet Union.

In its report, the 19-member committee noted that it faced significant challenges in trying to get to the bottom of the medical mystery. Among them, not everyone reported the same symptoms and the National Academy of Sciences research did not have access to all the previous studies on the illnesses, some of which are classified.

“The committee found these cases quite concerning, in part because of the plausible role of directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy as a mechanism, but also because of the significant suffering and debility that has occurred in some of these individuals,” said committee chairman David Relman, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. “We as a nation need to address these specific cases as well as the possibility of future cases with a concerted, coordinated, and comprehensive approach.”

The health effects were experienced by about two dozen Americans affiliated with the U.S. Embassy in Cuba as well as Canadian diplomats and personnel at the U.S. consulate in Guangzhou, China, in early 2017.

Some of the Americans have been critical of the U.S. government’s response to their health complaints and at least one has filed suit against the State Department.

Between late 2016 and May 2018, several U.S. and Canadian diplomats in Havana complained of health problems from an unknown cause. One U.S. government count put the number of American personnel affected at 26.

Some reported hearing high-pitched sounds similar to crickets while at home or staying in hotels, leading to an early theory of a sonic attack.

Study: Additive in Automobile Tires, not Climate Change, Killing West Coast Salmon

From the “where the rubber meets the road” department, comes this bombshell finding that flies in the face of claims about the universal boogeyman of “climate change” killing salmon due to it supposedly raising water temperature in streams where they spawn.

Just last year, PBS and Popular Science were screaming about “climate change” being the cause with headlines like Climate Change is Killing Salmon in the Pacific Northwest and Climate change is cooking salmon in the Pacific Northwest

It seems they were wrong, dead wrong.

New University of Washington research published December 3rd in the journal Science, exonerates “climate change” in the salmon killing caper and finds a surprise villain; an additive to automobile tires, not “climate change.” In fact, the researchers specifically ruled out climate-driven temperature increase as a cause.

Basically, the process is like this: stormwater runoff carries tire wear rubber particles into streams from the nearby roads, where a chemical called 6PPD-quinone, a biproduct from the 6PPD preservative added on tires to prevent breakdown by ozone, leeches into the water. It has been determined that this chemical is highly toxic to salmon. Researchers say they identified 6PPD-quinone as the “smoking gun” behind salmon deaths in freshwater streams.

Here are some relevant quotes from the University of Washington press release, Tire-related chemical is largely responsible for adult coho salmon deaths in urban streamsbold mine:

“We had determined it couldn’t be explained by high temperatures, low dissolved oxygen or any known contaminant, such as high zinc levels,” said co-senior author Jenifer McIntyre, an assistant professor at WSU’s School of the Environment, based in Puyallup. “Then we found that urban stormwater runoff could recreate the symptoms and the acute mortality.

“[We]…found something called 6PPD, which is used to keep tires from breaking down too quickly.

“It’s like a preservative for tires,” Tian said. “Similar to how food preservatives keep food from spoiling too quickly, 6PPD helps tires last by protecting them from ground-level ozone.”

“But when 6PPD reacts with ozone, the researchers found that it was transformed into multiple chemicals, including 6PPD-quinone (pronounced “kwih-known”), the toxic chemical that is responsible for killing the salmon.

This chemical is not limited to the Puget Sound region. The team also tested roadway runoff from Los Angeles and urban creeks near San Francisco, and 6PPD-quinone was present there as well. This finding is unsurprising, the researchers said, because 6PPD appears to be used in all tires and tire wear particles are likely present in creeks near busy roads across the world.”

The findings suggest this is a worldwide problem, and since this research focused only on salmon, who knows where else in nature this chemical might be causing trouble.

Historically, climate activists like to use “climate change” as an immediate go-to cause for anything that they can’t explain, which is why I refer to it as the “universal boogeyman”. Now that real science without a climate change agenda has been published on the salmon issue, we can move from a baseless blame-game to a solution.

Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/10/bombshell-finding-automobile-tires-not-climate-change-is-killing-west-coast-salmon/