Carbon Dating

Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5,730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5,730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only 1⁄4 of the original C-14. It goes from 1⁄2 to 1⁄4 to 1⁄8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half-lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950s. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today is about .0000765%. It is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO₂ and animals eat the plants.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. To illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO₂). Plants breathe CO₂ and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies, it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon 14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half-life) and so on.

The conclusion by many scientists and others who are aware of this information is that radiometric dating methods are nothing more than guesses based on highly speculative theories rather than on facts.

The Assumptions of Carbon Dating

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on at least two simple assumptions. These are, obviously, the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, 7 inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit, we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assume an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column, the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800s over a century before there were any radio- metric dating methods. “Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”1 Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object’s supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased.2

The two assumptions that plague C-14 dating were discussed by Sylvia Baker 10 with regard to why “dates” of more than 6,000 years are often obtained by this method.

“Many … objections cast doubt on the reliability of this method.  We shall consider just two of them.

  1. The theory assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere — that it is being broken down at thesame rate at which it is being produced.  However, calculations made to test this assumption suggest that carbon-14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old…”
  2. It is also true that cosmic rays would have been deflected away from the earth most effectively by the earth’smagnetic field if, … (it) was much stronger in the past.  With fewer cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, there would have been less production of carbon-14 then than now.

She then adds that there is thus … “no really reliable method of dating fossils  10

Carbon dating was not invented until 1949. When the schools started to teach that the earth is billions of years old, back in 1830, the reasoning was not because of carbon dating. Carbon dating had not even been thought of yet. So why were they teaching that the earth was billions of years old back in the 1800’s? Billions of years are needed to make the evolution theory look good. Without billions of years to hide in, the theory looks absolutely ridiculous.

The geologic column is where it all started. The earth was divided up into layers. Each layer was assigned a name, an age, and an index fossil. The ages were chosen without any scientific reasoning: they were picked out of the clear blue sky! Now any dating technique that comes along, like carbon dating, has to match the geologic column: or it is rejected. This is only because the geologic column has been taught for so long now and is assumed to be true. Just because something has been taught for a long time does not make it true. However, this is the logic most scientists have. They might have to test a sample 5 or 6 times until they get the age that they want. How would you know any of the dates given are right if you are getting a different one every time?

“Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. [i]” They do not date fossils by carbon dating. Fossils are dated by their geological position. And as we mentioned earlier the dates on the geologic column were chosen out of the clear blue sky with no scientific basis. So their entire dating method for dating rocks and fossils is based off of circular reasoning.

The earth’s atmosphere is about 100 miles thick. The atmosphere has very distinctive layers to it. The earth’s atmosphere contains: 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .06% carbon dioxide, and .0000765% radioactive carbon. This radioactive carbon 14 is different from regular carbon. It is produced by radiation striking the atmosphere. In essence, sunlight strikes the atmosphere, slaps the nitrogen around, and turns it into carbon 14. So it all starts by the sunlight striking the atmosphere. About 21 pounds of carbon 14 is produced every year; and that is spread out all over the world.

If you look at a periodic table you will notice that Carbon and Nitrogen are right next to each other. Nitrogen has an atomic weight of 14 and Carbon has an atomic weight of 12. If the sunlight slaps the nitrogen around, like talked about earlier, it will knock a few things off of it and it becomes Carbon 14. It still weighs as much as nitrogen, but it is now considered carbon. It is called radioactive because it is unstable and will eventually break apart. On average half of it will break down every 5,730 years.

While it is Carbon 14 it is floating around in the atmosphere and latches onto oxygen becoming carbon dioxide. During photosynthesis plants breathe in carbon dioxide and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat plants and make it part of their bodies as well. This is how Carbon 14 gets into the living world. It gets produced in the atmosphere from the sun, the plants breathe it in, and the animals eat the plants. We have all either eaten plants or eaten animals that have eaten plants. The plants are breathing in this carbon dioxide and some of the carbon is radioactive. If the atmosphere contains .0000765% radioactive carbon, it is assumed that the plants also have .0000765% radioactive carbon as well. So, you probably have .0000765% carbon 14 in you because you have been eating these plants or eating the animals that have eaten the plants.

When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in carbon 14 and whatever it had starts to decay. It was decaying while it was alive, but now there is nothing coming in to replace it. So what they do is compare the amount of carbon 14 in the fossil to the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. If the fossil only contains half as much carbon 14 as the atmosphere, it is assumed to have been dead for one half-life, or 5,730 years. While it was alive it should have had .0000765% carbon 14. If a fossil only has .00003825% of carbon 14 it has been dead for one half-life. In theory the amount of carbon 14 never goes to zero. However, for practical purposes we cannot measure passed a certain amount. There should be no measurable carbon 14 after about 40,000 – 50,000 years.

“With their short 5,730 year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980’s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old. [ii]”

Now think for a minute of what this means. The textbooks say that coal formed 250 million years ago. However, when coal is tested it still has carbon 14. How is that possible? If all of the carbon 14 atoms would have disappeared at a maximum of 250,000 years, why would there still be carbon 14 atoms in coal? Obviously it is not 250 million years old. Also diamonds, which they say formed millions and millions of years ago, still have carbon 14 in them. So how do you get carbon 14 in diamonds? Again it is obvious that they are not millions of years old.

The carbon dating assumptions need to be pointed out. The earth’s atmosphere is gaining 21 pounds of carbon 14 every year. It is also losing carbon 14 through decay. The question is how long would it take the atmosphere to reach a stage called equilibrium? The people who invented carbon 14 dating in the 1940’s did a lot of studies on this matter. They wanted to figure out how long it would take the atmosphere to reach a point where the construction rate and the destruction rate of carbon 14 was the same. They determined that it would take about 30,000 years to reach this equilibrium state. They made two bad assumptions after they came up with this calculation. They assumed that the earth was millions of years old and then assumed that they could ignore the equilibrium problem. It has been discovered that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. “Radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying. [iii]”

Now think about that for a minute. If radiocarbon is still forming faster than it is decaying, that means the earth is less than 30,000 years old. It also means that you cannot carbon date anything! The reason is because you would have to know when the fossil was alive to know how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere at that time. It simply does not work.

If you find a fossil in the dirt, the amount of carbon 14 can be measured and the rate of decay can be determined. However, that is all that can be determined. It is impossible to know how much carbon 14 was in it at death and it is impossible to know if carbon 14 has always decayed at the same rate.

If the earth had a canopy of water above the atmosphere, or a canopy of ice, that would have blocked out a lot of the radiation from the sun. This would have prevented most of the carbon 14 from even forming. Animals that lived before the flood would have lived in a world with much less carbon 14 to begin with. There may have been none at all, but the amount would certainly be less than what we have today.

If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it. [iv]” So does this mean that they simply choose any numbers that they want? That is exactly correct. If the number doesn’t fit what they expected, they throw the number out.

Here are some things to consider about carbon dating. When something of known age is dated: it doesn’t work. When something of unknown age is dated: carbon dating is assumed to work. That is not science!

Footnotes:

[i] O’Rourke, J. E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54
[ii] www.ICR.org
[iii] R.E. Taylor et al., “Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry,” American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1 1985 pp. 136-140
[iv] T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology”, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York 1970, p. 35

The Wild Dates of Carbon Dating

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:

  • Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. 3
  • Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old. 4
  • A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. 5
  • “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” 6
  • “Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”7
  • Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.8
  • Rocks formed in the Mount St. Helens volcano eruption in 1980 were dated from 350,000 to 2.8 million years old.
  • Rocks known to be formed in the 1950’s and 1960’s were dated to 2.4 and 3.5 million years old respectively.

Source:

Face Masks

Not a single randomized controlled trial with verified outcome has been able to detect a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask, when it comes to preventing infectious viral illness. If there were any significant advantage to wearing a mask to reduce infection risk to either the wearer or others in the vicinity, then it would have been detected in at least one of these trials, yet there’s no sign of such a benefit. There is no evidence that masks are of any utility for preventing infection by either stopping the aerosol particles from coming out, or from going in. You’re not helping the people around you by wearing a mask, and you’re not helping yourself avoid the disease by wearing a mask.

Mask wearing was blueprinted in the Rockerfeller Foundation’s Lockstep scenario in order to achieve “a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.

Aldous Huxley’s dystopian Brave New World predicts a totalitarian society where people love their servitude. As Del Bigtree points out in his video (bottom of article), it is shocking to see so many loving their tyrannous new normal of wearing masks and policing those they don’t, happily social distancing and quarantining themselves under the guise of safety from a novel (fictitious) coronavirus.

The truth is masks have become the new wedge issue, the latest phase of the culture war. Mask opponents tend to see mask wearers as “fraidy cats” or virtue-signalling “sheeple” who willfully ignore basic science. Mask supporters, on the other hand, often see people who refuse to wear masks as selfish Trumpkins … who willfully ignore basic science. There’s not a lot of middle ground to be found and there’s no easy way to sit this one out. We all have to go outside, so at some we all are required to don the mask or not.

It’s clear from the data that despite the impression of Americans as selfish rebel cowboys who won’t wear a mask to protect others, Americans are wearing masks far more than many people in European countries. Polls show Americans are wearing masks at record levels, though a political divide remains: 98 percent of Democrats report wearing masks in public compared to 66 percent of Republicans and 85 percent of Independents. (These numbers, no doubt, are to some extent the product of mask requirements in cities and states.) Whether one is pro-mask or anti-mask, the fact of the matter is that face coverings have become politicized to an unhealthy degree, which stands to only further pollute the science.

Assuming the germ theory accepted by the medical industry is correct instead of the terrain theory proposed by most natural healers, infectious viral respiratory diseases primarily spread via very fine aerosol particles that are in suspension in the air. Any mask that allows you to breathe therefore allows for transmission of aerosolized viruses. All-cause mortality data are not affected by reporting bias. A detailed study of the current data of all-cause mortality shows the all-cause mortality this past winter was no different, statistically, from previous decades. COVID-19 is not a killer disease, and this pandemic has not brought anything out of the ordinary in terms of death toll.

Unfortunately, the mainstream propaganda and government orders in many states reverted back toward mask wearing just about everywhere. You’re not allowed into stores; you cannot fly or take a cab, Uber or Lyft without one; you must wear one everywhere you go, even outdoors, and if you don’t you’re vilified, sometimes aggressively attacked. It has no basis and only induces fear, anxiety, and potential sickness for perfectly healthy people. Hmmm, just what the globalists want! How convenient.

Compliance is not enough. Popular actor Laurence Fox, interviewed on New Culture Forum, said that despite wearing a mask in shops and on public transport, he is still being criticised. You shouldn’t complain, he is told. Instead, you should feel happy. A mask shows that you care, purportedly, and that you are a good person – unlike those ignoramuses and conspiracy theorists who recklessly and selfishly endanger others. As Fox perceives, the coronavirus pandemic is being used to display moral superiority.

Masks have become a fault line in the culture war. Laws and the threat of fines force the majority of people to comply, but there is a thinly veiled contrast between those who want to wear them and those who dislike this excessive response to a mostly mild upper respiratory tract infection. The divide is heavily influenced by social class and ideology.

The mask advocates get their way, because they are the establishment, supported by the legions of graduates of campus puritanism. In this regime of Cultural Maskism, the ordinary folk are cast as germ-spreaders. And so sophisticates must mask themselves from the contagious plebs, who must themselves be muzzled – not only to control the virus that they carry, but also to silence their opposition to an unprecedented loss of liberty.

An underreported, recently-published CDC study adds to the pile of evidence that cloth masks or other forms of mandated face coverings only contribute negatives to our COVID-19 problem. The study also displays — despite the constant accusations of widespread misbehavior from public health officials — that Americans are adhering to mask wearing, but mask wearing is not doing us any good.

The CDC study, which surveyed symptomatic COVID-19 patients, has found that 70.6% of respondents reported “always” wearing a mask, while an additional 14.4% say they “often” wear a mask. That means a whopping 85% of infected COVID-19 patients reported habitual mask wearing. Only 3.9% of those infected said they “never” wear a face covering.

Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., a former full professor of physics and researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association in Canada, did a thorough study of the scientific literature on masks, concentrating on evidence showing masks can reduce infection risk, especially viral respiratory diseases.

“What I found when I looked at all the randomized controlled trials with verified outcome, meaning you actually measure whether or not the person was infected … NONE of these well-designed studies that are intended to remove observational bias … found there was a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask.

Likewise, there was no detectable difference between respirators and surgical masks. That to me was a clear sign that the science was telling us they could not detect a positive utility of masks in this application.

We’re talking many really [high-]quality trials. What this means — and this is very important — is that if there was any significant advantage to wearing a mask to reduce this [infection] risk, then you would have detected that in at least one of these trials, [yet] there’s no sign of it.

That to me is a firm scientific conclusion: There is no evidence that masks are of any utility either preventing the aerosol particles from coming out or from going in. You’re not helping the people around you by wearing a mask, and you’re not helping yourself preventing the disease by wearing a mask.

This science is unambiguous in that such a positive effect cannot be detected. So, that was the first thing I publicized. I wrote a large review1,2 of the scientific literature about that.

But then I asked myself, as a physicist and as a scientist, why would that be? Why would masks not work at all? And so, I looked into the biology and physics of how these diseases are transmitted.”

Rancourt did a detailed study of the current data of all-cause mortality (which removes all bias from the equation), showing that the all-cause mortality for the 2020 winter was no different, statistically, from previous decades. In other words, COVID-19 is not a killer disease, and this pandemic has not brought anything out of the ordinary in terms of death toll. He published this data in the paper ,“All-Cause Mortality During COVID-19: No Plague and a Likely Signature of Mass Homicide by Government Response.

Many firmly believe wearing a mask in public will protect themselves and/or others, and one of the reasons for this is because they appear to work in some circumstances, such as operating rooms. If they don’t work, why do surgical staff and many health care workers use them on a regular basis? As explained by Rancourt, the reason surgical masks are worn in the operating room is to prevent spittle from accidentally falling into an open wound, which could lead to infection. Surgical masks have been shown to be important in that respect.

Preventing microbes and bacteria from falling into an open wound is very different from preventing the spread of viral particles, however. Not only are viruses much smaller than bacteria and many other microbes found in saliva, they are, again, airborne. They’re aerosolized and part of the fluid air. Therefore, if air can penetrate the mask, these aerosol particles can also get through.

Now, one view is that, even though a mask may not protect the wearer against contracting an infection, it will still protect others that the mask-wearer comes into contact with. But that’s not what the science shows. The measured outcome in most rigorous studies on this is the infection rate. Did anyone involved get infected?

Comparisons are made between health care workers wearing masks, respirators or nothing at all. While this does not allow you to discern who is being protected — the mask wearer or others — the studies show mask wearing does neither.

Since everyone is in close proximity to each other, and no differences in infection rates are found regardless of what type of mask is worn, or none at all, it tells us that mask wearing protects no one from viral infections.

“It makes no difference if everybody in your team is wearing a mask; it makes no difference if one is and others aren’t,” Rancourt says. “Wearing a mask or being in an environment where masks are being worn or not worn, there’s no difference in terms of your risk of being infected by the viral respiratory disease.

There’s no reduction, period. There are no exceptions. All the studies that have been tabulated, looked at, published, I was not able to find any exceptions, if you constrain yourself to verified outcomes.”

What’s more, the results are the same for both N95 respirators and surgical masks. Respirators offer no protective advantage when it comes to viral infections.

“In one of the randomized control trials, a big one that compared masks and N95 respirators among health care workers, the only statistically significant outcome they discovered and reported on was that the health care workers who wore the N95 respirators were much more likely to suffer from headaches,” Rancourt says.

“Now, if you’ve got a bunch of health care workers, which you’re forcing to get headaches, how good is the healthcare going to be?”

Studies have conclusively proven masks do not prevent viral infections. Why, is another question. One commonsense explanation put forth by Rancourt is that masks don’t work for this application for the simple fact that they allow airflow.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that the most prominent vector of transmission is these fine aerosol particles. Those fine aerosol particles will follow the fluid air. In a surgical mask, there is no way you’re blocking the fluid air. When you breathe wearing a surgical mask, the lowest impedance of airflow is through the sides and tops and bottoms of the mask.

In other words, very little of the airflow is going to be through the actual mask. The mask is only designed and intended to stop your spitballs from coming out and hitting someone … If the flow of air is through the sides, whatever molecules or small particles are carried in the air, are going to flow that way as well, and that’s how you get infected.

If you’re not stopping [the viral particles] coming in, you’re not stopping them from coming out either. They follow the flow, period. That’s the way it is. So that’s why there’s an equivalence between ‘It doesn’t protect you and it doesn’t protect anyone else either.’”

Ironically, some masks are even designed with out-vents, to facilitate breathing, which completely negate the claim that mask-wearers are protecting others.

(from NoMoreFakeNews) Mask wearers of the world, take them off—you have nothing to lose but your insanity…

Journal of the American Medical Association, April 17, 2020, “Masks and Coronavirus Disease”: “Unless you are sick, a health care worker, or caring for someone who has COVID-19, medical masks (including surgical face masks and N95s) are not recommended.”

At Children’s Health Defense, JB Handley has written an excellent article, “LOCKDOWN LUNACY: The Thinking Person’s Guide.” Here are two highlights from his section on masks:

“May 29, the World Health Organization announced that masks should only be worn by healthy people if they are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19:”

“’If you do not have any respiratory symptoms such as fever, cough or runny nose, you do not need to wear a mask,’ Dr. April Baller, a public health specialist for the WHO, says in a video on the world health body’s website posted in March. ‘Masks should only be used by healthcare workers, caretakers or by people who are sick with symptoms of fever and cough’.”

“…I often see this study from 2015 in the BMJ cited: ‘A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers’, and it bears repeating, since MOST of the masks I see people wearing in the community right now are cloth masks. Not only are these masks 100% ineffective at reducing the spread of COVID-19, but they can actually harm you. As the researchers explain:”

“’This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection…’”

Of course, when people are conspiracy whackos wearing their masks, they don’t respond well to facts, even when those facts come from the very organizations they believe in with religious fervor.

Here is something else from the Washington State Nurses Association: “Reprocessing masks using toxic chemicals is not a solution”:

“Nurses are reporting that respirators and face masks at WSNA repre-sented Providence facilities are being collected for reprocessing using ethylene oxide to decontaminate. The EPA has concluded that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic to humans and that exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of lymphoid cancer and, for females, breast cancer.”

“WSNA sent a cease and desist demand to Providence facilities where our members work, demanding an immediate halt to the reusing of any face masks, including N 95 and other respirators, that have been decontaminated by the ethylene oxide cleaning process. In addition, WSNA is preparing complaints to be filed with the Washington State Department of Occupational Safety and Health, highlighting this workplace hazard.”

“WSNA believes that the reuse of face masks or respirators cleaned with ethylene oxide violates the employer’s legal duty to ensure that nurses and other health care workers are afforded a safe and healthful working environment. While hospitals have long used ethylene oxide to clean certain surgical equipment, it should not be used to decontami-nate face masks or respirators, through which nurses and other health care workers must breathe for many hours at a time.”

“…The CDC warns that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic and teratogenic, and that ‘inhalation of ethylene oxide has been linked to neurologic dysfunction and may cause other harmful effects to the wearer’.”

“Prolonged exposure to ethylene oxide can hurt eyes and LUNGS, harm the brain and nervous system, and potentially cause lymphomas, leukemia, and breast cancer. This extremely hazardous toxic chemical poses a severe risk to human health.” [CAPS are mine.]

Is the use of toxic ethylene oxide to treat masks widespread? According to the Chicago Tribune, way back in March, Medline Industries was reprocessing 100,000 medical masks a day. They applied to the FDA for permission to use ethylene oxide. But wasn’t the horse already out of the barn? Weren’t they already using the chemical? I’ve queried Medline to find out whether the FDA has approved their application.

And finally, I have a lone report about a person from the region of Piedmont, Italy, who checked out his medical mask, which he’d received in the mail from the Department of Civil Protection. He discovered it contained zinc pyrithione.

If true, this is ominous. Consulting a simple safety data sheet on the chemical, from Cayman Chemical, I found a succinct statement: “Toxic if inhaled.”

But of course, medical masks must be worn. The lockdown authorities tell us so. They know. They must know because, well, they’re on television. Keep breathing through that mask. It’s “safe and effective.”

Patricia Neuenschwander, M.S.N., R.N., C.P.N.P.-P.C., an emergency room nurse with over two decades of experience, the science doesn’t support healthy people wearing masks. When Neuenschwander found out that her grandchild’s Montessori preschool was going to require even toddlers to wear masks, she did a deep dive into the research to better educate herself and her grandchild’s school about mask-wearing. The info below is an abbreviated verion of the FULL ARTICLE HERE

An important study using science to evaluate cloth mask use to prevent infection was conducted in March 2011. It is a large, prospective, randomized clinical trial; and the first randomized clinical trial ever conducted of cloth masks. The international team of researchers concluded:

This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.”

More recently, researchers from University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health reviewed the scientific literature. While not an exhaustive review of masks and respirators as source control and personal protection equipment (PPE), this review was made in an effort to locate and review the most relevant studies of laboratory and real-world performance to inform our recommendations. The review, which has 52 citations, concludes:

“We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks becauseThere is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission”

2020 study in Seoul, South Korea looked at the effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking COVID-19 in a controlled comparison of four patients. The COVID-infected patients were put in negative pressure isolated rooms. The scientists compared disposable surgical masks (3 layers) with reusable cotton masks.

Patients were instructed to cough 5 times while wearing no mask, surgical mask, or cotton mask. Interestingly, all swabs from the outer masks—including surgical masks—were positive for COVID-19. Inner masks were also found to be contaminated. That means the mask did not effectively filter out the COVID virus since it is too small. The authors assert:

Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered {COVID-19} during coughs by infected patients.” Conclusion: “both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”

“There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit,” Dr. Mike Ryan, an epidemiologist who specializes in infectious diseases and public health and who is the executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing. “In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly” (source).

The CDC has claimed for decades that the influenza virus is transmitted person to person, but we have never been told to wear a mask to stop the spread of that virus. As a matter of fact, the CDC specifically says masks don’t work; and they do not recommend wearing a mask, to prevent transmission of the flu!

No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza viruses” (source).

Masks make children fearful 

I have not been able to locate any published research on the psychological or emotional effects of having healthy children wear masks daily for hours at a time. I can only make an educated assumption based on over two decades of working as a healthcare professional that forcing children to wear masks will cause fear, anxiety, and negative feedback from caregivers. Mask wearing will affect children differently based on their developmental level. You cannot explain to a two-year-old why they are being forced to cover their nose and mouth.

Covering the mouth and nose for hours is not only uncomfortable for children (and adults), it also limits the airflow and the flow of oxygen coming in. It causes children, as with adults, to breath their own carbon dioxide, which we know is harmful. In addition, it provides a dark, warm, moist environment that potentially increases the risk of infection.

Republican Ohio State Rep. Nino Vitale released a video showing a live experiment with students who placed an oxygen-reading device into their face masks to check if the levels were safe. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) “considers any atmosphere with an oxygen level below 19.5 percent to be oxygen-deficient and immediately dangerous to life or health.”1

Fear is driving this recommendation for healthy people to wear masks, not science.

Are mask-wearers being initiated into a cult by the Luciferian social engineers?

As a nurse for over 25 years and holding a Master’s Degree in Science, I cannot in good conscience allow my grandchild to be subjected to an intervention that may cause physical, emotional, and psychological harm without being provided significant evidence that the benefits of such intervention outweigh the risks.

Should we be encouraging healthy people to wear masks? The answer is unequivocally no.

Rancourt says:

 “The World Health Organization in its June 5 memo,4 where they reversed their position and decided that it was a good idea to recommend mask use in the general population, in that document, they actually say you have to consider the potential harms, and they list what they consider are all the potential harms.

They missed a lot. But one of the top ones is you’re concentrating the pathogen laden material onto this material near your face, nose, eyes and so on. And you’re touching the mask all the time, you’re touching yourself, you’re touching others.

It’s not a controlled clinical environment, so there’s potential for transmission in that way. You might wear the mask more than once, you might store it at home and then wear it again. You might do all kinds of things …

What I find extraordinary is that they also have a list of what they call potential advantages. And when I compare the two lists, the potential dangers far outweigh the potential advantages. So, you have to ask yourself, what the heck are you doing?

How can you make these two columns and compare the advantages and disadvantages and have one clearly outweigh the other and then conclude that therefore we recommend masks? This is just nonsense. It’s irrational. So, my association added our list5 of things that they weren’t even considering.

We went into the civil liberties aspect of it as well, because I think this is very important. One of the fundamental aspects of a free and democratic society is that the individual is entitled to evaluate the personal risk to themselves when they act in the world.”

As noted by Rancourt, risk evaluation is a very personal thing. It involves your personality, your judgment, your knowledge, your experience and your culture. It’s a very personal thing that you’re entitled to do for yourself. If the state is forcing you to accept their evaluation of risk, then this fundamental precept is violated. What’s worse, they’re currently forcing you to accept an evaluation of risk that cannot be scientifically justified.

Henning Bundgaard, chief physician at Denmark’s Rigshospitale, according to Bloomberg News said:

All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions based on new studies.”

Dutch Medical Care Minister Tamara van Ark said:

“From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a national obligation.”

As of August 4, 2020, the Danes had suffered only 616 COVID-19 deaths, less than a third of average flu and pneumonia deaths, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University.

Coen Berends, spokesman for the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, echoing statements similar to the US Surgeon General from early March, said :

“Face masks in public places are not necessary, based on all the current evidence. There is no benefit and there may even be negative impact.”

Mask Mandates Are Indicative of Rising Totalitarianism

The problem with mask mandates is that public health officials are not merely recommending a precaution that may or may not be effective. They are using force to make people submit to a state order that could ultimately make individuals or entire populations sicker, according to world-leading public health officials. That is not just a violation of the Effectiveness Principle. It’s a violation of a basic personal freedom.

In its letter6 to the WHO, the Ontario Civil Liberties Association also addressed the issue of mask mandates as an instrument of totalitarianism.

“In our letter, we put it this way. There’s a recent scientific study7 that came out in 2019. The first author is the executive director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association that I do research for, and he’s a physicist also. He wrote an article with another physicist.

They looked at the conditions under which a society will gradually degrade towards a more totalitarian state. What they found was that there were two major control parameters that characterize the society that will tell you if that is likely to happen or not.

One of those control parameters is authoritarianism in the society. What they mean by that is, how successful can an individual be to refuse something, like to refuse to wear a mask if they protest? What is the chance that they’ll succeed if they refuse? That would be related to the degree of authoritarianism.

The other important parameter is the degree of violence in the society. How violent is the repression if you disobey? So how big is the fine? Can you go to jail? How much punishment will you be subjected to if you disobey a particular rule, for example, wearing of a mask?

Those two parameters, they were able to establish what we call a phase diagram of societies … And what they found is that in present society, if you would estimate the average value of those two parameters for United States or Canada, we’re in a state right now where the society is very gradually evolving towards totalitarianism.

The way to slow that and prevent it is for people to object and to scale it back. As soon as you agree with an irrational order, an irrational command that is not science-based, then you are doing nothing to bring back society towards the free and democratic society that we should have. You are allowing this slow march towards totalitarianism. That’s how I would explain the importance of objecting to this.”

Mask Mandates Allow Government to Shirk Responsibility

Rancourt also points out that when government and health institutions convince people that masks are the solution, they are effectively removing their duty of care toward you, because they’re saying all you need to do is wear a mask. This allows them to avoid the responsibility of actually preventing transmission in the primary centers of transmission, such as hospitals, nursing homes and elsewhere.8

“We don’t have to manage the air in such a way that immune-vulnerable in this establishment will not be at risk of dying and so on. They remove their duty of care responsibilities by saying, ‘Well, we’re just not going to allow visitors, and we’re going to force everyone to wear masks.’

You need to look at, scientifically, what is happening here. Why are people at risk? What is immune-vulnerability due to? What can you do about it? And then you have to do something about it if you’re serious about your duty of care towards these people. So it has that side effect of letting them get away with not taking care of the people that they’re responsible for.”

Calls for Peaceful Civil Disobedience Are Growing

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association has issued a press release9 calling for peaceful civil disobedience against mandatory masking. The U.S. nonprofit Stand for Health Freedom is also calling for civil disobedience, and has a widget you can use to contact your government representatives to let them know wearing a mask must be a personal choice.

“In the memo that was put out, we explain how best to perform that civil disobedience. We explain that you should be calm and confident and not get into arguments and not try to convince the authorities.

Just express your disobedience regarding this rule. And then we explain that they may want to trespass you, they may want to give you a fine, that you can anticipate fighting that fine in court. We go through the steps so that people can visualize how to do this.

We explain that some of their core shoppers or core citizens will be angry and aggressive, and to not get into a fight and not to get into a war of words. Do not try to convince them. Just stick to that you are not going to comply. Be very calm. This kind of civil disobedience has been successful at various times in North American history.

There are risks involved, but it’s often worth it to the individual to have that civil disobedience because there are many individuals that don’t know what to do that are very angry because they’re being forced to wear masks and they see it as absurd and a constraint. So, we try to give them a view of a venue on how to resist this …

We also recommend when people are practicing this kind of civil disobedience that they not be isolated, that they try to form a grassroots group of support and that they don’t do it alone. Try to bring at least one person, one supporter, with them. Record the interaction with the authorities and report back on social media and to their groups with details of what happened and so on.

We hope to create kind of a smoother messaging that a lot of people, or at least some people, do not believe this mask story and do not believe that they are at risk and are willing to practice civil disobedience to make that point.”

Rob Pue writes:

Wearing masks is dehumanizing and degrading.  They turn us from being unique individuals, made in the image of God to a herd of dumb animals — or robots.  Mask requirements immediately steal our freedom of expression and freedom of choice. Combined with “social distancing,” they rob us of one-on-one interaction with others.  This WEARS  on people mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually.  There have been more suicides in response to this “planned-demic” than deaths from the virus itself.

SOURCES:

See also:

Here are more videos to prove wearing masks is not smart:

Social Distancing

Part of the new normal where people are suggested, required, or demanded (depending on local & regional authorities) to not come within 6 feet of each other during the COVID-19 pandemic. The unscientific protocol was first introduced to the masses in March 2020 to flatten the curve of the COVID-19 coronavirus that was falsely estimated to kill tens or hundreds of millions, but even after the much smaller curve showed a decline (in spite of increased testing) the globalists insisted social distancing become a permanent part of our lives… for the greater good.

Sadly, “social distancing” was pounded into everyones heads so relentlessly by the mainstream media that a big chunk of the population became big believers in it. Democratic and republican cities sought to enforce social distancing as everything that wasn’t deemed essential (abortion clinics essential, but most small businesses, churches, parks, and beaches were non-essential) however things quickly changed for the left.

It was only after months of CDC and mainstream media propaganda that on 21 Sept 2020, the CDC quietly backtracked on warning that coronavirus is airborne. This came after the CDC had warned that the virus spreads most commonly through the air and was highly contagious to keep us all in fear with lockdowns, masks, and social distancing. We know now that there may not even be a virus as it has never been isolated and purified, and was computer generated from snippets just like the Nebraska man and Piltdown man hoaxes were fabricated from a tiny part (a pigs tooth and an orangutan jaw respectively) to assume the whole and sell us on evolution. Dr. Tom Cowan breaks down another CDC report on how the virus was invented:

First, in the section titled ‘Whole Genome Sequencing,’ we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes. This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs.

Using the ASSUMED new virus, in an UN-ISOLATED STATE, the researchers try to prove it is harmful by injecting it on to several different types of cells in the lab.

…using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this ‘new coronavirus’ is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.”

Well how and why are so many people dying you ask? The Disease rename game. They’ve been playing it for years. Take a look at the data where flu and pneumonia deaths tanked as soon as the COVID-19 plandemic arrived in February. 94% of deaths had a an average of 2.6 comorbidities according to some studies. And if there was a worldwide pandemic as we are programmed to believe by the mainstream media, why are 2020 deaths lower in every week of 2020 than in 2019 except the first 2 weeks of January before the China virus arrived? In fact, CDC data, according to a mid-August report (now redacted but used the CDC’s own week-by-week death numbers) by Dr. Colleen Huber at PrimaryDoctor.org, 2020 has the lowest weekly death rate in a decade  – so far, and the 2nd lowest annual US deaths in the last 21 years.

How Forced Isolation Makes Huge Power Grabs Possible

So, why then are we being forced to social distance, or even wear masks when the imaginary, unproven virus

Stella Morabito explains in an article on The Federalist that today’s wannabe social controllers are clearly using the virus as a sort of obedience school where we can be conditioned through isolation to conform to their demands.

She begins her excellent article with this quote:

“Terror can rule absolutely only over men who are isolated against each other… Therefore, one of the primary concerns of all tyrannical government is to bring this isolation about.” — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

She then wisely points out:

Pick a dictator, any dictator—Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Jim Jones (dictator of his own realm)—and you’ll find a common pattern of imposing aloneness and the terror of it on their prey. You can probably name more examples from the world stage as well as from smaller domains. They may vary in their methods and territories, but all use social pressure to live out the ancient principle of divide-and-conquer. As political philosopher Hannah Arendt noted, totalitarians must first get people isolated against one other in order to rule over them.

Tactics for grabbing power always involve some form of imposed isolation through social pressures: mob swarming, forced false confessions; struggle sessions; hostility towards family, religion, and history; snitch culture; censorship; constant propaganda; and more. “Cancel culture” is just a new term for an old custom of tyrants who use social pressures to go after the raw power they crave. Former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss aptly described cancel culture as social murder.

So what is America to do?

We Need to Build Immunity Against Social Pressure, Stella proposes:

Imposed social isolation is unnatural for human beings. It’s torture that makes us highly vulnerable to any social pressures that suggest some relief from it. Whatever their motives, today’s wannabe social controllers are clearly using the virus as a sort of obedience school where we can be conditioned through isolation to conform to their demands.

Many likely comply in hopes of being rewarded—maybe we’ll get to go for a walk someday if we’re good dogs. The irony is that mindless conformity creates even more isolation and even more vulnerability, even as we believe we’re escaping it through compliance.

But what if enough good people were immune to social pressure? Or resistant enough to it that they spread some immunity to others? Well, then, our power-mongering elites would be disarmed. Game over.

In this light, here’s a fascinating question to ponder: What exactly do they hate most about President Trump? Doubtless they hate him mostly because he seems immune to their social pressures.

That’s the bottom line. They can’t control him the way they do other Republican leaders who are so fearful of being called mean names. Worse for these power elites is that they can’t seem to isolate Trump’s supporters from him.

No matter what you think of Trump or his tweets, we should all meditate on the power of that sort of immunity from social pressures. We should find ways to develop it in ourselves. Because if tyrants had less ability to instill social isolation, they’d be less able to induce the fears that allow them to control people’s lives.

In other words, it starts with YOU, and me, and spreads.

Source: ConservativeDailyNews reporting on this TheFederalist article

A number of police departments around the country used drones manufactured by a company with ties to the Chinese government in order to enforce COVID-19-related lockdowns, prompting concerns from experts who say the drones may serve as a way for the east Asian communist regime to spy on the United States. “Should people be concerned? Yes. Everyone should always be concerned,” says Brett Velicovich, former Army intelligence worker and author of the book Drone Warrior. While DIJ denies it has any motives beyond altruism in its donation of drone technology to U.S. law-enforcement agencies, many — from lawmakers to watchdog groups to drone experts — say America’s reliance on Chinese technology to monitor its own citizens could lead to disastrous national security consequences.

After demonizing protestors anxious to get back to work, end tyrannical lockdown policing by dictator governors, mayors, etc, suddenly protests were praised and social distancing forgotten when it was politically convenient following the George Floyd Riots sponsored by George Soros and other democrats to flame the race war. (See video below by Laura Ingraham…)

9-1-1 lines became flooded with calls from people concerned that someone wasn’t following social distancing protocol.

The term was mentioned in a movie about a virus pandemic called “Contagion” (2011). In the scene, Laurence Fishburne’s character, who plays a CDC medical doctor, advises, “Our best defense has been social distancing… staying home when you’re sick, washing your hands frequently.

The first time it appeared in the New York Times was February 12, 2006:

If the avian flu goes pandemic while Tamiflu and vaccines are still in short supply, experts say, the only protection most Americans will have is “social distancing,” which is the new politically correct way of saying “quarantine.”

But distancing also encompasses less drastic measures, like wearing face masks, staying out of elevators — and the [elbow] bump. Such stratagems, those experts say, will rewrite the ways we interact, at least during the weeks when the waves of influenza are washing over us.

The New York Times (April 22, 2020) tells the story of how George Bush, in 2006 during the H5N1 avian flu pandemic that resulted in very few deaths, asked experts to submit plans on how to best deal with the next pandemic. Drs. Hatchett and Mecher proposed that Americans in some places might have to self-isolate.

“That this idea became the heart of the national playbook for responding to a pandemic is one of the untold stories of the coronavirus crisis. It required the key proponents — Dr. Mecher, a Department of Veterans Affairs physician, and Dr. Hatchett, an oncologist turned White House adviser — to overcome intense initial opposition.

The concept of social distancing is now intimately familiar to almost everyone. But as it first made its way through the federal bureaucracy in 2006 and 2007, it was viewed as impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible.”

In the course of this planning, neither legal nor economic experts were brought in to consult and advise. Instead it fell to Mecher (formerly of Chicago and an intensive care doctor with no previous expertise in pandemics) and the oncologist Hatchett.

The article also mentions the 14-yr.-old daughter of a scientist at the Sandia National Laboratories, Laura M. Glass, who declined to be interviewed when the Albuquerque Journal did a deep dive of this history.

Laura, with some guidance from her dad, devised a computer simulation that showed how people – family members, co-workers, students in schools, people in social situations – interact. What she discovered was that school kids come in contact with about 140 people a day, more than any other group. Based on that finding, her program showed that in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, 5,000 would be infected during a pandemic if no measures were taken, but only 500 would be infected if the schools were closed.

Laura’s name appears on the foundational paper arguing for lockdowns and forced human separation. That paper is Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza (2006). It set out a model for forced separation and applied it with good results backwards in time to 1957. They conclude with a chilling call for what amounts to a totalitarian lockdown, all stated very matter-of-factly.

Implementation of social distancing strategies is challenging. They likely must be imposed for the duration of the local epidemic and possibly until a strain-specific vaccine is developed and distributed. If compliance with the strategy is high over this period, an epidemic within a community can be averted. However, if neighboring communities do not also use these interventions, infected neighbors will continue to introduce influenza and prolong the local epidemic, albeit at a depressed level more easily accommodated by healthcare systems.

In other words, it was a high-school science experiment that eventually became law of the land, and through a circuitous route propelled not by science but politics.  The primary author of this paper was Robert J. Glass, a complex-systems analyst with Sandia National Laboratories. He had no medical training, much less an expertise in immunology or epidemiology. That explains why Dr. D.A. Henderson, “who had been the leader of the international effort to eradicate smallpox,” completely rejected the whole scheme.1

There’s a reason that “social distancing” wasn’t a buzzword common to the American lexicon prior to 2020.  There’s very little science behind “social distancing” at all.

“It turns out,” Julie Kelly writes at American Greatness, “as I wrote last month, “social distancing” is untested pseudoscience particularly as it relates to halting the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. On its website, the CDC provides no links to any peer-reviewed social distancing studies that bolster its official guidance.” 

There’s a reason for the lack of peer-reviewed studies on the CDC website.  She continues:

The alarming reality is that social distancing never has been tested on a massive scale in the modern age; its current formula was conceived during George W. Bush’s administration and met with much-deserved skepticism.

“People could not believe that the strategy would be effective or even feasible,” one scientist told the New York Times last month. A high school science project—no, I am not joking—added more weight to the concept.

“Social distancing” is very much a newfangled experiment, not settled science.  And, Kelley writes, the results are suggesting that our “Great Social Distancing Experiment of 2020” will be “near the top of the list” of “bad experiments gone horribly wrong.”

You also don’t have to be a scientist to also instinctively know that “two weeks to flatten the curve” becoming “America must lock down until a vaccine is created” is more social experimentation than science.  But what the data have fleshed out, beyond the point of argument, is that the proximity of one human being to another has proven to be a very small factor in determining the impact of Covid-19 infections. What’s far more important is which human beings happen to be in close proximity of one another.

According to Dr. Steven Shapiro and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center:

Crowded indoor conditions can be devastating in nursing homes, while on the USS Theodore Roosevelt 1,102 sailors were infected, but only 7 required hospitalization, with 1 death. This contrast has significant implications that we have not embraced. Epidemiologic prediction models have performed poorly, often neglecting critical variables.

Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York said that it’s “shocking” to discover that 66 percent of new hospitalizations appear to have been among people “largely sheltering at home.” 

“We thought maybe they were taking public transportation, but actually no, because these people were literally at home.”

“Much of this comes down to what you do to protect yourself,” he continues.  “Everything closed down, government has done everything it could, society has done everything it could.”

It’s your fault, he says to the hospitalized New Yorkers who loyally complied with his government directive.  But here’s an interesting alternative theory as to why, mostly, old people who are staying at home are being hospitalized.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt had a crew of 4,800.  Given the acute sample, testing was holistic.  This yields an actual infection rate of roughly 23 percent, and among those infected, the fatality rate is 0.09 percent.  Among the Roosevelt’s entire crew of assumedly healthy and able-bodied sailors, on a floating Petri dish, during the thick of viral outbreak that shut down all schools and placed healthy citizens across America under house-arrest, the fatality rate was .002 percent.

It seems more than obvious that there is little sense in quarantining the young and healthy.  As Dr. Shapiro also observes:

Our outcomes are similar to the state of Pennsylvania, where the median age of death from COVID-19 is 84 years old.  The few younger patients who died all had significant preexisting conditions.  Very few children were infected and none died.  Minorities in our communities fared equally well as others, but we know that this is not the case nationally.  In sum, this is a disease of the elderly, sick, and poor.

Here’s another thing you likely already know.  Politicians and the media are committing to damage control to hide all of these facts from you.  In fact, finding any news relating to Dr. Shapiro’s somewhat revelatory comments online is, so far, quite difficult.

That’s because, for the people who pushed “social distancing” and destroying the economy as an absolutely necessary evil, this is a matter of self-preservation.  If this information were widely known, citizens might be more inclined to demand that schools and parks and restaurants and malls be opened.  But if schools had reopened immediately, without testing, and there was not a surge in hospitalizations or deaths, then the obvious question is why the schools closed in the first place.  If restaurants and other shuttered businesses open without a spike in hospitalizations and deaths, then why did they ever close?

There’s value in the media and government officials maintaining the public perception that the costs of “social distancing” have been offset by its benefits.  But while those benefits are elusive in the data, and require mountains of presumption to imagine that they even exist at all, the costs of “social distancing” couldn’t be clearer.

As Dr. Steven Shapiro concludes:

What we cannot do, is extended social isolation. Humans are social beings, and we are already seeing the adverse mental health consequences of loneliness, and that is before the much greater effects of economic devastation take hold on the human condition…

In this particular case, the problem we’re not going to be able to fix in the short term is the complete eradication of the virus. The problem we can fix is to serve and protect our seniors, especially those in nursing homes. If we do that, we can reopen society, and though infectious cases may rise as in the Theodore Roosevelt, the death rate will not, providing time for the development of treatments and

At this point, this is little more than common sense, and the truth can’t continue to be suppressed for much longer.  It’s becoming more and more obvious that it’s well past time to take a more tactical approach to mitigation, as Dr. Katz suggested back on March 20, allocating resources and efforts toward protecting and caring for those most at-risk, and ending this soul-crushing and economy-crashing experiment with holistic “social distancing.”2

Even into mid-June and July, leftist politicians were clinging to social distancing. Writing for The Telegraph, Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, from the University of Oxford, said there is little evidence to support the restriction and called for an end to the “formalised rules”. The University of Dundee also said there was no indication that distancing at two metres (6 ft.) is safer than one metre.

Examining the current evidence for the two-metre rule, Prof Heneghan and Prof Jefferson looked at 172 studies cited in a recent review in The Lancet and found just five had dealt explicitly with coronavirus infection in relation to distance. Only one mentioned coming within six feet of a patient, and that paper showed proximity had no impact. Read full story here…

Professor Robert Dingwall, a sociologist at Nottingham Trent University and a member of government advisory group NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group), said the 2 meter distance was unnecessary. “The distance may be a non-scientific estimate that just caught on in countries around the world, as top researchers say there is not solid evidence to back it up,” reports the Daily Mail. Former Conservative Party Cabinet minister Iain Duncan-Smith also warned that the 2 meter rule could cripple the hospitality sector.

What if the government directive to close everything down and mandate “social distancing” actually made the problem worse?

Dr. David Katz predicted precisely this outcome on March 20, in an article that is proving every bit as correct in its predictions and sober policy recommendations as Dr. Anthony Fauci has been proven incorrect — which is another way of saying that the article has proven flawless, so far. Dr. Katz writes:

[I]n more and more places we are limiting gatherings uniformly, a tactic I call “horizontal interdiction” — when containment policies are applied to the entire population without consideration of their risk for severe infection.

But as the work force is laid off en masse (our family has one adult child home for that reason already), and colleges close (we have another two young adults back home for this reason), young people of indeterminate infectious status are being sent home to huddle with their families nationwide. And because we lack widespread testing, they may be carrying the virus and transmitting it to their 50-something parents, and 70- or 80-something grandparents. If there are any clear guidelines for behavior within families — what I call “vertical interdiction” — I have not seen them.

One might be inclined to simply accept this as an unintended consequence of “social distancing,” but accepting that would require there to be some kind of benefit to “social distancing” that would make it worth the cost. 

Is there?

Very likely, you already instinctively know that the guidelines suggesting that it’s somehow helpful to keep a six-foot space between healthy people, even outdoors, is not based on science, but just an arbitrary suggestion we’ve been conditioned to accept without evidence.

As social distancing was pushed as the ‘new normal’, businesses and gyms came up with ways (signs, distancing tables, even hats, etc.) to enforce the unscientific method, while some cities used draconian measures to enforce distancing such as one-way sidewalks.3

Just as 9/11 greatly altered our society on a permanent basis, many of our social engineers intend to make “social distancing” a permanent part of our lives.  If they have their way, there will be written or unwritten rules about how close you can get to other people virtually everywhere that you go. Can you imagine a world where you have to constantly be concerned about walking, standing or sitting too close to someone else?

Hong Kong, Thailand, Israel, and the US tried to track and monitor “patients” under house arrest that have tested positive for COVID-19, scrape travel history, and spy on your violations of gathering and even being closer to others than their “social distancing” mandates. The plan was to label violators of social distancing as terrorists, but the plan may have been foiled by many who were supposed to be enforcing the draconian measures but were caught violating their own rules such as CNN’s Chris Cuomo and Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan.

And then there’s contact tracing where they will track your every move to see if you came into contact with someone with the virus, but it’s for your own good! Read the CDC guidelines on contact tracing. Read HR 6666 and the new Hero Bill. Try to figure out EXACTLY how the tracing program works. Count how many holes there are in the Swiss Cheese. The bottom line is: they’ll do what they can get away with. They’ll make up reasons for doing it. Contact tracing is just the forward edge of a MUCH larger program of surveillance.

Sources:

  1. https://www.aier.org/article/the-2006-origins-of-the-lockdown-idea/
  2. ZeroHedge
  3. Infowars

The video below by Paul Joseph Watson brilliantly highlights the “new normal” insanity of social distancing that is creating a society so pedantic and cringeworthy, it’s almost like it’s a tactic to make us want to stay indoors forever. (Warning for some offensive language)

Transhumanism

A movement by the elite that aims to transform the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellect and physiology – a merging of man and machine to achieve immortality. The most common transhumanist thesis is that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into different beings with abilities so greatly expanded from the natural condition as to merit the label of posthuman beings. It is essentially eugenics. It’s the lessening of the human factor in humanity for the sake of the few who control. Transhumanism is a counterfeit for the promise through Jesus Christ of Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven through accepting and living His gospel – an attempt by secular humanists to become as Gods themselves, ruling over the lesser humans.

Transhumanism is a bizarre aspiration to achieve immortality, along lunatic lines like cryogenics, placing miniature robots in our bloodstream, “augmenting” ourselves as cyborgs, and even uploading our minds to the Internet. Sound like the ravings of a mad scientist? Yes but they are being spearheaded by the likes of Google. They are in the hands of those who can exercise extraordinary control over our lives. One of Google’s own heads of engineering, Ray Kurzweil, left, a Jew, is the revered modern-day prophet of transhumanism.

The truth is that a formidable conspiracy has taken place right under our noses for the last 50 years. While our attention has been focused on JFK, UFOs and 9/11, a plot to create the ultimate surveillance tool has proceeded unnoticed: the rise of the All-Seeing Eye, the personal computer.

Transhumanism is an occult project, rooted in Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, and derived from the Kabbalah, which asserts that humanity is evolving intellectually, towards a point in time when man will become God. Modeled on the medieval legend of the Golem and Frankenstein, they believe man will be able to create life itself, in the form of living machines, or artificial intelligence.

Transhumanist themes have been reflected for decades in movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, the Terminator series, The Matrix, and Transcendence, but is best encapsulated in the recent movie Lucy, starring Scarlett Johansson, who takes a “smart drug” to achieve ever increasing intelligence, until she merges her mind with the Internet, to become a god.

via GIPHY

This idea is rooted in an occult belief first developed in the sixteenth century by Isaac Luria, father of the New Kabbalah, and the godfather of Rosicrucianism. Luria’s idea, which proposed that man was evolving through time to become God, served as the basis for the Theory of Evolution, promoted by Thomas Huxley’ X Club. Huxley’s grandsons were Aldous Huxley, the visionary behind MK-Ultra, and eugenicist Julian Huxley, a founder of UNESCO.

Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous who authored Brave New World, first used this word Transhumanism. Huxley was a member of the British Eugenics Society, eugenics being the foundation of Transhumanism.

Eugenics rests on a necessity of there being superior and inferior genetic pools in the human population. It might be very socially unacceptable to speak publicly of there being some races, ethnic or cultural groups who are inferior to the rest, yet in secrecy this is exactly what elite Eugenicists believe.

The public is guided to love the idea of Transhumanism by being persuaded that it is not a goal attached to race or ethnicity, but simply a means of bettering all of humanity. This is quite untrue.

Elite Transhumanists have no desire to “evolve” all humankind, their goal is one which seeks to advance only their own bloodlines and to leave the rest in disadvantage to them so that these unfortunate ones have no choice but to become their slaves, their lab animals and their labor force.

“The lowest strata are reproducing too fast.

Therefore… they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilization.” – Julian Huxley

The elite, as they are wrongly called, are blood relations of one another, descending from the hybrid tyrants who ruled in result of this same Transhumanist philosophy pre-flood.

Julian also wrote the introduction to The Phenomenon of Man by Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881 -1955), known as the Catholic Darwin. Identified as the leading influence of the New Age movement, Teilhard is also regarded as the “Patron Saint of the Internet.” Teilhard influenced Marshall McLuhan, Arthur C. Clarke, Philip K. Dick and Terence McKenna with his theory of a “Noosphere,” which would represent humanity’s development of a collective consciousness.

Today referred as the “Global Mind,” it underlines the plans of Google and the transhumanists to create artificial intelligence. By merging with the Internet, which will accumulate all human knowledge, and peer into every aspect of our lives, it will achieve omniscience.

This, the transhumanists believe, will serve as a new god, to unite the world in a communal purpose, and usher in the New Age, or what Kurweil refers to as The Singularity. To understand the Luciferian significance of these ambitions, McLuhan himself explained:

“Electric information environments being utterly ethereal foster the illusion of the world as spiritual substance. It is now a reasonable facsimile of the mystical body [of Christ], a blatant manifestation of the Anti-Christ. After all, the Prince of this world is a very great electric engineer.”

David Livingstone’s “Transhumanism- The History of a Dangerous Idea” . His web site.

From HumansAreFree.com:

…here are 7 disturbing reasons explaining why transhumanism is said to be the greatest threat to the human race and what needs to be done to prevent it.

  1. Mass exploitation for world takeover – In their power-mad pursuits, prepared to spend countless millions, the ruling elite see transhumanism technology as a way to becoming immortal godlike beings.Like most advanced technologies, they will continue to develop transhumanism for their own selfish benefit and as a means of mass exploitation for world takeover. However, what they don’t realize is that we humans are already powerful godlike beings. – The ‘next level’ or ‘transformation’ comes from the consequences of the realization of this.
  2. Loss of spirituality – While accepting transhumanism technology without discernment, seen purely as ‘beneficial’ or ‘enhancing’ through cybernetics, genetic changes, mind-altering drugs, robotizing, bionics, micro-chipping and nano-technology… there is a serious risk of humans losing their power through a loss of spiritual connection to God/ Goddess/ All-There-Is: Infinite possibility, infinite wisdom, infinite love…. If this happens en masse, becoming robots, humans will lose their ability to do anything significant against the ruling elite’s control system. – For the ruling elite this would be the ultimate ‘got you where we want you human race.’
  3. Loss of humanity – As a consequence of 2, as we become dehumanized ‘empty shells,’ those human qualities of empathy, compassion, generosity, kindness, caring and sharing… would be lost. This would lead to disastrous consequences: It is love that makes the world go around. Similarly, as James Corbett said, “Only love will defeat the New World Order.”
  4. Controlling – In summary of 1-3 don’t fall for the ruse: While it’s great, for example, that lost limbs can be effectively replaced by the technology, ultimately, transhumanism is a way of controlling the people, while masquerading solely as ‘beneficial’ or ‘enhancing.’ The creation of the hive mind through transhumanism and technocracy has long been on the ruling elite’s controlling agenda. The hive mind is flawed in that it does not address humans as individuals. When push comes to shove, with all their individual needs and self-expressions humans are bound to revolt against the technocrats’ hive mind control system
  5. Mass surveillance – Take the use of micro-chipped pills to monitor drug dosage control in patients as an example of mass surveillance. The micro-chips in the pills could be used for other darker purposes such as mood altering and mind reading during the surveillance, activated from a central control location using computers. Mass mind controlling through surveillance is high on the technological autocrats’ wish list…
  6. Some serious health threats – There’s the disturbing case of vaccines capable of changing our DNA. The vaccine introduced into our bodies contains live viruses. These viruses can incorporate into our host cell’s DNA and thus alter our genetic composition and gene expression. A deeply concerning health issue is the recent push for vaccinating pregnant women, which has to stop. If you are pregnant or know anyone who is then please circulate the following or other similar pieces. Going beyond the mother’s placental barrier, the vaccines have shown to cause brain damaging alterations in the developing foetus through their toxicity. This also causes foetal inflammation. With further vaccinations after birth and drug treatment such as paracetamol to try and reduce the infant’s inflammation, the brain-damaging continues:
    • It causes further alterations in the brain’s structural development, mainly affecting the pre-frontal cortex the front area responsible for cognitive (thought) processes and the animalistic limbic system a region of the hindbrain affecting emotion.
    • The 3rd important part of the brain also affected is the anterior cingulate cortex (sorry about the jargon) which acts as a relay station allowing connections between the pre-frontal cortex and limbic system. Damage and mal-development of these 3 brain structures results in a number of disorders such as autism…

Microchip Implants

Dr Katherine Horton in an Oxford-educated particle physicist and systems analyst with a Master of Physics (1st class) and doctorate in particle physics, both from the University of Oxford. She worked as a high energy physicists on the particle collider at the German Electronsynchrotron DESY in Hamburg, Germany, and on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva Switzerland. She taught nuclear physics and particle physics at Hertford College, University of Oxford, and conducted admissions interviews for undergraduate physics at St Hilda’s College, Oxford.

Dr. Horton gradually realised that she, as well as her family and friends, were being used as target practice for modern military weapons and subjects of human experimentation with non-consensual body implants and neurotechnology. The crimes against her and her family and friends were committed with egregious impunity because all police services, Intelligence Agencies and courts were in Deep Capture by a global criminal network that owned the Secret Services and had infiltrated every area of public life.

Dr. Horton as well as her family members and those of her friends experienced brutal assaults and survived assassination attempts. Dr. Horton was permanently mutilated and repeated brutal premeditated assaults and had to begin fighting for her life. Dr. Horton also discovered that she had been non-consensually implanted without her knowledge with microchips. The radio-frequency emissions from these illegal chip implants that form an interconnected system, called a Body Area Network in the scientific literature, were measured by experts in a professional Faraday cage at a Belgian university.

She also discovered that members of her family and friends had equally been implanted. Dr. Horton has begged for help from the human rights charities, Swiss & UK & German police, Swiss criminal police, Swiss military police, the German Federal Crime Squad BKA, the Swiss & UK Attorney Generals, the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the Heads of MI5 & BND and the German ambassador to Switzerland. All committed dereliction of duty by refusing to help. The police even took active steps to intimidate her.

Dr. Horton discusses her research discoveries regarding microchipping in the videos below:

 

Occult Transhumanism

Promotional still from “Splice” (2009) Warner Bros; Directed by Vincenzo Natali. “She’s not human … Not entirely.”

In our present context, transhumanism and their  technologies aim to re-engineer humankind and are, by their very nature, drawn from occult or alchemical principles as a cyclic set of redemptive patterns. Modern science is a reflection of the original alchemical imperatives, established to assist humanity in achieving a prodigal return after the fall. Yet, there are always two streams to this return: service to self or service to others, left hand path or right hand path, creativity, entropy, yin-yang. Learning to discern and discriminate the choices which lead to an increase in awareness rather than an unconscious decrease is determined by context.  And it seems the present context is dominated by a technological ascension that is entropic in nature.

There has been a persistent push toward group consciousness, group-think, consolidation/centralisation, SMART societies, ecological fascism and the general hijacking of Truth in order to supplant and engineer a counterfeit reality which nonetheless, achieves the required energy – by the consent of the masses. For ceremonial psychopaths, free-will is still paramount and much tastier meal if the decision is given willingly. One has to make the choice – even unconsciously – to be follow objective reality as far as is possible or to choose to be deceived.

The contemporary Elites within America (the latter-day Atlantis and New Babylon) are fixated on the idea of transformation. As discussed previously we can see that these Illuminist/Rosicrucian/Baconian roots have required centuries long social engineering efforts culminating in a precise set of phases in the 20th and 21st Centuries. The slow establishment of an Official Culture of mind-body addiction serves as a platform by which social and cultural experimentation can take place. We might say there are five main ideas implanted into the minds of the global population:

  1. The idea that the Earth is overpopulated and extreme measures are needed depopulation by all and any means.
  2. Human influenced global warming to create fear and finance; to camouflage cyclic environmental, cataclysmic and cosmic changes.
  3. Human induced Terror Industry to promote fear and finance.
  4. Genetic engineering to save humanity (cure diseases, disability, farming)
  5. Genetic engineering and bio-technology to “improve” humanity

The 4C’s of commercialisation, consolidation, centralisation and control underpin these three main strategies with: a) banking infrastructure predicated on credit and debt cycles and b) the Structural Adjustment Team organisations to implement debt and the maintenance of poverty and war. The final technological transformation and its religio-occult apocalypse care of monotheistic religions represent the “ascension”; a magical reversal of the Tower of Babel moment and a return to the States of both Babylon and Atlantis. A New World Order will rise out of the ashes and the template for a SMART World State will advance a breakaway society. This enclave of self-proclaimed New World Priesthood will oversee a chipped, genetically modified, modernised slave race – willingly accepted. The energy of the mass mind will serve as a mega-ritual of perceived alchemical ascension by a minority of psychopath masquerading as transhumanist saviours.

Accordingly, the transformation of humankind across all domains is currently obsessed with socio-cultural “androgynous fusions” since it is the esoteric masculine androgyny that dominates the global occult Establishment. The engineering of these fusions is operating through genetics and chimeras, biology, agribusiness, entertainment, art, media, military R & D  and of course, transhumanism as the main hub for disseminating the new philosophy and the transformation of consciousness toward the prophesied Singularity.

Or, according to author Joel Garreau:

“… it means that any human being – a microcosm – will be capable of himself or herself becoming a macrocosm, of literally stretching out, via computer interfaces, to control robotic space probes, millions of miles away. The next step is towards true computer-enhanced telepathy and interface, “to rig a distant machine such that it can pipe what it is sensing directly into the brain of its human host. The goal is to seamlessly merge mind and machine, engineering human evolution so as to directly project and amplify the power of our thoughts throughout the universe.” [2]

This explains the Establishment expression of an inverted alchemy and its obsession with sexual subversion, androgyny as expressed through pathological elements of (Nazi) occult bi-sexuality, homosexuality and the now modern PR surrounding transgender studies surfacing in popular culture – often in combination with a transhumanist ethos. This is not to condemn the LBGT ( Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Gay and Transgender) movement at its core, only to raise questions about its appearance at this juncture and with awareness of what has been discussed. Recall that normal humanity – including normal gay men and lesbian women – are being used to fulfill an agenda that has nothing to do with social or spiritual emancipation. The occult elite are in control of the mechanism though not necessarily the inherent unpredictability. If indeed we are facing a omni-directional engineering of the social body then it is logical that these patterns of sexuality have surfaced throughout history where separation and persecution dominated, or an understanding of sexual orientation was allowed to occur, usually based on higher knowledge concerning its place in the whole and the key distinction between mere difference and obvious pathology.

The Mainstreaming of cyborg-erotica care of transhumanist “chic.” It is usually a male fantasy fusion, though Bjork’s lesbian android’s (top right) beat Jennifer Lopez’s standard hetero-android for cyber-fetish originality…

The spiritual concept of the androgynous man is a symbol of bi-sexuality and asexuality of the Divine Unity – the completed Self. It is a symbol for the integration of all noble aspects not just sexual. However, sexual/creative  energy informs all. Indeed, rudimentary sex organs of both sexes are present in the human foetus – an embryonic androgyny. And as Farrell and De Hart propose, this may be the results of an actual scientific knowledge that man was literally made in the image of the God(s).

Down through history ancient culture across the globe has seen the  masculine associated with differentiation, and the feminine with union. This symbolism was rooted in an elite science that actually knew that biologically it was the male that indeed was responsible for the “primary differentiation” and sexual differentiation, with the feminine or reception as the “default” program  set to “female.”

“Alchemosexuality” was the echo of a scientifically-based ancient culture such as Atlantis which was destroyed as result of their all-consuming hubris, the knowledge was lost along with everything else. But if human males carry BOTH chromosomes and this was applied as a form of “analogical magic” this would be likened to: “…a symbol of the physical medium in which all distinctions are united.” And where such thinking as related to a primordial alchemosexuality: “… even finds expression in the ancient belief that male sperm: ‘was held to contain a particle of prima materia out of which everything was made.’ ” it is in this sense that: “… the phenomenon of androgyny itself is a residue of mankind’s actual primordial state – as is actually claimed by various traditions – and occasionally manifests itself for whatever reason, including the possibility that it is being deliberately, though covertly, sought and engineered.”

Even more importantly:

“…modern genetics falsifies the ancient metaphor in one significant way, in that it is the female rather than the male which is the “default” setting for the program of human embryonic development.

But i[t] also confirms the ancient metaphor in another significant way, in that it is the male that is a “special program” of differentiation, for without the Y chromosome, development would proceed along the lines of the female. We cannot help but recall the fact that in ancient Mesopotamian lore, the “gods” engineered mankind by a chimerical mixture between a proto-human “female” donor and a “god” male donor. [3]

Hence the distortion within the ruling power echelons where a predominance of paedophilia and gay sex magick within military-occult circles comes into play. The idea of the default setting of man is taken as an exclusive Will to Power, the masculine as the “Keys to Creation” rather than the integration and synthesis of both sexual energies. The Fall and subsequent re-engineering of humanity was accomplished when the genetic symbiosis of X, Y chromosome interrelation ceased to indicate androgyny but degenerated into mere sexual divisions.

If the unification of the sexes was indeed a reality in some dim and and very distant past, and the human race was divided into males and females, as also much later suggested by Plato and possibly Aristotle, it reinforces the sheer alchemical ambition foisted on humanity – viewed as Frankenstein by the Elite, a monster to be transmuted – is extraordinary to behold. It seems they have not – perhaps cannot – learn from the past. If individual consciousness is being sacrificed for group consensus and group consciousness based on androgynous fusions which are all rooted in an archaic re-enactment of an ancient Fall and the assumed ascent, most of humanity will flow into that “Great Work” voluntarily.

The only problem is, it is the usual hi-jacking of Truth; it is a trap which will provide a choice for the observer to apply the knowledge to truly SEE or to believe the lie, the latter signifying a return not to primordial androgyny but to primal matter.

Scarlett Johansson starring as “Lucy” in the 2014 film of the same name. Directed by Luc Besson this is perhaps one of the most transhumanist films ever made offering a decidedly “Luciferian version of Creation”. For a fine exploration of these underlying themes within the film take a look at: “Lucy”: A Movie About Luciferian Philosophy” from the Vigilant Citizen website.

We see a strange reflection of this genetic dissection and manipulation across all domains of society. It is a forced fusion of opposites and coerced interplay of group-think and herd mentality being corralled towards a technocratic fusion of consciousness. Anomalies abound with transsexuals cast a drift in a sea of artificiality where once such individuals had a place in society as spiritual channels. Those that were half-man/half woman were revered in many ancient and indigenous cultures as they were seen as shamans given the task of attuning with higher realities in order to maintain the integrity of the community, by a communion with “Spirit.” The last thing they were subjected to was isolation and hatred. Yet, in this culture of extreme differentiation and sexual psychopathy is makes perfect sense that sexual minorities are also hijacked and co-opted for elite uses, subverting minority roles so that narcissistic tribal groupings and endless labels for “rights” and further differentiations dominate. Similarly, agriculture and animals become commodified just as the ecology of the mind and its external environment succumb not to the freedom of technology, but its further constriction.

From commercials to pop stars to military “breakthroughs” we’re seeing the robotization agenda in full swing. It’s a definite dehumanizing trend that is being programmed into an unsuspecting human population. The impetus for this “bionic body” gains its momentum from the health (s)care faction. There are wonderful inventions to help humanity. No doubt. But just like splitting the atom can go both ways, so does everything. And right now, the Controllers are ruling. They have the technology to help the blind see, the immobilized move, replace missing limbs… But don’t be fooled. The PTBs are always out to control. Period.

The promise of technology to heal all physical ills is very real and to be welcomed. Meanwhile, the pay off from that healing is not being addressed and can be seen in current expressions within pop culture. While the undoubted interrelatedness and interdependence of the global populations is emerging as a very real global brain, the ponerological aspects of this manifestation is clear. Art, music and the Hollywood, gloss of cyber erotica, the Nazi roots of Sado-Masochism, bondage and porn is being mainstreamed. It is quite literally, coming online as the merging of man and machine is sold as sexy. Hollywood’s productions are not mere entertainment. It’s a form of psycho-entrainment, teaching humanity to resonate with whatever themes and memes it wishes to introduce into the human consciousness. And transhumanism is HUGE in their agenda.

According to physics the Universe may be “hardwired” to produce observers so that in one sense, the Universe can know itself through the medium of a complex organism like humanity. This has been called the “Anthropic Cosmological Principle,” which includes four sub-principles. It is the fourth sub-principle – the Final Anthropic Principle – which concerns transhumanism and which exactly describes the abiding rationale behind such beliefs in that the processing of information must be brought forth in the Universe, and once it comes into existence, it cannot die out. This may be true, but it is a huge leap to assume that observers and participants all adhere to the essential qualitative energy of Universal Creativity. There is supreme intelligence of the machine and there is the omnipotent Gods of pre-history – neither of which designate ultimate benevolence.

Spirit is neutral but flows through the polarities of negative and positive. It is this underlying binary cycle of Light and Dark consciousness expressed through group endeavour that holds the most danger: a) through the networking of knowledge without prejudice and with a co-linear intent that it is group conscious; or b) through the development of belief, ideology and subjective evaluations designed to create group consciousness as a template for the future. The latter accentuates contraction, conformity and authority with the artifice of the opposite – the effort expressed that is equal, unchanging and constantly running on empty. It is the uniformity and crystallised “consensus” that drives hierarchical group consciousness, where the restriction of a singular authority impedes creativity and leads to entropy.

The former – a network of service to others – actually serves the self, as it strives to disburse accumulated energy in favour of both individuality and the community; creativity is expressed as part of an holistic organism, where each “cell” is a fractal representation of the whole – a contribution of unique effort which is shared and transformed. It is this uniqueness of individual experience that drives and enriches the network.

Transhumanism, if not presently located in an entropic spiral is rapidly heading that way. Since we might presume that individuals and humanity en mass, represent a vast storehouse of DNA transmission and receivership capability, the inherent quality must define these attributes; it must depend upon our conscious choices to expand awareness and therefore resist lies and deception in favour of group conscious creativity. Perhaps we then become transducers of qualitative energies that demand a transmutation of our inner ecology, thus leading to the potential to change our outer environment.

No intermediate machinery is needed, silicon, quantum or otherwise.

In a recent Wall Street Journal essay, “Looking Forward to the End of Humanity”, Adam Kirsch posits a technological push, impelled by the global coronavirus pandemic, that would abolish death:

Eternal life through advanced technology seems like a pipe dream for a society that, until recently, had trouble manufacturing enough masks to save doctors’ and nurses’ lives. Yet Covid-19 may turn out to be just the kind of crisis needed to turbocharge efforts to create what its advocates call a “transhuman” future. With our biological fragility more obvious than ever, many people will be ready to embrace the message of the Transhumanist Declaration, an eight-point program first issued in 1998: “We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering and our confinement to planet Earth.”

There is an abundance of well respected thinkers who believe this is possible, including Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, cited in the article, and Yuval Noah Harari, in his Homo Deus sets the tone early on by declaring:

In the twenty-first century, humans are likely to make a serious bid for immortality….Humans always die due to some technical glitch….Nothing metaphysical about it. It is all technical problems.

Then of course, no discussion techno-utopianism would be complete without Ray Kurzweil, who posits a “technological singularity” which would provide for a personalized and totally controlled universe for every human, one where they would be in complete control to experience whatever they desired, for all eternity, once we all upload our consciousnesses into the cloud.

The WSJ piece hits on the same theme:

Today, cognitive scientists often compare the brain to hardware and the mind to the software that runs on it. But a software program is just information, and in principle there’s no reason why the information of consciousness has to be encoded in neurons.

The Human Connectome Project, launched in 2009 by the National Institutes of Health, describes itself as “an ambitious effort to map the neural pathways that underlie human brain function.” If those pathways could be completely mapped and translated into digital 0s and 1s, the data could be uploaded to a computer, where it could survive indefinitely.

Does any of this sound like heaven? Or paradise? Valhalla? That’s not surprising because Scientism (as distinct from exploration and discovery using the scientific method) has ushered in a new era of material reductionism so that religion, spirituality, or any other non-material aspect of reality that cannot be readily quantified have been stripped of relevance and meaning in our Brave New World.

Something has to fill the void that the absence of religion and spirituality will vacate. In my next book, The Singularity Has Been #Canceled, I posit that this vacuum will be filled with techno-utopian thinking, which will pull forward utopia and everlasting bliss from the next life, and via the promise of expertly managed technology, roll it out into this one.  Read full story here…

More videos:

CERN

an underground facility in Switzerland that houses the world’s largest machine, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). CERN has been in operation since 1954 and created the internet in 1989. It has many “supposed” projects and experiments underway right now, though not one of them will lead to anything but theories that attempt to place scientist on the same level of God, or perhaps higher. And if that hubris isn’t enough, CERN claims it can go beyond matter and has the capacity to open doorways between dimensions, and is said to be an occult organization whose real intention is to open a portal to Hell. CERN even plans to try to stick anti-matter through the doorway to “see what happens.” CERN  has yet to create anything useful or get a single step closer to its purported mission of proving the fraudulent big bang theory, but is beyond reproach as it is sanctioned by a mysterious assembly of international associations where the ultimate authority of the project has been so hidden through compartmentalization that you cannot find any one leader, CEO, or entity in charge.

Wikipedia offers the following description:

a European research organization that operates the largest particle physics laboratory in the world. Established in 1954, the organization is based in a northwest suburb of Geneva on the Franco–Swiss border, and has 22 member states. Israel is the only non-European country granted full membership. CERN is an official United Nations Observer.

The acronym CERN is also used to refer to the laboratory, which in 2016 had 2,500 scientific, technical, and administrative staff members, and hosted about 12,000 users. In the same year, CERN generated 49 petabytes (one quadrillion bytes) of data.

CERN’s main function is to provide the particle accelerators and other infrastructure needed for high-energy physics research – as a result, numerous experiments have been constructed at CERN through international collaborations. The main site at Meyrin hosts a large computing facility, which is primarily used to store and analyze data from experiments, as well as simulate events. Researchers need remote access to these facilities, so the lab has historically been a major wide area network hub. CERN is also the birthplace of the World Wide Web.

The acronym CERN …originally represented the French words for Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Council for Nuclear Research)

As evidenced, the logo of CERN contains the number “666” which is indicative of “The Beast”, a Biblical euphemism for the Devil or Anti-Christ and his latter-day system of the beast. When employing the modern Roman-English alphabet, the term “CERN” is consonantly speaking the same as “CROWN” (the letter “W” is often benign) for it represents the true seat of power in the underworld. Coincidentally, the crown is the universal symbol for power. When employing the Roman Score (i.e., the Roman alphabet), the term “CERN” consonantly speaking equates to “CRX” which translates to “Crux”, the Latin word for “Cross”. Coincidentally, the flag of Switzerland bears a Greek Cross that equates to the letter “D”, an acronym for both “Die” and “Death”.

The CERN laboratory is on the border of France and Switzerland and is home to the world’s largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider. For anyone reading who is not familiar with it, here is a link to the Wikipedia page. At the CERN laboratory there is a large statute of Shiva engaging in what is called the Nataraja dance of creation and destruction. Per the sourced material on Wikipedia’s page for Nataraja, it “was given to CERN by the Indian government to celebrate the research center’s long association with India.” Shiva or Siva is considered the Supreme God within Shaivism who is the creator and destroyer of all that is.

YourNewsWire writes, “Tripurantaka, a manifestation of Shiva, is depicted with four arms wielding a bow and arrow. He holds an axe and a deer on the upper pair of his arms, and a bow and an arrow lower pair of the arms, respectively. Tripurantaka is symbolic of the four-armed cross of Switzerland which is responsible for executing assassinations, terror attacks and wars in the underworld at the behest of the Roman Empire in Greenland. Shiva also rides on a bull, his vehicle, which is representative of Babylon, the former capitol of the Roman Empire.

Coincidentally, Switzerland is responsible for managing and maintaining the Babylon System in the underworld. The English term “sieve” (S+V), which is consonantly speaking the same as “Siva”, is a device that is used to separate wanted elements from unwanted material. Metaphorically speaking, Switzerland is the sieve of the underworld for it removes unwanted people and ideas, especially in respect to the secret home of the CIA and the fact that the Roman Empire is alive and well in Greenland.”

The workers in CERN have even been videoed doing a dance to Shiva. This is a pagan way to worship and give honor to to this Shiva demon. Here is a question. If CERN is just “science” then why is there Shiva and worship dances to Shiva? This false god of destruction and transformation is not a good symbol to represent anything. Dancing to this evil demonic false god is not “scientific” in any way. This alone proves the occult nature and purposes of CERN. The “scientists” at CERN are evolutionists that reject the God of the Bible. Instead they turn to Satan and Shiva. The evil ones at CERN seek to destroy matter and reveal all the hidden sub-atomic things. With this knowledge they will be able to have the knowledge to open the door to the bottomless pit. All thanks will be given to Satan or Shiva the destroyer. These evil men want nothing to do with the God of the Bible. Instead, they display a false demonic entity called Shiva at their facility and do dances to it. This lets one know where they are coming from and who they serve. This is not science.

SYMMETRY – CERN dance-opera film (official trailer) from TRUTH.IO on Vimeo.

What is CERN?

American Intelligence Media says of CERN:

Just as the first atom smashers were used to create bombs, everything done at CERN is for military purposesAs is usually the case, any technology that can be weaponized for the globalist’s take-over of the world, whether it is social media, big agriculture, energy production, or the internet, will be used for the purpose of enslaving humanity. Make no mistake: CERN is a super hub for the global military industrial complex.

Untold billions (perhaps trillions) have been poured into the biggest system of machines (so we are told) ever made, relying on a “science” of theoretical physics that claims it can use human machines to “create” as God did during the first moments of creation. But you will be hard pressed to find any useful discoveries at CERN, even after decades of research and experimentation and boatloads of international funding.

Indeed, CERN has been in operation since 1954 and has yet to create anything useful or get a single step closer to its mission of proving the big bang theory. Of the many “supposed” projects and experiments underway right now, not one of them will lead to anything but theories that attempt to place scientist on the same level of God, or perhaps higher.

CERN is One of the Biggest Science Frauds in History

No one has been able to stop or thoroughly examine CERN experiments as it is sanctioned by a mysterious assembly of international associations where the ultimate authority of the project has been so hidden through Jesuit-like compartmentalization that you cannot find any one leader, CEO, or entity in charge. In fact, many scientists who are employed by CERN probably don’t know that it is a scam. They are just conducting their limited scope of work, which could be legitimate, given to them by a supervisor that is also working within constraints and boundaries. Everything is on a need-to-know basis.

In a process known as diffusion of responsibility, no one is ultimately responsible. In CERN’s case this means that science can do whatever it wants–whether it is creating light-speed atomic collisions, capturing mysterious “particles” that can create supernovas or black holes, genetic modification of plants, animals and humans, or just the standard militaristic warlord banker’s favorite — building new bombs for both sides of the conflict.  CERN gives scientists permission to have free reign to rip apart or explode anything they want just because they are trying to find the God particle.

The CERN scientific community makes the braggadocios statement that “Science can do what God does, or better!”  With its community of 25,000 international scientists, scattered throughout the world, who are not responsible to any particular national law or regulation, diffusion of responsibility gives this group exclusionary power and immunity to decide which experiments are worthy of its endeavors, while protecting its scientists from any personal or group consequences.

It also hides the real purpose of CERN: It is the NWO super hub of the military industrial complex for the World Wide Web.

Why is CERN located in Switzerland?

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you want to build something secret and keep it secret, you might consider Switzerland where you can hide money, politics, and in this case, the very machine itself.  Do we really believe that the Swiss, known only for manufacturing Swiss watches and knives, built the most complicated machine in the world?

If what you want is concealment to launder and hide boatloads of money, Geneva, home of internationalism and globalism (IMF, BIS, League of Nations, World Council of Churches, Swiss banks, etc.) is a perfect place to hide the scientific-financial-military hoax of all times.

Let’s review key points:

The Money no one knows who all gives to CERN or how much money has been spent to date. Think auditing the Fed is difficult to achieve, try auditing this international world wide web of lies! We know that the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs, and other warlord bankers privately donate huge sums that do not appear on CERN published budgets. There are confusing stories, multiple budgets, hidden assets and donations that are shared between seven different cities in France and Switzerland. There are multiple supporting corporations and associations around CERN. One public budget alone shows over a billion a year is spent and nothing is produced accept claims and simulations. The total amount donated to CERN have estimates that begin at 11 billion and range to 3 trillion.

You see why CERN is located in the secretive Swiss banking community? Can you imagine what it would take to get a full accounting of anything from CERN—whether financial or operational?  Can you see how this provides the ultimate cloak of secrecy to the world’s biggest false flag?

One thing is for sure. Even though America donates the largest amount of yearly funding, all member countries share data that ensures the international war machine has plenty of weaponized technology for all sides. In this way, perpetual war, spearheaded by the banking warlords, is guaranteed and they all continue to make money on war—no matter which side is fighting.

Countries involved in CERN research include: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Romania, Serbia, Pakistan, Turkey, India, Japan, Russian Federation, United States of America, and the European Union. Although the U.S. funds more money at CERN than any other country, any top secret weapon research and development is not U.S. proprietary. It is shared with U.S. enemies around the world and U.S. taxpayers are paying to support the international military-industrial war business.

The Politics – The Lombard bankers who financed the crusades, the East India Company, the Dutch East India Company, the British East Indian Company, and the central banks of Italy, Germany, Holland and England, are centered in Geneva. Members of these old banking families have led CERN since its inception. Even though 95% of the supposed CERN tunnels are in France, Geneva is in full control of CERN finances. A complete audit of CERN is not possible because of secretive Swiss banking laws and regulations.

The Machine – All other atom smashers in the world are either above ground or have continuous ground level access points around the circle or tunnels. CERN is conveniently “hidden” 575 feet underground in tunnels that did not upset the landscape while being built or in operation. Where were the environmentalists and concerned citizens while CERN built this underground behemoth? Where are the pictures of the vast amounts of dirt that had to be excavated? Frankly, when we lived in Boston during the “big dig” it was impossible not to see traffic congestion, cost overruns, corruption, and lots of trucks, construction workers, and dirt. We simply can’t find anything on the internet regarding the construction of tunnels at CERN which is by far a bigger project than anything of its kind—ever.

There do seem to be periodic access points at seven locations for the CERN machine. Each location has an elevator that goes down to the underground facilities where large machines connect to the supposed 17 mile long rings on three different levels. But where are the construction pictures showing the tunnel excavation machines? It would be impossible to dig the tunnels without large construction equipment being seen in the access areas.

This is a picture of a “normal” accelerator. It is above ground and has continuous access points. There is no reason to place an atom smasher underground and many reasons not to do so.

What we are shown on the Internet and on CERN’s website are pictures of the so-called underground chambers where different large machines have been built. But since we can’t find any evidence that anything was actually built underground, we have to question the huge and costly experiments taking place at CERN, which, as you will read later, have few tangible results. And really, folks, we all know how easy it is today to photoshop anything—including glossy pictures of the octopus looking CERN and its underground tunnels.

And now we learn that CERN wishes to enlarge its facility by creating an atom smasher ten times bigger than the current ones. Switzerland will be the exclusive recipient of the funds that will be ten times greater than the already existing CERN costs, which is the most expensive scientific research in history.

American taxpayers: Can you spell S-U-C-K-E-R-S?

What kind of environmental damage will happen when the enlarged tunnels are excavated under lakes, towns, and beautiful countryside?

The new, ten-times-bigger ring will be tunneled under Lake Geneva and the surrounding area, one of the most expensive and exclusive areas in Europe, and yet no one has objected to living on top of the most radical and dangerous science experiments in history, not to mention the environmental issues in excavating the beautiful Swiss countryside. This time, it will be built completely in Switzerland so the warlord bankers can capitalize on an even bigger money laundering or Ponzi scheme.

CERN Data is Flawed According to the NSA

CERN claims to have found the Higgs Boson particle called the God Particle. This data is now questionable and seems to be propaganda based upon an inadequate theory. This coincides with the charges made by the National Security Agency and researchers at other accelerators that CERN data does not fit in with the standard models. It appears that CERN data is simply computer simulations of fake experiments that do not match the data from other legitimate accelerators around the world.

In an article entitled: NSA Concerned: CERN’s Data the Only Ones They Cannot Make Sense Of, from February 4, 2014, we read that:

NSA officials are increasingly concerned about the fact that they cannot understand the data produced by the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research CERN.

“We can’t see any of those W-bosons, Higgs-bosons, or top quarks these folks claim to have detected. Instead all this appears to be an unintelligible mess that shows up when one crashes highly energetic particles at random.”  

According to rumors, NSA director Keith B. Alexander is very upset about “particle geeks with a damn high income” that are “unable to explain the meaning of their business to anybody else.”

CERN management stated that “The entire physics community trusts the results because an unprecedented number of experts believe them. We are astonished that NSA is so distrustful.”

Via unofficial channels, CERN assured that none of the particle physics experiments have developed anything useful, let alone anything harmful, in the past few decades. 

Do You Sense a False Flag Here?

In our article entitled False Flags are Legal Propaganda Produced by the Department of Defense, we described the twelve indicators of a false flag.  The list is easy to use and we suggested that patriots become acquainted with this list (provided by Wikipedia) so that suspicious events and activities could be checked against the indicators.

We have applied the indicators specifically to CERN at the link below:

 Is CERN a False Flag Operation?

What is so astonishing is that CERN tells you on its own website what you need to look for in order to discern an internet hoax. (Since CERN is the creator of the internet—which you will read on down the article—guess they needed to alert you when you might be caught up in an Internet fraud.)

CERN indicates three things that will tip you off to an internet fraud or hoax:

  • Technical sounding language.
  • Credibility by association.
  • Life or death questions concerning a human.

We would be dancing, too, if we could make this much money with scientific smoke and mirrors.

As you can see, CERN meets this criteria exactly. What project is more technical than CERN?  It continuously creates new theoretical particles that no one, even the NSA, can “find.” CERN is the largest scientific collaboration in the world. Therefore, its credibility by association is unparalleled with 25,000 top scientists working for it. That many scientists can’t be wrong, says the new alternative method of scientist research—scientific consensus.

What could be more life-threatening than opening black holes that could swallow the earth or finding anti-matter that destroys the entire Earth in the process? Therefore, CERN, by its own definition of a hoax is a hoax of mega proportion. And it meets all the criteria for twelve basic strategies of perception management.

The True Missions of CERN – Better Bombs?, Surveillance?, or Opening the Portal to Hell

Better Bombs

For the first time in history mad scientists have built a machine/weapon that, they claim, is capable of destroying the planet. Hadron colliders, which are actually real mechanical devices, evolved during the cold war to create small nuclear explosions which could be used by the military as a sample of future nuclear bombs. After the cold war ended, Russia and America put an end to the astronomical costs of those machine-weapons, but Europe, with the new ‘marketing’ of ‘peaceful use’ took the industry of accelerators a step further. The result, they claim, is a 7 teravolt, superconductive, superfluid ‘quark cannon’ which purports to mass together the densest, most attractive substance of the universe, quarks, to explore the formation of quark-gluon liquids. These liquids are the explosives responsible for cosmic annihilations, such as novas, super-novas and perhaps the hypothetical big bang of the universe. Because the Swiss device is supposed to be so large it has the name LARGE Hadron Collider (LHC).

Even though we have not found sufficient evidence that these experiments are actually possible or that CERN is actually doing them, we are concerned about the cavalier acceptance that a body of international physicists could be permitted to conduct such dangerous experiments with dire consequences for humanity, without approval by the United States Congress and other individual nation states (not the collective UN body, but individual, sovereign nation states) and that the world’s citizenry isn’t made more aware of what is actually going on.  It seems that there is a scheme to make the LHC a machine that is “too big to fail,” defended by technocrats, nuclear industries, physicists and the corporate press, with the same zeal they defended nuclear weapons during the cold war and big banks in current times.

CERN claims that the LHC has enough potency to create strangelets, a strange liquid explosive that is responsible for the ice-9 reaction that converts stars into super-novas with a device called Castor, a strangelet detector which was built to study them. The ‘Castor Team’ affirms the LHC will ‘likely’ create stable strangelets. CERN will shoot bullets at the speed of light at lead pellets in this superconductive, superfluid cannon. According to the most advanced theoretical research on the subject, they can create strangelets that would sink the earth into a rock of a few kilometers of diameter.  Once upon a time, this strange liquid might have been called snake oil.

If all of this were to be believed, CERN would be developing the most powerful weapon ever known to man and many lesser, but dangerous, weapons could arise from these experiments. Thank goodness we now know these scientists as modern day snake oil hustlers.

Refuting the Big Bang Theory

Everything done at CERN hangs on a “belief” in the big bang theory of creation. The big bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science, just as consensus has replaced the scientific method!

Today, the Big Bang is pushed so vehemently, especially among higher education, that anyone who questions its validity, even in light of the countless flaws of the big bang theory, can be subject to intense criticism, professionally and socially ostracized and rejected, given failing grades, and expelled from universities. The questioning scientist can have his/her professional licenses revoked, professional associations withheld, job terminated, and reputation ruined. All because the inquiring scientist went against the prevailing notions.

It’s no different than the times when people went against the idea the earth was round. It’s not about what is true. It’s about what the educational and governing authorities say they want you to believe and say is true. As a result, almost all professors and scientists are too afraid of being ostracized from their communities and face losing their jobs to speak out against the preposterous “science”.

If you want to believe in the big bang theory, you must believe it one of three ways: by faith, by ignorance, or by indoctrination.

  • By faith, because you can’t believe something which does not have adequate scientific evidence except as a philosophical viewpoint.
  • By ignorance because the only way to be certain in your mind that the big bang theory could work is because you don’t have all the facts.
  • Or if you have been so far indoctrinated you haven’t made a logical conclusion with your own rational mind, you may have never even tried to question what you have been told.

However you must decide for yourself what you will believe. If you decide to believe in the big bang theory, just realize that since it is not supported by science; you have to believe it as a philosophical viewpoint, not as a scientific fact.

Yet the foundational science of CERN, and all of the trillions that will be going into supporting this dark behemoth for decades to come, is based upon the questionable theory of the big bang.

Basic Reasons the Big Bang Theory is Impossible 

Granted, we are not trained physicists or highly-paid university researchers. We are regular citizens, with average intelligences, using basic high school science principals to understand what CERN claims to do. And if we see this many holes in their highfalutin science, then why aren’t they seeing it? Or better yet, we challenge any scientist to refute these points with readers of this website.

Here are the questions we would like some of these 25,000 highly educated scientists to clear up for us before we send you another billion dollars: 

  1. If the big bang theory were true, a magnetic monopole should be one of the most prevalent (common) particles in the universe. However, instead it is the complete opposite – a magnetic monopole has never been observed.
  2. The curvature of matter and energy in regards to density remains very small so the probability that a big bang could have occurred to create the current universe is so astronomically slim that it is entirely improbable.
  3. If the big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, then the deeper we peer into the universe, the closer to the Big bang that we should see. However, no matter how deep we peer into space, still we see no evidence of a big bang.
  4. For a big bang to have occurred, galaxies would be perfectly evenly spread out. Thus, the lack of universal galactic uniformity contradicts the fundamental aspects of the big bang theory.
  5. The curvature of matter and energy in regards to density remains very small so the probability that a big bang could have occurred to create the current universe is so astronomically slim that it is entirely improbable.
  6. Dark Matter and Dark Energy have never been proven, or observed in any way whatsoever, yet the big bang theory depends on the existence of such potentially mythological substances. In order for the big bang theory to even be valid, dark matter and dark energy would have to be the most abundant things in the universe.
  7. Big bang theorists have tried to use a magical effect called “inflation” to solve several of the obvious problems, including the Horizon Problem and the Flatness Problem. Inflation states that after the big bang, all the particles in the universe traveled faster than the speed of light. But Einstein’s General Law of Relativity proves that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
  8. For the big bang to have happened and created the whole universe as we know it, the opposite thing would have happened: all matter would have moved toward order. This is impossible.
  9. Newton’s First Law of Thermodynamics states generally that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This is a fundamental law of science which says that matter can only be converted into other matter.  Proponents of the big bang theory try to say that the universe was created out of nothing. Obviously this is scientifically impossible.
  10. The big bang theory opposes Occam’s Razor because it can only exist with innumerable adjustable parameters.
  11. The universe is too big to have formed in only 10-20 billion years as the big bang theory suggests, since the big bang is theorized to have happened only about 13.7 billion years ago. This is because the speed of matter is limited by the speed of light. The problem here is that if the big bang had occurred, firstly the universe is too large to have only happened 13.7 billion years ago, and secondly there is temperature uniformity which requires matter to have moved beyond the speed of light to become universally uniform. This of course, is impossible according to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, because nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. If our limited high school science background can question this, why aren’t more university professors calling out the HOAX OF ALL TIME.

Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations, one must wonder why, in this circumstance, that four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.  These four alternatives are:

  1. The Steady-State model of the universe suggests the universe always had and will always have the same density. The theory reconciles the apparent evidence that the universe is expanding by suggesting that the universe generates matter at a rate proportionate to the universe’s rate of expansion.
  2. The Ekpyrotic model suggests our universe is the result of a collision of two three-dimensional worlds on a hidden fourth dimension. It doesn’t conflict with the big bang theory completely, as after a certain amount of time it aligns with the events described in the big bang theory.
  3. The big bounce theory suggests our universe is one of a series of universes that first expand, then contract again. The cycle repeats after several billion years.
  4. Plasma cosmology attempts to describe the universe in terms of the electrodynamic properties of the universe. Plasma is an ionized gas, which means it’s a gas with free roaming electrons that can conduct electricity.

Continued on next page…