Blog

U.S. Investigates 2 Possible Directed Energy Attacks Near White House; Victims Experienced Debilitating Symptoms

It has been determined that American Embassy workers and their family members were likely injured by exposure to microwave energy while stationed in China and Cuba (see 1, 2, 3).

Now the U.S. government is investigating two possible microwave energy attacks that occurred here.

From Environmental Health Trust:

US Investigating Possible Directed Electromagnetic Attack Near White House

“Possible”and “Mysterious” Directed Electromagnetic Energy Attack Near White House

According to CNN Reports “Federal agencies are investigating at least two possible incidents on US soil, including one near the White House in November of last year, that appear similar to mysterious, invisible attacks that have led to debilitating symptoms for dozens of US personnel abroad.”

Defense officials briefed lawmakers on the Senate and House Armed Services Committees on the  incident near the White House. earlier this month. That incident  occurred near the Ellipse, the large oval lawn on the south side of the White House and “sickened one National Security Council official”  according to CNN.

In 2009 the White House official reported a similar attack while walking her dog in a Virginia suburb just outside Washington, according to a GQ report.

According to Politico the Pentagon opened an investigation last year regarding “suspected directed-energy attacks occurred on an unknown number of troops” and “directed-energy attacks on U.S. spies and diplomats are well-documented; the CIA recently set up its own task force to look into the issue.”

“A directed-energy attack uses highly concentrated electromagnetic energy, including high-powered radio frequency or microwave devices and particle beams, to harm a target. The attacks can take different forms, from jamming electronic equipment to causing pain or permanent injuries. A report commissioned by the State Department and released in December pointed to “directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy” as the most probable cause for the “Havana syndrome” incidents.”

Keep reading

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020 as a means to detecting the  SARS-COV-2 virus, following the recommendations of  a Virology research group (based at Charité University Hospital, Berlin), supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (For Further details see the Drosten Study)

Exactly one year later on January 20th, 2021, the WHO retracts. They don’t say “We Made a Mistake”. The retraction is carefully formulated. 

While the WHO does not deny the validity of their misleading January 2020 guidelines, they nonetheless recommend “Re-testing” (which everybody knows is an impossibility).

The contentious issue pertains to the number of amplification threshold cycles (Ct). According to Pieter Borger, et al

The number of amplification cycles [should be] less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles. In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture…(Critique of Drosten Study)

The World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin.

If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called confirmed “positive cases” tabulated in the course of the last 14 months are invalid.

According to Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, et al, the Ct > 35 has been the norm “in most laboratories in Europe & the US”.

The WHO’s Mea Culpa

Below is the WHO’s carefully formulated “Retraction”. The full text with link to the original document is in annex:

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. (emphasis added)

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

“Invalid Positives” is the Underlying Concept 

This is not an issue of  “Weak Positives” and “Risk of False Positive Increases”. What is at stake is a “Flawed Methodology” which leads to invalid estimates.

What this admission of the WHO confirms is that the estimate of covid positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or higher) is invalid. In which case, the WHO recommends retesting:  “a new specimen should be taken and retested…”.

The WHO calls for “Retesting”, which is tantamount to “We Screwed Up”.

That recommendation is pro-forma. It won’t happen. Millions of people Worldwide have already been tested, starting in early February 2020. Nonetheless, we must conclude that unless retested, those estimates (according to the WHO) are invalid.  

Keep reading

Here’s a deep dive into one university’s anti-white diversity training

A student at the University of Florida has provided to The College Fix images from a diversity and inclusion training that students are being told to take.

The materials teach that “equity” is fair while “equality” is not, that “whitesplaining” is a “form of racism,” and many other lessons that suggest white people are the problem.

The program consists of a series of multiple choice questions, infographics and videos.

Each of the questions and videos focuses on specific examples of insensitive language and interactions between white students and minorities and highlights what is considered the appropriate interaction in each case.

One question asks whether it’s “cultural appropriation” for a white man to host a “Salsa and Sombreros” themed birthday party. It is, students are told.

Keep reading