Operation Corona [2021 ed.]

  • Commentary
  • decrypted from F973660B65441E99F6B7353FEC00BE98 source file
Citation preview



Copyright © 2021 by Dimitar M. Hadzhiev All rights reserved. The author grants you the right to use and distribute this book without modification and for non-commercial purposes only. Thank you for complying with this copyright notice by not reproducing, scanning or distributing any part of the book for commercial purposes. First edition, July 2021 Front cover design by Jordan Singh / Pixabay

“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” Arthur Conan Doyle “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes”


INTRODUCTION On a lovely sunny afternoon last year I was at home, watching an episode of the Joe Rogan’s podcast. A podcast is an audio or video recording of a discussion on a specific topic, typically available as a series. Joe’s guest this time was the mathematician and economist Eric Weinstein. As the conversation went on, they switched the topic to professional wrestling and brought up the term “shoot”. A shoot is any unplanned, unscripted occurrence within a wrestling event. The term came to mean a real fight. The opposite of a shoot is a “work”. A “worked-shoot” is any occurrence that is scripted to come off as unscripted and therefore appear real, but is still part of the show. Modern professional wrestling is staged entertainment and virtually everything in it is worked, so shoots rarely occur. Still, shoots do occur. Imagine that two wrestlers, whose scripted rivalry turned real for some reason, meet in a match for the title. If they cannot keep their emotions in check and a worked-shoot suddenly becomes an actual fight, how can anyone tell what is really happening in the ring? As Eric pointed out, the human brain cannot go much beyond four levels of lies. His words made me stop in my tracks. I had recently begun looking at a fascinating, yet quite bewildering topic from a new perspective. The novel coronavirus pandemic, which supposedly originated from a seafood market in China, was still making all the headlines. It seems this new threat to humanity will stay with us for the foreseeable future, if not forever. From official briefings and news reports to the wildest conspiracies, I was following all major narratives surrounding this viral pandemic. A pandemic I had started seeing as a well-scripted show. As a spectacle, designed to blur the lines between reality and fiction. I was paying close attention to the trends in public discourse as well, as most people clustered around two completely opposing views. Many denied the existence of the virus and thought COVID-19 was a rather benign disease, a misdiagnosed influenza perhaps. Others fully believed every word from the official story. In the conspiracy theory domain, the prevailing narratives revolved mostly around population control, planned depopulation, eugenics, New World Order emergence and deliberate destruction of businesses and livelihoods. Was that the end goal of the “elites”? And even if so, I could not find a reason why they would put such a “plandemic” in action now, and not say ten years ago or twenty years from now. Many have referred to official documents, developed by political and economic organizations, suggesting the elites have planned the events that took place last year well in advance. While some of these agendas did raise suspicion, I could not find any evident nefarious plot. It remained unclear to me what made 2020 so special. Were our governments worried we would soon overthrow their “tyranny”, so they decided to tighten their grip in response? Or perhaps we were heading towards an imminent global economic collapse, much worse than the 2008 financial crisis, so the political establishment used the viral outbreak as a smokescreen? By blaming the virus for the market crash that would have followed anyway, the world leaders would hide the faulty


policies that actually caused it and rescue all major banks. Or perhaps COVID-19 was a plan, set in motion by the elites, in order to bankrupt businesses at large and then acquire them for pennies on the dollar? None of the stories I had heard thus far made full sense to me, no matter whether they came from – state officials, scientists, investigating journalists or conspiracy lovers. Some sense – sure, but I felt they all failed to offer a complete explanation of what was actually happening. The way the authorities had responded to the viral threat was particularly mind-boggling to many, as the measures imposed seemed to have caused more harm to society than the virus itself. Each story had left me with the persistent feeling something simply did not add up. As if they all missed that final piece of the puzzle, which would have revealed the whole truth at last. I know many of you feel the same way. That feeling we are all being pushed into some weird social experiment whose purpose we cannot conceive of. The scare and worry on the faces of friends and loved ones, the conflict and aggression escalating on social media and on the streets, the further divide between the people this pandemic has brought – someone had to put an end to all this. Someone had to expose the lies we were fed. This time “they”, whoever they are, went too far. So I decided to find out the truth on my own. I promised myself I will get to the very bottom of this mystery, regardless of how much time and effort it may take. During my investigation, I remained as open-minded and impartial as possible. I carefully explored and analyzed all the relevant information I could find. I stayed particularly vigilant with respect to those deception layers that made it so difficult for us to discern the work from the shoot. I designed, tested and eventually rejected many hypotheses, until I finally found the one that made sense the most. It was not only capable of explaining the unexplainable, but was also able to accurately predict the future. I had truly found the One. Still, I strongly urge you to challenge the findings presented in this book. I urge you to critically review all the information provided before you form a final opinion on the topics discussed. I urge you to do it, because this time no one else will do it for us. Our children’s future, the very lives of the people we care about largely depend on our understanding of the biggest catastrophic risks humanity faces today. The world leaders want to make sure we remain largely unaware of some of these threats. Or rather, they are spoon-feeding us the truth about the immense danger we are already in. I can understand why they made this choice, but I am making mine as well. They had enough time to admit what they have done, but I doubt they ever will. Therefore, it is my duty to tell you the truth, as harsh as it may be. After this opening remarks, let us dive right into the coronavirus deception.



Now is a good time to introduce one person to those unfamiliar with him, as his findings gave me the reason to doubt the origin of this new disease – Dr. Andrew Kaufman, MD. If you are a “COVID sceptic” or even a denier, chances are you have heard of him. Dr. Kaufman is not just a savvy scientist, but also a brave man who dared to stand against the narrative that the state, mainstream media and medical establishment were all pushing. His theory about the coronavirus was met with harsh criticism. His knowledge and expertise were repeatedly questioned. His stand on disease-causing human viruses was ridiculed, as he denied their existence altogether. At this time last year I myself believed viruses like influenza take human lives away, so I understand all the criticism. Still, my gut was telling me this man was onto something. I will keep referring to his work as our story unfolds, but for now, let us start with some basics. Do you remember how curious we were as children about life and everything around us? Asking an endless stream of questions, followed by even more questions and queries, until our curiosity was finally satisfied. Why is the sky blue? Why is the grass green? What makes the Earth spin? If your own child asks these questions today, it may take a while to recall what we were taught in primary school, in order to provide the answer. Some questions kids ask pose a far bigger challenge. But wait until this one pops up: “How do we know viruses cause illnesses and how do influenza and coronaviruses look like?” You think that is an easy one? First, you would tell your kid about “germ theory” and Koch’s postulates.1These are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease, as follows: 1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms. 2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture. 3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism. 4. The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent. You would go on to explain these criteria may not be applied to viruses and why that is the case. You will say viruses were not even discovered when the German microbiologist Robert Koch first formulated them in 1884. You will mention many of us are asymptomatic carriers – that is, we are infected with a virus, but it does not cause an illness. You will say viruses require host cells to grow and reproduce, and hence instead of pure cultures virologists use cell cultures. Cell culture is a laboratory


technique, in which cells are taken from animal or human hosts and are grown outside their natural environment. You will add that a single pathogen can cause a number of diseases and a single disease may be caused by different pathogens. The more we learned about viruses, the more obvious it became these four criteria had major limitations. Scientists have come up with revised versions of the postulates, but they are considered controversial as well. So far, so good. But what if your child gets particularly curious and finds out about exosomes. Exosomes are small, nanometer vesicles that are released from cells. They provide a means for the cells to communicate and transfer genetic material from one another. Exosomes bear an intriguing resemblance to viruses and can be easily isolated from our bodies. Using a standard set of techniques, scientists can separate these tiny bubbles from other vesicles, proteins, microbes and cell debris that may be present in our fluids. Once isolated, scientists are able to study the genetic material those bubbles carry. Thus, they discovered a curious fact – some exosomes contain viral material! Interesting, isn’t it? Now imagine your child asking the following: “Mom/dad, since scientists can easily isolate exosomes from our bodies, study the material they carry and even find out they may contain viral genomes, can they isolate viruses in the same way, sequence their genomes and show they cause a disease? If not, why? Since viruses infect our cells and use their machinery to self-replicate in millions of copies, can’t virologists extract virus particles directly from our fluids? Why do they need to use cell cultures at all? And when the doctor tells us influenza and coronaviruses cause the “common cold”, how do we know that for a fact, given a disease may have different causal agents?” In all honesty, we have to admit it may be hard to answer these logical and important questions. Well, scientists at least must have the answers, right? After all, it is their job to tell us what is actually true and false. And especially in the case of COVID-19, a disease that changed the lives of billions and killed more than 3 million people so far, they better have an undeniable proof of what actually causes it. In his hallmark presentation about the SARS-CoV-2 discovery, Dr. Kaufman points out many of the flaws in the way this new virus was isolated.2 There are many other videos available on YouTube, Odysee and Bitchute, in which Andrew and a collaborator of his – Dr. Thomas Cowan – explain in details why the methods virology uses to discover new viruses and prove they cause diseases are quite unreliable, to say the least. They claimed there was no actual proof that a new virus had caused the current pandemic. Since that is quite a serious claim, I followed the trail myself. To my utter surprise, what these good doctors were saying was actually true. In December 2019, people in Wuhan, China were getting sick with pneumonia of “unknown origin”. It was believed a new infectious disease had suddenly emerged. On 3 February 2020, a paper published in “Nature” described how the pathogen associated with this new disease was isolated.3 First, the science team took a sample from just a single sick person with pneumonia. After the initial antibiotics treatment failed to cure the sickness, they concluded the pneumonia was not caused by a bacterium and hence a virus must have caused it instead, ignoring all other possible


causes of disease. Second, they did not isolate any virus particle from the patient’s fluids, in order to characterize it and study its genome. Instead, what they isolated was RNA (ribonucleic acid) material, some of which they thought could belong to a virus. Missing this isolation step already puts suspicion on their findings, since such samples are impure. They contain all sorts of cells, debris and microbes. And while it is true that scientists usually filter the samples so that only nanoscale material remain on the other side of the filter, much of the genetic material, exosomes in particular, falls in the nanometer range anyway. Hence, how can we be certain what the actual source of the RNA is? But this is not the only issue here. The SARS-CoV-2 genetic strand was never found in its entire length in the extracted material. Instead, it was artificially created from millions of smaller RNA fragments using computer models. Are you shocked to learn this? Not only do we have a theoretical virus so far, but a theoretical genome of that virus as well. And since these computer programs generate many different variants, called contigs, of how this virus may look like (almost 400,000 generated by Megahit and more than 1,300,000 by Trinity!), the scientists simply chose the one that had the most nucleotides and resembled closely a previously known bat SARS-like coronavirus. “Total RNA was extracted from 200 μl of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was

constructed for pair-end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described. In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. Of the 384,096 contigs assembled by Megahit, the longest (30,474 nucleotides (nt)) had a high abundance and was closely related to a bat SARS-like coronavirus (CoV) isolate.” 3

To better understand how this genome assembly process works, you can watch another informative video presentation by Kaufman and Cowan, particularly the segment from 1:04:00 onward.4 So how can we be certain that the genome of SARSCoV-2 is not merely a theoretical model that came from a computer program and hence does not exist in reality? Have scientists relied too heavily on modern genome sequencing techniques and unfounded assumptions that a coronavirus caused the pneumonia? Another team isolated this new virus from patients, basically following the same procedure.5 They took lung fluid samples from just a few people falling sick with pneumonia. Once again, they did not isolate any virus particle from the samples, but snippets of RNA that were used to artificially create a virus genome. They found out this new genome was nearly 80% similar to a previously known virus named SARSCov-1, which allegedly caused quite a scary outbreak in 2002. But SARS-Cov-1 was “isolated” in the same fashion as its 2019 successor, so its origin also remains unclear. The scientists then grew the virus in a cell culture. They used human lung cancer cells to see it “in action”. Prior to infecting the culture, they “washed” it with solution


containing antibiotics. After the infected material was introduced into the culture, they added more antibiotics. They also used animal (monkey) cells to provide evidence of pathogenicity – that is, a proof the virus harms its host. What do I mean by seeing the virus in action? The so-called cytopathic effect (CPE) refers to the changes virologists observe in cells after they have been infected. If the cells begin to break down and particles get released from them, they consider this to be the proof that a diseasecausing virus has been isolated. But the approach used to cultivate SARS-CoV-2 could be quite problematic. First, the addition of antibiotics may have “stressed” the culture, as cells react to toxic exposure. As Kaufman notices, the presence of antibiotics in cultures leads to the release of exosomes and other particles. In fact, most cells release exosomes as part of their normal functioning. Second, certain complications may arise from the use of animal cells for virus isolation. These have been well documented.6 Third, cultures are usually fed minimal amounts of nutrition to keep cells alive. Hence, cell starvation may have also played a part in producing a cytopathic effect. Thus, the observed CPE may have nothing to do with a virus that infects and destroys cells, but with cells breaking down and releasing particles on their own due to the laboratory conditions. Besides, the 80% genetic match between SARS-Cov-1 and SARS-CoV-2 is not strong enough correlation to assume the latter is a virus, even if the former was proven to be viral in origin. Studies have shown that humans are 96% genetically similar to chimpanzees and 90% similar to Abyssinian domestic cats.7 Still, these are three distinctively different types of species. So what exactly did the scientists prove? Here is what they eventually concluded: “Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak.” 5 A third team performed a similar study and said this at the end: “The study…provides evidence of an association between the disease and the

presence of this virus. However, there are still many urgent questions to be answered. We need more clinical data and samples to confirm if this virus is indeed the etiology agent for this epidemic.” 8 As mentioned above, exosomes share intriguing similarities to viruses. Some exosomes, for example, are quite similar to some viruses in terms of shape and size. As shown in Fig. 1, this is very much the case with SARS-CoV-2 as well. If the photo on the left was of better quality, the resemblance of these tiny vesicles to what the scientists believed to the novel coronavirus would be even more startling. Hence, what they had observed under the microscope might have simply been clusters of exosomes, released by antibiotics-poisoned, starving cells.


Figure 1. Dr. Kaufman’s research raises a question whether what scientists believe to be novel coronavirus particles are merely exosome clusters instead. (Source: Dr.

Andrew Kaufman’s YouTube channel, a photo of him taken during an appearance on “London Real” )


Figure 2. Upper: A photo showing novel coronavirus particles with a diameter of about 100 nanometers, having distinct spikes that give them a “solar corona” look. Lower: Larger, 500+ nanometer spherical extracellular viral particles contain cross-sections through the viral genome, seen as black dots. (Source: Na Zhu et al., New England Journal of Medicine 5 and Center of Disease Control, USA)


Kaufman’s theory may sound quite intriguing to the conspiracists, but it raises many important questions. To begin with, the mock culture used in the experiments did not show cytopathic effects.5 However, the virus-infected culture did show such effects, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Coronavirus-like particles were observed as well. “2019-nCoV particles were generally spherical with some pleomorphism. Diameter

varied from about 60 to 140 nm. Virus particles had quite distinctive spikes, about 9 to 12 nm, and gave virions the appearance of a solar corona. Extracellular free virus particles and inclusion bodies filled with virus particles in membrane-bound vesicles in cytoplasm were found in the human airway epithelial ultrathin sections. This observed morphology is consistent with the Coronaviridae family.” 5 How can we explain the cytopathic effects in the infected culture, but not in the mock one? And while some viruses are similar in size to some exosomes, exosomes do not have spikes. Besides, what are these larger extracellular 500+ nanometer vesicles, seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2? When I began my search for the answers to the questions above, I assumed that unlike the viral-infected culture, the mock one was not treated with antibiotics. Hence, the observed effects in the infected cells could have been caused by their presence after all. After checking with the authors of these scientific papers, Kaufman confirmed that the mock cultures were indeed antibiotics-free. Still, many more questions remained. If you are a bit confused at this point, so was I when I looked closely into the way this new virus was being isolated from patients. Especially once I realized virology considers this approach a standard practice. I had imagined something rather different. I could not understand why scientists do not simply extract and purify viral particles from bodily fluids or cell cultures, sequence their genomes and insert them into healthy hosts to demonstrate they cause infection. Besides, why would they stress cultures with antibiotics, given that any bacteria and fungi should have been filtered out from a patient’s sample prior to inoculation or be easily seen under a microscope? And remember, science can easily isolate exosomes released from human cells and the so-called phages released from bacteria, both being in the nanometer range. So what exactly is the issue with human viruses then? Instead of adding more layers of evidence to come closer to reality, it seems that virology adds more layers of abstraction to come closer to fantasy. Besides, I could not find evidence proving COVID-19 actually existed either – that is, a sound proof an entirely new disease had suddenly emerged. About 2.5 million people suffer from pneumonia each year in China, due to a number of reasons, so why a mutated coronavirus this time? Surely, many more scientific papers of the virus isolation have been published, besides the three I turned your attention to. I encourage you to look not only at these, but at any research claiming SARS-CoV-2 has been successfully isolated and proven to cause an illness. Kaufman and Cowan are by far not the only ones to point out all the studies they have looked at to this very date share similar shortcomings. I have recently


watched interviews with Dr. Stefano Scoglio, a 2018 Nobel Prize nominee in Medicine. He brings forth the same arguments and questions the existence of the virus. Animal experiments have also been done, but none of the ones I have seen had proper controls, which we will learn about in a minute. Hence, we cannot know whether a virus or the toxic mixture from the cell culture and the way it was introduced into the animals caused the symptoms observed. Studies on the so-called spike protein have also been performed, but that protein was never directly obtained from a purified virus particle. Besides, it is not just about that one virus in particular. A number of scientists and physicians have historically challenged the entire “germ theory” narrative in principle. A decade ago, the German biologist Stefan Lanka announced he would offer € 100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. One doctor offered six papers on the subject, but Dr. Lanka refused to pay, since in his opinion those papers did not provide adequate evidence. The issue was taken to court. The official story says Lanka eventually won not because the virus did not exist, but because of a mere technicality. But that story distracts the public’s attention from a very important fact. One of the appointed experts during the trial stated none of the authors of those papers performed proper controlled experiments. A controlled experiment is a test that is directly manipulated by scientists, in order to test a single variable at a time. By using such tests virologists can tell whether the observed cytopathic effects are really produced by the viral infection or by the lab conditions. But they never performed such tests. Hence, the established rules and principles of good scientific practice were never met. Thus, a paper about the existence of the measles virus that meets these criteria is yet to be delivered. During the trial, Lanka commissioned an independent laboratory to perform such tests. The results showed that tissues and cells died due to the laboratory conditions, in exactly the same way as when they come into contact with allegedly “infected” material. This makes what Kaufman suspects much more plausible – the scientists could have taken exosomes and debris from dying cells for virus particles. Lanka’s measles trial is just the tip of the iceberg. I recommend reading “Virus Mania” by Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Köhnlein, joined by Dr. Scoglio for the book’s third edition. The authors present decades of thorough research, sound arguments and evidence to show how the medical industry invents microbial epidemics and make billions in profits at our expense. As the authors put it, while it should be as easy as taking a blood sample from a patient, isolating a virus in a purified form with its complete genome and shell, and then imaging it with an electron microscope, these steps have never been done for avian flu, hepatitis C and HIV viruses, among others. I also recommend reading another book, titled “What Really Makes You Ill”, by Dawn Lester and David Parker. The authors outline many of the flaws in the “germ theory” narrative and explore alternative, much more plausible causes of many diseases, including those that are considered contagious. Engelbrecht and Scoglio also coauthored an excellent article, titled “Phantom Virus: In search of Sars-CoV-2”.9 You may be surprised to learn that,


“In a request for a study which shows complete isolation and purification of the

particles claimed to be SARS-CoV-2, Michael Laue from…the German Robert Koch Institute (RKI), answered that: “I am not aware of a paper which purified isolated SARS-CoV-2.”…individuals around the world…have submitted Freedom of Information requests to dozens of health and science institutions and a handful of political offices around the world. They are seeking any records that describe the isolation of a SARSCOV-2 virus from any unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient. But all 46 responding institutions/offices utterly failed to provide or cite any record describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation; and Germany’s Ministry of Health ignored their FOI request altogether.” 9 Huge cash prizes have been offered to anyone who can present an actual proof of the existence of this virus. None of these have been claimed so far. Christian Drosten, the German virologist whose team developed the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, was offered €230,000 if he can present any text passages from publications that scientifically prove the process of isolation of SARS-CoV-2 and its genetic substance. Drosten did not respond.9 I know some of you are saying: “But of course we have been deceived, viruses do not cause illnesses! Causation was never proven throughout history!” And I also know others will say just the opposite: “Have you ever attended biology classes at school? Have you ever read a single book on microbiology? Of course viruses cause illnesses!” Whichever side of the argument you may be on, in all fairness those first studies into the origin of COVID-19 were by no means conclusive. On the contrary, more data was required to confirm the pandemic was indeed viral in nature. As a next step, let us look at the way this new coronavirus spread across the globe and caught our leaders so, well, “unprepared”. THE WUHAN OUTBREAK In a famous TED talk Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and the “The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation”, warned us the next epidemic humanity will face could be dramatically more devastating than Ebola. The year was 2015. In January 2017 Donald Trump was sworn into office as the 45th President of the United States. A few days earlier an article was published, claiming Dr. Fauci warned Trump will face “surprise infectious disease outbreak" during his tenure. Fauci’s remarks came during a forum on pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University. Students and global health experts had gathered there to encourage Trump’s new administration to plan accordingly. For those unfamiliar with him, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, is the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). During his forum speech, he made some bold predictions.


“There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases. The thing we're extraordinarily confident about is that we're going to see this in the next few years.” That information was fact-checked to be true.10 What a surprisingly accurate prediction of a future surprise infectious disease epidemic, isn’t it? But Fauci was certainly not the only “extraordinarily confident” person when it comes to future pandemics. As we just saw, by February 2020 the scientists still needed more information about this unknown virus and the disease it was allegedly causing. They were still in terra incognita. Yet, just a month later, scientists, media, “big thinkers” and other opinion leaders already began preparing us for a “permanently changed world”, as seen in numerous articles. I have outlined a few of them, to get a sense of the narrative that was consistently being pushed.11 12 13 14 15 What is more, at the end of spring the British government said a “second wave” would likely follow, a prediction echoed by Fauci as well. Meanwhile, he found himself in the middle of a scandal. A report claimed the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) with the backing of NIAID had committed $3.7 million for bat coronavirus research in China in 2014, allegedly including gain-of-function (GoF) work as well.16 GoF involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans. This triggered a renewed debate whether such labengineered viruses with pandemic potential are worth the risk. In 2014 the U.S. government imposed a moratorium on federal funding of such gain-of-function type research. However, NIH had allowed it to proceed, concluding the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium.17 So, it seems such bat coronavirus lab research has really been taking place for years, possibly even decades. Fauci’s potential involvement in it aside, why all the certainty behind this “permanently changed world”, really? Why would scientists and opinion leaders be so confident, particularly in those early days of the pandemic, that the outbreak would not be quickly contained? Was that just grandiose narcissism on their part making bold predictions or did they know something we did not? Or perhaps they were incentivized to express such an opinion? I recall reading an interview with a top virologist in a newspaper in March 2020, already saying we would not be going “back to normal” anytime soon. Is he a fortuneteller with a crystal ball like Fauci too? But let us take a step back for a moment to look at something even more curious and utterly nonsensical at the same time. The first coronavirus cases were reported in Wuhan at the end of December 2019. By mid-January the following year, the Chinese government had already realized the virus posed a serious national threat. It sent the army into the epicenter of the outbreak and imposed an unprecedented in public health history lockdown, as the pandemic kept spreading from Wuhan to the rest of the Hubei province.18 19 Eventually, on January 23 China decided to cut off travel from Hubei to the rest of the country, but, surprisingly, not from Hubei to the rest of the world.20 It requested that local airlines keep their international flights going.


To an even bigger surprise, the rest of the world did not shut its borders in response. Aware of the draconian measures the local government had taken to limit the Wuhan outbreak and the risks it apparently posed, each country should have banned as soon as possible both inbound and outbound travel not only with China, but also with any country that might have not implemented such a ban. Instead, here is what happened in the U.S. for example, as similar nonsensical decisions were taken by many other states. First, it took the U.S. almost an entire week from January 23 to respond and prohibit people from entering the country within 14 days of being in China. However, the ban applied only to people other than U.S. citizens, permanent residents and their immediate family, so it was basically ineffective. And it was not until February 2 when all inbound passengers who had been to Hubei in the previous 14 days, were placed under quarantine. I understand why countries needed time to have their citizens recalled from China and then impose a travel ban. Perhaps taking immediate decisive action was not possible. But shockingly, Trump’s administration did not extend the ban to include the Schengen area in Europe until mid-March! This incredibly delayed decision is so appalling, since meanwhile the EU was also way too slow to close its own borders. This allowed the pandemic to spread not only in Europe, but also in all other places Europeans were still allowed to travel to.21 And it was only on March 27, by which point the coronavirus had become a global pandemic, that China finally barred foreign visitors from entering the country. What a mess! Back in those days it was estimated the COVID-19 death rate could reach 5%.22 This was believed to be a deadly serious threat. Any untimely measure, any wrong step, any unwise decision taken in handling this outbreak could have cost millions of lives worldwide. And yet, the authorities looked so weirdly off-guard, unprepared, inadequate and incompetent, exactly when we needed them to look out after our protection and safety the most. China was later blamed for hiding the severity of the pandemic, for manipulating clinical data and for lying about the time the virus had emerged. Right. Indeed nothing says “It’s not a big deal” better than sending the army into the outbreak epicenter and imposing unprecedented lockdowns and travel bans. Our leaders knew exactly what was taking place and how serious it was. If any of you were in charge at that time, you would have done a much better job at protecting your fellow countrymen. Alas, someone else was in charge. To go back to the U.S., the result of the disastrous choice-making by Trump’s administration was summed up by The Intercept.23 I am sure many of you will recognize your own government’s failure here too. To further add to this charade, a few months later Trump was caught intentionally misleading the American people about the severity of the virus. His reaction to the accusations – he just wanted to keep Americans “calm”!24 So our leaders knew indeed how dangerous this thing was. And, to reiterate, being fully aware of the seriousness of the situation, Trump left his country’s back door open for months, eventually blaming China for his failures.


According to estimates, 430,000 people had traveled from China to the U.S. from the time the coronavirus surfaced until the time a full travel ban was put in place.25 Ask yourselves this question: why would any President allow this to happen, risking millions of human lives in the process? Why wouldn’t his administration or other institutions force him to act immediately to protect the nation on all fronts? Don’t people in power care for the safety of their own families at least? And amid all the chaos in Wuhan, WHO’s chief Tedros Ghebreyesus travelled to China to meet President Xi Jinping in late January 2020. Remember, the country had just imposed an unprecedented lockdown on its entire Hubei province. So, knowing full well the dangers COVID-19 presented and how quickly it spread locally, Tedros said the following on February 3, just a week after his China visit: “Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Monday there was no need for measures that

“unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade in trying to halt the spread of the coronavirus.” 26

Well, he could not have been more wrong. However, “wrong” might not be the best word to describe his statement. Just a few days before that, on January 30, WHO itself declared the coronavirus a global health emergency! So Tedros-led WHO first called the situation a global emergency and then opposed travel bans on China that might come as a result of their own warning!27 But how could we possibly reconcile this incredibly ridiculous contradiction? Well, Tedros had this simple answer about the decision to announce an emergency situation: “It’s not because of what is happening in China, but what is happening in other countries.” If what you just read made absolutely no sense to you, I can assure you – you are not alone. But the world followed Tedros’ advice anyway, at least for a while. As a result, what started as a local outbreak quickly turned into a truly global pandemic. To leave Tedros alone, once the virus passed our borders and began infecting the people, we imposed strict measures and lockdowns to “flatten the curve”. We looked unprepared, we lacked the necessary PCR testing equipment, the healthcare system could have crumbled under the COVID-19 pressure. This is what our governments wanted us to believe. In many hospitals the personnel was lacking even the basic supplies to fight the virus on the frontline, not to mention respiratory and other medical devices necessary to aid many of the COVID-19 patients. “Stay at home, save lives”, the authorities kept telling us repeatedly. Eric Weinstein, Joe Rogan’s guest I mentioned in the introduction, has his own podcast – “The Portal”. In one of the episodes he suggested we check Google Scholar and see for how long scientists have warned we are not prepared for a future healthcare crisis. Their concerns had fallen on deaf ears, it seems, until it was too late.


Figure 3. Selected data for “Medical test kits” (382200) category imports by country, 2017. (Source: World Integrated Trade Solution website)


But were our governments really that unprepared to tackle this pandemic? The World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) is an online platform for international merchandise trade data. The application is hosted on the World Banks’s website. As you begin to browse “Trade Stats” by product code, you are kindly referred to COVID-19 related medical product first. And when you check, say, code 382200, well – surprise, surprise – as Dr. Fauci may exclaim. Starting in 2017, the year that began with his warning about an upcoming “surprise” infectious disease outbreak, some intensive trading had been taking place in the category “Medical Test kits / Instruments, apparatus used in Diagnostic Testing”. What you see in Fig. 3 are trade records showing hundreds of millions of diagnostic reagents, based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nucleic acid test, traded globally!28 This was happening three years before the novel coronavirus emerged. Moreover, similar trade pattern is observed in other related categories as well – diagnostic reagents based on immunological reactions, swab and viral transport medium sets, medical ventilators, medical diagnostic test instruments and apparatus, etc. WITS informs us that “the data here track previously existing medical devices that are now classified by the World Customs Organization as critical to tackling COVID-19”. Well, I bet they are. In 2017, according to the database, the top exporters within the medical test kits category were the U.S., Germany, Netherlands and the U.K. Top importers that year were the U.S., Germany, China and France. It looks like someone was following Fauci’s advice and was planning accordingly! Perhaps this is just a coincidence, you may say. Or perhaps what we see in the database are just records of trade “as usual”, even though there is no available data prior to 2017. Or perhaps relevant available data for previous years does exist somewhere, but under a different code. Our governments could not have planned for this outbreak. That is simply not possible, right? I do not think so. I do not think the pandemic caught our leaders unprepared. Quite the opposite, in fact. They knew exactly what was coming our way and promptly secured millions of PCR reagents, diagnostic test instruments, ventilators and other necessary equipment. We were warned by Bill Gates about the next devastating epidemic. We were later warned by Fauci it was coming soon. All they had to do then was just wait for it to happen. AND ONCE IT FINALLY BROKE OUT IN WUHAN, IT SEEMS THEY LET THE DOOR WIDE OPEN AND INVITED THE PLAGUE RIGHT INTO OUR HOMES



As the world was trying to (mis)manage its newly found threat, a number of dedicated platforms were launched, providing real-time information and statistics about the pandemic. Fig. 4 illustrates two such examples – “Roylab Stats” YouTube channel and www.worldometers.info. But what are the stats displayed actually telling us? What lies behind these numbers? As seen from WHO’s guidelines for certification and classification of COVID-19, there are two codes assigned explicitly for this purpose: code ‘U07.1, virus identified’ and code ‘U07.2, virus not identified’.29 Both codes are used to discern deaths due to the coronavirus from all other mortalities. As shown in Fig. 4, by March 2021 the number of confirmed coronavirus cases globally was more than 110 million, while the number of fatalities was about 2.5 million. That is the number of people who unfortunately lost their lives after testing positive for the virus. And if you want to see how many of them died from the viral infection, you may be surprised to read the following on the Worldometers website: “Total Deaths = cumulative number of deaths among detected cases.” 30 What you see under “Deaths” is therefore simply the number of people who have died after testing positive, regardless of the respective cause. Moreover, many of them must have gotten a negative test result at some point, meaning their immune system had fought the virus off. However, when they died later for whatever reason, they were still put in the “COVID-19 deaths” category. So isn’t the methodology of counting deaths from the pandemic rather misleading? Both the U.S. Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and WHO have identified a short list of COVID-19 common symptoms, such as fever, dry cough, sore throat, tiredness and aches. Shortness of breath, chest pains or loss of speech or movement may indicate a more serious condition. However, here is what the CDC said in a statement regarding the COVID-19 mortality, explaining why the disease was mentioned as the sole cause of death in only 6% of all cases: “In 94% of deaths with COVID-19, other conditions are listed in addition to COVID-

19…The underlying cause of death is the condition that began the chain of events that ultimately led to the person's death. In 92% of all deaths that mention COVID-19, COVID-19 is listed as the underlying cause of death.” 31 How we should interpret this statement? As the number of coronavirus cases in the U.S. approached 7 million by the time it was made, including late stage cancer patients, people with severe heart and other life-threating diseases, the CDC told us basically none of them (with some exceptions) died because of those illnesses. It was COVID19 that “began the chain of events”. So is it the fever, or the coughing, or perhaps the resulting complications that took those people’s lives away? This is what the CDC wants us to believe, but it simply makes no sense.


Figure 4. Dedicated online platforms provide real-time statistics about the unfolding coronavirus pandemic. (Source: “Roylab Stats” YouTube channel and Worldometers)


Here is something a savvy epidemiologist may tell you. If you take a random sample from a population and find out only 5% tested positive for a given new virus, that virus could have actually infected well up to 30% of the population, perhaps even more. This stark difference comes from the fact that such a study presents just a single static “snapshot” of a dynamically unfolding picture, taken at the time it was conducted. If the study was carried out just one day before a person got infected, their future infection would not show in the results. Equally important, if a person got infected and then recovered, they would probably test negative even one day after recovery, so their prior infection would be missed too. Provided, of course, the test is accurate to begin with. So you see how the actual dynamics of a viral spread cannot be captured by a single study. It would have failed to account for the majority of infections. With that in mind, consider the results from the samples many countries began reporting last April, as I followed closely the numbers published on Worldometers. Sure, those samples were not representative of the general population, as one would assume people who were already experiencing COVID-like symptoms would be the first to take a test. Still, the data obtained from them was by far the most reliable source of information available up to that point, due to the large sample size. As we entered the peak months of the pandemic, hundreds of thousands of tests from places like Brazil and France were showing some staggering 30-35% positive cases! For many other countries, including millions of tests coming from the U.S., that percentage was around 20%. Positive rates dropped over time, but based on the initial figures, what conclusions can we draw about these countries? WHO at the time estimated that a person with COVID-19 would infect 2-3 people on average within a few days, each of them further infecting 2-3 more people, etc., so the virus would have spread rather quickly. Social distancing rules and lockdowns could have slowed the spread, but in many countries these restrictions were imposed probably months after the virus had already crossed the border. Looking from that perspective, the majority of people in those countries would have been infected by June 2020 already! Are you surprised to read this? After all, many viruses infect well up to 90% of the population, sometimes even more. Let us take influenza as an example. It takes two to four months for this virus to spread among the population in the fall and winter each year. Given how contagious the novel coronavirus is, it should have indeed infected most people in the time between February and June, without causing an actual disease in the majority of them. And if someone’s life journey meanwhile had ended due to cancer for example, there is a high statistical chance this person had carried, among other viruses, SARS-CoV-2 as well. However, correlation does not mean causation. But with regard to the unfortunate now more than 500,000 U.S. fatalities, the CDC wants us to believe that if the virus had been present in those people’s bodies, then it must have caused their death 9 out of 10 times. Such a claim is not supported by any logic or evidence, and is highly panic-inducing. In all fairness, many people could have really developed a serious COVID-19 condition that ultimately caused their death,


similar to what happens with post-influenza pneumonia. But who can really tell how many? What I present is just one simple argument. If you are into more complex scientific stuff, “The Conversation” developed a Bayesian Network model in the summer of 2020. It suggested that for Kobe, Japan for example, 800 times more people have had COVID-19 than what was officially reported, while for England and Wales this figure was 28 times!32 Another group of scientists developed a semi-Bayesian analysis for the U.S. to account for incomplete testing and imperfect diagnostic accuracy. They estimated by 18 April 2020 the actual number of U.S. infections could have been up to 20 times higher than reported.33 The results from such studies made a rare appearance on the news, because if it turned out that the virus had indeed infected most of us, then the COVID-19 mortality rate would have plummeted, making the disease much less of a threat. At the end of 2020, even the CDC admitted the number of actual U.S. cases was probably 9 times higher than the official figure. This would mean that by February 2021 more than 200 million people in the U.S. had already been infected, making the COVID-19 lethality akin to that of seasonal influenza. But no, mainstream media, governments and, surprisingly, the medical establishment itself, had no time to think over this. But most importantly, science simply forgot how to perform proper research in the first place. It forgot how to collect reliable epidemiological data, in order to make fact-based decisions and take evidence-driven action. Once you have reasons to believe you are on the brink of an infectious disease epidemic and the dangerous new virus is already out there, the first thing you would do is launch large-sample, randomized, double blind trials with a control group. This way you can gain knowledge of this new virus, estimate its current spread and study its health effects. To the best of my knowledge, such trials have not been done in most countries, if any at all, although I did hear about one such study done in Spain. I also heard about another large-sample study performed by French scientists. In an open letter to the Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, a professor and former Head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz, Germany – Sucharit Bhakdi – said the following: “What we need are – say – 10,000 patients, all with respiratory track disease that are

infected with common coronaviruses, and 10,000 infected with COVID-19. All really with respiratory track disease, nothing else. Then, we need to ask how many die in each group. If the mortality is similar in both, then clearly they are similarly dangerous…You will ask me, has there been such a study? And I answer: “No.” Until 19 March 2020, when the first study ever appeared from our French colleagues that addressed this central question. What do you think they reported? The mortality in both groups was similar. COVID-19 did not differ in dangerousness from its everyday relatives.” 34


But the scientific community at large simply had no time to ask the questions that mattered the most and challenge the narrative we were pushed to accept. And in the absence of true science, religion takes over. We created a COVID-19 religion that eventually put us in a state of mass shared psychosis. A religion that wanted us to believe that all people who die WITH the novel coronavirus, die FROM that virus, with no other possible main cause of death. We created an almighty COVID God, who we then blamed for taking millions of human lives alone. Once we created this first myth, others soon followed. What happens when you label all deaths “COVID-19 deaths”? All causes of death magically become COVID-19 attributes! Thus an illness, which was confirmed by WHO in March 2020 to be not so different symptom-wise from the common flu, quickly added to its arsenal a whopping 100 different symptoms! It became an all-pervasive Monster that could strike in hundreds of different ways, at hundreds of different places in the body. It seems like someone forgot to tell the virus it had an 80% genetic match with the original SARS one and was supposed to cause primarily lung problems. “Yet, as the pandemic continues to ravage the world, case reports have emerged of

more unusual damage ranging from hundreds of tiny blood clots to strokes in young people, and even mysterious inflammatory responses, such as full-body rashes in children and the red lesions that have come to be known unofficially as COVID toe.” 35 Let me open an important bracket here. The doctors and nurses on the hospital forefronts will tell you people are dying FROM, not WITH the virus, in very large numbers, as COVID-19’s harm to the human body is something many of them have never seen in their clinical practice before. They will also tell you diagnosing a patient with COVID-19 is not simply a matter of PCR testing, but requires careful examination of both symptoms and results from further medical tests. These healthcare workers are absolutely right. After all, they saw this deadly disease with their own eyes. I have huge empathy for the victims of this pandemic. I deeply empathize with our medics too. They are my heroes. Put under incredible stress, seeing both patients and colleagues falling to their demise, they barely had time to sleep, let alone ask questions about what was actually taking place around them. All the more reason why science should have stepped in. People simply falling on the ground and dying? People whose lungs were utterly damaged? People with hypoxia or sudden neurological and autonomic dysfunction? We know such cases exist and we know what some of the likely causes for them are. And they have nothing to do with viral infections. The more we saw this new virus diverging from its siblings symptom-wise, the more we should have questioned the origin of this pandemic, instead of falling further into a state of psychosis. At some point the Italian authorities decided they had enough of these viral mythology tales. The majority of victims there were very old people with two or more underlying conditions, which fit the profile of most COVID-19 victims worldwide at the time. 36 Most of those Italians had lived in highly polluted areas and hence their health had already


been quite compromised. The Telegraph launched an investigation to find out why this country had so many coronavirus deaths. They quoted Prof. Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health. “The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that

all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus. On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three.”37 Other countries soon followed Italy’s example and reconsidered the way they determine COVID-19 mortalities. Meanwhile, the President of the Bulgarian Association of Pathology Dr. Stoyan Aleksov dropped a bombshell. In a video conversation regarding the opinion of European pathologists about the novel coronavirus infection, which I watched with great interest, he said the following in May 2020: “No one died of coronavirus…There is no difference in an autopsy between someone

who died of a coronavirus and one who died of a seasonal viral infection. Only three autopsies were performed in our country, because WHO instructed not to do them.” 38

According to Aleksov, that was the conclusion his European colleagues had reached during a recent seminar. Who should we believe now then? The CDC, claiming most deaths following a positive PCR test are caused by the virus, or the pathologists? Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle? Besides, no matter how long after someone who tested positive for the virus, died, they were considered a COVID-19 victim. But viral infections have an “expiration date”. And if, as doctors will tell you, this particular infection may have a number of life-threating complications, then again – are there any environmental toxins that could be causing these as well? Logically, in August 2020 Public Health England changed its definition of COVID-related deaths. “The new definition is now death in a person with a laboratory-confirmed positive

COVID-19 test and died within (equal to or less than) 28 days of the first positive specimen date will now be reported.” 39

As you can imagine, if states had followed a more robust, sound approach in determining COVID-19 deaths, the official mortality would be much different. However, we will never see the true picture by looking at websites such as Worldometers. In fact, we will never learn the true death toll from the pandemic. In October 2020, just as many European countries were preparing to impose new lockdowns, WHO published a study by a top epidemiologist and a professor in statistics John Ioannidis. His research concluded the following:


“Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%)…In people