More dodgy data being used to support 'the vaccine'...
QUOTE:
In the absence of a vaccination program, there would have been approximately 1.1 million additional COVID-19 deaths and more than 10.3 million additional COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. by November 2021.
Without the U.S. vaccination program, COVID-19 deaths would have been approximately 3.2 times higher and COVID-19 hospitalizations approximately 4.9 times higher than the actual toll during 2021.
If no one had been vaccinated, daily deaths from COVID-19 could have jumped to as high as 21,000 per day — nearly 5.2 times the level of the record peak of more than 4,000 deaths per day recorded in January 2021.
Even though I receive emails notifying me of new articles, I receive so many Sub stack notifications that I generally do not look at them when I receive them but go through them when I have some spare time then I do some 'binge reading'. I had such a binge reading session on 15 April, prior to this article being published. I posted a comment on the 'Where Aare the Numbers' article about MHRA still not releasing data regarding pregnancies, etc. https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/mhra-still-wont-release-critical
Today I am doing a similar binge read and have just read this article about data on the JHU dashboard. Whilst reading what it said, it resonated so much with what I had said in my post on 15 April, namely:
"Bill Malcolm
Apr 15
I'm lost for words...
I have 2 points I wish to make.....
My second point is that what can be so difficult about summarising and publishing data that is contained within the systems that they administer/ monitor? It is not rocket science!
From early 2020, every country in the world (allegedly) reported, ON A DAILY BASIS, the new number of cases and deaths linked to CV19. The logistics of doing such (worldwide) reporting always puzzled me.
When did the reporting system get put in place and how was it administered? Were additional staff employed just to do this daily reporting? The logistics of this are quite mind boggling. Such data was being fielded from every health centre/ doctors practice/ hospital within each NHS region and reported centrally every day!! Even if such daily reporting was done, which I very much doubt, who (if anyone) checked/ verified the figures reported?..."
My suspicion has always been that much of the data reported in real time (news media, Covid dashboards like JHU) must have been educated estimates (guesses) or, worse still, completely made up!! This article confirms my suspicions and, if anything, it seems more likely that it was the latter!
My go-to source for CV19 data during the 'Restrictions' or 'Period of Madness' (much more apt descriptions than 'pandemic') was Worldometer, which gets prominently & extensively mentioned in your article.
As you correctly point out this website provides information (on a world wide basis) in respect of populations. What is remarkable is that this website has just 2 main topics, Population & Coronavirus
As an aside, given the date of your article, there is a note that now appears in a banner displayed (from 14 April) at the top of of the Worldometer Covid page, which says:
"NOTE: As of April 13, 2024, the Coronavirus Tracker is no longer being updated..."
What is peculiar (gleaned from using the Wayback Machine) is that prior to 2019, the site only had one tab on its home page (Population). In May 2019, it added a "GDP" tab and in September it added a "CO2" tab. The peculiar thing about the CO2 tab is that it only shows data from 1971 up to 2016. The tables & graphs in the tab look like a test out of the tables & graphs that would used in the (still in the future) Coronavirus tab.
On 29 January 2020, the Coronavirus tab was added.
Whoever did this must have had amazing forethought (like 'Mystic Meg'!!) to decide to set up a completely new section on the website, which according to the figures it reported that day, only had deaths (1,133) in one single country (China). The table this day has 20 countries listed. The other 19 countries, in aggregate, have zero deaths and only 101 cases (range 1 to 14), including USA with just 5 cases.
On this first day of Coronavirus reporting, Worldometer ditch their GDP tab. And the next day (30 Jan), Worldometer ditches its CO2 tab!!
Another remarkable thing about 30 January is that 963 previously dead people in China came back to life because the total deaths for China dropped from 1,133 to only 170!!!
Prior to 29 January 2020, The Worldometer website would not have required much administration because it was not providing real word up to date data. On the "About" page, the following is stated (December 2019) regarding how the website works:
"The live counters show the real-time estimate as computed by our proprietary algorithm, which processes the latest data and projections provided by the most reputable organizations and statistical offices in the world."
This begs the question, how did Worldometer magically have the resources to not only obtain real world live data (if it existed, which I very much doubt) from all countries around the world but also verify it on an ongoing 24 hour basis?
Below is what was stated on the About page of their website (again from December 2019):
"Trusted Authority
Worldometers was voted as one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA), the oldest and largest library association in the world.
We have licensed our counters at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), to BBC News, and to the U2 concert, among others.
Worldometers is cited as a source in over 3500 published books, in more than 2000 professional journal articles, and in over 1000 Wikipedia pages."
I am just throwing out a hypothesis. If, prior to 2020, Worldometer was widely perceived to be such a trusted source (similar probably to how JHU would have been perceived) then, if somebody, or a group or groups, wished to spread false information/ propaganda (and wanted it to be trusted as being true) spreading such information through a trusted source (like Worldometer) would be a good way of doing it.
Particularly so because journalists and politicians are widely regarded as not trustworthy (journalists, politicians, Govt ministers are all near the bottom, around 20% trusted, in the annual Ipsos Veracity Index). Therefore a long established, very well trusted and apparently "independent" website would be excellent for providing support for what the media/ governments report, should any non-trusting citizens want to verify/ try to fact-check what they are being told.
The trustworthiness of this website seems to have even improved since December 2019 as the About page now says the following. Note the 10+fold increase in citations in journal articles (2,000 to 25,000).
"Trusted Authority
Worldometer was voted as one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA), the oldest and largest library association in the world.
Worldometer is a provider of global COVID-19 statistics for many caring people around the world. Our data is also trusted and used by the UK Government, Johns Hopkins CSSE, the Government of Thailand, the Government of Pakistan, the Government of Sri Lanka, Government of Vietnam, Financial Times, The New York Times, Business Insider, BBC, and many others.
Over the past 15 years, our statistics have been requested by, and provided to: Oxford University Press, Wiley, Pearson, CERN, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), The Atlantic, BBC, Milton J. Rubenstein Museum of Science & Technology, Science Museum of Virginia, Morgan Stanley, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Kaspersky, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Amazon Alexa, Google Translate, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the U2 concert, and many others.
Worldometer is cited as a source in over 10,000 published books and in more than 25,000 professional journal articles."
Worldometer uses computer simulations in general. That's a given. They say: "For the live counters on the home page, we elaborate instead a real-time estimate through our proprietary algorithm which processes the latest data and projections provided by the most reputable organizations and statistical offices in the world."
For Covid numbers, they claim otherwise: "Our sources include Official Websites of Ministries of Health or other Government Institutions and Government authorities' social media accounts. Because national aggregates often lag behind the regional and local health departments' data, part of our work consists in monitoring thousands of daily reports released by local authorities. Our multilingual team also monitors press briefings' live streams throughout the day. Occasionally, we can use a selection of leading and trusted news wires with a proven history of accuracy in communicating the data reported by Governments in live press conferences before it is published on the Official Websites."
Thank you Thomas V. It makes much but not all of our work on estimating infectious disease outbreaks and COVID-19 dependent on questionable data. We did use UK Office for National Statistics for the UK model not Worldometer. Published in the International Journal of General Medicine after near 3 years of rejections.
Cook M, Puri B, A Novel and Accurate Method for Estimating Deaths and Cases During Outbreaks of Infectious Diseases Including COVID-19.
Yup all fake modelling as reliable as Dr Pants Down Fergusons! All on purpose, to create the fear needed to roll out an injection based toxic synthetic weapon. Nothing biological about so called covid. Its not even made in a lab from bats etc. Its just a weaponised synthetic protein, or other chemical poison, crafted after years of prior also fake vaccines, for fake diseases, which are all just cover stories for industrial toxins, or sanitation/malnutrition issues.
> Every State Health Authority reported their “covid” numbers daily. This data was then collated by various websites and dashboards like JHU.
To clarify what you are saying: are you asserting that you have personal, hands on technical(!) knowledge (as opposed to belief) of all(!) of the various data pipelines involved in this project, across all(!) states?
> It wasn’t that the data was false, it was just misinterpreted.
Please explain what you mean by this.
> The data actually proved everything they said and did was wrong.
How could you possibly know:
a) Everything that they said and did?
b) Whether that was proven out with perfection by the data? Can you even name the numerous extremely complicated disciplines involved in pulling something like that off?
Before you reply: I am quite familiar with your kind, a typical response will avoid addressing the questions, but rather engage in various forms of rhetoric, insults, evasion, etc. Please try to resist natural Allistic urges to engage in that behavior, this is a serious topic.
I understand your point: even taking covid numbers at face value, covid was not the big scary virus worthy of global lockdowns, like so many claimed.
The article is clear: covid case and death numbers as reported by JHU were meaningless for 3 reasons:
1. very few health authorities in the world are capable of producing daily data,
2. so JHU filled in the gaps with computer models.
3. JHU models were corrected with data from health authorities, but this ended up confounding the data.
So, it's not that the data is "false" like a PCR test might be. Rather, the data is meaningless in the same way faulty models are meaningless.
Case in point, only 9% of countries in the world could provide the WHO with weekly ICU numbers for covid, let alone daily numbers, let alone daily numbers of cases and deaths. See: https://t.co/Rs6RObeeL6
Your 2nd and 3rd questions are answered in the article.
As for your 1st question, if it took from 7 months to 2 years for the CDC to tabulate influenza cases and deaths, why do you think the US has the ability to track covid cases and deaths in real time?
Thank you for deep and clear analysis of details underlying JHU dashboard. Indeed, at the beginning of 2020 I thought (as millions of people around the world) that it presented number of real cases (simply speaking- people suffering from severe pneumonia caused by novel virus).
To supplement above analysis- all C19 statistics are based on massive testing of people with highly unreliable tests. As a result- official C19 data are rubbish.
It is indeed, all persuasive writing is technically propaganda, but not all propaganda is bad. Figuring out which kind you're dealing with can be very difficult, but luckily the vast majority of Humans on either side are not able to care what is trueso don't get into such matters.
Chapter, verse and receipts on the Dempanic that somehow magically came and went with the 2020 election season.
The aggregate costs of the various models, “remediation” policies, economies collapsed, jobs lost, families split, government trust cratered, and children not educated is incalculable but certainly in the billions of dollars.
That is how much the globalists are willing - and can / have access to - to spend to crush the middle class and self-government.
Anyone thinking they won’t remove Trump from the board is not thinking.
Here’s a recent paper claiming “The Australian vaccination campaign was successful in reducing mortality over 2022, relative to alternative hypothetical vaccination scenarios.”
Also, if you search for recent Supreme Court rulings, you will find that the only thing questioned is the federal authority to encroach upon States authority to require medical personnel to get a vax NOT that a mandate by the State is unconstitutional.
The 1905 case declared that the mandate was constitutional and that the refuser had to pay a $5 fine (under some clause like the commerce one) which has been misconstrued ever since to claim that the court said that mandates were OK without the option of paying the fine.
The whole system which is designed and run by the judeo-masonic secret society that rules over us has been rigged against us for a century or more.
Given your mention of Event 201, might JHU's dashboard also have been skewed by the agenda of the WEF and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who were also co-sponsors of Event 201?
Hmmm.......
But a very well written, in depth piece.. It's a subject that needs more scrutiny.
Really good article; models are the new crystal balls (maybe I should capatilise the latter word) that politicians want to hang their hat on to show people that they take stuff seriously. I think the worm is beginning to turn though - only because people are now starting to see how following 'the science' [ughh] really didn't help anyone except the masked-up pan-bangers and the grubby research fund chasers. Am I a hopeless optimist?
This is a very insightful observation, especially if you consider how many of the "facts" (ie: science) our fantasy world is composed of are actually models. Now, this is not to say that all models are wrong, but that the public *hasn't a clue* that the story they are being told are misleading.
This explains why the entire continent of Africa had fewer deaths than the United States.
More dodgy data being used to support 'the vaccine'...
QUOTE:
In the absence of a vaccination program, there would have been approximately 1.1 million additional COVID-19 deaths and more than 10.3 million additional COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. by November 2021.
Without the U.S. vaccination program, COVID-19 deaths would have been approximately 3.2 times higher and COVID-19 hospitalizations approximately 4.9 times higher than the actual toll during 2021.
If no one had been vaccinated, daily deaths from COVID-19 could have jumped to as high as 21,000 per day — nearly 5.2 times the level of the record peak of more than 4,000 deaths per day recorded in January 2021.
END OF QUOTE.
Based on estimates...
The U.S. COVID-19 Vaccination Program at One Year: How Many Deaths and Hospitalizations Were Averted? https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/dec/us-covid-19-vaccination-program-one-year-how-many-deaths-and
Uncanny!!
Even though I receive emails notifying me of new articles, I receive so many Sub stack notifications that I generally do not look at them when I receive them but go through them when I have some spare time then I do some 'binge reading'. I had such a binge reading session on 15 April, prior to this article being published. I posted a comment on the 'Where Aare the Numbers' article about MHRA still not releasing data regarding pregnancies, etc. https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/mhra-still-wont-release-critical
Today I am doing a similar binge read and have just read this article about data on the JHU dashboard. Whilst reading what it said, it resonated so much with what I had said in my post on 15 April, namely:
"Bill Malcolm
Apr 15
I'm lost for words...
I have 2 points I wish to make.....
My second point is that what can be so difficult about summarising and publishing data that is contained within the systems that they administer/ monitor? It is not rocket science!
From early 2020, every country in the world (allegedly) reported, ON A DAILY BASIS, the new number of cases and deaths linked to CV19. The logistics of doing such (worldwide) reporting always puzzled me.
When did the reporting system get put in place and how was it administered? Were additional staff employed just to do this daily reporting? The logistics of this are quite mind boggling. Such data was being fielded from every health centre/ doctors practice/ hospital within each NHS region and reported centrally every day!! Even if such daily reporting was done, which I very much doubt, who (if anyone) checked/ verified the figures reported?..."
My suspicion has always been that much of the data reported in real time (news media, Covid dashboards like JHU) must have been educated estimates (guesses) or, worse still, completely made up!! This article confirms my suspicions and, if anything, it seems more likely that it was the latter!
My go-to source for CV19 data during the 'Restrictions' or 'Period of Madness' (much more apt descriptions than 'pandemic') was Worldometer, which gets prominently & extensively mentioned in your article.
As you correctly point out this website provides information (on a world wide basis) in respect of populations. What is remarkable is that this website has just 2 main topics, Population & Coronavirus
https://www.worldometers.info/
As an aside, given the date of your article, there is a note that now appears in a banner displayed (from 14 April) at the top of of the Worldometer Covid page, which says:
"NOTE: As of April 13, 2024, the Coronavirus Tracker is no longer being updated..."
What is peculiar (gleaned from using the Wayback Machine) is that prior to 2019, the site only had one tab on its home page (Population). In May 2019, it added a "GDP" tab and in September it added a "CO2" tab. The peculiar thing about the CO2 tab is that it only shows data from 1971 up to 2016. The tables & graphs in the tab look like a test out of the tables & graphs that would used in the (still in the future) Coronavirus tab.
On 29 January 2020, the Coronavirus tab was added.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200131025422/https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Whoever did this must have had amazing forethought (like 'Mystic Meg'!!) to decide to set up a completely new section on the website, which according to the figures it reported that day, only had deaths (1,133) in one single country (China). The table this day has 20 countries listed. The other 19 countries, in aggregate, have zero deaths and only 101 cases (range 1 to 14), including USA with just 5 cases.
On this first day of Coronavirus reporting, Worldometer ditch their GDP tab. And the next day (30 Jan), Worldometer ditches its CO2 tab!!
Another remarkable thing about 30 January is that 963 previously dead people in China came back to life because the total deaths for China dropped from 1,133 to only 170!!!
Prior to 29 January 2020, The Worldometer website would not have required much administration because it was not providing real word up to date data. On the "About" page, the following is stated (December 2019) regarding how the website works:
"The live counters show the real-time estimate as computed by our proprietary algorithm, which processes the latest data and projections provided by the most reputable organizations and statistical offices in the world."
This begs the question, how did Worldometer magically have the resources to not only obtain real world live data (if it existed, which I very much doubt) from all countries around the world but also verify it on an ongoing 24 hour basis?
Below is what was stated on the About page of their website (again from December 2019):
"Trusted Authority
Worldometers was voted as one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA), the oldest and largest library association in the world.
We have licensed our counters at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), to BBC News, and to the U2 concert, among others.
Worldometers is cited as a source in over 3500 published books, in more than 2000 professional journal articles, and in over 1000 Wikipedia pages."
I am just throwing out a hypothesis. If, prior to 2020, Worldometer was widely perceived to be such a trusted source (similar probably to how JHU would have been perceived) then, if somebody, or a group or groups, wished to spread false information/ propaganda (and wanted it to be trusted as being true) spreading such information through a trusted source (like Worldometer) would be a good way of doing it.
Particularly so because journalists and politicians are widely regarded as not trustworthy (journalists, politicians, Govt ministers are all near the bottom, around 20% trusted, in the annual Ipsos Veracity Index). Therefore a long established, very well trusted and apparently "independent" website would be excellent for providing support for what the media/ governments report, should any non-trusting citizens want to verify/ try to fact-check what they are being told.
The trustworthiness of this website seems to have even improved since December 2019 as the About page now says the following. Note the 10+fold increase in citations in journal articles (2,000 to 25,000).
"Trusted Authority
Worldometer was voted as one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA), the oldest and largest library association in the world.
Worldometer is a provider of global COVID-19 statistics for many caring people around the world. Our data is also trusted and used by the UK Government, Johns Hopkins CSSE, the Government of Thailand, the Government of Pakistan, the Government of Sri Lanka, Government of Vietnam, Financial Times, The New York Times, Business Insider, BBC, and many others.
Over the past 15 years, our statistics have been requested by, and provided to: Oxford University Press, Wiley, Pearson, CERN, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), The Atlantic, BBC, Milton J. Rubenstein Museum of Science & Technology, Science Museum of Virginia, Morgan Stanley, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Kaspersky, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Amazon Alexa, Google Translate, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the U2 concert, and many others.
Worldometer is cited as a source in over 10,000 published books and in more than 25,000 professional journal articles."
Thanks for sharing this info.
Cheers!
Excellent investigation. It mentions that JHU used Worldometer data, and that this was computer modelled. Is there some source for this?
Worldometer uses computer simulations in general. That's a given. They say: "For the live counters on the home page, we elaborate instead a real-time estimate through our proprietary algorithm which processes the latest data and projections provided by the most reputable organizations and statistical offices in the world."
See : https://www.worldometers.info/about/
For Covid numbers, they claim otherwise: "Our sources include Official Websites of Ministries of Health or other Government Institutions and Government authorities' social media accounts. Because national aggregates often lag behind the regional and local health departments' data, part of our work consists in monitoring thousands of daily reports released by local authorities. Our multilingual team also monitors press briefings' live streams throughout the day. Occasionally, we can use a selection of leading and trusted news wires with a proven history of accuracy in communicating the data reported by Governments in live press conferences before it is published on the Official Websites."
Pay attention to what they fail to say.
Thank you Thomas V. It makes much but not all of our work on estimating infectious disease outbreaks and COVID-19 dependent on questionable data. We did use UK Office for National Statistics for the UK model not Worldometer. Published in the International Journal of General Medicine after near 3 years of rejections.
Cook M, Puri B, A Novel and Accurate Method for Estimating Deaths and Cases During Outbreaks of Infectious Diseases Including COVID-19.
Yup all fake modelling as reliable as Dr Pants Down Fergusons! All on purpose, to create the fear needed to roll out an injection based toxic synthetic weapon. Nothing biological about so called covid. Its not even made in a lab from bats etc. Its just a weaponised synthetic protein, or other chemical poison, crafted after years of prior also fake vaccines, for fake diseases, which are all just cover stories for industrial toxins, or sanitation/malnutrition issues.
Every State Health Authority reported their “covid” numbers daily. This data was then collated by various websites and dashboards like JHU.
It wasn’t that the data was false, it was just misinterpreted. The data actually proved everything they said and did was wrong.
Are you saying it was false? Which categories?
I have some questions for you, Human:
> Every State Health Authority reported their “covid” numbers daily. This data was then collated by various websites and dashboards like JHU.
To clarify what you are saying: are you asserting that you have personal, hands on technical(!) knowledge (as opposed to belief) of all(!) of the various data pipelines involved in this project, across all(!) states?
> It wasn’t that the data was false, it was just misinterpreted.
Please explain what you mean by this.
> The data actually proved everything they said and did was wrong.
How could you possibly know:
a) Everything that they said and did?
b) Whether that was proven out with perfection by the data? Can you even name the numerous extremely complicated disciplines involved in pulling something like that off?
Before you reply: I am quite familiar with your kind, a typical response will avoid addressing the questions, but rather engage in various forms of rhetoric, insults, evasion, etc. Please try to resist natural Allistic urges to engage in that behavior, this is a serious topic.
I understand your point: even taking covid numbers at face value, covid was not the big scary virus worthy of global lockdowns, like so many claimed.
The article is clear: covid case and death numbers as reported by JHU were meaningless for 3 reasons:
1. very few health authorities in the world are capable of producing daily data,
2. so JHU filled in the gaps with computer models.
3. JHU models were corrected with data from health authorities, but this ended up confounding the data.
So, it's not that the data is "false" like a PCR test might be. Rather, the data is meaningless in the same way faulty models are meaningless.
Case in point, only 9% of countries in the world could provide the WHO with weekly ICU numbers for covid, let alone daily numbers, let alone daily numbers of cases and deaths. See: https://t.co/Rs6RObeeL6
Your 2nd and 3rd questions are answered in the article.
As for your 1st question, if it took from 7 months to 2 years for the CDC to tabulate influenza cases and deaths, why do you think the US has the ability to track covid cases and deaths in real time?
Thank you for deep and clear analysis of details underlying JHU dashboard. Indeed, at the beginning of 2020 I thought (as millions of people around the world) that it presented number of real cases (simply speaking- people suffering from severe pneumonia caused by novel virus).
To supplement above analysis- all C19 statistics are based on massive testing of people with highly unreliable tests. As a result- official C19 data are rubbish.
@Dr Piers Robinson couldn’t this be propaganda in its own way too though?
It is indeed, all persuasive writing is technically propaganda, but not all propaganda is bad. Figuring out which kind you're dealing with can be very difficult, but luckily the vast majority of Humans on either side are not able to care what is trueso don't get into such matters.
I love this space. People who saw through the crap and kept telling the truth. Thank you one and all.
Chapter, verse and receipts on the Dempanic that somehow magically came and went with the 2020 election season.
The aggregate costs of the various models, “remediation” policies, economies collapsed, jobs lost, families split, government trust cratered, and children not educated is incalculable but certainly in the billions of dollars.
That is how much the globalists are willing - and can / have access to - to spend to crush the middle class and self-government.
Anyone thinking they won’t remove Trump from the board is not thinking.
Beautiful.
I'm so sick of people being obsessed with data and not reasons, but I love this.
I wonder, was Mr. Bloombag involved?
Speaking of ‘modelling’…
Here’s a recent paper claiming “The Australian vaccination campaign was successful in reducing mortality over 2022, relative to alternative hypothetical vaccination scenarios.”
Assessing the impact of Australia’s mass vaccination campaigns over the Delta and Omicron outbreaks | PLOS ONE: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299844
Accompanying MSM articles:
- RACGP - Modelling reveals number of lives saved by COVID vaccine rollout: https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/modelling-reveals-number-of-lives-saved-by-covid-v
- New research finds Covid vaccines prevented thousands of deaths in NSW during pandemic | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/covid19-vaccines-likely-prevented-thousands-of-deaths-in-nsw/news-story/56ae19ef9f300763c0fe0dea2ffce5f6
Search for 1905 Supreme Court decision upheld Massachusetts’ smallpox inoculation requirement.
Also, if you search for recent Supreme Court rulings, you will find that the only thing questioned is the federal authority to encroach upon States authority to require medical personnel to get a vax NOT that a mandate by the State is unconstitutional.
The 1905 case declared that the mandate was constitutional and that the refuser had to pay a $5 fine (under some clause like the commerce one) which has been misconstrued ever since to claim that the court said that mandates were OK without the option of paying the fine.
The whole system which is designed and run by the judeo-masonic secret society that rules over us has been rigged against us for a century or more.
Keep fighting them!
Ahhhh… The ol’ Jacobson v. Massachusetts…
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
Also, re the Prep Act…thinking about this…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Readiness_and_Emergency_Preparedness_Act
I will have to look for it.
Given your mention of Event 201, might JHU's dashboard also have been skewed by the agenda of the WEF and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who were also co-sponsors of Event 201?
Hmmm.......
But a very well written, in depth piece.. It's a subject that needs more scrutiny.
Scroll to the very bottom of page to verify..
https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/event-201-pandemic-tabletop-exercise
Really good article; models are the new crystal balls (maybe I should capatilise the latter word) that politicians want to hang their hat on to show people that they take stuff seriously. I think the worm is beginning to turn though - only because people are now starting to see how following 'the science' [ughh] really didn't help anyone except the masked-up pan-bangers and the grubby research fund chasers. Am I a hopeless optimist?
> models are the new crystal balls
This is a very insightful observation, especially if you consider how many of the "facts" (ie: science) our fantasy world is composed of are actually models. Now, this is not to say that all models are wrong, but that the public *hasn't a clue* that the story they are being told are misleading.