Friday, July 31, 2020

Things To Come: China Leads The Way For Contact Tracing And Loss Of Freedom

It’s Official: America Is Following China’s Lead – Contact Tracing Is Here – Say Goodbye to Freedom and Hello to State Control

In May we reported on our concerns with contact tracing and our loss of freedom as a result of this practice.  We reported that contact tracers will track you and tell you what you can and cannot do. You will be a puppet of the state. You must do what they say for the greater good. Freedom will be lost forever.

We reported that Democrat states were promoting the idea of “contact tracing” and when you realize what it is, you will think you are living in Orwell’s 1984.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot cheered the news that Chicago was hiring 600 tracers to track its citizens using the coronavirus as the excuse.  We then shared an excellent video (which has now been taken down by YouTube) that explained the madness behind contact tracing. In the video the following points were made:

  1. Of course John Hopkins offers contact tracer training (connected to the scary overboard coronavirus chart)
  2. Based on you coming in contact with a person who has COVID-19 you will be placed in total isolation for 10 days
  3. If you have no way of not sharing a bathroom you will need to be isolated
  4. If you are quarantined you will be isolated for 14 days
  5. A contact tracer will take care of your kids but you cannot leave your house
  6. If you eat at a restaurant and someone was found with COVID you will be quarantined
  7. Big government will video conference you and review your place to make sure you are isolated
  8. If you contract it your family will have to be quarantined for 14 days and completely isolated
  9. If you were on a train, at work or in a restaurant then everyone near you will have to be quarantined
  10. They say this is voluntary but will arrest you if you don’t comply
  11. You could be quarantined again, and again, and again
  12. Training encourages contact tracers to know you are doing this for the greater good
  13. The government will mandate you to take vaccines
  14. Apple phones are now upgraded to manage your phone for COVID contact tracing
  15. In India you have to show your app before getting on a train or taking a flight, etc.
  16. New Zealand has a code that will clear you based on your app status

The government is asking for $100 billion to manage this process and force you to take vaccinations – (the video has also been removed by YouTube).
Communist China is the role model for contact tracing.  Imagine a world where you can only enter a restaurant, business, taxi or any public or private entity based on your contact tracing score.  This is happening in China now.
According to (picture above from their site), China is now implementing contact tracing:

Restaurants and malls are open, but to enter, customers have to activate a health code on their smartphones. The code tracks their movements and determines whether they have been to any risky places. Only those with green codes are allowed in. Many offices insist on green codes, too. A red code, or even an amber one, is the scarlet letter of 2020. You can have concerns about privacy, or you can have a functioning life. You can’t have both. Security guards with temperature guns man the gates at supermarkets and residential compounds, pointing them at the wrists of every person who wants to enter.

Of course, the ratings of individuals are determined by unnamed and unseen individuals.  Your phone tells them where you are.  Your access to everyday life is dependent on the state and how they rate you.  Someone, somewhere is allowing you to leave your house or not.  You can only do so with their permission.


We received an email from a concerned citizen (who we will keep anonymous) from Texas who believes the state is now gearing up for contact tracing.  The individual received a call from a number unknown to them that said the following:

There Shall Come Scoffers

There Shall Come Scoffers

Jack Kinsella

Last week, I watched a segment on a Fox News program that featured guests discussing Bible prophecy and the end of the world. One of the featured guests was a Roman Catholic priest and the other the head of a midwestern Baptist seminary.
It was an interesting, albeit short, discussion that opened with the priest noting that people have ‘been predicting the end of the world for centuries,’ a position that was immediately echoed by the Baptist guest.
The conversation immediately called to mind 2nd Peter 3:3-4:
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”
But the fact is, they are right. History is replete with folks who have made various predictions about when the Lord is coming back. And obviously, they were wrong, since here we are.
Is it any wonder that the world is inundated with ‘scoffers?’ Most of these predictions, together with their prognosticators, were made by sincere and dedicated scholars who believed that they had ‘cracked’ some Biblical secret code that had been there all along, but that nobody else except them had discovered.
Their followers were equally sincere and dedicated believers in their prophecies, but they misplaced their faith. Our faith is not to be, as the Scripture says, rooted in WHEN He comes, but rather, in Who is coming.
This is why the Lord says, in clear and unambiguous terms, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only.” (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32)
It means exactly what it says. No man can calculate the day or the hour because of the damage such false prophecies do to believers when they fail.
Look at the damage already caused by those sincere, well-meaning believers among the false prophets listed above. While some of them were undoubtedly well-meaning, the result has been the loss of uncounted souls for Christ.
Do you doubt me? Have you ever attempted to present evidence of Christ’s return in the hope that the evidence will cause somebody to accept the conclusion that God MUST be real and therefore the Bible MUST be true? And, having reached that conclusion, your prospect will recognize his lost condition and trust Jesus?
How MANY times have you then heard someone echo the sentiments expressed in 2nd Peter 3:3? “People have been predicting the end of the world for centuries, but we’re still here.” It is a fulfillment of prophecy, but it is also evidence of the incalculable damage centuries of false prophecy has been responsible for.
It’s been said before, and it didn’t happen. What makes this any different?
While no generation in the history of the Church Age has at its disposal more conclusive evidence of the fulfillment of end times prophecy, including the restoration of nations, the alignment of nations in precisely the configuration described by the prophets, the explosion of knowledge, the shifting weather patterns, the restoration of Israel, etc., this evidence is useless as a tool of evangelism if nobody can get past the ‘been there, done that’ part in order to present it.
Every failed prediction of the Rapture or the return of Christ takes its toll. If just one person is turned off to the promise of salvation as a result of the litany of failed prognosticators of the past — all of whom were in violation of the clear teachings of the Scriptures — the loss of that person’s soul is an incalculable tragedy, from Heaven’s perspective.
The joy Jesus spoke of in heaven when a sinner turns to Christ goes uncelebrated, replaced by the mourning of the angels.
The simple facts are these. No other generation has been blessed with such a preponderance of evidence. No generation in history has ever had so many reasons to accept the predictive nature of Scripture — and thus, evidence of the Divinity of its Author, than does the generation that witnessed the rebirth of Israel and the unfolding scenario predicted thousands of years ago by the Hebrew prophets.
But if the evidence doesn’t get a hearing, it is of no value.
“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God,” writes the Apostle Paul. (1st Corinthians 2:11)
Attempting to divine by human means that which God has deliberately drawn a curtain around is an act of defiance that bears eternal and far-reaching consequences that no man will ever understand this side of heaven. But if we trust Jesus, then we must trust EVERYTHING He taught us.
Discussing His return, Jesus used an analogy that clearly explains the purpose of a secret, incalculable Rapture.
“And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour WHEN YE THINK NOT.” (Luke 12:39-40)
As events unfold that fill out the prophetic puzzle for this generation, it is abundantly obvious that the Lord must soon return for His Church.
But as to ‘when’ — ‘no man knoweth the day or the hour.’ The litany of failed attempts has provided much-needed ammunition to the enemy and done the Kingdom a grave disservice. And given the scoffers all the reasons they need to walk away, comfortable in their unbelief.

The Silencing Of Any Dissent:

UK Academics Advocate Silencing Dissent On Climate Change & COVID-19

According to Edge Hill University Professors Geoff Beattie and Laura McGuirethe way to prevent people ignoring climate change and Covid-19 messages is to “avoid presenting both sides of the argument”.
Coronavirus shows how to get people to act on climate change – here’s the psychology
July 29, 2020 8.22pm AEST
Geoff Beattie Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University
Laura McGuire Research Fellow in Education, Edge Hill University
With COVID-19, the early messaging attempted to circumscribe the nature of the threat. In March, the WHO announced that: “COVID-19 impacts the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions most severely.” Similar statements were made by the UK government.
A reasonable interpretation of this would be that the virus does not “affect” young people. But as new clinical data came in, this message was changed to emphasise that the virus could affect people of all ages and doesn’t discriminate.
The initial positive message for young people also created an “optimism bias”. This bias is very powerful – we know of various brain mechanisms that can ensure that a positive mood persists. One study found that people tend to have a reduced level of neural coding of more negative than anticipated information (in comparison with more positive than anticipated information) in a critical region of the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in decision making. This means that we tend to miss the incoming bad news and, even if we don’t, we hardly process it.
To make climate change messages more effective, we need to target these cognitive biases. To prevent temporal and spatial biases, for example, we need a clear message as to why climate change is bad for individuals in their own lives in the here and now (establishing an appropriate affect heuristic). 
And to prevent optimism bias, we also need to avoid presenting “both sides of the argument” in the messaging – the science tells us that there’s only one side. There also needs to be a clear argument as to why recommended, sustainable behaviours will work (establishing a different sort of confirmation bias).
We also need everyone to get the message, not just some groups – that’s an important lesson from COVID-19. There can be no (apparent) exceptions when it comes to climate change.
Read more here...
I guess big tech shutting down dissenting voices on Coronavirus was just a test run, for what these two professors from Edge Hill University want to inflict on us.

Just days after the establishment - via its Big Tech partners and liberal media propagandists - entirely disappeared a viral video of a dozen doctors discussing their real-life experiences of treating COVID-19 (and in some cases using the "extremely dangerous" medicine - if mainstream media is to be believed - hydroxchloroquine) and getting children back to school; the founder of "America's Frontline Doctors" - Dr. Simone Gold - has been fired from her job as an Emergency Medicine Specialist in Los Angeles, CA.

She is also the head organizer of an open letter signed by more than 600 doctors calling on President Trump to end lockdown. The letter described widespread state orders keeping businesses closed and children home from school as a “mass casualty incident” with “exponentially growing health consequences.”
The video was entirely disappeared from the web (except if you know where to look) within hours, and two days ago, Dr. Gold stated in a recent tweet that:

“Our website host @Squarespace has just completely and arbitrarily shut down our website, claiming a violation of their terms of service.”

WOW: Our website host @Squarespace has just completely and arbitrarily shut down our website, claiming a violation of their terms of service. We are a group of physicians advocating for a better understanding of COVID-19 and its available treatment options.

Gold had defended her views - which reflected her real-life experience as a board-certified doctor specializing in emergency medicine, not a journalist playing one on TV! - saying in a tweet that “there are always opposing views in medicine,” but that opposition should not be grounds for censorship.

But now, Dr. Gold has lost her job after her employer found out about the viral video where she dared to discuss hydroxychloroquine.

By The Numbers:

It was originally assumed that only those who had previously been infected by the virus and developed an antibody response had any immunity, hence the initial focus on testing for the presence of these antibodies as well as infection. However, studies of antibodies in formerly infected patients demonstrated accuracy issues which subsequently could be explained instead by the antibodies’ rapid decay in recovering patients.  The often disappointingly low levels of antibodies in population samples is often used as evidence that herd immunity is not a realistic goal without a vaccine.
This is not correct.

At the end of May there was a significant breakthrough in understanding of COVID antibodies which was not widely reported: a Swiss study from Zurich led by Professor Onur Boyman demonstrated that a large proportion of the population had a natural immunity through existing antibodies on the mucous membrane (IgA) or cellular immunity (T cells), likely to have been acquired through previous exposure to coronaviruses such as influenza or the common cold (the absence of exposure to previous coronavirus is now thought to explain the opposite effect in 1918).
The study found that that the presence of (IgG and IgM) antibodies generated on infection which tests had previously focused on, were NOT in fact required to defeat the virus and that existing (IgA and T cell) antibodies that gave a natural immunity. 
Moreover, the population with this natural immunity was demonstrated to be five times greater than those with the IgG and IgM antibodies on which tests had hitherto focused. If this could be substantiated, then the population already exposed to COVID would also be five times greater than previously assumed. In other words, if a population sample showed 10% had IgG and IgM antibodies (which might be subject to decay) then it was likely that at least half of the population had already been exposed to COVID.
It followed that antibody studies that measured only IgG and IgM that were now predicting population-based mortality risk of 0.1% to 0.5% (lower than the 1% in the elderly population aboard the Diamond Princess) could be even further reduced by a factor of five to 0.02% to 0.1% and the level of symptomatic exposure from 20% to below 5% (consistent with the flu season ironically predicted by Fauci in March). Not only would this mean a further similar reduction in the estimated true mortality rate but it meant that there were far fewer people in the population who had never had exposure to the virus, so a far lower number who could potentially catch the virus in the future.
In short, the infamous herd immunity was much closer than previously realised.

Fig 7. Sweden’s curve flattens without lockdown

This explained why, by July, the virus had all but disappeared in populations like Sweden, New York (Fig. 7) and Wuhan (which reportedly tested its entire population of 11 million and found only 300 cases, all of which were asymptomatic) which were significantly affected by a “first wave”
if the ratio of those with IgA and T cell antibodies to IgG and IgM antibodies across population was confirmed at a factor of five then if 20% of the population had traditional IgG and IgM antibodies (such as New York with 21% and London with 17%) then the virus died out because there was simply no one left for it to infect. It followed that the virus could only survive in population samples where testing showed the presence of IgG and IgM antibodies was below 20% (and allowing for their decay probably well below).
Nobel Prize winning biological scientist Michael Levitt had already come to the same conclusion based on a different approach: he predicted that the virus would “burn out” when it had infected 15-20% of the population though based on a pattern predicted by the “Gompertz curve” which indicated that the number of deaths after the peak is roughly double those from before resulting in Levitt accurately predicting the number of Chinese and Swedish deaths, months in advance. Levitt has recently bravely predicted that US COVID will “be done in 4 weeks [25 Aug] with a total reported death below 170,000”, compared to 149,000 today.
Boyman’s theory on “IgA and T Cell immunity” explained the accuracy of Levitt’s “Gompertz curve” predictions and this was now being backed up by the empirical evidence which showed that the populations which were hit hardest with high initial rates of infection and mortality, were the ones where the virus had almost disappeared. 

Almost none of this was reported by a media which choose instead to attach the misnomer “second wave” to outbreaks of COVID infection in populations which had not yet experienced any meaningful “first wave”: the Sunbelt states in the US, Australia, Hong Kong, Japan. The irony was that the vulnerability of populations which had not yet seen meaningful infection outbreaks and therefore the fallacy of lockdown had already been predicted by Levitt and Giesecke. It was also logical that population groups where IgG and IgM antibodies were still significantly below 20% would continue to see infections.
COVID had become particularly political in the US. Despite the anomalously poor Democratic New York and New Jersey records on COVID mortality (Fig. 6), there was  hysterical reporting of rising infections, from very low levels, across Republican states (Florida, Texas and Arizona) which had largely avoided severe lockdown restrictions.

The same rising trend could also be observed in Democratic California which had been subject to lockdown but was largely avoided in Republican Georgia which was notable in its lockdown defiance (Fig. 10). The suspicion remains that infections will continue to rise irrespective of lockdown until populations have reached herd immunity at which point the virus will largely disappear. The anomalously high death rates of New York and New Jersey could be explained by their being affected at a much earlier stage before better understanding of hospital treatment and curtailment of infection in care homes . As hard as the lockdown fanatics looked, there was no correlation of infections or mortality to lockdown policy.

It was a clear misnomer to label rising reported infections in the US sun belt as a “second wave” if these states had never suffered from a “first wave” and rises in infection rate were a predominantly caused by more widespread testing of mostly younger people testing positive for COVID with no symptoms. 
It must also be borne in mind that “case numbers” are simply people reported as testing positive for COVID, almost entirely without symptoms, with no commensurate leap in hospitalisations or mortality, which has been conveniently ignored as not fitting the narrative. This also led to doubts about whether test results were being accurately reported with reports that some clinics were not reporting negative test results and others reporting cases as simply “probable infections” with individuals having some of the symptoms of COVID but not having been tested.
We must also note that although infections in Arizona, Florida and Texas have seen a similar spike to that witnessed in New York, the mortality remains mercifully lower to a substantial degree (90%) (Fig. 11) which can only be explained by rising testing of a younger population median (since the hospitalisation rate is also lower), better hospital treatment and an improved care home policy (at which New York and New Jersey were anomalously poor). Although we should clearly expect mortality rates to rise in the sun-belt states from very low levels, it is likely that overall mortality remains well below New York levels and beings to taper off when infections begin to peak (which according to Levitt is still a few weeks away).
A significant obstacle to a successful vaccine is the rapid degradation of IgG and IgM COVID antibodies meaning that even a successful  vaccine might not give any benefit for longer than a few weeks. As the CEO of world leading testing company Roche Diagnostics recently commented:
“What appears to happen is that people do lose antibodies over time. And that of course poses the question, will vaccines actually work if you lose antibodies”.
Reports of successful antibody responses amongst healthy adults in vaccine trials should be viewed with more scepticism. It is also almost certain that any antibody response would be more difficult in population samples with impaired immune systems that are most at risk from COVID. Even an efficacious vaccine might have to be ramped in dosage that would be intolerable to those most likely to benefit from vaccination.  Leading Swiss epidemiologist Pietro Vernazza has demonstrated that the high-risk group is least likely to respond to the vaccine since their immune system is already impaired.  Whilst it is possible for vaccine trials to demonstrate antibody responses, whether these will have any practical lasting benefits in reducing COVID mortality risk which are tolerable for the population group most at risk from COVID is unlikely.

Vaccines hastily developed, rushed to market without proper trials by panicked governments ready to throw money at any promising trial candidate, creates a clear moral hazard for pharmaceutical companies and a public healthcare risk which might rival the virus itself.  

We remain skeptical of biotech companies raising equity on tricked up trials, only never to deliver medication that has any practical application, or insiders dumping stock after supposedly promising “game changing” data, or even worse mandatory vaccination of a population on the basis of an erroneous assumption that herd immunity hasn’t already been reached, with the potential for dangerous and unnecessary side-effects in population groups who would otherwise (if they had not already been exposed to COVID) have been asymptomatic.

There is a notable discrepancy between binary expectations that a vaccine will solve COVID and the definition of success for those involved in developing a vaccine. According to Sarah Gilbert, who leads the Oxford Astrazeneca experimental vaccine:

“We need a vaccine with a high level of efficacy against disease, which also has a significant impact on virus transmission. It doesn’t need to cure you… We want a vaccine to stop people from going to hospital and dying. If you can do that, I think people will be pretty happy"

We now know that there was no credible “science” behind lockdown and whilst its imposition may have originally been motivated by the precautionary principle, the perpetuation of the “Spanish Flu” narrative has been a uniquely destructive, particularly considering the exclusion of healthcare provision for non-COVID illness, prolonged absence of child education, and the well-documented economic devastation. Although our understanding of COVID is by no means complete, we now know that its mortality risk can be best mitigated by the management of infection within the care home and hospital environment, better immediate treatment of hospitalised patients and sensible social distancing measures. None of this required lockdown. Nor does it require a vaccine.

The degree of intentionality behind the actions taken by governments, the media and the pharma industry is an unknown, but this continued perpetuation of that narrative in contrast to the empirical evidence is arguably the biggest fraud of all.

EU States Denounce 'Illegal' Israeli Building Plans In Jerusalem Area

European states denounce ‘illegal’ Israeli building plans in Jerusalem area

The European Union and 15 European countries on Thursday renewed their opposition to Israeli plans to advance construction plans in areas of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line.
The countries and the EU expressed their “grave concerns regarding the advancement of settlement construction in Givat Hamatos and potentially in the E1 area” in a so-called démarche filed with the Foreign Ministry.
It was their second protest letter on the matter since May.

“Settlements are illegal under International Humanitarian Law. Any further settlement construction in this strategically sensitive area will have a devastating impact on a contiguous Palestinian State, as well as severely undermining the possibility of a negotiated two-state solution in line with internationally agreed parameters,” the démarche stated.
The Foreign Ministry confirmed having received a second letter, but declined to further comment on the matter.
The 15 countries that signed the démarche were France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden.
Many proponents of a two-state solution say Israeli development in E1, an area between East Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, and Givat Hamatos, a neighborhood in East Jerusalem, would severely undermine the territorial contiguity of a future Palestinian state.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged days before general elections in March to advance plans to build thousands of homes in both areas, which have long been frozen amid international opposition.
He also vowed to start annexing parts of the West Bank slated for Israel under US President Donald Trump’s peace plan, a promise that was similarly denounced by the EU and many European states.
While his coalition agreement with the Blue and White party allowed him to begin moving forward with annexation on July 1, the move has been delayed due to apparent concerns in the White House and the US administration’s focus on the coronavirus pandemic, as well as internal opposition within Netanyahu’s unity government.

Jews Returning To Israel In Massive Numbers

Unlike immigration to other countries, olim to Israel are welcomed as long-lost brothers, educated and housed at great public expense. A combination of coronavirus and anti-Semitism is creating conditions expected to bring millions of Jews home. But the Israeli government, already stretched to the limit, is concerned they may not be able to fulfill the prophecy in the proper manner.

The Knesset’s Immigration, Absorption, and Diaspora Affairs Committee met last Wednesday to discuss a major dilemma: Jewish immigration is expected to double nest year but budgetary constraints will make it difficult, if not impossible to absorb them into Israeli society.
Earlier this month, Jewish Agency Chairman Isaac Herzog reported to the committee that an estimated 250,000 people, mostly young people, will immigrate to Israel within the next three to five years. Herzog added that the number of people who have contacted the Jewish Agency about Aliyah from English-speaking countries has increased by 50%, and by 70% from French-speaking countries.
Israel could receive as many as 90,000 new immigrants in 2021 – nearly three times the number of immigrants in 2019.

Jewish Agency CEO Amira Ahronoviz presented the official Aliyah statistics for 2019: 35,000 immigrants, including 24,651 from the Commonwealth of Independent States; 3,963 from European countries; 3,539 from North America; 1,746 from Latin America; 663 from Ethiopia; 442 from South Africa; 318 from Turkey and other Middle Eastern countries; and 189 from Australia and New Zealand. In 2009, only 16,000 people made Aliyah.

MK David Bitan (Likud) emphasized that Israel must prepare for a large wave of immigration in the next year and a half due to the fact that large Jewish communities overseas have seen a significant number of corona-related deaths, alongside the rising anti-Semitism around the world. 

Rabbi Jeremy Gimpel, founder of the Land of Israel Fellowship Program, noted that immigration to Israel embodies the prophecy as described by Jeremiah. 
Lo, I am sending for many fishermen —declares Hashem— And they shall haul them out; And after that I will send for many hunters, And they shall hunt them Out of every mountain and out of every hill And out of the clefts of the rocks. Jeremiah 16:16
“The prophet Jeremiah speaks of two stages of the ingathering of the Jewish People back to the land of Israel,” Rabbi Gimpel told Breaking Israel News, noting that we are clearly entering a new stage of this prophecy. “Looking at history, it seems as though country by country, the exile is being shut down. From Arab countries,  Ethiopia, Russia, France, and the rest of Europe… Now America is being shaken. It seems to be a new part of this larger process of return.”