US CDC officially launched the National SARS-CoV-2 Strain Surveillance (NS3) program in November 2020 “to increase the number and representativeness of viruses undergoing characterization”.  [1, 2, 3, 4]

The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) recieved a letter from the CDC on October 1, 2020 requesting laboratories provide specimens on a biweekly basis for whole genome sequencing by the CDC, and that they be confirmed specimens with Ct values less than 28. [5]  The CDC wrote:

“We are requesting that you provide real time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (real time RT-PCR)-confirmed diagnostic specimens…for whole genome sequencing by CDC, to begin establishing a set of viral sequences to be made available in the public space” specifically “provide SARS-CoV-2-positive (based on molecular test) deidentified, specimens (with Ct values less than 28 and not previously sequenced) and corresponding standardized metadata from 5 COVID-19 cases every 2 weeks, representing a variety of demographic and clinical characteristics, and geographic locations”…”for national virologic monitoring of the virus. This activity will be conducted as part of routine public health surveillance [as defined in 45 CFR 46.102(1)(2)]

It’s as if the CDC knew that after the mass vaccination campaign rolled ahead, that SARS-CoV-2 variants would rapidly emerge and they needed to gear up the labs in preparation, but that whole genome sequencing required the virus to be present, thus the Ct<28 stipulation!

A document first published October 2020 contains a summary of “experts” who are connected to Gain of Function virus research.

Proof Fauci lied >>>

A German article from October 2, 2020 reveals that Christan Drosten, the virologist responsible for the WHO PCR test parameters, has known since 2014 of the inherent limitations of the PCR test for “diagnosing an infection”. (translated here).

• A positive PCR test result – designates a person as statistically ill – whether they have symptoms or not!
• PCR method is “so sensitive that it can detect a single genetic molecule of the virus.”  That doesn’t mean one is infected or infectious.
• In 2014 Drosten considered “the panic surrounding MERS to be largely media-made.”
• The more people you test, the more positive cases are reported – yet they are mostly healthy people.  This explains why when case numbers exploded, the death numbers did not follow.

Dr Peter McCullough, MD presented to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons his paper on Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and discusses the unprecedented resistance he has come up against.

The authorities deny early treatment options.

On October 14, 2020 the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation published Professor John Ioannidis’ paper looking at the infection fatality rate (IFR) for COVID-19 based on how many people already had antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (seroprevalence data) which revealed that the median COVID-19 IFR was 0.27% – “much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic”.

“In people younger than 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.”  Those over 70 years of age are disproportionately at risk.

On March 3, 2020 the WHO claimed the IFR for COVID-19 was 3.4%, and now, with this WHO bulletin, they quietly acknowledge IFR  is only 0.27%, equivalent to a bad flu season.  Ioannidis submitted the pre-print six months earlier on May 13, 2020.

On October 21, 2020 The British Medical Journal publishes an article by it’s associate editor Peter Doshi where he states: “None of the [COVID-19 vaccine] trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.” [1]

At the 161st FDA VRPBAC meeting on October 22, 2020 Dr Doran Fink expained why the regulatory pathway for the COVID-19 vaccines should follow the “regulatory standard” of EUA and not EAU.

The differences between expanded access use and Emergency Use Authorization are that expanded access use is done — or is carried out under FDA’s investigational new drug regulations. So among many other things, those regulations require use of an institutional review board and also obtaining informed consent from recipients of the investigational vaccine according to regulations for clinical investigations — research use of investigational vaccines. And so operationally speaking, an expanded access protocol would add some complexity, and that is why Emergency Use Authorization is being considered primarily as the mechanism for addressing the public health emergency that has been declared. Dr Fink, [from pg 203]

Dr Fink went on to work for Moderna!

“The FDA officials clearly explained here that the reason they went with EUA is specifically NOT to follow any investigational drug rules or cGxP, and NOT to provide informed consent” completely legal while under a declared Public Health Emergency (PHE)! [1]

So how did the mRNA products that were not subject to investigational drug standards (IND) (becasue the followed the EUA regulatory pathway) be able to obtain FDA approval for Biologics License Application (BLA), namely Pfizer on Aug. 23, 2021 and Moderna on Jan. 31, 2022?

In the “heat” of the pandemic on November 3, 2020 the United States held their presidential election between President Donald Trump (R) and Joe Biden (D).

Five states coincidentally stopped vote counting on election night, which delayed the result.  The media announced Joe Biden as the “projected” winner before it was official.  Biden allegedly received more votes that any president before, and both exceeded President Obama’s historical high.  Trump won all but one bellwether county, adding further credence that a Biden’s win is a “statistical anomaly“.  This is just a few, amongst many anomalies that occurred in the 2020 election, yet officially it is stated by the Cyber & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) that the election was the “most secure in American history”.

In the US it is not compulsory to vote (unlike in Australia), no ID needs to be shown and proprietary, privately-owned and vulnerable computer systems “count” the votes, not to mention as a consequence of the pandemic,  Vote by Mail was scaled up across the country and encouraged. [2, 3, 4]

Prior to the election Biden did minimal campaigning [1], compared to President Trump who drew huge crowds at every location across the country – LIST

Election “integrity and fraud” evidence and documentaries is being aggregated –  HERE

On June 3, 2022, CISA (finally) admit to voting machines are vulnerable to tampering and hacking after 2 years of denials. [5, 6]

As early as November 4, 2020, before the many different types of COVID-19 vaccine were emergency approved by the FDA regulator or began to roll out to the public the CDC made sweeping myth busting claims about these never used before products.  Note the careful words they use:

• COVID-19 vaccines will not “give you” COVID-19
• COVID-19 vaccines will not “cause you” to test positive on COVID-19 viral tests
• People who have gotten sick with COVID-19 “may” still benefit from getting vaccinated – natural immunity, varies from person to person and duration of natural immunity is unknown [did they even investigate?]
• Getting vaccinated can “help” prevent getting “sick with COVID-19” – even though many have experienced only a mild illness [no clarification on preventing infection or transmission]
• Vaccination is a tool to “stop the pandemic” – HERE
• How the CDC assures the vaccines are “safe” – HERE
• 8 Things to Know about Vaccine Planning – HERE
• What the health professional should know – HERE
• More CDC Nov 2020 – What’s New – HERE

From leaked emails and reports to Trial Site News in June 2022, it indicates that as early as November 10, 2020, the European regulatory agency (EMA) staff, who oversees the evaluation of medicinal products for the European Union, had reason to be concerned about the rushed speed of the regulatory process with respect to robustness of assessment, plus they were aware of potential issues with Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine batch integrity.

The emails reveal that regulatory bodies like the FDA, MHRA, EMA and Health Canada knew of the differences in batches, regarding % mRNA integrity and the presence of uncharacterised fragments of RNA in batches (“impurities”), making the ‘safety and efficacy’ of the COVID-19 vaccine an unknown and could account for the variation in adverse reactions to batch/lot numbers.

Knowing these issues the regulators granted various designations of emergency use authorisation a few weeks to months later – which would not pass normal regulation.