COVID cases are on the rise in a few states, and the CDC, the LAM (Legacy American Media) and others are trying to draw a correlation between vaccinations, and cases per state per 100,000 residents. There is one HUGE elephant in the room that is never mentioned. You might be surprised.

Five states broke records for the average number of daily new Covid cases over the weekend as the delta variant strains hospital systems across the U.S. and forces many states to reinstate public health restrictions.

Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, Oregon and Mississippi all reached new peaks in their seven-day average of new cases per day as of Sunday, according to a CNBC analysis of data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. On a per capita basis, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida are suffering from the three worst outbreaks in the country.

I'm not much for "in-the-box" thinking. I like venture into the unknown to find a better perspective.

Forget about the vaccination rate, or percentage in the state. We know that the percentage of people vaccinated has nothing to do with slowing or stopping the spread. Fauci has admitted this.

Just a quick look at the numbers will show that vaccinations can't be the contributing factor. The chart below is based on the data from the CNBC article and elevation data. I added the elevation data, because it's one metric that I've never heard mentioned to date.

The biggest disparity is between Florida and Oregon.

Looking strictly at the percentage of the population vaccinated, are we to believe that a 6.5% increase in the number vaccinated individuals, will lead to a decrease of 62 COVID cases per 100k? That's from 101 down to 39 per 100k!

I have my own hypothesis, and my numbers prove out better than the official Johns Hopkins numbers. This might sound ridiculous, but elevation also seems to play a role in cases per 100k. Barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity will also play a role. They necessarily play a role. Viruses can't live as long on surfaces in a dry climate. Similarly, they can't remain airborne as long in thinner, less dense air.

The biggest difference between Oregon and Florida is average elevation, not the number of people vaccinated. Louisiana gets the short end of the stick elevation-wise, because some of the most populous parts of the state are below sea level.

A clear seasonal pattern of outbreaks is well-recognized with many respiratory viruses. Meteorological conditions such as relative humidity, minimum temperature, cloud cover, exposure to sunlight (ultraviolet A and B), barometric pressure and rainfall affect viral survival and infectivity. For example, at locations with persistently warm temperatures and high humidity, RSV activity is present throughout the year. In temperate climates, RSV circulation correlates with lower temperature, and transmission is inversely related to temperature. In colder climates, RSV activity persists throughout the year.

It makes sense. The southern states are less likely to go along with federal government mandates, which makes them an easy target for politicians. Couple that with the likelihood that meteorological conditions will result in higher rates of infection, and you've got a great propaganda tool.

I believe that the CDC already knows of the effects elevation has on various different types of viruses, but they keep that information close to their vest. Why would they do that? It's simple, they are trying to overstate the effectiveness of the vaccines. If more people realized that elevation played a much greater role in infection rates than vaccinations do, less people could be convinced to get the vaccine. Or, you could just do what Fauci says, "...put aside all of these issues of concern about liberties and personal liberties..."

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

This has to be the most telling thing that Fauci's ever said. Fauci just said the quiet part out loud. This YouTube video probably won't be up for long. Share this video before it's gone so people understand that this is no longer about a virus.

So we have a lot of tasks. We’ve got to do mitigation, put aside all of these issues of concern about liberties and personal liberties, and realize we have a common enemy, and that common enemy is the virus.

This is precisely what they are looking for. Forget about liberties, and do whatever we say. This of course negates the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is no more deadly than the Flu.

We were never asked to give up our liberties for the Flu, so why now? People need to pay more attention to what the "officials" are actually saying.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

This is one of the best factual cases made against mask mandates, and forced vaccination.

Please send this to as many people as you can. You don't have to link to my site. Just link to Rumble, I don't care, but people need to see this!

If you are looking for links to the documents he mentioned in the video; the documents can be found here.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

There have been many articles written about what might happen if hospitals are over capacity, and how they might deal with a "surge" of infected individuals, but now the wait is over. The CDC has already thought through all of the details for us. Let's see what their approach is.

Let's go over some of the basics. Neighbors swap households to accommodate high-risk individuals.

I don't see how that's going to go down nicely anywhere. But, the government has "emergency powers" right now. No problem right?

In short, the CDC recommends, taking over neighborhoods, swapping people between homes, and turning your neighborhood into a FEMA quarantine camp. But, all of this is based on "high-risk" individuals. In other words, all of this hinges on what the definition of "high-risk" is. Right now they claim that the majority of the general population is low-risk, but for how long? This is a critical question.

Then to top it all off you see this in the summary:

The shielding approach is an ambitious undertaking, which may prove effective in preventing COVID-19 infection among high-risk populations if well managed. While the premise is based on mitigation strategies used in the United Kingdom, there is no empirical evidence whether this approach will increase, decrease or have no effect on morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 epidemic in various humanitarian settings. This document highlights a) risks and challenges of implementing this approach, b) need for additional resources in areas with limited or reduced capacity, c) indefinite timeline, and d) possible short-term and long-term adverse consequences.

There is a well thought out plan in place to deal with a "crisis," but nobody has any evidence that it might work? Not even empirical evidence. That's because it hasn't worked anywhere. You can't quarantine your way out of a respiratory virus. We already know this.

As those who have not been vaccinated are being locked out of shops and restaurants, in some states realize; How long is it before they claim that the unvaccinated are "high-risk?" Remember there doesn't need to be any data to back up the claims. The government is in an emergency state, they can just make it up as they go along. This entire "Shielding Approach" scenario is based on nonsense. There is no data to show that it will help at all. And they are admitting it. But you can rest assured, if they mandate these sorts of things, they won't need any proof or evidence, because it's an "emergency."

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I've never watched the Stew Peters Show but I did see this clip the other day, and it's definitely worth watching! This man has single handedly caused a reversal in COVID mandates for Alberta Canada all over a $1200 fine!

Health Minister Tyler Shandro is defending the province’s plan to do away with most of its public health measures aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19, as case numbers climb in Alberta.

“This is a plan that is based on the science and based on the data,” Shandro said during an unrelated news conference in Edmonton Thursday morning.

“We know that people will continue to have that anxiety but this was work that was done by public health based on the science, based on the data.”

Effective Thursday, close contacts will no longer be notified of exposure by contact tracers nor will they be legally required to isolate – although it still recommended.

Further measures will be eliminated Aug. 16. People who test positive for COVID-19 will not be mandated to isolate at that time but it is still strongly recommended. Isolation hotels will also close as quarantine supports end.

Also Aug. 16, provincial mandatory masking orders will be lifted. Some masking in acute care or continuing care facilities may still be required.

Effective Aug. 31, COVID-19 testing will no longer be available through assessment centres. It will be available in primary care settings including doctors’ offices or in acute care and hospital settings.

While the province could not point to another jurisdiction that is taking a similar approach, Shandro maintained this is the next step as the province moves from a pandemic to an endemic response, adding that Alberta is leading the way.

This is amazing, truth actually won! I just don't know if we're too late here in the US.

Now this sets the stage for challenges all over the world. All of those businesses that were fined in California and New York, they need to take this approach. Have health officials, in court, "make the case" for their actions based on science. We know they can't do that.

Which gets to another point. If they still haven't isolated the virus, how are they coming up with all these variants? Another simple question, if the first strain of SARS-CoV-2 can infect vaccinated patients, how can they claim that the new variants are any more or less infectious than the original strain --based on vaccinated patients becoming infected? How would you know the difference?

And lastly, the virus not being isolated would explain why they are pushing an mRNA vaccine, and not a traditional vaccine. They are generating mRNA vaccines from part of what they claim is the SARS-Cov-2 virus. You can't create the traditional vaccines without first isolating the virus. It has to be cultivated and weakened to create a vaccine.

How are labs supposed to calibrate their equipment to scan for the virus, when they have no comparable source by which to gauge calibration? How are you supposed to gauge the immune response without viral isolation? This all seems a little too convenient. And yet, they say "follow the science." If you do "follow the science" you'll find that this is all a little too sketchy, and far too convenient to extend lockdowns and force vaccinations. This is the best invisible enemy ever. Nobody can see it, nobody can even prove it's there. It allows the best possible vector for limiting people's freedoms, while simultaneously pitting one group against another. The "vaccinated vs the "unvaccinated."

I'll leave you with this last little nugget of truth from WhatsHerFace.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"