Are COVID-19 Protocols Based On Science Or Religion?

Coming from the word “quaranta” (which means “forty” in Italian), the idea of confining people for 40 days originated without the authorities really understanding what they wanted to contain. But the measures were one of the first forms of “institutional public health” that helped legitimatize the “accretion of power” by the modern state. This practice had no medical foundation; it was chosen for symbolic and religious reasons. This begs the question – are COVID-19 protocols based on science or religion?

The Myth of Outdoor transmission

While the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been exaggerating outdoor transmission rate, “the evidence is very clear that outdoor spaces are safer than indoors,” says Prof Chris Whitty, the UK’s chief medical officer.

The CDC has been greatly exaggerating the risk of COVID-19 transmission outdoors, claiming there is a roughly 10 percent chance — when in reality the figure is less than 1 percent.

The higher federal figure “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” Dr. Muge Cevik, a top infectious disease doctor at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, told the New York Times.

Sunlight & Fresh Air kills Coronavirus

On the other hand, preliminary results from a study by the US Department of Homeland Security has shown that it is Sunlight that kills Coronavirus.

Lab experiments showed that the coronavirus does not survive long in high temperatures and high humidity, and is quickly destroyed by sunlight, providing evidence from controlled tests.

The study found that the risk of “transmission from surfaces outdoors is lower during daylight” and under higher temperature and humidity conditions.

The experiment was carried out in a controlled environment. A droplet of saliva from a cough or sneeze was kept under observations under varying conditions related to temperature, humidity and sunlight. Tests ultimately revealed how viruses in the saliva reacted to changes in ambient weather conditions.

The massive RT-PCR testing fraud

The above is just one example to illustrate how the policy of strict lockdown is not based on science. Same is the case with the RT-PCR testing, which in itself is a massive fraud.

It took a Portuguese appeals court to tell the world that PCR tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test.

The court stated, the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present. Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court concluded that

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”

These fraudulent World Health Organization’s (WHO) protocols were categorically discarded by Finland.

Finland ran out of testing capacity and began limiting coronavirus tests to the most vulnerable groups and healthcare personnel only. Finland’s national health authority said that testing people with mild symptoms would be a waste of healthcare resources.

In a startling disclosure, Finland’s head of health security, Mika Salminen dismissed WHO’s advisory saying the “WHO doesn’t understand pandemics” and that their Coronavirus testing protocol is “illogical and doesn’t work”.

Well, if the official COVID-19 protocols are not based on science then what are they based on? And why are sovereign national governments enforcing them?

Lockdown – the New Quaranta

In his book Epidemics and Society: From the Black Death to the Present, author Frank Snowden writes,

Coming from the word “quaranta” (which means “forty” in Italian), the idea of confining people for 40 days originated without the authorities really understanding what they wanted to contain.

It traces back to the 14th century when the city of Dubrovnik, now in Croatia, was under Venetian rule.

But the measures were one of the first forms of “institutional public health” that helped legitimatize the “accretion of power” by the modern state.

Authors Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret brings out the above fact in their book, The Great Reset and adds that “the period of 40 days has no medical foundation; it was chosen for symbolic and religious reasons.”

“Both the Old and New Testaments often refer to the number 40 in the context of purification – in particular the 40 days of Lent and the 40 days of flood in Genesis”.

The New Normal

Such non-scientific policies directly fuel fear, anxiety and mass hysteria which challenges our social cohesion and collective capacity to manage a crisis.

It is divisive and traumatizing, reducing our family, friends and neighbors to just sources of infection; those everyday chores that we cherish, like meeting a friend in a public place become a vehicle of transmission; and authorities blindly enforcing strict confinement measures become agents of oppression.

This is just a glimpse of the “New Normal” envisioned after The Great Reset. As the authors put it, the pandemic “is our defining moment – we will be dealing with its fallout for years, and many things will change forever.”

Many of you who are pondering when things will return to normal, the short response from Klaus Schwab is – “NEVER”.

However, there is a long answer to this question as well, which we will be covering in the next part of this exclusive GreatGameIndia series on The Great Reset.