I would like to start by acknowledging what a tremendous responsibility it is to determine the right course of action for the 2020-21 academic year. I know that you have the health and safety of our students and staff as your highest priority and want to do everything in your power to handle this incredible task correctly.

Some of the measures announced by Governor Cooper as required are social distancing and wearing a mask while at school. I would like to raise some questions, as well as address some concerns, regarding these measures. Policies for education should always be weighed against the very real possibility of emotional stress, psychological strain and stunted social development. I fear that preventing our children from attending school full time and imposing severe protective measures to limit physical contact will cause physical and psychological harm.

Questions regarding mask use for school children

What masks are being suggested for school use—cloth or surgical masks? Has the FDA approved any masks for use specifically by children? Do you feel it okay to follow a mandate, when no safety studies exist on mask use for children? Additionally, the WHO states that people must not touch their masks, must change their single-use masks frequently or wash them regularly, dispose of them correctly and adopt other management measures. Is it really reasonable to expect school children to never touch, move or adjust their masks during the school day? I believe that any chance of protection is negated by the very active nature of the children.

Concerns regarding mask use by children and staff

In addition to the above unanswered questions, please consider the following:

• Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

• Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.

• Surgical masks reduce oxygen.

• Nationally-recognized neurosurgeon Dr. Blaylock says in relation to masks that “a drop in oxygen (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity….This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.”

Concerns regarding social distancing

Social distancing concerns shared by many parents have to do with the likely emotional and psychological trauma resulting from this measure. Children are much more in touch with their emotions than adults. They have an innate urge to interact with their environment. They use not only their eyes and ears, but also their sense of touch, taste and smell. Adolescence is one of the most formative life stages. It is a time when brains are most malleable and primed for learning. During this time, beliefs are formed, skills are developed and the way children perceive themselves and how they interact with the world during this stage plays a major role in defining who they become as adults. Have you considered the fact that if our children are short-changed on opportunities to grow, learn and develop as a result of social distancing restrictions, the impact may be psychologically damaging?

Hospitalization and fatality rates

Are children at risk? Are masks and social distancing measures justifiable? Statistically, children, preteens and teens 0 to 19 years of age have a probability of recovery of 99.9577% from COVID-19 infections. The odds of developing COVID-19 increase with age, starting at age 60. (6) School children are simply not an at risk group. The measures you are choosing to enforce will not provide protection, but will cause harm. Please reconsider and allow an option for the children to return to school without any restrictions, while implementing the following measures to protect staff and students:

• Staff and students should stay home, if sick.

• Effective hand washing should be taught and utilized.

• As with other school habits, students can “catch/cover their cough” as we have been taught for years in school.

Considering the fact that children are not an at risk group for COVID-19 infection, I ask you to preserve our right to choose whether or not our children wear masks. I ask you not to mandate social distancing measures for children in school. Let’s quarantine the sick and not the healthy! Our children need to be allowed to experience these formative years without the harmful restrictions of virtual learning, masks and social distancing.

Many North Carolinians are anxiously awaiting a COVID-19 vaccine because of the promise it holds to allow people to resume their normal lives, and several companies are rushing to get one to market. After much research, it has become apparent that the coronavirus vaccines being rushed to market are especially vulnerable to safety issues because:

• Historical attempts at a coronavirus vaccine were unsuccessful due to safety issues.

• Pre-marketing safety trials are insufficient because they are using inadequate sample sizes and short observation periods to watch for adverse reactions. In addition, double-blind, inert placebos are not required.

• Proper post-marketing surveillance is compromised by the rushed schedule.

• The pharmaceutical companies who will be producing the vaccine have been given immunity to lawsuits no matter how egregious their errors are.

I am writing to ask you to ensure that any COVID-19 vaccine rolled out in NC be properly studied for safety.

Prior attempts at a coronavirus vaccine unsuccessful: Dr. Peter Hotez, Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, has stated that scientists have attempted to create a coronavirus vaccine for over 50 years and have been unable to produce one due to safety concerns related to “immune enhancement,” a condition in which vaccinated test subjects become gravely ill when exposed to the wild virus.

Dr. Hotez, who is typically a strong proponent of vaccines, has testified before Congress about the “unique potential safety problems of a coronavirus vaccine.” His recent animal studies for a coronavirus vaccine resembled the “immune enhancement” seen in research 50 years ago. Two children in that initial coronavirus vaccine study died.

Dr. Hotez told Reuters, “I understand the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in general, but from everything I know, this [COVID-19] is not the vaccine to be doing it with.”

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Precautions VS. Safety Precautions for Other Pharmaceuticals

Non-vaccine pharmaceuticals are subject to safety protections such as: pre-marketing studies, post-marketing surveillance, and tort liability. Precautions for vaccines are lacking in all three areas.

Pre-Marketing Studies: Prior to marketing, non-vaccine pharmaceuticals are required to undergo stringent safety studies that include double-blind, inert placebo testing; large sample sizes; a lengthy observation of approximately 5 years; and testing on people who have poor health. Prominent vaccine researcher and promoter, Dr. Paul Offit, has said that trials for a COVID-19 vaccine should have “20,000 who get a vaccine and 10,000 who get a placebo. Then and only then will you know whether a vaccine is safe and effective.”

The COVID-19 vaccine studies fail to address many of these safeguards in testing. For example, in its phase 2 trial, Moderna, the current front-runner in the race for a COVID-19 vaccine, is using a sample size of only 600 people (compared with the 30,000 recommended by Dr. Offit); the follow up period is slated for 13 months; and study participants who are under 18 or have chronic health issues are excluded. Given that an estimated 60% of Americans have chronic health problems, and the vaccine is intended for all Americans (especially the frail), this trial represents a small percent of the people who will be required to take it.

A note about inert placebos: Moderna currently has committed to using an inert placebo in its phase 2 trials. However, unlike with other medications, vaccine manufacturers are not required to use an inert placebo [see item (1) here], and the FDA has allowed coronavirus vaccine manufacturers to back out of using inert placebos. For example, the vaccine currently under development by AstraZeneca initially provided that the control group would receive a saline placebo. After approving this study design, the FDA inexplicably approved changing the control from a “Placebo Control” to “MenACWY,” which is another vaccine for a bacterial infection unrelated to COVID-19. It is ethically and scientifically indefensible to use MenACWY vaccine as a control because its safety profile has never been established in a placebo-controlled clinical trial.

Post marketing surveillance: Once a pharmaceutical is on the market, drug companies conduct surveillance to document unexpected adverse events. Because the plan is to quickly distribute this vaccine to the maximum number of people, there will be little time to catch adverse reactions before millions of people may have incurred harm.

The introduction of the vaccine and its potential adverse side effects should not disproportionately harm members of one race over another. However, under the pretense of equity, Melinda Gates has stated that “black people...and many other people of color” will be the first in the general population to receive the COVID-19 vaccine because “they are having disproportionate effects from COVID-19.” Given the poor safety results in past coronavirus vaccine trials and the insufficient testing of the COVID-19 vaccine, it is unethical to prioritize people of color as the first recipients of a potentially hazardous vaccine. Some have said that vaccinating people of color first is too eerily similar to the Tuskegee experiments.

Tort Law Protections: With the exception of vaccines,pharmaceutical companies are liable for any injury caused by their products. This liability adds an additional layer of incentive for companies to produce a safe product. The US PREP Act waives all liability of pharmaceutical companies who produce a COVID-19 vaccine. This act along with the rushed timeline of development further erodes the safety profile of a COVID-19 vaccine.

We ask you to ensure that any COVID-19 vaccine introduced in NC receive proper safety studies and provide compensation to anyone who is injured, including:

• Use of a double-blind, inert placebo in safety studies

• A sample size of 20,000 participants and 10,000 who receive placebo

• An observation period of at least 1 year for adults, 3 years for children and teenagers, and 5 years for infants and toddlers.

• Testing of people of all ages and health statuses

• An NC-sponsored injury compensation program to offset the loss of tort liability protections created by the PREP Act

Thank you for addressing these issues.

North Carolina citizens, children and adults, are being told to wear a mask whenever they are around others. I am concerned that masks are also a source of risk that needs to be weighed in contrast to their limited benefit. I ask that you preserve our right to choose whether to wear masks.

The New England Journal of Medicine states that, "Outside of a medical setting, the wearing of masks provides little, if any, protection against the transmission of disease."

Experts have outlined numerous reasons that masks could actually increase the risk of infection. They allow germs to concentrate on the mask and increase the number of times people touch their face. One large study found that moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks, and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection in health care workers wearing cloth masks.

Masks reduce oxygen and increase the risk of carbon dioxide toxicity. This is particularly concerning for people with asthma, COPD, and other respiratory issues.

Wearing a mask for long periods of time and trying to communicate with others is difficult. Adults and children alike may have difficulty interpreting facial expressions and being heard when masks are in use.

The choice to wear a mask is a personal one, and masks should not be mandated by either government or private entities. In addition, health departments should make the public aware of the risks and limitations of masks.

Thank you for your work as a public servant during these challenging times.

I'm writing to ask for public hearings about contact tracing which NC is instituting. Contact tracing has traditionally been done between a doctor and patient, protecting the privacy of the patient and those who had been in contact with them. Now, contact tracers are being hired across the nation and trained to do this work on their personal, home-based computers, using data collected from an app on citizens’ cell phones that traces individuals and groups to a particular location.

How will NC protect our privacy and personal medical information? It is unlawful for the government to use data to track individuals without a warrant. For government officers to use cell data to track people, they must have either express permission or a warrant for every single individual. (See Supreme Court case Carpenter v. U.S.)

What if only a small percentage of people are willing to share personal medical information on an app? Will NC mandate its citizens to comply? Washington State Governor Jay Inslee has indicated that people who refuse to cooperate with contact trackers or refuse COVID-19 testing won’t be allowed to leave their homes or will face sanctions in civil or criminal court.

These questions must not be decided by executive order. I ask that a public hearing be held including experts in the fields of constitutional rights, HIPAA privacy laws, computer security, and the public. This hearing would allow experts and citizens to weigh in on concerns, conflicts of interest and challenges to the primary goal of protecting the privacy and personal medical information of our citizens.

Thank you for taking my concerns into account.

Thank you for your service as an NC leader during these challenging times. We’re writing about issues with COVID-19 decision-making benchmarks being used by NC that you may not be aware of.

As you know, we were told that decisions about COVID-19 were being made to “flatten the curve” to protect the hospitals from being overwhelmed by a flood of COVID-19 cases. In trying to understand the criteria that NC is using, it was shocking to learn that hospital capacity is not one of the benchmarks being used for the decisions that impact our safety, our financial security, and our quality-of-life.

The NC Benchmarks are vague and lack focus on hospital capacity.

We now know that the death rate is a fraction of what was predicted (even with quarantine in place). The News and Observer reported on May 18 that NC is using the following four “trend” benchmarks and three “capacity” benchmarks to determine whether or not to loosen social restrictions. Hospitalization is listed as one of the four trends, but the most important issue is hospital capacity, which is not one of the three capacity benchmarks (which are testing, contact tracing, and PPEs.) Not only do these “trends” benchmarks fail to measure hospital bed availability, they are vague and are not focused on the small percent of people who will require hospitalization.

1. Lower the percentage of positive COVID-19 tests:  What kind of positive cases are they referring to here?  The real question is how many cases are severe enough to warrant hospitalization.

2. Level off the number of patients hospitalized by the virus:  Why isn’t this benchmark calculated in the context of hospital beds available? Mandy Cohen of NCHHS has stated that the state has plenty of available hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators. Why isn’t that fact front page news?

3. Declines in the total number of lab-confirmed cases:  Again, what kind of lab-confirmed cases?  For example, suppose 1 person in a business becomes infected so all 100 persons in that company are tested and 20 of those people are positive but asymptomatic. In a short time, these 20 people are actually a benefit to society as they become part of the herd we need for herd immunity.   

4. Declines in the number of cases detected through patients with COVID-like symptoms being evaluated by health care professionals:  Why do we need to measure symptoms when people with COVID-like symptoms can get test results for actual COVID-19 infection in less than 2 days? 

The benchmark we need is hospital capacity.

North Carolina never saw numbers coming close to 7,987 beds and 862 bed shortage predicted for April 23. As of May 26, according to NCDHHS, among 78% of hospitals reporting in NC, there are 5,677 beds open in NC. On May 26, there were 621 patients hospitalized in NC.  This means that we could see a nine-fold increase in hospitalizations without overwhelming the system.

We ask that you demand concrete benchmarks tied to hospital capacity to justify decisions that impact our safety, our financial security and our quality-of-life. 

Thank you for your time.

Bill Gates may not have an official capacity in the COVID-19 epidemic, but he has become a leading spokesperson. Proponents of Gates as the world leader of the pandemic have gone so far as to recommend, “To successfully overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, the world needs a CEO. Not a standard chief executive like a prime minister, chancellor or president, but somebody who on a temporary basis will run the show and get things done,” said The Jerusalem Post.

Gates’ conflicts of interest in this role are being questioned by people on both the Left and the Right. People from vastly different perspectives ranging from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to the Washington Times are skeptical of him. Why?

Gates uses his philanthropy to control WHO (as well as UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH)

The World Health Organization (WHO) is presumed by most to be funded by member-countries around the world. In fact, over 75% of the WHO’s funding comes from pharmaceutical companies and other non-governmental interests such as The Gates Foundation. Since these funds are usually earmarked for specific projects or diseases, WHO can’t freely decide how to use them.

The Gates Foundation, which has contributed over $2.4 billion since 2000, is the largest non-government funder of the WHO and the second largest funder behind the US.

Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of hijacking WHO’s agenda away from projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development and toward expensive pharmaceutical “solutions.”

Politico reported in 2017 that “The billionaire was the first private individual to keynote WHO’s general assembly of member countries, and academics have coined a term for his sway in global health: the Bill Chill. Few people dare to openly criticize what he does. Most of 16 people interviewed on the topic would only do so on the condition of anonymity.”

“His sway has NGOs and academics worried. Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”

According to the Washington Times, “WHO didn’t announce the coronavirus as a pandemic until the very day after Gates — who had wished for some time that WHO would declare the coronavirus a pandemic — well, until the very day after Gates made a very large donation to a cause that benefits WHO.”

Gates has financial interests in the development and production of vaccines

In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines and is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine.

Gates has made a $10B investment on vaccine development and distribution over the last 20 years. He states that he has gotten a 20:1 economic return on that investment. Had he invested in the S&P, he estimates he would have earned $17 billion. His vaccine investments have earned $200 billion.

In his recent media appearances, rather than seeking an inexpensive treatment for COVID-19 that would only be needed for a small percent of the world population who have complications with COVID-19, Gates has said that a vaccine for all seven billion people on earth is the only thing that will allow us to “get back to normal.”

Kennedy outlines many of Gates’ little-known crimes related to vaccine campaigns in India and other third world countries. For example Indian doctors blame the Gates polio vaccine campaign in India for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017.

Gates/Microsoft’s ambition to control a global digital vaccine ID

Gates’ conflicts of interest extend beyond his financial interest in vaccines.  In a recent “Ask Me Anything” on Reddit, Gates said, “Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.” This statement is tied to Microsoft’s ambition is to control a global digital vaccine ID (ID 2020).

I ask you to investigate Bill Gates’ role in managing COVID-19. Mr. Gates is not an elected official. He is not an appointee of an elected official. He is not an employee of the US government. He is not a doctor or a scientist. Yet, he is spearheading the effort to fast track a vaccine for all seven billion people on earth and a global digital tracking system developed by none other than Microsoft. Citizens are starting to question the wisdom of the quarantine. Impartial leadership of COVID-19 mitigation is critical to retain the public trust.

While I am concerned for the health of people who are at risk of serious illness and death from COVID-19, I ask you to also consider the serious injury being caused by the quarantine in North Carolina where fewer than 530 people have died from COVID-19 (as of May 8, 2020).

Historically, “deaths of despair” caused by increases in the unemployment rate, have been shown to far overshadow the predicted mortality rates from COVID-19 models. In an ongoing study, beginning in the 1940s, data consistently shows that a 1% increase in extended unemployment correlates to an increase in our nation's mortality rate by approximately 58,000 people per point. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for March of this year is 4.4% with the possibility of it rising past 30% in the next quarter.  Roughly 25% of small businesses have already closed their doors in NC and more will continue to do so even after the quarantine ends. The permanent loss of jobs from closed businesses will lengthen the time people remain out of work, pushing unemployment numbers higher for a longer period of time.

There are factors not being considered in the drastic measures to contain the virus and "flatten the curve.” Violence at home is on the rise with victims trapped with their abusers due to stay-at-home orders.  More children are calling the National Sexual Assault Hotline with reports of abuse that is escalating in frequency and severity. Suicide rates are predicted to rise dramatically due to the direct correlation between unemployment rates and suicide. Students requiring specialized school services and therapies are not being served and are impacted both in the short and long term.

With lost taxes due to shuttered businesses, public health programs suffer, impacting health services in the community. Young adults entering a poor job market for the first time are at risk for negative lifetime outcomes including unhealthier, shorter lives. All of these factors, and many others, must be considered when assessing the impact of wide spread shutdowns.

What can be done to save lives? We can open the economy back up to healthy people while protecting the vulnerable. Many highly respected professionals advocate for an approach similar to Sweden’s model, with resources directed to those most at risk from complications from COVID-19, including the elderly and immune compromised. By advocating for self-quarantine of high-risk categories, we protect the truly vulnerable. This allows low risk, healthy children and adults to get back to school and their jobs preventing vast segments of the economy from collapsing. Our current approach all but ensures death to many through inadequate health care, lack of resources, child abuse, domestic abuse, suicide, and depression. Let’s reduce deaths of despair while addressing management of the virus. There is a solution.

Reprinted with permission from Children’s Health Defense

Why are the world’s top vaccine promoters, like Paul Offit and Peter Hotez, frantically warning us about the unique and frightening dangers inherent in developing a coronavirus vaccine?

Scientists first attempted to develop coronavirus vaccines after China’s 2002 SARS-CoV outbreak. Teams of US & foreign scientists vaccinated animals with the four most promising vaccines. At first, the experiment seemed successful as all the animals developed a robust antibody response to coronavirus. However, when the scientists exposed the vaccinated animals to the wild virus, the results were horrifying. Vaccinated animals suffered hyper-immune responses including inflammation throughout their bodies, especially in their lungs. Researchers had seen this same “enhanced immune response” during human testing of the failed RSV vaccine tests in the 1960s. Two children died.

Video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=RzFP4yzZzII&feature=emb_logo (removed by YouTube)

In this video footage, Offit, Hotez and even Anthony Fauci (in an unguarded moment), warn that any new coronavirus vaccine could trigger lethal immune reactions “vaccine enhancement” when vaccinated people come in contact with the wild virus. Instead of proceeding with caution, Fauci has made the reckless choice to fast track vaccines, partially funded by Gates, without critical animal studies before moving into human clinical trials that could provide early warning of runaway immune response.

Gates (in the video) is so worried about the danger of adverse events that he says vaccines shouldn’t be distributed until governments agree to indemnity against lawsuits. On February 4, 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website, there were only 11 active CV cases in the USA, yet the U.S. quietly pushed through Federal regulations giving coronavirus vaccine makers full immunity from liability.

Are you willing to take the risk?

2012 Study: Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on the challenge with the SARS virus.

Federal Register giving liability protection, The PREP Act

To Whom It May Concern,

I am reaching out to express my extreme concern over a lack of safety studies regarding the 5G  network rollout currently underway.  How will you ensure proper safety studies are done proving that 5G radio frequencies are safe for human exposure?

Here are 3 myths about 5G to consider:

Myth #1:  The only difference between 4G and 5G is internet speed.

This is absolutely untrue. The 5G network requires entirely new and widespread infrastructure, and it has a greater negative impact on human health (see Myth #2).

Our current 4G infrastructure is vastly less intrusive.  One 4G network base station can technically cover 31-155 miles. Whereas, the distance between 5G network base stations will be 820-984 FEET! This means a 5G base station must be placed every 6-10 houses for the network to function.  

Senator Richard Blumenthal highlighted this enormous infrastructure plan during a Senate Commerce hearing on the future of wireless 5G technology on February 7, 2019.  He stressed that "5G uses higher frequency waves that don’t travel as far and will rely on a network of hundreds of thousands, potentially millions, of small cell sites.” (video below)

Have you considered whether faster internet speeds are worth implementing this pervasive infrastructure?

Myth #2:  Non-ionizing, non-thermal radiation has no ill effects on human health.

All cell phones emit non-thermal, non-ionizing radiation, and we’ve been told this has no ill effects on human health.  Yet, in 2011 the World Health Organization classified these waves as “possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk from glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.” International Agency for Research on Cancer Director Christopher Wild said, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones."

Additionally, Dr. Martin Pall, one of the world’s preeminent scientists on electromagnetic fields, has been sounding the alarm for years saying:

We know that EMF’s impact… all the cells of our bodies by activating some channels and when they do that they produce all kinds of effects. Those include neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric effects…reproductive effects…oxidative stress, which is involved in essentially all chronic diseases.”

He went on to say regarding the move from 4G to 5G:

I believe that the exposures we already have are producing major effects already on our health and that 5G will be vastly worse than anything we are already exposed to. (video below)

Why would you support the rollout of 5G technology when world-renowned scientists are warning of its dangers? 

Myth #3:  The FCC and FDA have set appropriate safety standards.

The International EMF Scientist Appeal, an independent group of over 225 reputable scientists who peer-review publications on electromagnetic fields, sent a letter to the FCC in 2017 stating that 5G deployment “is being done without public health review of the growing body of scientific evidence that includes reports of increasing rates of cancer and neurological diseases that may be caused by exposure to EMF from wireless sources.”  

Given the growing body of scientific evidence showing the harmful impacts constant EMF radiation has on human health, the real question is, “What studies have been done to confirm 5G is safe?”  Frank Clegg, Microsoft Canada’s former President, said in a recent video statement that he isn’t aware of a single study that shows 5G is safe. (video below)

During the Senate hearing referenced in the first video above, Senator Blumenthal directly asked Andrew Gillen, Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Representative:

How much money has the industry committed to supporting additional independent research?  Is that independent research ongoing? Has any been completed? Where can consumers look for it, and we’re talking about the biological effects of this new technology?

Andrew Gillen’s response was, “Safety is paramount…we rely on the findings of the FDA and others as to the requirements to keep all of us safe. There are no industry-backed studies, to my knowledge, right now.”  

Senator Blumenthal then shared that he had reached out to FCC Commissioner Carr in 2018 and asked for citations of scientific studies demonstrating the safety of this 5G technology.  The Commissioner failed to provide any safety information and just “echoed” the general statements of the FDA, which says:

The FDA has urged the cell phone industry to take a number of steps including support additional research on possible biological effects of radiofrequency fields for the type of signal emitted by cell phones.  

The last words that Senator Blumenthal spoke during the hearing were:

There really is no research ongoing… we’re kind of flying blind here.

Even after this damning testimony, the Wall Street Journal reported in December of 2019, “The Federal Communications Commission has decided to allow the rollout of new 5G wireless networks without making changes to federal safety limits for cellphone-radiation exposure.”

Experts in the field continue to warn of the dangers of proceeding with the 5G rollout.  Dr. Martin Pall said it best. 

We are taking risks of the sort that no rational society can possibly take.  And we’re doing this blindly, and in my judgment, with absolute stupidity.

Please don't ignore expert warnings about 5G.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am reaching out to you today to voice my concern over the problematic testing being used to diagnose individuals with COVID-19. Panic has gripped our nation and people watch the number of cases and deaths with great alarm. Based on these numbers, the American government is making unprecedented decisions concerning our freedoms, our national economy, and our way of life. It is the public assumption that the tests must be ironclad. However, a cursory amount of research has raised many red flags about the test’s reliability and purity.

The COVID-19 test has a history of producing false positive results. There are many news stories about people who received a COVID-19 diagnosis based on a positive test result. Later, these individuals were informed the results were incorrect, and follow up tests were negative. 

• According to one article, in March an American was held in Egypt after testing positive. Four days later, he tested negative along with at least four other people who had previously received a positive result. 

• Another article titled “False Positive COVID-19 Test Alarms DI Community,” a young person tested positive and then later it was revealed that the test was faulty. 

• In another news story, an 8-year-old boy tested positive for COVID-19. Later, the same specimen was retested and received a negative result. 

• In late February, an American woman received a false positive that was followed by two negatives.

This predilection toward false positive test results is highly concerning as it inflates the case numbers. These false positives are then counted toward the total number of cases and that information is used to prolong quarantine and the shutdown of our country as well as unnecessary isolation and medical intervention for the falsely diagnosed.

In addition to false positives, the COVID-19 test commonly returns false negatives.

• According to the CDC “the test can’t detect some strains of the virus…RNA viruses like the COVID-19 pathogen have a lot of genetic variability.” The genetic variability of COVID-19 undermines the ability for a test to be reliable. 

• Louisville’s chief health strategist, Dr. Sarah Moyer, stated that the rate of false negatives could be as high as 40%.

• Medical News Today investigated the accuracy of COVID-19 testing. “COVID-19 tests are new, and assessing their accuracy is challenging. PCR tests may produce false negatives, failing to identify evidence of SARS-CoV-2. Sometimes false negatives result from human error or problems with the procedure. Giving the test too early or late, for example, can lead to a false negative. The accuracy of similar tests for influenza is generally 50–70%."

In addition to the possibility of false positives and false negatives, several news stories have covered incidences of batches of new tests being delivered already contaminated with COVID-19. 

• The Telegraph reported in the UK that “laboratories across the country were on Monday warned to expect a delay after traces of the virus were detected in parts due for delivery in the coming days.” Other articles state that “it was not clear in the email how the tests became contaminated.”

• The US has dealt with similar issues. In fact, the lab manufacturing the testing kits was possibly contaminated. Fox News reported,  "The Trump administration has reportedly ordered an investigation into a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lab in Atlanta that was in charge of assembling coronavirus test kits after a scientist with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised concerns that the lab itself may be ‘contaminated,’ possibly leading to faulty test kits, according to reports.”

Contamination of labs and testing kits is an enormous issue! How are we to trust the numbers being reported of COVID-19 cases and deaths if both the labs manufacturing the tests and the tests themselves have been found to be contaminated? It is also disconcerting that no answers have been found as to how the tests became contaminated during manufacturing. There’s also concern that using a contaminated test could actually infect a person.

With a large number of reports on false positives, false negatives, and contamination of tests and manufacturing sites, I am very concerned that we are not receiving accurate statistics regarding the number of actual cases of COVID-19. Our economy and way of life are at risk due to government response based on these test results. It has also been revealed that the model used to predict the scale of this pandemic was exaggerated. The result of using a false model has played out in New York where the predictions of how many cases they would see were found to be 400% too high! We are operating on faulty information from all fronts.

Please help me understand how Americans are supposed to trust the COVID-19 numbers when they are based on such untrustworthy information.