Admitting the virus is no more deadly than the flu, saying there's no evidence it can be spread from surfaces (like your groceries), revealing the unliklihood of anyone becoming reinfected and even (gasp!) that the lockdowns did NOT work to slow the virus transmission. It's almost as if the mainstream media have been reading Sott.net!
Join us on this episode of Objective:Health as we look at the slow trickle of truth making its way into the daily headlines. Are people finally going to realize the epic virus that forced them to into their homes, made them lose their jobs and kept them from their loved ones was a total nothingburger?
And check us out on Brighteon!
For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:
♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth
♥And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here.
Running Time: 00:32:32
Download: MP3 — 29.8 MB
Here's the transcript of the show:
Tiffany: Hello everyone, and welcome to Objective:Health. I am your faceless host, Tiffany, and joining me in our studio we have Doug, Elliot and Erica. And as always, on the wheels of steel, in the background, holding it down for all of us is Damian.
Damian: What up. [Laughter]
Tiffany: Today, we are going to talk about everybody's favourite topic. No one'is sick of it at all yet, I'm sure. [laughter] We are going to talk about the Covid and how things seem to be loosening up as governments all over the world are loosening up their restrictions which never should have been there in the first place, but that's a topic for a whole other discussion. Businesses are reopening. More people are going out but of course you have to do it safely with the mask and everything. It seems like recently there are a few articles popping up here and there and it's showing that what was said in the beginning, the health 'authoritizes' are now backtracking on.
I thought that it would be good to start with a YouTube video from CNN and this can give a reminder of just how retarded - no offence to anyone who actually is truly intellectually disabled - but just hour retarded this whole thing was earlier when this first came out. I think this video was from March? I can't remember the date, but it's Dr. Gupta.
Doug: It was April, 2nd.
Tiffany: April, 2nd. So, it wasn't that long ago even though time seems to fly in Coronaland. That was about two months ago. This is Dr. Gupta, and he is demonstrating the proper way to sanitise your items when you come back from the grocery store.
Dr. Gupta: It's interesting, this is not a food-borne illness. I just want to make that clear because a lot of people think if you eat this virus because your food's been contaminated you could get it. You can't. This is a respiratory virus. It's more a question of the packaging. You just have to think about "is there any risk of contamination in other ways?" You're not going to get a GI type thing from eating the virus.
CNN host: So, Sanjay, if people feel compelled to sanitise their groceries, just like we did with the hand washing, we asked you to film a tutorial. Let's take a look at this.
Dr. Gupta: People do need to grocery shop, obviously. Try and limit the number of times you go to the grocery store. That'll allow you to keep better social distance. Keep in mind, this is not a food-borne illness. You are not going to get it from eating the food and it is very unlikely you are going to get it from packages. But we do know that the virus can live on surfaces, for example steel and plastic, for up to three days. I've used a load of glitter here from my kids to show you what the virus might be like. *shows audience soup can with glitter on the lid*
Tiffany: Thanks Doc. [Laughter]
Dr. Gupta: We do know it can live on cardboard for example for up to 24 hours. What I've done here is I've created a dirty area and a clean area. This was a suggestion from Dr. Vanwingen up in Michigan. Here is my dirty area. I am just going to clean all the virus off. [Laugher from OH hosts as Dr. Gupta wipes glitter off the soup can]
I don't need to clean too much, it's a pretty sensitive virus. You don't need to use any kind of specific wipe either, any household cleaner will do. Then, once I'm sure I've got this clean I put this into the clean area. Again, for cardboard it's typically going to be closer to 24 hours. [More laughter as Dr. Gupta wipes a spaghetti box with the same wipe he used for the first soup tin]
Doug: Oh my God.
Damian: He's wiping the virus all over it. [Laughter]
Dr. Gupta: Once you're confident about that, or I get all the glitter off in this case then I can put this in the clean area.
Tiffany: He just transferred it from the Campbell's soup can to the box of spaghetti.
Dr. Gupta: One thing I want to show you, if you are wearing gloves, and you don't need to wear gloves, the biggest key is how you take them off. You want to make sure you don't contaminate yourself. You grab the inside of the glove here and pull it over itself and then I grab with my finger over here from the inside and pull that over as well and I drop that into the dirty area also. *Dr. Gupta shows the audience him taking off a pair of gloves safely*
Finally, I clean my hands one more time.
Tiffany: Look at his face, he's laughing! He knows how stupid it is.
CNN host: So, just two things, just to be clear, you don't need to wear gloves and also any wipe will do? A kleenex or a dish towel? It needs to have soap on it?
Dr. Gupta: I don't think you need to have a particular type of wipe, but some sort of cleaner or something like that. It's a pretty sensitive virus.
CNN host: So, it doesn't have to be a Purell kind of thing?
Dr. Gupta: No, it doesn't have to be a Purell. Even a spray type cleaner or something like that that you might use on cloth or whatever. It's a virus that responds and will be affected by that pretty easily. That's just an example of what you can do. That is what we've started doing in our house, and leaving packaging outside if you get takeout food; still keep social distance. It works pretty well.
Doug: Keep social distance!
CNN host: But still the majority of transmission is person to person?
Dr. Gupta: Right, and respiratory droplets that are in the air. You can touch surfaces and then touch your eyes, nose or mouth which is why I think it is a very low likelihood for it to happen off of groceries and stuff like that. I think that being cautious, especially at this time, is a good idea.
CNN host: Sure.
Tiffany: Low likelihood, but still wipe your groceries down. It's so stupid. Then, he says "remember this is not a food-borne illness". Well, wait a minute. Didn't this spread by people in China eating bat soup?
Doug: Oh yeah! [laughter]
Tiffany: Come on! Keep your story straight! Anyway, this is just an example of how now they are saying there is no need to actually do that. You don't have to wipe your surfaces down.
Doug: Apparently the CDC has come forward and said it doesn't spread easily from touching surfaces or objects. The funny thing was that apparently they were actually pretty covert about how they did this. They didn't issue a press statement or something like that, they just changed it on their website. That's all they did. They used to have it under "possible ways that you can catch this virus" and now it's under "unlikely ways that you can catch it" or something along those lines.
Tiffany: Well, they say it still may be possible to spread the virus from contaminated surfaces. Are they purposely trying to confuse the issue? I know people are pretty confused in general. I don't know, I can't even argue with it because it's just so illogical that there really is nowhere to start.
Doug: It's true. It really seems like from the get-go the media has been really plugging the fear aspect - especially CNN because they are total trash - how they can make people more afraid. It's not enough that you are afraid of everybody around you, because they are disease-carrying mutants that are going to give you the plague, but you have to be afraid of your groceries too. You have to be afraid of everything in the outside world, of touching anything. Don't touch your face! Don't touch your face! Oh my God!
Tiffany: There was a preliminary study from March that said that the novel Coronavirus can remain in the air for up to three hours, and live on surfaces such as plastic and stainless steel for up to three days. So who knows how accurate this study was and what all the parameters that they used to actually come up with these numbers were? The whole thing just doesn't make any sense and it doesn't seem like people actually realise that. I've seen people wearing masks in their cars, by themselves, with gloves on and with the windows rolled up. [laugher] People have been wearing masks in grocery stores and other places, but you see them touching their faces all the time. They are not maintaining social distancing. So even the people who are going along with this whole story don't see the contradiction in their own behaviour.
If you are really going to believe this thing, it seems like you should be all-in and very cognizant of everything that you're doing at all times in order to prevent spreading this infection. But the people who seem to be really into it, I watch them and they're not doing anything special that would prevent anything even if they did believe it.
Doug: It's true.
Erica: It's interesting that even with that demonstration that we saw, stores are continuing with this protocol even though, like Doug said, the CDC came out and said it's not really a contact point any more. If you bring your own bags to the grocery store they make you take them back to your car or they make you load your bags outside of the store if you have your own recyclable bags. But then, you walk up to the counter and they take your cash, no problem. It starts to feel like a clown show. Can you stand on one foot and tap your head and rub your belly all at the same time? It's interesting, I noticed it's almost like there is a fascist approach at health food stores; Whole Foods, Trader Joe's and Sprouts seem to have taken these kinds of precautions to the umpteenth extent. Whereas, in places like Sam's Club or Walmart it's not as intense if that makes sense?
Tiffany: I've noticed that too. At Whole Foods they're making you wear a mask. I attempted to go to a Trader Joe's just the other day and their line was all the way across the front of the building, all the way down the side of the building and almost to the back of the building. Of course I didn't go in because that's just stupid to wait in a line just to go to the grocery store.
Another thing that I noticed is that some of these big chain stores used to count people, they used to be standing at the door and have a little line in front of Home Depot or Costco, but around where I live they are not doing that any more. People are just walking in and the stores are crowded. They have a sign up on the door saying "only this number of people are allowed in" but no one is really enforcing it, at least not around where I live.
Doug: Erica, what you were saying about the health food stores, I noticed that as well. I've got a local health food store close to me and right around the beginning of this whole thing they wouldn't actually let you go into the store. You could stand in the doorway and they would squirt stuff on your hands and they would ask you what you wanted and they would go around and get the stuff for you because you couldn't enter the store. But then you had to walk in to pay. The whole thing was just so stupid. [laughter]
A friend of mine said at the time "I thought that these health food store people were really confident in how good organic food and all these health products are for you. Shouldn't they be the least afraid of this thing?" It seems like it was the exact opposite. Maybe it's the people who are super paranoid and who go for all the cleanest stuff that are actually falling for it more.
Elliot: It's unfortunate that even though the initial evidence wasn't peer reviewed and has now been disproven, it's only the initial impression that sticks in people's minds. They read a headline, they see something on the news which is actually false and then it's almost like any amount of information can come out after that point and it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
Once that initial impression, that belief, that fear, is formed in their minds then that sticks. You see that with everything. It's a very interesting mechanism at play here. You generally see it playing out with regard to any kind of social, political or economic event or piece of news that someone comes across. When they first read the piece of information that stays there and it's very, very, very difficult for people to change their belief about it, even when the initial source of the information comes out and says that they were wrong. It's really hard for people to change their belief about it.
You see the same in the UK. If you were to go to a shop, the employees walk around with an anti-bac spray can and they have to wash down everything that anyone has touched to make sure that there's no contamination. Then, you see there is no evidence that there was ever any contamination, or even if there is it doesn't mean that it's infectious; it's kind of funny to watch.
Tiffany: Another thing that they said in the beginning - did they say this? About it spreading from animals to people? Of course, it had to have if it came from the meat market in Wuhan as they are claiming. They were testing house cats and somebody had some kind of wild cat - I don't want to say a cheetah - but they tested and that big cat came up with Coronavirus. They were testing all these animals and there was this fear that it could jump from your house cat to you. Now they are saying, of course, that's not possible and that's not happening.
Doug: The media is being so disingenuous in all of this, because they are the ones who are spreading all this stuff in the first place. Then when they come out and correct it, or don't necessarily correct it but come out with whatever is next in the news cycle, they don't reference back and say "We told you this before but it turns out that it's not true". They'll just add it in there as if they'd never said anything differently before.
Tiffany: Like it's just an afterthought.
Doug: It does seem like there is more information starting to come out in the mainstream press; it is a little closer to the truth at least. One thing that happened recently that is huge was that the CDC confirmed that the Coronavirus death rate was actually remarkably low. It got no press, nobody said anything anywhere. There is an article on the Blaze - Damian, maybe you can put that one up - it was called Horowitz: CDC Confirms Remarkably Low Coronavirus Death Rate. Where's the Media?
It's a good question because they basically came out and said that the overall death rate is .26% for Covid. Then, you combine that in with your chances of actually getting it. .26% is your chance of dying out of people who actually get it, but then put on top your chance of actually getting it and it turns out that your chance of dying of Covid if you are a reasonably healthy individual is that you are more likely to get struck by lightning or have a horrible car accident. It's ridiculous. You don't see that level of information getting out in the mainstream media right now. They're still stoking the fire.
Elliot: That was a genuine statistic. They were saying that people under a certain age are statistically more likely to be struck by lightning. You are statistically more likely to die in a car crash. You are statistically more likely to experience many other fates than Covid-19. Again, it's the concept of making very extreme predictions which had very little evidence.
What was the initial prediction of the death rate? I think it was Ferguson at the UK Imperial College who predicted that there was going to be 50 million deaths worldwide. [laughter] As the data's coming out, they think that the amount of people that have had it without actually becoming sick - they get the virus but they recovered from it and that was fine - was up to 50-80 fold times the amount of people that they originally thought would be able to get it but be okay with it, if that makes sense, if I remember correctly. The predictions were massively overblown, completely, criminally overblown.
Whether this was sheer incompetence or whether there was some kind of nefarious agenda there, that's something that needs to be taken into consideration. Ultimately, either way, the best case scenario is that they were just downright wrong, the worst case scenario is that they were intentionally manipulating us. But the effects that this has had is that people are still left with the initial impression that they were given or they are still under the impression that this is an extremely dangerous disease. The evidence does not support that in any sense. There was a statistical analysis that came out recently that said the death rates are pretty much the same as the flu, that there's not all that much to be worried about, as we have been saying for how long? You don't lock down the world for the flu. There is something else going on here.
Erica: I think it is like we said a few weeks ago, or maybe even a few months ago - like Tiff said in the intro, it's hard to tell. Time has really expanded into this unknown reality - that this is like a mind virus. All of these little tidbits of things are creating this fear and paranoia and instead of people objectively looking at the information, they're just going to push forward. What's that saying? Don't let a good crisis go to waste. It's now gotten to the point where it's just a complete inundation of your brain and your energetic system and you're just going to continue to do all these things that have now been said by the CDC to not work.
Tiffany: As you mentioned nefarious deeds, Elliot, I think it we can see much of the nefarious deeds that are already in place, like the lockdown, certain people not being able to go to work because their jobs are non-essential, being told we have to wear a mask, being told we have to stay in our homes and that we have to stay six feet away from people. Those are the nefarious deeds that are happening right now.
All of these lockdowns and the things that I just mentioned were put into place because of these over exaggerated numbers so I'm ultra suspicious. I always think that if you're basing what you are going to implement in society on these numbers and the numbers are wrong, then I say that I can be forgiven for drawing the conclusion that the numbers were wrong on purpose.
Doug: That wouldn't surprise me in the least. Especially with the lockdown in particular. It's so crazy because they lock everybody in their homes because of these models that they're predicting these deaths based on; supposedly that's why they did it. Then the numbers are not materialising. So now they can just turn around and say it's because of the lockdown. We had this model and we know what would have happened if we hadn't locked down.
There was actually an article in the Daily Mail about a study that was done by JP Morgan which made me think "What the hell is going on here? Since when does JP Morgan do these kinds of studies?" It showed that the lockdowns essentially failed. They were comparing different lockdowns, the strictness of the lockdown, when people lifted the lockdown, when people instituted the lockdown in different countries and found that there was absolutely no difference in the severity of the virus and how virulent it was, given those different parameters. What they were saying was that it didn't matter what anybody did, the lockdown did not work at all. The whole lockdown was a scam in and of itself. We have been saying this for months now, but it was nice to have a study to back it up.
Tiffany: When you look at Sweden, they don't have any more cases than countries who did do a full lockdown.
Doug: Yeah. It's ridiculous. I think they just wanted to lock everybody in their houses for some reason.
Elliot: That's the conclusion that you'd be forgiven for coming to based on all of the data. It seemed like there wasn't any evidence for lockdowns in the first place. In fact there was absolutely zero evidence for the benefit of lockdowns. There wasn't really much evidence for anything that they recommended. You had major public health agencies, organisations, institutions and big international bodies who were coming out and making quite solid, conclusive statements about things that they didn't really know that much about. Now, it looks like they are backtracking on that, and I think it is because the data is coming out and it's not looking good for them. It's really not looking good, and there's a lot of people who aren't happy.
These aren't just ordinary working class folk - although that is important - these are high-level academics and other high profile individuals who are coming out and speaking out against this. They have the education and the reputation so people will listen to these dissenting voices. It's almost like they are trying to backtrack because maybe they are anticipating that actually if they're on record for making completely false statements then perhaps people are going to cotton on and are going to pick them up on it. I hope that they are picked up on all of the stuff that they have been saying. I hope that they're hung, drawn and quartered in many respects. I don't think it is going to happen, but it would be good if it does.
Tiffany: You answered the question I was going to put out, Elliot. Why would they backtrack? Why would they go against what they said at the beginning? I think when the pitchforks come out when the food shortages really start, when the supply chain is entirely broken - not just because of the Covid, but also because of weather changes and things of that nature - people are going to want someone to blame.
Doug: It's like Fauci coming out now. The lockdown king, always talking about locking down, how dangerous it is, "we can't open up too soon", praising the states that locked down first, and now he comes out and says "if we stay closed for too long it's going to cause irreparable damage". What a weasel! He's the one who was sitting there the whole time promoting the lockdown and spreading the fear! Then he turns around and says "We can't do this for too long or else we are going to suffer irreparable damage". Thanks. Thanks Fauch.
Elliot: It's almost like he is coming out and saying that because he's anticipating. He knows! People are not happy with that guy, I'm sure of it.
Doug: It's true.
Tiffany: He was one of the ones that at first said that there's no reason for anybody to be walking around right now with a mask on. Then, a couple of months later you see him at a Whitehouse press conference wearing a mask, he and Dr. Birx. [laughter] He was sitting there rubbing his face and tugging at his mask. This idiot can't even hold it together for a few minutes on camera.
Erica: On an interesting note is the video that came out, I believe it was of Dr. Judy Mikovits, and she was saying how she had worked with him and revealed a lot of very concerning information about his history in virology. YouTube is on steroids trying to pull that video, over and over. It's straight up censorship. Somebody who is actually giving documented evidence about the history of this guy, what he's involved in, what he has worked on in the past and the fact that YouTube is censoring her videos? It's just like a confirmation "Don't listen to her. She might actually know what she is talking about. We're just going to censor her." Censor, censor, censor. That to me was a very eye opening experience. I thought wow, she must really be onto something if they are taking down the videos at the rate that they are.
Tiffany: They say that censorship is modern day book burning. Censor all the YouTube videos that you can. Of course, there would be no need for censorship if the powers that be didn't feel threatened by what people have to say, or whether they would be revealing the man behind the curtain. I'm not happy for free speech when things get censored, but it is a very big clue that when YouTube censors a video that is something that you should be looking into a lot more closely. Do we have anything else to add about the backtracking?
Doug: We could go on for multiple shows, I think.
Tiffany: I guess maybe we can talk about this in an upcoming show, but one of the major things that people keep flip-flopping about is the whole mask issue. We can talk about that during our next show. For now, it helps to pay attention. I know it sucks to watch the news sometimes, but occasionally watch the mainstream news just to see what the current narrative seems to be and what agenda they're pushing.
It's really a hassle to watch the news because it's so mired in fearmongering and lies. It's kind of like a comedy show if you get yourself in the right frame of mind and you can have a good laugh, but a lot of the time it's very annoying and nerve wracking and you just want to shut it out. But it's important to keep up with things just to see what might be coming down the 'pike, because they always seem to kind of let you know. We still have Plandemic II coming up according to Bill Gates.
Doug: The second wave.
Erica: Stay tuned. [laughter]
Tiffany: The "second wave" whatever that means. I'm sure we can all come up with our own theories about what that might be, but we have to remember that this is still fairly early into the game and this, in my opinion, is just a test run to see what they can get away with, see how people react to the things they are saying and what kind of restrictions they're implementing. Maybe for phase two, I don't know, we'll see.
Anyway, that is our show for today folks. If you liked this video, hit the "like" button. You can also subscribe. Leave a comment and we will catch you next time for our next show. Have a good day everyone.
[Goodbyes]
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter