Comment: To read the Corman-Drosten Review Report, submitted 27th November, 2020, go here. Included are: a detailed analysis of mistakes, a list concerns and a summary of errors found in the paper.

'Follow the science' they said. What they didn't tell you is that what they want you to follow is not science.

See also:

• Austrian lawmaker denounces 'medical tyranny' after cola drink returns positive result for coronavirus
• Good idea! Germany's Extra-Parliamentary Corona Investigative Commission launching a class action suit against corona criminals
• Flawed paper behind Covid-19 testing faces being retracted, after scientists expose its ten fatal problems
• The test set: Another brick in the covid-19 disinformation game plan

Comment: This (or similar inter-state disputes) could be the key that unlocks the Biden steal. The Supreme Court is not obliged to hear Texas' lawsuit though because it's technically a request for permission to file a lawsuit.

If it's not on solid legal standing, it's nonetheless something of a political shot across the bow.

Most interesting of all is this development has finally, an entire month later, forced the MSM to sit up and take notice rather than just laugh away or ignore the claim...

Both Alabama and Louisiana are supporting Texas in their attempt to challenge the election results in the 4 swing states. Alabama attorney general Steve Marshall expects the Supreme Court to quickly decide whether to hear the case. If they do hear it, expect to see other states signing on as well.

UPDATE 9 Dec 2020

The US Supreme Court is going to hear this case...


...and 17 more states have joined Texas!

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led his colleagues from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia in filing the amicus brief to the US Supreme Court.


The amicus brief reads:

States have a strong interest in ensuring that the votes of their own citizens are not diluted by the unconstitutional administration of elections in other States. When non-legislative actors in other States encroach on the authority of the "Legislature thereof" in that State to administer a Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the United States who casts a lawful ballot in that election — including the citizens of amici States.

UPDATES 10 Dec 2020

Now Trump has entered the fray:


Arizona has become the 18th state to file an 'amicus brief', though its stated reason for doing so is neutral:


Distinct from an amicus brief (which encourages a court to hear another's case) is today's filing by six states (Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah) with a motion to actually join Texas' SCOTUS election lawsuit.

106 GOP House members are now backing the Texas lawsuit:

Comment: The suit was filed on behalf of 46 U.S. states, the District of Columbia and Guam. Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and South Dakota did not join. According to CBS News:

Both lawsuits cite Facebook's 2012 purchase of Instagram for $1 billion and a $19 billion deal for WhatsApp in 2014 as examples of its efforts to eliminate competitors.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg's view, expressed in a 2008 email, that "it is better to buy than compete," the FTC said in its suit. "To further entrench its position, Facebook has also imposed anticompetitive conditions that restricted access to its valuable platform — conditions that Facebook personnel recognized as 'anti user[,]' 'hypocritical' in light of Facebook's purported mission of enabling sharing, and a signal that 'we're scared that we can't compete on our own merits.'"

For Facebook, the coordinated federal and state lawsuits represent the most aggressive legal action against the company to date by government authorities, culminating a bipartisan campaign to rein in big technology companies. It's the second time in two months that the government has moved against a tech giant.

"It's time that the courts put an end to Big Tech's specious claim that its products are 'free,' so 'consumer welfare' is not infringed upon and the antitrust laws don't apply," Ed Mierzwinski, U.S.

PIRG's* senior director for federal consumer programs, said in a statement. "Actually, consumers pay with our data, through a Big Tech business model of constant corporate surveillance and manipulation."

*Public Interest Research Group

Comment: As the jungle is cleared, they're finding THOUSANDS of 'earthworks', some hundreds of meters across.

Graham Hancock is paying attention to what they find:

Comment: Hopefully this won't get buried next to the Killary emails and Epstein files.

Comment: They claim to be doubtful the vaccine is the cause and yet they're considering mandating that Pfizer track recipients to be sure. This in itself will prove difficult amidst the rushed roll out and its likely that they will lose track of a significant number of recipients and the side effects they suffer.

RT reports that Britian Chief Medical Officer will not allow those patients willing to take the risk to choose which vaccine they will have, even though it has already been well publicised that none of them are known to be safe for children, pregnant and breast feeding women, as well as those with 'significant' allergies:

Chris Whitty, England's Chief Medical Officer (CMO), told lawmakers on Wednesday that people will not get to select which vaccine they want to take during the first phase of the UK's mass immunization programme.

"A situation where we have enough vaccines that you have a choice which one you wish, (that) will be a very nice problem for us to have. It is not the problem we have at the moment and it is not a problem we're going to have for the next four months," Whitty said.

"Currently, if the choice is between a good vaccine and no vaccine, I'm going to just go for whichever good vaccine is available," the CMO added.

There isn't enough data to know whether these vaccines are 'good' and as the UK's CMO one would expect that he would be scientific and honest.

Whitty's comment comes as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MRHA) issued a warning on Wednesday that people with a history of 'significant' allergic reactions should not take Pfizer's Covid-19 jab.

The alert was issued after two NHS staff members experienced adverse reactions to the Pfizer jab. They are both said to be recovering well.

The UK's mass vaccination programme started on Tuesday at hospitals across the country, using the recently approved Pfizer vaccine.

So far, the Pfizer vaccine has only been approved for use in the UK.

Even though Switzerland has ordered millions of doses of the Pfizer vaccine it has not approved it for use because of the lack of data on its safety and efficacy.

On Tuesday, Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, said he was hoping that the vaccine developed by AstraZeneca may also be approved before the end of the year.

The safest option would be to not volunteer to be a guinea pig for any of these experimental vaccines, particularly for the 99% of the population who could safely rely on their immune system which would also confer a lifetime of immunity: 'And that no man might buy or sell': Welsh government to roll out 'coronavirus vaccine ID cards'

Comment: Speaking of MSNBC, watch Chris Hayes try to completely dismiss valid allegations of election fraud without a shred of actual investigation on his part - in pure 'Orange Man Bad' style. The Queen of Russiagate Rachel Maddow would be proud:

Comment: Did Mark Zuckerberg help to buy the election for Biden? Did he confine his calculated 'philanthropy' to Georgia's precincts or were other states willing recipients in this pay-to-influence scheme?