Let’s get straight to the point, the “record” number of COVID cases touted in the media has very little to do with the number of COVID infections.  If you think those two things are the same, the media has brainwashed you. 

If you read my book, The FEAR-19 Pandemic, then you already know what I mean.  But I will do a quick review for everyone else.   The number of “cases” is just the number of people who have tested positive and that number is generally a small percentage of the total infections.  For example, here is a chart referencing antibody studies from all over the world.  This chart shows the percentage of COVID infections in that area that were never “cases” of COVID.


The percentage of infected individuals that typically get tested is somewhere around 10%.  That leaves 90% of infections that go unconfirmed.  The reason that 90% did not get tested is that they were asymptomatic (not sick), or they had minor symptoms.  They did not need to get tested.  The number of “cases” is just a small percentage of the number of infections. 

This information is why the “record” number of cases stat used by the media is just fear-mongering.  It is a useless stat without context.  If 90% of infections were going unconfirmed, all you have to do to increase the number of cases is to test more, which is precisely what is happening. 

Let me show you a chart from coronavirusbellcurve.com.

It’s like they were initially counting all of the oak trees and then started counting the oak trees and the pine trees announcing that we have a “record” number of trees.

We are not having a record number of infections.  However, there is most likely an increase in infections at this point.  The best chart I have seen is from the same website, coronavirusbellcurve.com.  This chart incorporates the rise in testing to adjust the numbers more accurately.

When adjusting for increased testing, you can still see an increase in infections, just not a record pace.  The “record” number of cases is entirely fake news using artificially inflated stats.

However, there is one more critical point.  The formula used for this chart incorporates the increase in testing that took place back on April 23rd, and the amount of testing has increased even more.  In the last nine days, there has been an average of 586,000 tests a day, which is yet another significant increase.  They may need to make a new adjustment to their formula to ensure that the data is accurate.

Now, I will give you one more chart, which is the most important.  This chart shows why they may need to adjust their formula.  The number of daily deaths was following the trajectory of the adjusted case numbers until about a week ago, right when we again increased the amount of testing.  Once again from coronavirusbellcurve.com, it is a great site if you want to look at numbers and charts.

The number of deaths continues to drop, and we are currently lower than we were back on April 1st.  Now, ask yourself.  Why is the media touting a fake, manipulated number of “cases” instead of the fact that average deaths continue to decline?  Any chance they want you to be scared?  Any chance the media wants dramatic news more than an informed public?

The CDC released their report on antibody testing from the USS Theodore Roosevelt.  You may remember the USS Theodore Roosevelt because it was the Navy ship whose captain was fired because of his reaction to the significant outbreak on his ship.

There were several fascinating findings from the study, and I am going to share a few.  Before sharing the results, let me remind you that there are two types of tests for COVID.  The first is for the virus itself and indicates current infection.  The second type of test is for antibodies to COVID.  The antibody test shows whether someone was previously infected with COVID and has developed antibodies.

Here are some of the interesting results.  First, out of the 382 individuals tested, 228 (60%) tested positive for antibodies.  By itself, that is a shocking number and shows how much COVID can spread, especially in high-density areas.

Since 228 sailors tested positive for antibodies, that leaves 154 (40%) who did not.  Of those 154, ten more individuals were positive for the virus at the time of the testing.  That identifies 238 individuals in the survey group who were currently or previously infected with COVID.

  • 382 individuals tested for COVID and COVID antibodies.
  • 228 tested positive for antibodies (60%).
  • 154 did not have antibodies (40%).
  • 10 out of those 154 did test positive for the COVID virus.
  • That makes 238 individuals who were currently infected, or previously infected out of 382 (62%)

This study presents a unique opportunity as it provides us with the perfect control group.  We can compare the infected individuals against non-infected individuals to allow us to clearly identify the differences between the two groups and learn a lot about COVID.

Of the 238 who tested positive for the COVID virus or antibodies, 44 individuals (18.5%) reported zero symptoms; they were asymptomatic.  One in five of infected individuals were asymptomatic.  What about the individuals who did not test positive for COVID or antibodies?  Out of those 144 individuals who were COVID negative, only 54 (38%) were asymptomatic.  Yes, 90 individuals (62%) who were not infected had symptoms.

This finding is a critical point because you cannot merely assign all of the reported symptoms to COVID, or why would the 90 uninfected individuals also report symptoms.

It may come as a shock to you, but COVID is not the only virus in the world.  There are a ton of other viruses circulating all the time that will cause many of the listed symptoms.  And there are also bacterial infections and medical conditions that can account for symptoms similar to COVID. 

If 62% of the control group (individuals who tested negative for COVID or antibodies) were symptomatic, then you can assume that 62% of the individuals who tested positive for COVID had symptoms because of other reasons as well.  This detail is why you use control groups in studies, to help determine which symptoms and what percentage of those symptoms are caused by something, in this case, COVID.

Let’s look at the results from the survey of reported symptoms.  I will show you the percentage of infected and non-infected individuals who reported specific symptoms and then the percentage difference.  This comparison will allow us to determine which symptoms, and the portion of symptoms, that are caused by COVID.

Now, if you add the 18.5% of infected individuals who were asymptomatic to the 62% of symptoms that could be the result of other things, you get to 80.5% of individuals who did not have a symptomatic reaction to COVID.

And this tracks perfectly with the 19.3% difference in seeking medical care between those infected and not infected.  About 20% of COVID infections will result in symptoms significant enough to seek out medical attention.

If you read my book, this tracks pretty well with the science I have already shown you.  Actually, this number is a little low.  In the book, we used antibody studies from all over the world to show that approximately 90% of COVID infected individuals were “not sick” enough to seek out medical care or get tested.  Here is the chart.

Did more people on the Navy ship access medical care?  Yes, probably because it is much easier to access readily accessible medical care.  Out in society, that number is much closer to 90% instead of 80% in this survey.

This information again reveals the lack of severity for COVID infections in comparison to what the media has promoted.  The 0.8% of infected individuals in the study who required hospitalization also indicates the low severity of COVID in this age group.

Over 80% did not require medical attention for COVID, and only 0.8% required hospitalization.

There is another data set from the report that is also extremely enlightening.  The participants filled out a survey about their prevention behaviors at the time of the testing.  Here is the same chart from above with those prevention behaviors comparing the percentage of infected versus not infected.

Hand washing, hand sanitizing, and cleaning of personal areas had little impact on the percentage chance of becoming infected.  Social distancing, isolation, and face coverings had a more significant effect.  But how much?

When compared to the control group, social distancing reduced the chances of becoming infected by 16.3%.   Avoiding common areas decreased the chances of becoming infected by 13.9%.  Avoiding common areas and social distancing is similar in effect to the lockdowns.  We all know that people were still out, but not out as much as usual, and they were social distancing with more regularity.

We can use this information to determine the overall impact of the lockdowns.  We can try to determine the percentage of infections avoided.  Let’s begin by determining that number based upon this study.

  • Social distancing decreases the chance of infection by 16.3%.
  • Avoiding common areas decreases the chance of infection by 13.9%

If you think about it, the individuals who socially distanced most likely avoided the common areas as well.  However, if we want to determine the effectiveness of the lockdowns, we can be as conservative as possible.  Plus, it is easier to avoid other people out in normal society than on a ship.

We will add both of those numbers together and speculate that the lockdowns (avoiding common areas and social distancing) reduced the chances of becoming infected by 30.2% (16.3 + 13.9).  So, it is reasonable to assume lockdowns decreased infections by approximately 30%.

However, infections are not the same thing as cases.  As the antibody studies from all over the world indicated (chart above), only about 10% of infected individuals would have been sick enough to seek out medical care and get tested.  That reduces the increase in cases from 30% to 3%.  Remember, the number of infections is not the same thing as the number of confirmed cases.

With about 2.1 million cases currently in the United States, that means that we reduced overall cases by 63 thousand cases.  Yes, we shut down the majority of the country for 63 thousand fewer cases of COVID.  Not deaths, but cases of COVID.  

I keep hearing how we saved millions of lives.  How?  By what science?  They keep telling us about these hypothetical mathematical models that predicted all these deaths. However, those models used flawed theories that were wrong at the time (read the book) and have repeatedly been proven wrong by emerging science. 

The media will keep reporting that information because it backs up everything they have been saying and promoting.  But it was all based upon fake statistics.  It is only philosophy, not science.  Yes, this study was a small sample size, but it is science none the less, not the flawed theories and fake statistics behind the models.

Millions of deaths in the United States without lockdowns?  Well, bless your hearts for trying to save everyone.

Source: CDC Study


Front Cover of FEAR-19 Book


Will the protests create an increase in COVID cases?  The short answer is no, not really.

There will most likely be an increase in infections but not the number of cases.  And no, the number of infections and the number of cases are not the same thing.  Just another stat that can be manipulated to mislead you.

You see, to be considered a new case of COVID, you need to get tested.  The majority of infections are asymptomatic, so they do not go to get tested.  I prefer to use the term “not sick” instead of asymptomatic.  If you are “not sick,” you do not get tested.  So the protests are not likely to significantly increase the number of COVID cases.  

Let me use the USS Theodore Roosevelt to explain what I am saying.  They had a COVID outbreak on the ship back at the end of March.  Most of you will remember the captain getting fired because of his reaction to the COVID outbreak.  Here is what the science is telling us about that outbreak as of June 9th.

During the outbreak, they tested the entire crew for the COVID virus.  The crew was 4,880 sailors, and approximately 25% (1200) of them tested positive for the virus at that time.  60% (720) of those 1200 infected crewmen were asymptomatic or “not sick.” 

Just recently, they completed an antibody study of the crew.  That study indicated that 60% of the crew had antibodies, meaning that 60% were previously infected and recovered.  These results indicate 1,728 additional infections that were undetected due to already having been recovered or becoming infected following that initial virus testing.

Four hundred eighty sailors had symptoms while infected, ten of which required hospitalization, leaving 470 infected individuals who were not severely sick (minimal to some sickness).

  • 4800 crewmen on the ship
  • 2928 COVID infections
  • 470 minimal to some sickness (16.1%)
  • 2448 “not sick” (83.6%)
  • 10 requiring hospitalization (0.3%)
  • 1 death (0.03%)

The median age on the ship was 30 years of age.  Having seen videos and pictures of the protests, I would guess that the median age of the protesters was similar to the median age of 30 on that navy ship. 

Using the numbers from the Theodore Roosevelt, you can assume that approximately 83% of protesters who do get infected will be “not sick,” and an additional 16% may be minimal to limited sickness.  Combine those two numbers, and 99% of the individuals who become infected during the protests could be “not sick” or minimally sick and will not get tested, so they will not increase the number of cases.

There may be an increase in cases related to the protests, but with areas opening up, it will most likely not be a big enough jump to be noticeable. 

But this has been my point all along.  We have always handled COVID in a reductive, illogical manner.  Spread within young people is a good thing because it helps us develop group immunity with minimal risk.  I will use one more statistic from the aircraft carrier to explain my point.

60% of the ship’s population had become infected.  59% had neutralizing antibodies, which gives some level of immunity and would fight the spread of COVID.  Herd immunity for COVID is estimated at 60%, but that is a whole different thread that I am not going to pull right now.

The bottom line is the numbers suggest 2928 members of the Theodore Roosevelt’s crew became infected with COVID, only ten were severely ill (0.3%), and one poor sailor (0.03%) died.  But 99.7% were “not sick” or “a little sick” and developed an immunity. 

If 99.7% of those infected during the protests become “not sick” or minimally sick, and then develop antibodies, the protests may actually help reduce the ability of COVID to spread. 


We should also be allowing that same age group to go back to college, and pack football stadiums in the fall.  Just stay away from your grandparents, and grandparents need to watch the game on TV.

COVID impacts Children under 20 even less than the 20s and 30s at the protests and on the ship.  So how about we let the kids go to camp, play with their friends, and go back to school in the fall.

What MORONS came up with the plan to stop spread amongst the people who are at minimal risk?  That was freagin genius.  Now they still don’t have antibodies, awesome approach; you obviously thought that one out.  

WE NEED SPREAD TO FIGHT SPREAD!  We just don’t want it to spread to the wrong people.

Please read the book to get all the science behind what I am saying.  And also understand why the MORONS reacted the way they did. 


References: Reuters, ABC, CNN

The following excerpt is from Chapter 11 in the book.  There was a lot of information prior to this chapter that explains the science behind some of the assertions.  Two of the big facts are: we were lied to about were the individual severity of COVID, especially to children, and the “problem” of asymptomatic spread.  Both of those lies are exposed and debunked in the book.

But this is one of my favorite sections so I wanted to share.  Yeah, it is a bit of a rant.

Here is the excerpt from the second half of chapter 11:


The lockdowns have already had devastating consequences, and we have no idea what the long-term effects are going to look like.  I am not even talking about the economic repercussions here.  Everyone agrees there are going to be massive and long-lasting economic consequences from the lockdowns. 

But that isn’t even the proper discussion because the economic consequences are just the beginning.  The argument that this is a question of lives over money is simply specious nonsense meant to distract us from the real cost.

  • Trump is bad and dangerous.
  • Trump cares more about making money than saving lives.
  • Lockdowns save lives, and lives are more important than money.

Blah, blah, blah.  It is a specious argument because it feels good superficially, but it ignores the true costs.  I am so glad you can feel good about yourself and shame others because of your bullshit argument.  How about we look at the real-life costs of the lockdowns?

Do you remember how COVID severity reduces significantly with age?

As of May 16th, there are 12 deaths from COVID in the USA from children under the age of 15.  That is 1 death for every 5 million children. 

I am literally getting angry writing this because I know where this is going.

Stanford Children’s Health estimates that 2000 children under the age of 15 die each year from accidents in the home.  Children are 166 times more likely to die in a home accident than COVID.  We locked them up in their homes, which are 166 times more dangerous to them than COVID.

But that little stat is just for perspective on how little risk children are at from COVID. 

This is where I want to cry; it upsets me so much. 

The following snapshot is from the American Psychological Association.

We were so damn busy arguing how children are the “silent carriers” that are going to kill their grandparents that we forgot our duty to protect one of our most vulnerable populations, our children.  How many children were locked away in bad situations only made worse by the stress?  And with no supports?  How come that is not all over the damn press?

I love how the article points out that even parents with solid skills will be tested while being locked down with their children.  Remember all the jokes on Facebook about parents having to deal with their kids? 

Think about homes where there are already severe challenges because of issues with the parents, the children, or both.  Now magnify that by locking them together 24/7 with no supports in place.  How do you think that went? 

1,720 children die each year from abuse or neglect, 143 times more than have died from COVID, according to the report from childwelfare.gov.  Do you think that number decreased with 24 hours a day, seven days a week containment?  Do you figure everything went well?

Add in no social interaction, the inability to get respite and just take a break, or get help, and no opportunity for someone to intervene, provide supports, or notice the effects of abuse and report it was all gone.

And 1,720 is just the number of deaths.  How many other children will suffer from a lifetime of trauma due to what happens to them during this time?  My day job is working with troubled young children, many of whom suffered from horrible abuse, so I have witnessed its effects.  There are real costs to the lockdown beyond the economic ones.

If you argued this debate was a tradeoff between lives and money, you should be embarrassed.  If you ever made the argument that children are dangerous instead of vulnerable, you are complicit in the adverse effects suffered by those decisions.  It was “selfish” to expose one of our most vulnerable populations for your political and emotional gain.

Children were never at risk from COVID, but they were selfishly put at risk because we could not take an honest look at the information.  We knew they were not at risk from COVID before any school shut down.  We knew they were not at risk from COVID before any shelter in place was issued.

Children were not at risk from COVID, but we put them at risk from a variety of much worse things.  And now we are keeping them at risk over bullshit politics and our emotional needs.  Absolutely disgusting!

And this is just one issue; there are the health effects of people locked in their homes for extended periods of time, drug and alcohol issues, the mental health needs that developed, were exasperated, or underserved, the child hunger issues, the impact of social isolation on children, and on, and on, and on.

This article was from the Washington Post on May 4th.

I will leave you with one more.  This report is from ABC7 news on May 21st.

“Suicides on the rise amid stay at home order, Bay area medical officials say.”

But yeah, this is all about lives being more valuable than money.  If you made this false argument to avoid discussing the real dangers of lockdown, you should be ashamed.  The lockdowns did not save lives; it just traded them.  The lockdowns did not slow the spread of COVID; at best, they only delayed the spread.  The lockdowns were an attempt to fight a mythical monster that had devastating consequences.

The FEAR-19 Pandemic was banned from Amazon on June 2nd.  You can read about their reasoning on my previous post titled Banned from Amazon.  I immediately began with alternative publishing and received my first hardcopy’s a week later on June 9th.  That morning I posted the above blog and then went on Twitter and Facebook to reveal the censorship of science on Amazon.

Yesterday, at about 8 PM I check my email and Amazon has released my book, at least on Kindle.  I am not sure about the hardcopy version at this time. 

I would like to give a great big thanks to all of you who sent a message to Amazon complaining about the censorship.  It is greatly appreciated.  Hopefully, more people will find out the truth about how we were all lied to.

It is available for free if you have kindle unlimited.  Please share with anyone who would like to be informed.

If the hardcopy is not available from Amazon you can still purchase from our home page and we will mail it out to you.


On May 25th the CDC released its most recent report on COVID-19.  There is a lot of useful information in the report, but there are a couple of things I would like to spotlight.

The first key statistic is that their best guess estimate for the mortality rate of symptomatic cases is 0.4%.  They also estimate an asymptomatic rate of 35%.  Using that rate, it would bring the infection mortality rate of COVID to 0.26%.

Here is a quick chart comparing the CDC’s current best guess infection mortality rate of COVID to some bad years of the flu.  The worst year recently was in 2018 which had an infection mortality rate of 0.13%

The question becomes if future estimates will go higher or lower.  There is little doubt in my mind that it will continue to go lower because they are projecting a 35% asymptomatic rate, which is almost certainly low.  This CDC report was based upon information through the end of April.

On May 5th, the CMMID Repository (Centre for Mathematical Modeling of Infectious Diseases) released a study reviewing the data from the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship.  Their math indicated that the asymptomatic rate on that cruise ship was 74%, and this is in a population that averaged just under 60 years of age.  At this point, we all know that COVID’s virulence decreases with age, so the overall rate of asymptomatic infections could be even higher than the 74% the CMMID is indicating.

Based on recent antibody studies, the rate may be as high as 90%, but that is not as solid as the math from the CMMID.  Let’s just propose that the rate of asymptomatic cases is 75%.  That would bring the infection mortality rate set by the CDC down to 0.1%.

In case you are not familiar with that number, it is generally associated with an “average” year of the flu.  This means that the infection mortality rate of COVID is likely to be akin to the average year of the flu.

However, the problem with COVID is that it is highly contagious.  This increases the chances of any one person becoming infected  making it dangerous to us as a whole, even if it is not more severe individually.  The good news is that it was a novel coronavirus and no longer is.  COVID will never again be as dangerous as it was because it will never be new again. 

And once we have a vaccine for the most vulnerable, it will be even less deadly.  There is hope folks, the sky is not falling, and we are not entering a new normal.




Front Cover of FEAR-19 BookFEAR-19 Back Cover

The FEAR-19 Pandemic is a book that exposes the misinformation (fake news) that was rampant within the media, politicians, and bureaucrats.  All of the information that I used was backed up with references in the back of the book.  This includes references for all the scientific studies I used to expose the lies, damn lies, and fake statistics that were used by the mainstream media and Democratic politicians.

The book exposes intentional misinformation and the book gets banned from amazon.

Here is the email they sent me.

Email from amazon banning the sale of my book.

I write a book exposing fraud within the “official” sources and they refuse to print the book because they want people to get their information from those fraudulent “official” sources.

As if that is not bad enough they include a link to give more information about the problem.  This is their justification for banning the book.

Amazon policy on banned material.

They want a variety of viewpoints unless of course, it offends their politics.  My revealing of misinformation from official sources is as objectionable as pornography from their viewpoint.  To make matter worse, I click on their Offensive and Controversial Materials link to see what it says, and…

It says right here that they do not ban books that are offensive or controversial.  Except they did.

Amazon is absolutely banning books from people who are exposing the media and Democratic politicians for lying to the general public.  I for one am disgusted and we should all be concerned.

When did false news become the only acceptable truth?

When did the truth become objectionable?

If you do not accept Mr. Bezos’s politics and their narrative than the truth is not only objectionable but worthy of being banned.

Update:  After one week and a lot of complaints from you all, the book was unbanned.  Thanks to everyone.