The End of CV–19(84)


As an elected official, I’ve been asked many good and many tough questions about the ongoing CV-19 event. Whether they came to me by email, over calls, via texts or asked through masks while standing in long lines, all of them matter. I appreciate the opportunity to address them here, and to ask a few myself.

Sadly, good answers have become tough to pair with good questions. Considering how elusive reliable facts have been from the start, this really shouldn’t surprise anyone. Still, in light of how many of our news outlets have apparently thrown real questions to the wind – and in some cases – credibility along with it, I remain surprised. Not only at the level of inaccurate reporting early on, but also how that’s manifested into our current “reality.”

I’ve also been surprised at the glaring contradictions in official (and unofficial) directives thrust upon citizens in states across the country, which others have expressed as well. And since even more stifling directives have been announced, objectively addressing them now, before any more rights, freedoms or jobs disappear, became simply unavoidable.

Due to its scale, various reported impacts and the almost inestimable damage CV-19 and its “handlers” have already caused, “true objectivity” may be tough to muster now. We’ve been presented with so many wrong numbers, models and projections, strange institutions and their “leaders” (the W.H.O. comes to mind) – along with enduring the trauma associated with already taking those people at their word – that at this point, it’s become necessary to ask: “who deserves our Trust in these matters, moving forward?”

It’s tough enough to be objective when we’re still in our homes and told we cannot leave. When, along with a staggering 40 million U.S. jobs and many cherished freedoms gone, too many Americans have also lost their savings, their health care and even their homes. And while we’re told that in time some of these things may return, others simply will not. Though many citizens are eager to “get back to work,” for that to happen, those businesses will need to be there, waiting for them; I rarely hear both mentioned in the same sentence.

When as Americans, we’re told not to travel, or enjoy parks with our children, or worship at church, when we can no longer eat at restaurants, many of which remain shuttered and boarded, and that we must stay at least 6 feet away from each other at all times; when it’s become “cool” to shame those actually questioning all of these mixed messages and directives, so very foreign to our nature as Americans – something is very wrong, indeed.

I wish I had 10 bucks for every time someone asked me, “since lockdowns and face masks are effective, why won’t they work for prisoners, who are instead being released into neighborhoods?” With such simple questions being so tough to answer – at least intelligently – few should be surprised that alarm bells are finally going off across the country. And just to be clear, while it’s understandable that governors and mayors here were initially faced with an unprecedented set of circumstances, and therefore should not be judged too harshly for decisions made out of the gate, the time has come for many actions to be subjected to serious judicial review, as they have in Wisconsin.

The Justice Department sent a letter to California Governor Newsom, stating his lockdown orders discriminated against religious freedoms by prohibiting indoor services, while allowing some workplaces – including film studios and dispensaries – to reopen. The trend for Governors to impose fear-driven and overhyped rules, regulations and mandates quickly became such a serious problem that US Attorney General Barr created what some have referred to as the “Governors-Gone-Wild Hotline”(1-866-720-5721).

Despite the relatively outrageous actions of some of our more powerful servants, there is some very good news; recent and far more reliable CV-19 information has replaced the dramatic proclamations and bloated statistics which dominated “The Narrative” early on. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data last reviewed May 20, 2020, senior editor at Conservative Review Daniel Horowitz noted, in an editorial this month,

“For the first time, the CDC has attempted to offer a real estimate of the overall death rate for COVID-19, and under its most likely scenario, the number is 0.26%. Officials estimate a 0.4% fatality rate among those who are symptomatic and project a 35% rate of asymptomatic cases among those infected, which drops the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) to just 0.26% — almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged it a month ago.”

To re-state, by the CDC’s own estimate, the overall death rate for COVID-19, under its most likely scenario, is 0.26%. That, and other new numbers almost uniformly reflect what many renowned scientists unequivocally stated would happen, with or without “lockdowns, masks and social distancing” since this event’s inception: that those dangerous and early “End of Times” projections would probably never be qualified by “true statistics.” Which is good news, in some pretty major ways … right?

“Houston, we have a problem.”

Not many folks know about that new CDC report (above), it’s not being widely covered. And while it proves we have undeniably serious issues here regarding credibility, objective reporting and obtaining “information in general” which require a long, hard look – could these extreme contradictions to earlier reports explain why “new and improved” CV-19 numbers aren’t being widely circulated? It’s something folks may want to consider – especially in California, where, despite the new data, restrictive directives and timelines are actually expanding.

Why is this governor, along with a handful of others, being so unresponsive to what could easily be termed, “Verifiable Light at the End of the Tunnel?” Even the dubious and disputable CV-19 frontman Dr. Fauci (apparently, “in charge forever” of our NIAID – and what could possibly go wrong, there?) now reluctantly admits (i.e., contradicts himself) that there will likely be no severe second round of CV-19. Not surprisingly, Dr. Fauci contradicts himself again, adding that, “staying closed too long could cause irreparable damage.”

Which is it? Furthermore, so many tough questions remain unanswered by these so-called “experts.” Where are the facts regarding the true origin of the virus itself? Was it developed in bio-labs across the globe, or not? Is all of this China’s fault – or do some deceptive and shadowy figures in departments here deserve serious scrutiny – which they’re getting, by the way – just not by our trusty news networks. The companies we’ve trusted to delve into these matters always have bad news, fear, restrictive orders and directives in abundance – but almost always offer less than “Zero” in terms of any real substance, or helpful information. Why? Who can afford to suffer even one more setback based on these types of contradictions and false narratives?

Other reliable statistics changing the outlook on this virus are appearing almost daily. Consider that the average number of flu-related deaths in California last year was 6,000+. Compare this 6k number with California’s CV-19 statistic: only 3,260 deaths reported, as of this writing (with many officials questioning whether even that number is accurate, believed to be inflated by as much as 25%). With almost half the number of flu-related deaths in California compared to last year – how could anyone even remotely suggest that we “proceed with the original plans” … or expand them? It truly boggles the mind.

As California’s State of Emergency Code reveals, “the temporary suspension of any statute, ordinance, regulation, or rule shall remain in effect until the order or regulation is rescinded by the Governor, the Governor proclaims the termination of the state of emergency (OR) for a period of 60 days, Whichever Occurs First.” As of today, it has exceeded 80 days. In light of this, and recent facts, does Governor Newsom have the authority, or the right to extend it?

It’s not a mystery that blue-state governors are opposing economic re-engagement in an attempt to maximize negative economic impact strictly for political gains, according to Sundance at Yet even that only explains so much – particularly with more new information coming out daily regarding CV-19 mismanagement, errors and outright lies (below). At this point, continuing to exploit this “event” would almost guarantee a disastrous “electoral wipe-out” in upcoming elections. So what’s going on?

Clearly bizarre is how most news networks won’t accept the tested and effective defense against Coronavirus, HydroxyChloroquine, which was clearly identified as such (in 2005 no less) by our own National Institute of Health. That HydroxyChloroquine is both inexpensive and proven safe for over 50 years isn’t just widely unreported. In some cases, media outlets are still attacking HydroxyChloroquine’s credibility – even after the once-prestigious medical journal “The Lancet” was forced to retract their “scientific study” – which resulted in the W.H.O’s ending HydroxyChloroquine worldwide clinical trials.

Upon finally retracting its fake report, The Lancet has offered it’s condolences, “We’re very sorry.” Is that good enough for those in 17 countries who were denied the benefits of this effective treatment?

Barring some new, expensive and poorly tested vaccine, nothing else seems to satisfy most news organizations. With so many “TV doctors” constantly promoting a new-but-unseen vaccine, I’ve been asked if potential profits from a vaccine could influence – not only what we are seeing and hearing – but also what we’re not seeing and hearing.

It’s a good question, when potential profits from a new vaccine could easily exceed $150 billion. Also, considering that the majority of network news’ revenue streams come from pharmaceutical and / or health-related advertising, it’s safe to suggest that “pointing the public to an older and far less expensive drug” may not be in most news companies’ best interests.

And speaking of drugs, CV-19 has already been kind to those who manufacture them. Between mid-February and mid-March alone, prescriptions for anti-anxiety drugs in the U.S. have risen over 34%. Sadly, since the lockdown began, California doctors have seen more deaths from suicide than from the Coronavirus itself; yet another story not widely reported. And where are reports covering the letter over 600 U.S. doctors signed and sent to the White House, identifying the dangers of a continued lockdown? Still, like a broken record, much of “mainstream” just repeats their “new and untested vaccine mantra,” willfully ignoring safety and civil rights issues already tied to vaccines in this nation.

Some responsible journalists are asking, “if a new vaccine is so critical, who should we trust to produce it?” Is the answer really Dr. Fauci, and others who may stand to make potentially huge profits through their established connections to pharmaceutical companies and concerns – and thus have obvious conflicts of interest? While I’m sure they’re always looking out for our best interests – with so much money at stake, that proposition is in no way reassuring – especially when a proven defensive measure already exists!

Yet somehow that drumbeat continues, and you’d better buckle up, because (as stated earlier) even more restrictive plans are in the works, or already being pushed in other states. Check out the $100 Billion Tracing and Tracking Bill HR-6666, which by it’s extremely invasive nature alone will create all kinds of new speech and surveillance issues, and provide incentives for spying neighbors, etc. There are even new mandatory mask requirements for our kids to attend school – possibly even the deployment of the Army and / or National Guard, to administer vaccines.

Just think about it.

Consider all of the major misrepresentations, contradictions, and especially the most recent facts surrounding CV-19. Honestly ask yourself, how many more families here should go bankrupt? How many more business owners should be stripped of all they’ve worked for – or be told to remain in their homes? And for what? Considering the top priorities of elected officials should be the security, well-being and rights of their citizens, now may be a good time to tell your elected officials not only what’s important to you, but also when you’ve had enough.

That’s what I’m doing.

Let’s keep asking the tough questions, together.

Thanks for listening.

Crystal Ruiz
Mayor Pro Tem of San Jacinto
and M.L. Hunt