Children Have 0.00% Chance of Dying from COVID but are Harmed for Life by Social Distancing, Which has its Roots in CIA Torture Techniques

California Civil Rights Attorney Leigh Dundas published a video on Facebook this week to show the devastating consequences of isolating children and forcing them to practice “social distancing” at places like school.

Here are some lesser known facts about social distancing and isolation:

• It was developed 70 years ago by the CIA to break down enemies of state.

• It is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day AND being an alcoholic.

• It doubles the risk of death, and destroys the part of the brain responsible for learning.

She pointed out that according to the statistics and the CDC:

• A child’s risk of dying from COVID is 0.0%, per the CDC.

• No child has passed on COVID to a family member or third party (they do not transmit).

She goes on to explain the historical origins of practicing Social Distancing, and how the technique was developed by the CIA to torture “enemies of the state.”

Here is a summary of her research designed to educate school administrators so that they abolish social distancing rules in schools.

Sample Letter to School on Harms from Social Distancing

Legal-Medical Opinion On Possible Changes to 2020-2021 School Year due to COVID

by Attorney Leigh Dundas

I write today to highlight certain factors that will hopefully serve to inform what are likely ongoing embryonic conversations at the District level, relating to COVID and the 2020-21 school year – and further – to urge a particular path of restraint during such conversations based on abundant scientific, medical, neuro-cognitive and legal considerations which have now emerged.

At the beginning of this letter, I want to acknowledge that it is quite obvious that there is a virus, which can be sometimes fatal, particularly to certain demographics. That said, there are also a federal and state constitution – which have been to some degree overlooked by certain states in their rush to contain the virus – as well as data in the form of hard math and hard science, which is now emerging in the context of COVID, and which bears review.

Math on COVID was Wrong

The study that precipitated the lockdown of more than 95% of America’s population (and indeed, the planet’s population) was authored by Neil Ferguson, out of the UK. It predicted deaths in the millions. This alarming conclusion was taken into account by leaders of most nations, and acted on accordingly. America acted by quarantining – not the sick – but the approximately 311 million Americans who were not sick, and putting them under the functional equivalent of house arrest, for an indefinite period of time. Interestingly, after a mere one day of himself being under lockdown in the UK, the study’s author walked back his math a shocking ninety-six percent (96%): his revision of deaths in his own country went from a predicted 500,000 down to 20,000.

At this juncture, allow me to point out the obvious, using an analogy involving my daughter: if my daughter Katya routinely said the answer to a math problem this year was 100, when it was indeed only 4 – and Katya continued to get her math problems wrong by 96% – she would receive a failing grade in math from Foothill High. And rightly so: with such incompetence in basic arithmetic reflected on her transcript, I would hope that she not be hired by anyone, anywhere, in any serious job that required basic math, as such degree of error – in engineering, statistics, or any job – would have fatal consequences (imagine if the degree of slope in a freeway overpass were 96% wrong).

Why Neil Ferguson’s model was adopted in the first place is curious, as this was not his first such major error: witness Ferguson’s 2001 model of mad cow disease – which predicted horrible fatalities including up to 150,000 deaths in England – which was subsequently deemed “not fit for purpose” when in fact only 177 people died (and that’s through 2020).[1]

Indeed, what current actual data evinces is that the mortality rate is nowhere near the initial projections, as concluded by a study out of Stanford on Sunday, followed by one out of USC yesterday.