Category Archives: Knowledge Areas

Biologist Proves Measles Isn’t A Virus, Wins Supreme Court Case Against Doctor

In a recent ruling, judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed that the measles virus does not exist. Furthermore, there is not a single scientific study in the world which could prove the existence of the virus in any scientific literature. This raises the question of what was actually injected into millions over the past few decades.

Not a single scientist, immunologist, infectious disease specialist or medical doctor has ever been able to establish a scientific foundation, not only for the vaccination of measles but any vaccination for infants, pregnant women, the elderly and even many adult subgroups.

The fact that many vaccines are ineffective is becoming increasingly apparent. Merck was slapped with two separate class action lawsuits contending they lied about the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine in their combination MMR shot, and fabricated efficacy studies to maintain the illusion for the past two decades that the vaccine is highly protective.

Studies such as one published in the Human and Experimental Toxicology journal found a direct statistical correlation between higher vaccine doses and infant mortality rates. The study, Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?, was conducted by Gary S. Goldman and Neil Z. Miller who has been studying the dangers of vaccines for 25 years.

MMR Vaccine

In the United States, children typically receive their mumps vaccination as part of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises children to receive their first dose between 12 and 18 months, and their second between the ages of 4 and 6.

Evidence has been published in the medical literature that vaccinated persons can get measles because either they do not respond to the vaccine or the vaccine’s efficacy wanes over time and vaccinated mothers do not transfer long lasting maternal antibodies to their infants to protect them in the first few months of life.

Brian Hooker’s published paper, is a comprehensive analysis of the CDC’s own data from 2003 revealing a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American children following the MMR vaccine.

Brian Hooker’s research in the Translational Neurodegeneration Journal provides the most recent epidemiological evidence showing that African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis.

Whistleblower Dr. William Thompson confirmed that “the CDC knew about the relationship between the age of first MMR vaccine and autism incidence in African-American boys as early as 2003, but chose to cover it up.” He remarked “we’ve missed ten years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They’re not doing what they should be doing because they’re afraid to look for things that might be associated.” He alleges criminal wrongdoing by his supervisors, and he expressed deep regret about his role in helping the CDC hide data.

Measles Virus Does Not Exist

German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka initially offered 100,000 euros to anyone who could provide scientific evidence that the measles virus existed. He had initially been ordered to pay up in court after Doctor David Bardens attempted to claim the prize after providing the biologist with a study that had been published in a medical journal. At that time, a Judge in the regional court in Ravensburg, South Germany, ruled in the favour of Dr. Bardens in a controversial decision claiming the criteria for evidence had been met.

The First Civil Senate of the BGH confirmed a judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) on in February 2016. The sum of 100,000 euros which was offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus did have to be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also was ordered to bear all procedural costs.

Five experts have been involved in the case and presented the results of scientific studies. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski who had been appointed by the OLG Stuttgart as the preceding court, have consistently found that none of the six publications which have been introduced to the trial, contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus.

In the trial, the results of research into so-called genetic fingerprints of alleged measles virus have been introduced. Two recognised laboratories, including the world’s largest and leading genetic Institute, arrived at exactly the same results independently.The results prove that the authors of the six publications in the measles virus case were wrong, and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong today: They have misinterpreted ordinary constituents of cells as part of the suspected measles virus.

Because of this error, during decades of consensus building process, normal cell constituents were mentally assembled into a model of a measles virus. To this day, an actual structure that corresponds to this model has been found neither in a human, nor in an animal. With the results of the genetic tests, all thesis of existence of measles virus has been scientifically disproved.

The authors of the six publications and all other persons involved, did not realise the error because they violated the fundamental scientific duty, which is the need to work “lege artis”, i.e. in accordance with internationally defined rules and best practice of science. They did not carry out any control experiments. Control experiments would have protected authors and mankind from this momentous error. This error became the basis of belief in the existence of any disease-causing viruses. The expert appointed by the court, Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski, answering to the relevant question by the court, as per page 7 of the protocol explicitly confirmed that the authors did not conduct any control experiments.

The OLG Stuttgart overturned the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed the action and referred, inter alia, to the central message of Prof. Podbielski with respect to the six publications. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the OLG to the Supreme Court. As reason he stated his subjective, yet factually false perception of the trial sequence at the court in Stuttgart, and the assertion that our naming of facts about measles posed a threat to public health. The plaintiff’s position was rejected by the Supreme Court in plain words. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart from February 16, 2016.

The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant publications on the subject of “measles virus.” Since further to these six publications there not any other publications which would attempt by scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: Any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.

Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism.

Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole “whole measles virus”, this vaccine contains cell’s own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.

In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.

Sources:
lrbw.juris.de
anonhq.com
wissenschafftplus.de

https://www.preventdisease.com/news/17/012717_Biologist-Proves-Measles-Isnt-Virus-Wins-Supreme-Court-Case.shtml

******************************************

I had read 40 years ago in the writings of Dr. John Tilden and later Dr. Herbert M. Shelton that measles and nearly all diseases are a result of toxemia or poisoning of the blood stream.
Its also been known that those who’s diet consist of processed dairy, refined flour and sugar get this condition called “measles”.

Due to a clogged liver, these toxins are expelled from the body via the epidermis or skin. Those pustules one sees in measles are toxins being pushed through the skin and out. Your liver is congested and overworked, thus toxins will be eliminated from the body by any means. The skin is the largest organ of elimination we have. Change your diet to one of fresh, living foods such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and “live” foods eaten in moderation and much disease goes away. Also people DO NOT drink enough clean water. Water, not tea, coffee, sodas, etc. Pure water. The body is roughly 3/4 water. Water is necessary to keep things flowing within the body.

For further reading on this topic, go to http://eczemacure.info/2006…

Big Pharma relies on unhealthy people to survive. Adding their drugs to the body only further weakens it with additional toxins.

Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).

Facebook defends censorship

With zero medical training, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg claims he knows your health better than your local doctor, the doctors at Yale and Johns Hopkins, medical professionals at the American Journal of Epidemiology, the British Medical JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine, the Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, and even Dr. Fauci’s own National Institutes of Health – all combined.

All of these doctors and medical groups were involved in multiple studies across more than a dozen countries. They each found that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment to reduce the risk of both getting and dying from COVID-19.

But Zuckerberg thinks he knows best. He doesn’t want you to have this information.

Yesterday, the U.S. House heard directly from Facebook and Google, both trying to justify their censorship of information you deserve to know and judge for yourself. Today, it’s time for Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to hear from you. Send your fax right now to Congress to fight against censorship. – Mat

America’s Frontline Doctors said, “There are only two things that must be considered regarding a medication: is it safe and does it work?”

To address these two questions, their organization discussed studies and data to answer both questions, yes.

Keep in mind that even over-the-counter aspirin is not recommended for pregnant women. Neither is Ibuprofen. But MD Edge writer Jeff Evens wrote the following about hydroxychloroquine:

“The anti-inflammatory compound hydroxychloroquine appears to be relatively safe during pregnancy, according to a small number of studies totaling about 250 patients.” “Now, many physicians who treat about four to five pregnant women with connective tissue disorder each year regularly prescribe antimalarials to such patients,” and “In fact, 69% of 52 physicians who responded to a survey about the use of antimalarials during pregnancy said they continued antimalarials in pregnancy sometimes, often, or always (J. Rheumatol. 2002;29:700–6).”

Even Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health published a study in 2003 entitled, “Safety of hydroxychloroquine in pregnant patients…” In addition, nearly everyone who travels to malaria-prevalent countries takes this drug preventively. It has been approved by the FDA for the last 65 years.

Yet in spite of holding the highest safety category, yesterday Ohio announced that it was banning its citizens from using this drug to treat COVID-19.

Do you want politicians to dictate what medicines your doctor will or will not be able to give you? Or even worse, do you want computer geeks deciding what medicines you will be allowed to have, or even learn about?

If you want the freedom to take the medication your doctor and your research leads you to believe is best for you, right now is the time to make your voice heard in Congress while this issue has their attention. Send your urgent fax to Congress today.

The second question asks if hydroxychloroquine is effective in the treatment of COVID-19. America’s Frontline Doctors compiled a list of numerous studies that repeatedly found positive benefits to taking hydroxychloroquine.

I have been heartbroken by the situations in nursing homes. One study, published by Dr. Fauci’s own National Institutes of Health, involved a community with more than a 50% COVID-19 death rate. However, those in the study who took hydroxychloroquine were able to drop that mortality down to 5.6 percent. That treatment lowered the mortality rate by 45% by using hydroxychloroquine.

In a 16-nation study, Maxime Izoulet concluded that “The difference in dynamics of daily deaths is so striking that we believe that the urgency context commands presenting the analysis …” Her full study was published on May 28, 2020, in the MedExIV, a joint project of Yale and the British Medical Journal.

These studies are coming from some of the most respected organizations and names in medicine in the world. Yet, yesterday Facebook sent me a message saying that when I was trying to get the word out about legitimate medical studies they claimed I shared “false information” and that FB deleted it so that “everyone can stay safe.”

If you want the freedom to share information, backed by top medical resources like Johns Hopkins and Yale, then we need to stand up now. Demand that Congress and the FCC hold these technology giants accountable. Send your urgent fax today.

It’s time to stop the censorship! Not only is any information about hydroxychloroquine being censored, but the webhosting service Squarespace took down America’s Frontline Doctors’ website.

The FCC is considering a rule to stop Big Tech censorship and de-platforming. And Congress is considering repealing the federal law that gives Big Tech absolute legal immunity.

Congress and the FCC need to hear from you now!

I personally posted the press conference of the doctors on Facebook with no commentary. Facebook deleted it and directed me to the World Health Organization! This makes me livid! I believe you should have access to multiple opinions so you can judge for yourself. We do not need Big Tech or Big Pharma dictating what we must believe.

Let Congress and the FCC hear from you. END THE CENSORSHIP! Send your fax today to Congress and the FCC to demand these companies be held accountable.

Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).

America deserves a second opinion!

Imagine being told that you can’t get a second opinion on your diagnosis. Would you be upset, even angry? That is EXACTLY what Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Bureaucrats are doing to the American people, right now.

Big Tech is trying (and succeeding) to control what information you have about treatment options for COVID-19. And this week, bureaucrats at the Ohio Board of Pharmacy blocked anyone in the state from treating COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine. Within 24 hours, it reversed itself under pressure from Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, who said whether to take the drug is a doctor-patient decision. This shows the lack of scientific evidence for banning hydroxychloroquine. But, if you can get a doctor to prescribe it, some pharmacies are refusing to fill those prescriptions.

We have fallen into dictatorship levels of information control and reduction of liberty.

Now is the moment for freedom-loving Americans to be upset and fight for our medical options, free speech, and the freedom for different thoughts to compete in the marketplace of ideas. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering a rule to stop Big Tech censorship and de-platforming. Congress is considering repealing a federal law that gives Big Tech absolute legal immunity. But both bodies need a push to make these changes.

Act now to send your fax to the FCC and Congress to demand results. – Mat

This week nearly a dozen medical doctors stood in front of the United States Supreme Court because they had been censored. Their opinions—silenced. Their firsthand knowledge treating hundreds of COVID-19 patients with complicating factors 100% successfully was blacklisted. And the medical data they compiled from some of the best-known hospitals, doctors, and medical publications in the world about hydroxychloroquine—essentially erased from public access.

But it still wasn’t over … these doctors were (without attribution) facing a horrific ad hominem personal attack against them for daring to oppose Big Pharma’s agenda for America.

Frankly, if someone has a way to greatly reduce suffering and deaths by COVID-19, I don’t care about other things she may (or may not) have said or done. I only care that there is help and hope right now for Americans facing this sickness.

Fear is exactly what the media wants, to keep you glued to the TV and radio. It’s what Big Pharma needs.

But the idea that YOU don’t have to live in fear is what terrifies them.

If there is a treatment that is usually effective in the 0.26% of cases that could be deadly, all the power and control that politicians have amassed disappears. Hundreds of billions of dollars of profits for multiple doses of aborted-baby-cell-line-using vaccines disappears. Ratings disappear. And the reason for militant atheists to persecute and shut down the American church disappears.

However, right now the only thing that is disappearing is important medical information off the internet that would provide hope. Radicals just escalated their attacks. Not only are they limiting search engine results and breaking hyperlinks on social media, but they went into the organization’s own website and deleted it.

This is your chance to get a message to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress the same week that the U.S. House just had a powerful hearing on this very topic and the FCC is considering a rule to stop Big Tech censorship and de-platforming. And Congress is considering repealing the federal law that gives Big Tech absolute legal immunity.

Congress and the FCC need to hear from you now!

Let me just say, God’s timing is perfect. He prompted legislators a year ago to schedule a hearing with the heads of Big Tech under oath that worked out the day after this censorship of medical doctors went public. This is a historic opportunity to strike while our legislative minds are hot on this topic. I hope that freedom-loving patriots will not squander this moment to act. Send your urgent fax right now.

There is a reason to be encouraged right now. Our staff listened to hours of testimony this week of Big Tech CEOs being grilled by legislators. Right now, both Republicans AND Democrats are deeply concerned about the threats these corporations pose due to their monopoly of products and ideas in our nation.

Democrat Chairman Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced the hearing with a powerful five minutes that ended with, “Our Founders would not bow before a king, nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy.”

In addition, Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler stated, “Concentration of political power is dangerous to a democracy.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) questioned the Google CEO about his last appearance before Congress where it was proven by internal documents that his corporation interfered in the 2016 election, which he then lied about under oath to the U.S. House.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) questioned Google on how discussion by doctors can “violate community standards.” And Google’s CEO said that he “looked to local doctors” to make his decision. Rep. Steube followed it up with the unanswered question, “How is it that YouTube gets to decide which doctors are heard?”

However, judging from legislators’ comments and questions during the hearing, a number of Democrats are NOT wanting to hold these corporations accountableI have hope that there is enough concern on both sides of the aisle that, if we work hard, we will be able to get a bipartisan bill passed to end this control and censorship.

You can help be a part of this important turning point to allow truth to be heard in the 94 days before the next election. Make your voice heard with a fax to Congress and the FCC to demand they end this censorship now.

Let me remind you of the interaction with Benjamin Franklin as he left the Continental Congress, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Liberty Counsel Action is working hard to keep our republic. Our staff submitted questions to the committee and some of them were used to grill these tech giants under oath! We can only have this level of impact and influence because of the generous donations of our friends and partners all across America who donate to make sure that we stay on Capitol Hill.

As we are closing out the books for this month, I encourage you to donate today or set up monthly recurring donations so that we can continue to fight these critical battles.

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

Makes don't work to protect people from Covid19.

Masks and respirators do not work.

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

(From Words from the Publisher: “We pledge to publish all letters, guest commentaries, or studies refuting [Rancourt’s] general premise that this mask-wearing culture and shaming could be more harmful than helpful. Please send your feedback to info@rcreader.com.”)

Review of the Medical Literature
Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

“A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Conclusion Regarding That Masks Do Not Work
No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

Masks and respirators do not work.

Precautionary Principle Turned on Its Head with Masks
In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic, and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks. In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease and of Why Masks Do Not Work
In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and that is caused by viruses. For example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular. (Publisher’s note: All links to source references to studies here forward are found at the end of this article.)

For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has “Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity,” here:

The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity (“viable decay”), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets (“physical loss”): “Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical.”

The latter (“physical loss”) seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle/droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven “decay.” Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A “virion” is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet “viable decay” of a virion has not been explained or studied.

In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependent on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol/droplets. Shaman’s quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether “viable decay” or “physical loss.”

The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is “the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible.” The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19–1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid-summer values of just larger than “1” and dry-winter values typically as large as “4” (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modeling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modeling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).

To put it simply, the “second wave” of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the “second wave” is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., “physical loss”), then Shaman’s work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centers, and on-board airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):

“Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus −3 concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m . On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 μm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modeling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 × 105 genome copies m−3 air h−1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies m−2 h−1 by Brownian motion. Over one hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission.”

Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).

Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.

Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:

  1. Most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility
  2. It is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host
  3. The 50-percent probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virions
  4. There are typically 10 to 3rd power − 10 to 7th power virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μm
  5. The 50-percent probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet
  6. For further background:
  7. A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).
  8. Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.
  9. Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans,“we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections.”
  10. Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90 percent of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed.

All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).

Why There Can Never Be an Empirical Test of a Nation-Wide Mask-Wearing Policy
As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results [because]:

  1. Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.
  2. Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.
  3. Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).
  4. The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.
  5. Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.
  6. Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.
  7. Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
  8. Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
  9. Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

Unknown Aspects of Mask Wearing
Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

  1. Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?
  2. Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
  3. Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
  4. What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
  5. How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?
  6. What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?
  7. Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?
  8. Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification?
  9. What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?
  10. Do the masks shed fibers or substances that are harmful when inhaled?

Conclusion
By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.

Otherwise, what is the point of publicly funded science?

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Denis G. Rancourt is a researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA.ca) and is formerly a tenured professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada. This paper was originally published at Rancourt’s account on ResearchGate.net. As of June 5, 2020, this paper was removed from his profile by its administrators at Researchgate.net/profile/D_RancourtAt Rancourt’s blog ActivistTeacher.blogspot.com, he recounts the notification and responses he received from ResearchGate.net and states, “This is censorship of my scientific work like I have never experienced before.”

The original April 2020 white paper in .pdf format is available here, complete with charts that have not been reprinted in the Reader print or web versions. 

RELATED COMMENTARY: An Unprecedented Experiment: Sometimes You Just Gotta Wear the Stupid 

Endnotes:
Baccam, P. et al. (2006) “Kinetics of Influenza A Virus Infection in Humans”, Journal of Virology Jul 2006, 80 (15) 7590-7599; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01623-05 https://jvi.asm.org/content/80/15/7590

Balazy et al. (2006) “Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?”, American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 34, Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 51-57. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.488.4644&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Biggerstaff, M. et al. (2014) “Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature”, BMC Infect Dis 14, 480 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-14-480

Brooke, C. B. et al. (2013) “Most Influenza A Virions Fail To Express at Least One Essential Viral Protein”, Journal of Virology Feb 2013, 87 (6) 3155-3162; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02284-12 https://jvi.asm.org/content/87/6/3155

Coburn, B. J. et al. (2009) “Modeling influenza epidemics and pandemics: insights into the future of swine flu (H1N1)”, BMC Med 7, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-7-30

Davies, A. et al. (2013) “Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?”, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Available on CJO 2013 doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.43 http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1935789313000438

Despres, V. R. et al. (2012) “Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review”, Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 64:1, 15598, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598 https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598

Dowell, S. F. (2001) “Seasonal variation in host susceptibility and cycles of certain infectious diseases”, Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3):369–374. doi:10.3201/eid0703.010301 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631809/

Hammond, G. W. et al. (1989) “Impact of Atmospheric Dispersion and Transport of Viral Aerosols on the Epidemiology of Influenza”, Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 11, Issue 3, May 1989, Pages 494–497, https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/11.3.494

Haas, C.N. et al. (1993) “Risk Assessment of Virus in Drinking Water”, Risk Analysis, 13: 545-552. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x

HealthKnowlege-UK (2020) “Charter 1a – Epidemiology: Epidemic theory (effective & basic reproduction numbers, epidemic thresholds) & techniques for analysis of infectious disease data (construction & use of epidemic curves, generation numbers, exceptional reporting & identification of significant clusters)”, HealthKnowledge.org.uk, accessed on 2020-04-10. https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1a- epidemiology/epidemic-theory

Lai, A. C. K. et al. (2012) “Effectiveness of facemasks to reduce exposure hazards for airborne infections among general populations”, J. R. Soc. Interface. 9938–948 http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2011.0537

Leung, N.H.L. et al. (2020) “Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks”, Nature Medicine (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2

Lowen, A. C. et al. (2007) “Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature”, PLoS Pathog 3(10): e151. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.0030151

Paules, C. and Subbarao, S. (2017) “Influenza”, Lancet, Seminar| Volume 390, ISSUE 10095, P697-708, August 12, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30129-0

Sande, van der, M. et al. (2008) “Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population”, PLoS ONE 3(7): e2618. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002618 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002618

Shaman, J. et al. (2010) “Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States”, PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000316

Tracht, S. M. et al. (2010) “Mathematical Modeling of the Effectiveness of Facemasks in Reducing the Spread of Novel Influenza A (H1N1)”, PLoS ONE 5(2): e9018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009018 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009018

Viboud C. et al. (2010) “Preliminary Estimates of Mortality and Years of Life Lost Associated with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic in the US and Comparison with Past Influenza Seasons”, PLoS Curr. 2010; 2:RRN1153. Published 2010 Mar 20. doi:10.1371/currents.rrn1153 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843747/

Wada, K. et al. (2012) “Wearing face masks in public during the influenza season may reflect other positive hygiene practices in Japan”, BMC Public Health 12, 1065 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-1065

Yang, W. et al. (2011) “Concentrations and size distributions of airborne influenza A viruses measured indoors at a health centre, a day-care centre and on aeroplanes”, Journal of the Royal Society, Interface. 2011 Aug;8(61):1176-1184. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0686. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2010.0686

Yezli, S., Otter, J.A. (2011) “Minimum Infective Dose of the Major Human Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Transmitted Through Food and the Environment”, Food Environ Virol 3, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12560-011-9056-7

Zwart, M. P. et al. (2009) “An experimental test of the independent action hypothesis in virus– insect pathosystems”, Proc. R. Soc. B. 2762233–2242 http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0064

Source:

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy

Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO WEAR A MASK

You CAN Reject Sado-Mask-ism

The Latest “PC” Social Shaming

CAN’T MASK — DON’T ASK!

Your Right of Informed Consent and

Your Health Freedom

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

Source:

The Health Freedom Medical Directive Cards

Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).

Speak up. Lose your job

Our nation is witnessing widespread censorship as Big Tech increasingly constricts what you say and what you receive. Dr. Simone Gold, the woman who led the press conference before the Supreme Court on behalf of America’s Frontline Doctors was FIRED for sharing her medical opinion backed by numerous international studies.

It gets worse (which I’ll share), but I urge you to demand that Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) end this censorship. With a simple fax, you can demand both Congress and the FCC to protect our freedom to receive information. – Mat

Dr. Simone Gold was told by her boss that she was terminated for “appearing in an embarrassing video.” This board-certified emergency medical physician with more than 31-years of experience in medicine is on the front lines of treating COVID-19. She dared to buck Big Pharma by sharing what she had learned in practice.

She paid the price for telling us her medical opinion. Over 17 million people watched last week’s press conference before Facebook and YouTube censored it.

Google’s Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook removed the video of the press conference, and then blocked access to the website of America’s Frontline Doctors. Squarespace erased her organization’s webpage. Dr. Gold had to rebuild the website. But Squarespace went even one step further.

This private company (Squarespace) held hostage Dr. Gold’s URL so that she had to buy a brand-new URL. Anyone searching for the old web address still would not be able to find her new site.

In addition, some virus-prevention software programs are blocking her new site from those who happen to know the exact new web address and can type it in.

This is outrageous. The more information about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) the better. Let the people and their doctors decide.

Governors are still locking people in their homes and Silicon Valley is monitoring and blocking everything they don’t want you to see.

All combined, this creates an environment where your news is only what the agenda-driven tech companies want you to see. And anyone who steps outside of the line faces wrath and censorship.

Vaccines are by far Big Pharma’s most lucrative drug, and, to top it off, pharmaceutical companies enjoy absolute immunity when their vaccines cause harm. Do not underestimate the power of Big Pharma on medicine, media, and politicians.

Is this even America anymore, or some Marxist remake of fake news and forbidden printing presses?

Congress and the FCC are on the verge of taking action. The FCC is considering regulating Bit Tech and Congress is investigating these tech giants.

It is time to stop the censorship. Make your voice heard while we still have the opportunity with your urgent fax to Congress and the FCC.

Since the 1950s, doctors have known that overdosing on HCQ can cause heart arrhythmia. This is one of the facts Dr. Gold’s group shared. Overdosing on almost ANY medication will cause problems. Even too much Tylenol can kill.

In spite of this public knowledge, a pharmaceutical company in Brazil “Farmanguinhos,” translated the “Institute of Technology in Pharmaceuticals,” funded a study to overdose COVID-19 patients on 1,200 mg of chloroquine (CQ), which is a stronger cousin to HCQ. Eleven people died.

By comparison, Lupus patients commonly take 100-200 mg of HCQ twice a day. As a prophylaxis (to prevent malaria) people will take 310 mg base once a week. To treat malaria, they will take 620 mg base max. That is half the dose of the weaker cousin to what was used in this “study.”

Yet, this rigged “study” was trumpeted to discredit HCQ, even though its stronger cousin (CQ) was used at a very high dose. Why would Big Pharma want to discredit HCQ? Because billions are at stake with a vaccine.

One article is titled, “Hydroxychloroquine: Using anti-malaria drug is a risky business” with the preview text stating, “Fatal study in Brazil. A small phase II study in Brazil, in which 11 patients died …” A large section of the article criticizes President Trump and other leaders who support HCQ.

There is little doubt in my mind that the opposition to HCQ is both political and financial.

This illustrates how much these censors cherry pick “facts” to completely change your perspective and manipulate you based on misinformation.

It is absolutely critical to rise up and fight for our freedom of information. Lives are hanging in the balance right now. These same social media censors also want to manipulate the country to elect the president of their choice.

It’s time to fight back. Send your fax to Congress and the FCC to stop twiddling their thumbs and END THIS CENSORSHIP NOW!

I want to help you push past the disinformation, fake news, and mental gymnastics and give you the truth. I believe our nation is in danger. This is a critical time to act.

Help us to be your voice in the nation’s capital. Please donate now or set up monthly donations to empower LCA to keep fighting for liberty today and in the days to come.

I’m done with being told by a computer algorithm what to think, how to think, how to speak, and how to act. It’s time for a rebirth of freedom in America. I pray that you will join me in this battle.

P.S. The truth is under attack. Very clever people are working around the clock to figure out how to manipulate you, misinform you, and become your master. We have but a moment to make our voices heard and push our legislators to act now to stop this censorship. Send a fax demanding that legislators and the FCC move to protect the freedom of information and free speech.

I also invite you to forward this message to likeminded friends who want to see freedom preserved in America. And then sign our petition to protect free speech.

Each day brings a new set of challenges, opportunities, and expenses. I am so grateful for the freedom-loving patriots who support Liberty Counsel Action with donations to keep our ministry moving forward. I would be grateful for your support of this vision to restore freedom in America. God bless.

P.P.S. Find the medical data censored here.

Vaccine Tyranny – Will You Take Bill Gates’ Shot?

They are rushing through a Covid vaccine at a blistering pace, while granting immunity to big Pharma for any damage it might do to the American people. They are lowering the minimum effectiveness level to 50 percent – like tossing a coin. The propaganda machine is in high gear. Should we line up for the shot? Also in today’s Liberty Report: Massive anti-lockdown protests in Europe!

Gene Therapy is NOT a vaccine! Don’t let them call it that, legal immunity is a scam. No proof of a justified emergency either.

The PCR Test  doesn’t even test for the covid 19 strain.

8 August 2020 next International #ExposeBillGates Day

Never forget BillyBoy testimony on Vox vid affirming his greatest fear: “excess people”…. where the term “non-essential services” perhaps originated.

The sheeple will line up for the vaccine. Just like they are lining up for the Corona Q-tip swab up their nose.

That vaccine will genetically modify human DNA.

I DO NOT CONSENT

I DO NOT CONSENT

I DO NOT CONSENT

TRUMP: MILITARY IS GOING TO DELIVER VACCINE IN A VERY POWERFUL MANNER

The military in the business of killing people soooo this sounds about right.

Operation Warpspeed for Agenda 21 , The Biometric tracking implanted Chip Vaccine Monitored all day every day Wireless Control Restrictions living in Herd Immunity Cities , Death Mask Wearing 🐑 will Comply.

America is gone already. Prepare for tribulations.

Trump is finally showing his true colors part of the New World Order divide and conquer.

If you want your next stimulus check we ask that you go to your local military base, jail, prison or FEMA reeducation camp to receive your experimental vaccine. We strongly encourage you to do so if you have any intentions of buying or selling in the coming years.

 

 

It’s all staged! Propaganda etc…They are deleting everything on fb as well. Before it’s all over there won’t be no internet, cell phones, etc..

 

I don’t watch the news, every news channel EVERY ONE OF THEM LIES! they are controlled by the same one’s who controls ALL Presidents, banks, bankers, the NWO, etc….folk’s might as well set & listen to Lucifer himself. It’s all staged! Propaganda etc…They are deleting everything on Facebook as well. Before it’s all over there want to be no internet, cell phones, etc….I’m old school, grew up without all this crap, & I want to miss it. Let em censor all they want, more power to these nut jobs.

Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyright

ITALIA ARGENTINA COALICION MEDICOS & ABOGADOS DEMANDAS PENALES CONTRA GOBIERNOS Y SISTEMAS DE SALUD

MONJA VALIENTE EN MANIFESTACION PUBLICA PONE EN CONOCIMIENTO LA DENUNCIA PENAL QUE COALICION DE MEDICOS, INVESTIGADORES Y ABOGADOS ITALIANOS (mas de 2000 personas) RADICAN CONTRA AUTORIDADES Y ASESORES DE GOBIERNO NACIONAL, GOBIERNOS REGIONALES, MINISTERIO DE SALUD, Y DE LA O — M — S —.

Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyright

Doctors for the Truth Speak Out in Madrid, Denounce Covid-19 “False Pandemic”

With the participation of hundreds of professionals from all over the world, “Doctors for the Truth” stated that Covid-19 is a false pandemic created for political purposes. They urged doctors, the media and political authorities to stop the operation, by spreading the truth.

In a context of great excitement and worldwide expectation, the Doctors for Truth Association was presented at a press conference on Saturday, July 25 in Madrid.

The group, led by doctors Natalia Prego Cancelo and Angel Luis Valdepeñas, made a direct connection with the extra-parliamentary commission of doctors from Germany, the Epidemiologists group from Argentina, and doctors from the United States and Argentina.

The event began with the intervention of Heiko Schöning, representative of the German Extra-Parliamentary Commission for the Study of the Coronavirus. There were online interventions by professionals from Argentina and the United States. It concluded with a review of the 4 fundamental points of interpellation to the Government and Spanish authorities by the Association of Doctors for Truth.

The presentation, in an event room of the Madrid Press Palace, was attended by more than 400 people, including general and alternative media, doctors, and assistants. Data, figures, analysis and reflections were exposed that show the incoherent and harmful nature of the measures that are being applied worldwide pertaining to Covid-19.

“A world dictatorship with a sanitary excuse.”

“This is a world dictatorship with a sanitary excuse,” was stressed at the end of the meeting. Doctors agreed that:

  • Coronavirus victims did not outnumber last year’s seasonal flu deaths.
  • Figures were exaggerated by altering medical protocols.
  • The confinement of the healthy and the forced use of masks have no scientific basis.
  • The disease known as Covid-19 does not have a single infectious pattern, but a combination of them.

“There are crossed toxic patterns,” said Angel Luis Valdepeñas. “On the one hand, the electromagnetic contamination of fi5v-ghee, and on the other, the influence of influenza vaccination. There is an interaction and empowerment, which must be investigated”.

Angel Luis Valdepeñas underlined at the end of the meeting:

“We must tell our governments that they NEVER OCCUR to compel us to vaccinate, or even recommend it, for the slightest sense of prudence.”

Valdepeñas concluded his final intervention asking the press for “an effort of responsibility that we have not seen so far”, and criticized the “continuous bombardment of information on the pandemic, without weighing neither the quantity nor the quality of the information”. The doctor indicated that when the media talk about “new outbreaks”, they should clarify that these are only positive tests, but that 98 percent [of the population] are “healthy, asymptomatic people.”

At the end of the event, the panelists took to the streets followed by the numerous attendees to the cry of Freedom!

Together they walked to the Plaza de Callao, the usual meeting place for the 2020 Movement. There they chatted, for more than 2 hours, with attendees and people who had not been able to access the room.

However, this too may get the chop, when the ‘fact-checkers’ decide something here is not in line with Govt. policy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This was originally published by Contra información on July 26, 2020. Translated by Mark Taliano

Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).