mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are really ‘gene therapy’ and not vaccines: ethicist
The media and big pharma are part of a ‘propaganda war’ creating public confusion with misleading claims, former University of Virginia professor David Martin explained. Thu Feb 4, 2021
By David McLoone
February 4, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – In direct contrast with mainstream media coverage and the claims of pharmaceutical companies, business ethicist and former professor at the University of Virginia’s school of medicine Dr. David Martin, Ph.D said in an interview that “mRNA is not a vaccination. It’s a gene therapy that was originally developed for cancer treatment.” On top of that, Martin described the role the media have played in propagating falsehoods around PCR testing for COVID-19.
Martin said that as part of a “propaganda war” a widespread conflation of terms has been promulgated by media and research institutions, including Johns Hopkins University. According to Martin, the World Health Organization (WHO) correctly distinguished SARS-CoV-2 as a virus and COVID-19 as a set of clinical symptoms, but that confusion has arisen from a false “causal link” made by the media, reporting that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19.
Given that “the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2 are not ill at all,” Martin asserted that the “illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart.” He also noted that, in the event of “5,000 new cases” being announced, for example, there “may be several thousand positive PCR tests, but most of the people who have a positive test will never have a single symptom. Most of the people who have symptoms do not have positive tests.”
To bolster his claim, Martin, who is a Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, cited the WHO, which said in February 2020 that “there should not be a conflation between the two of these things. One is a virus in their definition and one is a set of clinical symptoms.”
Further clarifying, Martin said “COVID-19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases,” including muscle pain, body ache, and fever.SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic
After establishing reliability problems of PCR testing and the conflation of SARS-CoV-2 with COVID-19, Martin explained why he thinks mRNA vaccines are falsely called vaccines, and that they work more like gene therapy.
According to Martin, a vaccination is typically understood as being a treatment “with an attenuated or alive virus,” or a fragment thereof, which “is meant to keep you from getting an infection and it is meant to keep you from transmitting the infection.”
“The problem is that in the case of Moderna and Pfizer, this is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy,” he continued. The Moderna and Pfizer creations send “a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen.”
“This is not only not keeping you from getting sick, it’s making your body produce the thing that makes you sick,” Martin added.
The interviewer admitted that this description – that the injection makes one’s body produce an effect that makes one sick – sounds somewhat similar to the effect of vaccines.
But Martin countered that it is “not at all” like a vaccine, since “a vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin.”
“It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all,” Martin explained. “It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.”
Targeting the pharmaceutical companies behind the supposed vaccinations, Martin alleged that they have manipulated clinical trial methodology to push their “vaccines” through development and production.
“They (pharmaceutical companies) said they could not test for the existence or absence of the virus and they could not test for the transmissivity because they said it would be impractical. The companies themselves have admitted to every single thing I’m saying, but they are using the public manipulation of the word vaccine to co-opt the public into believing they’re getting a thing which they are not getting.”
Instead, Martin warns that an mRNA injection “is not going to stop you from getting coronavirus. It’s not going to stop you from getting sick. In fact, on the contrary, it will make you sick far more often than the virus itself.”
Martin presented data confirming his claim, noting that after receiving their second shot of the jab, “80 percent of people had one or more clinical presentations of COVID-19,” whereas “80 percent of people who have an infection according to RT-PCR have no symptoms at all.”
Explaining what the figures mean, he said that people “will get COVID-19 symptoms from getting the gene therapy passed off as a vaccine. You will get COVID symptoms from that 80 percent of the time. If you’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 according to RT-PCR (positive PCR test), 80 percent of the time you will have no symptoms at all.”
Looking more closely at the claims emanating from the clinical trials, Martin questioned the integrity of companies developing mRNA “gene therapy technology.”
“A human being is going to be potentially exposed to unclassified, both short-term and long-term, risks of altering their RNA and DNA from exposure to this gene therapy,” Martin warned. Of the 40,000 participants in Moderna’s clinical trial, Martin noted that only a “few hundred people had a few days less severe symptoms with the gene therapy when compared to the other control group.”
Even this, he said, is unreliable information, as the pharmaceutical firms “separate out adverse events from actual COVID symptoms.” This allowed the companies to reclassify “a lot of what would have been considered to be COVID symptoms by calling them adverse events,” giving rise to “this ridiculous 90 percent plus effectiveness.”
“As a result of that, we have both a methodology problem, which by the way, has been criticized by a number of clinical scientists. The bigger problem is that they’re still not measuring viral susceptibility and viral transmission. Those are the two legs of the stool that is (sic) required for anyone to say that they are vaccinating a population for public health reasons.”
Martin advised that “this (gene therapy) is not a prophylactic, this is not helping us, we are being told to take a treatment for a disease we don’t have and most likely will not have.”
To demonstrate the absurdity of the situation, Martin likened it to a government health order stating that “everybody needs to take chemotherapy for the cancer they might get … that’s exactly what is happening.”
“And we are being told that using careful marketing manipulation and propaganda, calling these things vaccines for public health,” Martin warned, saying that “mRNA is a gene therapy … that was originally developed for cancer treatment. This is not a vaccination.”
Turning his attention back to PCR testing, Martin lamented that “the PCR test has never been approved as a diagnostic. It is not diagnostic. There’s nothing about taking a PCR test that does anything other than reinforce a propaganda narrative. It doesn’t tell you anything.”
Martin also pointed out that hospitals are not testing patients for influenza in his view because governments “don’t want to admit the fact that the majority of people who are in hospital, who are sick and who are dying, are experiencing exactly the same thing that’s happened every year, which is influenza-like, flu-like and pneumonia-like illness.”
Martin concluded that the “only reason we are using PCR tests is that governors and the Department of Health and Human Services are maintaining a state of emergency. The second that that state of emergency is lifted in any state or in the country, the PCR test won’t be allowed to be used.”
He explained that the state of emergency allows manufacturers to leapfrog certain regulations “because the emergency use authorization falls with the state of emergency.”
“The gene therapy that Moderna and Pfizer are doing – both of those would be suspended immediately if the state of emergency got lifted.”
Eager to demonstrate that the entire COVID-19 vaccination program is a farce, Martin explained that “if you lift the state of emergency, the whole house of cards falls.”
Since I started medical school in 1976, until 2020, I have heard the dogma that viral diseases are not treatable (with some exceptions such as antivirals for HIV/AIDS), certainly not with antimicrobials. My older son, a newly minted general surgeon, was educated much more recently, but with the same misunderstanding. Since viral diseases are not treatable, our only weapon is vaccination. A friend who spent his life as an academic university physician retiring in 2016 had never heard this fact either.
As the “pandemic” broke out, I constantly watched and read online publications. After reading about the Chinese, Indian, and Korean use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), an antimalarial agent, against coronavirus, within an hour I found more than 20 scientific papers, written in the last 40 years on the use of lysosomotropic agents—specifically chloroquine—to treat viruses.
Like Rip Van Winkle, I suddenly awoke, after decades, to a completely new medical reality. For example, “numerous investigations have reported in vitro antiviral activity of AZ [azithromycin] against viral pathogens with 50% inhibitory concentrations ranging from ~ 1–6 μM, with the exception of H1N1 influenza,” write Damle et al.1
They state that in vitro evidence suggests that AZ has antiviral properties at concentrations that are physiologically achievable with doses used to treat bacterial infections in the lung. Intracellular sequestration of AZ may prevent viral replication. AZ is being used against COVID-19, with the generally stated rationale being its antibacterial or anti-inflammatory activity.
Antibiotics used in Lyme disease, including tetracyclines, macrolides, metronidazole, and ciprofloxacin, may have activity against a number of viruses.2 How could all our medical education “overlook” this basic science? It may be difficult for non-physicians to appreciate the magnitude of this world-shaking scientific omission—and probable cover-up. It is the pharmaceutical equivalent of being told for 40 years the world is flat—only to have it conclusively exposed overnight to be round.
This idea that viruses—like the current pandemic SARS-CoV-2 virus—can be killed by commonly used drugs—antibiotics, antimalarial, or antiparasitic agents—profoundly changes the practice of medicine.
The scientific paper that first got me thinking about a potential motive to hide this data concerns the in vitro inhibition of human influenza A virus replication by chloroquine (CQ).3
It was published in 2006. This paper and others, including one published in 2005 about the effectiveness of CQ against SARS-CoV-1, the cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome,4 show CQ, from which HCQ is derived, to be extremely effective against some viruses. Given the supposed concern of health officials over deaths by influenza, why was the research into CQ not pursued?
Consider that the entire $69 billion-per-year vaccine industry is based on “preventing” viral diseases that are otherwise “untreatable”—like viral influenza A, measles, etc.
If a cheap and effective treatment is available for these illnesses, the entire vaccine industry crashes down like a house of cards.
Until the coronavirus pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website has been a non-stop advertisement for vaccines—especially the influenza vaccine. We are constantly told in the news and commercials to “Get your flu vaccine!” because of the risk of death from the seasonal influenza virus. According to the CDC, 80,000 people died in the U.S. last year from the flu. That itself is a lie.
In truth, actual viral influenza accounts for only a fraction of those deaths. The CDC and World Health Organization (WHO) once reported real numbers of influenza cases—and most people assume they still do. But they actually report ILI or “influenza like illness,” and in the past they added the caveat that only 4–7 percent of ILI was influenza—the rest were other respiratory viruses.
So, when they say 80,000 people died, only about 6,000 actually had viral influenza.5-10 Previously, in tables of ILI deaths, a small box at the bottom would tell you the percentage of ILI that is influenza. The CDC no longer does that, and currently, looking at multiple yearly reports, I am unable to determine the percentage of ILI that is true influenza from the CDC website.
This distortion by reporting big scary numbers began when the flu vaccine became profitable through the use of adjuvants and “soft mandates”—i.e. pushing hospitals and police forces and other professions to vaccinate their staff to “protect the public.”
Of course, the flu vaccine only works against flu—not other causes of ILI.
Treatment vs. Vaccination in Other Viral Diseases
Vaccinating the entire nation against influenza to prevent 6,000 deaths is hard to justify, but the bigger lie is even worse. Based on the currently available science, it is probable that treatment with HCQ in patients with severe influenza and ILI could have saved millions of Americans from dying. And people within the inner circle of pharmaceutical research must have known this. Pharmaceutical firms employ thousands of virologists and infectious disease experts. Are we to believe they failed to read and pursue the relevant viral research?
And, this is not just about influenza and SARS-CoV-2, but hepatitis, viral meningitis, equine encephalitis, shingles, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), possibly leukemia, and other deadly known viral diseases. Were deaths from such viral diseases, over decades, an acceptable price for $69 billion in yearly vaccine profits?
Vaccination began with smallpox, then polio. Then vaccination programs expanded to childhood viral illnesses, including usually benign ones such as mumps. Influenza then became the big vaccine target. Along the way, teaching the immunology of communicable diseases to medical and nursing students got distorted.
Most physicians today don’t learn that the mortality of childhood 80 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 25 Number 3 Fall 2020
diseases in well-nourished, unvaccinated, First-World children was negligible prior to the advent of vaccines.11 Nor do they understand the big difference between vaccine immunity and disease-acquired immunity. After recovery from measles or the flu or mumps or any other common viral illness, a person walks away with full-spectrum cellular and humoral immunity. The immune system is specifically and generally strengthened against a multitude of future diseases in ways we do not fully understand.
Vaccine researchers concentrate on producing an antibody response, which is a very incomplete form of immunity.12 Even repeated doses of such vaccines do not produce the true macrophage-mediated tissue immunity that is lifelong and usually fully protective against repeat disease exposure. Worse yet, in some cases, vaccine-based immunity can worsen disease outcomes. With SARS and other illnesses caused by RNA viruses, vaccination has increased the risk of dying from a subsequent exposure to the virus. This is the result of “immune enhancement,” wherein the vaccine produced antibodies actually hide the virus particles from the host’s immune system killer cells.13-15
Rapid viral replication ensues causing fatal overwhelming disease. Cellular immunity from natural infection, on the other hand, is the kind of immunity that can save you from serious diseases like this novel coronavirus or the 1918 influenza. Vaccination is not a panacea. It was once the last resort to the treatment of disease. In the age of huge vaccine profit it has become the first choice for every disease. COVID-19 and the War against Hydroxychloroquine
This begins to explain the uproar about HCQ. Never have I seen such political brawling over a legal pharmaceutical. When the current pandemic was starting to kill Americans in significant numbers, President Trump identified HCQ and azithromycin as having excellent cure potential. Around the world, doctors were speaking and writing about the great cure rate of COVID when these drugs were given early.16-24
Sick patients from all over the world recounted having nearly immediate turn-around of the symptoms once they were started on the regimen. State Rep. Karen Whitsett, a Michigan Democrat, credits President Trump for saving her life by advocating for the use of HCQ.25 To my knowledge, neither governors nor boards of pharmacy have ever outlawed any legal drug—not even opioids like Oxycontin that cause about 30,000 deaths a year. But when it comes to HCQ and CQ, governors, medical boards, and boards of pharmacy in most states have either outlawed or limited the use of HCQ or threatened doctors with licensing board scrutiny.26 Medical leaders from the CDC and National Institutes of Health (NIH) said HCQ might not work and proclaimed that we needed more study—ignoring the multiple scientific and position papers being published daily that demonstrate the benefit of HCQ.27
Dr. Anthony Fauci, an immunologist and head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) of the NIH, has discouraged use of HCQ for COVID-19, but praised Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) treatment with HCQ in 2013.28-31
In 2006 the CDC’s own research showed CQ to work against coronavirus in SARS-CoV-1, yet their current guidelines recommend against “high-dose use,” and does not discuss the low-dose regimens in use around the world.32-33 Note also that on Apr 28, 2020, Dr. Fauci touted the positive findings for remdesivir, even though no randomized controlled studies have been completed. Why is he so strongly promoting the $3,600 remdesiver and almost totally ignoring the $20 HCQ regimen, other than to say the latter is of “unproven benefit”?
Media acted in lockstep with corrupt politicians. They said HCQ was experimental. Not so—it has been around for decades, and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Then, they claimed it was illegal for doctors to use HCQ off label. Wrong again. Nearly every doctor, every day, uses a drug “off label,” because, once FDA approved, drugs are not re-studied to add every potential benefit.
And now scientific literature “hit pieces” against antimalarial drugs are being published and quoted. A recent Los Angeles Times headline, “Malaria drugs fail to help in coronavirus studies,” sensationalized a misleading study.34
This study, done in Brazil, prescribed toxic, even lethal doses to very sick patients late in the disease when it was almost certain to be of no benefit.35
The methodology was severely criticized by Brazilian scientists,36 and alleged ethical violations are under investigation by Brazilian authorities.37
Since CQ and HCQ work by stopping viral replication, they can prevent viral damage to the heart, lungs, and other organs. However, they cannot improve organ damage that has occurred. While the Brazilian paper correctly reported that CQ did not change outcomes, this was a classic study designed to fail. Since the 1950s, HCQ has been used for a variety of problems including a 1960 trial for angina pectoris based on the observation that HCQ reduced sludging due to agglutinated red blood cells in patients with vascular diseases.38
While subsequent results in angina patients were reportedly negative, HCQ seems to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular diseases in rheumatic patients. In addition to its anti-inflammatory properties, HCQ reduces cholesterol levels and the risk of Type 2 diabetes, and also has anti-platelet effects. In 2017, the OXI study was designed to determine whether treatment with HCQ, as compared with placebo, would reduce recurrent events among myocardial infarction patients.39 Millions have been treated with HCQ for malaria, and it is commonly given in long-term high-dose treatment of patients with rheumatologic disorders.
Until now, the drug has been distributed with only a minor mention of the potential for cardiac arrhythmia. While other side effects are categorized as “very common,” “common,” or “rare,” cardiac issues are infrequent enough to be noted under “unknown frequency.” The Sanofi patient safety handout for Plaquenil states, “Heart problems or failure, cardiomyopathy, an enlarged or weak heart can occur if you take Plaquenil for long periods of time…” People with SARS-CoV-2 generally require only 5–14 days of treatment.
So, why did the FDA only now issue a very public warning against the use of HCQ—citing cardiac rhythm issues?40-42 Is There a Political Cover-up?
In the investigation of any political cover up, the question “Who knew what, when?” must be asked. Reference papers discussing CQ/HCQ and viruses, from all over the world, go back at least to 1982.43
And there was much interest dating even into the 1970s about lysomotropic agents, i.e. chemicals that are selectively taken up into the lysosomes—the cellular organelle in which HCQ inhibits viral replication.44-46
Speculating about the possible motives for hiding such a powerful weapon against viral illness during this pandemic, some might suggest a “deep state” take-down of America. Or one could focus on conflicts of interest, suggesting that lead spokesman Dr. Fauci is an integral part of a vaccine coalition. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 25 Number 3 Fall 2020 81
Specifically, the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) is a collaboration of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Dr. Fauci’s NIAID. Dr. Fauci was also named to the Leadership Council of the “Decade of Vaccines” Council.47
Although it is difficult to pin down all the financial details, we know that large sums of money are flowing from the Gates Foundation to and around NIAID projects, such as the 2019 partnership for “genebased therapies against AIDS and Sickle Cell Disease, to which Gates contributed $100 million.48
Also, the Gates Foundation has contributed $2.24 Billion to the “Global Fund,” of which Dr. Deborah Birx, frequently at the White House panel discussing COVID-19 policy, is a board member.49
The recent congressional bill H.R. 6074 in the 116th Congress to develop drugs and vaccines for coronavirus is a $3.1 billion windfall for drug companies, and also includes $8.36 million to Dr. Fauci’s NIAID for “training.”50
Moderna: One of the Gates-funded companies that is working on a coronavirus vaccine, is in partnership with NIAID51 and getting special treatment. Moderna was allowed to bypass standard long-term animal drug testing, and roll out mRNA-1273 vaccine trials on humans on Feb 24 at the NIH, within months of the genetic decoding of the virus. Moderna’s chief medical adviser, Tal Zaks, states, “I don’t think proving this in an animal model is on the critical path to getting this to a clinical trial.”52
And on May 2020, after NIH fast tracked Moderna’s vaccine human trials, Tal Zaks exercised stock options, selling 125,044 units of MRNA stock for $1,526,787.53 None of this, however, explains the 40 years of medical misinformation and suppression of the pharmaceutical truth. To have covered up the knowledge for four decades that viruses could potentially be treated by antimicrobials required extensive effort: • Censorship.
It is likely that some scientists were never published again after authoring one paper on the antiviral benefits of CQ.
Buying silence of news media. This is evident from the blackout across the political news spectrum concerning vaccine adverse effects. Pharmaceutical manufacturers provide the most lucrative advertising for both written and broadcast news programs.
Misdirection. For years, pharmacology professors in medical schools have perpetuated lies of omission.
Lies by drug companies.
Merck was caught publishing its own “peer reviewed” journal to promote its drugs.54 •
Regulatory capture. “Big Pharma” essentially owns the FDA by being its biggest funder and employing more than 58 percent of the FDA’s upper-level regulators and administrators either before or after their tenure.55,56
Research funding. Big Pharma is the major funder of nearly all “independent” drug research, and there is no incentive to research cheap/ less profitable solutions.
Implications. The COVID-19 pandemic is calling attention to the potential for treating viral diseases with currently available drugs, and exposing long-available but ignored research. The implications of all this are very disturbing. Where have the virologists been, and the CDC “experts” who claim to care about influenza deaths?
Has the burgeoning nearly trillion dollar vaccine industry been built at the expense of patients’ lives? Disregarding the sizeable database of vaccine injuries, and the controversy about the long-term danger of vaccines to the immune system, if HCQ or other drugs could have treated viral illnesses cheaply and effectively, there was never a need for vaccines to begin with.
As the WHO reportedly admitted, as recorded in a currently unavailable YouTube video from 2019 Vaccine Safety Summit, the “front line is becoming wobbly”— meaning doctors are less and less convinced that vaccines are safe and desirable.
Boris Yeltsin, as he was surrounded by Soviet troops on the steps of Moscow’s Dom pravitelstva Rossii Federatsii (the Russian White House), opined, “You can sit on a throne of bayonets, but you cannot sit on it for long.”
It took 70 years for the truth about the murderous and corrupt Soviet regime to break through the propaganda, but when the masses of people understood, they tore down the Berlin wall.
The wall of silence and coercion that has propped up a corrupt, and yes murderous, vaccine industry will hopefully now be dismantled by everyday physicians and patients who have awakened to the “biggest lie,” and are beginning to say, “Yes, Virginia, antibiotics and other antimicrobials do treat viruses.”
Lee D. Merritt, M.D., practices orthopaedic surgery and anti-aging medicine in Omaha, Nebraska, and is a past president of AAPS. Contact: loganpod@ gmail.com.
1. Damle B, Vourvahis M, Wang E, Leaney J, Corrigan B. Clinical pharmacology perspectives on the antiviral activity of azithromycin and use in COVID-19. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2020;108(2):201-211. doi: 10.1002/cpt.1857.
2. Stricker RB, Fesler MC. A novel plan to deal with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 disease [published online ahead of print Apr 28, 2020] J Med Virol 10.1002/ jmv.25945. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25945.
3. Ooi EE, Chew JS, Loh JP, Chua RC. In vitro inhibition of human influenza A virus replication by chloroquine. Virol J 2006;3(May 29):39. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-3-39.
4. Vincent MJ, Bergeron E, Benjannet S, et al. Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. Virol J 2005;2:69. doi:10.1186/1743-422X-2-69.
5. Stoller K. CDC—Influenza Deaths: Request for Correction (RFC). ASPE. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Available at : https:// aspe.hhs.gov/cdc-%E2%80%94-influenza-deaths-request-correction-rfc. Accessed Aug 8, 2020.
7. National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP). NSSP and NCIRD Assess ILINet Collaboration; Nov 8, 2019. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nssp/partners/ ilinet-collaboration.html. Accessed Aug 8, 2020.
8. Pennsylvania Department of Health. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet). Available at: http://www.health.pa.gov/topics/ disease/Flu/Pages/ILINet.aspx. Accessed Aug 8, 2020.
13. Peeples L. News Feature: Avoiding pitfalls in the pursuit of a COVID-19 vaccine. PNAS 2020;117(15):8218-8221. Available at: https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.2005456117. Accessed Aug 8, 2020.
14. Stadler K, Masignani V, Eickmann M, et al. SARS—beginning to understand a new virus. Nat Rev Microbiol 2003;1:209–218 (2003). Available at: www. nature.com/articles/nrmicro775#ref-CR50. Accessed Aug 8, 2020.
15. Monath, T, Gershman M, Staples JE, Barrett AD. Yellow fever vaccine, antibody dependent enhancement. In: Plotkin SA, Orenstein WA, Offitt PA. Vaccines. 6th ed. Elsevier; 2013:870-968. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect. com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/antibody-dependentenhancement. Accessed Aug 8, 2020.
Almost immediately after his inauguration, President Joe Biden began creating new government dictates via executive orders. Many of these executive orders concern coronavirus, fulfilling Biden’s promise to make ramping up a coronavirus-inspired attack on liberty a focus of his first 100 days.
One of Biden’s executive orders imposes mask and social distancing mandates on anyone in a federal building or on federal land. The mandates also apply to federal employees when they are “on-duty” anywhere. Members of the military are included in the definition of federal employees. Will citizens of Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where US troops are or will be “spreading democracy” be happy to learn the troops shooting up their towns are wearing masks and practicing social distancing?
Another one of Biden’s executive orders forces passengers on airplanes, trains, and other public transportation to wear masks.
Buy New $52.00(as of 04:42 EST – Details)Biden’s mask mandates contradict his pledge to follow the science. Studies have not established that masks are effective at preventing the spread of coronavirus. Regularly wearing a mask, though, can cause health problems.
Biden’s mask mandates are also an unconstitutional power grab. Some say these mandates are an exercise of the federal government’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. However, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to regulate interstate commerce. The president does not have the authority to issue executive orders regulating interstate commerce absent authorization by a valid law passed by Congress. The Founders gave Congress sole law-making authority, and they would be horrified by the modern practice of presidents creating law with a “stroke of a pen.”
Just as important, the Commerce Clause was not intended to give the federal government vast regulatory power. Far from giving the US government powers such as the power to require people to wear masks, the Commerce Clause was simply intended to ensure Congress could protect free trade among the states.
Biden also signed an executive order supporting using the Defense Production Act to increase the supply of vaccines, testing supplies, and other items deemed essential to respond to coronavirus. The Defense Production Act is a Cold War relic that gives the president what can fairly be called dictatorial authority to order private businesses to alter their production plans, and violate existing contracts with private customers, in order to produce goods for the government.
Mask and social distancing mandates, government control of private industry, and some of Biden’s other executive actions, such as one creating a new “Public Health Jobs Corps” with responsibilities including performing “contact tracing” on American citizens, are the type of actions one would expect from a fascist government, not a constitutional republic.
Joe Biden, who is heralded by many of his supporters as saving democracy from fascist Trump, could not even wait one day before beginning to implement fascistic measures that are completely unnecessary to protect public health. Biden will no doubt use other manufactured crises, including “climate change” and “domestic terrorism,” to expand government power and further restrict our liberty. Under Biden, fascism will not just carry an American flag. It will also wear a mask.
Since the beginning of this false pandemic, I’ve been offering compelling evidence that no one has proved SARS-CoV-2 exists.
Then people ask, “So why are all these people dying?”
I have explained that, many times, and in this article I’ll explain it again.
First of all, the whole notion that COVID-19 is one health condition is a lie. COVID IS NOT ONE THING.
This is both the hardest and simplest point to accept and understand.
Don’t reject the existence of the virus and then say, “So what is THE cause of people dying?” There is no ONE CAUSE. There is no one illness. There is no “it.”
By far, the biggest sources of illness we are dealing with are lung conditions: various kinds of pneumonia; flu and flu-like disease; TB; other unnamed lung/respiratory problems.
THESE ARE BEING RELABELED “COVID.” It’s a repackaging scheme. People are dying for those traditional reasons, and their deaths are being called “COVID.”
Thus, the old is artificially made new. It’s still old.
In this wide-ranging group of people who have traditional lung conditions, by far the largest component is the elderly and frail.
They are dying in nursing homes, in hospitals, in their houses and apartments. In addition to their lung problems, they have been suffering from a whole host of other conditions, for a long time, and they’ve been treated with toxic drugs.
They’re terrified that they might receive a diagnosis of “COVID,” and then they are given that diagnosis. THEN they’re isolated, cut off from friends and family. They give up and die.
This is forced premature death.
Some of these elderly and frail people are heavily sedated and put on breathing ventilators—which is a killing treatment. In a large New York study, it was discovered that patients over the age of 64, who were put on ventilators, died 97.2 % of the time. Staggering.
Some of these elderly and frail patients are now dying from reactions to the COVID vaccine—and of course, their deaths are listed as “COVID.”
Why else are people dying? In many cases, it’s a simple matter of bookkeeping. They die in hospitals for a variety of reasons, and staff write “COVID death” on their files. In the US, states receive federal money based on these statistics.
Let’s say that, in certain places around the world, there are clusters of deaths (being called COVID) that can’t be explained in the ways I’ve just described.
In those situations, you would have to examine EACH situation closely. For example, just prior to an outbreak in Northern Italy, was there a vaccination campaign? What was in the vaccine? A new breed of toxic substances?
You have to consider each cluster independently.
Getting the picture?
None of the “COVID deaths” anywhere in the world requires the existence of a new virus.
For instance, in Wuhan, where the whole business began, the first “COVID” cases of pneumonia occurred in a city whose air is HEAVILY polluted. In China, every year, roughly 300,000 people die from pneumonia. That means millions of cases. None of those deaths need to be explained by invoking a new virus.
Now, add to all this the fact that the PCR test for the virus is irreparably flawed and useless (for a variety of reasons I’ve explained in other articles). The test spits out false-positives like a fire hose. Thus, the high case numbers. If the authorities have to go to such extremes to paint a picture of a spreading viral epidemic…
There is no evidence that an actual germ is traveling around the world felling people. The “evidence” is invented.
The “pandemic” is invented.
The fraud is promoted.
During these fake epidemics (there have been many), someone will say: “But my neighbor’s son, who was very healthy, died suddenly. It must be the virus.”
No. People who appear to be healthy do die. Not just today, but going back in history as far as you want to go. No one has an explanation. They might have an explanation if they looked very closely, but they don’t look closely.
Favoring the “virus explanation” is a bias, a knee-jerk reaction, a response to propaganda.
If you think there must be other major reasons to explain “why all these people are dying,” keep in mind that “lung conditions” is a category that expands all over the globe. For instance, there are about one BILLION cases of flu-like illness EVERY YEAR on planet Earth.
Repackaging/relabeling just a small percentage of those cases alone would account for all official COVID death numbers.
What’s new about COVID is the STORY. That’s what’s being sold: a STORY about a virus.
The Best of Jon RappoportJon Rappoport runs No More Fake News. The author of an explosive collection, The Matrix Revealed, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.
Dr. Carmen Wheatley calls on doctors to take courage and look to vitamin B12 as a possible treatment for the virus.
Wed Feb 24, 2021 – 3:47 pm EST
Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news. Subscribe now.
February 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In this episode of The John Henry Westen Show, Dr. Carmen Wheatley and I sit down for an interesting conversation on a new and potentially effective treatment against the coronavirus.
Dr. Wheatley is the director of a registered U.K. and overseas cancer charity Orthomolecular Oncology, as well as a medical researcher and specialist in cobalamin (vitamin B12), which she says has been shown to be a promising treatment to combat a significant number of illnesses.
She discovered from more than half a century of largely forgotten and overlooked scientific literature that B12 was used not only in patients who had deficiency in the vitamin in their body, but also to treat polio, rheumatoid arthritis, leprosy, cyanide poisoning, episodes of schizophrenia and psychosis, and more. The doctor discovered that cases where IV B12 is used routinely against cyanide poisoning, which have strong parallels to septic shock. This is applicable to acute COVID with the respiratory distress syndrome.
Wheatley tells me that those who die from coronavirus actually die from this septic shock. In sepsis, “you have serial organ failure and very often the liver, the kidneys and the lungs will fail,” which leads to the entire body and immune system being unable to respond to the virus. She conjectured that since vitamin B12 is able to help those patients with cyanide poisoning, even sometimes without them having to enter the ICU, it could also work against COVID.
Besides this parallel in the studies, Dr. Wheatley also highlights some other properties in cobalamin which counter the coronavirus. For example, she mentions that patients with COVID “have very low numbers of what are known as natural killer cells,” and when B12 deficiency/pernicious anaemia patients, and healthy humans are given B12, these cells are boosted. Moreover, the vitamin also is critical for producing antibodies.
Wheatley says that vaccines may not be effective without good cobalamin status, “since a vaccine is only as good as the immune system it challenges.” So, if a person’s immunity is deficient in vitamin B12, a vaccine will be more likely not to prevent any disease, but may be more likely to cause an adverse reaction.
As noted in our interview, doses in over-the counter B12 vitamins will not work to counter the virus due to their low oral absorption and thus low potency, and Wheatley says that even when you take more doses they will not act against COVID, because with B12, paradoxically, the higher the oral dose the less is absorbed.
She does suggest, though, that those who are healthy enough not to go to the hospital “get some liposomal B12 as methylcobalamin, to begin with.” But for more serious cases, higher doses may need to be given through IV or injection either at home or at the hospital, following doctors’ orders. Dr. Wheatley has a trial protocol that she can share with any interested doctor on request.
In answering why the medical system is not promoting COVID cures such as cobalamin, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin, Wheatley notes that we are “dominated by the Big Pharma paradigm.” She says that this monopoly of large pharmaceutical companies inside the healthcare industry has led to the bankruptcy of national healthcare systems everywhere. The doctor gives some history of medicine, which demonstrates that often simple cures, such as vitamin B12, can be effective solutions to difficult problems
Dr. Wheatley calls on “doctors … to take courage” and consider trying this treatment for the virus. She also discovered that cobalamin has not only indirect effects to regulate the immune system, but also historically has been shown to have direct antiviral action, not only against COVID — in recent molecular modelling screens — but other viruses: influenza A and B strains, HIV, polio, shingles, chicken pox, the papilloma cervical cancer causing virus. She calls it a “God given … pan-antiviral.”
Lastly, Wheatley states that one of the things which troubles her the most regarding the reaction to COVID-19 was “that governments were not issuing … general common sense [to] boost your immune system.” She says that “governments seem to act as if they own your immune system and that … you’re not safe unless you have treatments [or] vaccines” promoted by Big Pharma.
Dr. Wheatley concludes that people must take individual steps to fortify their own immunity to the disease “by taking B12 in the right form, taking vitamin C, taking [vitamin] D and other things like selenium and zinc,” as well as other herbal and natural antivirals, which have all shown to be effective antiviral treatments and preventive measures.
Ironically, the Christian church, awaiting the End Times and the apocalypse, has come eye-to-eye with foreseen evil, yet it fails to fully recognize it, for it is cloaked in the fear of death.
In the COVID-19 pandemic, churches have been singled out, not because of the stated (and conjured up) threat of disease and death (choir practice spreads viruses), but because the new globalist political agenda coming out of the World Economic Forum (WEC) in Europe seeks to eliminate mystical non-scientific religions altogether.
Few church leaders foresee there is no return to normal. The church is a target for extermination. The virologists already attempted to cancel Christmas. In the Xmas play the three wisemen would be super-spreaders. The cancel culture will predictably encourage believers to “ghost” Easter.
If the WEC gets its way a new digital currency will replace paper money and coin. Church leaders would then be blind-sided when they learn offerings will be funneled through the US Treasury Department in real time. Government would know which people donated and how much they gave, and which church they attend. Is that any different from a credit card?
Yes, churches and their parishioners can be tracked and controlled via digital access to money. Government, not just bankers, will immediately know what you are doing with your money. For example, tithes and offerings could be blocked if everyone in the congregation isn’t vaccinated, or if its membership isn’t inclusive (LGBT+), or exhibit racial diversity.
Buy New $19.99(as of 04:41 EST – Details)The strategy is to use social pressure to adopt new ways of making payments and to replace fear of an almighty invisible God with fear of a deadly invisible microbe. Christians are not to be deceived, as they are now.
In Bible days tithes and offerings, gifts in coin and kind – bread, meat, doves, grain, animals, were something the giver offered in support of those providing service to God and themselves. These offerings were prepared personally out of their love for God, not just a loaf of bread bought on the way to the temple.
Jesus chased the money changers (bankers) out of the temple, not only because they were skimming (usury) onerous amounts (~$38 million in today’s money) for live animal offerings and commercializing the holy temple, but because they took sacrifice out of the equation. Baking the bread and raising a pair of doves were acts of love for God.
Digital money offerings sterilize the act of giving to God. If Jesus was present on the earth today, he might even consider a digital transaction fee, however slight, as a way of robbing from God. (And He might also overturn the national treasury and eliminate the Federal Reserve banks, a topic for another time.) “Forgive us our debts” Jesus prayed. Jesus saw the people were oppressed into lifetime debt.
Churches did what was expedient, rather than obedient
When it became expedient for churches to close up shop and conduct online church services, that resulted in reduced expenses and according to some reports, larger offerings. Laid off church staff were placed on the federal government’s Payroll Protection Plan. With financial incentives to not conduct church services, clerics skipped over the Bible’s unction not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together? (Book of Hebrews, Holy Bible, Chapter 10, Verse 25)
Pastors and priests, as heads of 501c3 tax exempt corporations, and recipients of the federal Payroll Protection Plan, have unwittingly enslaved themselves to government.
Churches are not adhering the beat of their own drum. God no longer gives the church its marching orders, government does.
One handshake away from heaven?
In the back of church elders’ minds must have been the thought they might end up killing off the older members of their congregation if they didn’t comply with lockdowns, social distancing, hand disinfection and face masks. Ironically, these practices breed fear, not faith. Furthermore, the mission of the church is to clean hearts, not hands. What happened to the psalmist’s proclamation: “Yea, though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil.”
Another irony was abortion mills and liquor stores remained open while churches were closed. Well, we couldn’t bear all the millions of alcoholics going through withdrawal symptoms all at the same time, could we? How cunning these plans were laid to abolish the church.
Evil and hidden agenda
The church is slow to realize the vaccination agenda is a population control exercise. It wouldn’t be the first time. It is akin to King Herod killing all the babies upon hearing of the birth of a newborn king in Bethlehem. Only this time it isn’t limited to infants.
Vaccination against coronaviruses may result in exacerbated illness and death, particularly when exposed to the same pathogenic virus again. Even if vaccination against coronavirus results in 1 death in 1000 vaccinated individuals, if 3 billion of the earth’s 7.8 billion people are vaccinated, that could lead to 3 million premature deaths and hundreds of millions of others with life-long morbid side effects.
Noted personalities like baseball legend Henry Aaron and TV’s Larry King died days after vaccination. Cull the 80-year-olds from the population, the people that cost government the most money. Churches are filled with octogenarians.
“The time will come – and it may not be far off – when quite different tendencies will come up at a congress like the one held in 1912 and people will say: It is pathological for people to even think in terms of spirit and soul. ‘Sound’ people will speak of nothing but the body. It will be considered a sign of illness for anyone to arrive at the idea of any such thing as a spirit or a soul. People who think like that will be considered to be sick and – you can be quite sure of it – a medicine will be found for this. . . . The soul will be made non-existent with the aid of a drug. “. . . the heirs of modern materialism will look for the vaccine to make the body ‘healthy,’ that is, make its constitution such that this body no longer talks of such rubbish as soul and spirit.
Such is COVID-19, that now opens Pandora’s box. Train the masses to think vaccination is good. Then slip something else into the syringe that will change their DNA. This is the first time RNA and DNA-altering vaccines are being trialed. Unsuspecting believers, those individuals who are patriotic to a fault, may volunteer to get the first shots. But what about the second? And third?
When the false god of government can no longer provide
Few church leaders understand the federal government can no longer meet its social contract with its citizens. Except for a fresh infusion of money every two weeks when FICA deductions are withdrawn from paychecks, Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds only have IOUs in the form of US Treasury Bonds in them. We have worshipped the God of government and government can’t provide any longer. We haven’t enough young workers to pay for the old.
God and Country; No, Country, then God
Churches violate the Bible’s stop signs: They have made themselves pawns of the State. Churches, which have long preached “God and country” may regret placing the American flag along with the Christian flag on its dais.
With the exception of Sunday school, which no longer exists in most churches, churches aren’t in a position to counter the immoral agendas emanating from the political left that now control godless educational, legislative and legal institutions.
Churches operate under the unction to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” but that dividing line presumes there is something that government doesn’t encroach upon. We are talking about that dividing line being erased. Namely the rest of the verse, what is God’s.
Americans living under the WECs new “reset” will own nothing – not houses, businesses, automobiles, vacuum cleaners or lawnmowers. Everything will be rented.
Equity will be the rule. Winston Churchill’s pronouncement will come true: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Americans will all be equally poor.
It is interesting when there is some grave social injustice Americans call for a Congressional hearing, as if government wasn’t behind that injustice all along.
Obey the law, or else
One purpose of religion is the reality that man’s inhumanity to man cannot be overcome by more and more laws, that there must be some voluntary moral compass (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, forgive those who trespass against you, the ten commandments) as public officials cannot possibly police and throw everybody in jail.
Amoral technocrats aim to control the masses by snooping in on telephone and electronic communications, place video cameras on every street, and store information that has been eavesdropped. In other words, replace moral choice with coercion.
God forgives sin, technocracy counts them
Technocrats have developed a social score to control the masses via restricted access to money. No crime, regardless of how small, will go unnoticed or unpenalized. No red light can be run through by an automobile driver without a financial penalty. No littering or jay walking without a fine.
The world will become totally regimented. Soon faceless robots will unmercifully mete out and collect fines. There is no middle ground. Technocrats count sin, God urges repentance and forgives sin.
No parties will be allowed to side-step an ever-encroaching technocracy, except for the technocrats themselves. All income will be reported and taxed, $700 billion more tax revenues will be extracted from the public.
Churches that borrowed money to build large edifices will have difficulty making mortgage payments as its members will only receive a stipend (guaranteed income). Many churches were struggling financially before the viral pandemic. As many as 1 in 5 American churches are expected to shut down. Estimates range from 5000 to 10,000 church closings each year.
Wimpy churches haven’t a clue. Churchianity on Sundays has become a Christian entertainment and comfort hour. It’s not geared for what is to come. The church is like a man walking in the forest who curiously notices a red laser beam on his chest, not recognizing it is from a laser site on a rifle. The church is targeted for eradication by globalists.
I have a hunch the next compliant move by dutiful churches will be to set themselves up as vaccination centers, complicit in the crime of forced vaccination, forgetting the last time this was done was in Nazi Germany.
Time to mobilize
Pastor Robert A. Schuller, son of Robert Schuller Sr. who pioneered outdoor church services in the 1950s, was aghast to learn that churches in Orange County, California were buckling to demands by public health authorities to close down due to the pandemic. Schuller came out of retirement and called churches in Orange county and urged them to open up.
Schuller now conducts outdoor church services from a parking lot (Newport Dunes). It’s one low-cost answer to defy public health authorities who would close churches for good if allowed. A problem is that large churches are such targets for public health authorities and face the problem of parishioners who are now afraid to go to church.
Christians are often wrapped up in temple worship. A new model for survival of the Christian church is needed. Jesus spoke of a church centered around Him, not sanctuaries. Funds to maintain worship centers will be found wanting. Church-goers are likely to be financially impoverished by pandemic lock-down measures and therefore not in a position to maintain church buildings. Most Americans may become wards of the state and on unearned guaranteed income. Assemblage of believers for worship may need to be less formal and costly. The early church met semi-secretly in homes when the “church” faced persecution, using the mark of a fish as their identifier.
Parking lots abound. Ten-thousand closed churches could easily be replaced with ten-thousand parking lot “churches” on Sundays. There just may not be enough priests or preachers ready to give up their comfortable churches to keep the flame of faith alive.
Dr Simone Gold is a US medical Doctor. I found this and other speeches she’s made, at www.afld.s.com
The following is a synopsis I’ve written, on a 28 minute public speech she made in the US, in June 2020.
“There is no scientific reason to wear a mask.” It is a psychological fear question: “Am I going to be safe?” The virus has become politicised.
Hydroxychloroquine has been around for a long time. It works for SARS -1. Simone was prescribing it, but she was getting letters from her oversight, that doing this was “unprofessional.” She found this bizarre. This was happening right across the country.
Pharmacists are able to overrule Drs, and the Dr-Patient relationship has been eroded. President Trump endorsed hydroxychloroquine in March 2020, and it was instantly buried in the media.
Hydroxychloroquine is an over the counter medicine, used for decades for lupis and malaria. The idea that “It’s not safe,” is absolutely ludicrous. It has been FDA approved for 65 years, and is given to children, babies, pregnant and breast-feeding women. It is derived from quinine, and is safer than aspirin. The FDA website lists it as a malaria treatment overseas. “There is zero question about safety.”
Almost all the studies indicate that hydroxychloroquine is efficacious in pre and medium treatment. There is a question about its treatment, later on. It works better with zinc, opening the door to zinc going into the cell. Its “failings” are related to when and how it’s given:
a) Too late, b) In a toxic dose, c) Given alone (ie, without zinc).
The British medical journal Lancet published a negative study on it. Simone says, “It was fraudulent.” This was “a breathtaking level of conspiracy…it cannot happen by accident.”
“The level of corruption to overcome is enormous.”
a) The scientific level: the journals.
b) The media: reporting no good news.
c) The State governments.
d) The Federal government (FDA), trying to put restrictions of the use of hydroxychloroquine.
“Americans are captured by fear [of the virus]… it’s not true.”
The normal treatment for lupis with hydroxychloroquine is 400mg a day. You need 400 mg weekly, not to get sick with Covid. She recommends,
Make it over the counter-give it to the people.
“Governments are putting on Fascist dictatorial regulations, because people are making decisions based on fear.” There is a medical issue, but a legal crisis. We are losing our civil liberties, because there are powers that be, that are making decisions based on fear.
“Will the constitution still be intact, when this episode is over?” You have to do something, now.
After a press conference she held had 18 million views, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Linked In and U-tube deprogrammed her.
“We should not be living in fear… you should rise up in the street…everyone has to be a warrior.”
“Drs have been muzzled.” “We will be living in China if we don’t act.”
Remove the following illegal, non-scientific and non-sanitary measures : lockdown, mandatory face masks for healthy subjects, social distancing of one or two meters.
The lockdown not only killed many people but also destroyed physical and mental health, economy, education and other aspects of life.
The natural history of the virus [the coronavirus] is not influenced by social measures [lockdown, face masks, closure of restaurants, curfew
When the state knows best and violates human rights, we are on a dangerous course.
Exclude your experts and advisers who have links or conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies :
Stop the vaccination campaigns and refuse the scam of the pseudo-health passport which is in reality a politico-commercial project
We are health professionals of the international collective : United Health Professionals, composed of more than 1,500 members (including professors of medicine, intensive care physicians and infectious disease specialists) from different countries of Europe, Africa, America, Asia and Oceania and, on August 26, 2020, we addressed to governments and citizens of countries around the world an alert message regarding the COVID outbreak.
First, let’s start with the conclusions of the 2010 report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the management of the H1N1 epidemic :
« The Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, ot only by the World Health Organization (WHO) but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level. It is particularly troubled by some of the consequences of decisions taken and advice given leading to distortion of priorities of public health services across Europe, waste of large sums of public money and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks…grave shortcomings have been identified regarding the transparency of decision-making processes relating to the pandemic which have generated concerns about the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry on some of the major decisions….unregulated or secret lobbying may be a danger and can undermine democratic principles and good governance ».
Know that the same mistakes made in the H1N1 epidemic are being repeated today in the COVID epidemic. You are the victims of the biggest health scam of the 21st century regarding the real danger of the virus, the measures to be taken, the figures, the tests and the treatments, and this was done with the same techniques of manipulation used during the epidemic of H1N1 or the Iraq war. Experts, professors of medicine as well as scientific and medical collectives began to alert others of this as early as March 2020.
The countries of the world (except rare cases like : Sweden, Belarus or Tanzania), without thinking, have only imitated and blindly followed others.
This epidemic is amplified, dramatized and instrumentalised by criminals who take advantage of it to achieve economic, political and ideological goals and agendas that are harmful to humanity and we will prove this to you. You must stop this global scam quickly (because it is a serious danger to your people and your country in terms of : health, economy, education, ecology and human rights) by immediately taking the following actions :
1-Lift all restrictions
Remove the following illegal, non-scientific and non-sanitary measures : lockdown, mandatory face masks for healthy subjects, social distancing of one or two meters. These crazy and stupid measures are heresies invented in 2020 that do not exist in medicine or public health and they are not based on any scientific evidence.
This is not how we manage an outbreak :
– « The world went mad » with coronavirus lockdowns which « fly in the face of what is known about handling virus pandemics » (Dr Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, June 24, 2020).
– « The infection fatality rate seems to be about the same as for influenza, but we have never introduced these drastic measures before, when we had influenza pandemics. And we cannot live with them for years to come » (Prof. Peter Gøtzsche, December 1, 2020).
– « The decision of lockdown as the decision of wearing masks…are not based on scientific data…» (Prof. Didier Raoult, June 24, 2020).
– « The natural history of the virus [the coronavirus] is not influenced by social measures [lockdown, face masks, closure of restaurants, curfew, etc.]…The lockdown did not trigger the decrease in cases…As for the closure of restaurants which had very strict health protocols in place…of course, I have no way of defending it…it has not influenced the epidemic at all…The lockdown has not changed anything…» (Prof. Philippe Parola, December 3, 2020).
– « There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule. Poor quality research is being used to justify a policy with enormous consequences for us all » (Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, June 19, 2020).
– « Grotesque, absurd and very dangerous measures…a horrible impact on the world economy…self- destruction and collective suicide… » (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, March 2020. He also sent, at the time, a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel).
In addition, these tyrannical measures violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its articles: 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 26, 27, 28, 30 and the UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child in its articles : 28, 29, 32, 37.
– « When the state knows best and violates human rights, we are on a dangerous course. The pandemic has led to the violation of basic human rights…There has not been the slightest ethical analysis of whether this was justified. It is not» (Prof. Peter Gøtzsche, December 4, 2020).
Forcing non-sick people to wear masks is not only a heresy but it is also harmful to health as well as to ecology and is a form of mistreatment :
– « Dictatorship of masks totally unfounded » (Prof. Christian Perronne, September 22, 2020).
– « The curfew…was used during the German occupation when the militia and the Gestapo went to the houses. And now we’ll have the police making visits to see if there are more than six people at the table ! What is this madness ?! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, October 15, 2020).
– « Every winter in Paris, the ICU beds are totally saturated. We transfer patients…every winter, in normal circumstances » (Prof. Bruno Mégarbane, anesthesiologist and intensive care physician, September 27, 2020)
« In neither of the 2 waves… all the ICU were not saturated, it is false ! » (Prof. Michaël Peyromaure, January 18, 2021)
2-Open up economy, schools, universities, air transport and hospital units.
3-Exclude your experts and advisers who have links or conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies
The 2010 report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the management of the H1N1 epidemic also said :
« The Assembly calls on public health authorities at international, European and national level -and notably WHO-…to ensure that all persons subject to conflicts of interest are excluded from sensitive decision-making processes ».
Countries’ experts who pushed for these totally heretical measures are either followers, ignorant or corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry.
4-Require an international and independent investigation and that those responsible for this scam be tried
On October 1st, 2020, German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich announced that an international network of lawyers will argue the biggest tort case ever :
« The anti-corona measures have caused and continue to cause such devastating damage to the world’s population’s health and economy that the crimes committed by (…) the WHO must be legally qualified as actual crimes against humanity as defined in section 7 of the international criminal code ».
He said also that this must be called « a corona scandal and those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages ». The investigation must focus, among others, on Bruce Aylward (WHO) and Neil Ferguson (ICL).
-On January 10, 2021 : A letter relayed by The Sun and written by lawyers, a member of Parliament, human rights activists and a former US Air Force general was addressed to the FBI and MI-5 along with security services in Canada, Germany and Australia, where the authors say :
« We are writing this letter to request that a federal investigation be commenced and/or expedited regarding the scientific debate on major policy decisions during the COVID-19 crisis. In the course of our work, we have identified issues of a potentially criminal nature and believe this investigation necessary to ensure the interests of the public have been properly represented by those promoting certain pandemic policies ».
The letter call which was « deliberately promulgated…to impoverish the nations who implemented it »
Rare countries like Sweden, Tanzania or Belarus -which can be congratulated- have refused the lockdown and have not blindly followed others and if we apply the reasoning of the lockdown defenders, the outcome must be a massacre or the saturation of their hospital system. Is this the case in these three countries ?
The answer is of course : no. Moreover, on September 15, 2020, The BMJ published an article entitled :
« COVID-19 : How does Belarus have one of the lowest death rates in Europe ? ».
These three countries are living proof of the lockdown scam and since this reality might wake up public opinion and people see that they have been lied to, a corrupt press has been spreading, from the beginning, articles and even fake news, against Sweden and Belarus.
The famous international slogan:
« Stay home, save lives » was a pure lie. On the contrary, the lockdown not only killed many people but also destroyed physical and mental health, economy, education and other aspects of life. For example, the lockdown in the USA has killed thousands of Alzheimer’s patients who have also died far from their families. In the United Kingdom : the lockdown killed 21,000 people.
The effects of the lockdown « have been absolutely deleterious. They did not save the lives they had announced they could be able to save…It is a weapon of mass destruction and we see its health…social…economic effects…which form the real second wave » (Prof. Jean-François Toussaint, September 24, 2020). Imprisoning its people is a crime against humanity that even the Nazis did not commit !
– « This country is making a dramatic mistake…What are we going to suggest ? That everyone stay locked up all his life because there are viruses outside ?! You’re all crazy, you’ve become all nuts !…we are setting the planet on fire » (Prof. Didier Raoult, October 27, 2020).
– « It is a big delirium but which is instrumentalised by big pharma and also politicians…It is a fear organized for political and economic reasons » (Prof. Christian Perronne, August 31, 2020).
– « It is just a global scam to make huge profits, bail out the banks and meanwhile ruin the middle classes in the name of an epidemic…made destructive by liberticidal, allegedly health measures » (Dr Nicole Delépine, December 18, 2020).
– « We have medical evidences that this is a scam » (Dr Heiko Schöning, July 2020).
– « Think about these two questions :…Is the coronavirus man-made ?…Have they tried to use this viral disease or this psychosis for their own ends & interests ?» (Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus). –
« There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public….it should be known as nothing more than a bad flu season. this is not Ebola. It’s not SARS » (Dr Roger Hodkinson, November 13, 2020).
5-No longer blindly follow the recommendations of the WHO and require that it be totally reformed
An investigation carried out in 2016 (WHO in the clutches of lobbyists) showed an edifying radiography of the WHO ; a weakened structure subject to multiple conflicts of interest. This investigation has shown how private interests dominate public health in the WHO. Another investigation (Trust WHO) also revealed these serious anomalies.
6-Use the recognized measures for the management of epidemics
Such as recommendations of hand washing, sneeze or cough into the elbow, use a mask but only for patients and healthcare professionals (in specific situations), isolation of the sick, etc. The severity of an epidemic is assessed by the case fatality rate (CFR), among other things. However, the latter is very low (0.03-0.05%) and there is therefore no justification for taking measures that are not only disproportionate but also unscientific.
7-Make the media aware of their responsabilities
The media must, for example, stop talking about the coronavirus.
8-Remove the requirement for tests
The people who push for mandatory testing are defrauding governments and pursuing only economic goals. Nothing in this coronavirus (which is a benign virus and with a low CFR) justifies it. The flu infects one billion people each year, far more than SARS-CoV-2, spreads faster and has more populations at risk than this coronavirus and yet no test is required for travel. This is why Professor Didier Raoult called « a delirium » the claim that it is a serious illness and said, on August 19, 2020, that « it is not worse than the flu ».
– « The infection fatality rate for this new coronavirus is likely to be in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza » (Prof. John Ioannidis, April 17, 2020).
– « Reassure the large majority of the population that their risk of dying or getting severe disease from COVID-19 is very low » (Prof. John Ioannidis, April 22, 2020).
– « Do you realize ? Today, we are destroying the economy whereas finally the figures are comparable with those we experienced with the flu ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, October 25, 2020).
9-Stop the vaccination campaigns and refuse the scam of the pseudo-health passport which is in reality a politico-commercial project
– « We don’t need it [the vaccine] at all…All this is about purely commercial goals » (Prof. Christian Perronne, June 16, 2020).
– « It is an old marketing principle of pharmaceutical companies : if they want to sell their product well, consumers must be afraid and see it as their salvation. So, we create a psychosis so that consumers crack up and rush on the vaccine in question » (Prof. Peter Schönhöfer).
– « As a doctor, I do not hesitate to anticipate the decisions of the government ; we must not only refuse these vaccines [against COVID-19], but we must also denounce and condemn the purely mercantile approach and the abject cynicism which guided their production » (Dr Pierre Cave, August 7, 2020).
– The COVID vaccine is « so, so unnecessary » (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, December 2, 2020).
– « I have never seen in the history of medicine that we urgently develop vaccines to vaccinate millions, billions of individuals for a virus that no longer kills except people at risk that we can identify, that we can treat…I have never seen a vaccine coming out after 2 months !…it takes years ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
– « We’re going too fast. If there was an emergency,…if today COVID-19 kills 50% of people, I will say let’s take risks…but here we have a virus that kills 0,05% and we will take all the risks ! I know there are billions behind this…Be carefull, this is very dangerous ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
To the question : « We do not need a general vaccine for the whole humanity with 0.05% deaths ? », Professor Christian Perronne replied : « It’s obvious ! ».
-In November 30, 2020 : Professor Christian Perronne wrote a letter in which he alerted on the danger of the vaccines based on genetic engineering :
« The people who promote these gene therapies, falsely called “vaccines”, are sorcerer’s apprentices and take…the citizens of the world for guinea pigs ».
-On October 19, 2020, in a correspondence to the journal The Lancet, scientists expressed concerns and warned :
« we are concerned that use of an Ad5 vector for immunisation against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) could similarly increase the risk of HIV-1 acquisition among men who receive the vaccine ».
-If people accept the COVID-19 vaccine, it will be :
« a mistake because we risk having absolutely unpredictable effects : for example, cancers…We are playing the total sorcerer’s apprentice…Man must not serve as a guinea pig, children must not serve as guinea pigs, it is absolutely unethical. There must not be deaths from vaccines » (Prof. Luc Montagnier, Virologist and Nobel Prize in Medicine, December 17, 2020.
-In Switzerland, a group of 700 doctors and health professionals called on January 15, 2021 for stopping the vaccination campaign
– « I think it’s [the COVID vaccine] downright dangerous. And I warn you, if you go along these lines, you are going to go to your doom » (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, December 2, 2020).
-On December 30, 2020 : Réaction 19 (a French association founded by lawyers with nearly 60,000 members) informed, in a press release, that it has filed a complaint concerning the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna “vaccines” for : deliberately endangering the life of others, aggravated deception, abuse of weakness and aggravated extortion.
-Recently, several Members of the European Parliament have alerted the population because they are forbidden to consult the contracts signed with pharmaceutical laboratories. This opacity is a proof that there are compromising things they want to hide. Michèle Rivasi, a Member of the European Parliament, even lodged a complaint5. As a reminder6: in 2009, Pfizer was fined $ 2.3 billion, the largest fine ever imposed by the courts of the United States on a pharmaceutical group. It was found guilty of fraudulent commercial practices.
In 2010, AstraZeneca was fined 520 million euros for recommending unauthorized use of a drug. In 2011, Merck payed a fine of $ 628.36 million to resolve allegations of off-label marketing and false statements about the cardiovascular safety of a drug.
In 2013, a fine of 1.62 billion euros was imposed on Johnson & Johnson to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription of three drugs including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider.
You must stop this global scam where the politico-economic (even ideological) agendas of criminals are to COVID what the Iraq war was to the attacks of September 11th, 2001 (here’s a reminder of the scam of the Iraq war :
These criminals manipulate the countries of the world and want to make the epidemic last as long as possible to achieve their goals when the COVID epidemic should have been declared over at a certain period of the past year ; indeed, in medicine, the epidemic threshold from which the beginning and the end of an epidemic are declared is between 150 and 200 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. The Tanzanian president is one of the few presidents who understood this because he declared on June 8, 2020 that the COVID epidemic was over in his country.
« The epidemic is over ! » (Professor Yoram Lass, July 2, 2020)7.
In this epidemic, the danger is not the coronavirus but the people who instrumentalise it and who are the real virus to fight.
The virus is completely innocent of what is happening (impoverishment, job losses, suicides, deaths, economic recession, unemployment, etc.) and the real culprits are those who have pushed the world to use these measures and the governments that continue to implement these measures despite alerts and warnings.
« The World Bank has just estimated that the corona pandemic has caused an increase of about 100 million people living in extreme poverty. This is not because of COVID-19. It is because of the draconian measures we have introduced » (Prof. Peter Gøtzsche, December 1, 2020).
The discrepancy and disproportion between the level of dangerousness of the virus and the magnitude of the measures taken (which are moreover totally heretical) are so obvious that it inevitably leads to the conclusion that there are other objectives behind. You have to be really blind or naive not to see it.
With these measures which have nothing to do with medicine or science, governments are not fighting the dangers of the virus but are fighting the basic rights of their people and destroying their health, economy, education, ecology, culture and other aspects of life.
« We have been living a kind of delirium from the start…We live in a world which is crazy :…the conditions that have been taken to fight this disease are conditions from another century…it is not even the level of the Middle Ages ! » (Prof. Didier Raoult, December 7, 2020).
On December 28, 2020, Randy Hillier, a Canadian MP, wrote this message on Twitter along with the hashtags : #We Are Living A Lie and #No More Lockdowns : « The lies and deceptions of Covid are over. How & why so many allowed themselves to be deceived will take years to uncover ».
It is not because the majority of countries are doing the same thing that it means that it is good or that it is the right thing to do. The number is not a criterion for knowing whether or not countries are right to apply these measures. On the contrary, many historical examples show that the majority is often wrong ; Iraq war (rare countries like France did not follow and were right), H1N1 (rare countries like Poland did not follow and were right), World War II, etc.
The charge of conspiracy theories is the response of those who have no arguments and a technique of mass manipulation because all what has been reported in this letter does not consist of theories but of truths and statements made by eminent experts including Nobel laureates for medicine.
This letter will be kept as proof that your government has been alerted. Everything must return immediately to normal and this global hostage-taking must stop because you have known that you have been the victims of the biggest health scam of the 21th century.
Please, don’t make the mistake of underestimating our letter or ignoring it. Here are 2 examples of what happens when a government makes this mistake :
Despite warnings from several experts about the danger of Dengvaxia (dengue vaccine), the Philippine government decided in 2016 to launch a vaccination campaign that ended later in a public scandal. According to the office of the prosecutor Persida Acosta, 500 children died as a result of this vaccine and several thousand are sick.
According to the prosecutor, the responsibilities are shared between the laboratory which sold “a dangerous vaccine” and the government which set up a “massive and indiscriminate” vaccination campaign, in deplorable conditions. This vaccine, however, promised to be a planetary triumph ; in 2015, Sanofi confirmed with great fanfare the marketing of a revolutionary dengue vaccine. It was a world first, the product of twenty years of research and 1,5 billion euros of investment.
Yet from the beginning, voices raised in the scientific community : Doctor Antonio Dans tried to warn about the inconclusive results of the first clinical trials. In the USA, Professor Scott Halstead, a world renowned specialist in the disease, even sent a video broadcasted in the Senate of the country to urge to suspend the vaccination program. The former health minister of the country has been charged in this scandal. « It’s the lure of profit that killed these children », said prosecutor Persida Acosta.
The second example is the scandal of the H1N1 vaccine which was bought by several countries despite alerts from Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, the chairman of the Health Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, who in a motion for a recommendation entitled « Faked Pandemics – a threat for health » said : « In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide.
They have made them squander tight health care resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines ». He was totally right because, later, in Europe alone the vaccine made 1,500 victims of narcolepsy including 80% of children, so much so that on November 24, 2013, the Swedish Minister of Social Affairs, Göran Hägglund, said he was ready to publicly apologize to the victims of the swine flu vaccine.
While preliminary evidence seems to suggest Ivermectin can be useful at all stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection, its real strength appears to be as a preventive approach
Of 58 health care workers who took ivermectin once a month for four months, only four (6.96%) came down with mild COVID-19 symptoms during the May through August 2020 trial period, compared to 44 of 60 health care workers (73.3%) who declined the medication
In August 2020, India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh, added ivermectin to its recommendations and distributed the drug for home care free of charge. The state of Bihar also started recommending ivermectin, and by the end of 2020, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh had the lowest and second-lowest COVID-19 fatality rates in all of India
A WHO-sponsored review suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83%
In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance is calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19
When it comes to the treatment of COVID-19, many Western nations have been hobbled by the politicization of medicine. Throughout 2020, media and many public health experts warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine, despite the fact that many practicing doctors were praising its ability to save patients. Many of them were silenced through online censorship. Some even lost their jobs for the “sin” of publicly sharing their successes with the drug.
Another decades-old antiparasitic drug that offers great hope is ivermectin, but it too is being hushed up by mainstream media. Trial Site News1 tells the story of a 77-year-old Indian couple, both of whom became ill with COVID-19. One successfully recuperated following treatment with hydroxychloroquine. The other with ivermectin.
While ivermectin certainly appears to be a useful strategy, which is why I am covering it, please understand it is not my primary recommendation. If you are looking at this as a magic bullet, think again. You are far better off first optimizing your vitamin D levels as I have discussed in dozens of previous articles…
Remember, you need vitamin D for a wide variety of functions in your body in addition to optimizing your immune response. Although ivermectin is a relatively safe drug, it is still an unnatural synthetic chemical that can have side effects. Vitamin D is something your body absolutely requires for optimal health, which is why I would encourage you to focus on vitamin D first.
Inexpensive Treatment Responsible for India’s Success?
Getting back to ivermectin, Trial Site News reported2 that “Ten months into its battle with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, India is on track to become an unexpected warrior in the fight against this global pandemic. Although the densely-populated nation has four times the population of the U.S., India has less than half the U.S. COVID deaths.”
While India had a daily positive test rate of nearly 100,000 back in September 2020, by the end of December 2020, the infection rate had dropped by 75%. While this rapid decline is by and large being attributed to strict lockdowns, universal mask wearing and extensive contact tracing and testing, the availability and use of effective treatments likely plays a pivotal role.
In late March 2020, India added hydroxychloroquine to its national treatment guidelines, urging the drug be used “as early in the disease course as possible.” It was not recommended for those hospitalized with severe illness.
Then, in August 2020, India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh, which has some 230 million residents, added ivermectin to its recommendations and distributed the drug for home care free of charge. The state of Bihar, which has 128 million residents, also started recommending ivermectin, and by the end of 2020, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh had the lowest and second-lowest COVID-19 fatality rates in all of India.
Uttar Pradesh, however, took it a step further than Bihar. They also used ivermectin as a prophylactic, first among health care workers and then among people who had come in contact with a person who tested positive.
This drug makes far more sense in India as the vast majority of the population indeed suffer with parasites as a result of largely contaminated municipal water supplies.
Frontline Doctors Call for Adoption of Ivermectin
In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is now calling for widespread adoption of Ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.3,4
The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover. ~ FLCCC Alliance
December 8, 2020, FLCCC president Dr. Pierre Kory, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, where he reviewed the evidence supporting the use of the drug. (He resigned from St. Luke’s shortly after giving this testimony, saying the medical center wanted to restrict his freedom of speech.5) As noted on the FLCCC website:6
“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
Dr. Kory testified that Ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19 and called upon the government’s medical authorities — the NIH, CDC, and FDA — to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19.”
January 6, 2020, Kory and Dr. Paul Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia — both are founding members of FLCCC — also presented evidence to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, which is working to update NIH guidance.7 The NIH panel is expected to update treatment guidelines by early February 2021. According to the FLCCC:8
“Numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.
Data from 18 randomized controlled trials that included over 2,100 patients … demonstrated that Ivermectin produces faster viral clearance, faster time to hospital discharge, faster time to clinical recovery, and a 75% reduction in mortality rates.”
A one-page summary9 of the clinical trial evidence for Ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website. A more comprehensive review10 of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology. A listing of all the Ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com.11
How Ivermectin Protects Against COVID-19
Like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug with a well-documented safety profile and “proven, highly potent, antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties.”12 It’s been on the market since 1981 and is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines. It’s also inexpensive, with a treatment course costing less than $2 in countries such as India and Bangladesh.13
While the U.S. FDA has not yet approved ivermectin for prevention of or treatment for SARS-CoV-2,14 studies have shown ivermectin:15
Inhibits replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses. In “COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope,” I review data showing a single dose of ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours
Inhibits inflammation through several pathways
Lowers viral load
Protects against organ damage
Prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure; speeds recovery and lowers risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients
The FLCCC website also has a helpful FAQ section16 where Kory and Marik answer common questions about the drug and its recommended use. While FLCCC members have been criticized for their insistence that we should not wait for randomized controlled trials before using Ivermectin more widely, the group argues that the drug has a long history of safety and clearly works, so, why wait?
“If someone … says they want to do an RCT with placebo, that’s problematic for me,” Kory told Medpage Today.17 “I could not have a patient admitted to my care and give placebo knowing what I know about Ivermectin.”
One week after Kory and Marik presented their data, the National Institutes of Health updated their stand18 on use of the drug with a statement that they would not recommend for or against it. The FLCCC quickly followed up with their own statement:19
“By no longer recommending against ivermectin use, doctors should feel more open in prescribing ivermectin as another therapeutic option for the treatment of COVID-19. This may clear its path towards FDA emergency use approval.”
WHO’s Ivermectin Review
While a 75% reduction in mortality is impressive enough (which is the average reduction based on 18 trials according to the FLCCC20), a WHO-sponsored review21 suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83%. As reported by Swiss Policy Research:22
“This result is based on in-hospital trials, so it does not yet take into account early ambulatory and prophylactic treatment. The authors of the review intend to include three more trials, due to be published sometime in January, before providing a final conclusion.”
In the video above, Dr. Andrew Hill of the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool, U.K., who is leading this review, discusses the preliminary findings. At the end, he too describes ivermectin as a potentially transformative treatment against COVID-19.
Ivermectin Best as Prophylaxis
While preliminary evidence seems to suggest Ivermectin can be useful at all stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection, its real strength appears to be prophylactic. December 26, 2020, Dhaka Tribune23 reported the findings of an observational study24 from Bangladesh, which looked at ivermectin as a pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among health care workers.
Fifty-eight volunteers took 12 mg of ivermectin once per month for four months. Only four (6.96%) came down with mild COVID-19 symptoms during the May through August 2020 trial period. In comparison, 44 of 60 health care workers (73.3%) who had declined the medication were diagnosed with COVID-19.
Both groups worked with COVID-19 positive patients at the Bangladesh Medical College Hospital. Lead researcher Mohammed Tarek Alam told Dhaka Tribune that ivermectin is “apparently very effective as a preventive drug.” His team will be seeking permission to conduct a randomized control trial to validate their findings.
Other Effective Treatment Options
It’s worth noting that while the FLCCC is encouraging the use of ivermectin as a prophylactic and early at-home treatment, they also have a more comprehensive early treatment protocol available, as well as an in-hospital protocol.
The treatment protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+25 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,26 due to the addition of the drug ivermectin.
Vitamin C — which has important antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating effects27 — is a central component of this treatment. As noted in a recent landmark review28 on vitamin C for COVID-19, it’s common for hospitalized patients to have overt vitamin C deficiency. This is particularly true for older patients and those hospitalized for respiratory infections.
The two protocols (I-MASK+29 and I-MATH+,30) are available for download on the FLCCC website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine31 in mid-December 2020.
Nebulized Peroxide — My Favorite Treatment Choice
My personal choice for prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 symptoms is nebulized peroxide. This is a home remedy I recommend everyone familiarize themselves with, as in many cases it can improve symptoms in mere hours.
Nebulizing hydrogen peroxide into your sinuses, throat and lungs is a simple, straightforward way to augment your body’s natural expression of hydrogen peroxide to combat infections and can be used both prophylactically after known exposure to COVID-19 and as a treatment for mild, moderate and even severe illness.
Dr. David Brownstein, who has successfully treated over 100 COVID-19 patients with nebulized peroxide, published a case paper32 about this treatment in the July 2020 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and The Law. He also reviews its benefits in “How Nebulized Peroxide Helps Against Respiratory Infections.”
Nebulized hydrogen peroxide is extremely safe, and all you need is a desktop nebulizer and food-grade hydrogen peroxide, which you’ll need to dilute with saline to 0.1% strength. I recommend buying these items beforehand so that you have everything you need and can begin treatment at home at the first signs of a respiratory infection.
The nebulizer I use is the Pari Trek S Compressor Aerosol System. The large battery option is unnecessary as you can simply plug in the device to run it when you need it. There are likely other nebulizers you can use instead, as long as it plugs into an electrical outlet and doesn’t use batteries, as they are low-powered and ineffective nebulizers that don’t work as well.
In breathless tones, NBC News recently reported1 the existence of a business where mask wearing isn’t enforced. In the Naples, Florida, grocery store, hardly anyone wears a mask. The store’s owner, who the news station claimed “is known for his conservative and often controversial viewpoints,” told a reporter he’s never worn a mask in his life and never will.
The store does have a mask policy posted, but video shows that many customers are fine with not wearing one. There is a mask mandate in Naples, but Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued a ruling that makes enforcement of the rule difficult, NBC said.
The irony of the whole thing is that while the media claims mask mandates are based on science and will “save lives,” this simply isn’t true. Science is actually being ignored wholesale and recommendations are primarily pushed based on emotional justifications and triggers. If science were actually followed, universal mask wearing by healthy people would not — indeed could not — be recommended.
A Timeline of Unscientific Extremes
From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, health experts have been unable to unify around a cohesive message about face masks. In February 2020, Surgeon General Jerome Adams sent out a tweet urging Americans to stop buying masks, saying they are “NOT effective.”2 (He has since deleted that tweet.) Adams also warned that if worn or handled improperly, face masks can increase your risk of infection.3
Similarly, in March 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated4 that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.” Logically, only symptomatic individuals and health care workers were urged to wear them.
Fauci even pointed out that mask wearing has “unintended consequences” as “people keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face,” which may actually increase the risk of contracting and/or spreading the virus.
By June 2020, universal mask mandates became the norm and we were told we had to wear them because there may be asymptomatic super-spreaders among us. Interestingly enough, that same month, the World Health Organization admitted that asymptomatic transmission was “very rare.” If that’s true, then why should healthy, asymptomatic people mask up?
By July 2020, Fauci claimed his initial dismissal of face masks had been in error and that he’d downplayed their importance simply to ensure there would be a sufficient supply for health care workers, who need them most.5
Fast-forward a few weeks, and by the end of July 2020, Fauci went to the next extreme, flouting the recommendation to wear goggles and full face shields in addition to a mask, ostensibly because the mucous membranes of your eyes could potentially serve as entryways for viruses as well.6
Buy New $37.10(as of 02:56 EST – Details)This despite the fact that a March 31, 2020, report7 in JAMA Ophthalmology found SARS-CoV-2-positive conjunctival specimens (i.e., specimens taken from the eye) in just 5.2% of confirmed COVID-19 patients (two out of 28).
What’s more, contamination of the eyes is likely primarily the result of touching your eyes with contaminated fingers. If you wear goggles or a face shield, you may actually be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch.
Toward the end of November 2020, the asymptomatic spread narrative was effectively destroyed by the publication of a Chinese study8 involving nearly 9.9 million individuals. It revealed not a single case of COVID-19 could be traced to an asymptomatic individual who had tested positive.The logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is NOT being taken into account. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent.
Around December 2020, recommendations for double-masking emerged,9 and this trend gained momentum through extensive media coverage as we moved into the first weeks of 2021.10 Undeterred by scientific evidence and logic alike, by the end of January 2021, “experts” started promoting the use of three11,12 or even four13 masks, whether you’re symptomatic or not.
True to form, while promoting the concept of double-masking as recently as January 29, 2021,14 by February 1, Fauci conceded “There is no data that indicates double-masking is effective,” but that “There are many people who feel … if you really want to have an extra little bit of protection, ‘maybe I should put two masks on.’”15 In other words, the suggestion is based on emotion, not actual science.
The Singular Truth Behind Mixed Messaging About Masks
The logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is NOT being taken into account. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent.
Both of these scientific consensuses negate the rationale for universal mask wearing by healthy (asymptomatic) people. The only time mask wearing makes sense is in a hospital setting and if you are actually symptomatic and need to be around others, and even then, you need to be aware that it provides only limited protection.Buy New $27.99(as of 02:56 EST – Details)
The reason for this is because the virus is aerosolized and spreads through the air. Aerosolized viruses — especially SARS-CoV-2, which is about half the size of influenza viruses — cannot be blocked by a mask, as explained in my interview with Denis Rancourt, who has conducted a thorough review of the published science on masks and viral transmission.
According to Rancourt, “NONE of these well-designed studies that are intended to remove observational bias found a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask.”
COVID-19 Specific Mask Trial Failed to Prove Benefit
a.Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may actually increase your risk by 23%
b.The vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free
The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations.
Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.
Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls. So, essentially, we’re destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed in “Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,” means little to nothing.
CDC Relies on Anecdotal Data to Promote Mask Use
If you want additional proof that health authorities are not concerned with following the best available science, look no further than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.18 What do they rely on as the primary piece of “evidence” to back up its mask recommendation?
A wholly anecdotal story about two symptomatic hair stylists who interacted with 139 clients during eight days is all they offer. Sixty-seven of the clients agreed to be interviewed and tested. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
The fact that the stylists and all clients “universally wore masks in the salon” is therefore seen as evidence that the masks prevented the spread of infection. The Danish study reviewed above didn’t even make it onto the CDC’s list of studies.
The CDC’s own data19,20,21 also show 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask “often.” So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had “often” or “always” worn a mask.
This too contradicts the idea that mask wearing will protect against the infection, and is probably a slightly more reliable indicator of effectiveness than the anecdotal hairdresser story.
Buy New $31.82(as of 02:56 EST – Details)Another recent investigation22 revealed the same trend, showing that states with mask mandates had an average of 27 positive SARS-CoV-2 “cases” per 100,000 people, whereas states with no mask mandates had just 17 cases per 100,000. I reviewed these and other findings in my December 31, 2020, article, “Mask Mandates Are Absolutely Useless.”
Masks Don’t Protect Against Smoke
The CDC also contradicts its own conclusions that masks protect against viral spread by specifying that wearing a cloth face mask will NOT protect you against wildfire smoke, because “they do not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health.”23 To get any protection from harmful smoke particles, you’d have to use an N95 respirator.
The particulate matter in wildfire smoke can range from 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller in smoke and haze, to 10 micrometers in wind-blown dust.24 SARS-CoV-2, meanwhile, has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.14 micrometers, far tinier than the particulate found in smoke.
SARS-CoV-2 is also about half the size of most viruses, which tend to measure between 0.02 microns to 0.3 microns.25 Meanwhile, virus-laden saliva or respiratory droplets expelled when talking or coughing measure between 5 and 10 micrometers.26
N95 masks can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns,27 so they may prevent a majority of respiratory droplets from escaping, but not aerosolized viruses. Influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2 are small enough to float in the air column, so as long as you can still breathe, they can flow in and out of your respiratory tract.
The following video offers a simple demonstration of how masks “work.” Or rather, don’t, as the vapor flows in and out, all around the mask — even if you’re wearing two of them.@chadroyvermontPsychrometric’s Visualized we show you what Science has missed . Take a deeper look into this Science it will help stop Covid!#science#school#fyp♬ original sound – user579705
If you’re still on the fence about whether masks are a necessity that must be forced on everyone, including young children, I urge you to take the time to actually read through some of the studies that have been published. In addition to the research reviewed above, here’s a sampling of what else you’ll find when you start searching for data on face masks as a strategy to prevent viral infection:
Surgical masks and N95 masks perform about the same — A 2009 study28 published in JAMA compared the effectiveness of surgical masks and N95 respirators to prevent seasonal influenza in a hospital setting; 24% of the nurses in the surgical mask group still got the flu, as did 23% of those who wore N95 respirators.
Cloth masks perform far worse than medical masks — A study29 published in 2015 found health care workers who wore cloth masks had the highest rates of influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections, when compared to those wearing medical masks or controls (who used standard practices that included occasional medical mask wearing).
Compared to controls and the medical mask group, those wearing cloth masks had a 72% higher rate of lab-confirmed viral infections. According to the authors:
“Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks … Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”
“No evidence” masks prevent transmission of flu in hospital setting — In September 2018, the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) won its second of two grievances filed against the Toronto Academic Health Science Network’s (TAHSN) “vaccinate or mask” policy. As reported by the ONA:30
“After reviewing extensive expert evidence submitted … Arbitrator William Kaplan, in his September 6 decision,31 found that St. Michael’s VOM policy is ‘illogical and makes no sense’ …
In 2015, Arbitrator James Hayes struck down the same type of policy in an arbitration that included other Ontario hospitals across the province … Hayes found there was ‘scant evidence’ that forcing nurses to use masks reduced the transmission of influenza to patients …
ONA’s well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was … no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals.
They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask.”
No significant reduction in flu transmission when used in community setting — A policy review paper32 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020, which reviewed “the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures … in non-healthcare settings” concluded, based on 10 randomized controlled trials, that there was “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks …”
Risk reduction may be due to chance — In 2019, a review of interventions for flu epidemics published by the World Health Organization concluded the evidence for face masks was slim, and may be due to chance:33
“Ten relevant RCTs were identified for this review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of community-based use of face masks …
In the pooled analysis, although the point estimates suggested a relative risk reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza of 22% in the face mask group, and a reduction of 8% in the face mask group regardless of whether or not hand hygiene was also enhanced, the evidence was insufficient to exclude chance as an explanation for the reduced risk of transmission.”
“No evidence” that universal masking prevents COVID-19 — A 2020 guidance memo by the World Health Organization pointed out that:34
“Meta-analyses in systematic literature reviews have reported that the use of N95 respirators compared with the use of medical masks is not associated with any statistically significant lower risk of the clinical respiratory illness outcomes or laboratory-confirmed influenza or viral infections …
At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
Mask or no mask, same difference — A meta-analysis and scientific review35 led by respected researcher Thomas Jefferson, cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration, posted on the prepublication server medRxiv in April 2020, found that, compared to no mask, mask wearing in the general population or among health care workers did not reduce influenza-like illness cases or influenza.
In one study, which looked at quarantined workers, it actually increased the risk of contracting influenza, but lowered the risk of influenza-like illness. They also found there was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators.
Statistics Show Mask Use Has No Impact on Infection Rates
Another way to shed light on whether masks work or not is to compare infection rates (read: positive test rates) before and after the implementation of universal mask mandates. In his article,36 “These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID,” bioengineer Yinon Weiss does just that.
He points out that “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.” To see all of the graphs, check out Weiss’ article37 or Twitter thread.38 Here are just a select few to bring home the point:
To Pose a Risk, You Need To Be Symptomatic
Studies have repeatedly shown that masks do not significantly reduce transmission of viruses, so it’s safe to assume that a mask will in fact fail in this regard. That leaves two key factors: There must be a contagious person around, and they must be sufficiently close for transmission to occur.
We now know that asymptomatic individuals — even if they test positive using a PCR test — are highly unlikely to be contagious.39 So, really, a key prevention strategy for COVID-19 seems to be to stay home if you have symptoms. As for masking up when you’re healthy, let alone double, triple or quadruple masking, there’s simply no scientific consensus for that strategy.