Memo to Dr. Scott Atlas, new White House coronavirus advisor
He’s already made two forward-looking points: positive PCR tests in asymptomatic people mean nothing; and the only way to establish mass immunity is through mass exposure out in the open, not lockdowns.
by Jon Rappoport. September 8, 2020
Scott,
Where to begin? No new virus was ever shown to exist via proper proof. Worthless diagnostic test. Sixteen ways case and death numbers are being faked. If there were a virus, the only way to stop it would be through open massive public exposure and the gaining of natural immunity. Therefore, no lockdowns, no masks, no distancing, no vast economic destruction under the watch of a president whose whole program was based on expanding the economy. Is that enough for starters?
I’d really like to know what went on the room, back in March, when Fauci walked in with Neil Ferguson’s preposterous computer predictions of COVID deaths in the US and spoke with Trump.
Did no one bring up the fact that Ferguson’s whole career has been a string of failed predictions? Was there zero due diligence? Did some economic advisor open his mouth and tell the president what a long-term lockdown would do to the economy? Fifty million people unemployed? Well over a million businesses destroyed?
I hope you understand that Moderna is Fauci’s favorite vaccine company, and his agency, NIAID, stands to rake in cash if Moderna’s shot turns out to be the choice for COVID—when, in fact, no vaccine is necessary.
I hope you know Moderna is a little punk firm that has never brought a product of any kind to market, and yet garnered $500 million in fed funds to research a vaccine.
On top of that, Moderna is deploying RNA technology, which has never been approved for any pharmaceutical product, and has caused, in trials, serious adverse effects.
Are you aware the NY Times recently reported on a large study showing up to 90 percent of all US COVID cases have been false positives, owing to the extreme sensitivity of the PCR test? Not enough virus present in humans to harm a flea. No likelihood of contagion, either.
Have you read the results of a New York study revealing patients over the age of 65 who are put on ventilators die at the staggering rate of 97.2 percent? Yet, Cuomo and Trump keep pushing ventilators.
COVID is old people. Period. No virus necessary. They’re all suffering from long-term, multiple, serious health conditions. They’ve all been treated, for years, with toxic medical drugs. They’re terrified at the possibility of a COVID diagnosis. Then they are diagnosed with COVID. Then they’re isolated and cut off from family and friends. And they die. NO VIRUS NECESSARY.
And THAT makes the recent CDC revelation about death numbers more relevant than most people can fathom. The CDC states that only 6 percent of all US COVID deaths have been unambiguously caused by a virus alone. The other 94 percent are overwhelmingly the old people I just described. Get it?
And now comes a new group of lunatics—computer modelers from the University of Washington, who are predicting the US death toll from COVID will rise above 600,000 this winter. Pressed into their amateur thickly sliced baloney—they ignore the CDC “correction” of death numbers I just mentioned.
Do not let the White House buy this latest death-number projection. Tell Trump one unimaginable screw-up (accepting Ferguson’s criminal projection) is quite enough.
Gather up your forces, Scott. Talk to Dr. John Ioannidis and his merry band of colleagues who tried to get through to Trump and failed, just before you were appointed coronavirus advisor.
Bring the house. You know Fauci and Gates and their sub-honchos are angling for another serious lockdown this winter, when they’re going to make every possible case of flu-like illness over into COVID.
You accepted the White House invite. You bought the ticket, now take the ride. The full ride. Don’t stint.
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, this is an operation to wreck economies worldwide. The preposterous virus narrative is the cover story, concealing the objective of the actual war.
Don’t let the DC attack dogs back you into a corner and shut you up.
You have nothing to lose but your reputation in the eyes of people who don’t matter. They’ve already taken you off their dance card.
The country could lose itself.
In this situation, there is no defense. There is only offense.
If they kick you to the curb, you can come and work with us. You don’t get paid, but the one perk is enormous. You get to define the terms of the battle. And oh yes, you don’t have to speak with numbskulls, hustlers, shysters, and sociopaths.
ONE OF THE MOST FRUSTRATING ASPECTS of how academic science conducts itself in the US is high reliance to SELECTIVE ATTENTION to information that suits one’s particular viewpoint in science. Graduate students writing theses or dissertations are expected to provide a reasonable approximation of a background of the foundations upon which their thesis is built. Somewhere along the way, some scientists have forgotten the ethics of the moral responsibility of providing an unbiased representation of the state of knowledge upon which they base their positions. To seek only confirming instances that match one’s own viewpoint is positivistic – and it is the essential driver of confirmation bias. CDC and Fauci’s reliance of the Selective Attention Bias is monumental is size and historically destructive in scope.
Here I outline a few rather important facts that CDC and Fauci (and thus the rest of public health and most of the US medical system) have forgotten. The result is a public health policy response in the US that is full of … holes, at immense cost to the well-being of society.
When I read headlines like “Scientists discover” X, Y or Z about Coronavirus”, I almost always groan. “We ALREADY KNOW that about coronviruses” is my response, and so off to Pubmed I go.
Here are some things we already know that are being forgotten, or ignored, in public health policy in the US (and elsewhere) on the COVID-19 response.
(1) Coronavirus antibodies don’t last. Based on a non-peer-reviewed study preprint of a King’s College Study that monitored SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels for three months, the media represents this as new because the researchers who have presented the data failed to provide a thorough representation of past studies – and the media failed to pick up on the reality of what we already know. We’ve known that the antibody response to coronaviruses in humans is shorter than that, say, for human rhinoviruses (the common cold) since 1990.
Here’s the study on coronviruses (1990):
“After preliminary trials, the detailed changes in the concentration of specific circulating and local antibodies were followed in 15 volunteers inoculated with coronavirus 229E. Ten of them, who had significantly lower concentrations of preexisting antibody than the rest, became infected and eight of these developed colds. A limited investigation of circulating lymphocyte populations showed some lymphocytopenia in infected volunteers. In this group, antibody concentrations started to increase 1 week after inoculation and reached a maximum about 1 week later. Thereafter antibody titres slowly declined. Although concentrations were still slightly raised 1 year later, this did not always prevent reinfection when volunteers were then challenged with the homologous virus. However, the period of virus shedding was shorter than before and none developed a cold. All of the uninfected group were infected on re-challenge although they also appeared to show some resistance to disease and in the extent of infection. These results are discussed with reference to natural infections with coronavirus and with other infections, such as rhinovirus infections.“
And here’s the study on rhinoviruses (1989):
“The specific humoral immune response of 17 volunteers to infection with human rhinovirus type 2 (HRV-2) has been measured both by neutralization and by ELISA. Six volunteers who had HRV-2-specific antibodies in either serum or nasal secretions before HRV-2 inoculation were resistant to infection and illness. Of the remaining 11 volunteers who had little pre-existing HRV-2-specific antibody, one was immune but 10 became infected and displayed increases in HRV-2-specific antibodies. These antibodies first increased 1-2 weeks after infection and reached a maximum at 5 weeks. All six resistant volunteers who had high pre-existing antibody and eight of the volunteers who became infected maintained their HRV-2-specific antibody for at least 1 year. At this time they were protected against reinfection. Two volunteers showed decreases in HRV-2-specific antibodies from either serum or nasal secretions. They became infected but not ill after HRV-2 inoculation 1 year later.“
So, people infected with coronaviruses have short-lived active antibodies compared to rhinovirus, but have a mild infection a year later if re-exposed. To be fair to the authors of the study, they referenced the coronavirus study from 1990, as well as length of antibody responses in SARS and MERS. But it’s still a fair question to ask:
Why then are we reading headlines such as
?
The high profile emphasis is followed by proclamations that natural immunity from infections might not prove to be”enough”, begging the question of definition of “enough” – Fauci and others (like Paul Offit) have already presaged that an untested vaccine might only make the infection less severe, and not prevent infection or transmission. So this high emphasis and follow-on claim that natural herd immunity might not be enough is a type of distortion used to convince the public that they may have to wait for a vaccine to save society. Of course.
2. Masks Don’t Really Work Outside of Healthcare Systems.
A meta-analysis on masks concluded that masks should work in the healthcare setting, but the three studies that focused on the utility of masks to protect the wearer outside of the healthcare system? Two of three studies say “no effect” – and the one that is significant is only marginally significant, and oh, also (like all of the other studies) only focused on the ability of masks to protect the wearer.
And, for good measure, N95 does NOT mean they stop 95% of droplets, as incorrectly reported by “Ask Ethan” on Forbes – it means they can block viruses no smaller than 5 microns. SARS-CoV-2 is 30 times smaller than N95.
In a BSL3 laboratory, workers must wear much more effective equipment that an N95 mask, or a handkerchief, or a shirt collar, to block viruses the size of coronaviruses. Clearly we are being socially conditioned to submit to pressure to conform to an agenda to accept the spate of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as the living Savior of society. Oh, if only that could even be theoretically true. Unfortuantely, CDC, Fauci and apparently FDA also forgot that
“Objective The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.
Setting 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Participants 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.
Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.
Main outcome measure Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.
Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.”
From Ref #2
“Summary:
Respiratory infection is much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks compared to medical masks, research shows. Cloth masks should not be used by workers in any healthcare setting, authors of the new study say.”
C. R. MacIntyre, H. Seale, T. C. Dung, N. T. Hien, P. T. Nga, A. A. Chughtai, B. Rahman, D. E. Dwyer, Q. Wang. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open, 2015; 5 (4): e006577 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577
Even Medpage today published an article that concluded that some politicians are pushing masks for fear mongers, not toward evidence-based medical purposes.
3. Coronavirus Vaccines Cause Pathogenic Priming… and Therefore Require Phase 1 Animal Studies to Detect Disease Enhancement
This has been covered in my blog before as suggested reading, but I’ll put those findings again right here for those expecting more from our regulatory agencies. In March 2020, FDA allowed Fauci, I mean, Moderna, to skip the critical Phase 1 animal studies that led to a halth to human studies for SARS and MERS vaccines. That was a LONG time ago now (5 months). How many times over could Moderna (I mean, Fauci) have conducted the animal studies to detect pathogenic priming by now? Maybe they have! Certainly we would have head of the results if they showed no disease enhancement. Come on, we may be – collectively- stupid, but we’re not dead. Yet.
Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus.“Lung mononuclear infiltrates occurred in all groups after virus challenge but with increased infiltrates that contained eosinophils and increases in the eosinophil promoting IL-5 and IL-13 cytokines only in the vaccine groups. Inactivated MERS-CoV vaccine appears to carry a hypersensitive-type lung pathology risk from MERS-CoV infection that is similar to that found with inactivated SARS-CoV vaccines from SARS-CoV infection.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27269431
Vaccine efficacy in senescent mice challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV bearing epidemic and zoonotic spike variants.“VRP-N vaccines not only failed to protect from homologous or heterologous challenge, but resulted in enhanced immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates within the lungs of SARS-CoV-challenged mice. VRP-N-induced pathology presented at day 4, peaked around day 7, and persisted through day 14, and was likely mediated by cellular immune responses.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17194199
Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets“Immunized ferrets developed a more rapid and vigorous neutralizing antibody response than control animals after challenge with SARS-CoV; however, they also exhibited strong inflammatory responses in liver tissue.”
Animal Models for SARS and MERS coronaviruses. “The concern that is extrapolated from the FIPV vaccine experience to human SARS-CoV vaccines is whether vaccine recipients will develop more severe disease if they are exposed to or infected with SARS-CoV after neutralizing antibody titers decline. The second concern is whether recipients of a SARSCoV vaccine would be at risk of developing pulmonary immunopathology following infection with an unrelated human coronavirus e.g. 229E, OC43, HKU1 or NL63 that usually causes mild, self limited disease. Although findings from preclinical evaluation have revealed these concerns, studies in animal models may not be able to provide data to confirm or allay these concerns.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550498
Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate“…a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice…”
There are many other bits of Science that CDC, Fauci, and the FDA have forgotten – such as how to accurately count deaths, how to design an accurate PCR test. And there will no doubt be some science they would like to forget . They seem hell bent on holding society hostage with lock-downs, and mask mandates, and destruction of small businesses, depletion of retirement accounts.
We won’t forget that the disaster is largely man-made, stemming first from CDC’s flawed PCR test, fumbled attempts to contain by early contact tracing, and made much worse by a lock-down that was supposed to last two weeks. We have not forgotten that we never signed up for lock-downs of long duration that destroy our means of making a living, feeding and housing ourselves and our children. But there is a bright light coming out of the tunnel BEFORE the untested vaccines.
A Bit of Science CDC and Fauci Would Like To Ignore
Here’s a bit of Science I want YOU to help make certain NO ONE forgets. Please share Dr. Brownstein’s case series study on his protocol used on 107 COVID-19 patients with zero deaths – and only 1 hospitalization on the core protocol – with every ND, DO, DC, nurse, geriatric specialist, nursing home employee, public health official, friend, neigbor, and family member you know. Share my editorial, too.
If this virus can be so easily treated, why are we destroying America?
One of the worst parts of the Covid-19 “pandemic” are the decrees to wear masks in public. What’s wrong with masks? Let me count the ways. First, they do not keep out “viruses.” The pores in the best of masks are ten times bigger than any “virus”—it’s like a six-foot man walking through a sixty-foot door. Labels on boxes of masks specifically warn that the masks “will not provide any protection against Covid-19 (Coronavirus) or other viruses or contaminants.” Two, we are constantly exposed to bits of cellular material called viruses—our body is home for three hundred sixty trillion viruses. The air we breathe is constantly raining billions of virus particles that float through the air and are blown from one end of the earth to the other. Three, viruses are good for us; they communicate changes in the environment and help us adjust. Four, the masks force us to breathe in more carbon dioxide than is healthy; they are particularly dangerous for those with respiratory problems. A recent study involving one hundred fifty-nine healthcare workers, ages twenty-one to thirty-five, found that 81 percent developed headaches from wearing a face mask (https://www.globalresearch.ca/face-masks-pose-serious-risks-healthy/5712649). Five, lots of bacteria build up inside the mask, and these might indeed become toxic. Six, the masks can be deadly. Several young people have dropped dead while wearing masks in gym class or while running. (https://nypost.com/2020/05/06/two-boys-drop-dead-in-china-while-wearing-masks-during-gym-class/) And seven, masks hide our facial expressions, thereby removing our main way of communicating friendship and approval.
FALSE POSITIVES
The test used to “determine whether someone has contracted coronavirus” actually does no such thing. What it looks at are snippets of RNA, not actual “viruses.” By some estimates, the test can give up to 80 percent false positives (www.collective-evolution.com/2020/03/16/study-suggests-potential-high-rate-of-false-positives-for-covid-19-testing/). Yet, many people have been hospitalized and subjected to dangerous treatments like anti-virals and ventilators on the basis of these tests. Probably the wisest world ruler alive today is President John Magufuli of Tanzania. A chemist by training, Magufuli submitted a number of samples to the World Health Organization (WHO) for testing. Says Magufuli, “We took samples from goats; we sent samples from sheep; we took samples from pawpaws; we sent samples from car oil; and we took samples from other different things; and we took the samples to the laboratory without them knowing.” His officials named the sample of car oil Jabil Hamza, thirty years old, male. The results came back negative. They named a sample of jackfruit Sarah Samuel, forty-five years old, female. The results came back inconclusive. Pawpaw got sent in as Elizabeth Anne, twenty-six years old, female. The poor pawpaw came back positive. Samples from a bird called kware and from a goat also tested positive; rabbit was undetermined; sheep was negative. President Magufuli is not wasting any government money on test kits for his people.
WARP SPEED? NOT SO FAST!
Moderna is one of over a dozen companies working on a Covid-19 vaccine, leading the pack in getting out a vaccine as part of Operation Warp Speed. An optimistic press release on their progress sent their stock price soaring. However, the clinical trial results for the vaccine did not give cause for optimism. The vaccine, developed and promoted by Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and financed by Bill Gates, used an experimental mRNA technology said to allow rapid manufacture of the shot. Moderna skipped animal studies on the vaccine, opting to try it out on “exceptionally healthy” volunteers. But three of the fifteen in the high-dose cohort (250 mcg) suffered a “serious adverse event” within forty-three days of receiving the vaccine. One of them, Ian Haydon, age twenty- nine of Seattle, had to seek medical care at an urgent care center just twelve hours after his shot, and when he returned home, he fainted. Says Haydon, he “felt sicker than he ever had before.” Moderna did not release its clinical trial study or raw data, but its press release acknowledged that three volunteers developed grade-three systemic events defined by the FDA as “preventing daily activity and requiring medical intervention.” A vaccine with those reaction rates could cause grave injuries in one and one-half billion humans if administered to “every person on earth” (childrenshealthdefense.org, May 22, 2020).
INEFFECTIVE
Not only are these new vaccines dangerous, they are also ineffective. Oxford University researchers are developing a vaccine called ChAdOx1 nCov-19, which they tested on six rhesus monkeys. All six contracted the disease (www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8331709/Oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-does-not-stop-infection-experts-warn.html). Just two days earlier, in an example of extreme wishful thinking, webmd.com reported that the Oxford vaccine was a success (www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200518/vaccine-protects-monkeys-against-covid-19)!
DISEASE ENHANCEMENT
The development and licensure of Dengvaxia vaccine for dengue fever by Sanofi took more than twenty years and cost more than one and one-half billion dollars. Researchers found that the vaccine provoked a strong antibody response, which often made the disease worse, especially in infants and children—a phenomenon that researchers call “disease enhancement.” In spite of these dodgy results, Dengvaxia was subsequently administered to thousands of children in the Philippines, resulting in the deaths of six hundred and leading to a permanent ban on the vaccine in that country. Did the FDA call for a halt to Dengvaxia? Quite the contrary, the FDA went ahead and licensed the vaccine in the U.S. In 2016, Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, tried to develop a vaccine for coronavirus. Hotez told a U.S. Congressional Committee that “coronavirus vaccines are scientifically challenging and have a unique potential safety problem,” that of disease enhancement. When Hotez observed this immune pathology in his coronavirus laboratory animals, he thought, “Oh my God, this is going to be problematic” (childrenshealthdefense.org, April 23, 2020).
BLOOD VESSEL DISEASE
Originally described as a disease of the lungs, akin to pneumonia, the emerging consensus now describes Covid-19 as a blood vessel disease caused by a “one-of-a-kind respiratory virus” that enters through the lungs and then attacks the blood vessels leading to high rates of blood clots. In the U.S., as many as 40 percent of Covid-19 patients develop clots and in China the rate is 71 percent. Autopsies show lungs filled with microclots. Even without a Covid-19 diagnosis, young people in their thirties and forties are having strokes in record numbers. On April 22, a New York doctor told CNN he had seen a sevenfold increase in the number of young people with strokes in the previous two weeks. At Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital, a doctor removing a clot from a patient’s brain “saw new clots forming in real time around it” as he was pulling it out. Bad, bad virus. . . or is it? Russian scientists saw the same symptoms in workers servicing ultra-high frequency generators way back in 1978. In addition to fatigue, drowsiness, headaches and loss of memory, the workers experienced a decrease in the amount of hemoglobin and a tendency toward hypercoagulation. There is no need to invoke “viruses” to explain cases of severe EMF poisoning (www.5gSpaceAppeal.org, May 20, 2020).
IT CAN BE DONE!
Mark Steele, a campaigner against 5G, worked to highlight the dangers of a secret 5G rollout in Gateshead, UK. Citing complaints of increased illness and cancer in 5G areas, Steele argued that the new smart 5G arrays on the top of new LED lampposts emit class-one radiation frequencies and should be treated as a danger to the public. The Gateshead Council launched a campaign against Steele, with false allegations on social media posts and printed leaflets stating that Steele was spreading pseudo-science; the leaflets claimed that the arrays were not dangerous and were not 5G. “Please be assured that there is no scientific basis or credible evidence of any of these scare stories about street lights causing cancer and other illnesses.” A court ruled that the council misused police powers to gag Steele and ordered the council to pay eleven thousand pounds to cover court costs. In court, none of the council officers could explain what 5G was and their leading government expert refused to attend the hearing. In conclusion the judge refused to gag Steele, stating, “The public have a right to know.” The secret 5G rollout in Gateshead is now officially an issue of public interest and will be treated as a landmark case for other people to start using this court’s ruling to challenge their Councils (https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/, October 12, 2018). Here in the U.S., one small town, Easton, in Fairfield County, Connecticut recently decided to put the brakes on the 5G rollout. On May 7, 2020, the Easton Board of Selectmen unanimously approved a 5G cease-and-desist resolution “until such technologies have been proven safe to human health and the environment through independent research and testing” (childrenshealthdefense.org, May 22, 2020). Other U.S. towns that have taken steps to stop 5G include Farragut, Tennessee; Hallandale Beach, Florida; Greendale, Wisconsin; Keene, New Hampsuire; and Santa Barbara, California.
VITAMIN A AND OBESITY
Obesity impairs the body’s ability to use vitamin A appropriately and leads to deficiencies of this key nutrient in major organs. This was the conclusion of research conducted at Weill Cornell Medicine. “Our research shows that, even if an obese animal consumes normal amounts of vitamin A, they have deficiencies of the vitamin A in major organs,” said first author Dr. Steven Trasino. “Obesity is categorized as a state of malnutrition, typically associated with consumption of too many calories and poor intake of essential nutrients. Our data expand on that definition by showing that obesity plays a role in the body’s ability to use this essential nutrient properly.” The report notes that vitamin A is critical for vision, fetal development, reproduction, immune responses and wound healing, and that vitamin A deficiency is also implicated in increased risk of respiratory infections, diabetes, infertility, delayed growth and poor bone development. Unfortunately, obesity interferes with the body’s ability to use vitamin A, even with adequate intake. (news.weill.cornell.edu/news, November 2, 2015). These findings may explain why obesity is a risk factor for severe Covid-19 disease, since vitamin A is also a critical nutrient for protecting us against environmental toxins, including electromagnetic toxicity.
UNTO THE THIRD GENERATION
Grandmothers with higher blood levels of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl, fluorine-containing industrial toxins released into the air, soil and water) are significantly more likely to have granddaughters with obesity, according to a report given at the virtual ENDO 2020 meeting sponsored by the Endocrine Society. According to Barbara Cohn, PhD, of the Public Health Institute in Berkeley, California, “Pregnancy appears to be. . . a critical window of exposure for at least three generations of humans.” These compounds are designed to persist in the environment, and they also obviously do in the human body (https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/endo/85719). Major sources include non-stick pans, food packaging, household products, stain- and water-repellent fabrics, cleaning products and fire-fighting foams. They are associated with low infant birth weights, negative effects on the immune system, cancer, thyroid hormone disruption and lowered testosterone.
PROTECT YOUR KIDS WITH RAW MILK
A January 2015 study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that children who drink raw milk have less rhinitis and fewer respiratory tract infections and ear aches. The highest rates of these illnesses were in children who drank UHT milk, with lower rates in those drinking pasteurized milk and boiled farm milk. The best outcome was in children on raw milk. The results were especially significant for ear infections—something that makes children especially miserable. Interestingly, children who drank raw milk had about the same rate of fever as those who drank pasteurized milk or boiled farm milk, an indication that fever is just a normal and possibly protective occurrence for children.
Suppose one of the most intense “safety practices”—wearing a mask—actually inflates the number of COVID diagnoses?
Needless to say, it would be a bombshell. Suppose PCR and antibody tests turn out false positive results because people are wearing masks every day?
How is that possible?
Actually, it’s quite simple. A person wearing a mask is breathing in his own germs all day long. He breathes them out, as he should, but then he breathes them back in.
It seems evident that this unnatural process would increase the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in his body; even creating active infection.
Along with this, a decrease in oxygen intake, which occurs when a mask is worn, would allow certain germs to multiply in the body—germs which would otherwise be routinely wiped out or diminished in the presence of an oxygen-rich environment.
Here’s the key: Both the PCR and antibody tests are known for registering false-positive results, since they cross-react with germs which have nothing to do with the reason for the test.
If wearing a mask increases the number and variety of germs replicating in the body, and also increases the chance of developing an active infection…then the likelihood of a false-positive PCR or antibody test is increased.
In other words, masks would promote the number of so-called COVID cases. This would, of course, have alarming consequences.
People labeled “COVID” face all sorts of negative consequences. I don’t have to spell them out.
In past articles, I’ve shown that both PCR and antibody tests DO register false-positives because they react with irrelevant germs.
For example, let’s consider the PCR: From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans”:
“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”
Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.
From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit”:
“…non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”
Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.
Now let’s consider the antibody test—
Business Insider, April 3, 202: “Some tests have demonstrated false positives, detecting antibodies to much more common coronaviruses.”
Science News, March 27: “Science News spoke with…Charles Cairns, dean of the Drexel University College of Medicine, about how antibody tests work and what are some of the challenges of developing the tests.”
“Cairns: ‘The big question is: Does a positive response for the antibodies mean that person is actively infected, or that they have been infected in the past? The tests need to be accurate, and avoid both false positives and false negatives. That’s the challenge’.”
That’s just a sprinkling of sources on both the PCR and antibody tests—revealing that both of these tests DO spit out false-positive results. Many of those false-positives are the result of cross reactions with irrelevant germs.
And as I stated at the top of this article, if wearing masks increases the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in the body, then it’s quite likely that masks will, in fact, contribute to false diagnoses of COVID.
Now, we come to a different angle on this story. Everyone is aware that governors and other politicians are ramping up orders to wear masks to new insane levels. If indeed this order will result in more diagnosed COVID cases…
How can we avoid looking at the financial incentives?
It turns out that the states are receiving federal money for EVERY COVID case.
The reference here is Becker’s CFO Hospital Report, April 14, 2020, “State-by-state breakdown of federal aid per COVID-19 case”:
“HHS recently began distributing the first $30 billion of emergency funding designated for hospitals in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act…”
“Below is a breakdown of how much funding per COVID-19 case each state will receive from the first $30 billion in aid. Kaiser Health News used a state breakdown provided to the House Ways and Means Committee by HHS along with COVID-19 cases tabulated by The New York Times for its analysis.”
“Alabama
$158,000 per COVID-19 case
Alaska
$306,000
Arizona
$23,000
Arkansas
$285,000
California
$145,000
Colorado
$58,000
Connecticut
$38,000
Delaware
$127,000…”
The article goes on to list every state and the money it will receive for EACH DIAGNOSED COVID CASE.
If mask wearing increases the likelihood of a COVID diagnosis, then: those states forcing new widespread mask dictates will be multiplying their federal $$$.
And if you really want to cover the bases, every method of fake case-counting will have the same ballooning $$$ effect for the states.
ALL the so-called containment measures—masks, quarantine, isolation, distancing, lockdowns, economic destruction—bring on fear, stress, loneliness…lowering immune-system function…leading to more infections…which means more germs replicating in the body…which means more false-positive COVID diagnostic tests…and more human destruction…and more $$$ for the states.
