The Covid-19 vaccines have been at the centre of a heated debate since their introduction, with many questions and concerns raised about their safety and effectiveness.
Speculation has also been rife that the Covid-19 injections may contain traces of Graphene Oxide, a highly toxic and conductive substance.
Medicine regulators, with the support of the Mainstream Media, have repeatedly denied these claims.
But they were lying to you.
Because recent evidence has emerged that confirms the presence of Graphene Oxide, a highly toxic and conductive substance, in the Pfizer vaccine. And it has come from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which has been forced to publish the confidential Pfizer documents by order of the Federal Court in the USA.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored newsin your inbox…
Type your email…
The FDA had initially attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years, despite approving the injection after only 108 days of a safety review on December 11th, 2020.
However, a group of scientists and medical researchers sued the FDA under FOIA to force the release of hundreds of thousands of documents related to the licensing of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine.
In early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered the FDA to release 55,000 pages per month, and since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website as they have been published.
One of the most recent documents published by the FDA saved as 125742_S1_M4_4.2.1 vr vtr 10741.pdf, confirms the use of Graphene Oxide in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.
The document is a description of a study carried out by Pfizer between April 7th 2020 and 19th August 2020, with the objective being “to express and characterize the vaccine antigen encoded by BNT162b2.”
In layman’s terms, the study was conducted to determine how the vaccine works. The study found that the vaccine used mRNA to instruct your cells to produce a protein (called P2 S), which is the Spike protein of the alleged Covd-19 virus.
The millions of spike proteins then bind to a receptor called ACE2 on the surface of your cells, inducing an immune system response.
But what is most interesting about the study is that it confirms on page 7 that reduced Graphene Oxide is required to manufacture the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine because it is needed as a base for the lipid nanoparticles.
Pfizer states on page 7 of the study in section 3.4 the following –
This is most peculiar because medicine regulators with the help of the Mainstream Media, have denied for months on end that Graphene Oxide is an ingredient of the Covid-19 vaccine. They’ve been able to say this because those who’ve proven and speculated Graphene Oxide is in the Pfizer Covid19 injection have been asking the wrong question.
What everyone should have been asking is, ‘is Graphene Oxide used in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer Covid vaccine?’
Because as this document, which the FDA attempted to keep confidential and sealed the 75 years, shows, Graphene Oxide is indeed used in the manufacturing process of the vaccine because it is vital in helping to make the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles stable.
Therefore, trace amounts or large amounts, depending on the batch, of reduced Graphene Oxide inevitably make their way into the Pfizer Covid-19 injections.
What are Lipid Nanoparticles?
The Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine uses tiny particles called lipid nanoparticles to deliver the vaccine’s genetic material (called messenger RNA, or mRNA) into cells in the body. These lipid nanoparticles are like tiny “bubbles” made up of fats and other molecules that can surround and protect the mRNA until it reaches its destination inside the cells.
The mRNA in the vaccine provides instructions to the cells to produce a protein (called spike protein) that is found on the surface of the Covid-19 virus. When the immune system detects this spike protein, it can recognize it as foreign and mount an immune response against it,
Furthermore, it has been discovered that two of the lipids in Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines are ALC-0159 and ALC-315, as confirmed by the assessment report of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine published by the European Medicines Agency.
Graphene Oxide is a tiny particle that is made up of carbon and oxygen atoms. It’s really small – so small that you can’t see it with your eyes. But even though it’s small, it can be dangerous.
It is known to be toxic to some cells, and research has shown that it can cause inflammation and damage to the lungs when inhaled.
In addition, Graphene Oxide is able to cross the blood-brain barrier, which is a protective barrier that prevents harmful substances from entering the brain. This could potentially lead to neurological problems.
Graphene Oxide is detected in the immune system as if it were a pathogen. Once injected it has an affinity for the central nervous system, potentially causing paralysis, strokes and alteration of the nervous system.
Furthermore, the long-term effects of Graphene Oxide exposure are not yet known. There is very little research on the long-term effects of Graphene Oxide exposure in humans, which means we don’t know what the potential risks are.
But thanks to the administration of the Pfizer COVID vaccine to millions of people, numerous times, we are finding out as the days pass. And sadly, both the short-term and long-term effects do not look good.
Further Evidence, Other Undeclared Substances & Deadly Consequences
Graphene Oxide is not the only toxic substance that the public should be concerned about. Because scientists have found Nanotech alongside Graphene Oxide when they have previously examined samples of Covid-19 injections.
Nanoscience and nanotechnology involve the ability to see and control individual atoms and molecules. Everything on Earth is made up of atoms—the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the buildings and houses we live in, and our own bodies.
But something as small as an atom is impossible to see with the naked eye. In fact, it’s impossible to see with the microscopes typically used in high school science classes. The microscopes needed to see things at the nanoscale were invented in the early 1980s.
Once scientists had the right tools, such as the scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) and the atomic force microscope (AFM), the age of nanotechnology was born.
And scientists from Spain, have declared that nanotechnology, which has the ability to control atoms in your body, has been found in all of the Covid-19 injections alongside Graphene Oxide. https://odysee.com/$/embed/@StopTheCrime:d/Breaking-News-SHOCKING—Here-is-What-Really-is-in-the-Vaccines:d?r=7w5QuSaWFRbu1bEVToV9pb1Zdn8mheAq
According to the Spanish scientists who examined the Covid-19 injections, Graphene Oxide has the potential to cause strange blood clots. This may explain why it has been proven that Covid-19 injections increase the risk of suffering thrombosis with thrombocytopenia.
But it is not just scientists from Spain making these claims. Numerous scientists around the world have published findings where they allege they have discovered both nanotechnology and Graphene Oxide in the Covid-19 injections.
After reviewing electron microscope images of elements contained in the Covid Pfizer and Moderna injections, Dr Daniel Nagase, a Canadian emergency room doctor, revealed that, strangely, the contents of the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” show no signs of biological material, including mRNA or DNA. (Read more here).
Dr Nagase’s research group looked at Moderna and Pfizer samples under a regular microscope. Although there were a lot of very interesting images, they were unable to be conclusive about what exactly they were seeing. So, they used an electron microscope to determine what elements the “vaccines” contained.
Here are some of the images of what they found –
Found in a Moderna Covid “vaccine” sample
Dr Nagase examined a “ball with the legs growing out of it” found inside a Moderna sample and had this to say –
“This shape, this ball with the legs growing out of it, for some reason has aluminium in it. And I can say with certainty that this isn’t a mould spore or some other type of biological contamination, because the only thing in it is carbon, oxygen, and no signs of nitrogen, no signs of phosphorus, which would indicate something biological of origin. So, this thing that’s growing is non-biological.”
Dr Nagase and the researchers also discovered an unusual element from the lanthanide series – thulium – in a fibre-like structure found in a Pfizer sample –
Found in a Pfizer Covid “vaccine” sample
Dr. Nagase and the researchers found a variety of shapes and structures inside the “vaccine” samples they tested – crystals, chips, strands, bulbs, spheres, fibres and balls with legs growing out of them – “we have polymorphic, which is many different forms,” he said.
“They all seem to be made predominantly out of carbon and oxygen and they were in both the Moderna and Pfizer samples, and they seem to be in fibre forms. In the Moderna sample, the carbon-oxygen structures seem to be taking nanosphere forms and crystalline forms. And in the Pfizer sample … seem to only be forming fibres and crystals.
In a presentation to the Chilean radio station El Mirador del Gallo, Argentine doctor Martín Monteverde presented the analyses carried out by Corona2Inspect researchers on the microtechnology found in the Pfizer Covid-19 mRNA vaccine.
Argentina’s Dr Monteverde and other researchers carried out microscopic analyses of a vial of the Pfizer vaccine alongside four other Covid-19 “vaccine” types. He then sent these images to Corona2Inspect for further analysis. Corona2Inspect returned the images with their comments identifying what objects the images were showing.
You can watch a video of Dr Monteverde’s teams findings below – https://www.bitchute.com/embed/rp5ZyrmMLJQv/
Argentina’s Dr Patricia Aprea, Director of Evaluation and Control of the ANMAT, also accidentally admitted AstraZeneca’s Viral Vector Covid-19 injection also contains Graphene during a legal case regarding a death post-Covid injection.
You can read the document where ANMAT recognised that Covid-19 vaccines contain Graphene Oxide HERE in (Spanish) or below, translated into English using Google –
Dr Philippe van Welbergen, Medical Director of Biomedical Clinics, was one of the first to warn the public of the damage being caused to people’s blood by Covid injections by releasing images of blood samples under the microscope.
In a set of slides of blood samples taken from both “vaccinated” and unvaccinated people, Dr Philippe van Welbergen demonstrated that the Graphene Oxide, contained in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines being injected into people by amateurs and volunteers with no adequate training, is organising and growing into larger fibres and structures, gaining magnetic properties or an electrical charge and the fibres are showing indications of more complex structures with striations.
At the beginning of July 2021, Dr Philippe, was interviewed and he explained that when his patients started complaining about chronic fatigue, dizziness, memory loss, and even sometimes paralysis and late onset of heavy menstruation (women in their 60s upwards), he took blood samples.
Their blood had unusual tube-like structures, some particles which lit up and many damaged cells.
Few healthy cells were visible. Until three months earlier, he had never seen these formations in blood.
We now know these tube-like structures are Graphene Oxide.
He also demonstrated that “shards” of Graphene Oxide are being transmitted from the Covid-19 vaccinated to vaccine-free or unvaccinated people, sadly destroying their red blood cells and causing blood clots. (Read more here).
Below is an image of typical healthy red blood cells as seen with a microscope, what blood should look like. There is no coagulation or foreign objects in it.
Sadly fibres of this size are capable of blocking capillaries.
You can also see that the Graphene fibres are hollow and have swallowed up some red blood cells.
In December 2021, a British medical practitioner offered to assist in an investigation to ascertain whether the results discovered by Dr. Andreas Noack, a German chemist, and Dr. Pablo Campra, of the University of Almeria in Spain, could be replicated in the UK and also to examine the Covid-19 injection vials for toxins or unexpected contents.
The medical practitioner seized an injection vial from the fridge housed in the surgery where she works and handed it to an independent investigator.
A UK laboratory analysed the sample using Raman Spectroscopy and found Graphene, SP3 carbon, iron oxide, carbon derivatives and glass shards.
The first sample that was evaluated was the Moderna 01 which was examined by Raman spectroscopy. The investigation clearly showed that all the inclusions within the vaccine have a strong carbon signal with confirmed graphene compositions of some representative forms.
Two clear signals were obtained from two objects. The flat ribbon-like inclusions exhibited clear Graphene spectra integrated with the spectrum of glycol and other minor compounds. The other clear signal was obtained from a calcite microcrystalline form and Carbon composite forms also had a clear Graphene signal.
You can read a copy of the document encompassing a case briefing, the UNIT report and a summary of the toxicity of Graphene nanoparticles on UK Citizen 2021’s website HERE.
The 48-page UNIT report, ‘Qualitative Evaluation of Inclusions in Moderna, AstraZeneca and Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines’, begins on page 12 of the document.
An Open Access review highlighting the toxicity of the graphene family nanoparticles can be viewed here.
Nanotechnology and Graphene have also been found in Pfizer’s Comirnaty “vaccines” by scientists in New Zealand. (Read more here).
At the end of January 2022, Sue Grey, co-leader of the Outdoors and Freedom Party, and Dr Matt Shelton from New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science (“NZDSOS”) put the Health Select Committee on notice that serious contamination of the Pfizer vaccine has been uncovered and they needed to act immediately to stop the injection campaign.
Dr Shelton came forward to disclose the discovery of formations of nano-particles found by New Zealand scientists using specialised microscopic techniques.
None of the experts consulted had ever seen anything like this before, and none of these contaminants are listed as approved ingredients.
You can read the full account, with additional images and videos, HERE. But below is a snapshot of what one New Zealand scientist found.
The image below was taken from one drop of New Zealand’s Pfizer Cominarty “vaccine” under a cover slip, after it was inadvertently heated lightly, and viewed the same day through dark field microscopy at low magnification, projected onto a TV monitor.
The following images were taken after a new computer with improved graphics was purchased alongside new software for the camera –
They lied to you
Despite repeated assurances from authorities and mainstream media that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, evidence has emerged time and time again that proves they have not been telling the whole truth.
The use of Graphene Oxide in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine has been a source of controversy and concern from the outset, with many individuals claiming that regulators and media outlets were deliberately misleading the public about its inclusion.
Despite initial denials, the documents released by the FDA, which they were forced to publish by order of the Federal Court in the USA. have confirmed the use of Graphene Oxide in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer vaccine, raising questions about who we can trust.
This revelation should cause widespread alarm and will likely fuel suspicion about the true intentions of those in charge of public health.
I have seen this argument being made by some prominent people within the health freedom community that there is no need to debate the existence of “viruses” at this moment in time. After witnessing the incredible power of what the fear of an invisible boogeyman can bring about with the destructive lockdowns, quarantines, social distancing, mass testing, forced business closures, travel restrictions, mask and vaccine mandates, etc., these people are of the belief that there is no reason to argue against the existence of this dangerous weapon that was effectively used against us. They believe that we are winning by arguing within the germ theory pharmaceutical paradigm and that the time is not right to change course in order to bring this fraudulent house of cards crashing down. They believe that this debate will not ultimately lead to solutions that will ensure that this “viral” madness never happens again.
When asked why they are unwilling to touch upon this subject, some, like Robert Kennedy Jr., will state that questioning the existence of “viruses” is above their expertise level, as he admitted to investigative journalist Eric Coppolino in April 2022:
“Yeah, I really am not qualified to comment but I…my inclination if there are people who say the viruses don’t exist that there is no virus… I don’t, you know, my inclination is that, um, that simply is not, you know, that’s not true.”
“And I am kind of amused reading the exchanges and my inclination is that the viruses do exist and they do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big hoax, but to me, it all seems like, you know, viruses are real, and um so, look, I should have just shut up from the beginning and say I’m not gonna answer that question.”
“Again, I am not a good a good per— I am not a scientist. I don’t pretend to be. I find those arguments interesting.”
In his response, RFK Jr. determined that he is not qualified to speak to the existence of “viruses” as he is not a scientist. However, he has concluded, apparently without investigating the matter, that the scientists are right about the existence of these entities. This is despite the fact that, even though Kennedy Jr. says he is not a scientist, he claims an expertise in reading scientific papers and spotting “junk science:”
Q: Do you have scientific training?
A: No. My background is I’m an environmental lawyer. I’m not a scientist. But I have an expertise, I would say, in reading science and spotting junk science because that’s what I do with most of my time.
Kennedy Jr. has said that he is very accustomed to reading science, and that he knows how to read science critically:
“I’m very accustomed to reading science. I’ve brought over 500 successful lawsuits, almost all of them involve scientific controversy. I know how to read science, and I know how to read it critically.”
If it were truly the case that Kennedy Jr. can read science critically and that he is an expert at weeding out junk science, it is hard to see how he can continue to promote junk science as if it were real science with his fear propaganda headlines claiming that “SARS-COV-2” is a bioweapon that was engineered during gain of function experiments in Wuhan. It’s difficult to see how he had enough expertise to read gain of function studies and yet, miss the junk science within them, in order to write an entire book about the existence of a “virus” when he admits to being unqualified to speak on the subject of the existence of “viruses” in the first place.
When Kennedy Jr.’s Children Health Defense was asked by Christine Massey about this unwillingness to examine the lack of scientific evidence supporting virology, Mary Holland, CHD’s president, anonymously quoted their science advisor, Jay Couey, who said it lacked nuance and was not a viable position:
“While we agree that there have been many, many lies during covid, we believe that the situation is complicated, and that the ‘no virus’ stance lacks sufficient nuance to be the most viable position.”
The sentiment that attacking virology is not a viable strategy has been echoed by other prominent health freedom activists, such as Del Bigtree, as well. In a September 2022 interview with Derrick Broze, Del stated that the time was not right to change the game. In fact, he said we were winning by playing their game. If he was to discuss terrain theory and virology, he would need to leave the stadium filled with spectators while winning. He would need to go to a different stadium and build a different team and establish new rules. Thus, Bigtree concluded that he can not leave in the middle of the game. In other words, he must continue going on promoting “viruses” and gain of function narratives in order to keep on “winning” within the pharmaceutical playbook.
Del prefaced his odd sports analogy by stating that he was raised to believe that disease came from the mind. He didn’t even go to doctors until he was an adult. His mother would allow any fevers to run their course without interference. However, Del did not address his beliefs or his background on The Doctors as he was enamored by the medical ideas and advancements he was promoting on his show. Through his interviews with scientists and virologists, he came to the realization that they do not know their own “science” and that their beliefs are akin to indoctrination. He believes that they have no understanding of the “immune system,” bacteria, and “viruses.” They assume that the science has been done when, in fact, this is not the case. Thus, Del feels that many base their germ theory assumptions upon the teachings that they received at the pharmaceutically-funded universities.
It is very frustrating as much of what Del speaks to rings true. He seems to understand the issues with germ theory and seemingly subscribed to terrain for most of his life. He believes that terrain theory needs funding in order to be further explored. However, he has some fundamental misunderstandings and differences as well. Del seems to believe that terrain theory teaches that “viruses” are created within the body when the environmental conditions require them in order for a cleansing to occur. However, there is no place for “viruses” within terrain theory. Del also offered that he disagreed that these microorganisms are only found within us, stating that they can invade our bodies from the outside. He felt that if one keeps their terrain clean, “viruses” and bacteria can not make one sick.
Thus, Del has mixed both germ theory and terrain theory together, which is something that I have recently seen from interviewer Derrick Broze and others as well. There is this middle ground that they are trying to play, almost as if they are afraid to upset the apple cart. Broze even cut Del off during the interview in order to interject that germ theory and terrain theory are not mutually exclusive, i.e. cannot occur simultaneously, and that they can coexist at the same time. He even made such a comment recently to users on Twitter where he stated that pathogens and terrain are not in conflict.
Thus, it is with this information in mind that I engaged in a Twitter exchange with Derrick Broze in an attempt to gain some clarity, not only on his position, but also as to why the “no virus” issue is not at the top of the playbook in terms of bringing about the winning play in order to ensure the final outcome of the game is in our favor. It wasn’t a very long exchange, but it was rather informative, which is why I want to share it with you here. I also want to make the case to Broze, Bigtree, and Kennedy Jr. as to why we can not win this game until we stop playing by their rules. When the game is rigged, the only thing left to do is to change the game.
I want to be clear that this is not meant as an attack on Broze, or even Kennedy Jr., Bigtree, and others who share this belief that striking at the very foundations of germ theory and virology is not beneficial. This is an attempt to reconcile a fundamental sticking point that has driven a wedge within the health freedom community. I am focusing mostly on Derrick Broze here due to my exchange with him as well as a recent interview that he conducted with James Corbett. During this interview (at about the 20 minute mark), Broze asked a question to Corbett that he stated the “rabid” audience wanted him to ask. This is the “virus” question…which was never really addressed as Broze immediately shrugged off any discussion about the (lack of) scientific evidence and decided to, instead, focus on the so-called “rabid no virus” community. He wanted to talk about the “you are either with us, or against us” mentality that he said he has seen that leads to himself and others being labelled as controlled-opposition (CO). It was insinuated by Corbett that this approach, of labeling people like himself and Broze as CO based upon a single issue, is a part of a CIA plan to discredit them. Broze seemed to agree that, even though he did not have evidence of this being true, the “no virus” crowd may be an attempt to infiltrate and blow up the health freedom community.
Broze then decided to represent the “no virus” side in the interview by stating that we believe that addressing this issue will bring the whole house of cards tumbling down. However, he immediately stated that he did not agree with this position, thus throwing any unbiased objectivity out the door from his role-playing. Broze followed this up by claiming that communism, climate change, and alien invasions will be used against us even if we bring virology and germ theory down. He argued that those in control do not need the “plandemic” card if they can jump to something else. While there is truth to Broze’s statement, this does not mean that we shouldn’t focus on taking away the “plandemic” card from their arsenal of weapons so that they are incapable of using it against us again in the future. They already have the infrastructure in place to easily play this card whenever they desire in order to bring about further restrictions and control. Of Broze’s list of potential scenarios, the “plandemic” card is by far the easiest and most viable option to be used against us in the near future.
As
Christine Massey’s “germ” FOI Newsletteralso provided an excellent breakdown and commentary that focused on further problems with Broze and Corbett’s discussion on the “no virus” issue, I wanted to share her analysis here as well:
Derrick Broze and James Corbett talk about how uncool it is for no-virus people to accuse yes-virus people of being controlled op (as if all no-virus people do this, and no yes-virus people do this)… and in the same breath speculate about no-virus people being cognitive infiltrators and “part of a plan” (as in “controlled op”) lol.
Next Derek misrepresents no-virus people as naively thinking/claiming that getting the world to understand the no-virus reality will magically solve all problems. I don’t know anyone who thinks or claims that. It would be a lot more useful if Derek interviewed some no-virus people instead of speculating and putting words in our mouths.
Next James asks Derek to stand in and speak for no-virus people (!!) and answer the question as to whether or not governments would have the right to violate people’s bodily autonomy IF there really was a contagious health threat. Derek says “no” (so does everyone else that I know). But then James ironically goes on an almost-hysterical rant saying that anyone who answers “yes” is NOT part of the health freedom movement and is missing the whole point. It’s almost as if he’s trying to cause division over people’s hypothetical answers to a hypothetical question.
James also claims that answering “no” to this hypothetical question is more important than addressing the real-world issue of whether or not we’ve been lied to all our lives about “viruses”. What was the purpose of all this in the middle of a discussion about no-virus people, I wonder?
James also makes reference to some people not believing in bacterial infections. He seems not to realize that people are actually pointing out the lack of science showing that bacteria are the CAUSE of disease. He wouldn’t have this misconception if he had just spoken to some well-known no-virus people instead of speculating about them. Meanwhile Derek keeps nodding and looking into the camera as if to say “those ridiculous no-virus people”.
Next James claims that germ theory and terrain theory go together! And talks about how a healthy immune system will protect you from pathogens. Maybe someone will ask him to share the successful, valid germ theory controlled experiments that progressed a germ hypothesis to the theory stage.
Then Derek shared his “feeling” that there could be other reasons for the hundreds of failures by institutions in 40 countries to provide even 1 record of “SARS-COV-2” being purified from any alleged host (which would only be the 1st step necessary to show the existence of a “virus”). He speculates that maybe institutions really do have responsive records. Hmm, well if Derek knows of any such record, for any “virus” in the history of virology, I do hope he will share it with the rest of the world post haste.
Then James makes a ridiculous comment about how he supposedly filed a FOIA with the government for “isolated terrain” and got no records – which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since terrain isn’t a specific particle/thing that can be isolated/purified. He then quips that therefore “terrain theory doesn’t exist”, as if this shows that the hundreds of FOIs responses about imaginary viruses (which are alleged to be specific particles in “hosts”) are actually irrelevant and useless. Derek nods smugly and laughs.
Are Derek and James really so clued out that they don’t realize that the FOI responses align with what is seen in the published literature, and simply confirm what could already be seen?
There is a further problem with conversations such as this exchange between Broze and Corbett as well as the earlier example from Broze’s interview with Del Bigtree. According to his biography, Derrick Broze considers himself an investigative journalist:
“Derrick Broze is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, public speaker, and current candidate for Mayor of Houston. For the last ten years, Derrick has been active in Houston as a journalist and activist seeking to expose local corruption and give a voice to ignored Houstonians. As a candidate for Mayor, he is focusing on issues, which affect all Houstonians yet are ignored by local press and politicians.”
Journalists are supposed to side with none of the parties involved, and only provide the relevant facts and information. This is how they keep their reporting unbiased. However, Broze regularly intercedes by incorporating his own opinions into his questions and then tends to guide the conversation with leading questions. He is not presenting an unbiased look at the “no virus” position to his viewers. He is flavoring it with his own opinion and interpretations that were seemingly gathered from a few conversations he had with Drs. Andrew Kaufman and Tom Cowan, as well as authors Dawn Lester and David Parker. While Broze says that the “no virus” position raises interesting questions and points, he seems disinterested in truly exploring them and has mostly written the position off as a “rabid” base that he must appease by occasionally asking questions and misrepresenting our position to his guests.
If he is going to ask questions about the “no virus” position and attempt to represent our side fairly, Derrick has a responsibility as an investigative journalist to fully research the topic in order to present it accurately to his guests and his viewers. He should do so without coloring our position with his own opinions, especially as to a “rabid” social media base or the idea of a CIA psy-op bent on infiltration. If he is not clear about our position, there are many other great people to learn from including Dr. Stefan Lanka, Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey, Dr. Jordan Grant, Dr. Amandha Vollmer, Dr. Kevin Corbett, etc. All he has to do is ask and we will be more than happy to enlighten him further.
Derrick stated in his interview with Corbett that this is not about censoring the “no virus” position. While it is true that he is not outright censoring us, Broze doesn’t seem to want to include our position as a part of the conversation going forward in regard to bringing about lasting solutions and change. This, in turn, is keeping people away from an important discussion that will help to free them from the medical cartel. Broze’s reluctance to discuss this topic was evidenced by exchanges with Alec Zeck about a recent event that they both participated in. While I was not involved in this event in any way, I will do my best to summarize the situation as accurately as possible based upon what I know.
In a January 2023 event called “The Greater Reset,” Alec was invited as a speaker. Doing what he does best, Alec brilliantly provided the case for why germ theory and virology are pseudoscience during his presentation in order to help dispel the fear of pathogenic entities. This apparently was not to the liking of Derrick and others leading the event. This was pointed out by Alec in a recent tweet that Derrick responded to, stating that the “no virus” topic was not to be included in the event as it does not offer practical solutions that help us to escape the slavery system.
It really surprised me that Derrick is under the impression that exposing the germ theory fraud and unshackling the masses from the grips of the pharmaceutical cartel does not offer a practical solution to help us escape the slavery system. This response didn’t sit well with me nor with Alec. He pressed Broze about the inclusion of Del Bigtree, asking what solutions he offered during the event. Alec also challenged Derrick on why the “no virus” conversation is not a part of the solution. This was something that I wanted further clarity on as well.
Derrick shared a private message from Telegram between himself and Alec explaining that, while Del had no solutions to offer, he was there to “pump up the crowd.” Alec challenged Derrick to show how his own presentation helping others to let go of the fear of germ theory is not solution oriented. Sadly, that thread went silent.
In a separate exchange related to the Bigtree topic, Derrick answered another user, Greg Shantz, regarding the lack of a solution offered by Del. Broze doubled down on his hypocritical explanation of including Del, a speaker without solutions who was there to “pump up the crowd,” while disparaging Alec, a speaker who actually provided a solution with his presentation.
While I am not certain what Del spoke about at the event, I jumped in with my own thoughts on how Del regularly “pumps up the crowd” with talk about bioweapons, gain of function myths, “safe” vaccines, and the existence of invisible boogeymen. In my opinion, based upon what I have seen, Del promotes fear. This, to me, is not a practical solution. Broze argued that Del spoke about none of those things at the event and that we, on the “no virus” side, are too narrow in our focus on germ theory and virology. However, I was focused on the content Del regularly ptoduces on The Highwire and that his message is aimed at promoting fear when discussing those topics to his viewers as the truth. We can promote solutions without repeating the pharmaceutical propaganda.
While I understand that there are other important issues to address that go beyond germ theory and virology, I fail to see how this topic should not be at the forefront when looking for solutions, especially factoring in all that we have endured over the past three years. Derrick did not seem to like my question probing him as to why this topic was not a part of the solution. He brushed it off, telling me to do my thing and that he will do his. When I clarified that he was not providing a direct response, he implied that my asking for one was reflecting my attitude of entitlement. It’s an odd position to take for someone who regularly interviews others.
In a separate conversation with another user, I pointed out that no one was trying to force Derrick into any position. My intent was simply to understand why he felt that discussing the lack of scientific evidence for germ theory/virology was not a solution. If we expose this centuries old lie, we can bring down the pharmaceutical-industrial complex built upon it. Derrick jumped in and once again painted our side as “rabid” (ironic) and that the discussion was not essential. It seemed to me that he was judging our position based upon Twitter comments and social media interactions. However, Derrick clarified that he based his views on his interactions with Dr. Cowan, Dr. Kaufman, as well as Dawn Lester and David Parker. It is a truly great line-up representing our position, so I am at a loss as to how Derrick still seems unclear about our argument.
Regardless, Derrick seems intent on painting our side as “rabid” and “entitled” due to the fact that we want our position at the table when it comes to speaking about solutions. I do not consider our base “rabid.” I consider them passionate about spreading the truth of the matter, which is that there is no scientific evidence supporting germ theory and virology. If he has any misunderstandings about our position, all he has to do is ask.
Derrick said that he does not jump on bandwagons and that he takes the time to research a topic before forming an opinion. However, based upon what I have seen, it does not seem that he has truly researched this topic as he is still not clear as to what our position is. Instead, he has decided that the “no virus” issue is not crucial to bringing about lasting change. While he claims that we have interesting questions and valid points, he is disinterested in pursuing them. He has somehow come to the conclusion that both terrain theory and germ theory can work together.
Thus, I want to know what research Derrick has done on this topic outside of his four interviews. What information did he see that left him unconvinced about our position? Did he read any of the foundational virology papers looking to see if they actually contained evidence derived from the scientific method? What contagion experiments convinced him that germ theory has any validity whatsoever? Did he read about the failed human-to-human transmissions experiments conducted by Milton Rosenau in 1918 during the height of Spanish flu, considered the most infectious and deadly “virus” of all time? How much of the history of germ theory did he investigate? Did he take the time to read Robert Koch’s experiments with bacteria and his failures to satisfy his own logical postulates? Did he look into Louis Pasteur’s unethical and fraudulent rabies experiments that were exposed by Pasteur’s own notebooks? Did he read John Franklin Enders 1954 measles paper that established as well as disproved the cell culture process that is still used to “isolate viruses” today? What scientific evidence convinced Derrick that there is any truth in germ theory and virology at all and that they can coexist with terrain theory?
These are not just questions that I would like Derrick to answer, but also Robert Kennedy Jr., Del Bigtree, and anyone else within the health freedom community who continues to promote the existence of pathogenic “viruses” and bacteria. If anyone in the health freedom community is going to parrot the mainstream narrative that these entities are pathogens capable of bringing about and spreading disease, as well as that they can be engineered into dangerous bioweapons, they must show us the evidence derived from the scientific method that supports this belief, just as we ask any virologist, microbiologist, scientist, doctor, etc. to do as well. Please share the necessary scientific evidence that should be included in any foundational paper claiming the existence of any “virus” with us if you remain unconvinced.
If you can not provide this evidence, ask yourself why it does not exist. Ask yourself how germ theory and virology were scientifically validated without adherence to the scientific method. What you will see is that the evidence supporting germ theory and virology that has been piling up for centuries is, in fact, by definition, pseudoscience. Once you realize that our pharmaceutical-industrial complex was built on top of pseudoscientific fraud, you will see that exposing this lie to the masses ends this corrupt system. There will be no more ability for those in control to use the fear of the pathogenic entity in order to bring about destructive lockdowns, quarantines, social distancing, mass testing, forced business closures, travel restrictions, mask and vaccine mandates, etc. Once people realize that they were knowingly lied to for over two centuries about the nature of health and wellness, they will start to examine what other areas they were lied to about as well. Exposing the germ theory lie has the potential to bring about a domino effect of realization that, if we were lied to about the “science” of “viruses,” we may have also been lied to about the “science” of other topics such as climate change.
Thus, exposing the fraud of germ theory is vitally important. It has the potential to bring about real and lasting change. It can cascade into other areas while saving many lives in the process. This topic must be at the forefront of any discussions involving solutions. This is not to say that the other topics are not important. It is to say that exposing germ theory may very well be the most pressing one that has the most potential for an immediate impact.
Continuing to play within the germ theory playbook, discussing gain of function, bioweapons, PCR fraud, the ineffectiveness of the restrictive measures enacted, the need for “safer” vaccines, etc. will ultimately get us nowhere. Going down this road continues to promote the lie and takes us further away from the truth. If those within the health freedom community continue to promote pathogens, knowing full well that the scientific evidence does not exist, in order to try and “win” the game, they are no better than the people and organizations they rally against that also promote these same lies. We will not win by playing their game and hiding the truth. In order to really win, we must expose the lies and the corruption. We must blow up the game board and change the playbook. It is far past time to bring this discussion to the table. Failing to do so at this moment in time is an incredible blunder, i.e. a stupid and careless mistake.
Update 6/21/23:
Since this article came out, a few things have happened which I feel are important to update here. On June 19th, Derrick posted a walkabout video where he touched on his recent Corbett interview and his frustration with the “no virus” crowd. In this short video, Derrick broke the camp into 3 groups. Those who believe:
“Covid” has not been isolated.
“Covid” does not exist.
“Viruses” do not exist and terrain theory is correct.
Broze stated that he tends to agree with the first group in that “Covid” (I’m assuming he means “SARS-COV-2” as “Covid” is the disease, not the “virus”) has not been isolated. He stated that this debate about “viruses” has been going on for three years, which is misleading as there have been many who have challenged germ theory and the existence of “viruses” ever since these concepts were introduced. The most prominent period occured with those who challenged the HIV/AIDS narrative in the 1980s and throughout the proceeding decades. The “SARS-COV-2/Covid” debate has been an extension of this. Terrain theory itself has been around since the mid 1800’s to challenge Louis Pasteur’s germ theory due to the work of Claude Bernard and Antoine Bechamp. In other words, this is not a new debate.
Derrick discussed his early conversations on this subject with Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Dr. Tom Cowan, and stated that he was unsure if they were real doctors. This was rather shocking to hear from an investigative journalist who had previously interviewed both men. This confusion is easily rectified by a quick search where one can find out that both men are, in fact, doctors.
Derrick stated that, throughout this “pandemic,” he has been giving a voice to the “no virus” crowd even though he is not fully convinced of our conclusions. Thus, I would again like to ask Derrick what he remains unconvinced and/or skeptical about? Myself and others are more than happy to clear up any questions he may have. Derrick stated that he has asked many prominent people including Del Bigtree, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Joseph Mercola, and Catherine Austin Fitts about the “no virus” position and whether:
It is a distraction.
It is meant to divide and conquer.
It is true, but that it is not a good time to talk about it.
Again, these are leading questions that do not do our position any justice. The first two paint our position in a entirely negative light, while the third is absurd in that, if they agreed that our position is true, why would there be no reason to discuss it? The truth should never be sidelined. The time to discuss the truth is now rather than when it is convenient.
Derrick touched on Christine Massey’s excellent FOI requests and presented the case for why he felt they might not matter if they are worded wrong and/or sent to the wrong institutions. However, Derrick did say that they are intriguing, even though he personally is not sure, even if they are true (they are), that the information from these FOI’s should lead one to believe that “Covid” (again, I assume he means “SARS-COV-2”) does not exist. I’m not sure how Derrick comes to the conclusion that one should still believe in the “virus” even when the very institutions claiming the existence of the “virus” admit to not having the necessary evidence showing the existence of the “virus,” so it would be great if Derrick would clarify what he means. At about the 10 minute and 40 second mark, Derrick does mention me by name due to this article. He stated that he was not calling me out or trying to start a feud. I want to be clear that my intention was never to start a feud. My interest is mainly to clear up some fundamental sticking points that I feel really need to be addressed.
Derrick stated that he will continue to ask prominent people about the “no virus” issue, which I applaud. I truly hope that he does. However, I also hope that Derrick takes to heart some of the constructive criticism laid out here. Derrick says that he is continuing to research and that he has a video coming out soon about the “Rosenbaum” papers on contagion (I believe he is referring to the Rosenau Spanish flu experiments linked within this article) and that he still has questions after reading these papers. I would love to help address any questions Derrick may have.
On June 20th, I had another brief exchange with Derrick on Christine Massey’s Facebook post about this article. It was a pleasant enough exchange which I am presenting here:
I did send Derrick an email as he requested if he wishes to continue this discussion. Hopefully, we can build on this going forward and clear up any sticking points along the way.
The Truth Seeker wrote an excellent piece back in March addressing many of the misconceptions that Broze and others have about the “no virus” issue.
After two or three months of frustrated looking, I finally traced the inspiration behind our failed schooling—and the bizarre sexualization of elementary school children along with the intellectual degradation of subject matter to its likely historic origins.
A discovery I am eager to share with you—with this admonitory warning: the trail I followed goes through such complicated intellectual terrain that to expound upon it comprehensively would require a full-length, scholarly book to recover all its nuances and interconnections, work I lack the physical strength to perform for the moment, in my paralyzed state.
But even a sketchy account, such as I am about to give you, will reduce the stressful pressure of asking who? For what reason? And how?
Shortly after the Russian revolution had succeeded, Lenin called a secret meeting in Moscow in 1922 of leading leftists to discuss a way to further Marxist/Communist interests internationally by undermining the cultural strength of targeted countries.
From this meeting the decision emerged to locate a forge of international trouble-makers at the University of Frankfurt in northern Germany, which became known as “The Frankfurt School”. Its guiding strategy was to organize intellectuals to cause de-moralizing acts of mischief which tended to attack the particular cultural pride of target nations.
The campaign against America, for example, was to encourage mass immigration in order to dilute national identity, to stimulate and exacerbate racial arguments, to attack, through law and media propaganda, any distinction between the genders, and to prematurely awaken lustful sexual appetites among young children by introducing pornography into school curricula , in hopes this would:
1) seduce the young away from intellectual concentration
2) to divide the young from their parents’ values, and
3) to spread moral confusion through the culture, discrediting authority as
“old-fashioned” (if in matters of sex, then possibly everywhere else too!)
4) to challenge Christian teaching.
Hitler’s government expelled the Frankfurt conspirators from Germany in the 1920s. Its personnel and seditious agenda left Frankfurt and resettled wholesale in New York City subsidized by the Rockefeller Foundation where its professors resumed employment at Columbia University where it proselytized left-leaning colleagues there and throughout the “Ivy League,” one of whom, George S. Counts threw down the Frankfurt gauntlet in 1932 with a prophetic book, Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order. It’s answer…yes!! The Frankfurt projects next attempted (successfully) were named by journalists, “The Sexual Revolution” and “Women’s Lib”.
The structure of our bad schools pretending to be education comes to us, as you know, from Germany and from the hands of some world-famous philosophers responding to demands of politicians for a way to make the subject-citizenry reliably obedient.
The solution adopted was to force the children of oncoming generations into isolated confinement with loyal political employees, loyal to the political leader, to be taught collective habits and to lose the ability to criticize and rebel—to be schooled like fish, instead of educated to think independently.
Germany at the time, in the first quarter of the 19th century, was tending toward a system of governance known as socialism, (or under influence of another German thinker, Karl Marx, communism), a scheme to invent an entirely new system of governance, based on ideas from the culture of finance, which pitted social classes against one another and led, ultimately, to dominance of the laboring classes. Communist theory, as taught in Marx’s magnum opus, Das Kapital, led to a ringing rhetorical call to revolt, “The Communist Manifesto,” which became the banner of many violent insurrections against authority which rocked Europe in the year, 1848, signaling an enormous revolution in Russia at century’s end ultimately establishing a communist dictatorship, the Soviet Union. This alarmed traditional governors worldwide, fearful of a similar transformation of their own citizenries. Marx’s ideas had enormous influence on public thinking everywhere. This type of thinking eventually transformed schooling in
America quite radically, leading to a collapse in what economist, Adam Smith, called “educational schooling,” in his capitalist classic, Wealth of Nations. Their strategies hurt personalized learning as collective institutions (“schools”) attempted to deliver individual intellectual training of a caliber equivalent to that expected by private academies for the children of the prosperous classes.
The great movement to dumb-down the fare of common schools originated with a bizarre group of very radical German intellectuals in the city of Frankfurt, home of the world’s original fast food, “the frankfurter” or hot dog (so called because through the 1920s it was often made with dog meat).
This group of college professors was dedicated to discovering ways to cause social change of a profound sort—revolution. Whether against governments of left or right was a matter of indifference to them. The efficient engineering of change was all that mattered to them.
Among the first principles they developed was that two institutions – the church and the family– stood in the way of social change and would have to be destroyed, or weakened. This alone was enough to make the Frankfurt School unpopular and unwelcome among traditional governors.
A simple answer to a lumpen question:
TAKE YOUR CHILDREN OUTTA SCHOOLS NOW!!! THOSE AREN’T ANYTHING BESIDES INDOCTRINATION LABS,,, AND UNFORTUNATELY THESE LABS HAVE YOUR CHILDREN TO PERFORM TEST UPON!!!
“The general public, however intelligent, are struck only by that which it takes little trouble to understand. They have been told that the interior of the body is something more or less like the contents of a vessel filled with wine, and that this interior is not injured – that we do not become ill, except when germs, originally created morbid, penetrate into it from without, and then become microbes.
The public do not know whether this is true; they do not even know what a microbe is, but they take it on the word of the master; they believe it because it is simple and easy to understand; they believe and they repeat that the microbe makes us ill without inquiring further, because they have not the leisure – nor, perhaps, the capacity – to probe to the depths that which they are asked to believe.”
-Antoine Bechamp
Preface to La Théorie du Microzyma, as quoted in Béchamp or Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology By Ethel D. Hume on page 304 [prefaced by Pasteur: Plagiarist, Imposter: The Germ Theory Exploded By R. B. Pearson
The above quote by French scientist Antoine Bechamp accurately summarizes the very problem that we find ourselves in today. The general public, in the present as well as in the past, are all too willing to believe in what they are told as long as the story is simple and easy enough to understand. They allow their minds to be controlled, believing in invisible pathogenic entities that have never been scientifically proven to exist and cause disease. They are unwilling to spend any of their own time and effort to investigate in order to verify whether the simple germ theory fantasies that they have been sold are, in fact, true. This is why it was far too easy for the whole world to lock down under the false pretense of a “pandemic” when there was no such thing. There wasn’t even a shred of scientific evidence that a novel pathogenic “virus” existed, let alone that it was quickly spreading a “new disease” across the world. Anyone who devoted a little bit of their own time and effort to research and understand the situation would have easily seen through the scam from the very beginning. However, the general public, without giving much, if any, thought to the matter, relinquished their own authority over to the storytellers, willingly accepting the story based upon the fear propaganda provided by the mainstream media as has been done throughout the past century plus.
Fortunately, not everyone has been willing to give their minds over to the special interests that seek power and control of the narrative. We can find many respected scientists and medical practioners who rallied against the germ theory tale that was being woven from the 1800s onwards. The aforementioned and well-respected scientist Antoine Bechamp was a leader against the germ theory of disease and was a thorn in the side of the creator of the theory (really, an unproven hypothesis) in Louis Pasteur. According to a 2007 article published in the South African Journal of Science, Bechamp was quoted as saying that Pasteur’s germ theory of infectious disease was “the greatest scientific silliness of the age.” He is quoted in Ethel D. Hume’s book Bechamp vs Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biologyas saying “There is no doctrine so false that it does not contain some particle of truth. It is thus with microbian doctrines.” What Bechamp was referring to is that germ theory is dangerous precisely because it contains elements of truth within it. However, it is a bending of truth mixed with falsehoods. While germs and microbes do exist, they are not the outside pathogenic invaders as envisioned by Louis Pasteur. As demonstrated by Antoine Bechamp’s research, these entities are found within us at all times, and they can either be a reflection of health or disease depending upon the internal terrain of the individual. When healthy, microbes live harmoniously within us, resulting in normal fermentation processes. However, if the conditions change due to imbalances from unhealthy living, these entities will evolve into other forms (bacteria, yeast, fungi, mold) as required by the body at the time to restore balance. This is known as pleomorphism, which is a central tenet of the terrain theory of disease that is in stark contrast to the germ theory of diseases’ monomorphic view.
According to an excellent article by Merinda Teller, MPH, PhD for the Weston A. Price Foundation, much of Béchamp’s work centered on the biological role of fermentation. Bechamp brought about awareness to the tiny elements within the blood that he could view under the microscope in all living things. He decided to call these elements “microzymas,” which he had derived from zyme, the ancient Greek word for a ferment. Bechamp spoke of the microzymas as the “primary anatomical elements of all living beings” as well as “the beginning and end of all organization.” He viewed these particles as living entities precisely due to their “power of movement and production of fermentation.” Because of his studies into the microzyma, Bechamp realized that disease did not come from germs in the air invading from the outside. Disease was produced within the body due to an unfavorable internal environment brought about by poor nutrition, drugs, alcohol use, toxins, and various other factors. In other words, Bechamp viewed disease as multifactorial and saw the microbes as a response by microzymas coming from within that were brought about by the changes in the internal environment. Pasteur, on the other hand, viewed these entities as coming from outside of the body which fueled his belief that there were specific invading microbes associated with specific diseases.
While Pasteur, a proven plagiarist and fraud, ultimately won the day with his unproven hypothesis of pathogenic air germs due to his powerful and influential connections, Bechamp’s work was not for naught. His observation of the microzymas were verified by many researchers over the proceeding decades including Gunther Enderlein, Royal Raymond Rife, Gaston Naessens, Dr. Robert O. Young, and many others. According to Dr. Norman Allan PhD DC, a neurophysiologist, chiropractor, and holistic health practitioner, “all those who have worked extensively with darkfield microscopy, with live blood, have come up with similar stories of pleomorphism.” The dark field microscope allowed the microscopists to see the microzyma in a living state (or somatids, as referred to by Naessens) and observe the pleomorphic cycle as they changed form from microzyma to bacteria, fungus, mold, etc. This cycle was demonstrated in the below video with Gaston Naessens with his powerful Somatoscope.
Fortunately, Bechamp was not the only person who criticized Pasteur’s germ theory of disease. There were plenty of other important people who disagreed with Pasteur’s conclusions. Probably the most prominent critic was Rudolf Virchow, a German pathologist and one of the most respected physicians of the 19th century. Considered the “father of modern pathology,” Virchow did not believe in the idea that germs invaded from the outside. He emphasized that diseases came from within the individual cells within the body:
“While Virchow, in Germany, was developing the new science of cellular pathology, Louis Pasteur, in France, was developing the new science of bacteriology. Virchow fought the germ theory of Pasteur. He believed that a diseased tissue was caused by a breakdown of order within cells and not from an invasion of a foreign organism.”
Another respected figure who was aware that disease came from within was Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing. In her 1860 book “Notes on Nursing,” Florence made it very clear that there are no separate disease entities, only different conditions, and that these disease conditions are very much within our control. Florence explained how she was brought up to believe that smallpox started off with a first specimen in the world that “went on propagating itself, in a perpetual chain of descent.” She stated that her own experiences caring for smallpox patients convinced her that smallpox was not something that was “caught” from outside but was grown from within. She also recounted how she had seen diseases transform into other diseases, such as a fever going to typhoid and then to typhus. Thus, she looked at disease as a single continual process rather than something caused by separate entities:
“Is it not living in a continual mistake to look upon diseases, as we do now, as separate entities, which must exist, like cats and dogs instead of looking upon them as conditions, like a dirty and a clean condition, and just as much under our own control; or rather as the reactions of kindly nature, against the conditions in which we have placed ourselves.
I was brought up, both by scientific men and ignorant women, distinctly to believe that small-pox, for instance, was a thing of which there was once a first specimen in the world, which went on propagating itself, in a perpetual chain of descent, just as much as that there was a first dog, (or a first pair of dogs), and that small-pox would not begin itself any more than a new dog would begin without there having been a parent dog.
Since then I have seen with my eyes and smelt with my nose small-pox growing up in first specimens, either in close rooms or in overcrowded wards, where it could not by any possibility have been “caught,” but must have begun.
Nay, more, I have seen diseases begin, grow up, and pass into one another. Now, dogs do not pass into cats.
I have seen, for instance, with a little overcrowding, continued fever grow up; and with a little more, typhoid fever; and with a little more, typhus, and all in the same ward or hut. Would it not be far better, truer, and more practical, if we looked upon disease in this light?”
Daniel Roytas of Humanley.com uncovered an article written by Dr. Lawson Tait, Chief surgeon of the Birmingham and Midlands Hospital, published in the British Medical Journal in 1887, where the role of bacteria are clearly defined as a phenomenon of decomposition and not disease. Bacteria do not attack living tissue, and once the waste material is removed, the bacteria are “starved into submission.” Dr. Tait spoke about his own experiences of being unable to eliminate all bacteria in tuberculosis patients, and yet, the patients still recovered when he enabled them to rid their bodies of the waste materials the bacteria were living off of. Dr. Tait pointed out that the germ theory was incompatible with the facts, and that if it were correct, no one would be safe as tuberculosis bacilli would be encountered everywhere.
D.D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic care, as well as his son B.J. Palmer, the developer of chiropractic care, rejected Pasteur’s germ theory of disease. In fact, B.J. was famously quoted as saying “If the germ theory were true, no one would be alive to believe it.” He believed that there had never been a single germ that was discovered that was ever proven to cause disease.
Palmer’s views were backed up by Montague L. Leverson, MD, a British lawyer and homeopathic physician, in a lecture delivered at Claridges Hotel, London, on May 25th, 1911. Leverson argued that not only had the germ theory, which rested entirely upon assumptions, never been proven true, but these assumptions were incapable of being proven, and many of the assumptions had already been proven untrue:
“The entire fabric of the germ theory of disease rests upon assumptions which not only have not been proved, but which are incapable of proof, and many of them can be proved to be the reverse of truth. The basic one of these unproven assumptions, wholly due to Pasteur, is the hypothesis that all the so-called infectious and contagious disorders are caused by germs.”
On page 111 in the 1921 book Timely Truths on Human Healthby Dr. Simon Louis Katzoff, it is stated that members of the profession agreed that no germ causes tuberculosis, and that germs do not cause any disease. It was argued that there was more harm in the fear of germs than there was in the germs themselves. It was emphasized that the importance of the germ as the cause of the disease had been greatly exaggerated. The same sentiment as presented by Dr. Palmer was given in that, if the germ theory were true, the human race would not be able to exist for more than one hour:
“We agree with those members of the profession who hold that no germ causes tuberculosis. Germs do not cause any disease. Further, we agree that there is more harm in the fear of germs than there is in the germs themselves. We do not claim that there are no germs, but maintain that the importance of the germ as the cause of the disease has been greatly exaggerated to say the least. If the present-day notions concerning the extreme importance of disease germs and their destructiveness were true the human race could not exist for one hour. Disease germs are everywhere. The air is full of “contagion.” And were all humans susceptible we should all be on our death beds before sundown. As a matter of fact, there are some germs that are present in parts of all animals, especially in the intestinal tract and the mouth. The writer is not opposed to the further research and understanding of the action of germs (which rightfully belongs to the realm of Biology), but cannot agree with the view advocated by many well-meaning physicians that germs are the sole or chief cause of this or any other disease.”
In the first chapter of the 1925 book Principles and Practice of Naturopathy, Dr. E.W. Cordingley, M.D., N.D., A.M. wrote that the germ theory of disease was weakening and due to be thrown away. He supplied the examples of Dr. Fraser of Canada and Dr. Powell of California, who had both experimented with billions of germs of all varieties. Neither doctor could bring about a single disease through the intentional introduction of the germs to healthy human subjects. Another doctor by the name of Waite was also mentioned as having tried to prove germ theory, but had failed in his efforts to do so. Dr. Cordingley even brought up the famous Gallop’s Island studies by Milton Rosenau that tried, and failed spectacularly in many ways, to infect healthy subjects with what is considered the deadliest “virus” ever with the Spanish Flu:
“Medical doctors are working on the germ theory of disease…But the germ theory is already weakening and is due for being thrown aside. Dr. Fraser of Canada and Dr. Powell of California have experimented with billions of germs of all varieties, but they have been unable to produce a single disease by the introduction of germs into human subjects. Dr. Waite tried for years to prove the germ theory, but he could not do so. During the World War an experiment was conducted at Gallop’s Island Massachusetts, in which millions of influenza germs were injected into over one hundred men at the Government hospital, and no one got the flu. Germs are scavengers.”
On pages 189-190 of the 1928 book Human Life: Its Philosophy and Laws, Dr. Herbert Shelton, a naturopath and founder of the modern-day Natural Hygiene movement, wrote about the nature of germs as the scavengers of unhealthy tissues. He wrote that they are purifying and beneficial agents that the medical industry whipped up into a scapegoat for disease. He stated that germs are ubiquitous and all around us. As they are beneficial agents and present always, it is a fool’s errand to try and eliminate them. Attempting to do so will only destroy the patient:
“Warmth, moisture, food-these are the causes that activate latent germs and arouse them to activity. They exist, all except the food, in the mouth, nose and throat at all times. The food is thrown out into these, as excretions, in disease. The germs feed on the excretions. They are scavengers. They were never anything else and will never be anything else. They break up and consume the discharge from the tissues. This is the function ascribed to germs everywhere in nature outside the body and is their real and only function in disease. They are purifying and beneficial agents. The medical profession has worked itself into hysteria over the germ theory and is using it to exploit an all too credulous public. Germs are ubiquitous. They are in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink. We cannot escape them. We can destroy them only to a limited extent. It is folly to attempt to escape disease by attempting to destroy or escape germs. Once they are in the body the physician has no means of destroying them that will not, at the same time, destroy the patient. We cannot avoid germs. We must be proof against them. We have to accept them as one of the joys of life.”
In the book The Medical Mischief, You Say!: Degerminating the Germ Theory, a 1947 passage from The Homeopathic Review by Royal E. S. Hayes, M.D was reprinted. The doctor did not hold back at all, saying that germ theory is a travesty on science, a ghastly medical farce, and the biggest hoax.
“The germ theory of disease is the greatest travesty on science that was ever stumbled over during this semicivilized age; the most ghastly medical farce in which the human mass ever played its part; the biggest hoax the medical profession ever took in after with little hesitation and no mastication.”
The above people are only a handful of the many who spoke out about the fraudulent and unscientific nature of the germ theory of disease. They knew that disease was a process coming from within, and that endogenous germs were being misinterpreted and misrepresented as being harmful invaders because they may, at times, be associated within someone in a diseased state. However, just as it would be inaccurate to conclude that the firemen are the cause of the fire as they were the first ones on the scene in order to put the fire out, germs have been erroneously targeted as the cause of disease when they are only present due to the condition of the terrain of the individual. They are present at the scene as they are performing an important cleaning function that the body needs to restore homeostasis.
The reason I am bringing up these voices from the past who spoke out against Pasteur’s theory is because they were at the forefront of the creation of this deception. They witnessed firsthand the pseudoscientific practices that were employed from the beginning in order to convince the public to fear the invisible boogeymen. Many of these people pointed out the contradictory evidence that should have ended germ theory at its birth. Sadly, their voices were mostly silenced by powerful interests that sought to drown them out. Thus, it is important to rediscover and learn from the wisdom of these pioneers of the past as well as to give them another chance to have their voices heard.
In the spirit of listening to and learning from the past, I am presenting here what I find to be one of the best early refutations of the germ theory of disease. I was alerted to the below 1913 El Paso Herald article by a Twitter user named CharliePoet, and I feel that the article needs to be shared in its entirety. I will summarize and interject commentary along the way while providing pertinent information that I have found matches up exactly with the argument that is made. The headline stated that this is “one of the most important investigations ever made,” and I wholeheartedly agree. Let the germ theory house of cards fall.
The article shared here was presented in the El Paso Herald in 1913. It was written by Dr. Herbert Snow, a surgeon, medical writer, and cancer researcher. Before diving into the article, I want to provide some background information on Dr. Snow. According to a 2004 paper published in the Annals of Surgical Oncology, Dr. Snow graduated from the University of London in 1869 with First Class Honors in Medicine, Forensic Medicine, and Midwifery. He was a member in the Royal College of Surgeons of England (MRCS) as well as the Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries of London (LSA). Two years after graduation, he was awarded his Doctorate of Medicine. Dr. Snow went on to become the House Surgeon at South Staffordshire General Hospital and subsequently became Resident Surgeon at Birmingham General Dispensary. In 1876, Dr. Snow was moved to the Cancer Hospital, Brompton, London, which was the first hospital in the world specifically founded to treat patients with cancer, where he served as a senior surgeon for three decades:
Dr. Herbert Lumley Snow, MD, MRCS (1847-1930): the original champion of elective lymph node dissection in melanoma
“Although little is known of his early life, Herbert Snow graduated from the University of London in 1869 with First Class Honors in Medicine, Forensic Medicine, and Midwifery. Two years later, he obtained his Membership in the Royal College of Surgeons of England (MRCS) and Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries of London (LSA). He was also awarded a Doctorate of Medicine (MD) in the same year. Snow never obtained a Fellowship from the Royal College of Surgeons (FRCS). It is perhaps for this reason that his writings on cancer are little known.
He was the House Surgeon at South Staffordshire General Hospital and subsequently became Resident Surgeon at Birmingham General Dispensary. In 1876, Snow was appointed to the Cancer Hospital, Brompton, London—the hospital set up by William Marsden (and subsequently to bear his name) and the first hospital in the world specifically founded to treat patients with cancer. The Cancer Hospital (Figs. 1 and 2) was granted Royal Charter by Edward VII in 1910 and was renamed the Royal Marsden Hospital after the formation of the National Health Service, because it was believed that “the word cancer was too frightening and a deterrent to patients.” Snow worked at the Cancer Hospital for three decades as a Staff Surgeon until 1905. At this time, he was one of six surgeons on the unit, the senior surgeon being Mr. Thomas Stoneham, FRCS. He was based at Number 6 Gloucester Place, Portman Square.”
Dr. Snow was very much against the germ theory of disease as well as the practice of vaccination. In fact, he viewed vaccination as a primary cause for people who were suddenly dropping dead and said that it was a well-known cause of grave and permanent damage to the heart. Dr. Snow was also very vocal about his objections to animal research, as he viewed it as futile in providing relevant information about human disease. He stated that the experimental disease developed in mice was not cancer at all, and that it had no relation to the disease seen in humans:
Snow publicly condemned as fraudulentthe (by-then) well-established theory that germs cause disease, saying that “as for Lord Lister, he should be remembered, only because he got surgeons to wash their malodorous hands.”
Even more controversial were his views on vaccination:
“In recent years many men and women in the prime of life have dropped dead suddenly, often after attending a feast or a banquet. I am convinced that some eighty percent of these deaths are caused by the inoculation or vaccination they have undergone. They are well known to cause grave and permanent disease of the heart. The coroner always hushes it up as ‘natural causes.”
“Snow was a vocal opponent of animal research, a theme revisited in his later life. Ardently believing that basic surgical science would not provide the answers that medicine sought, he thought that physiological research was a futile means of promoting medical science. He maintained that experiments on animals “. . .are not dealing with cancer at all [,but that] which has been reported as cancer in mice is a totally different thing from the cancer of humans.”
All of this is to show that Dr. Snow was a very well-educated and credentialed individual. For those who feel that an argument against germ theory should come from those with the “right credentials,” Dr. Snow definitely has the bona-fides to be an expert witness against the germ theory of disease. However, regardless of his background, the validity of his argument should really be based upon the merits of the information presented. So without further ado, let’s dive into Dr. Snow’s investigation into the germ theory of disease and see what he uncovered.
Immediately from the start, you will see Dr. Snow call out the entire lack of scientific proof for the casual association of microbes and disease. He argued that, in most instances where there is evidence claimed as proof, there is an abundance of evidence that completely contradicts that view. He stated that there have been ill consequences resulting from the premature adoption of the germ theory as a proven axiom of science. In line with terrain theory, Dr. Snow pointed out that it is unquestionable that disease is often the result of environmental toxins such as foul air, polluted water, non-nutritious food, deficient light, etc., and that when these are remedied, the state of health returns. However, he maintained that there is ignorance to the subtler causes, and that due to this ignorance, there is a natural temptation to assume that, if a microbe is found in association with a diseased state, it is the cause of this state. Going along with these assumptions overlooked necessary links in the chain of scientific proof. Essentially, Dr. Snow was calling out the fallacy of using correlation to equal causation. Echoing Bechamp, he called germ theory a simplistic explanation that was easily adopted by the fooled medical profession, which was then adopted by the general public who look to them as authorities. He noted that no investigator had at that time, been able to detect any causative germ whatsoever in some of the most familiar and prevalent maladies despite many efforts. Dr. Snow argued that the evidence for the causative agent of whooping cough was weak, and that even Pasteur himself was unable to identify any microorganism as the cause of hydrophobia, a.k.a. rabies. This was pointed out even by the Pasteur Institute, which stated that “Louis Pasteur’s initial efforts to isolate the rabies virus proved unsuccessful as the virus remained invisible.” You can learn more about Pasteur’s rabies fraud here.
Regarding cancer, Dr. Snow stated that over 400 microbes were proclaimed at some point as causative agents, and yet none were ever accepted. However, when microbes had been put forward as a causative agent of disease, this assumption led to the creation of a vaccine or a serum as a “cure.” Thus, Dr. Snow wanted to examine these particular instances in order to see what scientific evidence was available in support.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT INVESTIGATIONS EVER MADE
Has Just Been Completed by a Great Body of Scientists, And in His Report Dr. Herbert Snow Says That Microbes Never Caused a Disease.
They Are Scavengers and Help You But That the Ignorant Are Kept Believing it so That Vaccinations of All Kinds of Serums May Be Sold, As There Are Millions in it And That Vaccinations of Serum Increase the Death Rate, And in no Way Prevent Diseases.
If That Is so, Who Killed Your Loved One? Read it and it Will Save Your Life. It Is Far More Intelligent to Believe in Witches Than Microbes. This Undoes the Whole Medical Science and Proves it Fraud Pure and Simple.
The Germ Theory of Disease, so prominent in medical literature and practice, began with the efforts of the chemist Pasteur to apply to human, maladies—which, not being a doctor, he only knew academically—deductions drawn from the phenomenoa he had observed in fermentation. There has never been anything approaching scientific proof of the casual association of micro-organisms with disease; and in most instances wherein such an association has been pretended, there is abundant evidence emphatically contradicting that view. Yet most unfortunately this lame and defective theory has become the foundation of a very extensive system of quackery, in the prosecution of which millions of capital are embarked, and no expense spared to hoodwink the public with the more credulous members of the Medical Faculty. It may then not be out of place to survey, as fudicially as may be, the position in which the Germ Theory now stands; with the ill consequences very conspicuously resulting from its premature adoption as a proven axiom of Science. Those ill results are demonstrated and lucidly set forth in categorical detail, by the recently published Minority Report—whereof Dr. George Wilson is author of—the Royal Comission on Vivisection.
The subject naturally falls into two divisions: (a) the Microbe or Germ as asserted to cause febrile and infectious maladies; (b) the same as the source of suppuration in wounds and of the basis of Lister’s exploded “Antiseptic Theory.” The former appertains to Medicine, the latter to Surgery.
(Microbes Asserted Cause of Fevers, Consumption Diphtheria, Etc.)
The majority of zymotic maladies are unquestionably due to some sanitary defect, as dirt, foul air, polluted water, innutritous food, deficient light, etc; and when the fault has been remedied, the disease is prevented or cured. But these are its gross causes. Of the subtler agencies whereby illness is produced, our ignorance is crass indeed.
Hence a natural temptation, whenever a micro-organism is found in connection with a malady to assume that the latter is directly due to the former, and to overlook necessary links in the chain of scientific proof. The Germ Theory offers such a simple explanation of so much that is profoundly mysterious and obscure that, in spite of every difficulty, belief in it has come to be with the bulk of medical practitioners—and so with the public who place implicit confidence in “Medical Science”— an obsession overwhelming and unapproachable by reason.
The first of these difficulties is the fact that in spite of the most diligent and persevering efforts, no investigator has ever yet been able to detect any causative germ whatever in some of the most familiar and prevalent maladies of this zymotic class. Vaccine lymph we have always with us, and in forms peculiarly well adapted to the methods of laboratory research. More than twenty years since, the Grocer’s Company offered a prize of $5,000 to the discoverer of its “germ.” That prize is still open, and has never been even claimed.
No one has yet discovered any micro-organism in association with Measles, Scarlatina, Smallpox, Chicken-pox, and Mumps. One has lately been put forward as the source of Whooping-cough, but proof of the statement is wanting; and the same with Pfeiffer’s Influenza-bacillus. Pasteur, the Apostle of the Germ Theory, could detect no microbe (in spite of assiduous search) in Hydrophobia; not of course a zymotic malady. Of Cancer, some 400 distinct micro-organisms have been proclaimed the cause; but no one beyond the discoverer has ever accepted this discovery.
Per contra, a micro-organism has been discovered in more or less frequent associations with the lesions of Diphtheria, Tuberculosis, Cholera, Bubonic Plague, Tetanus, Typhoid Fever, Spinal Meningitis, and a few more. In each instance it has been put forward as the cause; and on that assumption a serum or vaccine has been commercially exploited as cure or as preventive of the disease in question. Let us briefly inquire into the credentials of some of these germs: and consider how they would satisfy the requirements of genuine Science.
In this next section, Dr. Snow examined the evidence of bacteria in relation to Koch’s Postulates. He started by pointing out that, morphologically, microbes bear so close a resemblance to each other that highly skilled microscopists have great difficulty in distinguishing one from another. These microbes are often mixed together in a jumbled and confusing mess. We can find confirmation of this from the 1905 speech by Count K.A.H. Mörner awarding Robert Koch the Nobel Prize. In his speech, Mörner stated that investigators often found different bacteria in the same diseases or would find that the bacterium supposed to cause one disease would be found in cases of another. He stated that it was difficult to envision a bacterium as the cause as “it looked partly as if the same disease could be caused by different bacteria, and partly as if the same bacteria could produce different diseases.”
Dr. Snow discussed how German bacteriologist Robert Koch and his postulates were meant to remedy this mess. He mistakenly referred to five Postulates as he had broken the first of Koch’s Postulate into two separate ones. However, Koch technically only established three postulates even though there are four that are most commonly attributed to him. The last one was added by Koch’s pupil Friedrich Loeffler. The postulates are as follows:
Dr. Snow brought up Koch’s Postulates on the basis of expert opinion, as well as the fact that they are logical and appeal to common sense. He stated that not a single germ discovered had ever succeeded in fulfilling all of these conditions, and no single microbe put forward as the cause of a disease had complied with more than one. This is in agreement with Ethel D. Hume, who quoted in her book Bechamp vs Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biologya March 29th, 1909, Lancet article that stated, “Koch’s Postulates are rarely, if ever, complied with.” Dr. Snow concluded that no microbe had ever satisfied more than one of the four postulates.
Koch’s Postulates.
But first it may be presumed that germs in general are of extremely numerous varieties, and that morphologically these varieties often bear so close a resemblance to each other, that even a highly-skilled microscopist has the greatest possible difficulty in distinguishing one from another by its appearance under the microscope. Also the micro-organisms found in disease are commonly mixed and blended in almost inextricable confusion. Hence Professor Koch, of Berlin, the discoverer of the Cholera and Consumption bacilli, laid down five postulates with which any germ must comply, before it could be scientifically admitted the “vera causa” of any malady whatever. At the time Koch was practically the head of the bacteriological world, and his dictum was unhesitatingly accepted by bacteriologists. Apart from expert opinion, it obviously appeals to common sense.
In order that a micro-organism may be scientifically held causal, it must—
Always be discoverable in association with the particular disease.
Never occur under conditions of health, or in other disease than the one indicated.
Be capable of cultivation for many generations outside the body of the host.
Always produce the same disease when subsequently inoculated into the body of another animal.
Then always be found in this second animal host.
Not a solitary germ yet discovered has succeeded in fulfilling all these conditions. In fact, no single microbe put forward by bacteriologists as the cause of a disease has yet complied with more than one, and—which is a point of particular significance—that one is the third of the above.
In other words every micro-organism yet found in association with disease has utterly failed to fulfil four out of five tests which the leading bacteriologist of his day laid down as absolutely essential before it could be counted a genuine cause, or held in any sense etiological. Witness the following examples:
Looking at the evidence for diphtheria, Dr. Snow mentioned that, during the investigations by Messrs, Klebs, and Loeffler, they could not find the associated bacterium in 35% (1 in 4) of the cases of the disease. Obviously, this means that the evidence for the microbe as the causative agent immediately conflicts with Koch’s first postulate which requires for the microbe to be present in all cases of the disease. Even Sir William Osler, considered one of the foremost leaders in modern medicine, admitted that the bacterium is regularly absent in cases of the disease. It was also found by many independent researchers to be in abundance in entirely healthy people. It is present in many other diseases such as in cases of tuberculosis, in the vaccine vesicles, in mucus from ordinary sore-throat, in stomatitis, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, in eczema and other skin eruptions, and in gangrene, noma, ozoena. Being found in unrelated diseases is another way in which the bacterium fails Koch’s first postulate. When injected into animals, the same disease as seen in humans was not produced, thus failing Koch’s third postulate. In other words, the diphtheria bacillus does not satisfy Koch’s Postulates by supplying the necessary evidence proving that it is the causative agent of disease. Ironically, Loeffler declared, during the 1903 celebration of Koch’s 60th birthday, that the development of “Koch’s Postulates” was the decisive attainment for scientifically proving a microbe causes disease, something that it is clear that he was unable to accomplish himself.
The Bacillus of Diphtheria.
The microbe to which Diphtheria has been for the past seventeen years attributed and whose presence in the throat-mucus now constitutes the official and sole acknowledged test for the presence of that malady, was discovered by Messrs, Klebs and Loeffler and is called by their name. They could not detect it in 35 percent, (one in four) cases of undoubted Diphtheria. See also Osler’s Practice of Medicine, Page 138, where Osler, practically the leader of modern Medicine, admits its frequent absence even in bad cases.
Since its discovery as above the bacillus has also been found in abundance in the throat-mucus of innumerable healthy people; and this by many independent observers. Ritter detected it in 127 perfectly healthy school children. Hewlett and Murray found it in 15 percent of children in hospital with various maladies other than Diphtheria (British Medical Journal, June 15, 1901)
The organism has a very wide distribution. It has been detected microscopically in the contents of vaccine vesicles, in tuberculosis and emphysematous lungs, in mucus from ordinary catarrhal sore-throat, in stomatitis, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, in eczema and other skin eruptions, in gangrene, noma, ozoena, etc.
Injected into the body of another animal the Klebs-Loffler bacillus invariably fails to produce disease in any way resembling human Diphtheria. The horses so treated for the purpose of manufacturing Diphtheria-Antitoxin from their blood-serum, show no symptoms apart from general malaise, (See evidence of Professor (C. J. Martin, Proc Royal A-V, Commission, Q. 11327).
“Intensive research during the past twelve years on the relationship between diet and susceptibility to infection, not only in polio but also in common respiratory infections and tuberculosis, has convinced me that the human organism can protect itself against infection virtually completely by proper nutrition.”
Dr. Snow pointed out that, despite Robert Koch’s efforts to prove that the tubercle-bacillus was the causative agent of tuberculosis, he failed miserably in doing so as all of his conclusions were promptly contradicted by Professor Middendorp and others. I wrote about Koch’s difficulties with tuberculosis here. The bacterium does not make its appearance in the sputum of patients until disease has continued for several months, sometimes nearly four months after symptoms begin. Dr. Muthu affirmed that the bacillus is regularly absent from the fluids of patients with very advanced disease and “extensive mischief in the lungs.” Professor Middendorp stated that the bacterium is absent from recent nodules, and Spina, Charrin, and Kuskow failed utterly to detect it in Acute Military tuberculosis patients. In I868, Dr. Wilson Fox proved that it was very easy to produce tuberculosis in guinea pigs, the animals utilized in experiments by Koch, using almost any tissue-irritation as well as by inoculation with miscellaneous substances. His findings were confirmed by Dr. Waldenburg, and they were never contradicted.
Tuberculosis.
The Tubercle-bacillus was discovered by Professor Koch in 1881. He endeavored to prove that it is the cause of Tubercular Consumption, but entirely failed to do so; all his conclusions were promptly contradicted by Professor Middendorp and others. Nevertheless, this microbe has since been elevated to the baleful potency of a malignant African fetish. It has caused unhappy consumptives to be shunned like lepers; is now dangerously threatening the milk trade, the agricultural interest, and even the general arrangements of industry at large.
The germ does not make its appearance in the sputum of consumptives until that disease has continued for several months. Dr. H. J. Loomis (Medical Record, July 29th, 1905), gives the average date of its detection at three and one-third months from inception, as fixed by the physical signs. Dr. Muthu’s extensive experience at the Mendip Sanatorium enables him to affirm that it is not infrequently absent from the expectoration of patients with very advanced disease and “extensive mischief in the lungs.” (Pulmonary Tuberculosis and Sanatorium Treatment, 1910).
Professor Middendorp denies that the bacillus exists in any tubercular nodules of recent formation, and prior to the onset of degenerative processes. Spina, Charrin, and Kuskow failed utterly to detect it in Acute Military Tuberculosis, wherein, were the causal theory of Koch genuine, it must needs be specially abundant.
A noteworthy element of fallacy in reference to the value of inferences from experiment with the Tubercle-bacillus upon the lower animals lies in the fact that most of such experiments take place with the guinea pig. In I868 Dr. Wilson Fox proved that it was easy to produce Tuberculosis in that animal by almost any tissue-irritation, and by inoculation with miscellaneous substances very varied in character. Eleven of thirteen guinea pigs became tubercular through the subcutaneous injection of pneumonic lung-substance, four out of five by that of putrid muscle, others by the insertion into their tissues of silver-wire, cotton thread, and the like. (Lecture Royal College Physicians. May 15th, 1868). Dr. Fox’s conclusions were confirmed by Dr. Waldenburg and have never been contradicted. They appear to invalidate the bulk of “scientific” researches including those most elaborate and prolonged investigations by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis.
A 1896 report on the Plague by bacteriologist Mr. Hankin stated that there was no doubt that there were cases of the Plague in which no microbes were visible at the time of death. Regarding cholera, it is shared that Dr. Klein drank pure comma-shaped bacillus, no effects followed, and he remained alive and well. Pettenkofer and Emerich swallowed the actual objects of a cholera patient with similar negative results. Thus, it is clear that the comma-shaped bacillus is not pathogenic and cannot satisfy Koch’s own postulates. For more on Koch’s cholera catastrophe, please refer to this article.
The Microbes of Plague, Cholera, Tetanus, Etc.
The Times of January 13th, 1896, quotes a Report to the Plague Commission at Agra, by Mr. Hankin. Bacteriologist for the North-West Provinces. “There was no doubt that cases of Plague occurred among human beings in which no microbes were visible at the time of death. This fact was first proved by the members of the German and Austrian Plague Commission.”
The “Comma bacillus” was discovered by Koch, who proclaimed it to be the cause of Asiatic Cholera. Dr. Klein, who was about to proceed to India to investigate the origin of that disease, did not believe in Professor Koch’s statement and experimentally drank a wine-glassful of comma bacilli in “pure culture.” No effect followed; and Dr. Klein remains alive and well to this day. At Hamburg Pettenkofer and Emerich swallowed the actual objects of a cholera patient with result similarly negative.
“It is bad enough for the doctors to blame the diseases on germs, viruses and bacteria, but when they pick on healthy people who do not “catch diseases” when they are exposed, and claim they are “carriers” and can infect others, this is the height of the ridiculous.”
Regarding tetanus, Dr. Snow pointed out that many gardeners regularly acquire wounds to the hands without ever having any issues. He also noted that many cases of tetanus appear without any prior wound and occur upon injections of serum and diphtheria anti-toxin.
For typhoid fever, Dr. Snow stated that the bacillus is regularly found in healthy people. I noted this as well in my article covering the ruse of the asymptomatic carrier of disease. An example was shared of Major Horrecks, who was able to transform the typhoid bacillus into other forms of bacteria through cultivation, lining up with Bechamps pleomorphism observations. Dr. Snow pointed out how the bacterium is never found in the water where it should be present due to the ascribed mode of transmission. He also shared the story of Dr. Thresh, a well-known Medical Officer of Health, who accidentally drank pure culture without any ill effects. Dr. J. W. Hodge found multiple instances of healthy people being injected in various ways with pure cultures of both typhoid bacillus and anthrax that resulted in no ill effects. On a related note, during a conversation on Twitter, I came across a paper stating that anthrax results in very low “infection” for exposed workers, with chronically exposed annual rates of 0.6-1.4%. In one mill, where workers were breathing in 600-1300 spores per 8-hour shift, not a single worker came down with ill effects. In fact, the anthrax bacillus was found in 14 of 101 healthy workers.
Thus, we once again see that the typhoid bacterium as well as the anthrax bacterium both fail Koch’s Postulates. Dr. Snow concluded the section by stating that it was admitted that the microbes claimed to result in spinal meningitis, anthrax, influenza, etc. cannot be detected in all the victims of these disorders even with the most careful searches. No pathogenic germ has ever been found in the air.
Pettenkofer Concluded That “the Specific Virus of Cholera Does Not Arise From the Comma Bacillus, But Is Evolved in the Human Organism.
Tetanus is ascribed to a microbe resident in garden soil, which gains access to wounds. That cannot be true, because such wounds among gardeners and agricultural laborers must be most common; yet they are very rarely attacked. Also, tetanus not seldom occurs without external wound and Dieulafoy has recorded thirty-five cases following the injection of highly sterilized serum. In India, Italy, and America, severe outbreaks of Tetanus have followed the use of Diphtheria Anti-toxin.
The bacillus typhosus, the pretended cause of typhoid fever, is found in healthy persons, and according to Major Horrecks, R. A. M.A. (British Medical Journal, May 6, 1911) has no specific character whatever. He finds that it is easily changed into other forms (B. Coli, B. Alcaligencs, etc.) by cultivation. It has never been found in the water, to which many virulent epidemics of typhoid have plausibly been ascribed. Dr. Thresh, the well-known Medical Officer of Health, told the jury in the Malvern Hydro case, that he had accidentally swallowed a wine-glassful of the “pure culture” of virulent typhoid bacilli without the smallest ill-consequence.
On experiments involving the like conclusion, Dr. J. W. Hodge remarks: “In medical literature I find a number of recorded instances of the apparently healthy human body having been repeatedly inoculated hypodermically with pure cultures of, the active bacillus typhosus, the supposed cause of typhoid fever. These fully virulent cultures have also been injected into the rectum of the human body, and applied to large abraded areas from which the cuticle had been removed . . . with no other effects than those resulting from the puncture or abrasion.” He makes a similar statement about the bacillus of Anthrax; and says that’so far as his knowledge extends, all such experiments with other microbes reputed pathogenic have been negative. (American Journal of Neuropathy, February, 1911.)
These remarks are specially pertinent at the present time because of the recent official order that the whole United States Army is to undergo inoculation with Anti-Typhoid serum, a remedy resting in toto on belief that the B. Typhosus is the source of Enteric fever.
It is admitted that the microbes asserted to generate Spinal Meningitis, Anthrax, Influenza, etc. cannot be detected in all the victims of these disorders by the most careful search. No pathogenic germ has ever been found in the air.
Regarding malaria, Dr. Snow began by pointing out that the disease shows up where mosquitoes are entirely, or almost entirely, absent. The fever was known to be at its worst when few mosquitoes were around, and far less severe when more mosquitoes were present. He also noted that the efforts to control the disease by eliminating mosquitoes always resulted in failure. For more information on the ways in which malaria fails Koch’s Postulates, please refer to this article I wrote on the subject.
Mosquitoes and Malaria.
The present position of the favorite official view of a germ as the cause of Malarial fevers, and conveyed by the mosquito, may be here glanced at. On the general theory, it may be remarked that Malaria abounds where the insects are entirely, or almost entirely, absent; as in the tropical highlands generally and the elevated regions of Rhodesia (Bantock.) That the fever is at its maximum when there are hardly any mosquitoes about, and at its minimum when these are most numerous. That the malady is apt to follow a chill, after long years of immunity of temperate Europe.
Secondly, we note that although the theory has been current for nearly ten years, wherever it has been acted on, it has totally failed in actual practice. Wherever operations for the destruction of the mosquito (per se) have been carried on, as at Miam Mir, for seven or eight years (Lancet, April 1909), they have proved useless. The malady is as prevalent as ever, in spite of the great labor and sacrifices involved. So far as it is possible to obtain unbiased official testimony, we learn that only the gross measures of sanitation count.
In this next section, Dr. Snow discussed the attempts to sanitize in order to prevent microbes from causing disease. He spoke about Lord Lister’s use of a toxic carbonic spray which damaged the hearts of doctors and ultimately killed patients. It was eventually discovered that it was impossible to eliminate the millions of microbes which gain access to every wound during even the briefest operation, and Lister had to confess that his theory was erroneous. Lister went so far as to state that he was ashamed for having tried to eliminate microbes from the air. It was later decided that, instead of killing the germs, it was best to leave them alone.
II.
Microbes and Suppuration. The Obselete Anti-septic Theory.
The Antiseptic System of Surgery, to the introduction of which the late Lord Lister owed his extraordinary fame, was based on the theory that certain specific micro-organisms cause suppuration in wounds; and that by destroying them before they could gain access thereto, suppuration was prevented.
Hence the Invention of the Carbolic Spray, and all its accompanying cumbersome technique, which in the seventies of last century wearied the heart of the surgeon, and not seldom killed the patient. It was eventually, discovered that no human power could possibly devitalise the millions of microbes which gain access to every wound during the briefest operation. Lord Lister had to confess at Liverpool, on September 16th, 1896, that his whole theory was erroneous, and that it was only “the grosser forms of septic mischief” which had to be reckoned with in surgery. The Carbolic Spray, and even the “Antiseptic washing and irrigation,” had been authoritatively abandoned by him six years earlier, with an expression of regret for the introduction of the former. “I feel ashamed that I should ever have recommended it (the spray) for the purpose of destroying the microbes in the air.”
Antiseptic surgery was then replaced by Aseptic; which being translated simply signifies careful and wholesome cleanliness—that and nothing more. Instead of striving to kill the germs, we severely let them alone, concentrating all our attention upon that cleanliness of patient, of doctors, of nurses, and of dressings, which assuredly in this matter is not merely next to godliness but infinitely preferable.
In this final section, Dr. Snow highlighted how powerful vested interests, in combination with even more powerful financial forces, worked together to keep the germ theory alive. He stated that even greater forces worked to keep the theory that specific microbes caused a specific disease in order to prop up and sell fraudulent “cures.” I explained many of these events and forces in this article examining the rise of the pharmaceutical-industrial complex. These “cures” actually failed to work as promised. However, this was concealed to the public as the frequent dangerous side effects were disguised, and the statistics of disease were either manipulated towards the desired end goal, or often purposely falsified on a grand scale.
III.
The Fallacies of the Bacteriologist and the Tricks of Trade.
But unfortunately both in the medical and surgical departments of the healing art, powerful vested interests had by this time (i. e. 1890, when Lister at the Berlin Congress officially discarded his “Antisepsis”) arisen, and, in combination with still more powerful financial forces outside the faculty, were compelled to prop up the decaying Germ Theory by every possible method and at all hazard. Consequently, when Aseptic Surgery displaced Antiseptic, it was officially proclaimed publicly that the former was only the corollary of the latter—which it really negatived entirely. Lister was induced to ally himself with the successful new school, and to confer upon its edicts and practical prescriptions the unparalleled lustre of his world-wide reputation. At the Royal Medico-Chirurgical Society on June 20th, 1891, the Antiseptic method in surgery was solemnly buried in the presence of its author, but proclamation was also made that the new Aseptic “was the outcome of the Listerian method.” The proposition is ingenious; but one might as well describe the locomotive as the outcome of the stage coach.
So much for surgery. But in medicine, still greater forces were indissolubly pledged to the maintenance of the belief in special micro-organisms as the cause of specific diseases. Pasteur has invented Serum-Therapy, beginning with fictitious cures, whose validity he signally failed to prove, for Rabies and Anthrax. Millions of capital were being invested in commercial enterprises for the manufacture of sera to cure or to prevent human maladies, and sold on the credit of the Germ Theory. Hence it was impossible to suffer public belief in the evil potency of Germs—by this time thoroughly established—to be trampled out by the hard facts of Science.
So nothing was spared that could serve to prevent a perception of the actual truth. The total failure of every one of these nostrums to accomplish its ostensible object was concealed; their frequent dangerous effects disguised, and the statistics of disease manipulated, towards the desired end, or often purposely falsified upon a most extensive scale. In the whole wide field of Serum-Therapy so far, not a solitary genuine success has been scored. The fact is categorically demonstrated by Dr. Wilson’s Report in the recent Blue Book. For all who can read between the lines it stands admitted to all intents and purposes, by the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection (q. v.)
Herbert Snow. M. D, London Cancer Hospital.
The final section of the article appears to be written by the editor, who proclaimed that Dr. Snow’s investigation proved medical “science” as a fraud that has more to do with witchcraft than actual science. The writer preached the dangers of injecting poisons into the body, while speaking highly of the work of Osteopaths who, through the proper alignment of the nerves, joints, and organs, allowed the body to clean the blood in order to cure disease. The writer claimed that, in El Paso, over 8,000 cases of disease of all types were cured via Osteopathic means. The article concluded by stating that scientists were right in that all diseases originate from within the human due to the accumulation of stagnant, decaying blood making a receptacle for the poisons. Thus, the remedy is within the diseased person, and disease can be removed by restoring the circulation of the blood so that it can carry out any impurities and return the body back to homeostasis.
This undoes the whole Medical Science and proves it a fraud, pure and simple and that it is not a science at all any more than witchcraft but does far more harm because the percent of deaths are so much greater from the poisons used as remedies. This has given rise to the spread of all drugless sciences and beliefs as they save thousands of lives by teaching people to restrain from taking drugs and serums as their intemperate nature makes them strictly against the teachings of the Bible which has been the basis of all true sciences from the beginning of the world and we have only progressed when we come back to its teachings and it deals with every phase of life from the cradle to the grave. Be temperate, be clean, be virtuous. Little Daniel knew this and purposed in his heart he would not defile himself with the King’s (highly spiced) meats, nor drink of the King’s (fermented) wines.
And the cleanliness taught, forbids the injection of any poisonous serums into the human body, “For if you come in contact with anyone who has any kind of an issue from the flesh, go bathe theyself”—Bible. And is in perfect accord with the conclusions of these great Scientists that cleanliness is the draining of swamps, to keep their poisons from being inhaled into the system and isolating one’s self from contagious persons lest the poison matter from them poison the same parts of your system and thus produce the same disease in you provided the nerve has already been weakened to that part by drugs, stimulants or excesses, so stagnant blood has been allowed to accumulate for the poison to settle in and produce the “virus evolved in the human organism” necessary to produce the disease which these scientists say produces the disease, and not the Bacillus. And without these exhaustive conditions to an organ there is an absence of stagnant blood and that person can take no disease. Hence you will notice the splendid continued health of people who take Osteopathic treatment and their immunity from disease and perfect control in the curing of all diseases. Diphtheria, Scarlet fever, Lung fever, Appendicitis for the stagnant decaying blood, the real cause of all diseases are thrown out by freeing the exhausted nerve to that part, and the cause of the disease removed, the blood rebuilds the part just as it did when it first made it and result is invaribly a cure, unless the patient has let it run so long before the Osteopath was called that the system was too weak to throw it out, as in last stages of consumption and in cancers. The ability of the Osteopaths to handle all diseases of eyes, ears, nose, throat, lungs, stomach, livers, appendix, kidneys, heart, asthmas, rheumatisms, spinal meningitis and all female and children’s diseases, has been so thoroughly demonstrated by the handling of 8,000 cases here in El Paso with by far the largest percent of cures ever known. That the most skeptical cannot help but be convinced if they will only go there and talk with those that were and are being cured and see and they will be satisfied that this great association of Scientists were right, and that all diseases originate from within the human organism from the accumulation of stagnant, decaying blood making a receptacle for the poisons from without and that the remedy is all within yourself and is removed by restoring the circulation of the blood so it can carry out these impurities and build up the part again and you are whole. “For in the Blood is the Life all Flesh.”— Bible.
Throughout this article, I wanted to present examples of the voices that spoke out against the germ theory of disease. I primarily focused on those who were present at the beginning of the fraud. However, what was presented here is just a very small sample. There are many more who spoke out from the start, as well as those who raised concerns throughout the proceeding decades. I highlighted Dr. Herbert Snow’s excellent investigation and subsequent article as it does a masterful job of putting the spotlight on the unscientific fraud that has taken place over the last two centuries. Like the highly skilled surgeon that he was, Dr. Snow cut through all of the pseudoscience in order to show that the scientific evidence supporting germ theory was non-existent. He put the spotlight on the accepted bacterial causes of disease and demonstrated how not a single one satisfied Koch’s Postulates, the very requirements that were agreed upon as essential in order to prove that microbes cause disease. Dr. Snow understood that there were powerful forces and vested interests that were propping up the fraudulent germ theory for various reasons, including money and control. He realized that contradictory evidence and dangerous side effects were buried while statistics were intentionally manipulated and falsified as a means to an end. We still see these exact same practices utilized today in order to fool the masses and perpetuate the lie in order to gain further money, power, and control. Thus, it is extremely important that we listen to and learn from these voices of the past, lest we continue to cycle through the same mistakes. Had people actually listened to Dr. Snow and the many prominent voices speaking out against the unscientific germ theory of disease when it was first developed, perhaps this fraudulent house of cards would have never been built up in the first place.
Are you getting bored of listening to the exact same song and dance numbers over and over again? Are the old “viral” bands just not doing it for you anymore? Are you looking for something new and mysterious to come along in order to spice things up a bit and reignite the dwindling levels of fear? If so, then you are in luck as there is a brand new “viral” sensation headed your way!
Introducing Disease X!
“An old adage says, “Prevention is better than cure.” Nothing exemplifies this idea better than “Disease X.” According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “Disease X represents the knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease.”1
Richard Hatchett, chief executive officer (CEO) of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), said about Disease X, “It might sound like science fiction, but Disease X is something we must prepare for.”2 In a list of diseases that the WHO considers high priority in terms of research and development, Disease X occupies a spot among diseases such as Ebola, Zika, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).1Unexpected outbreaks of infectious disease (Disease X) have repeatedly rocked the medical confidence and have taken the medical world by surprise.3
Some experts have even commented that COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), met the standards to be considered the first Disease X,4 while some authors have called Zika a Disease X.5However, one unfortunate possibility is that COVID-19 and other recent pandemics might have been milder versions of what will eventually be the most prominent Disease X.
Disease X is supposed to be caused by a “pathogen X.” Such a pathogen is expected to be a zoonosis, most likely an RNA virus, emerging from an area where the right mix of risk factors highly promotes the risk for sustained transmission.6
Young children being forced to wear masks is of particular concern.
I always love to say this whenever I share this info,,, so then,,, ” Woof woof get the fuck outta here you fucking muzzeled dog!!!”
July 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Prior to facemask mandates as an alleged preventive for Covid infection and transmission, such masks were infrequently worn in hospitals and other medical facilities. They were only used in operating theatres or for visiting seriously ill patients in order to prevent infection from spit or droplets into open wounds or to partially protect visitors from acquiring and transmitting pathogens more dangerous than Covid. Many doctors and nurses have told LifeSite that for decades, if not longer, staff wearing medical masks were an uncommon sight in health care facilities other than as mentioned. No studies were needed to justify this practice since most understood viruses were far too small to be stopped by the wearing of most masks, other than sophisticated ones designed for that task and which were too costly and complicated for the general public to properly wear and keep changing or cleaning. It was also understood that long mask wearing was unhealthy for wearers for common sense and basic science reasons. There has been an international flood of lies about mask wearing in order to justify the bizarre and disturbing situation we have today of almost everyone wearing masks in many regions, inside and outside healthcare facilities, in schools with children of all ages, during sports events, in churches, in grocery stores and all commercial facilities, while driving and walking, and long after peak infection has passed. It has also continued long after it was discovered that Covid was not nearly as dangerous as we were led to believe, that many of the mitigation policies caused serious damage of all kinds, including many deaths, and long after prevention and treatment protocols were discovered and used with great success, and the very best ones often criminally suppressed by government and health authorities. The unnecessary and greatly exaggerated fear during the first few months of this pandemic, which would never have been labeled a pandemic until the WHO unilaterally changed the pandemic definition to include much less dangerous pathogens, has been manipulated to continue to this day, unlike past experiences with similar virus outbreaks. There have been numerous lies fed to the public by the WHO, national and regional government leaders and health bureaucrats and the media and many other institutions – all certainly for the purpose of maintaining fear until the large majority of the public has been injected with the poorly tested, unnecessary and dangerous Covid vaccines for which we have no evidence of their long-term safety. President Joe Biden has been consistently presenting numerous, outrageous lies to justify his extreme Covid and vaccine policies and Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D, has written an article published on LifeSite today that summarizes all of the most prominent and damaging lies that have generated continuing fear and caused a large percentage of Americans and citizens of other nations to accept the Covid vaccines in order to allegedly be able to return to a normal life. Included in Alexander’s list are the lies related to mask mandates. An acquaintance of Paul Alexander has written the list below of 47 studies confirming that masks are useless in preventing Covid infection and transmission and a second list further down of 32 studies confirming the negative health effects caused by frequent mask wearing, especially for young children. This has been a growing, serious concern in recent months as the dangerous health and emotional effects, especially on children, who are at almost zero risk of Covid harm, are becoming more pronounced and deeply worrisome. VARIOUS FACE MASK STUDIES PROVE THEIR INEFFECTIVENESS 1. Surgical mask / cloth face mask studies Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults ≥18 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities — United States, July 2020 The US Centre for Disease Control performed a study which showed that 85 percent of those who contracted Covid-19 during July 2020 were mask wearers. Just 3.9 percent of the study participants never wore a mask. Original: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf Erratum. correction: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6938a7.htm?s_cid=mm6938a7_whttps://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-cdc-study-covid-masks 2. Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review This study used 5462 peer-reviewed articles and 41 grey literature records. “Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to critical shortages of medical-grade PPE. Alternative forms of facial protection offer inferior protection. More robust evidence is required on different types of medical-grade facial protection. As research on COVID-19 advances, investigators should continue to examine the impact on alternatives of medical-grade facial protection” So how is your cloth and surgical mask working again if EVEN medical grade alternatives are failing ? Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371574/ 3. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses “There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33215698/ 4. Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery “We included three trials, involving a total of 2106 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27115326/ 5. Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review Two randomized controlled trials were included involving a total of 1453 patients. In a small trial there was a trend towards masks being associated with fewer infections, whereas in a large trial there was no difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16295987/ 6. Evaluating the efficacy of cloth facemasks in reducing particulate matter exposure “Our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles<2.5 μm” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/ 7. Face seal leakage of half masks and surgical masks “The filtration efficiency of the filter materials was good, over 95%, for particles above 5 micron in diameter but great variation existed for smaller particles. Coronavirus is 0.125 microns. therefore these masks wouldn’t protect you from the virus” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4014006/ 8. Comparison of the Filter Efficiency of Medical Nonwoven Fabrics against Three Different Microbe Aerosols “The filter efficiencies against influenza virus particles were the lowest” “We conclude that the filter efficiency test using the phi-X174 phage aerosol may overestimate the protective performance of nonwoven fabrics with filter structure compared to that against real pathogens such as the influenza virus” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29910210/ 9. Aerosol penetration through surgical masks “Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the submicrometer-size aerosols containing pathogens ” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1524265/ 10. Particle removal from air by face masks made from Sterilization Wraps: Effectiveness and Reusability “We found that 60 GSM face mask had particle capture efficiency of 94% for total particles greater than 0.3 microns” How big is the virus again? 0.125 microns. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33052962/ 11. A New Method for Testing Filtration Efficiency of Mask Materials Under Sneeze-like Pressure This study states that “alternatives” like silk and gauze etc could possibly be good options in the pandemic. It’s done on starch particles. Does not state how big they are either, but they can still get through the material and my research points out that starch particles are “big”, much bigger than most viruses. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32503823/ 12. Protecting staff against airborne viral particles: in vivo efficiency of laser masks “The laser mask provided significantly less protection than the FFP2 respirator (P=0.02), and only marginally more protection than the surgical mask. The continued use of laser masks for respiratory protection is questionable. Taping masks to the face only provided a small improvement in protection” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16920222/ 13. Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE “Worn as designed, both commercial surgical masks and cloth masks had widely varying effectiveness (53 – 75 percent and 28 – 91 percent particle removal efficiency, respectively)”. Different brand, different results and only when they applied “nylon layers” did the “efficiency” improve. Synthetic fibres do not breathe, so this will inevitably effect your breathing. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32838296/ 14. The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using “tracer particles” “Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escaped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound”. Human albumin cells, aka aborted fetal tissue, is much larger than the virus and still escaped the mask. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7379387/ 15. Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic? “Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals” so why has the government suggested you make your own when they are not effective ? Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/ 16. Using half-facepiece respirators for H1N1 “Increasing the filtration level of a particle respirator does not increase the respirator’s ability to reduce a user’s exposure to contaminants” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19927872/ 17. Why Masks Don’t Work Against COVID-19 The site is full of studies proving masks dont work for coronavirus or the flu. Article: https://www.citizensforfreespeech.org/why_masks_don_t_work_against_covid_19?fbclid=IwAR0Qviyvt6BObOgaMij03Cj0fgTcm_gm5jhXcMkO8GcH3Kur-bwib0o8rf8 18. Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy This is full of studies proving mask protection is negligible for coronavirus, flu etc. Article: https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy?fbclid=IwAR0Qviyvt6BObOgaMij03Cj0fgTcm_gm5jhXcMkO8GcH3Kur-bwib0o8rf8 19. Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review There is less data to support the use of face masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/ 20. “Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword?” – A physiological hypothesis No evidence to suggest that wearing a mask during exercise offers any benefit from the droplet transfer from the virus. “Exercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment,cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/ 21. Use of face masks by non-scrubbed operating room staff: a randomized controlled trial Surgical site infection rates did not increase when non-scrubbed personnel did not wear face masks. 2010 Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575920/ 22. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms – a costly and unnecessary ritual? When the wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1680906/ 23. Masks: a ward investigation and review of the literature Wearing multi layer operating room masks for every visit had no effect on nose and throat carriage rates. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2873176/ 24. Aerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks used in the health care industry The protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous submirconometer-sized aerosols. “Conclusion: We conclude that the protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous submicrometer-sized aerosols” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8239046/ 25. Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review Meta analysis review that says there is limited evidence to suggest that the use of masks may reduce the risk of spreading viral respiratory infections. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32675098/ 26. Modeling of the Transmission of Coronaviruses, Measles Virus, Influenza Virus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and Legionella pneumophila in Dental Clinics Evidence to suggest that transmission probability is strongly driven by indoor air quality, followed by patient effectiveness and the least by respiratory protection via mask use. So this could explain “second waves” and has nothing to do with hand shaking, or not wearing a mask. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32614681/ 27. Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings-Personal Protective and Environmental Measures The use of face masks, either by infected or non infected peresons, does not have a significant effect on influenza transmission. SO MASKS DON’T PROTECT YOU FROM ME, AND VICE VERSA. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32027586/ 28. Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis Meta analyses suggest that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protective effect over face masks and their insignificant protection. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28487207/ 29. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta- analysis Use of n95 respirators compared to surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory confirmed influenza. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32167245/ 30. Adolescents’ face mask usage and contact transmission in novel Coronavirus Face mask surfaces can become contamination sources. People are storing them in their pockets, bags, putting them on tables, people are reusing them etc. This is why this study is relevant: Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32582579/ 31. Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets Loosely folded face masks and “bandana style” face coverings provide minimum stopping capability for the smallest aerosolized droplets. This applies to anyone who folds or shoves a mask into their pockets or bag. It also applies to cloth and homemade cloth masks: Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32624649/ 32. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial Face mask use in healthcare workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of colds symptoms or getting colds. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/ 33. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers Penetration of cloth masks by influenza particles was almost 97 percent and medical masks 44 percent. so cloth masks are essentially useless, and “medical grade” masks don’t provide adequate protection. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/ 34. Simple respiratory protection–evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles Cloth masks and other fabric materials tested in the study had 40-90 percent instantaneous penetration levels against polydisperse NaCl aerosols. “Results obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles, including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20584862/ 35. Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range “The study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18326870/ 36. Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks? The n95 filtering respirators may not provide expected protection level against small virons Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16490606/ 37. Do Surgical Masks Stop the Coronavirus? Study article: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/coronavirus-surgical-masks-china.html 38. Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis This study states that an N95, depending on the brand, can range from 0.1-0.3 microns. however, most people cannot buy an N95 with a micron smaller than 0.3 micron because they are expensive and not readily available on the public market. “N95 respirators made by different companies were found to have different filtration efficiencies for the most penetrating particle size (0.1 to 0.3 micron)” “Above the most penetrating particle size the filtration efficiency increases with size; it reaches approximately 99.5% or higher at about 0.75 micron” “Meta-analyses suggest that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protective effect (OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.52-0.73; I2=0%), and facemask use provided a non-significant protective effect (OR=0.53; 95% CI 0.16-1.71; I2=48%) against 2009 pandemic influenza infection” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28487207/ 39. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta- analysis “The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory- confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for the general public or non high-risk medical staff who are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients” N95 masks did show a positive effect for BACTERIA but not viruses. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32167245/ 40. Adolescents’ face mask usage and contact transmission in novel Coronavirus This study used dye to show if masks were contaminated. “As a result, masks surface becomes a contamination source. In the contact experiment, ten adults were requested to put on and off a surgical mask while doing a word processing task. The extended contamination areas were recorded and identified by image analysis” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32582579/ 41. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial “Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period” “Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/ 42. Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50 percent in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/ 43. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers “An analysis of mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95 percent CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95 percent 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 percent and medical masks 44 percent” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/ 44. Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range “The study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses. An exhalation valve on the N95 respirator does not affect the respiratory protection” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18326870/ 45. Performance of N95 respirators: filtration efficiency for airborne microbial and inert particles Coronavirus is 0.125 micron, as you can read in this study, it states that most N95 masks can only filter particles as small as 0.75 microns. This is too big to trap this virus. that is a fact. And even with an efficiency of 95 percent (depending on brand, so filtration may be lower) IF the virus can be trapped… it’s still missing 5 percent and maybe more based on an N95 that has 0.1 microns . Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9487666/ CORONAVIRUSES ARE 0.125 MICRON. SO THE BEST N95 ON THE MARKET WOULD DO NOTHING . 46. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019 A chinese study that proves that an airborne coronavirus particle (0.125 micron) can pass directly through an n95 mask Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31978945/ 47. Airborne coronavirus particle (<0.125 micron) will pass directly through a N95 face mask. Study article: https://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/airborne-coronavirus-particle SIZE OF THE CORONAVIRUS: Size can vary but all are smaller than 0.3 micron . “Human coronaviruses measure between 0.1 and 0.2 microns, which is one to two times below the cutoff” This “cut off” is referring to the size an N95 mask can trap. Most of us, are not using MEDICAL or regular N95s.
FACE MASK SIDE EFFECTS AND HEALTH IMPLICATIONS 1. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery Face mask side effects include lowered oxygen levels. This study proved that surgeons that wore a mask in surgery for an hour + had significant reductions in blood oxygen saturation. This is relevant because most of us are being made to wear face masks at work for the whole shift, long journeys on public transport, and when we are in a public places doing shopping etc. and this requires a degree of exertion that is not taken into account. “Considering our findings, pulse rates of the surgeon’s increase and SpO2 decrease after the first hour.” Decreasing oxygen and increasing carbon dioxide in the bloodstream stimulates a compensatory response in the respiratory centers of the brain. These changes in blood gases result in increases in both frequency and depth of breaths. This exposes another risk – if your mask traps some virus you are breathing more hence increasing viral load and exposure. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1130147308702355?via%3Dihub Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18500410/ 2. Impact of structural features on dynamic breathing resistance of healthcare face mask Face mask side effects include impeded breathing. Ask people if they have issues breathing in these masks. anecdotal or not, as everyone is different. “The results showed that each evaluation index was significantly different (P < 0.05) among different test masks” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31280156/ 3. Respiratory consequences of N95-type Mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers-a controlled clinical study The benefits of using N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage. “Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222 “It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20 percent, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving aroundalone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death” “CONCLUSIONS: Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers,and this needs to be taken into consideration in guidelines for respirator use” Yet we force pregnant women to use them…? What could this do to the fetus? 4. Headaches and the N95 face-mask amongst healthcare providers Face mask side effects include headaches. These headaches can force you to use added or unnecessary medications like painkillers that carry their own side effects. The theory as to why masks can trigger headaches is the RESTRICTION OF OXYGEN. What are the long-term health effects on Health Care Workers with headaches arising from impeded breathing? Here are several sources and studies that back up this claim: Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16441251/ Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19 Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32232837/ How to Avoid Migraine Triggers While Wearing Your Mask https://www.withcove.com/learn/migraine-triggers-mask 5. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial “Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headaches during the study period” “Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds” Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/ 6. Your Health Your Responsibility This video shows that even reading a book with a mask on decreases blood oxygen levels to your brain. what implications does this have for developing children forced to wear masks at school etc? https://youtu.be/ul5E5BUrII4 7. Physiological impact of the N95 filtering facepiece respirator on healthcare workers “CONCLUSIONS: In healthy healthcare workers, FFR did not impose any important physiological burden during 1 hour of use, at realistic clinical work rates, but the FFR dead-space carbon dioxide andoxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards, and elevated P(CO2) is a possibility” Remember in “healthy healthcare workers” even their carbon dioxide levels rose. Most of the wider public have at least one health problem. Even healthy people were shown to have elevated CO2 levelsabove the healthy guidelines. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20420727/ 8. The adverse skin reactions of health care workers using personal protective equipment for COVID-19 Face mask side effects include adverse skin reactions The adverse skin reactions of health care workers using personal protective equipment for COVID-19 Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32541493/ 9. Your Mask May Be Causing Candida Growth in Your Mouth Face mask side effects include yeast infections https://www.everydayhealth.com/coronavirus/your-mask-may-be-causing-candida-growth-in-your-mouth/ 10. ‘Mask mouth’ is a seriously stinky side effect of wearing masks Face mask side effects include dental issues. “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before,” says Dr. Rob Ramondi, a dentist and co-founder of One ManhattanDental. “About 50 percent of our patients are being impacted by this, [so] we decided to name it ‘mask mouth’ — after ‘meth mouth.’ ” “While mask mouth isn’t quite as obvious, if left untreated, the results could be equally harmful. Gum disease — or periodontal disease — will eventually lead to strokes and an increased risk of heart attacks,” says Dr. Marc Sclafani, another co-founder of One Manhattan Dental” https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/mask-mouth-is-a-seriously-stinky-side-effect-of-wearing-masks/ 11. All That Mask-Wearing Could Be Giving You (Gasp!) Mouth Fungus—Here’s How to Deal With it https://www.wellandgood.com/mouth-sores-from-wearing-masks/ 12. ‘Maskne’ Is a Real Thing—Here’s How to Stop Face Mask Breakouts Face mask side effects include acne https://www.health.com/condition/skin-conditions/maskne-mask-acne-mechanica 13. Improper use of medical masks can cause infections Face mask side effects include mould and infections Masks can cause bacterial and fungal infections around the mouth,and in the mouth and lungs EVEN if you wash the cloth mask. Mould colonies were found in masks in as little as one day. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/health/improper-use-of-medical-masks-can-cause-infections-/1766676 14. Mould Colonization in Your Sinuses Could Be Holding You Back From Making a Full Recovery < Information on mould and how it can affect your health. https://moldfreeliving.com/2019/01/26/could-mold-colonization-in-your-sinuses/ 15. An investigation into the efficiency of disposable face masks What are the dangers of bacterial and fungal growths on a used and loaded mask? This study tested all kinds of disposable masks and proved they cause you to breathe back in your own crap. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7440756/ 16. Can the Elastic of Surgical Face Masks Stimulate Ear Protrusion in Children? Disfiguration in children. Can masks stimulate ear protrusion in children? This is due to masks that are too tightly fitted. Tight masks can also cause tension headaches. Is this healthy for children long term? Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32556449/ 17. When You Wear A Face Mask Every Day, This Is What Happens To Your Lungs Mask use can trigger allergies due to the mask collecting particles that stay on you for long periods of time. https://www.thelist.com/214073/when-you-wear-a-face-mask-every-day-this-is-what-happens-to-your-lungs/ 18. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease. And yet, we make sick people wear them. Even people without breathing issues, have lowered oxygen rates. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/ 19. Other Face Mask Side Effects and Health Implications to Consider There is a great potential for harm that may arise from public policies forcing mask use on the wider population. The following unanswered questions arise unanswered: Can masks shed fibers or micro plastics that we can breathe in? Do these masks excrete chemical substances that are harmful when inhaled? Can masks excrete chemicals or fumes when heated, either with bodyheat sunlight or other sources of heat? Clothing dye can cause reactions, so how do we know that the manufacturing process of these masks do not pose a risk to us? Because, in reality, we do not buy our masks from medical companiesor facilities who operate in sterile environments. 20. [Gaps in asepsis due to surgical caps, face masks, external surfaces of infusion bottles and sterile wrappers of disposable articles] “It is obvious that the surfaces of the boxes of sterile packed disposable instruments and infusion bottles are not sterile. The disposable surgical masks and surgical caps used for sterile clothing are delivered by the producers not sterile, either.” AND THIS IS HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6099666/ 21. Mask Production Video This is a “factory” that produces alot of masks. Does this look a sterile environment to you? This is what the majority of us are getting when we purchase online or in stores that sell them in bulk. Do you wantthat on your face? https://youtu.be/8gyO9TSlC0Q 22. Allergies and the Immune System Can pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask? Can this elicit a greater reaction to viruses? For example, if you have a dust allergy your mask is collecting this thus causing inflamation to the wearer and lowering his or her immune system. “This can cause wheezing, itching, runny nose, watery or itchy eyes, and other symptoms” would that not facilitate spread and infection rate of viruses? https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/allergies-and-the-immune-system 23. Virus interactions with bacteria: Partners in the infectious dance Bacteria and viruses can interact an increase infection suseptability: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1008234 24. When viruses and bacteria unite! https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/when-viruses-and-bacteria-unite/ 25. An empirical and theoretical investigation into the psychological effects of wearing a mask Face mask side effects include altered behaviour Are there negative social consequences to a masked society? This study implies that, yes, masks do cause people to adopt altered behaviours based on mask use. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/43402/ 26. Mask mandates may affect a child’s emotional, intellectual development Face mask side effects stagnate a child’s natural intellectual development. It is well known that children find it hard to recognise faces up until a certain age. Mask use will further interfere with this. Is this healthy for a developing child? https://www.wishtv.com/news/mask-mandates-may-affect-a-childs-emotional-intellectual-development/ 27. Disabled People and Masks Contributing Toward Mental Health Issues Face mask side effects and mental health What about disabled people? Deaf /people hard of hearing rely on mouth reading. What are the implications for them? What about people who suffer cognitive and behavioural disorders like autism? This could cause them HUGE distress. Not just from wearing a mask, but seeing others in masks (because let’s face it – IT’S NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOUR). Can masks cause anxiety, or make other mental health disorders worse? Since masks CAN impede breathing, this can cause fainting and other bodily reaction that would otherwise be avoided if masks were not used. Here is a search engine link to prove that it is very common: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mask+anxiety&ia=web 28. Maine study looks into long-term psychological effects of wearing face masks coronavirus, COVID-19 pandemic This is a study on the psychological effects of masks. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/umaine-study-looks-into-long-term-psychological-effects-of-wearing-face-masks-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic/ar-BB13EfiU 29. Masks: Have You Been Captured by This Psyop? Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification? This can easily trigger fear as a mask is reminding you there’s a virus. The use of mask can also cause you to engage in risky behaviours due to a “false sense of security” because you feel protected. https://kellybroganmd.com/masks-have-you-been-captured-by-this-psyop/ 30. Masking the Truth – Face Masks, Empathy and Dis-inhibition https://podtail.com/fi/podcast/conspiracy-theoryology/masking-the-truth-face-masks-empathy-and-dis-inhib/ 31. Covid-19 face masks: A potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal? Proof of increased littering due to increased mask use. a quick engine search will tell you, people are dumping them EVERYWHERE – into our rivers, into greenland areas etc. Plastics like nylon leach chemicals are going into our environment. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32563114/ 32. Why Masks Don’t Work Against COVID-19 Can used and loaded masks become vectors of enhanced transmission for both the wearer and other people? (The evidence from studies suggest yes). Masks become useless after about 20 minutes due to the moisture in your breath. This moisture can become the droplets that viruses travel on. Can this not facilitate transmission? Can masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that otherwise, could be avoided when breathing without a mask? (The evidence suggests yes). Can large droplets trapped via a mask become atomized or aerosolized into breathable components? Even down to the virion size. (The evidence suggests yes). https://www.citizensforfreespeech.org/why_masks_don_t_work_against_covid_19 LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
One of the cruelest things about being injured by a pharmaceutical is the degree to which doctors will deny the idea that the injury happened (as acknowledging it requires them to accept the shortcomings of the medical model they’ve invested their lives into). This denial is known as medical gaslighting and it is often so powerful that friends and family members of the patient will adopt the reality asserted by those doctors and likewise gaslight the injured patient. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen this tragedy transpire in my immediate circle and one of my missions here has been to bring awareness to medical gaslighting and explain why it always happens (i.e., it was discussed in detail here).
I mention all of that because I recently saw a story that was shared by Pierre Kory on Twitter and realized it touched upon many of the reasons why I’ve invested myself into writing here [along with one of the more unique symptoms of COVID vaccine injuries]:
A hiking buddy of mine who had noticeably and suddenly stopped doing the more strenuous 14,000ft hikes a couple of years ago called me and made a confession:
He got myocarditis from his second mRNA shot. Listening to him describing being alone on a trail run and suddenly having chest pains and trouble breathing was horrifying. He was afraid he was going to die alone. He’s a marathoner and highly active, in his mid 30s.
The worst part: He was afraid to tell me or anyone in his friend group.
His literal quote: “I saw how Oz [his best friend] and especially his fiance [a med school graduate in residency who is super attached to the establishment covid narrative] were talking about the antivaxxers, and I felt like if I talked about it with any of them, I would have hurt Oz’s relationship. I also felt like Kristen [a mutual friend of ours] would have judged me and stopped hanging out. I just kept it quiet. But yeah man, I’m still having a hard time with the 14ers, and my run times are all way down.”
This is a photo of him (on the left, not showing his face out of respect for his privacy) on our last hike where we were only at 10,000ft altitude, and at the time I had noticed he was struggling, but when we asked him about it, he said he was “hungover”. He wasn’t. It was about 10 month after the myocarditis, and he was hiding it from us.
Self-censorship is perhaps the most horrifying aspect of this. None of us should find out years later that our friends had to be hospitalized. The fact that he felt he had to hide it is horrifying.
He is an incredibly smart and driven guy, and he bluntly told me that he “knows, deep down, that if I said anything about this publicly, I’d be flushing my career down the toilet. I work in the software industry in Boulder. I know what will happen if I say something.”
When I told him that I believed him, and told him about my mother-in-law and my neighbor, he obviously felt a huge sense of relief. He was afraid that I was going to judge him for the crime of telling me about a medical side-effect. Ironically, his first job out of college was working for a pharma company, specifically on a new statin.
His description of the science on statins, and the things they were and were not allowed to study on statins, was horrifying. His exact words, which echoed what I’ve heard @BretWeinstein say:
“Working there, the entire culture is so messed up man. Like, the way they think is ‘we’re going to market this, now you go and make sure we can get it approved, and it was obvious that without studying anything, they already were making it clear that we WILL get it approved, and your job is to make sure you design the studies to make that happen.’ Dude, they don’t care about people at all. It’s just numbers to them.”
What have we done? There needs to be a reckoning for the regulatory capture of the CDC/FDA, and the current administration’s obviously political taint to the approval process. The current booster that the US is pushing on the age group 6 months and up is only approved for those over 65 in the UK and Europe. There is no scientific explanation for this discrepancy. There is something wrong.
“Dr. Fauci lied and lied and lied subsequent to this crisis meeting. They knew that they were lying.”
“The White House Is freaking out. Freaking out.”
“Blood clots, lung clots, leg clots, problems with platelets, clots in your brain…They know it’s happening…These are scientists and message people. This is the message shop.”
“I’ve never seen anything like this in the history of our country.”
—Naomi Wolf, interview here, describing the bombshell work of her colleagues, Amy Kelly and attorney Edward Berkovich.
My friend Kristina Borjesson just made the point that NOW what has to happen next is litigation by FOIA expert attorneys to get those 46 pages UNREDACTED.
This is my thought:
Every American citizen must be given access to this complete set of communications, and the guilty must be prosecuted in a special court arranged by the victims’ families.
Do not let this go by as more of the same—it is indeed a bombshell but in addition—it contains yet to be detonated secondary bombs that we REALLY need to get hold of.
WHAT do those 46 redacted pages traced to the WH say? We must refuse to wait for this, and refuse to be gaslit or guilt tripped by some smug Press Secretary condescendingly telling us she’s “…not going there,” or “…not doing it.”
SPREAD The Kelly-Berkovich report and the Wolf interview on The War Room (all linked here) far and wide, assuming upon review, you agree how significant this is.
Our cynicism, our battle fatigue, our information overload, provides free passage for very dangerous criminals, murderers, to put it bluntly, whose time is now over.
Everybody must unite to get those 46 pages UNREDACTED by way of “emergency” litigation, (since they used “emergency” use authorization to bypass all safety and efficacy research, to get “shots into arms” in 2021.)
Following $4.6 trillion in HHS spending.
Who took what bribes? You can read all about it here. (Started us off with a direct link to “Media Partners,” at the perfectly vile site www.wecandothis.hhs.gov.
Look over the 3907 “Media Partners,” who all took the Covid Propaganda funds, and parroted their deadly “messaging.” (Dr. James Thorp alerted me to the “Covid Community Corps,’ parallel propaganda economy.)
“Look into the eyes of the parents of any of the following dead children. Do you think they would trade a “billion dollars” to have their dead child back in their arms?:
Family in Shock After Their Healthy 21-Year-Old Son Dies Suddenly In His Sleep 21 year old dies in sleep
Mother Loses Only Child Just Weeks After Pfizer Shots – The Michelle Moore Show (VIDEO)
THEY MURDERED HIS LITTLE SISTER WITH THE 1ST DOSE OF PFIZER DEATH VAX: bitchute.com/video/Z7zGzFSAmUZr/ PFIZER COVID DEATH VAX MURDERING CHILDREN: rumble.com/v12sg3x-covid-vaccine-deceptions.html 3 YEARS GIRL TAKES DEATH VAX FOR KINDERGARTEN:
“Myocarditis due to the Flu” thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/6-year-old-canadian-kid-dies-suddenly-suffering-massive-stroke-doctor-diagnosed-myocarditis-due-flu/
In this webinar, Dr. Cowan takes a look at malaria as well as reads a passage from “The Forest Passage” by Ernst Junger.Here are the links to the malaria articles discussed in the webinar: https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-3305-3-5#:~:text=Laveran%20was%20the%20first%20person,this%20case%20the%20avian%20Plasmodium https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-022-04110-z
