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
-Robert Kennedy Jr.
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.
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.
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.
In a recent panel with Derrick Broze, Whitney Webb, Ryan Christian and Matthew Ehret there were some talk about the debate regarding “viruses” where I felt that I have to address some of the misconceptions that these people have. DB made a clip of this that can be found here titled …
Dr. Tom Cowan wrote a brilliant piece for the Weston A. Price Foundation on what makes us ill that challenges us to really think about what we “know.”
Truthiverse by Brendan Murphy examined why it is important to get to the bottom of the “virus” existence debate.
Recently a few of my fellow Substackers here have highlighted some of the limitations of the rhetoric of some very well known figures in the “truth movement”… …specifically limitations to do with inconsistent or just plain unhelpful views around the question of whether “the virus” (or “viruses” in general) actually exist as they are believed to within th…
Dawn Lester looked at the importance of bringing to light the lack of scientific evidence for pathogens in her latest.
It seems that many people wonder why the ‘no virus’ issue remains important now that the ‘pandemic’ is over. To add to that, there are some people in the ‘freedom movement’ who have recently asserted that there are many aspects of the globalists’ agenda that are not related to health and are far more dangerous to humanity, such as technocracy, transhuman…
The Real AIDS Epidemicexamined the dangerous toxic HIV drug Truvada and the lawsuits currently cropping up.
This is a developing story. Please stay tuned to this page for updates as they occur. There is certainly more information to come. Regular readers of this SubSTACK are no doubt aware of the ongoing Truvada disaster, as well as attempts on the part of activists to…
Sebastien’s Newsletter looked at the similarities between ionizing radiation poisoning and contagion in the first part of a two-part investigation.
Summary In this article, we take a closer look at ionising radiation and how it can affect us. Radiation-emitting particles can be transmitted from one person to another, and contaminated materials and / organisms, including animals, insects, and plants can contribute to the spread…
Dr Sam Bailey took issue with Dr. Peter McCullough promotion of the pharmaceutical fear propaganda known as vaccine shedding.
Watch now (20 min) | While almost everyone in the health freedom community agrees that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous, there has been a lot of disagreement about why this is so. There is also the additional issue of whether “shedding” of particles from the vaccinated can make the unvaccinated sick…
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 Rise of the Global Police State
publicerad 17 oktober 2023
Drone photo: Derbyshire Police, England
“Non-essential activities” during the 2020-22 Covid years.
At this point in time, it’s crucial to realize that the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are part of the plan to implement a One World Government, where the entire world will be run by unelected bureaucrats beholden to technocratic ideals.
By Dr. Joseph Mercola. This article was first published on Mercola.com
- The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals are not about sustainability. They’re tools to facilitate the implementation of a One World Government.
- The term the globalist alliance uses to describe its network is a “global public-private partnership,” or G3P. The G3P is composed of most of the world’s governments, intergovernmental organizations, global corporations, major philanthropic foundations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups. Collectively, they are the “stakeholders” that are implementing the SDGs.
- While SDG16 claims to advance “peaceful and inclusive societies” and “justice for all,” this goal is really about consolidating authority, exploiting threats to advance regime hegemony, and implementing a centrally controlled global system of digital identity (digital ID).
- A digital identity is not merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7. Universal adoption of digital identity will enable the G3P global governance regime to establish a behavioral-based system of reward and punishment.
- The COVID pandemic was used to redefine human rights and to get people used to the idea that the rights of individuals are conditional and can be ignored or suspended “for the greater good.” The United Nations’ Charter establishes a global governance regime that stands against freedom, justice and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to be understood within this context.
In a two-part Unlimited Hangout investigative series,1,2 independent journalists Iain Davis and Whitney Webb expose how Sustainable Development Goal No. 16 (SDG16), which claims to advance “peaceful and inclusive societies” and “justice for all,” is really about consolidating authority, exploiting threats to advance regime hegemony, and forcing a “centrally controlled global system of digital identity3 (digital ID) upon humanity.”
As explained in Part 1,4 the term the globalist alliance of technocrats use to describe its network is a “global public-private partnership,” or G3P:
“The G3P is toiling tirelessly to create the conditions necessary to justify the imposition of both global governance ‘with teeth’ and its prerequisite digital ID system. In doing so, the G3P is inverting the nature of our rights. It manufactures and exploits crises in order to claim legitimacy for its offered ‘solutions.’
The G3P comprises virtually all of the world’s intergovernmental organizations, governments, global corporations, major philanthropic foundations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups. Collectively, these form the ‘stakeholders’ implementing sustainable development, including SDG16.”
The following chart, sourced from IanDavis.com,5 illustrates how the G3P operates.
What SDG16 Is Really About
The central objective of SDG16 is to strengthen the UN-led regime, and of all the subgoals included in this SDG, the establishment of “a legal identity for all” (SDG16.9), is the most crucial, as other goals rely on the use of digital identity. As noted by Davis and Webb:6
“Universal adoption of SDG16.9 digital ID will enable the G3P global governance regime’s to establish a worldwide system of reward and punishment. If we accept the planned model of digital ID, it will ultimately enslave us in the name of sustainable development …
SDG16.9 ‘sustainable development’ means we must use digital ID … Otherwise we will not be protected in law, service access will be denied, our right to transact in the modern economy will be removed, we will be barred from participating as ‘citizens’ and excluded from so-called ‘democracy.’”
Understanding Digital Identity
The World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by Schwab, has for years promoted the implementation of digital identity. The problem with calling it “digital ID” is that people misunderstand it to be something it’s not. There’s a huge difference between identity and identification.7
Identification refers to documents that prove you are who you say you are. A digital identity is NOT merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you actually are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7.
Your identity encompasses everything that makes you unique, and that’s what the globalist cabal is really after. Step out of line, and every social media interaction, every penny spent and every move you’ve ever made can be used against you.
Indeed, having access to everyone’s digital identity is the key to successful manipulation and control of the global population. The graphic below, from the WEF, illustrates their idea of how your digital identity will interact with the world.
Everything you can think of is to be connected to your digital identity, and your behavior, beliefs and opinions will dictate what you can and cannot do within society. It will unlock doors where someone like you is welcome, and lock the ones where you’re not.
If you think the idea of vaccine passports is insane, wait until your access to critical infrastructure and services is dependent not just on your vaccination status, but also what books you’ve bought, what ideas you’ve shared, and who you’ve given money or emotional support to.
Interoperability Will Link Disparate Systems Together
As people are coming to understand the threat of a One World Government, resistance against digital ID and the social credit score that comes with it has started to mount. The G3P’s answer to that dilemma is the construction of an interoperable system that can link disparate digital ID systems together. As explained by Davis and Webb:8
“This ‘modular platform’ approach is designed to avoid the political problems that the official issuance of a national digital ID card would otherwise elicit.
Establishing SDG16.9 global digital ID is crucial for 8 of the 17 UN SDGs. It is the linchpin at the center of a global digital panopticon that is being devised under the auspices of the UN’s global public-private partnership ‘regime.’”
You Have No Rights, Only Permits, Under the New World Order
You may be wondering where human rights enter into all of this. If your digital ID records every move you make, which can then be used against you, won’t that violate some of your basic rights as a free human being? Well, that depends on how human rights are defined — and who defines them. Davis and Webb explain:9
“… the Universal Declaration of Human Rights … was first accepted by all members of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. The preamble of the Declaration recognizes that the ‘equal and inalienable rights’ of all human beings are the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’
After that, ‘inalienable rights’ are never again mentioned in the entire Declaration. ‘Human rights’ are nothing like ‘inalienable rights.’
Inalienable rights, unlike human rights, are not bestowed upon us by any governing authority. Rather, they are innate to each of us. They are immutable. They are ours in equal measure. The only source of inalienable rights is Natural Law, or God’s Law.
No one — no government, no intergovernmental organization, no human institution or human ruler — can ever legitimately claim the right to grant or deny our inalienable rights. Humanity can claim no collective authority to grant or deny the inalienable rights of any individual human being.
Beyond the preamble, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) concerns itself exclusively with ‘human rights.’ But asserting, as it does, that human rights are some sort of expression of inalienable rights is a fabrication — a lie.
Human rights, according to the UDHR, are created by certain human beings and are bestowed by those human beings upon other human beings. They are not inalienable rights or anything close to inalienable rights.
Article 6 of the UDHR and Article 16 of the UN’s 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights … both decree: ‘Everyone has the [human] right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.’
Note: We put ‘[human]’ in brackets … to alert readers that these documents are NOT referring to inalienable rights. While the respective Articles 6 and 16 sound appealing, the underlying implications are not.
Both articles mean that ‘without legal existence those rights may not be asserted by a person within the domestic legal order.’ As we shall see, the ability to prove one’s identity will become a prerequisite for ‘legal existence.’ Thus, in a post-SDG16 world, persons without UN-approved identification will be unable to assert their ‘human rights’ …
Article 29.3 of the UDHR states: ‘These [human] rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’
In plain English: We are only allowed to exercise our alleged human ‘rights’ subject to the diktats of governments, intergovernmental organizations and other UN ‘stakeholders.’ The bottom line, then, is that what the UN calls ‘human rights’ are … government and intergovernmental permits by which our behavior is controlled.”
Covid Was an Opportunity to Reset the Playing Field
Our behavior is also controlled through censorship and control of information. In its “COVID-19 and Human Rights” document,10 published in April 2020, the UN presents human rights as policy tools and openly admits that “securing compliance” with health measures that severely restrict (or outright eliminate) human rights will depend on “building trust,” and that includes censoring that which might undermine trust in authorities.
Censorship of “misinformation” and “disinformation” is also required under the proposed International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, which places the World Health Organization at the center of all pandemic-related agendas, and in the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs). Importantly, both of these instruments will be binding. As noted by Davis and Webb:11
“The current proposed amendments12 to the IHR illustrate how ‘crises’ provide unique opportunities for the UN and its partners to control populations — through purported ‘human rights’ — by exploiting those ‘rights’ as ‘a powerful set of tools.’
Here is one example of the proposals being put forth: The WHO wishes to remove the following language from IHR Article 3.1: ‘The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.’
It intends to replace that regulatory principle with: ‘The implementation of these Regulations shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with the common but differentiated responsibilities of their States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.’
This proposed amendment signifies that the UN and its partners wish to completely ignore the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights whenever any of these agencies declares a new ‘crisis’ or identifies a new ‘international threat.’ This exemplifies the ‘course-correction’ the UN envisioned would arise from the ‘unique opportunity’ presented by the COVID-19 crisis.”
The UN Has Already Assumed Authority; No One Granted It
Right now, the WHO appears to be set up to become the de facto global government, but the UN is also a contender, and it has openly assumed this authority.
For example, in its “UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda” document,13 published in 2013, it states that “A global governance regime, under the auspices of the UN, will have to ensure that the global commons will be preserved for future generations.”
The United Nation’s Charter establishes a global governance regime that stands against freedom, justice and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to be understood within this context.
As noted by Davis and Webb:14
“The UN calls itself a ‘global governance regime.’ It is arbitrarily assuming the authority to seize control of everything (‘the global commons’), including humans, both by enforcing its Charter — citing its misnamed ‘Human Rights’ declaration — and by fulfilling its ‘Sustainable Development’ agenda.
Note that the ‘global governance regime’ will ultimately ‘translate into better national and regional governance.’ This means that the role of each national government is merely to ‘translate’ global governance into national policy. Electing one political party or another to undertake the translation makes no material difference. The policy is not set by the governments we elect.
As nation-states one by one implement SDG-based policies, the regime further consolidates its global governance. And since the ‘global governance regime will be critical to achieve sustainable development,’ the two mechanisms — global governance and sustainable development — are symbiotic.
Again, by the UN’s own admission, inalienable rights are the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ Yet the UN’s entire Charter-based human rights framework comprehensively rejects the principle of inalienable and immutable rights.
The UN Charter is, therefore, an international treaty that establishes a global governance regime which stands firmly against ‘freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ All of the UN’s ‘sustainable development’ projects should be understood in this context …
You may wonder what Sustainable Development Goal 16 … has to do with protecting the planet and its inhabitants from the predicted ‘climate disaster.’ The answer is: nothing at all. But then, ‘climate change’ is merely the proffered rationale that purportedly legitimizes and lends urgency to sustainable development.
Establishing firm global governance — in effect, a world dictatorship — through the implementation of SDGs is the United Nations’ real objective. ‘Climate change’ is just the excuse.”
‘One Health’ — The Global Takeover of Everything
The pandemic treaty and IHR amendments, once enacted, will form the foundation for the WHO’s legal authority to act as a global governing body. Both are broadly focused on pandemic preparedness, planning and response, but there are built in loopholes that can easily be invoked by the WHO to turn it into a de facto global dictatorship.
The central instrument that will allow for the vast expansion of the WHO’s power is something called the One Health Joint Plan of Action, officially launched in October 2022 by the WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH).
This initiative amounts to multiple globalist organizations synchronizing their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power.
The “One Health”15,16 agenda recognizes that a broad range of human and environmental aspects can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm. For example, this is how the WHO will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and subsequently require climate lockdowns.
The graphic17 below illustrates how the WHO’s scope of control is expanded under the One Health agenda to cover vast aspects of everyday life.
On paper, the One Health Joint Plan of Action “seeks to improve the health of humans, animals, plants and the environment, while contributing to sustainable development.”18 Its five-year plan, which spans 2022 to 2026, intends to expand capacities in six key areas, including health care systems, the environment and food safety.
The plan includes a technical document that covers a set of actions intended to advance One Health at global, regional and national levels. As reported by the WHO:19
“These actions notably include the development of an upcoming implementation guidance for countries, international partners, and non-state actors such as civil society organizations, professional associations, academia and research institutions.”
In other words, the goal is to create health, environmental and food safety rules to be followed on a global scale.
The Endgame and How to Stop It
In an April 16, 2023, Substack article,20 Jessica Rose, a postdoctoral researcher in biology, tried to make sense of the last three years. Starting at the end, she believes the endgame is the “conversion of the majority of human beings into workers … like ants.”
To get there, the globalists must dehumanize us, systematically chip away at the human spirit, render us infertile and destroy all notions of bodily autonomy and national sovereignty. The plan has worked well so far, but cracks are beginning to show. More and more people are starting to put the puzzle pieces together, as Rose attempts to do in her article.
The COVID pandemic was the set-up, Rose suggests. It was geared to “test compliance levels” and set the scene for the next act, which was to normalize all things abnormal. The trans movement, which completely overwhelmed the social consciousness in a single year, is a continuation and expansion of that “normalization of the abnormal” phase.
It’s also a major component of the agenda to dehumanize and sterilize the population. After all, trans youth — who are also among the most brainwashed individuals in society right now — are the future of humanity. A brand-new report by legal experts backed by the United Nations is also seeking to normalize pedophilia,21 which would further dehumanize and de-spirit our youth for generations to come.
Adding insult to injury, the report was published March 8, 2023, “in recognition” of International Women’s Day. Never mind the fact that young girls and women are the primary victims of this sick mindset.
The “manmade climate change” hysteria and subsequent war on carbon is another fabricated “emergency” that is unhinged from science and reality. And the UN’s SDGs are perfectly tailored to enable the endgame. Under these goals, human freedom, human health and quality of life are sacrificed to “protect the environment and save the planet.”
As Rose notes, if the WHO pandemic treaty goes through, we can expect to be locked down indefinitely under the guise of “some climate catastrophe, likely linked to some ‘deadly pathogen’ passed to humans via some insect vector like mosquitoes.”
By then, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will also be in place, which will enable the unelected totalitarian regime to enforce whatever restrictions the WHO and its funders dream up, be it related to the food you’re allowed to eat based on your carbon footprint, the drugs you’re forced to take, what causes you’re allowed to fund, what businesses you’re allowed to buy from, when and how far you’re allowed to travel or anything else.
“A practical way I can think of to stop the endgame from being realized is to stop the CBDC,” Rose writes. “Use cash. Insist upon it. Do not give business to stores that only use cashless systems. Supply equals demand, so demand the use of CASH.”
Other Strategies to Reclaim Our Freedoms
Other ways to prevent the WHO’s power grab, include the following:
- Call your congressman or congresswoman and urge them to sponsor H.R.79 — The WHO Withdrawal Act,22 introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, which calls for defunding and exiting the WHO. The Sovereignty Coalition’s Help the House Defund the WHO page will allow you to contact all of your elected representatives with just a few clicks.
Simply fill out the required field, click submit, and your contact information will be used to match you with your elected representatives.
- Also urge your congressman or congresswoman to sponsor H.R.1425,23 which would require the pandemic treaty to be approved by the Senate.
- Call your senators and urge them to sponsor the Senate version of H.R.1425, which is S.444, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act.24
- Share Door To Freedom’s educational poster,25 which explains how the IHR amendments will destroy national sovereignty, and increase surveillance and censorship. See doortofreedom.org for more information.
By Dr. Joseph Mercola (Mercola.com)
Sources and References
- 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14 Unlimited Hangout, SDG16 Part 1
- 2, 6 Unlimited Hangout, SDG16 Part 2
- 3 World Economic Forum November 20, 2020
- 5 IanDavis.com G3P Chart
- 7 The Sociable November 23, 2020
- 10 COVID-19 and Human Rights, April 2020
- 12 WHO Article by Article Compilation of Proposed IHR Amendments 2022 (Archived)
- 13 UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda 2013
- 15 WHO One Health September 21, 2017
- 16 CDC One Health
- 17 Twitter Shiraz Akram BDS April 15, 2023
- 18, 19 WHO October 17, 2022
- 20 Substack Jessica Rose April 16, 2023
- 21 Fox News April 17, 2023
- 22 H.R.79 — The WHO Withdrawal Act
- 23 H.R.1425, the NO WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act
- 24 S.444, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act
- 25 Door To Freedom Poster
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.
Erratum. correction: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6938a7.htm?s_cid=mm6938a7_w https://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”
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=IwAR0Qviyvt6BObOg aMij03Cj0fgTcm_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.
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
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
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?
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
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”
11. All That Mask-Wearing Could Be Giving You (Gasp!) Mouth Fungus—Here’s How to Deal With it
12. ‘Maskne’ Is a Real Thing—Here’s How to Stop Face Mask Breakouts
Face mask side effects include acne
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
23. Virus interactions with bacteria: Partners in the infectious dance
Bacteria and viruses can interact an increase infection suseptability:
24. 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.
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?
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:
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.
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.
30. Masking the Truth – Face Masks, Empathy and Dis-inhibition
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.
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).
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
“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.
Amy Kelly article here.
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.
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 are Killing Us All With This Now” – Argentinian Mother Outraged After Losing Her 8-Year-Old Daughter After Receiving COVID Vaccine
Tragic: Fully Vaccinated and Boosted 6-Year-Old Child Dies Suddenly thegatewaypundit.com/2023/01/tragic-fully-vaccinated-boosted-6-year-old-child-dies-suddenly/
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:
bitchute.com/video/X1ie7b1XsaV7/ 3-Year-Old Suffers Massive Heart Attack In Colombia (2023) rumble.com/v26o2rg-new-normal-3-year-old-suffers-massive-heart-attack-in-colombia-2023.html?mref=1mfhn2&mrefc=20 6-Year-Old Canadian Child Dies Suddenly After Suffering “Massive Stroke” – Doctor Diagnosed her with
“Myocarditis due to the Flu” thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/6-year-old-canadian-kid-dies-suddenly-suffering-massive-stroke-doctor-diagnosed-myocarditis-due-flu/
8-Year-Old Girl Passed Away Suddenly After Receiving The Covid-19 Vaccine (Sensitive Content) rumble.com/v27b03y-8-year-old-girl-passed-away-suddenly-after-receiving-the-covid-19-vaccine-g.html?mref=1mfhn2&mrefc=16 ..
Computer chip with built-in human brain tissue gets military funding, earlier a fiction now a reality.
Who’s gonna dump this mad pig under the ground??? Fucking ridiculous -A Gates Commits $400 Million to Test New TB Vaccine on 26,000 People in Africa and Southeast Asia Experts told The Washington Post the news was “huge,” and The Guardian heralded the announcement as “gamechanging” — but Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., senior director of… Continue reading Gates Commits $400 Million to Test New TB Vaccine
AI-driven US military drone ‘kills’ its human to finish mission According to an account of one US Colonel at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, one AI drone independently “killed” its operator for stopping it from firing. At this year’s Royal Aeronautical Society summit in London, an American Colonel gave a worrying account of… Continue reading AI gone rogue OR programmed that away or it’s now sentient enough??? I believe that it was made that way…