Preliminary studies indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer limited benefit and are fraught with adverse side effects, many of which are not well publicized. There are much safer and more effective options available. read more
Amazon bans Plandemic from its website in order to censor the truth and hide their involvement in the COVID-19 fiasco. read more
A remarkable natural compound derived from soil bacteria is curing patients with the coronavirus. read more
Mortality statistics show that more people die from lockdown–related causes than from COVID-19. In this case, the cure has been worse than the illness. read more
Exposing the biggest health scam in history.. read more
Issue 17-4 covers: Plandemic: Exposing the Greed, Corruption, and Fraud Behind the COVID-19 Pandemic — Vitamin C Treatment of COVID-19: Case Reports — Brainwashing Studies — Censorship and the Media read more
Are Vaccines the Answer to COVID-19?
The latest surveys show that only half of Americans say they will get vaccinated when a COVID-19 vaccine comes available, and for good reason. The vaccines currently in human clinical trials are proving to offer little benefit with many potential drawbacks.
Ever since COVID-19 was declared a worldwide pandemic, finding a vaccine has been a priority. We’ve been told repeatedly that vaccination is the only solution to this problem. Social distancing, the wearing of face masks, and restrictions on public gatherings to slow the spread of the virus must remain in place until a vaccine is available and everyone has been vaccinated. Many public health officials are suggesting that vaccinations become mandatory for the good of everyone. We are all in this together, they love to say, so we need to do our part and be vaccinated, whether we want to or not. It’s our duty as good citizens!
In the quest to promote the need for a vaccine, all other possible solutions have been ignored, criticized, and even attacked as ineffective and harmful. Physicians who have used other methods to treat their COVID-19 patients have faced severe opposition and persecution. Some have even been threatened with the loss of their medical licenses.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has led the charge to combat the pandemic in the US, has repeatedly stated that we need to trust the science. Science, he contends, doesn’t take sides on an issue, it only represents the facts (at least as they are known at the time). He uses this statement to convince people that COVID-19 is terrorizing the world and only a vaccine can save us. Other possible solutions, such as hydroxychloroquine, are ineffective and possibly dangerous.
Dr. Anthony Fauci
Photo: wikimedia.org
Not all doctors and scientists agree with Dr. Fauci’s interpretation of the science. So what does the science actually say? Let’s take a look.
Four companies are leading the way in the race toward developing a vaccine against COVID-19—Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Johnson and Johnson. Each has reached the third stage of human clinical testing. According to the initial reports, testing in each case has been “successful.” So much so that governments around the world have been ordering millions of doses before testing is even completed.
While the reported success of the vaccines and the confidence governments are placing in them seem encouraging, a close examination of the science, the cold hard facts, are disturbing. All four companies have published details of their protocols and results—a necessity in order to get their products approved.
As you might expect with a fast-tracked vaccine that has side-stepped some of the normal testing procedures, all four vaccines have resulted in volunteers experiencing various side effects, some quite severe. Two of the companies temporarily suspended human trials: AstraZeneca due to the occurrence of spinal cord injury and Johnson and Johnson due to undisclosed complications—apparently too hideous to reveal to the public. [1-2]
Not only should a vaccine be reasonably safe, we also expect it to be effective in preventing an infection. After all, the entire purpose for vaccination is to build resistance against the virus so that we become immune to it—right? Not so with these vaccines. Drug companies have spent years trying to develop vaccines to prevent infection by coronaviruses but have failed miserably.
The purpose of these vaccines is not to prevent infection, but to simply reduce the severity of the symptoms. If you are vaccinated against COVID-19, it will not prevent you from getting infected, all it may (or may not) do is reduce the discomfort caused by the symptoms. For example, it would reduce the severity of a headache or a cough. These vaccines will not prevent infection, hospitalization, or death. Read that again. These vaccines are not designed to prevent infection, hospitalizations, or deaths, but simply to reduce symptomology. In this manner, COVID-19 vaccines are designed to be “successful” even though their therapeutic effects are minimal.
This is not my opinion; this is based on the data, the science, published by the vaccine makers themselves.[3] As Fauci says, we need to trust the science. This little-known fact is not well publicized.
In November, 2020 Pfizer announced that their new COVID-19 vaccine was 90 percent effective. This announcement went viral in the media. Everyone assumed that finally an effective and safe vaccine had arrived. However, what does 90 percent effective really mean? Most assume it means it’s effective in preventing infection in 90 percent of the people who are vaccinated. Not so. As stated, Pfizer’s new vaccine was not designed to prevent infection. It was designed to reduce symptoms. Therefore, the claim only means that an estimated 90 percent of those who are vaccinated and later become infected might possibly experience a reduction in at least one of the symptoms associated with the infection.
Most doctors are totally unaware of this detail. When people start lining up to get vaccinated, they will be misled into believing it will give them immunity against the virus. However, they will still be vulnerable. If they would have become infected without the vaccine, they can still get infected after vaccination. For this reason, vaccination will not end the pandemic! Whoever is going to get infected will probably still get infected. It will not prevent deaths. Whoever will die from it will still die, vaccine or not. The only ones who will benefit from vaccinations are the drug companies.
Now you may feel that getting vaccinated to possibly reduce the severity of some of the symptoms may be worth it. However, most trial participants experienced adverse side effects to the vaccines. You may reduce the symptoms associated with COVID-19 but suffer from those caused by the vaccine itself. Keep in mind, that some of the adverse effects may be serious and even permanently crippling, such as spinal cord injury. Is it worth the risk?
Not only are the vaccines of limited value, what little protection they may offer will be short lived. The response to the vaccines has been mild and multiple injections are necessary to build up resistance to the virus. All of the front-line vaccine makers are aiming for a two-shot administration. Even then, the effects may only last 3 to 6 months, and at best a year. It has been suggested that COVID-19 vaccinations may be recommended annually like a flu shot.[4]
To make matters worse, the results of a new peer reviewed study published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice indicates that the COVID-19 vaccines may actually make an infection from the coronavirus worse, not better. The authors make the following statement:
“COVID‐19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID‐19 disease via antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE).”[5]
If the COVID-19 vaccines offer limited benefit and increase the risk of suffering more severe effects from the virus, why would anyone get them? According to the above study, these dangers are not fully disclosed to the vaccine recipients, so they are totally unaware of the risks as well as the limited benefits. Most vaccine recipients believe they are getting immunity to COVID-19, when in fact they are not.
You May Already Be Immune
How important is it to be vaccinated against COVID-19? Even if vaccines could prevent infection, for the vast majority of the population, they may be unnecessary. It has been reported that about 80 percent of those people who are infected with COVID-19 are asymptomatic, meaning they experience few, if any symptoms.[6] In other words, they experience no adverse effects from the virus. There is a term we use to describe this, it’s called immunity. Those people who are exposed to the virus but suffer no ill effects from it are immune to it.
The same is true for many other viruses. Measles, for example, once you have been infected you have a lifelong immunity. Once infected, your body maintains antibodies against the virus. If you are exposed to the measles virus again, your body recognizes the virus and mounts a hearty defense to prevent symptoms. The presence of the antibodies indicates that you have or have had an infection at some time in your life. Simply because you have antibodies to measles, doesn’t mean you are currently infected or contagious.
As with the coronavirus, antibodies indicate that you have or have had an infection at one time. The coronavirus need not be the one that causes COVID-19, but any similar coronavirus, including a number of those that cause the common cold. There are many different viruses that are associated the common cold. Coronaviruses are the source of some 20 to 30 percent of the colds we experience each year. Studies have shown that as much as 80 percent of us have immunity to COVID-19 because we have been infected with a common cold coronavirus in past. [7]
Chances are, you already have immunity to COVID-19 from experiencing a coronavirus-caused cold at sometime in your life. In addition, if you have experienced COVID-19, you have now acquired immunity to it. In these cases, you would have no need for a vaccination. In fact, vaccination would only put you at risk of suffering from any number of vaccine related adverse reactions.
You should never get a vaccine just for the sake of getting a vaccine. No vaccine is completely harmless. Like any drug, there is potential for serious harm. You must weigh your risks against any potential harm. Doctors don’t ordinarily reveal to their patients all the risks associated with vaccines, nor do they adequately describe the shortcomings or, in this case, the very limited potential benefit.
In time, COVID-19 vaccines will be approved and administered to millions of people worldwide. By that time, so many people will have been infected and recovered or have naturally acquired common cold-induced immunity that infection rates will plummet. Vaccine makers will declare a victory in the war against COVID-19 and vaccines will be hailed as the miracle cure that stopped the COVID-19 pandemic. There will probably be a push to make the vaccine a requirement on an annual basis, especially for children and healthcare works, to prevent a resurgence of the pandemic. Because the vast majority of the population will be immune by this time, the absence of a resurgence will be credited to the ongoing vaccination program. Knowing the facts, you can make informed decisions regarding these vaccines and your health.
Vaccines are not the only options available to fight COVID-19. There are many treatments currently available that are proving highly effective. See the following article.
References
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-safety-blueprints.html.
5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13795.
6. Li, R, et al. Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). Science 2020; eabb3221.
7. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.26.115832v1.full.pdf.
As you probably know from reading my past newsletters, my new book Plandemic: Exposing the Greed, Corruption, and Fraud Behind the COVID-19 Pandemic has been censored by Big Tech, most notably Amazon.
This book is deemed too controversial by Amazon.com so they have banned it from their website. When I initially submitted the book to Amazon a few months ago, the Kindle edition was passed over by Amazon’s censors and was listed on their website. However, when I submitted the paperback edition it was tagged and immediately banned. I was told it was because the content of the book did not conform to the information officially issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) or the CDC. Therefore, they considered it “fake news” and the public had no right to learn what was in the book. So they took it upon themselves to censor the book and ban it from their website.
It was interesting they would ban the book as too controversial because all of the information in the book came from the WHO, CDC, published medical studies, respected scientists, and public records. I didn’t make up this information, I was only reporting it and pointing out the inconsistencies between the official statements and the actual science.
Despite the ban on the paperback edition, my Kindle ebook edition was listed on Amazon. I offered it on Amazon for free and in the six weeks it was listed, some 50,000 people read the free ebook. Some people reported they got a copy of the paperback book off of Amazon from third party dealers. However, when Amazon realized that people were still getting the book off their website, they completely purged all mention of the book and blocked all sales of the Kindle book and those from third party sellers. Today, you cannot find any trace of the book on Amazon.
I tried resubmitting the book under a new title, hoping it would slip by the censors. I gave the book a more generic, less controversial title and toned down the book description to make it more palatable to Amazon’s censors. I revised some of the book added a new introductory chapter and updated some information. I redesigned the cover so that it looked like a totally new book. They banned this book as well. Apparently, I’m on Amazon’s black list of authors.
Fortunately, Amazon isn’t the only place you can purchase books, especially controversial books like Plandemic.
Plandemic: Exposing the Greed, Corruption, and Fraud Behind the COVID-19 Pandemic
by Dr. Bruce Fife
Do you want the truth about COVID-19? This book reveals the science, not the hysteria.
Finding a COVID-19 vaccine may not be as important as the media and government officials make it out to be. There are other treatments that have proven to be highly successful in combating the virus. You have likely heard of hydroxychloroquine, IV vitamin C, and vitamin D but chances are you may not have heard of another effective treatment that is gaining momentum—ivermectin—a natural compound derived by fermentation from soil bacteria.
Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad spectrum anti-parasitic agent that in recent years has shown to have potent anti-viral activity against a broad range of viruses, including SARS-CoV-2—the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19. A peer reviewed study led by researchers at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia found that even a single dose of the drug could kill the coronavirus in less than 48 hours. The researchers reported, “…a 99.8 percent reduction in cell-associated viral RNA (indicative of unreleased and unpackaged virions) was observed with ivermectin treatment. By 48 hours this effect increased to an ~5000-fold reduction of viral RNA in ivermectin-treated compared to control samples, indicating that ivermectin treatment resulted in the effective loss of essentially all viral material by 48 hours.”[1]
Ivermectin is not a new drug. It has been around since the 1970s, used primarily for the treatment of parasites, but more recently viral infections and even cancer. For decades, ivermectin has served as a potent drug to treat parasitic worms. Doctors use it against river blindness and other diseases, while veterinarians give it to dogs to treat heartworm and cattle to prevent intestinal parasites. It is recognized as a broad-spectrum antiviral medication effective against dozens of viruses ranging from influenza and dengue to yellow fever and West Nile.[2] New uses for the drug are continually being discovered. It has been used extensively worldwide for nearly 50 years and is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines. It has few side effects and is considered one of the safest drugs in the world. It has been highly successful in fighting some of the world’s most devastating diseases that have plagued the world’s poor for centuries throughout the tropics. For these reasons, it has been called a “wonder drug.”[3] William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura, who discovered and developed this medication, received the Nobel Prize for their discovery in 2015. Since the patent on the drug has long expired, it can be manufactured by anyone, making it very inexpensive. A full course of treatment costs only a few dollars.
Encouraged by ivermectin’s long history of safe and effective use and the emerging evidence for its value in fighting the coronavirus, many doctors are now using it with good success in the fight against COVID-19. Leading the charge is Australian physician Thomas Borody, MD, PhD, who uses it regularly in his hospital and contends that it alone could end the pandemic. According to Dr. Borody, when used in combination with zinc and doxycycline (an antibiotic to prevent secondary infection), ivermectin is amazingly effective in treating the coronavirus.
Even doctors in the US are having success with the drug. Doctors in Broward County, Florida are saying they are curing coronavirus patients with ivermectin and are seeing a near 100 percent success rate. “If we get to them early,” says Jean-Jacques Rajter, MD, “I’ve had nearly 100 percent response rate. They all improve.”[4]
Borody, as well as hundreds, if not thousands of doctors and frontline medical workers around the world, are taking the drug as a preventative treatment against the virus. Borody says the drug can work like a vaccine of sorts to prevent infection if taken about once every couple of weeks but, unlike vaccines, can actually cure COVID-19. Once someone is infected, vaccines cannot cure the disease, but ivermectin can.
While ivermectin is proving to be a highly effective, safe, affordable, and easily available solution to the COVID-19 pandemic, few people have heard of it as a treatment for the coronavirus. Drug companies and those in government positions pushing the need for vaccines are ignoring it. In time, as more people become aware of the drug, it will likely be criticized as ineffective and condemned as dangerous, as was hydroxychloroquine. Already some mainstream medical websites are discouraging its use by claiming it is an animal medicine, inferring that it might have dangerous side effect in people, and that it is untested for COVID-19.
Although, at present, there are few studies evaluating the effect of ivermectin on COVID-19, what studies have been done are very encouraging and clinical experience by hundreds of doctors from Asia, the Middle East, South America, and the US have shown its value in combating the disease. A number of clinical trials are currently underway. In Singapore, for example, the National University Hospital is running a 5,000-person trial to see if it can prevent people from getting infected. A clinical study at the University of Kentucky is doing a head-to-head comparison between ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to determine which one is the most effective against the coronavirus. In a second phase of the study, the team will scale up to a larger, more traditional placebo-control clinical trial using the most promising therapy.[5]
If you have a choice between one of the newly developed vaccines or ivermectin, which one would you choose? The current crop of vaccines for COVID-19 provide only marginal protection and the effects wear off after just a few months. Getting the infection naturally and quickly treating it with ivermectin allows the body to produce antibodies to the coronavirus establishing long-term immunity to the virus so that you would never need a vaccine. That’s troubling news to vaccine makers, who will likely aggressively discourage the use of ivermectin, just as they have done with hydroxychloroquine.
For healthy individuals, treating COVID-19 with ivermectin and developing long-term immunity is a better path than getting multiple vaccinations every year. For older individuals with underlying health problems, ivermectin can act as a preventative without the side effects associated with vaccines. Keep in mind, that these vaccines aren’t designed to prevent hospitalizations or deaths, only reduce the severity of the symptoms (as noted in the previous article). So the propaganda that the vaccine will save lives is not true. Ivermectin, on the other hand, can save lives. Your chances of surviving COVID-19 are greater by taking ivermectin than it is than by getting any of the current front-line vaccines coming on the market.
References
1. Caly, L. et al. The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Antiviral Res 2020 Jun; 178:104789.
2. Heidary, F. et al. Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen. J Antibiot (Tokyo) 2020 June12:1-10.
3. Crump, A and Omura, S. Ivermectin, 'wonder drug' from Japan: the human use perspective. Proc Jpn Acad Ser V Phys Biol Sci 2011;87:13-28.
Ivermectin:
Prophylaxis for high risk individuals
0.2 mg/kg per dose, one dose today, 2nd dose in 48 hours, then one dose every 2 weeks.
Post COVID-19 exposure prophylaxis
0.2 mg/kg per dose, one dose today, 2nd dose in 48 hours
Vitamin D3: 1,000-3,000 IU/day
Vitamin C: 1,000 mg twice a day
Quercetin: 250 mg/day
Zinc: 50 mg/day
Melatonin: 6 mg before bedtime
Ivermectin: 0.2 mg/kg per dose, one dose daily, minimum of 2 days, continue daily until recovered (max 5 days)
Vitamin D3: 4,000 IU/day
Vitamin C: 2,000 mg 2-3 times daily
Quercetin: 250 mg twice a day
Zinc: 100 mg/day
Melatonin:10 mg before bedtime
Aspirin: 325 mg/day (unless contraindicated)
The coronavirus lockdowns have caused more deaths than it saved, claims Dr. Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2013. He says the initial decision to keep people indoors was motivated more by panic rather than good science. The flawed computer models that prompted government officials to enact the lockdowns over-estimated the death toll by “10 or 12 times.”[1]
His claims echo those in a JP Morgan report that states lockdowns failed to alter the course of the pandemic but have instead “destroyed millions of livelihoods” and led to the deaths of thousands of people not infected with the coronavirus. Author Marko Kolanovic, a trained physicist and a strategist for JP Morgan, said governments had been spooked by “flawed scientific papers” into imposing lockdowns which had little effect. He said falling infection rates since lockdowns were lifted suggest that the virus “likely has its own dynamics,” which are “unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures.”[2]
Lockdowns have been totally ineffective in reducing the rate of transmission or preventing COVID-19 deaths and have actually caused more deaths than the pandemic itself.
Less than 1 percent of the population of the US resides in nursing homes, yet the residents in these facilities account for about half of all the COVID-19 deaths. Those people with serious underlying health problems, such as heart disease and emphysema, are at greatest risk of hospitalization and death from the virus.
Residents of nursing home are there because they are frail and already in poor health, often with terminal diseases. They need constant monitoring and care. An illness, any illness, can add an additional burden on a body already struggling to survive. Whether they get the flu or COVID-19 or some other infection, it could be all it takes to overburden their defenses.
Our politicians and government health authorities are literally killing us with the measures they are taking to fight the virus. In Bergamo, Italy, 94 percent of deaths were not the result of COVID-19 infection spreading wild but, rather, the consequence of the government’s decision to transfer sick patients from hospitals to nursing homes, where they spread infection—colds, flu, and COVID-19 among the old and frail. This was also done in New York, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, and California, all in direct violation of federal guidelines [3-5] This act resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of nursing home patients.
The danger of COVID-19 for the rest of the population has been greatly overstated. For the vast majority of the population COVID-19 is no more serious than a cold, and at worst the flu. For those who are under the age of 60, the survival rate is 99.95 percent. For those over 60, who do not live in nursing homes, the survival rate is 98.29 percent. While advancing age increases the risk, the elderly who are infected and do not have any serious health problems generally recover without problem. Even most of the residents in nursing homes who come down with the virus eventually recover.
The total number of deaths contributed to COVID-19 is greatly overinflated. When the virus was first declared a pandemic the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) instructed doctors to attribute all deaths to COVID-19 if anyone died having any respiratory symptoms, such as a runny nose or cough, regardless of the actual cause of death. These symptoms may have been caused by a cold, flu, or other respiratory condition. Since the vast majority of those who died had other serious, even terminal diseases, many people who died of heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and diabetes, as well as suicides and traffic accidents were counted as COVID-19 deaths.
As of November 2020 the total number of deaths in the US attributed to COVID-19 was about 240,000. This number includes all those who died of other causes but were suspected of having COVID-19 or displayed respiratory symptoms of unknown origin. So how many people actually died primarily as a result of COVID-19 and not from some underlying terminal condition? According to the data collected and tabulated by the World Health Organization (WHO), only 6 percent of these deaths were caused solely by COVID-19. [6] That would mean the true number of deaths that can rightfully be attributed to COVID-19 in the US at that time was only around 14,000. Let’s compare that number with those who died as a direct result of government lockdowns.
A report, Projected Deaths of Despair During the Coronavirus Recession, published May 2020 estimates that the lockdowns in the US many have caused as many as 154,000 deaths.[7] The deaths are due to suicide and drug or alcohol abuse attributed to despair resulting from unemployment, depression from isolation, and fear of the indefinite and uncertain nature of the pandemic.
One of the study's authors, Benjamin Miller, chief strategy officer for Well Being Trust in Oakland, CA said: “Deaths of despair are tied to multiple factors, like unemployment, fear and dread, and isolation. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were already an unprecedented number of deaths of despair. We wanted to estimate how this pandemic would change that number moving forward.”
“I've been seeing this in practices and my colleagues have been talking about it, too,” says Dr. Elie Aoun, vice chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's Council on Addiction Psychiatry. “Addiction patients are relapsing, and a lot of patients who don’t have drug use or alcohol problems are drinking more now, sometimes every day from 4 or 5 p.m., and they don’t stop until they sleep.”
In addition to the deaths of despair, lockdowns have caused tens of thousands of additional deaths. Many people delayed needed medical care because they were instructed to shelter in place, were too scared to go to the doctor, or were unable to obtain care because of limitations on available care, including a moratorium on elective procedures.
Inpatient admissions nationwide in VA hospitals, the nation’s largest hospital system, were down 42 percent for six emergency conditions—stroke, myocardial infarction (heart attack), heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, appendicitis, and pneumonia—during six weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 11 to April 21) compared with the six weeks immediately prior (January 29 to March 10). The drop was significant for all six conditions and ranged from a decrease of 40 percent for heart attacks to 57 percent for appendicitis. No such decrease in admissions was found for the same six-week period in 2019. These emergency conditions did not become any less lethal as a result of the pandemic; rather, people simply died from acute illnesses that would have been treated under normal circumstances.[8]
Deaths from chronic conditions also increased as patients put off maintenance visits and their medical conditions deteriorated. In the five states with the most COVID-19 deaths from March through April (Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania), experienced large proportional increases in deaths from non-respiratory underlying causes, including diabetes (96 percent), heart diseases (89 percent), Alzheimer’s disease (64 percent), and stroke (35 percent). New York City—the nation’s COVID-19 epicenter during that period—experienced the largest increases in non-respiratory deaths, notably from heart disease (398 percent) and diabetes (356 percent).
Because of the harm they have caused without any perceivable benefit, concerned physicians and scientists have called for an end to the lockdowns and restrictions. A group of renowned physicians and scientists have formulated a document titled the Great Barrington Declaration to voice their opposition to the senseless measures government officials are taking to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. The declaration states, in part: “Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open.” [9]
The declaration was spearheaded by Martin Kulldorff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Harvard University, Sunetra Gupta, PhD, an epidemiologist at Oxford University, and Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, a public health policy expert and a professor at Stanford University.
One of the arguments put forth by the three and about 35 cosigners amounts to saying that the cure has been worse than the disease for society as a whole.
“Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people,” the declaration states. “Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.”
The cosigners represent a host of scientific disciplines such as public health, biostatistics, finance, and psychiatry. They include Michael Levitt, PhD, Jonas Ludvigsson, MD, Angus Dalgleish, PhD, David Katz, PhD, and Mike Hulme, PhD.
The declaration states that growing knowledge about COVID-19 includes the facts that older and infirm people have a “thousand-fold” higher increase of dying from it than the young. “Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza,” the declaration states.
Annie Janvier, PhD, one of the declaration’s cosigners and a pediatric and clinical ethics professor at the University of Montreal, said that “it’s not science that seems to be leading what's going on with COVID, it’s public opinion and politics.”
The Declaration released on October 4, 2020 has generated some 50,000 signatures from physicians and scientists worldwide.
References
2. https://www.ellinghuysen.com/article/20200526_jp_morgan_lockdowns_failed/meatfyi/article.html.
3. https://nypost.com/2020/04/23/nursing-homes-cant-reject-coronavirus-patients-cuomo-says/.
6. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm.
7. https://wellbeingtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WBT_Deaths-of-Despair_COVID-19-FINAL-FINAL.pdf.
8. https://www.city-journal.org/deadly-cost-of-lockdown-policies.
The PCR test that uses a cotton swab to collect nasal samples is the most commonly used means to determine if a person is infected with COVID-19. However, this test is seriously flawed. The methods used to analyze the samples are producing more than 80 percent false positives, greatly expanding the number of cases of COVID-19 being reported worldwide. It is the growing number of false positives that we are seeing skyrocketing in the news, and the basis for the new wave of lockdowns and school closures.
Watch this video for the shocking details: https://thehighwire.com/videos/covid-testing-fraud-uncovered/
Issue 17-4 covers: Plandemic: Exposing the Greed, Corruption, and Fraud Behind the COVID-19 Pandemic — Vitamin C Treatment of COVID-19: Case Reports — Brainwashing Studies — Censorship and the Media