Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is An Engineered Virus

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/19/smoking-gun-proving-sars-cov-2-was-lab-created.aspx?

The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is an Engineered Virus

  Approx. 47 Min.

Coronavirus: Are Our Scientists Lying To Us?

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

Since the breakout of COVID-19, a number of scientists have spoken out saying the virus does not appear to have evolved naturally, and those suspicions are only getting stronger.

As reported1 by Newsweek April 28, 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has in recent years funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan, China.

This research was backed by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is now heading up the White House pandemic response team. According to Newsweek:2

“In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.”

As noted by GM Watch,3 “Bolstering the lab escape hypothesis in the eyes of the media is the news that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has updated its assessment of the origin of the COVID-19 virus SARS-CoV-2 to reflect that it may have been accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan due to ‘unsafe laboratory practices.’”

Unfortunately, mainstream media journalists are by and large ignoring the long history of accidental releases of dangerous pathogens from BSL3 and 4 laboratories. Journalist Sam Husseini discusses this history in a May 5, 2020 article in Independent Science News.4

Mainstream media journalists clearly are also not asking enough questions, or the right questions, about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. In his May 4, 2020, video update (above), Chris Martenson,5 who has a Ph.D. in pathology, carefully details the science behind his assertion that SARS-CoV-2 must have undergone laboratory manipulation. The evidence he lays out is close to conclusive, and really would be front-page news if unbiased journalism still existed.

What Is Gain of Function?

As explained by Martenson, gain of function research refers to research in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of pathogens is enhanced. In other words, pathogens are manipulated in various ways to make them deadlier, and/or allow them to infect humans with greater ease. They also take viruses that are harmless to humans and conduct experiments to make them transmissible to humans.

As noted by Martenson, while this kind of research is justified by saying we need to know how viruses adapt and mutate so we can more easily figure out how to combat them should they gain these functions naturally, there’s not a shred of evidence suggesting we’ve learned anything about how to combat SARS-CoV-2. If we’re not actually learning how to treat illnesses through gain-of-function research, then why are we doing it?

How Viruses Enter Your Cells

Martenson goes on to explain the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into your cells. This is important, as viruses can only replicate by entering into and infecting a cell.

To gain entry, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor on the cell. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved (cut). Without this protein cleavage, the virus would simply attach to the receptor and not get any further.

There are several enzymes that can do this job, including plasmin and furin. Plasmin, which is present in your blood, also degrades fibrin — plasma protein that can cause blood clots. When a blood clot is dissolved, a byproduct called D-dimer is created.

As explained in “Might Enzymes Help Blood Clotting Associated With COVID-19?” many patients with serious COVID-19 infection have elevated D-dimer, which is indicative of blood clots.

Martenson also cites the review paper6 “Elevated Plasmin(ogen) as a Common Risk Factor for COVID-19 Susceptibility,” which found that COVID-19 patients who have comorbidities that increase their susceptibility for the illness (i.e., those with high blood pressure, diabetes, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular illness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney dysfunction), tend to have elevated levels of plasmin.

In other words, it’s this elevated plasmin that — at least in part — puts these people at a higher risk for serious COVID-19 infection. In his May 6, 2020, update below, Martenson discusses this clotting problem encountered in many COVID-19 patients. As he points out, COVID-19 is “really more of a blood disorder, a clotting disorder,” than a normal lung infection.

Furin Cleavage Site Is the ‘Smoking Gun’

As mentioned, furin can also cut or cleave the S2 spike protein subunit. Furin is a protein coding gene that activates certain proteins by snipping off specific sections. As explained by Martenson, contrary to other protein-cutting enzymes, furin is very specific about the locations it cuts. What’s more, when arginine is present in the second or third place of the protein sequence, then the efficiency of the cleavage is magnified.

This, he says, is “the smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab. An excellent, well-written article7 in Medium also addresses this finding and explains why furin cleavage sites are so important for determining whether SARS-CoV-2 is natural or not.

In “Furin, a Potential Therapeutic Target for COVID-19,”8,9 Chinese researchers report that CoV-2 is the only coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. Not even distant relatives of CoV-2 have it, and the coronaviruses that do have it share only 40% of CoV-2’s genome. As reported in this paper:10

“It was found that all Spike with a SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequence homology greater than 40% did not have a furin cleavage site … including Bat-CoVRaTG13 and SARS-CoV (with sequence identity as 97.4% and 78.6%, respectively).

The furin cleavage site ‘RRAR’ in SARS-CoV-2 is unique in its family, rendering by its unique insert of ‘PRRA.’ The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to have evolved from MERS, HCoV-HKU1, and so on.

From the currently available sequences in databases, it is difficult for us to find the source. Perhaps there are still many evolutionary intermediate sequences waiting to be discovered.”

Mutation Cannot Explain Furin Site in SARS-CoV-2

According to these researchers, the furin cleavage site present in SARS-CoV-2 “is unique in its family” and “is unlikely to have evolved.” In other words, the virus must have been modified somewhere along the way to give it a furin cleavage site, as there’s no apparent source for this virus.

Put another way, there’s no coronavirus out there that is similar enough that SARS-CoV-2 might have evolved or mutated from it.

Martenson does an excellent job of explaining this in his video, so I strongly recommend watching it. Yuri Deigin also does this in his Medium article,11 so if you prefer reading, you can review much of the same data there.

Importantly, both reveal how virologists claiming SARS-CoV-2 is a natural bat coronavirus that jumped to pangolin and then to humans are simply wrong, and the genetic sequence proves it. The furin cleavage site PRRA found in SARS-CoV-2 is NOT found in either bats or pangolins, so it could not have mutated through these animals.

furin cleavage site

The fact that this furin cleavage site is present in SARS-CoV-2 is evidence that it has been inserted (opposed to mutated), and Martenson provides an easy to understand illustration of the difference between a mutation and an insert in his video. It is extremely unlikely that 12 new nucleotide base pairs would all of a sudden emerge from where there was nothing before.

What About the Studies Saying It’s Natural?

Two studies heavily cited by mainstream media as evidence SARS-CoV-2 is a natural mutation that jumped from animal to human include a February 3, 2020, Nature paper,12 which claims SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus of bat origin that then jumped species. However, one of the authors of this paper, Shi Zhengli, was involved in the weaponization of the SARS virus, and therefore has reason to try to cover up any link to such research.

A second paper,13 published in Nature Medicine, March 17, 2020, offers “a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome,” and discusses “scenarios by which they could have arisen.” According to this paper, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”

However, even though they acknowledge SARS-CoV-2 has a polybasic cleavage site (PRRA) that does not exist elsewhere, they fail to explain how these 12 base pairs could have magically been inserted naturally. As noted by Martenson, “whole inserts are not part of the mutation pathway.”

Scientific Community Has Reason to Hide Origin

He goes on to cite several studies showing how scientists around the world have been working on inserting cleavage sites to make coronaviruses more virulent. Clearly, we have the capability to create SARS-CoV-2, and scientists around the world have engaged in such research for many years.

Martenson calls out leading virologist Michael Osterholm who, in a March 10, 2020, interview with Joe Rogan, stated that “we could not have crafted a virus like this to do what it’s doing; I mean we don’t have the creative imagination or the skill set.”

Really? Published research shows we clearly have the technology, know-how and “creative imagination” to create SARS-CoV-2, and Osterholm simply cannot be ignorant of that fact.

Another source you may want to look over is the Project Evidence webpage,14 which lists more information pointing toward a lab-created SARS-CoV-2 than I could possibly cover here. A summary of the evidence can be found toward the bottom of the page under “Conclusion.”

Naturally, there must be people in the scientific community who would now want to cover up any link to such research. Would you want to be responsible for creating, funding or having any association whatsoever with a virus responsible for a pandemic that has killed people, destroyed the world economy and put people out of work around the globe?

Would you want to be found guilty of violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the punishment for which goes up to and includes life in prison? The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:15

“Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.”

Other Experts Challenge Natural Evolution Claims

Martenson is far from alone in his belief that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically manipulated. An April 27, 2020, GM Watch article16 features professor Stuart Newman, who also believes “genetic engineering may have been involved at some point in the virus’ history.”

According to Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College and editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory, the argument used to deny that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct in the March 17, 2020, Nature Medicine paper mentioned earlier (which stated “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”) actually points to the exact opposite. GM Watch writes:17

“As Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, has noted,18 Andersen’s paper argues that, ‘the SARS-CoV-2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses — the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory ‘escape.’’

But Professor Newman says19 that this is totally unconvincing because “The ‘key differences’ were in regions of the coronavirus spike protein that were the subject of genetic engineering experiments in labs around the world (mainly in the U.S. and China) for two decades’ …

In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman … amplified this speculation by noting, ‘The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild.

However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper20). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science …

The second site that Andersen et al. assert arose by natural means, a target of enzyme cleavage not usually found in this class of viruses, was in fact introduced by genetic engineering in a similar coronavirus in a paper21 they do cite. This was done to explore mechanisms of pathogenicity.’

Newman said that he does not believe that these changes were deliberately introduced to increase the pathogenicity of any single strain, but that SARS-CoV-2 may have had genetically engineered components in its history before being inadvertently introduced into the human population.”

There Are Many Ways to Manipulate Pathogens

Those who claim the lack of “fingerprints” in the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 is evidence of natural evolution also fail to take into account methods that do not leave clearly identifiable traces. As noted by Dr. Meryl Nass (my interview with her will be posted May 24):22

“Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed …

They resulted in biological weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases, used … These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from known RNA or DNA sequences.

In fact, it would be desirable to produce such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they were deliberately constructed in a lab. Here are just a few possibilities for how one might create new, virulent mutants:

  • Exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics
  • Passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures
  • Mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors”

In my opinion, the strongest pieces of evidence so far all point toward SARS-CoV-2 being a laboratory creation. As Martenson asserts, the presence of furin cleavage sites23 makes a clear case for this, as this section of genetic code wouldn’t just emerge by itself by way of natural mutation. How it got released, however, is anyone’s guess.

+ Sources and References

Category:

Activism, Viruses

How Bill Gates Controls Global Messaging and Censorship

**UPDATE Aug. 2022**

This article shows how Gates has lavished the global media with $319 MILLION in funding.  Big news organizations like CNN, NBC, The Atlantic, The Financial Times, BBC and others have all benefited from the funding, and NPR was the largest beneficiary receiving a whopping $24 million in funding. The Guardian follows with nearly $13 million.

If you ever wondered why news outlets say the exact same thing, wonder no further.

**UPDATE** Nov. 17, 2021

http://

Gates Foundation Grants MILLIONS To Newsrooms GLOBALLY, MSM FACT CHECKS Vaccine Comments

Ryan Grim, Kim Iversen, and Robby Soave react to reporting that Bill Gates has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into funding news media.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/uncategorized/re-publishing-guidelines/

MAY 19, 2020

How Bill Gates Controls Global Messaging and Censorship

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense

Bill Gates is the world’s largest vaccine producer and the single largest donor to the World Health Organization (WHO)—since President Trump halted U.S. support pending an investigation of WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis—and the CDC Foundation. Those agencies are now marketing arms for his vaccine empire.

In January of 2019, Gates had WHO declare “vaccine hesitancy” a top “global health threat” (with Ebola, HIV, war, and drug-resistant pathogens among others), signaling a worldwide Pharma Gold Rush to mandate vaccines to all people.

Gates maxed-out in donations to Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff’s PAC.

In February of 2019, Schiff wrote to Facebook, Google, and Amazon, demanding they censor “vaccine misinformation,” a term meaning all skepticism toward government and industry pronouncements about vaccine safety or efficacy—whether true or not.

“Vaccines are both effective and safe,” Schiff wrote. “There is no evidence to suggest that vaccines cause life-threatening or disabling disease.”

This was misinformation. A year earlier, Schiff pushed a bill to hike the Vaccine Court admin budget to $11,200,000 to reduce vaccine injury backlogs. The court had already paid out $4 billion for vaccine deaths and disabilities.

Facebook and Pinterest said that they will rely on Gates’s WHO and CDC to say which online statements are “misinformation or hoaxes.”

Facebook and Google hired “FactChecker” (Politifact) to censor vaccine misinformation.

The Gates Foundation is “FactChecker’s” largest funder.

In his article, “Facebook “Fact-Checker” Misinforms Users about Vaccine Safety” investigative journalist Jeremy Hammond concludes, “Facebook is guilty of misinforming its users about vaccine safety … They have no problem with lies about vaccine safety and effectiveness, as long as it’s intended to persuade parents to vaccinate their children.”

On May 4, 2017, FactChecker declared false Del Bigtree’s statement, “Vaccines include aluminum and mercury, which are neurotoxins, and vaccines cause encephalopathy.”

FactChecker explained, “Current data show vaccines are safe and do not cause toxicity or encephalopathy.”

Manufacturer’s inserts reveal that many vaccines contain aluminumand mercury, and cause encephalopathy.

Finally, massive gifts to NPR and PBS buys Gates biased vaccine coverage from public media.

“© May 19, 2020 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

______________________

**Comment**

And herein lies the problem. Finances are driving messages. Messages are coming from people on the end of the financing – meaning they clearly have a conflict of interest. 

If it wasn’t for “outside the box” health information many Lyme/MSIDS patients would be dead. Thank God for doctors and health professionals who refuse to bow to these corrupt organizations run by corrupt leaders. 

Category:

Activism, vaccines

WI DHS Scope Statement – Official Withdrawn By Department

http://www.thewheelerreport.com/wheeler_docs/files/051820nass.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 18, 2020 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sen. Steve Nass (608) 266-2635

DHS Scope Statement – Officially Withdrawn by Department

Senator Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), Co-Chairman of the Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR), released the following statement in response to the Department of Health Services (DHS) withdrawing Scope Statement (SS 040-20) to implement an Emergency Rule restoring elements of Public Health Order #28 referred to as Safer At Home and Public Health Order #31 referred to as the Badger Bounce Back Plan:

“Governor Evers’ Administration is formally withdrawing the scope statement necessary to draft an emergency rule reinstating elements of the Safer At Home Order that was struck down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

This is an important development for the citizens of Wisconsin desiring a path forward that recognizes both a need to utilize lawful approaches in protecting the public health and rebuilding our seriously damaged economy.

I have great faith in the people of Wisconsin making the decisions necessary to fight and defeat Covid-19 without excessive government coercion.”

-End-

_____________________

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/18/update-on-governor-evers-9-month-lock-down-plan/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/18/governor-evers-plan-to-shut-down-wisconsin-another-9-months/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/17/act-now-ask-your-mayor-governor-to-reopen-your-town-city-and-state/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/15/ten-states-plan-to-reopen-wisconsin-isnt-one-of-them/

 

 

 

Category:

Activism, Viruses

Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy – Dr. Blaylock

https://www.technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/

Dr. Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy

Saturday, May 16th 2020 at 10:00 am
Written By: Dr. Russell Blaylock

Dr. Russell Blaylock warns that not only do face masks fail to protect the healthy from getting sick, but they also create serious health risks to the wearer. The bottom line is that if you are not sick, you should not wear a face mask.

As businesses reopen, many are requiring shoppers and employees to wear a face mask. Costco, for instance, will not allow shoppers into the store without wearing a face mask. Many employers are requiring all employees to wear a face mask while at work. In some jurisdictions, all citizens must wear a face mask if they are outside of their own home.  ⁃ TN Editor

With the advent of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a number of medical practices that have little or no scientific support as regards reducing the spread of this infection. One of these measures is the wearing of facial masks, either a surgical-type mask, bandana or N95 respirator mask. When this pandemic began and we knew little about the virus itself or its epidemiologic behavior, it was assumed that it would behave, in terms of spread among communities, like other respiratory viruses. Little has presented itself after intense study of this virus and its behavior to change this perception.

This is somewhat of an unusual virus in that for the vast majority of people infected by the virus, one experiences either no illness (asymptomatic) or very little sickness. Only a very small number of people are at risk of a potentially serious outcome from the infection–mainly those with underlying serious medical conditions in conjunction with advanced age and frailty, those with immune compromising conditions and nursing home patients near the end of their lives. There is growing evidence that the treatment protocol issued to treating doctors by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mainly intubation and use of a ventilator (respirator), may have contributed significantly to the high death rate in these select individuals.

By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.
Russell Blaylock, MD

As for the scientific support for the use of face mask, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, “None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”1   Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission. And, as you have seen, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission.

It is also instructive to know that until recently, the CDC did not recommend wearing a face mask or covering of any kind, unless a person was known to be infected, that is, until recently. Non-infected people need not wear a mask. When a person has TB we have them wear a mask, not the entire community of non-infected. The recommendations by the CDC and the WHO are not based on any studies of this virus and have never been used to contain any other virus pandemic or epidemic in history.

Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications.

There is a difference between the N95 respirator mask and the surgical mask (cloth or paper mask) in terms of side effects. The N95 mask, which filters out 95% of particles with a median diameter >0.3 µm2 , because it impairs respiratory exchange (breathing) to a greater degree than a soft mask, and is more often associated with headaches. In one such study, researchers surveyed 212 healthcare workers (47 males and 165 females) asking about presence of headaches with N95 mask use, duration of the headaches, type of headaches and if the person had preexisting headaches.2

They found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia). It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to 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.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.3   Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance.

Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind–which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung.

While most agree that the N95 mask can cause significant hypoxia and hypercapnia, another study of surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In this study, researchers examined the blood oxygen levels in 53 surgeons using an oximeter. They measured blood oxygenation before surgery as well as at the end of surgeries.4 The researchers found that the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels (pa02) significantly. The longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the fall in blood oxygen levels.

The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. . This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.5,6,7

People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.8,9  Repeated episodes of hypoxia has been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.10

There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.

It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain.11,12 In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.13

It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk group also survive, from an infectious disease and epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a return next winter. During this time, we need to protect the at-risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in general, care for them.

One should not attack and insult those who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest that is the wise choice to make.

[For additional research questioning the value of face masks read: FACE IT: The Evidence Proving the Effectiveness of Community Mask Wearing Doesn’t Exist; The WHO Agrees. For information that challenges the dominant narrative about COVID-19 use the resource: www.QuestioningCovid.com]

(References after comment section)

_______________________

**Comment**

Finally – the voice of reason in the Brave New World of Virus Mania.

http:// Dr. Fauci: the healthy shouldn’t wear masks on “60 Minutes”

Listen to what he says.  Then ask yourself, why all of a sudden he changed his mind.

Weiler states the following:

“Now why would the US medico-government shut down studies and reports of treatment options that reduce the rate of serious and critical illness and death? Could it be that they want a sufficiently high mortality rate to warrant continued lock-down as a justification for their vaccine?  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/19/studies-show-effective-treatment-so-why-are-nursing-home-patients-being-left-to-die-with-covid-19-untreated/

Very good question indeed and we may also ask why “authorities” all of a sudden change their tune on immunosuppressive face-masks.  Do they in fact want us sick to justify their unconstitutional actions?

It’s also prudent to ask why “authorities” in the three hardest hit states required nursing homes to take in elderly COVID-19 hospital patients.  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coronavirus-spreads-new-york-nursing-home-forced-take-recovering-patients-n1191811

This too is counter-intuitive and demands an answer.  Again, from where I sit it appears they want this thing to propagate.

Remember, Wittkowski has stated from the get-go that this thing, if left alone, would be ‘won and done’ within 3 weeks: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/16/we-could-open-up-again-and-forget-the-whole-thing/

CDC director Dr. Redfield showed a graph of how infections were down in early April. Wittkowski states the government should have stated it had been overly cautious – but they didn’t want to admit their error so now the charade continues with 30 million unemployed and increasing bankruptcies.  https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4869626/user-clip-dr-robert-redfield

References

1. bin-Reza F et al. The use of mask and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence. Resp Viruses 2012;6(4):257-67.

2. Zhu JH et al. Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study. J Lung Pulm Resp Res 2014:4:97-100.

3. Ong JJY et al. Headaches associated with personal protective equipment- A cross-sectional study among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19. Headache 2020;60(5):864-877.

4. Bader A et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126.

5. Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Th1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376.

6. Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84.

7. Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the pre-metastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355.

8. Blaylock RL. Immunoexcitatory mechanisms in glioma proliferation, invasion and occasional metastasis. Surg Neurol Inter 2013;4:15.

9. Aggarwal BB. Nucler factor-kappaB: The enemy within. Cancer Cell 2004;6:203-208.

10. Savransky V et al. Chronic intermittent hypoxia induces atherosclerosis. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2007;175:1290-1297.

11. Baig AM et al. Evidence of the COVID-19 virus targeting the CNS: Tissue distribution, host-virus interaction, and proposed neurotropic mechanisms. ACS Chem Neurosci2020;11:7:995-998.

12. Wu Y et al. Nervous system involvement after infection with COVID-19 and other coronaviruses. Brain Behavior, and Immunity, In press.

13. Perlman S et al. Spread of a neurotropic murine coronavirus into the CNS via the trigeminal and olfactory nerves. Virology 1989;170:556-560.

DrBlaylock

Dr. Russell Blaylock, author of The Blaylock Wellness Report newsletter, is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine and completed his internship and neurological residency at the Medical University of South Carolina. For 26 years, practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional research. Dr. Blaylock has authored four books, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients, and his most recent work, Cellular and Molecular Biology of Autism Spectrum Disorders.

______________________

Make sure you read labels!

0-23

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/23/masks-are-there-benefits-or-just-a-comfort-prop-let-the-facts-speak/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/04/retroviral-lyme-msids-role-in-covid-19-facemasks-are-immunosuppressive/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/25/coronavirus-science-policy-politics-5g/  Research on face masks within.

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/28/er-doctors-go-over-covid-19-statistics-why-are-we-in-lockdown-also-a-lesson-on-immunity/

Category:

Activism, Viruses

**UPDATE** On Governor Evers’ 9 Month Lock-Down Plan

I just heard back from a Wisconsin representative that the Department of Human Services (DHS) withdrew the emergency rule scope statement and that publishing a scope statement is the first required step in the administrative rule making process.  It is possible that DHS will create a revised version in the near future.

We are advised to call DHS at (608) 226-1865 and email them at DHSwebmaster@wisconsin.gov to voice our thoughts on whether DHS should move forward with a new emergency rule and if so what that rule should look like.

Please see:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/18/governor-evers-plan-to-shut-down-wisconsin-another-9-months/  Within this link is a sample email with information you may use as well as a sample script you may use for phone calls. We need to contact DHS immediately or Wisconsinites could find themselves quarantined for 9 more months. Please also still contact the 10 members on JCRAR (Joint Committee for Review on Administrative Rules):  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/18/governor-evers-plan-to-shut-down-wisconsin-another-9-months/  (Contact info in link)

https://nationalhealthfreedom.org/uncategorized/save-our-health-freedom-pass-a-law-in-your-state-to-protect-your-liberty

NHFA RECOMMENDS THAT STATES ADOPT THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE

May 13, 2020

HEALTH TREATMENT; NOTICE, REFUSAL, CONSEQUENCE.

Subdivision 1. Refusal of treatment. Notwithstanding laws, rules, or orders made or promulgated in response to an emergency, including but not limited to a national security emergency, state-wide emergency, health emergency, or any peacetime emergency, individuals have a fundamental right to refuse medical treatment or procedures, testing, physical or mental examination, vaccination, participation in experimental procedures and protocols, collection of specimens, and preventive treatments or programs, including but not limited to vaccines, tracing and tracking programs.  An individual who has been directed or ordered by a government or its designees, or a public or private business or entity, including but not limited to a commissioner of health or its designee to submit to a directive or order of that nature may choose to decline to comply, respond to, or participate with said directive or order.  For purposes of Subd. 1, 2, and 3, “individual” and “person” includes adults and minor children.

Subdivision 2.  Persons Needing Care.  A person who is infected with or reasonably believed to be infected with or exposed to a toxic agent that can be transferred to another individual or a communicable disease, and the agent or communicable disease is the basis on which the emergency has been declared, and who refuses to submit to a directive or order, may be ordered by the government or its designees to abide by quarantine according to parameters set forth in sections  xxxxxxx [insert citation to your state’s quarantine law].  Said quarantine must be of the least restrictive means possible, and include due process, and be protective of the right of the individual to remain in their home, live with consenting family members or friends and significant others at all times, and utilize the treatments of their choice for their recovery. Quaratine may not take away or alter the legal or medical custody of a person who is under a parent or legal guardian. A minor child may not be forcibly removed from their parent or home.  A person in quarantine has the right to have a consenting person of their choice with them and attending their needs at all times.  A person in quarantine and the consenting persons living with them, have the right to remain in their home as is, without further requirements by government such as additional bathrooms.

Subd. 3. Information given. Before a health care provider performs treatment, testing, physical or mental examination, vaccination, participation in experimental procedures and protocols, collection of specimens, or preventive treatments or programs including but not limited to vaccines, tracing and tracking programs, on or for an individual during a declared emergency, a health care provider shall notify the individual in writing and by reading the above Subd.1 and Subd. 2 to the person or the person’s parent or legal guardian, of the right to refuse the services and the consequences of declining, including rights and conditions of quarantine, upon refusal.  The health care provider shall also obtain a signature of acknowledgement of receipt of notification of a person who declines.

We are happy to support your efforts in can any way that we can.   Click Here for our advocacy e-learning booklet to get started.  If you have a committed group of individuals wanting to change the laws in your state to protect your rights to health freedom please reach out to us via email to set up an exploratory conversation.

Minnesota passed a law in 2002 that protects the right of citizens to decline treatments in the event of a health emergency.  You can do it in your state too!!!

California Health Coalition Advocacy has drafted a Resolution that they are promoting to their legislators that alerts legislators about the right to refuse vaccines and the underlying international liberty and bodily autonomy principles including, in part,:

“…WHEREAS,  the ethical principle of informed consent to medical treatment is recognized internationally under The World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration on the Rights of the Patient, WMA Medical Ethics Manual, WMA Declaration of Helsinki of 1964, The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, and the Nuremberg Code (1947) as a human right requiring the voluntary consent by individuals and parents or guardians of minor children prior to medical treatment; …”

Broad laws exist in many states that give federal and state government expansive powers in the case of a health emergency or bioterrorism emergency.  Don’t let those laws take away your freedoms now.  Make your laws look like what you want America to look like!  Change your laws if it is needed!

[i] Audio of Monica Miller, 1998, archived hard copy by National Health Freedom Coalition, accessible 2018.

 

 

Category:

Activism, Viruses