Professor Borody gives a brief interview on the “Night Shift,” on his successful COVID treatments which are being mercilessly censored and maligned by corrupt public health authorities.
Australian radio host Luke Bona interviewed this August 12 Professor Thomas Borody, from the Centre for Digestive Diseases in Sydney, Australia, about Ivermectin-based therapies for COVID-19.
The interview is short and to the point, and should be of interest to everyone in the world.
Based on existing research and his analysis of therapeutic results using Ivermectin in combination with 2 other widely available generic drugs – Doxycycline and Zinc -, he asserts that COVID-19 is now curable and even easier to treat than the flu.
Here are some excerpts.
“We came up with a treatment that is simple, safe, and can get rid of the coronavirus in almost all patients treated within 6 to 10 days.”
“It can treat and get rid, within 6 to 10 days, of the coronavirus”
“It is an easy, very easy virus to cure, when you combine the dosage we have described, because it inhibits the growth of the bug. It just goes away, and you no longer can find it in an infected person.”
Q: “Why aren’t we treating every elderly person in every health care facility, in every aged care facility with this?”
“There is no drug company behind it. There are no people who are lobbying government and giving donations for reelections and so forth. I don’t know the answer.”
“It also happened when I developed the tritherapy (for H. Pilory infection), because there was no company behind that. It took 26 years… Those people who otherwise would now be dying from bleeding ulcers stopped bleeding, stopped dying…”
“This is the same sort of situation I think. It’s hard to get traction when there is no big payback, no payout to a large company.”
Q: “I understand there are clinical trials of this ivermectin therapy going on in 32 countries”
“The important ones have already been done. The drugs that we use are all approved by the TGA and the FDA. So tomorrow you can write a script for it, because they are approved for other reasons.” (note: TGA stands for Therapeutic Goods Administration)
“The trials that I know of … have been done in places where there are a lot of coronavirus patients…”
“In Bangladesh, 60 out of 60 were cured.“
“That’s not easy to believe, because it’s just too good too be true.”
“In China, they compared coronavirus treatment with either ivermectin mixed, or hydroxychloroquine mixed.”
“Hydroxychloroquine is not a bad drug when you combine it with azithromycin. They got 96.3% cure”
“But with ivermectin, it was 100%.”
Q: “Have you spoken directly to Greg Hunt?” (Australia’s health minister)
“No I haven’t been able to get through.”
“I don’t blame him at all. Things go to his advisers…. The advisers are not experts in this field… They don’t read the journals, the articles….
.As Boorstin said, ‘One of the great obstacles to discovery, it’s not ignorance, it’s the illusion of knowledge.,.
“They have the illusion of knowledge. They think they know. They say you have to go to animal studies first, pre-clinical, not knowing you don’t need to do trials on approved drugs.”
Q: “Professor, where do we go from here, how do we get this happening?”
“I would very much like to see … teams set up that would quickly treat all the infected Victorians…”
“We need to treat Victorians today, because we have a therapy which will give people hope.”
“In the future, we will not need to worry if we get positivity.”
“You get treated immediately, you don’t need to go to the hospital.”
“It’s easier than treating the flu now.”
“You can actually eradicate it.”
“You can’t eradicate Hepatitis C that easily. HIV we cannot. Here we use a bunch of drugs, and the bug disappears…”
“We know it’s curable.”
Professor Borody is most famous for his ground-breaking work developing the triple therapy cure for peptic ulcers in 1987, which has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and the Australian health system more than $10 billion in medical care and operations.
Professor Borody founded the Centre for Digestive Diseases (CDD) in 1984 after a distinguished career with leading hospitals including St Vincent’s in Sydney and the Mayo Clinic in the USA.
He is a world-renowned leader in the clinical microbiota dating back to 1988 when he started performing what is now called Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT).
Professor Borody holds over 150 patents in areas such as; treatment of Helicobacter pylori, Crohn’s disease, bowel lavage, IBS and FMT.
See our previous coverage, with an overview of the (brief) history of Ivermectin-based therapies and an account of Professor Borody’s declarations to Sky News Australia.
The Centre for Digestive Diseases issued today a press release titled “Ivermectin Triple Therapy Protocol for COVID-19 Released to Australian GPs for Infected Elderly and Frontline Workers.”
As we previously covered, this early treatment protocol combines ivermectin with doxycycline and zinc.
“Triple therapy specialist Professor Thomas Borody, famous for curing peptic ulcers using a triple antibiotic therapy saving millions of lives, today released the COVID-19 treatment protocol to Australian GPs, who can legally prescribe it to their COVID-19 positive patients.They can also prescribe it as a preventative medication. Borody says this could be the fastest and safest way to end the pandemic in Australia within 6-8 weeks.”
“The three medications are now on chemist shelves right now. GPs can email GP@CDD.com.au to obtain the dosing protocol and COVID-19 treatment information for their patients.”
“GPs can legally prescribe the therapy today as an “off label” treatment according to Australian Guidelines – a standard practice in medicine.”
“In fact more than 60% of prescriptions in Australia are “off-label”. It’s not a new concept. It’s happening every day to manage diseases and save lives.”
(See link for article)
But ‘authorities’ don’t care. They are still waiting for the lucrative, magic-bullet vaccine.
I just watched this and it’s worth every minute. This documentary will clear up questions you have and probably give you many more. It is completely FREE at the following link:
On August 18 2020 at 5pm UK time/12 noon EST, the Digital Freedom Platform by London Real is proud to be exclusively livestreaming what might be the most important documentary you will ever see: PLANDEMIC – INDOCTORNATION.
Created by the team behind the game-changing Plandemic video segment from Mikki Willis featuring Dr. Judy Mikovits that went viral and was banned on every major social media platform for exposing the truth about Covid-19, this new FEATURE LENGTH PIECE promises to be the most revelatory film on what is driving the vaccine agenda, the various roles of the WHO, Bill Gates, Tedros Adhanom, Anthony Fauci and more.
Going deep into what is really happening with mainstream media, Silicon Valley tech giants, big pharma and our health protection agencies, Mikki’s new film finally connects the dots…
… And we are excited to be able to share this with you…
We believe that this film will fundamentally shift the discourse around Coronavirus, the lockdown and the vested interests involved; register now for updates and to watch the movie today.
Please see the letter below addressed to the Tick-Borne Disease working Group……
———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: “tickbornedisease@hhs.gov” <tickbornedisease@hhs.gov>
Cc: (98 Undisclosed recipients)
Subject: Carl Tuttle’s 2nd letter published in the BMJ
To the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group,
Please see the letter below in response to a misleading, over-simplified article on Lyme disease published in the BMJ:
In reference to the following statement from the “Tick bite” paper:
“…most tick bites are harmless and do not transmit Lyme disease. Apart from in high risk areas, most ticks (=85%) are not infected. In Europe, including the UK, between 5% and 40% of ticks may be infected.1 Only 2-3% of people with a tick bite develop Lyme disease.”
This is like playing Russian roulette with one’s health…. five of the chambers in a six shooter do not contain a projectile (83%). So no big deal… everyone should play the game!
Patient testimony all across the United States and (the globe) is describing a disease that is destroying lives, ending careers while leaving its victim in financial ruin. [1]
Is this publication a continuation of a racketeering scheme to downplay the severity of Lyme disease? [2]
Patients who miss the narrow window of opportunity for successful short-term treatment (due to a false negative serologic test, missing bulls-eye rash, misdiagnosis, etc. etc.) advance to late stage debilitating neurologic Lyme and are left to fend for themselves and are often told that they need a psychiatric evaluation.
Question: What was the motivation for this paper on tick-borne Lyme disease?
93,000 signatures from across America and twenty additional countries. Please open that PDF and read the comments. 2. Rapid Response: The BMJ Re: Lyme borreliosis: diagnosis and management https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1041/rr-1
_______________________________________________________ Follow-up letter to the Editor-in-Chief of the BMJ
———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE runagain@comcast.net
To: “fgodlee@bmj.com” fgodlee@bmj.com
Cc: (coauthors of the “tick bite” paper)
Date: 08/15/2020 9:20 AM
Subject: Inquiry to Dr. Godlee
Dear Dr. Godlee,
The fixation on the acute stage of Lyme disease with bulls-eye rash and early treatment has long been established here in America. Avoidance of the horribly disabled Lyme patient population and suppression of persistent infection after extensive antibiotic treatment is the established modus operandi of the academics who have controlled the Lyme disease narrative for the past thirty years. As mentioned in my previous letter to the editor, ( published on June 10, 2020) these academics are now defendants in a racketeering lawsuit in Texas District Court.
Focusing on the acute stage of disease gives the illusion that Lyme is a simple nuisance disease but it is well known that strep throat left untreated progresses to rheumatic fever causing irreversible heart damage.
So, what happens to the Lyme patient who goes months, years or decades without treatment because of a “false negative serologic test, missing bulls-eye rash, misdiagnosis, etc. etc”?
The consequences of untreated Lyme disease are not emphasized in the Razai paper but Lyme left untreated can lead to horrible disability.
For example:
1. A 1993 hearing in Washington was chaired by Senator Ted Kennedy where fourteen-year-old Lyme patient Evan White testified while in a wheelchair. NEWS: Former patient who testified as a child about Lyme disease recalls encounter with Sen. Ted Kennedy https://www.lymedisease.org/186/
Excerpt:
“No one could hear or feel the moment of that child and not be moved,” Kennedy explained to the [Boston] Globe at the time. Anyone who wasn’t moved, he said, “hasn’t got a heart.”
Based on the summary below it appears that it took years of antibiotics, not weeks to treat Evan’s disability. Had he not met Dr. Joseph Burrascano, Evan would have been a burden on the Social Security program today through “therapeutic nihilism.” [1]
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — A 12-year-old girl who has been confined to a wheelchair since being diagnosed with Lyme disease said meeting Pope Francis as he arrived in New York Thursday was “the most precious moment of my life.”
“Fatal Lyme carditis caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi rarely is identified. Here, we describe the pathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular findings of five case patients.”
Specific DNA sequences of Borrelia burgdorferi were identified in cutaneous lesions from 9 patients (follicle center lymphoma: 3/20; immunocytoma: 3/4; marginal zone B-cell lymphoma: 2/20; diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: 1/6).
Dr. Godlee,
I didn’t find any of these references in the Razai paper or references of persistent infection after extensive antibiotic treatment which as you know were omitted from the Kullberg paper.
So who are the peer reviewers of these two papers and what is the connection if any to the defendants of the racketeering lawsuit?
Respectfully submitted,
Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH USA
Reference:
1. The twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism in clinical practice
Sílvia Mamede , Henk G Schmidt
DOI: 10.1111/medu.12264
___________________
**Comment**
Please note the polar opposite way ‘authorities’ handle Lyme/MSIDS vs COVID. It’s clearly known that the elderly population with co-morbidities are mostly at risk for COVID with a similar mortality rate as seasonal flu, yet the world is stopped, faces are covered, and the media is whipped up into a frenzy spreading daily fear porn.
Versus
Lyme/MSIDS which is growing exponentially everywhere,many are not getting well after standard treatment, and it’s becoming more widely known that Lyme is just the tip of the spear, with ticks transmitting much more than just Lyme. Yet, funding for Lyme/MSIDS research is abysmal, nothing has changed in over 40 years, and the world is still waiting to hear the outcome of a racketeering lawsuit as well as an inquiry into our own government experimenting and dropping ticks out of airplanes. Doctors are still woefully uneducated and hide behind ancient CDC dogma that hasn’t changed, despite new evidence. The same corrupt players are doing the same biased research on our dime.
It’s crystal clear that there is much more at play than meets the eye because if you are going to use statistics, at least use the same logic, yet we are told 85% of ticks aren’t infected and not to worry (despite the fact ticks are being found in areas they shouldn’t be, full of pathogens they shouldn’t have) yet it’s known that 81% of us can mount a strong response to COVID-19 without ever having been exposed to it before. It’s also known that 80% of people with COVID are mildly ill. We also know that up to 80% are asymptomatic – meaning they have ZERO symptoms.
The question begging to be asked is why are these 80% figures being treated completely differently. With ticks we are told, “Don’t worry, be happy,” yet when it comes to COVID, we are told “cover your face, don’t leave your house, shutter your business, keep kids home from school, and wash your hands repeatedly,” ad nauseum.
Something doesn’t smell right. Time to speak up about this disparity.
Bill Gates warns you will probably need multiple doses of any given COVID-19 vaccine for it to be effective
The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (currently known only as mRNA-1273), caused systemic side effects in 80% of Phase 1 participants receiving the 100 microgram (mcg) dose
Side effects ranged from fatigue (80%), chills (80%), headache (60%) and myalgia or muscle pain (53%). After the second dose, 100% of participants in the 100-mcg group experienced side effects
In the 250-mcg dose group, 100% of participants suffered side effects after both the first and second doses. Three of the 14 participants (21%) in the 250-mcg group suffered “one or more severe events”
According to Gates, the side effects are largely due to the high dosages Moderna had to use to achieve the desired antibody levels. But if high dosages are required to create a robust-enough immune response, and higher dosages also cause systemic side effects in most or all people, the safety of the global vaccination campaign may be questionable
As vaccine companies rush to bring a COVID-19 vaccine to market, billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates — who routinely funnels hundreds of millions of dollars to various vaccine projects — warns you will probably need “multiple doses” of any given COVID-19 vaccine for it to be effective.1
In speaking with CBS News, Gates said, “None of the vaccines at this point appear like they’ll work with a single dose,” adding that in order to wipe the virus out through universal vaccinations it will require “unbelievably big numbers” of doses. To be effective, he also predicts we will need to vaccinate around 80% of the global population so, yes, we’re talking about tens of billions of doses.
100% of Moderna Vaccine Participants Suffered Side Effects
Gates visibly struggles to maneuver through the pointed questions posed by CBS about the safety of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (currently known only as mRNA-1273), which was recently found2 to cause systemic side effects in 80% of Phase 1 participants receiving the 100 microgram (mcg) dose.
Side effects ranged from fatigue (80%), chills (80%), headache (60%) and myalgia or muscle pain (53%). After the second dose, 100% of participants in the 100-mcg group experienced side effects.
In the highest dosage group, which received 250 mcg, 100% of participants suffered side effects after both the first and second doses.3 Three of the 14 participants (21%) in the 250-mcg group suffered “one or more severe events.”
Despite these worrisome results, the trial is being heralded as a big success, and vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit has been quoted4 as saying we now know “that it’s safe in 45 people,” and that “it doesn’t have a very common side effect problem.”
Clearly, we have very different perceptions of reality on what “very common” means. If 80% to 100% is considered uncommon, then just what level of harm must be inflicted in order for a vaccine to be viewed as having a questionable safety profile?
According to Gates, those side effects are largely due to the high dosages Moderna had to use in order to achieve the desired antibody levels. But, if high dosages are required to create a robust-enough immune response, and higher dosages also cause systemic side effects in a vast majority of people, just how safe will this global vaccination campaign be?
Keep in mind, the 45 participants in Moderna’s Phase 1 trial were healthy individuals between the ages of 18 and 55.5 Meanwhile, over 90% of Americans are metabolically unhealthy and struggle with chronic health conditions that can make them more prone to vaccine complications.
What’s more, frail elderly are unlikely to survive serious vaccine side effects, yet people over 80 are the most vulnerable to COVID-19 and would theoretically stand to benefit from the vaccine most.
Coronavirus Vaccines Have Been Notoriously Prone to Failure
High risk of side effects is probably to be expected, considering a) the history of coronavirus vaccines in general, b) most of the COVID-19 vaccines under development are relying on mRNA technology that have never been used in vaccine production before now, and c) the vaccines are being fast-tracked, forgoing animal studies.
Starting with the first issue, researchers have been unable to produce a coronavirus vaccine despite decades-long efforts. While SARS-CoV-2 is a novel human coronavirus, there are seven others that cause respiratory illness in humans, including four that trigger the common cold,6 which is why vaccine makers have been trying to develop coronavirus vaccines in the past.
Among the coronaviruses that cause respiratory illness are SARS and MERS. Coronavirus vaccine efforts gained speed in early 2002, following three SARS epidemics.
However, such efforts have proven highly problematic as coronavirus vaccines have a stubborn tendency to trigger paradoxical immune responses, and researchers have not been able to find a solution for that. This alone is why fast-tracking a COVID-19 vaccine is a terribly risky decision. As reported by Reuters, March 11, 2020:7
“Studies have suggested that coronavirus vaccines carry the risk of what is known as vaccine enhancement, where instead of protecting against infection, the vaccine can actually make the disease worse when a vaccinated person is infected with the virus.
The mechanism that causes that risk is not fully understood and is one of the stumbling blocks that has prevented the successful development of a coronavirus vaccine.
Normally, researchers would take months to test for the possibility of vaccine enhancement in animals. Given the urgency to stem the spread of the new coronavirus, some drugmakers are moving straight into small-scale human tests, without waiting for the completion of such animal tests.
‘I understand the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in general, but from everything I know, this is not the vaccine to be doing it with,’ Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, told Reuters.”
Why a Vaccine May Trigger More Severe Illness
In my interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who chairs the board of directors of the Children’s Health Defense,8 he reviewed some of the failed efforts to produce a viable coronavirus vaccine, starting in 2002, and highlighted the dangers of vaccine exaggeration of the immune response:
“The Chinese, the Americans, the Europeans all got together and said, ‘We need to develop a vaccine against coronavirus.’ Around 2012, they had about 30 vaccines that looked promising. They took the four best of those and … gave those vaccines to ferrets, which are the closest analogy when you’re looking at lung infections in human beings.
The ferrets had an extraordinarily good antibody response, and that is the metric by which FDA licenses vaccines … The ferrets developed very strong antibodies, so they thought, ‘We hit the jackpot.’ All four of these vaccines … worked like a charm.
Then something terrible happened. Those ferrets were then exposed to the wild virus, and they all died. [They developed] inflammation in all their organs, their lungs stopped functioning and they died.
Then those scientists remembered that the same thing had happened in the 1960s when they tried to develop an RSV vaccine, which is an upper respiratory illness very similar to coronavirus.
At the time, they did not test it on animals. They went right to human testing. They tested it on about 35 children, and the same thing happened. The children developed a champion antibody response, robust, durable. It looked perfect, and then the children were exposed to the wild virus and they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine. It was a big embarrassment to FDA and NIH.”
As it turns out, they eventually discovered that there are two kinds of antibodies being produced by the coronavirus. When you read press releases and studies about COVID-19 vaccines, you’ll see them referring to:
Neutralizing antibodies9 that fight the infection, and
Binding antibodies10 (also known as nonneutralizing antibodies) that do not prevent viral infection
The binding antibodies, rather than fighting the infection, actually trigger what’s known as paradoxical immune enhancement. As explained above, what this means is that even though you may have a robust antibody response, when you’re exposed to the actual virus, rather than protecting you it actually enhances the virus’ ability to make you sick or even kill you.
Looking at the preliminary findings11 from Moderna’s mRNA-1273 Phase 1 trial, we see that neutralizing antibody responses were quite good, “reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more” at day 43. However, we also see that:
“Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15. Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident.”
Does this rapid increase in binding antibodies mean paradoxical immune enhancement is a possibility? One of my main concerns with COVID-19 vaccines is, will they actually conduct testing to see if paradoxical immune enhancement occurs?Meaning, will they expose vaccinated participants to SARS-CoV-2, to see what happens?
mRNA Vaccines May Produce Serious Side Effects
Aside from the possibility of a paradoxical immune response, mRNA vaccines may in and of themselves be problematic. Inside your cells, mRNA activate DNA instructions, and act as a template to build a specific protein.
The theory behind mRNA vaccines is that when you inject the mRNA, it will stimulate your own cells to manufacture the virus proteins.12 In this case, those proteins would mimic the proteins found in SARS-CoV-2.
Conventional vaccines train your body to recognize and respond to the proteins of a particular virus by injecting a small amount of the actual viral protein into your body, thereby triggering an immune response and the development of antibodies.
mRNA vaccines are designed to make your body produce its own viral protein, which your immune system would then mount a response to. No previous vaccines have had your own cells produce the viral proteins responsible for producing immunity.
What might go wrong when you turn your body into a viral protein factory, thus activating antibody production on a continual basis? Well, since there are no mRNA vaccines on the market, it’s hard to tell. But, according to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and Duke University:13,14
“mRNA vaccines have potential safety issues, including local and systemic inflammation and stimulation of auto-reactive antibodies and autoimmunity, as well as development of edema (swelling) and blood clots.”
Some of these effects, such as systemic inflammation and blood clots, resemble severe symptoms of COVID-19 itself. So, does that mean mRNA vaccines might worsen COVID-19 infection? What’s more, since the mRNA vaccines work on the genetic level and could become integrated into your DNA, might they cause long-term, perhaps even generational, problems?
Some COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Not Using Inert Placebos
Some COVID-19 vaccine trials also appear to be structured in such a way as to hide side effects, which does not inspire trust. As noted in a July 21, 2020, Wired article,15 some trials are using injected meningococcal vaccine rather than a true placebo, and anytime you use another vaccine as a control, certain symptoms of harm are automatically obscured.
Another way to hide side effects is to administer the vaccine along with certain drugs. One example of this is the University of Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine trial, which has one study arm in which subjects are given acetaminophen every six hours for the first 24 hours after inoculation.
Is the pain and fever reducer given to mask and downplay certain symptoms and side effects, such as pain, fever, headache or general malaise? It might. As noted by Wired:16
“The press release for … results from the Oxford vaccine trials described an increased frequency of ‘minor side effects’ among participants. A look at the actual paper, though, reveals this to be a marketing spin …
Yes, mild reactions were far more common than worse ones. But moderate or severe harms — defined as being bad enough to interfere with daily life or needing medical care — were common too.
Around one-third of people vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine without acetaminophen experienced moderate or severe chills, fatigue, headache, malaise, and/or feverishness.
Close to 10 percent had a fever of at least 100.4 degrees, and just over one-fourth developed moderate or severe muscle aches. That’s a lot, in a young and healthy group of people — and the acetaminophen didn’t help much for most of those problems.”
While he claims there’s separation between these two, it’s a flimsy one at best, and clearly illegal. While the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation doles out grants, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust is a separate entity that manages the Foundation’s assets.
However, these two entities have glaringly obvious overlapping interests, and grants given by the foundation frequently benefit the value of the trust’s assets directly. I wrote about this illegal setup in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” This is why, despite giving away billions of dollars, Gates’ “Decade of Vaccines” has doubled his worth, from $54 billion to $103.1 billion.
Since President Trump stopped the U.S. funding of the WHO, Gates is now the largest funder of the World Health Organization, which is laying down the ground rules that all nations are expected to follow, which, of course, includes the recommendation to vaccinate, as soon as a vaccine becomes available.
Gates’ remarkable rise to influence on global health matters is founded not on expertise but on money. Just like John D. Rockefeller before him, Gates gained public adoration by donating money to ostensibly “humanitarian causes” — and purchasing good publicity.
Nowadays, he needs all the good publicity he can buy. As more people are getting wise to his greedy get-rich vaccine schemes, his reputation is rapidly tarnishing.
According to an April 23, 2020, Newspunch article,17 410,000 people had signed a White House petition18 to investigate the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for crimes against humanity and medical malpractice. At the time of this writing, the petition has garnered 628,668 signatures. That’s well over six times the number required to illicit an official response. The petition is still open if you’d like to add your signature.
Various groups have uncovered that numerous COVID-19 vaccines have aborted fetal cell lines (PER C6 Ad5 technology) which not only has moral implications for many but safety concerns according to the FDA:
Also, please remember these same authorities don’t want Lyme/patients to have access to long-term therapy.They say it’s dangerous. Yet, when it comes to an experimental, DNA vaccine causing many side effects, they are silent, yet determinedly move straight ahead. Just another example of how the two diseases are handled very differently.
PPE developer on N95 masks: 70% of what you breathe is not filtered
By Tamara Ugolini
August 06, 2020
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, we’ve all been learning new words and phrases, and one of those is PPE — personal protective equipment. Well, Ron Mitchell knew all about that decades before the rest of us, because he helped develop it.
While covering an anti-mask event in Cobourg, I ran into Ron, and our conversation was so interesting, we’ve decided to show you the whole thing. If anyone is qualified to explain how masks work (or don’t), it’s Ron Mitchell.
For 30 years, Ron assisted in developing PPE for the nuclear industry: plastic suits, hoods, electric shock resistant footwear, a diffusion sampler and, of course, masks.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 