Oyster World Top Up Service Station Beach House Restaurant Skorpios Security Wolwedans Game Farm Property Pointer Delfinos.Passion for food-Passion for life Ponto Grille and Carvery Reflexions Professional Hair


MosselbayonTheline | First With The News

Crucial excerpts from the Frontline Doctors' 67-page Covid watershed court document to STOP the mass experimentation on humans, and their expert reasons therefore, backed by hundreds of thousands of doctors globally.
Maybe every single person should first STUDY this document before they blindly yield to the biggest global media-driven propaganda campaign and falsehoods in history. (Due to the lengthy document, some of the information has been published as photo captions under the photos for easier reading):
* COVID recovered patients are at extremely high risk to a vaccine. They retain an antigenic fingerprint of natural infection in their tissues. They have all the requisite components of immune memory. Vaccination may activate a hyperimmune response leading to a significant tissue injury and possibly death.
* The true number of deaths caused by the Vaccines is at least 45,000. In the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine campaign (in which 25% of the U.S. population at that time, 55 million Americans, were vaccinated), the Swine Flu vaccine was deemed dangerous and unsafe, and removed from the market, even though the vaccine resulted in only 53 deaths.
* Asymptomatic transmission:
On September 9, 2020, Dr. Fauci was forced to admit in an official press conference:
[E]ven if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person, even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.7
* NO emergency:
The emergency declaration and its multiple renewals are illegal, since in fact there is no underlying emergency. Assuming the accuracy of Defendants’ COVID-19 death data, SARSCoV-2 has an overall survivability rate of 99.8% globally, which increases to 99.97% for persons under the age of 70, on a par with the seasonal flu. However, Defendants’ data is deliberately inflated.
On March 24, 2020, DHHS changed the rules applicable to coroners and others responsible for producing death certificates and making “cause of death” determinations — exclusively for COVID-19.
The rule change states: “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”
In fact, DHHS statistics show that 95% of deaths classed as “COVID-19 deaths” involve an average of four additional co-morbidities. The CDC knew “…the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.”
Similarly, the actual number of COVID-19 “cases” is far lower than the reported number.
DHHS authorized the emergency use of the polymerase chain reaction (“PCR”) test as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19, with disastrous consequences. The PCR tests are themselves experimental products, authorized by the FDA under separate EUAs. PCR test manufacturers use disclaimers like this in their product manuals: “[t]he FDA has not determined that the test is safe or effective for the detection of SARS-Co-V-2.”
* No vaccine benefits
There are several factors that reduce any purported benefit of the COVID-19 Vaccines.
First, it is important to note that the Vaccines were only shown to reduce symptoms – not block transmission. For over a year now, these Defendants and state-level public health authorities have told the American public that SARS-CoV-2 can be spread by people who have none of the symptoms of COVID-19, therefore Americans must mask themselves, and submit to innumerable lockdowns and restrictions, even though they are not manifestly sick.
If that is the case, and these officials were not lying to the public, and asymptomatic spread is real, then what is the benefit of a vaccine that merely reduces symptoms? There isn’t any.
* Vaccine Rush
This 10-15 year testing process has been abandoned for purposes of the Vaccines. The first human-to-human transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was not confirmed until January 20, 2020, and less than a year later both mRNA Vaccines had EUAs and for the first time in history, this novel mRNA technology was being injected into millions of human beings. As of June 7, 2021, 138 million Americans, representing 42% of the population, have been fully vaccinated.
All of the stages of testing have been compressed in time, abbreviated in substance, and are overlapping, which dramatically increases the risks of the Vaccines. Plaintiffs’ investigation indicates that Moderna and Pfizer designed their Vaccines in only two days.
It appears that pharmaceutical companies did not independently verify the genome sequence that China released
on January 11, 2020. It appears that the Vaccines were studied for only 56 days in macaques, and 28 days in mice, and then animal studies were halted. It appears that the pharmaceutical companies discarded their control groups receiving placebos, squandering the opportunity to learn about the rate of long-term complications, how long protection against the disease lasts, and how well the Vaccines inhibit transmission.
A number of studies were deemed unnecessary and not performed prior to administration in human subjects, including single-dose toxicity, toxicokinetic, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, prenatal and postnatal development, offspring, local tolerance, teratogenic and postnatal toxicity, and fertility. The American public has not been
properly informed of these dramatic departures from the standard testing process, and the risks they generate.
Plaintiff America’s Frontline Doctors’ (“AFLDS”) medico-legal researchers have analyzed the accumulated COVID-19 Vaccine risk data, and report as follows:
* Migration of the SARS-CoV-2 “Spike Protein” in the Body
* The SARS-CoV-2 has a spike protein on its surface. The spike protein is what allows the virus to infect other bodies. It is clear that the spike protein is not a simple, passive structure.
The spike protein is a “pathogenic protein” and a toxin that causes damage. The spike protein is itself biologically active, even without the virus. It is “fusogenic” and consequently binds more tightly to our cells, causing harm. If the purified spike protein is injected into the blood of research animals, it causes profound damage to their cardiovascular system and crosses the blood-brain barrier to cause neurological damage.
If the Vaccines were like traditional bona fide vaccines and did not leave the immediate site of vaccination, typically the shoulder muscle, beyond the local draining lymph node, then the damage that the spike protein could cause might be limited.
However, the Vaccines were authorized without any studies demonstrating where the spike proteins traveled in the body following vaccination, how long they remain active, and what effect they have.
A group of international scientists has recently obtained the “biodistribution study” for the mRNA Vaccines from Japanese regulators. The study reveals that, unlike traditional vaccines, this spike protein enters the bloodstream and circulates throughout the body over several days post-vaccination. It accumulates in a number of tissues, such as the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands, and ovaries. It fuses with receptors on our blood platelets, and also with cells lining our blood vessels. It can cause platelets to clump leading to clotting, bleeding, and heart inflammation.
It can also cross the blood-brain barrier and cause brain damage. It can be transferred to infants through breast milk. The VAERS system includes reports of infants suckling from vaccinated mothers experiencing bleeding disorders in the gastrointestinal tract.
* Vaccine Deaths
* The database indicates that the total reported vaccine deaths in the first quarter of 2021 represent a 12,000% to 25,000% increase in vaccine deaths, year-on-year.
In ten years (2009-2019) there were 1529 vaccine deaths, whereas in the first quarter of 2021 there have been over 4,000.
Further, 99% of all reported vaccine deaths in 2021 are caused by the COVID-19 Vaccines, only 1% being caused by the numerous other vaccines reported in the system. It is estimated that VAERS only captures 1% to at best 10% of all vaccine adverse events.
Accordingly, and for all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs move under Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P., for a preliminary injunction against Defendants enjoining them from continuing to authorize the emergency use of the so-called “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine,” “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) COVID-19 Vaccine” pursuant to their respective EUAs, and from granting full FDA approval of the Vaccines:
(i) for the under-18 age category;
(ii) for those, regardless of age, who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to vaccination; and
(iii) until such time as the Defendants have complied with their obligation to create and maintain the requisite “conditions of authorization” under Section 546 of the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb–Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 15 Filed 07/19/21 Page 65 of 67-66-3(e), thereby enabling Vaccine candidates to give truly voluntary, informed consent.
Dated: July 19, 2021.
I hereby certify that on this date, July 19, 2021, I electronically transmitted this pleading to the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system for filing, which will send notification of such filing to the following counsel for the Defendants:
Hon. Don B. Long, III
Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Alabama
1801 Fourth Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Hon. James W. Harlow
Trial Attorney, Consumer Protection Branch
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 386
Washington, D.C. 20044-0386
Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 15 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 67.
Read the official report here: 


Covid vaccines

Antibody-Dependent Enhancement

Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (“ADE”) occurs when SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, created by a Vaccine, instead of protecting the vaccinated person, cause a more severe or lethal case of the COVID-19 disease when the person is later exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the wild.9

The vaccine amplifies the infection rather than preventing damage. It may only be seen after months or years of use in populations around the world.
This paradoxical reaction has been seen in other vaccines and animal trials. One well-documented example is with the Dengue fever vaccine, which resulted in avoidable deaths.
Dengue fever has caused 100-400 million infections, 500,000 hospitalizations, and a 2.5% fatality rate annually worldwide. It is a leading cause of death in children in Asian and Latin American countries. Despite over 50 years of active research, a Dengue vaccine still has not gained widespread approval in large part due to the phenomenon of ADE. Vaccine manufacturer Sanofi Pharmaceutical spent 20 years and nearly $2 billion to develop the Dengue vaccine and published their results in the New England Journal of Medicine, which was quickly endorsed by
the World Health Organization.

Vigilant scientists clearly warned about the danger from ADE, which the Philippines ignored when it administered the vaccine to hundreds of thousands of children in 2016. Later, when these children were exposed in the wild, many became severely ill and 600 children died.

The former head of the Dengue department of the Research Institute for Tropical Medicine (RITM) was indicted in 2019 by the Philippines Department of Justice for “reckless imprudence resulting [in] homicide,” because he “facilitated, with undue haste,”
Dengvaxia’s approval and its rollout among Philippine schoolchildren.10

ADE has been observed in the coronavirus setting. The original SARS-CoV-1 caused an epidemic in 2003. This virus is a coronavirus that is reported to be 78% similar to the current SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the disease COVID-19.

Scientists attempted to create a vaccine.

Of approximately 35 vaccine candidates, the best four were trialed in ferrets. The vaccines appeared to work in the ferrets. However, when those vaccinated ferrets were challenged by SARS-CoV-1 in the wild, they became very ill and died due to what we would term a sudden severe cytokine storm. The reputed journals Science, Nature, and Journal of Infectious Diseases have all documented ADE risks in relation to the development of experimental COVID-19 vaccines.

The application filed by Dr. Yeadon with the European Medicines Agency on December 1, 2020, also mentioned the risk from ADE. ADE is discovered during long-term animal studies, to which the Vaccines have not been subjected.

Covid vaccine

Effect on the Young

The Vaccines are more deadly or harmful to the young than the virus, and that is excluding the unknown future effects on fertility, clotting, and autoimmune disease.

Those under the age of 18 face statistically zero chance of death from SARS-CoV-2 according to data published by the CDC, but there are reports of heart inflammation — both myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart)
— in young men, and at least one documented fatal heart attack of a healthy 15-year old boy in Colorado two days after receiving the Pfizer Vaccine.8

The CDC has admitted that “[s]ince April 2021, increased cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported in the United States after the mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), particularly in
adolescents and young adults. 

Covid testing

More Virulent Strains

Scientists are concerned that universal inoculation may create more virulent strains. This has been observed with Marek’s Disease in chickens.11 A large number of chickens not at risk of death were vaccinated, and now all chickens must be vaccinated or they will die from a virus that was nonlethal prior to widespread vaccination. The current policy to pursue universal vaccination regardless of risk may exert the same evolutionary pressure toward more highly virulent strains.

Blood Supply

Presently, the vaccinated are permitted to donate their spike protein-laden blood into the blood supply, which projects all of the risks discussed supra onto the general population of unvaccinated blood donees.
Scientists and healthcare professionals all over the world are sounding the alarm and frantically appealing to the FDA to halt the Vaccines. They have made innumerable public statements.

Fifty-seven top scientists and doctors from Central and South America are calling for an immediate end to all Vaccine COVID-19 programs. Other physician-scientist groups have made similar calls, among them: Canadian Physicians, Israeli People’s Committee, Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, World Doctors Alliance, Doctors 4 Covid Ethics, and Plaintiff America’s Frontline Doctors.

These are healthcare professionals in the field who are seeing the catastrophic and deadly results of the rushed Vaccines, and reputed professors of science and medicine, including the physician with the greatest number of COVID-19 scientific citations worldwide. They accuse the government of deviating from long-standing policy to protect the public. In the past, government has halted vaccine trials based on a tiny fraction — far less than
1% — of the number of unexplained deaths already recorded.

The scientists all agree that the spike protein (produced by the Vaccines) causes disease even without the virus, which has motivated them to lend their imprimatur to, and risk their reputation and standing on, these public objections. 

Covid court case1

There are numerous alternative safe and effective treatments for COVID-19.

These alternatives are supported by over 300 studies, including randomized controlled studies. Tens of thousands of physicians have publicly attested, and many have testified under oath, as to the safety and efficacy of the alternatives.

Globally and in the United States, treatments such as Ivermectin, Budesonide, Dexamethasone, convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies, Vitamin D, Zinc, Azithromycin, Hydroxychloroquine, Colchicine and Remdesivir are being used
to great effect, and they are far safer than the COVID-19 Vaccines.12

Doctors from the Smith Center for Infectious Diseases and Urban Health and the Saint Barnabas Medical Center have published an Observational Study on 255 Mechanically
Ventilated COVID Patients at the Beginning of the USA Pandemic, which states: “Causal modeling establishes that weight-adjusted HCQ [Hydroxychloroquine] and AZM [Azithromycin] therapy improves survival by over 100%.”13
12 Numerous studies can be reviewed here: https://c19early.com (last visited June 7, 2021).

Observational studies in Delhi and Mexico City show dramatic reductions in COVID-19 case and death counts following the mass distribution of Ivermectin. These results align with those of a study in Argentina, in which 800 healthcare professionals received Ivermectin, while another 400 did not. Of the 800, not a single person contracted COVID-19, while more than half
of the control group did contract it.

Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung specialist who has treated more COVID-19 patients than most doctors, representing a group of some of the most highly published physicians in the world, with over 2,000 peer-reviewed publications among them, testified before the U.S. Senate in December 2020.14 He testified that based on 9 months of review of scientific data from 30 studies, Ivermectin obliterates transmission of the SARS-CoV2 virus and is a powerful prophylactic (if you take it, you will not contract COVID-19). Four large randomized controlled trials totaling over 1500 patients demonstrate that Ivermectin is safe
and effective as a prophylaxis.

In early outpatient treatment, three randomized controlled trials and multiple observational studies show that Ivermectin reduces the need for hospitalization and death in statistically significant numbers. In inpatient treatment, four randomized controlled trials show that Ivermectin prevents death in a statistically significant, large magnitude.
Ivermectin won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 for its impacts on global health.

Inexplicably, the Defendants never formed or assigned a task force to research and review existing alternatives for preventing and treating COVID-19. Instead, the Defendants and others set about censoring both concerns about the Vaccines, and information about safe and effective alternatives.

Covid court case

 The Vaccines are Not Approved by the FDA, but Merely Authorized for Emergency Use

Defendants have failed to educate the American public that the FDA has not actually “approved” the Vaccines, and that the DHHS Secretary has not in fact determined that the
Vaccines are “safe and effective,” and on the contrary has merely determined, in accordance with the proverbial “weasel language” of the EUA statute, that “it is reasonable to believe” that the Vaccines “may be” effective and that the benefits outweigh the risks. Instead of being so educated, the public is barraged with unqualified “safe and effective” messaging from all levels of federal and state government, the private sector and the media. They hear from no higher
authority than the President himself that: “The bottom line is this: I promise you they are safe.
They are safe. And even more importantly, they’re extremely effective. If you’re vaccinated, you are protected.”

The public is also unaware of the serious financial conflicts-of-interest that burden Dr. Fauci, the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, and the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee which advises and consults Defendants with respect to
the Vaccine EUAs, as outlined in the Complaint (ECF 10, ¶¶ 250-256). Without the information regarding conflicts of interest, the public cannot assess for themselves the reliability and objectivity of the analysis underpinning the EUAs.

The Significant Known and Potential Risks of the Vaccines

Perhaps the first step in understanding the potential risks of the Vaccines is to understand exactly what they are, and what they are not. The CDC defines a “vaccine” as: “A product that
stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
The CDC defines “immunity” as:
“Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”
However, the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine” do not meet the CDC’s own definitions. They do not stimulate the body to produce immunity from a disease. They are a synthetic fragment of nucleic acid embedded in a fat carrier that is introduced into human cells, not for the purpose of inducing immunity from infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and not to block further transmission of the virus, but in order to lessen the symptoms of COVID-19.

No published, peer-reviewed studies prove that the “PfizerBioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine” confer immunity or stop transmission.
Further, the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine” are not “vaccines” within the common, lay understanding of the public. Since vaccines were first discovered in 1796 by Dr. Edward Jenner, who used cowpox to inoculate humans against smallpox, and called the process “vaccination” (from the Latin term vaca for cow), the public has had an entrenched understanding that a vaccine is a microorganism, either alive but weakened, or dead, that is introduced into the human body in order to trigger the production of antibodies that confer immunity from the targeted disease, and also prevent its transmission to
others. The public is accustomed to these traditional vaccines and understands them.

* The public is fundamentally uninformed about the gene therapy technology behind the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.” Referring to the “mRNA technology” in its Vaccine, Moderna admits the “novel and unprecedented nature of this new class of medicines” in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

Further, it admits that the FDA classes its Vaccine as a form of “gene therapy.” No dead or attenuated virus is used in the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.” Rather, instructions, via a piece of lab-created genetic code (the mRNA) are injected into your body that tell your body how to make a certain “spike protein” that is purportedly useful in attacking the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

By referring to the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID19 Vaccine” as “vaccines,” and by allowing others to do the same, the Defendants knowingly seduce and mislead the public, short-circuit independent, critical evaluation and decision-making by the consumers of these products, and vitiate their informed consent to this novel technology which is being deployed in the unsuspecting human population for the first time in history.

Meanwhile, the federal government is orchestrating a nationwide media campaign funded with $1 billion — not to ensure that the Defendants meet their statutory disclosure obligations, but solely to promote the purported benefits of the Vaccines.

Global Media Capture

Simultaneously, the Associated Press, Agence France Press, British Broadcasting Corporation, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The
Hindu Times, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post and The New York Times all participate in the “Trusted News Initiative” which has agreed to not allow any news critical of the Vaccines.

Individual physicians are being censored on social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok), the modern day “public square.” Plaintiff AFLDS has recorded innumerable instances of social media deleting scientific content posted by AFLDS members that runs counter to the prevailing Vaccine narrative, and then banning them from the platform altogether as users. Facebook has blocked the streaming of entire events at which AFLDS Founder Dr. Simone Gold has been an invited guest, prior to her uttering a word.
Other doctors have been banned for posting or tweeting screenshots of government database VAERS.
The censorship also extends to medical journals. In an unprecedented move, the four founding topic editors for the Frontiers in Pharmacology journal all resigned together due to their collective inability to publish peer-reviewed scientific data on various drugs for prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19.
Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy, a cardiology physician, former France Health Minister, 2017 candidate for Director of the WHO and former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, described the censorship in chilling detail:
The Lancet boss said, “Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data, because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently, methodologically perfect but in reality, which manage to conclude what they want to conclude.” … one of the greatest subjects never anyone could have believed …
I have been doing research for 20 years in my life. I never thought the boss of The Lancet could say that. And the boss of the New England Journal of Medicine too.
He even said it was “criminal” — the word was used by him. That is, if you will, when there is an outbreak like the COVID-19, in reality, there are people … us.

Related Articles:

Almost a year after the first Covid-19 case was reported in Wuhan City, China and caused an unprecedented global panic, a group of scientists made the first crucial breakthrough by determining that the virus is not spread by a-symptomatic transmission. 

This groundbreaking finding of the study, performed by 19 scientists from China, the UK and Australia in which almost 10 million people participated, change the entire protocol regarding preventative measures to curb the spreading of the virus - including mask-wearing, lockdowns and social distancing.   

The first human cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19, subsequently named SARS-CoV-2 were first reported by officials in Wuhan City, China, in December 2019.

WUHAN, China, December 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) –

A study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan, China, found that asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 did not occur at all, thus undermining the need for lockdowns, which are built on the premise of the virus being unwittingly spread by infectious, asymptomatic people.

Published in November in the scientific journal Nature Communicationsthe paper was compiled by 19 scientists, mainly from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, but also from scientific institutions across China as well as in the U.K. and Australia. It focused on the residents of Wuhan, ground zero for COVID-19, where 9,899,828 people took part in a screening program between May 14 and June 1, which provided clear results as to the possibility of any asymptomatic transmission of the virus.

Asymptomatic transmission has been the underlying justification of lockdowns enforced all across the world. The most recent guidance from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still states that the virus “can be spread by people who do not have symptoms.” In fact, the CDC claimed that asymptomatic people “are estimated to account for more than 50 percent of transmissions.”

U.K. Health Secretary Matt Hancock also promoted this message, explaining that the concept of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 led to the U.K. advocating masks and referring to the “problem of asymptomatic transmission.”

However, the new study in Nature Communications, titled “Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly 10 million residents of Wuhan, China,” debunked the concept of asymptomatic transmission. 

It stated that out of the nearly 10 million people in the study, “300 asymptomatic cases” were found. Contact tracing was then carried out and of those 300, no cases of COVID-19 were detected in any of them. “A total of 1,174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19.”

Both the asymptomatic patients and their contacts were placed in isolation for two weeks, and after the fortnight, the results remained the same. “None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period.”

Further evidence showed that “virus cultures” in the positive and repositive asymptomatic cases were all negative, “indicating no ‘viable virus' in positive cases detected in this study.”

Ages of those found to be asymptomatic ranged between 10 and 89, with the asymptomatic positive rate being “lowest in children or adolescents aged 17 and below” and highest rate found among people older than 60.

The study also made the realization that due to a weakening of the virus itself, “newly infected persons were more likely to be asymptomatic and with a lower viral load than earlier infected cases.”

These results are not without precedent. In June, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, shed doubt upon asymptomatic transmission. Speaking at a press conference, Van Kerkhove explained, “From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”

She then repeated the words “It’s very rare,” but despite her word choice of “rare,” Van Kerkhove could not point to a single case of asymptomatic transmission, noting that numerous reports “were not finding secondary transmission onward.”

Her comments went against the predominant narrative justifying lockdowns, and at the time the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) highlighted that “she undermined the last bit of rationale there could be for lockdowns, mandated masks, social distancing regulation, and the entire apparatus of compulsion and coercion under which we’ve lived for three months.”

Swift to act, the WHO performed a U-turn, and the next day Van Kerkhove then declared that asymptomatic transmission was a “really complex question … We don’t actually have that answer yet.”

“I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies,” she added.

However, the new Wuhan study seems to present solid, scientific evidence that asymptomatic transmission is not just rare but nonexistent. Given that it found “no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious,” the study raises important questions about lockdowns. 

Commenting on the study, The Conservative Tree House noted that “all of the current lockdown regulations, mask wearing requirements and social distancing rules/decrees are based on a complete fallacy of false assumptions.” The evidence presented in the study shows that “‘very rare’ actually means ‘never’ asymptomatic spread just doesn’t happen – EVER.”

Such a large scientific study of 10 million people should not be overlooked, Jeffrey Tucker argued in the AIER, as it should be “huge news,” paving the way “to open up everything immediately.” Yet media reports have been virtually nonexistent and “ignored,” a fact that Tucker explained: “The lockdown lobby ignores whatever contradicts their narrative, preferring unverified anecdotes over an actual scientific study of 10 million residents in what was the world’s first major hotspot for the disease we are trying to manage.”

The recent findings should enable society to reopen once more, according to the AIER. Without asymptomatic transmission, “the whole basis for post-curve-flattening lockdowns,” life should resume and “we could take comfort in our normal intuition that healthy people can get out and about with no risk to others.”

 “We keep hearing about how we should follow the science,” Tucker added. “The claim is tired by now. We know what’s really happening.” 

He closed his commentary with the question: “With solid evidence that asymptomatic spread is nonsense, we have to ask: Who is making decisions and why?"



No Covid-19 cases



Amazing how quickly the COVID-19 phenomenon paralyzed and bankrupted the economy for most small and medium-sized businesses and forced everybody indoors to work "online" from home . . . while the stock markets clearly show which two industries are enjoying the biggest boom in history since Wuhan cried COVID!

The telecommunication and pharmaceutical tycoons will not allow ANYTHING to kill or curb this magic money-spinning bug that kick-started the global implementation of the new PR buzz words - "New Normal, Internet of Things, New World Order, Fourth Industrial Revolution, Pandemic, Social Distancing, Covi-pass, Vaccination."

Covid is here to stay and so-called "new waves" and outbreaks will continuously justify more lockdowns, economic crashes and political unrest until at least 50% of the world population has been bankrupted and vaccinated and so demoralized that they will welcome the New World Order and Economic Reset . . .

Big Pharma unscathed by Covid-19 crisis as market caps soar in Q2 2020 


Big Tech’s Investments Surge Amid The Pandemic. Here’s Where They’re Placing Bets




THIS is MY generation's legacy to our children and future generations?

People who STILL believe one or other instant vaccine hastily manufactured by "caring philanthropists" will "end the pandemic" so that life will return to "normal", have some serious thinking and research to do.

BIG bucks in vaccines


Pharmaceutical companies pay up to $10 billion in "penalties" for illegal activities ranging from price fixing to suppressing lethal side effects and fraudulent representation of research data . . . and they are legally protected against all claims regarding vaccine injuries or fatalities.

The efficiency and safety of these instant Covid vaccines that are now tested on humans are so sketchy, questionable and prematurely promoted that it is an insult to science (and humanity) to even consider mandatory vaccinations. Scientists admit they do not even know whether a vaccine is the right route to pursue against Covid and whether it will have any long-term benefit - never mind the potential harmful side-effects it can have?

In Denmark, thousands of people took to the streets in mass protest gatherings to successfully stop new legislation for mandatory vaccination.

A law in Denmark that would have given authorities the power to forcibly inject people with a coronavirus vaccine has been abandoned after nine days of public protests.

The ‘epidemic law’ would have handed the Danish government the power to enact mandatory quarantine measures against anyone infected with a dangerous disease, but it was the part about vaccinations that caused the biggest uproar.


The Council of the District of Columbia City on Tuesday passed the dangerous and predatory bill B23-0171 which permits children 11 years old and older to consent to vaccines on their own without parental knowledge or consent.

The bill also requires insurance companies, vaccine providers and schools to conceal the fact that the child has been vaccinated from the parent. And it sets up these young children to be targets of bullying and coercion to be vaccinated behind their parents backs.


As pharmaceutical firms gear up for mass vaccinations and treatments for COVID-19, based on this research, is there anything we should be looking out for?

Absolutely. Firms with high historical incidences of illegal activity are more likely to engage in the fraudulent representation of research data, the suppression of negative side-effects, and the false marketing of their products. It is very much related to COVID-19 research in that a firm with a history of misconduct would have a higher probability of lying about the efficacy of their vaccines or therapeutic treatments.

Are penalties just part of doing business?
It is only part of doing business if one believes that illegal activity is a legitimate business strategy. Otherwise, it is an indication of poor governance and leadership. Further, research I have done with Belk College colleagues Ted Amato (Economics) and Dean Jennifer Troyer (Economics) provides evidence that links illegal activity with reduced drug innovation. In other words, cheating is a substitute for innovation.

The billions of dollars in penalties – nearly $10 billion in the case of GlaxoSmithKlein – could instead have been spent on research and development.

What can government regulators learn from your research?
Aggressive oversight and enforcement are vital to ensure that pharmaceuticals are safely utilized and that pricing is consistent with federal regulations. In particular, to deter such behavior, it will be important to act on 2015 guidance from the Department of Justice, which requires that executives, and not just shareholders, be held liable for corporate misconduct. In addition, providing consistent and strong incentives for whistle-blowers is essential. Finally, there is ample room for additional regulation to better protect Americans from false or misleading information regarding drug efficacy and overpricing.

Since prescription drugs are critical to the health of citizens, should big pharmaceuticals be held to a higher standard?
All large pharmaceutical companies pledge to improve human welfare. Yet, the majority use marketing and pricing strategies that harm patient welfare to improve their bottom lines. Because of this hypocrisy, the pharmaceutical industry consistently ranks at the bottom among Gallup’s U.S. industry reputation rankings.


Unfortunately, the trials' results were announced via press releases, leaving many scientific uncertainties that will dictate how the vaccines will affect the course of the pandemic. Little safety data are available. How well the vaccines work in older people or those with underlying conditions and their efficacy in preventing severe disease are still unclear. Peer-reviewed publication should resolve these issues, but other questions will not be answerable for some time. For one, the duration of protection is unknown and will have a huge bearing on the practicalities and logistics of immunisation (will boosters be needed? How often?).




Covid vaccine makes Moderma CEO overnight a billionaire


Related Articles:




The launch of 57 more satellites by SpaceX in the early morning of Friday, August 7, at 1:12 AM EDT, has brought the number of SpaceX’s “Starlink” satellites orbiting in the Earth’s ionosphere up to 595.

Although this was the first launch since June 13, SpaceX has not been idle during this time. It has built additional ground stations and has received permission from the Federal Communications Commission to operate (so far) 40 ground stations, scattered throughout the United States. It has signed up customers to begin “beta testing” of the satellites that are already in orbit. Beta testing will occur initially, says SpaceX, with customers who live between 44 and 52 degrees latitude in the northern U.S. and southern Canada. SpaceX plans to begin the testing sometime in September.

SpaceX’s launch of April 22, which brought the number of its satellites up to 420, was accompanied by reports of heart palpitations from far and wide, including from yours truly. I again felt strong heart palpitations that began early in the morning on August 7. Actually I began to experience a feeling of oppression Thursday night about two hours before the launch time. Please contact me if you have been having heart palpitations since Friday’s launch.



OneWeb, which is based in the UK, and which had declared bankruptcy in March, has been bailed out to the tune of one billion dollars by the UK government and Indian telecommunications company Bharti Global. And on May 26, 2020, OneWeb applied to the FCC for permission to compete on an equal footing with SpaceX by launching 47,844 satellites into the ionosphere.

Although OneWeb’s offices are in the UK, none of its Directors lives there. Its CEO, Adrián Steckel, is Mexican, and the rest of its Directors live in the U.S., Germany, Israel and Mexico. Its major stockholders are Qualcomm (Singapore), SoftBank Group (Japan), and 1110 Ventures (U.S.).


On July 29, 2020, the FCC granted Amazon’s application to launch 3,236 satellites into the ionosphere. Like the satellites of SpaceX and OneWeb, Amazon’s satellites will operate at millimetre wave frequencies and use phased array technology to cover the Earth with focused beams of radiation enabling customers to access the Internet from anywhere on Earth, on land or ocean.

The satellites of SpaceX, OneWeb and Amazon alone, if they are all launched, will total, together, about 92,000 satellites. If you add in Iridium and Globalstar, which are already operating small constellations, and the plans of Facebook, Link, Canadian companies Kepler and Telesat, the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation, Russia’s Roscosmos, and other competitors, there could soon be 100,000 satellites orbiting in the ionosphere.

“But will you wake for pity’s sake”*

The out-of-control satellite industry is one of the stupidest things humankind has ever created. It treats the life-giving envelope of our atmosphere as if we don’t depend on it. It poses an immediate threat to life on Earth, in so many ways.



The 100,000 planned 5G satellites, each with a designed lifespan of 5 to 10 years, must be constantly de-orbited and replaced. This means that at least 10,000 satellites will have to be launched every year, forever into the future. If an average of 50 satellites can be launched on each rocket, that’s 200 rocket launches per year, just to maintain the satellites used for cell phones and Internet. And it means the de-orbiting of 10,000 worn out satellites per year, burning them up in the atmosphere and turning them into toxic dust and smoke. And that’s not counting the ever-increasing numbers of weather, research, tracking, monitoring, surveillance, military, and other kinds of satellites and missiles being launched in what will soon be a parade of rockets burning prodigious quantities of fossil fuels, punching holes in our atmosphere on a daily basis, and treating the source of all life as Earth’s largest garbage pit.

Martin Ross of the Aerospace Corporation and other researchers have been modeling the effects of daily rocket launches on ozone and global temperatures. Rocket exhaust, depending on the type of fuel used, may contain chlorine and/or oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen, and/or aluminum, all of which destroy ozone. SpaceX’s kerosene-fueled rockets deposit enormous amounts of black soot into the stratosphere, where it accumulates, absorbing solar radiation and warming the stratosphere. The warming of the stratosphere accelerates the chemical reactions that destroy ozone.



Most rockets are launched from the northern hemisphere. And the winter and spring of 2020 saw the largest and longest-lasting Arctic ozone hole in history. Ozone-watchers did not know what caused it, but they were not communicating with the scientists who are studying rocket exhaust. Our world is full of specialists, deaf and blind to other specialties, collectively asleep and marching toward oblivion.

Atmospheric physicists do not study astronomy. Astronomers do not study electricity. Electricians do not study biology. Medical doctors do not study acupuncture. Doctors of oriental medicine do not study atmospheric physics. But the universe is not fragmented, it is a whole, and our culture has forgotten what that is, to its peril and to the peril of everything alive.

The ionosphere is a source of high voltage that controls the electric circuitry of the biosphere and everything in it, including the fine-tuned circuitry of every human, every animal, every tree, and every fish. If we do not immediately stop the destruction of our fragile blanket of electrified air, upon which we depend for growth, healing, and life itself, climate change and ozone destruction may not matter. Beta testing begins in September.


On Thursday, August 13, 2020, from 7 to 9 PM EDT (2300 to 0100 UTC), Americans for Responsible Technology will host a meeting about the 5G satellites on Zoom that will be simulcast on Facebook. In the first hour, four presenters will speak for 15 minutes each:

Ben Levi, technology consultant, will summarize the current satellite situation. Where are we now, and what is forecast over the next few years?

Joe Sandri has a law degree and has training and experience in radiofrequency engineering. He will describe how the satellites work. How will a typical 5G transmission use the satellites? What kinds of earth stations will be required?

Arthur Firstenberg will talk about the impact of the satellites on people and the environment. How will the electrical environment of the earth be altered by constant transmission of 5G signals?

Julian Gresser, attorney, will address what is being done legally to stop this. What right does the FCC or any other agency have to authorize the use of space for private commercial interests? What are the legal and ethical principles involved?

The second hour of the meeting will consist of a discussion among the presenters, followed by questions from the online audience, which will include members of the press.

Attend by Zoom (limited space). Participants must register in advance: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwkdeqoqjIiGNx6dqXjti7HrZHqle3LNwrH

Watch on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/1176845649355076 


Covid virus

When SpaceX begins its beta testing in the northern United States and southern Canada later this summer, the single biggest obstacle to recognizing its effects on humans will be COVID-19. Because no matter how many people sicken or die in that part of the world, it will be blamed on the coronavirus.

The pandemic began with 5G. 5G came to Wuhan shortly before the outbreak of COVID-19 there. 5G came to New York City streetlamps shortly before the outbreak of COVID-19 there. COVID-19 deprives the blood of oxygen, while radio waves deprive the cells of oxygen. COVID-19, alone, is just a respiratory virus like the common cold. But together with 5G, it is deadly. To deal with COVID-19 effectively, society must first recognize the harm done to the body by radio waves. 5G is radio waves on steroids.

This worker’s death was not caused by hot weather, as was reported by the media

Instead of acknowledging the harm from radio waves, society is tearing its fabric apart by instituting measures that are protecting no one and are instead sickening and killing people. I will mention just one of those measures here: facial masks.

As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”

I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

  • Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
  • Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
  • Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
  • In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
  • A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.
  • Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”
  • Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
  • Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.
  • Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
  • Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
  • Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
  • Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
  • Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
  • Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes -- two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.

Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.

“We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,” writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.

* from Christopher Fry, A Sleep of Prisoners, 1951.

Arthur Firstenberg, American physicist and writer

August 11, 2020

Related Articles: