The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis
Linked article contains full video and full transcript. The info is not dangerous or even wrong and no one is so stupid they should be kept from viewing it.
I think the lockdowns are the single biggest public health mistake in history. I think the lockdowns have, as Martin said, have failed to protect the vulnerable. The lockdowns have led to many, many, many unnecessary deaths, both directly as a result of the lockdowns, And also indirectly through this misplaced faith in the ability of the lockdowns to protect the vulnerable. We should instead have adopted a policy, and most places, should have adopted a policy that got rid of lockdowns and instead focused on people we knew to be truly vulnerable to disease, older populations, people with certain chronic diseases, adopted policies, actually much more similar to what Florida has done, rather than the state where I live, California, which has relied on lockdowns to a disastrous effect.Great Barrington Declaration Scientists with Gov. DeSantis in Florida
Research on SARS-CoV-2 RNA by scientists at Harvard and MIT has implications for how mRNA vaccines could permanently alter genomic DNA, according to Doug Corrigan, Ph.D., a biochemist-molecular biologist who says more research is needed.
…The preliminary evidence cited by the Harvard-MIT researchers indicates that endogenous reverse transcriptase enzymes may facilitate reverse transcription of coronavirus RNAs and trigger their integration into the human genome.
The authors suggest that while the clinical consequences require further study, detrimental effects are a distinct possibility and — depending on the integrated viral fragments’ “insertion sites in the human genome” and an individual’s underlying health status — could include “a more severe immune response … such as a ‘cytokine storm’ or auto-immune reactions.”
In 2012, a study suggested that viral genome integration could “lead to drastic consequences for the host cell, including gene disruption, insertional mutagenesis and cell death.”Could mRNA Vaccines Permanently Alter DNA? Recent Science Suggests They Might.
This article provides a good description of how the Pfizer vaccine works: Reverse Engineering the source code of the BioNTech/Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. Piece is detailed but very clear. Gist is “gee whiz” and positive for getting vacs.
This comment expresses doubt about what crosses the blood-brain barrier and potential harm from that:
Thanks for apprising me of that paper. It helps to illuminate and builds upon many of the concerns I’ve been hearing among colleagues about potential tissue trafficking and localization. If indeed the spike protein components (as translated from the transduced vaccine mRNA) are expressed at high enough levels, this seems to raise additional questions about the potential for the gene product to cross the blood-brain barrier through adsorptive transcytosis even if expressed outside of it.link to full comment
UPDATE: Here are some very important pieces of information. This comment describes what could happen if mRNA crosses the blood-brain barrier.
I think Chemist’s point is that the lipid nanoparticles may have too broad a tropism, far broader even than attenuated virus vaccines (which are still limited to the tropism of the wild-type virus), and thus could pose a uniquely high safety hazard due to cytotoxic attack on the broad cellular range that uptakes the LNPs. Since the LNPs would enter cells via endocytosis, the SARS-CoV-2 epitopes would be expressed on MHC-1 molecules, making them targets of cytotoxic CD8 lymphocytes, attacking a much greater range of cells than any previous vaccine modality. This is concerning in general, but it’s a nightmare scenario if the vaccines are crossing the blood-brain barrier and endocytosing into e.g. oligodendrocytes (multiple sclerosis risk) or motor neurons (which could possibly cause an ALS-type picture). No other vaccine has this broad tropism. That is THE major safety concern here — been working on submitting a comprehensive question to Derek about this very topic. link
And this comment claims that mRNA does cross the blood-brain barrier.
Since this article was posted, the European Medicines Agency Assesment Reports for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines have been published, which both find some biodistribution, including across the blood/brain barrier.
The Moderna study used an intramuscular injection of the same LNP as the vaccine (but a different mRNA), and found that “low levels of mRNA could be detected in all examined tissues except the kidney [, which] included heart, lung, testis and also brain tissues, indicating that the mRNA/LNP platform crossed the blood/brain barrier, although to very low levels (2-4% of the plasma level)”, with rapid clearing from most tissues.
I think the Pfizer results are consistent with that: with radiolabelled LNP they found that “distribution from the [IM] injection site to most tissues occurred”, but again disproportionately more to the liver.
Full details can easily be found at the European Medicines Agency. link
This is just basic information we all need to understand what is happening and how we will react to it. ABN
Wonder how they will explain this. Probably something like: “It was a dramatization! Science shows that people follow film more reliably than words, you know.”
I’ve read about 1/2 of this paper. So far it is quite good and includes many references. Most readers of this site are probably well-aware of most of the information in the paper. Good to have it all in one place and worth sending to friends or relatives who have not kept up with the research. Link to the paper just below. 32 pages:
POINT ONE: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The Nuremberg Code is extremely clear on what “voluntary consent” means.
Just released today. Runs about one hour.
Vitamin D is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Random effects meta-analysis of the 19 treatment studies to date results in an estimated reduction of 62% in the effect measured, RR 0.38 [0.27-0.54].link to original
Hudson presents a calm overview of the data yet this evidence-based talk was banned by youtub. About 30 min. Recommended. ABN
Ever since the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization for two new vaccines, employers, schools, and other organizations are grappling with whether to require Covid-19 vaccination.
While organizations are certainly free to encourage their employees, students, and other members to be vaccinated, federal law provides that, at least until the vaccine is licensed, individuals must have the option to accept or decline to be vaccinated.
Knowing what an organization can or cannot do with respect to Covid-19 vaccines can help them keep their employees, students, and members safe and also save the them from costly and time-consuming litigation.Federal law prohibits employers and others from requiring vaccination with a Covid-19 vaccine distributed under an EUA
This “campaign” is immoral because the vaccine is experimental. The government has no authority to herd citizens toward participation in a medical experiment. The fist line of the Nuremberg Code states unambiguously: The voluntary [informed] consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.