• Greg Reese: Hydrogels in COVID "Vaccine" as Programmable Human Interface - 🙄 LET US HELP YOU FILL IN THE BLANKS!

    https://www.brighteon.com/0606b225-a522-4d6d-a3cc-7289633d4b03
    Greg Reese: Hydrogels in COVID "Vaccine" as Programmable Human Interface - 🙄 LET US HELP YOU FILL IN THE BLANKS! https://www.brighteon.com/0606b225-a522-4d6d-a3cc-7289633d4b03
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 213 Views
  • https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2024/February/PDF/covid-vaccines-trigger-autoimmune-graves-disease-pdf.pdf
    https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2024/February/PDF/covid-vaccines-trigger-autoimmune-graves-disease-pdf.pdf
    0 Comments 0 Shares 202 Views
  • https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/02/19/covid-vaccines-trigger-autoimmune-graves-disease.aspx
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/02/19/covid-vaccines-trigger-autoimmune-graves-disease.aspx
    ARTICLES.MERCOLA.COM
    Health Care Workers Got Graves' Disease After Getting This
    Two studies recently noted that some female health care workers developed Graves' disease after receiving this treatment.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 229 Views
  • New Zealand OIA request reveals the COVID vaccines increased your risk of dying
    Chris Johnston submitted a OIA request to the New Zealand health authorities. The official response shows that the vaccines didn't protect people from COVID. It killed them.

    Steve Kirsch
    Executive summary

    New Zealand resident Chris Johnston submitted an OIA request (similar to a FOIA) to the New Zealand health officials.

    I analyze the results in this article.

    Short story: The data they returned shows that the COVID vaccines didn’t save anyone from dying from COVID. They did the opposite: they increased mortality. Even worse, when COVID deaths peaked in July 2022, the vaccinated were disproportionately affected.

    In short, they lied. Their own data shows that if you followed their advice, it was more likely you’d die during a COVID outbreak.

    Are you surprised?

    The data

    You can download the source data from the public link.

    I’ve downloaded the data, changed the numbers to numbers, did a pivot table analysis on the data, and posted it all to the New Zealand repository in this folder:

    data-transparency\New Zealand\FOIA responses\vaxxed vs unvaxxed deaths
    Their analysis of the data released under OIA

    I’m not aware of any respected epidemiologist who has published an analysis of that data showing that the COVID vaccines are safe and effective.

    Odd. I wonder why? There must be a reason!!!

    This is, for now, the gold-standard data on mortality of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated because the NZ health authorities won’t release the record level data so this is the best we have.

    It’s not as good as the record level data that New Zealand released earlier, but it’s not bad and we can draw some important conclusions from the data.

    You’d think that the epidemiologists worldwide would be all over this data. And all the trolls on X who claim to be expert in statistics would be all over it as well.

    But there is not an analysis in sight! Just hand waving attacks on my post on X that I’m a liar, etc. The usual stuff.

    Maybe if we looked at the data ourselves, we might have a clue!

    The analysis

    Here’s a plot of the data they provided:


    Two things jump out immediately in looking at this graph:

    Monthly death tolls hit new highs after the COVID vaccines roll out. These are excess deaths. They started making fresh highs after dose 2 and and after dose 3. Some deaths after March 2022 could be ascribed to COVID, but that’s a bit odd since the death spike is in the vaccinated, not the unvaxxed, and the vaccine is supposed to protect you from dying from COVID. Also, the variant was Omicron which wasn’t very deadly. So if people were vaccinated and died from a mild COVID variant, this should be very alarming to the authorities if they were paying attention.

    The deaths for the unvaccinated are relatively flat over time. So the excess deaths in New Zealand clearly was caused by a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

    But this interpretation based on the aggregated data could be misleading. For example, suppose that everyone over 40 years old was vaccinated and everyone under 40 was not vaccinated. The differential in death rates could be due to the mix of ages in the two groups.

    So to account for that we can either compute an age-standardized mortality rate for the two groups (which we don’t have the data to do since we don’t know the population sizes) or we can simply age-stratify the graphs. Since we can’t do the former, we’ll do the latter.

    Age 81 to 100 analysis

    Let’s start with 81 to 100 since that is the range where we have the most deaths so the data will have less statistical noise.

    Because I used pivot tables, it’s trivial to use the popup menu in cell H1 to change the age range to 81 to 100. Here’s the new graph restricted to ages 81 to 100.


    All-cause deaths in New Zealand by vaccination status at time of death. This chart is ages 81 to 100.
    Let’s look at that peak in July 2022. This is when there was a huge COVID outbreak in New Zealand:


    Official NZ COVID deaths. You can find this in the New Zealand repo (NZ official COVID deaths.xlsx)
    So how did the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated fare? The spreadsheet tells us:

    If you were unvaxxed, the death count went from 94 to 103. If you were vaxxed, the death count went from 1662 to 1992 during “peak COVID.”

    If the vaccine protects people, the increase will be smaller for the vaccinated.

    One little problem: it’s not!

    Here is the calculation:


    So there you go. If you got the shots, your mortality skyrocketed during peak COVID.

    The vaccine didn’t reduce your risk of dying from COVID. It increased your risk.

    It was a simple sign error!

    There is no need to look further. This was the big test and the vaccines failed.

    This is why no mainstream epidemiologist is ever going anywhere near this data.

    You’ll only see the analysis from “misinformation spreaders” such as myself.

    The gaslighting attempts

    They’ll try to gaslight you into believing that the mortality was higher in the vaccinated because the healthy people avoided vaccination and chose not to participate in New Zealand society. Right. Sure. The data Barry Young released shows the opposite: it was the healthier people who opted for the shots. This makes the disparity even more troubling.

    Of course, we’ll never get a chance to discuss this publicly in an open debate because nobody will show up.

    Summary

    The reason mainstream epidemiologists are avoiding the latest New Zealand data drop from the health authorities is that it shows the vaccines increased your risk of dying from COVID.

    So these epidemiologists stay silent and refuse to be questioned or participate in any public discussions about the data.

    That’s how science works!

    Share

    https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=548354&post_id=141812115&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=7oxwj&utm_medium=email


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-covid.html
    New Zealand OIA request reveals the COVID vaccines increased your risk of dying Chris Johnston submitted a OIA request to the New Zealand health authorities. The official response shows that the vaccines didn't protect people from COVID. It killed them. Steve Kirsch Executive summary New Zealand resident Chris Johnston submitted an OIA request (similar to a FOIA) to the New Zealand health officials. I analyze the results in this article. Short story: The data they returned shows that the COVID vaccines didn’t save anyone from dying from COVID. They did the opposite: they increased mortality. Even worse, when COVID deaths peaked in July 2022, the vaccinated were disproportionately affected. In short, they lied. Their own data shows that if you followed their advice, it was more likely you’d die during a COVID outbreak. Are you surprised? The data You can download the source data from the public link. I’ve downloaded the data, changed the numbers to numbers, did a pivot table analysis on the data, and posted it all to the New Zealand repository in this folder: data-transparency\New Zealand\FOIA responses\vaxxed vs unvaxxed deaths Their analysis of the data released under OIA I’m not aware of any respected epidemiologist who has published an analysis of that data showing that the COVID vaccines are safe and effective. Odd. I wonder why? There must be a reason!!! This is, for now, the gold-standard data on mortality of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated because the NZ health authorities won’t release the record level data so this is the best we have. It’s not as good as the record level data that New Zealand released earlier, but it’s not bad and we can draw some important conclusions from the data. You’d think that the epidemiologists worldwide would be all over this data. And all the trolls on X who claim to be expert in statistics would be all over it as well. But there is not an analysis in sight! Just hand waving attacks on my post on X that I’m a liar, etc. The usual stuff. Maybe if we looked at the data ourselves, we might have a clue! The analysis Here’s a plot of the data they provided: Two things jump out immediately in looking at this graph: Monthly death tolls hit new highs after the COVID vaccines roll out. These are excess deaths. They started making fresh highs after dose 2 and and after dose 3. Some deaths after March 2022 could be ascribed to COVID, but that’s a bit odd since the death spike is in the vaccinated, not the unvaxxed, and the vaccine is supposed to protect you from dying from COVID. Also, the variant was Omicron which wasn’t very deadly. So if people were vaccinated and died from a mild COVID variant, this should be very alarming to the authorities if they were paying attention. The deaths for the unvaccinated are relatively flat over time. So the excess deaths in New Zealand clearly was caused by a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But this interpretation based on the aggregated data could be misleading. For example, suppose that everyone over 40 years old was vaccinated and everyone under 40 was not vaccinated. The differential in death rates could be due to the mix of ages in the two groups. So to account for that we can either compute an age-standardized mortality rate for the two groups (which we don’t have the data to do since we don’t know the population sizes) or we can simply age-stratify the graphs. Since we can’t do the former, we’ll do the latter. Age 81 to 100 analysis Let’s start with 81 to 100 since that is the range where we have the most deaths so the data will have less statistical noise. Because I used pivot tables, it’s trivial to use the popup menu in cell H1 to change the age range to 81 to 100. Here’s the new graph restricted to ages 81 to 100. All-cause deaths in New Zealand by vaccination status at time of death. This chart is ages 81 to 100. Let’s look at that peak in July 2022. This is when there was a huge COVID outbreak in New Zealand: Official NZ COVID deaths. You can find this in the New Zealand repo (NZ official COVID deaths.xlsx) So how did the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated fare? The spreadsheet tells us: If you were unvaxxed, the death count went from 94 to 103. If you were vaxxed, the death count went from 1662 to 1992 during “peak COVID.” If the vaccine protects people, the increase will be smaller for the vaccinated. One little problem: it’s not! Here is the calculation: So there you go. If you got the shots, your mortality skyrocketed during peak COVID. The vaccine didn’t reduce your risk of dying from COVID. It increased your risk. It was a simple sign error! There is no need to look further. This was the big test and the vaccines failed. This is why no mainstream epidemiologist is ever going anywhere near this data. You’ll only see the analysis from “misinformation spreaders” such as myself. The gaslighting attempts They’ll try to gaslight you into believing that the mortality was higher in the vaccinated because the healthy people avoided vaccination and chose not to participate in New Zealand society. Right. Sure. The data Barry Young released shows the opposite: it was the healthier people who opted for the shots. This makes the disparity even more troubling. Of course, we’ll never get a chance to discuss this publicly in an open debate because nobody will show up. Summary The reason mainstream epidemiologists are avoiding the latest New Zealand data drop from the health authorities is that it shows the vaccines increased your risk of dying from COVID. So these epidemiologists stay silent and refuse to be questioned or participate in any public discussions about the data. That’s how science works! Share https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=548354&post_id=141812115&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=7oxwj&utm_medium=email https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-covid.html
    KIRSCHSUBSTACK.COM
    New Zealand OIA request reveals the COVID vaccines increased your risk of dying
    Chris Johnston submitted a OIA request to the New Zealand health authorities. The official response shows that the vaccines didn't protect people from COVID. It killed them.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2318 Views
  • Largest Covid-19 vaccine study yet finds links to health conditions
    Published: 12:31pm, 19 Feb, 2024

    Vaccines that protect against severe illness, death and lingering long Covid-19 symptoms from a coronavirus infection were linked to small increases in neurological, blood, and heart-related conditions in the largest global vaccine safety study to date.

    The rare events – identified early in the pandemic – included a higher risk of heart-related inflammation from mRNA shots made by Pfizer Inc, BioNTech SE, and Moderna Inc, and an increased risk of a type of blood clot in the brain after immunisation with viral-vector vaccines such as the one developed by the University of Oxford and made by AstraZeneca Plc.

    The viral-vector jabs were also tied to an increased risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a neurological disorder in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the peripheral nervous system.

    https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3252387/largest-covid-19-vaccine-study-yet-finds-links-health-conditions
    Largest Covid-19 vaccine study yet finds links to health conditions Published: 12:31pm, 19 Feb, 2024 Vaccines that protect against severe illness, death and lingering long Covid-19 symptoms from a coronavirus infection were linked to small increases in neurological, blood, and heart-related conditions in the largest global vaccine safety study to date. The rare events – identified early in the pandemic – included a higher risk of heart-related inflammation from mRNA shots made by Pfizer Inc, BioNTech SE, and Moderna Inc, and an increased risk of a type of blood clot in the brain after immunisation with viral-vector vaccines such as the one developed by the University of Oxford and made by AstraZeneca Plc. The viral-vector jabs were also tied to an increased risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a neurological disorder in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the peripheral nervous system. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3252387/largest-covid-19-vaccine-study-yet-finds-links-health-conditions
    WWW.SCMP.COM
    Largest Covid-19 vaccine study yet finds links to health conditions
    More than 13.5 billion doses of Covid vaccines have been administered globally over the past three years. A small proportion were injured by the shots, stoking debate about their benefits versus harms.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 690 Views
  • https://rumble.com/v1pdwme-95-of-corpses-received-covid-19-vaccination-within-2-weeks-of-death-funeral.html
    https://rumble.com/v1pdwme-95-of-corpses-received-covid-19-vaccination-within-2-weeks-of-death-funeral.html
    0 Comments 0 Shares 184 Views
  • https://rumble.com/v4agvzr-dr.-peter-mccullough-covid-vaccines-have-killed-over-17-million-globally-ov.html
    https://rumble.com/v4agvzr-dr.-peter-mccullough-covid-vaccines-have-killed-over-17-million-globally-ov.html
    0 Comments 0 Shares 177 Views
  • ⛔️Covid Narrative Collapsing

    “I’m not a Doctor but I have a pHD in recognising Bullshit”

    “You rushed the Vaccines”
    “You knew Covid posed almost NO risk”
    “You knew about the Side Effects”
    “You knew about Myocarditis

    The whole Covid Scam continues to be exposed - listen to US Republican Marjorie Taylor Green absolutely ruin US Covid decision makers in court.

    The pack of lies upon which the house of cards was built is in complete free fall.

    Nuremberg 2.0 anyone?
    💊Redpilling👉 Telegram | Twitter
    ⛔️Covid Narrative Collapsing “I’m not a Doctor but I have a pHD in recognising Bullshit” “You rushed the Vaccines” “You knew Covid posed almost NO risk” “You knew about the Side Effects” “You knew about Myocarditis The whole Covid Scam continues to be exposed - listen to US Republican Marjorie Taylor Green absolutely ruin US Covid decision makers in court. The pack of lies upon which the house of cards was built is in complete free fall. Nuremberg 2.0 anyone? 💊Redpilling👉 Telegram | Twitter
    0 Comments 0 Shares 786 Views 0
  • ⛔️ Covid Vaccines GAME OVER

    Nigel Farage DESTROYS Covid Vaccine Narrative

    “I want to know why we were LIED to”
    “I want to know why Kids were given the vaccine”
    “A lot of young men have developed myocarditis”

    Those that have been asleep are in for a rude awakening…
    💊Redpilling👉 Telegram | Twitter
    ⛔️ Covid Vaccines GAME OVER Nigel Farage DESTROYS Covid Vaccine Narrative “I want to know why we were LIED to” “I want to know why Kids were given the vaccine” “A lot of young men have developed myocarditis” Those that have been asleep are in for a rude awakening… 💊Redpilling👉 Telegram | Twitter
    0 Comments 0 Shares 619 Views 0
  • Kyoto University Professor Emeritus Masanori Fukushima on COVID vaccines:

    "Well, let's just say it, it's murder. You could even say a massacre has occurred."

    Daringly, if we don't say something so radical, people might not wake up.

    What's happening is that every citizen must protect democracy.

    That's the only statement. We can only tell the truth as it is.
    Kyoto University Professor Emeritus Masanori Fukushima on COVID vaccines: "Well, let's just say it, it's murder. You could even say a massacre has occurred." Daringly, if we don't say something so radical, people might not wake up. What's happening is that every citizen must protect democracy. That's the only statement. We can only tell the truth as it is.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 466 Views 2
  • Hydrogels in COVID Vaccine as Programmable Human Interface

    From Ana Maria Mihalcea’s "Hydrogel Platform Enables Versatile Data Encryption And Decryption"

    Greg ReeseFeb 16
    The following report is from Doctor Ana Maria Mihalcea’s recent article entitled, "Hydrogel Platform Enables Versatile Data Encryption And Decryption"

    The building blocks of Hydrogels are being found in the COVID vaccine, and Hydrogels are being found in the blood of both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. They are the so-called blood clots that are being found around the world. And these Hydrogels can now be programmed, encrypted and decrypted. According to Mihalcea, they are the substrate of the brain computer interface and the primary method of fusing humans with machines as she described by referencing MIT research in the article, “Hydrogel Interfaces for Merging Humans and Machines”

    Elements which Mihalcea and Clifford Carnicom found with Near Infrared spectroscopy in the blood of the unvaccinated exposed to shedding and environmental contamination include hydrogel plastics such as polyenes, vinyl, nylon, kevlar, and spider silk proteins. As well as other nanotechnology signatures such as silicone and sulfur. This technology hijacks methyl groups, which are needed to detoxify and create Glutathione in the body. Hydrogels used for the encrypted programmable technology include polyvinyl alcohol and polycaprolacton. Both of these Hydrogels are listed as stealth nanoparticles in the Moderna patent for lipid nanoparticle composition. This suggests that not only those who received the shot have this hydrogel encryption technology in their bodies, but also those who have experienced shedding and environmental contamination. Which is just about everyone.

    These hydrogels are known to be programmable and encrypted. This technology can behave as brain storage. It can store memories and visual information in an individual’s brain. And it can be chemical-induced to be securely encrypted and decrypted allowing for the secure recording and storage of confidential visual information. This provides a platform for secure financial transactions, which is a requirement for a digital ID.

    MIT researchers have discussed how this very same technology can be used to fuse humans with machines. And while they’ve had problems working it out in the past, a recent paper has announced they’ve found success using the very same elements found in both the blood of the vaccinated and unvaccinated by Mihalcea and Carnicom.

    In a lecture by Professor Sakhrat Khizroev at the University of Miami, it is discussed how advanced materials can be used for interfacing machines and the human brain. He references a research project funded by DARPA wherein magnetic nanoparticles are key to this technology. Mihalcea has published research that shows how the COVID shots alter torsion fields in the body and produce magnetism. A review by the Rand Corporation, “Brain Computer Interfaces: US Military Applications and Implications” discusses the convergence of human with machine.

    In an interview with Big Pharma whistleblower, Karen Kingston, Kingston discusses this self assembly nanotechnology and how the spike protein is an engineered device, triggered by electromagnetic frequency, and how the Quantum Dots are gene editing technology. This nanotechnology appears to be distributed via Chemtrails, the food and water supply, medications, and in all of the scheduled vaccines for children. It has been found by multiple scientists in the blood of both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And the fact that this widespread technology is being ignored while the topic of mRNA is being pushed into the mainstream, is of great concern.

    Mihalcea has shown that the new protocols being sold to the public as a way of reversing the negative effects of the COVID shots, have no effect on these Hydrogels. And it would seem that well over a billion people are infected with them.

    While many are talking about an archaic implanted computer chip, it seems that the latest breakthrough technology has already been deployed without anyone’s consent.

    The situation almost seems hopeless, but where there is a will there is a way. And now is not the time to hide our head in the sand. The human body is miraculous and our potential is endless. The more people addressing this dire situation, the better chances we have of finding a remedy.

    https://rumble.com/v4dqd6t-hydrogels-in-covid-vaccine-as-programmable-human-interface.html
    Hydrogels in COVID Vaccine as Programmable Human Interface From Ana Maria Mihalcea’s "Hydrogel Platform Enables Versatile Data Encryption And Decryption" Greg ReeseFeb 16 The following report is from Doctor Ana Maria Mihalcea’s recent article entitled, "Hydrogel Platform Enables Versatile Data Encryption And Decryption" The building blocks of Hydrogels are being found in the COVID vaccine, and Hydrogels are being found in the blood of both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. They are the so-called blood clots that are being found around the world. And these Hydrogels can now be programmed, encrypted and decrypted. According to Mihalcea, they are the substrate of the brain computer interface and the primary method of fusing humans with machines as she described by referencing MIT research in the article, “Hydrogel Interfaces for Merging Humans and Machines” Elements which Mihalcea and Clifford Carnicom found with Near Infrared spectroscopy in the blood of the unvaccinated exposed to shedding and environmental contamination include hydrogel plastics such as polyenes, vinyl, nylon, kevlar, and spider silk proteins. As well as other nanotechnology signatures such as silicone and sulfur. This technology hijacks methyl groups, which are needed to detoxify and create Glutathione in the body. Hydrogels used for the encrypted programmable technology include polyvinyl alcohol and polycaprolacton. Both of these Hydrogels are listed as stealth nanoparticles in the Moderna patent for lipid nanoparticle composition. This suggests that not only those who received the shot have this hydrogel encryption technology in their bodies, but also those who have experienced shedding and environmental contamination. Which is just about everyone. These hydrogels are known to be programmable and encrypted. This technology can behave as brain storage. It can store memories and visual information in an individual’s brain. And it can be chemical-induced to be securely encrypted and decrypted allowing for the secure recording and storage of confidential visual information. This provides a platform for secure financial transactions, which is a requirement for a digital ID. MIT researchers have discussed how this very same technology can be used to fuse humans with machines. And while they’ve had problems working it out in the past, a recent paper has announced they’ve found success using the very same elements found in both the blood of the vaccinated and unvaccinated by Mihalcea and Carnicom. In a lecture by Professor Sakhrat Khizroev at the University of Miami, it is discussed how advanced materials can be used for interfacing machines and the human brain. He references a research project funded by DARPA wherein magnetic nanoparticles are key to this technology. Mihalcea has published research that shows how the COVID shots alter torsion fields in the body and produce magnetism. A review by the Rand Corporation, “Brain Computer Interfaces: US Military Applications and Implications” discusses the convergence of human with machine. In an interview with Big Pharma whistleblower, Karen Kingston, Kingston discusses this self assembly nanotechnology and how the spike protein is an engineered device, triggered by electromagnetic frequency, and how the Quantum Dots are gene editing technology. This nanotechnology appears to be distributed via Chemtrails, the food and water supply, medications, and in all of the scheduled vaccines for children. It has been found by multiple scientists in the blood of both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And the fact that this widespread technology is being ignored while the topic of mRNA is being pushed into the mainstream, is of great concern. Mihalcea has shown that the new protocols being sold to the public as a way of reversing the negative effects of the COVID shots, have no effect on these Hydrogels. And it would seem that well over a billion people are infected with them. While many are talking about an archaic implanted computer chip, it seems that the latest breakthrough technology has already been deployed without anyone’s consent. The situation almost seems hopeless, but where there is a will there is a way. And now is not the time to hide our head in the sand. The human body is miraculous and our potential is endless. The more people addressing this dire situation, the better chances we have of finding a remedy. https://rumble.com/v4dqd6t-hydrogels-in-covid-vaccine-as-programmable-human-interface.html
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3121 Views
  • Let’s Talk Detox on Better Way Today
    You can also find this video on: Rumble | Facebook | Bitchute

    Join us as we learn all about detoxification with our resident health coach, Linda Rae. Linda shares her knowledge on detoxing – what it is, why it matters, and how to do it right. So sit down, grab a pencil and paper, and get ready to detox!

    We live on a poisoned planet. Whether it’s fluoride in the water, chemtrail agents in the air, parabens in cosmetics, or pesticides sprayed on our vegetables – it’s a challenge to avoid toxins these days.

    Linda’s presentation identifies sources of toxic substances to be aware of, the body’s organ systems they affect, symptoms to look out for, and actions we can take to reduce exposure to toxins and get rid of them from our bodies. From nutritious, protective food choices to homemade deodorants, skin brushing, and castor oil packs, there is a lot we can do.

    Linda’s detox basics presentation can be found here as a standalone video as well – perfect for sharing with family and friends!

    Tune in for the latest Better News with Christof Plothe, DO and Emma Sron, World Council for Health announcements, and to see where WCH has been out and about in the last week! Here is some of what we discussed on today’s show:

    Australians abandon failed mRNA Covid shots

    Historic #FluorideLawsuit Happening Right Now: Everything You Need to Know

    5 Takeaways From This Week’s Testimony in Landmark Fluoride Trial

    The WHO Overplays its Hand and Watches Support Drain Away

    Photos from the Irish Expedition to expose the WHO power grab

    All eyes on Ireland and the Crotty Judgment

    More About Linda Rae

    Linda is a certified Health Coach and founder of Blissful Mum, a health coaching service that offers personalised health coaching to empower mothers to prioritise their well-being, ensuring they can create a nurturing and joyful family environment.
    Drawing on her training as a health coach and her professional experience in occupational therapy and mental health, combined with personal experience of being a mother of two young boys, Linda provides tailored support to help mothers navigate the complexities of motherhood, improve their health, and find fulfillment in their roles.
    Linda’s mission is to foster happy families by guiding mothers toward a balanced and healthy lifestyle.
    View all previous episodes of our live shows here.

    Mhttps://rumble.com/v4cyra6-lets-talk-detox-on-better-way-today.html
    Let’s Talk Detox on Better Way Today You can also find this video on: Rumble | Facebook | Bitchute Join us as we learn all about detoxification with our resident health coach, Linda Rae. Linda shares her knowledge on detoxing – what it is, why it matters, and how to do it right. So sit down, grab a pencil and paper, and get ready to detox! We live on a poisoned planet. Whether it’s fluoride in the water, chemtrail agents in the air, parabens in cosmetics, or pesticides sprayed on our vegetables – it’s a challenge to avoid toxins these days. Linda’s presentation identifies sources of toxic substances to be aware of, the body’s organ systems they affect, symptoms to look out for, and actions we can take to reduce exposure to toxins and get rid of them from our bodies. From nutritious, protective food choices to homemade deodorants, skin brushing, and castor oil packs, there is a lot we can do. Linda’s detox basics presentation can be found here as a standalone video as well – perfect for sharing with family and friends! Tune in for the latest Better News with Christof Plothe, DO and Emma Sron, World Council for Health announcements, and to see where WCH has been out and about in the last week! Here is some of what we discussed on today’s show: Australians abandon failed mRNA Covid shots Historic #FluorideLawsuit Happening Right Now: Everything You Need to Know 5 Takeaways From This Week’s Testimony in Landmark Fluoride Trial The WHO Overplays its Hand and Watches Support Drain Away Photos from the Irish Expedition to expose the WHO power grab All eyes on Ireland and the Crotty Judgment More About Linda Rae Linda is a certified Health Coach and founder of Blissful Mum, a health coaching service that offers personalised health coaching to empower mothers to prioritise their well-being, ensuring they can create a nurturing and joyful family environment. Drawing on her training as a health coach and her professional experience in occupational therapy and mental health, combined with personal experience of being a mother of two young boys, Linda provides tailored support to help mothers navigate the complexities of motherhood, improve their health, and find fulfillment in their roles. Linda’s mission is to foster happy families by guiding mothers toward a balanced and healthy lifestyle. View all previous episodes of our live shows here. Mhttps://rumble.com/v4cyra6-lets-talk-detox-on-better-way-today.html
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3651 Views
  • CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness

    World Council for Health
    This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.

    cdc masks ineffective covid feature
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker.

    The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness.

    During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus.

    If this content is important to you, share it!

    Share

    However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker.

    “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender.

    To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote.

    CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness

    According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.”

    In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.”

    The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two.

    The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong.

    “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said.

    The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.”

    More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks.

    According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness.

    Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children.

    According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”

    “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted.

    Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science

    Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.”


    twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334
    That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19.

    However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote.

    “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks.

    “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted.


    twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585
    According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control.

    In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.”



    According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies.

    “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.”

    The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said.

    Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said.

    “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote.

    Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.”

    Risch said:

    “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective.

    “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.”

    Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others.

    “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.”

    “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added.

    In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness.

    A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness.

    According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.”

    A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer.

    A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

    According to the findings of the meta-analysis:

    “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions.

    “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.”

    Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy.

    Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.”

    In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.”

    A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.”

    Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.”

    “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.”

    “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said.

    Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America.

    “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said.

    “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added.

    Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.”

    “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender.

    “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said.

    If this content is important to you, share it with your network!

    Share

    This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.


    If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.

    Upgrade to Paid Subscription

    Refer a friend

    Donate Subscriptions

    Give Direct to WCH

    https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness World Council for Health This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. cdc masks ineffective covid feature The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. If this content is important to you, share it! Share However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334 That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585 According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. If this content is important to you, share it with your network! Share This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense. If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you. Upgrade to Paid Subscription Refer a friend Donate Subscriptions Give Direct to WCH https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    WORLDCOUNCILFORHEALTH.SUBSTACK.COM
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5695 Views
  • Work From Home Job USA $6000 Per - Months http://tinyurl.com/wj7hd4pj
    #workfromhome #dirumahaja #wfh #covid #entrepreneur #stayathome #business #stayhome #motivation #success #money #staysafe #work #onlinebusiness #love #socialdistancing #makemoneyonline #digitalmarketing #homeoffice #networkmarketing #smallbusiness #marketing #coronavirus #financialfreedom #workfromhomelife #businessowner #affiliatemarketing #instagram #makemoney #lockdown
    Work From Home Job USA $6000 Per - Months http://tinyurl.com/wj7hd4pj #workfromhome #dirumahaja #wfh #covid #entrepreneur #stayathome #business #stayhome #motivation #success #money #staysafe #work #onlinebusiness #love #socialdistancing #makemoneyonline #digitalmarketing #homeoffice #networkmarketing #smallbusiness #marketing #coronavirus #financialfreedom #workfromhomelife #businessowner #affiliatemarketing #instagram #makemoney #lockdown
    Love
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2215 Views
  • MSM FINALLY COVERS COVID VACCINE INJURIES 💉☠ BANNED.VIDEO
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/gkqJeGDfAY2z/
    MSM FINALLY COVERS COVID VACCINE INJURIES 💉☠ BANNED.VIDEO https://www.bitchute.com/video/gkqJeGDfAY2z/
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 221 Views
More Results