Courtesy of Jonathan, a Crypto Analyst and Harvard Grad.

The only time I’ve tweeted on getting blocked. If you forego top doctors, epidemiologists, & a medical Nobel Laureate for a pharmacist–while these former have been accurate on COVID before everyone else–you are really an idiot. Just no idea how to examine issues seriously.

Dr. Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry on the WHO’s approach to COVID

Dr. Alan Preston, Prof of Epidemiology: “This is a rookie 101 mistake in epidemiology. You don’t take the incidence rate to figure out the [case] fatality. You look at the prevalence. & it was stunning that the media would put on these so-called experts & not raise this issue.”

Sen. Dr. Scott Jenson, M.D. The information in this thread is in this Tony Robbins interview

Dr. Michael Roizen, Chief Wellness Officer at the Cleveland Clinic. On the COVID-19 fatality rate:

Dr. Michael Roizen, Chief Wellness Officer at the Cleveland Clinic.

Dr. Artin Massihi

Dr. Artin Massihi, on the difficulty people have of adjusting to new data that shows COVID is similar to the flu.

Dr. Eran Bendavid, Professor of Medicine at Stanford, on mainstream COVID narrative data:

Dr. Eran Bendavid, Professor of Medicine at Stanford. Reference: Dr. Michael Roizen, Chief Wellness Officer at the Cleveland Clinic, on COVID fatality rate: “Look at 60 & under, it’s less than .002%.”

Dr. Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry

Dr. Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry. On COVID deaths:

Dr. Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry. “The total number of excess [COVID] deaths [as of May 7] is 160,000, maybe 170,000. Basically, that’s about the same number of people who died in excess way in the flu season of 2017/2018.”

Dr. Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry. On COVID deaths being counted as COVID deaths, “no matter what the cause,” thus inflating & falsifying the reported number of COVID deaths you see in the news.

An N-95 mask filters out particulate matter larger than .3 microns. So the question then is how big is a COVID particle. A COVID particle is about .1 micron….this idea of people doing anything particularly useful w…a mask is just LOONEY TUNES.” – Sen. Dr. Scott Jenson, M.D.

From the New England Journal of Medicine on masks for COVID: “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.”

From the US Department of Labor, on surgical masks for COVID: “Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”

From “Inside Surgery,” a premier surgeon’s journal, in 2009 during the swine flu outbreak, in an article titled “Standard Surgical Masks Do Not Protect Wearer From Getting Swine Flu.” “For the prevention of transmission of swine flu this type of mask is ESSENTIALLY WORTHLESS.”

If you believe COVID fatality numbers that Western govts & the mainstream media give you at face-value, you’re not thinking at all. “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.”

More on DROPLETS: Oral Health Journal: “Traditionally face masks have been recommended to protect…from the ‘DROPLET’ route of infection….[BUT] neither the filter performance nor the facial fit…qualify them as being devices which protect against respiratory infections.”

Remember, a COVID-19 particle is .1 micron. Continuing from 27/: “Masks were INCAPABLE of filtering out 80-85% of particles varying in size from .3 to 2.0 (!) microns….the filter material of face masks does NOT retain or filter to viruses or other submicron particles.”

The primary reason for mandating…face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are INCAPABLE of providing such….protection. Unless the CDC [et all] admit this, they will be GUILTY OF PERPETUATING A MYTH.”

More from OHJ: “Between 2004 & 2016 at least a dozen research or review articles have been published on the inadequacies of face masks. All agree that the poor facial fit & limited filtration…of face masks make them unable to prevent the wearer inhaling airborne particles.”

The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety in 2016: “The filter material of surgical masks does not retain or filter out submicron particles [COVID-19 is .1 micron, thus a submicron].”

Dr. Leonie Walker, Principal Researcher of the New Zealand Nurses Organization: “There are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection [against influenza]. The masks we use are not designed for such purposes.”

For those claiming N-95 offer more protection than surgical or other masks, here are studies & meta-studies (studies that compile MULTIPLE studies) that show that in fact, N-95 masks (which filter 95% of .3 microns+) are as helpless against viral-sized particles (.1 microns)

prevent spit & mucous (bacteria) from entering wounds, but are NOT used to prevent airborne viral particles, which are too small to be seen, & too small to be filtered by N-95 masks on down. Mask-wearers don’t seem to realize they CANNOT SEE viral particles entering masks.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *