Table of Contents

Home Treatment Options pg 1
Masks & Covid-19 pg 2, pg3
Covid-19 Injections pg 4, pg5
Covid-19 Resources: Exemptions, Additional Treatment Protocols & Information pg 6

Covid-19 Info

You can’t know what you’re never exposed to. The current agenda within our country prevents a vast majority of our population from ever even having exposure to any unbiased and honest information. The NAGO Covid-19 Info & Resource page is intended to provide honest evidence and information that allows each individual to determine their own course of health and wellness. Let’s dive in.

Covid-19 illness is thought to be caused by a virus called SARS CoV-2 virus. Conveniently the symptoms listed for people thought to be infected with the virus are also the exact same symptoms as any cold, flu, upper respiratory or gastrointestinal infection. These symptoms can include: fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, fatigue and so on. It is important to recognize that there is nothing new going on here. People have experienced ALL of these symptoms following onset of various illnesses.

We have seen a lot of differing information based on the sources used and even simply as we progress through this situation. Therefore, it is essential we do our research so we can understand why this viral infection is so dangerous we are ruining our economy and eroding the freedoms of others.

What we do know, covid-19 most severely effects those with co-morbidity. Individuals with other illness like diabetes, cancer, auto-immune disorders, etc. Keep in mind, this has always been the case, even the flu, strep, pneumonia, or any infection can pose a greater risk to vulnerable individuals. Don’t assume “underlying medical conditions” are limited to an actual “diagnosis.” The American diet is horrific; soda drinkers, high sugar/low nutrient diets, lack of supplementation or crap supplements, prescriptions drugs, lack of exercise and sunlight will all make a person more susceptible and also lead to a harder recovery.

The virus doesn’t like heat. Therefore, fever reducers are actually contraindicated. It is important to remember the fever is the body’s first line of defense. This also means hot liquids like herbal teas, bone broth, chicken soup are all great things to consume if you begin to feel an illness coming on. While fever reducers might make you feel better, it really is just going to prolong the illness. Especially Tylenol because it suppresses the body’s glutathione levels, which are imperative to fighting illness. Tylenol also interferes with cytokines, which is why asthmatics should avoid acetaminophen, it only makes sense covid patients should not take it either.

You can read more about Tylenol here. ( Coming Soon )

WHY ALL THE ASYMPTOMATIC POSITIVES?

Studies have shown a false positive rate of 80.33%. Coincidentally, coronavirus is in the flu shot, specifically, the Trivalent, pushed this past season. The PCR tests from the beginning were never intended to be used as a diagnostic tool. Dr. Mike Yeadon (former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer for 16 years) stated “…a true positive does not necessarily indicate the presence of viable virus…” These tests simply measure the presence of partial RNA sequence present in the intact virus which could be a piece of dead virus that cannot make the subject sick, cannot be transmitted, and cannot make anyone else sick. Even the CDC states the PCR tests being utilized should not be used to determine the absence or presence of covid-19. ALL RT-qPCR-positive test results used to categorize patient as “Covid-19 cases” have not been held to the standard of any prior PCR tests. For example, the HPV PCR test must show a minimum of 100 contiguous bases matching the reference sequence with an expected value. The PCR tests for Covid-19 have been <10-30 for the specific SARS-CoV-2 gene sequences. This means that unless this test is performed between the 3rd and 5th day after the 1st day of symptoms it has a nearly 100% false positive rate and makes it absolutely asinine to test asymptomatic, healthy, individuals.

Flu Shot & Covid Risks

It’s also important to keep in mind that flu shot recipients will have a harder time with this simply because flu shots weaken the respiratory system and may cause a positive detection of coronavirus.

( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31607599?fbclid=IwAR0JTnVz_GviEexgVNi0obfjSznbEGLQSFTssD7ugJsqcz9GKJzeyMQmzg0 )

The key to properly handling your own health and wellness is understanding the signals your body is giving you and the tools you have at your disposal to address these signals. For some, they prefer the allopathic model; utilizing pharmaceuticals and other medical interventions. Others may prefer a more natural or holistic approach to addressing a state of dis-ease. Fortunately, in this country, you are free to choose whichever approach you deem appropriate for yourself and your family. The important part is that individuals have the knowledge and tools they prefer available to them when it is needed without interference or imposition by the government or our public health system.

***Additional treatment resources available on page 6. For questions, comments, or concerns contact info@nago.group

Masks & Covid-19

Masks are ineffective and in many ways they harm. It is a myth that masks prevent viruses from spreading. The overall evidence is clear: Standard cloth and surgical masks offer next to no protection against virus-sized particles or small aerosols.

• The size of a virus particle is much too small to be stopped by a surgical mask, cloth or bandana. A single virion of SARS-CoV-2 is about 60-140 nanometers or 0.1 microns.
• The pore size in a surgical mask is 200-1000x that size. Consider that the CDC website states, “surgical masks do not catch all harmful particles in smoke.” And that the size of smoke particles in a wildfire are ~0.5 microns which is 5x the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus! Wearing a mask to prevent catching SARS-CoV-2, or similarly sized influenza, is like throwing sand at a chain-link fence: it doesn’t work. There has been one large randomized controlled trial that specifically examined whether masks protect their wearers from the coronavirus. This study found mask wearing “did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of Sars-Cov-2-infection.”
• Consider also, that the existence of more particles does not mean more virus. Research shows less virus does not mean less illness. Dr. Kevin Fennelly, a pulmonologist at the National Heart, Lung and Blood institute debunked the view that larger droplets are responsible for viral transmission.
  • Fennelly wrote: “current infection control policies are based on the premise that most respiratory infections are transmitted by large respiratory droplets- i.e., larger than 5 [microns] – produced by coughing and sneezing, …Unfortunately, that premise is wrong.”
  • Fennelly referenced a 1953 paper on anthrax that showed a single bacterial spore of about one micron was significantly more lethal than larger clumps of spores.
• Exposure to one virus particle is theoretically enough to cause infection and subsequent disease. This is not an alarming thought – it simply means what it has always meant, that our immune system protects us continually all our life.
• There have been hundreds of mask studies related to influenza transmission done over several decades. It is a well-established fact that masks do not stop viruses. “Part of that evidence shows that cloth facemasks actually increase influenza-linked illness.”
• Bacteria are 50x larger than virus particles.
• As such, virus particles can enter through the mask pores, yet bacteria remain trapped inside of the mask, resulting in the mask-wearer continually exposed to the bacteria.
• Related to the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, there was almost universal agreement among experts, that deaths were virtually never caused by the influenza virus itself but resulted directly from severe secondary pneumonia caused by well-known bacterial “pneumopathogens” that colonized the upper respiratory tract.
  • Dr. Fauci and his National Institute of Health studied pandemics and epidemics and concluded, “the vast majority of influenza deaths resulted from secondary bacterial pneumonia.”
• All parties mandating the use of facemasks are not only willfully ignoring established science but are engaging in what amounts to a whole clinical experimental trial. This conclusion is reached by the fact that facemask use and COVID-19 incidence are being reported in scientific opinion pieces promoted by the CDC and others.
• The fact is after reviewing ALL of the studies worldwide, the CDC found “no reduction in viral transmission with the use of face masks.”
• Additionally, in the case of children, they have been repeatedly shown not to be drivers of this contagion. It is well-accepted that children have a statistically zero chance of dying from COVID. The CDC shows the K-12 mortality rate from or with COVID is .00003.
• Any intervention, especially one that is prophylactic, must cause fewer harms to the recipient than the infection. Since children have the lowest death rate from COVID infection, the cost-benefit of requiring children to wear an investigational face-covering with emerging safety issues is especially difficult to justify. Anthony Fauci was very clear that asymptomatic transmission was not a threat. He stated, “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.”
• Wearing respirators come(s) with a host of physiological and psychological burdens. These can interfere with task performances and reduce work efficiency. These burdens can even be severe enough to cause life-threatening conditions if not ameliorated.
• Fifteen years ago, National Taiwan University Hospital concluded that the use of N-95 masks in healthcare workers caused them to experience hypoxemia, a low level of oxygen in the blood, and hypercapnia, an elevation in the blood’s carbon dioxide levels.
• Studies of simple surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In one particular study, researchers measured blood oxygenation before and after surgeries in 53 surgeons. Researchers found the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels significantly, and the longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the drop in blood oxygen levels.
• Moreover, people with cancer, will be at a further risk from hypoxia, as cancer cells grow best in a bodily environment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes systemic inflammation which, in turn, promotes “the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.”
• Repeated episodes of low oxygen, known as intermittent hypoxia, also “causes atherosclerosis” and hence increases “all cardiovascular events” such as heart attacks, as well as adverse cerebral events like stroke.
• Furthermore, the mandatory mouth mask in schools is a major threat to a child’s development. It ignores the essential needs of a growing child. The well-being of children and young people is highly dependent on the emotional connection with others. Masks create a threatening and unsafe environment, where emotional connection becomes difficult.
• Informed consent is required for investigational medical therapies.
  • Regardless of the lack of safety and efficacy behind the decision to require a child to wear a mask, it is illegal to mandate EUA approved investigational medical therapies without informed consent. Mask use for viral transmission prevention is authorized for Emergency Use only.
  • Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, means “the products are investigational and experimental” only.
  • The statute granting the FDA the power to authorize a medical product of emergency use requires that the person being administered the unapproved product be advised of his or her right to refuse administration of the product.
  • This statute further recognizes the well-settled doctrine that medical experiments, or “clinical research,” may not be performed on human subjects without the express, informed consent of the individual receiving treatment.
  • The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamental, rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and further codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the Unites States regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects for medical research.
• The law is very clear; It is unlawful to conduct medical research (even in the case of emergency), unless steps taken to … secure informed consent of all participants.
• Furthermore, by requiring children especially to wear a mask, they are promoting the idea that the mask can prevent or treat a disease, which is an illegal deceptive practice. It is unlawful to advertise that a product or service can prevent…disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence… substantiating that the claims are true.
• The FDA EUA for surgical and/or cloth masks explicitly states, “the labeling must not state or simply… that the [mask] is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related, or for use such as infection prevention or reduction.”
• Upon examination of a box of commercial masks, you will see masks do not claim to keep out viruses. Illegally mandating an investigational medical therapy generates liability. There are no efficacy standards on child-sized masks and respirators under OSHA, but there are proven microbial challenges as well as breathing difficulties that are created and exacerbated by masking children. Requiring children to wear a mask sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID19, and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, a mask may very well put children at an increased risk of infection, and if so, having a far worse outcome.
• The fact that mask wearing presents a severe risk of harm to the wearer should – standing alone – not be required for children, particularly given that these children are not ill and have done nothing wrong that would warrant an infringement of their constitutional rights and bodily autonomy. Promoting use of a non-FDA approved, Emergency Use Authorized mask, is unwarranted and illegal. This mandate is in direct conflict with Section 360bbb-3€(1)(A)(ii)(I-III), which requires the wearer to be informed of the option to refuse the wearing of such “device.” Misrepresenting the use of a mask as being intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection, and/or misrepresenting masks for use as infection prevention or reduction is a deceptive practice under the FTC. It is clear, there is no waiver of liability under deceptive practices, even under a state of emergency.
• As such, forcing individuals to wear masks, or similarly forcing use of any other non-FDA approved medical product without consent (or the consent of the child’s gaurdian), is illegal and immoral.

Sources:

1. https://www.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4221
2. Berenson, A (November 24, 2020). Unreported Truths about Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part3: Masks
3. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
4. https://www.thelanced.com/journals.lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30323-4/fulltext
5. https://www.thelanced.com/journals.lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30323-4/fulltext
6. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090313150254.htm
7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
8. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/virus-vs-bacteria-difference
9. The pathology and bacteriology of pneumonia following influenza. Chapter IV, Epidemic respiratory disease. The pneumonias and other infections of the respiratory tract accompanying influenza and measles, 1921 St, LouisCV Mosby (p. 107-281)
10. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/198/7/962/2192118
11. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
12. Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling (Volume 26, Number 5, May of 2020).
13. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schoolschildcare/k-12-testing.html
14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1orSO094uY
15. Arthur Johnson, Journal of Biological Engineering (2016).
16. The Physiological Impact of N95 Masks on Medical Staff, National Taiwan University Hospital (June 2005).
17. Bader A et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126..
18. Aggarwal BB. Nucler factor-kappaB: The enemy within. Cancer Cell 2004;6:203-208, and Blaylock RL. Immunoexcitatory mechanisms in glioma proliferation, invasion and Occasional metastasis. Surg Neurol Inter 2013;4:15.
19. Savransky V et al. Chronic intermittent hypoxia induces atherosclerosis. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2007;175:1290-1297.
20. https://www.world-today-news.com/70-doctors-in-open-letter-to-ben-weyts-abolish-mandatory-mouth-mask-atschool-belgium/
21. https://www.fda.gov/media/137121/download
22. https://ca.childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/CDE-Superintendent-Letter0from-Childrens-HealthDefense-California-Chapter.pdf
23. 21 U.S.C.§ S360bbb-3 (The FD&C Act)
24. 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A) (“Section 360bbb-3”)
25. C.F.R. § 50.20
26. http://www.invertedalchemy.com/2020/12/belief-is-not-medical-counter-measure.html, 21 C.F.R. § 50.23, 21C.F.R. §50.20 21 C.F.R. § 50.24
27. FTC Act, 15 U.S. Code § 41
28. https://www.fda.gov/media/137121/download
29. Russell Blaylock, Id. (quoting Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulatesTh1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376. See also: Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84. See further: Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the premetastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355.

Cloth masks do nothing more than signal we are in submission to psychological warfare.

Below are over 40 additional peer reviewed studies showing cloth masks are worthless.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18500410/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00173017
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18331781/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35797-3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577#T1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28039289/
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20584862/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29855107/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29678452/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25806411/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23108786/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25858901/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5333967/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002691
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
https://vimeo.com/424254660
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=276231940292992&ref=watch_permalink
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0t84p6H4XA
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face%20e-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematicreview/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.488.4644&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/testing-the-efficacy-of-homemade-masks-would-they-protect-in-an-influenza-pandemic/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/11/3/494/397025
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2011.0537
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009018
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-12-106
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2010.0686
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12560-011-9056-7

Continued Reading on the Next Page…

Additional Reading on Mass Masking

Key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

• Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419.
N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

• Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. DOI:10.1017/S0950268809991658
None of the studies reviewed showed the benefit of wearing a mask in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

• bin-Reza et al. (2012), “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.
“There were 17 eligible studies. […] None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

• Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835
“We identified 6 clinical studies … In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in the associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

• Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681

• Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs. Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial”, JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824-833. DOI:10.1001/jama.2019.11645
“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371, completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … 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.”

• Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381

No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for healthcare workers or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in the contaminated public.

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit. Masks and respirators do not work.

Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

• Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?
• Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
• Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerosolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
• What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
• How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?
• What are long-term health effects on healthcare workers, employees, and students, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?
• Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?
• Are there negative psychological consequences of wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification?
• What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?
• Do the masks shed fibers or substances that are harmful when inhaled?

According to Guy Crittenden, who, for 25 years, edited the trade journal HazMat Management THAT MASK IS GIVING YOU LUNG CANCER (This was posted on Facebook, Oct 23rd, 2020.)

“I happen to know a thing or two about masks and safety. Why? Because for 25 years I was the editor of an award-winning trade magazine called HazMat Management that covered such topics as pollution prevention and compliance with health & safety laws. We routinely published articles on masks, gloves, respirators and other forms of personal protective equipment (PPE). Now let me tell you a few things about that mask you’re wearing. And please note that what I’m about to share was also stated in the most recent edition of Del Bigtree’s program The Highwire when two OSHA mask experts spoke to the fact that the kinds of masks people are wearing were never (never!) designed to be worn for long periods and doing so is very harmful.

The blue typical mask depicted in the photograph contain Teflon and other chemicals. A Facebook friend reminds us: 1. Masks are “sterilized” with Ethylene Oxide — a known carcinogen. Many teachers in various school boards have been experiencing significant symptoms as a direct result of the effects of this chemical. 2. The masks contain (not sprayed with) PTFE which makes up Teflon along with other chemicals. I found and have posted the US patent to allow manufacturers to use PTFE as a filter in commercial masks… “breathing these for extended periods can lead to lung cancer.”

Don’t agree? Argue with the experts at OSHA, which is the main US agency, i.e., its Occupational Health & Safety Agency. These masks are meant to be worn only for short periods, like say if you’re sanding a table for an hour and don’t want to inhale sawdust. They don’t do anything whatsoever to stop the spread of any virus, and the emerging science of virology now understands that viruses aren’t even passed person to person. I know that sounds incredible, but it’s the case that the virus is in the air, you breath it in, there’s no way to prevent that short of living in an oxygen tent, and if you have a strong immune system you’ll be fine, and if you have a weak immune system you may have to deal with the effects of your immune system working to restore balance within your metabolism.

So let’s say you don’t wear the blue packaged masks, and instead wear a homemade cloth mask — the kind people wear over and over and hang on their rearview mirror and so on. Those masks are completely useless against a virus, and are also very dangerous. OSHA would never condone a person wearing a mask of this kind for anything more than the shortest time. Re-breathing your own viral debris is dangerous to health, and the oxygen deprivation children suffer wearing such masks all day will certainly cause brain damage. I’m not making this up. Again, you might say, well, Guy, you’re not a doctor. True, but I did edit that magazine for 25 years. That’s a long time and many articles on masks and PPE. I’ve attended numerous OH&S conferences and listened to experts discussing these matters.

You may hear people saying that surgeons and nurses wear masks like this all day. Um, no. No they don’t. They’re trained in the proper use of masks, which is to wear them in the OR, then dispose of the mask when they leave that room. Are you aware that operating rooms are actually supplied extra oxygen, to compensate for the reduction in oxygen flow from mask wearing? To my mind, it’s criminal (not hyperbole) to force children to wear masks all day. Setting aside the very real psychological effects, we’re going to have a generation of brain damaged children. Ever heard the expression, “Not enough oxygen at birth?” That’s a joke at the expense of a mentally challenged person, but that’s literally what we’re doing. And we’re told it’s to “keep us safe”! We’re told this by doctors who actually don’t know about PPE and laypeople who have no clue.

So, you can choose to believe me or not, but I was the editor for a quarter century of a magazine that had a strong occupational health and safety mandate, and I can tell you that the mask wearing currently mandated by governments and private businesses offers no health benefit whatsoever, in no way protects you or anyone else from any virus, and actually does you damage beyond wearing it for a few minutes.Got that? Good. Now please share this message and get the conversation going with parents, who must end this masking of children immediately. This is a very serious matter. And related to that, let me just state this doesn’t end for me when the lockdown ends or the masking ends. No, this ends for me when every politician and bureaucrat who inflicted this travesty, this crime against humanity, on the population of Canada (and other affected countries) is in the dock, and faces their misdeeds in a court of law.

And as for those of you who have put masks on young children, I will have a long memory on that score. A very long memory.

END NOTE: The CDC and WHO have acknowledged that asymptomatic people do not spread the virus, so the case for masks for such people is moot in the first place.”

The Surgeon Argument

If surgeons are wearing masks it is to prevent getting blood in their mouth or accidentally spitting or sneezing in an open surgical site. Surgeons do NOT wear masks to prevent viral transmission and in many studies they’ve been deemed useless and potentially harmful.

August 11, 2020 | By Arthur Firstenberg:
“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 practice 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 anesthesia, 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.”

Face-Masks-For-All Is Not Scientific; But What’s the Harm in Wearing One Anyway?
https://www.timesofnewrome.com/2020/05/face-masks-for-all-is-not-scientific-but-whats-the-harm-in-wearing-one-anyway

Healthy People Wearing Masks, Should They or Shouldn’t They?
https://jennifermargulis.net/healthy-people-wearing-masks-during-covid19

‘Masks Are Symbolic,’ say Dr Fauci and The New England Journal of Medicine
https://hennessysview.com/masks-are-symbolic-dr-fauci/

Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era
List of authors.
Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S.
Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

Sorry Oregon, your mask is useless (according to the science)
https://www.professorhinkley.com/blog/sorry-oregon-your-mask-is-useless-according-to-the-science

Carbon Dioxide Triggers Primordial Fear of Suffocation
By Charles Q. Choi November 25, 2009
https://www.livescience.com/5910-carbon-dioxide-triggers-primordial-fear-suffocation.html

Masks, Quarantine, and Lockdown
By Dr. Les Berenson
https://lesberensonmd.com/?attachment_id=5321

Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy
https://www.citizensforfreespeech.org/blaylock_face_masks_pose_serious_risks_to_the_healthy

More Virus on Outer Mask Surfaces
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/new-study-questions-the-effectiveness-of-masks-against-sars-cov-2#More-virus-on-outer-mask-surfaces

A study published from Singapore of a group of Heath care workers where 81% reported new onset of PPE-related headaches.

Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross‐Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID‐19 – Ong – 2020 – Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain – Wiley Online Library

Others have reported dizziness, confusion, shortness of breath/nasal congestion while using N95 respirators.

The Physiological Impact of N95 Masks on Medical Staff – Full Text View – ClinicalTrials.gov

Effects of Long-Duration Wearing of N95 Respirator and Surgical Facemask: A Pilot Study http://medcraveonline.com/JLPRR/JLPRR-01-00021.pdf

Effectiveness of Surgical Cotton Masks Blocking Sars CoV 2: Controlled Comparison https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764367/effectiveness-surgical-cotton-masks-blocking-sars-cov-2-controlled-comparison1h

“The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers… The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm… Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%…. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/?fbclid=IwAR1_3XTrfkLawKb0kXibWOodV4Zs3U-4tiffAnhPEUaMG7j9cqnt4vBnP6o#__ffn_sectitle

April 22, 2015 , University of New South Wales
The widespread use of cloth masks by healthcare workers may actually put them at increased risk of respiratory illness and viral infections and their global use should be discouraged, according to a UNSW study.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-04-masksdangerous-health.html

Over 3 times the risk of contracting influenza like illness if cloth mask is used versus no mask at all
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/#__ffn_sectitle

“Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% compared to medical masks with 44%”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422121724.htm

Also please be careful using “germ killing/blocking” materials like special fabrics or ac filters. Many of these materials are coated with harsh chemicals that can majorly impact your health, especially your respiratory health. Breathing in chlorine or flame retardants all day is not a good idea.

If you’re going to Wear a Mask

Here are strategies from the WHO for reducing the potential of infecting yourself:

Before putting on a mask, clean your hands with soap and water.

Cover your mouth and nose with the mask and make sure there are no gaps between your face and the mask.

Avoid touching the mask while using it; if you have to, try to clean your hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water before doing so.

Replace the mask with a new one as soon as it is damp. Do not reuse single-use masks.

To take off the mask: Remove it from behind (do not touch the front of the mask); discard it immediately in a closed bin; and clean your hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.

Essentially, if you’re not doing all these things… You’re not doing it right. All you have is a face diaper – collecting waste all day long and spreading it all over.

Covid-19 Injections

In 2019, the ACIP stated they “cannot force vaccinate, but they can force compliance”.

In 2020, during our testimony given at the City Council meetings across the state, we warned our communities that the mandates would not end with just a mask.

Today, these experimental injections are being forced onto employees and students across the state of Nebraska in order to maintain their position.

Employers, educational institutions, hospitals, and clinics are violating the civil liberties of others in the name of the social responsibility. Which is why it is so important we raise awareness on the reality of the Covid-19 Injections

From the very beginning, doctors, researchers, medical freedom advocates, have been screaming from the rooftops about the nefarious agenda behind these injections. When asked how we know mRNA vaccines will work, Drew Weissman, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine who has spent 13 years studying the technology, answered bluntly, “We don’t.”
There have been only a handful of human trials for any mRNA infectious disease vaccine, all of which have been focused on safety. There’s yet to be a trial showing mRNA vaccines are effective and long-lasting at preventing infectious disease.

In December, just prior to the release of the Covid-19 injections, several important documents were released.

On 12/1/20 the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon filed for the IMMEDIATE suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies due to the extreme safety concerns of all trial participants. An ingredient being used in the vaccine has BIOLUMINESCENCE, and he notes that it’s great for imaging but doesn’t know why it would be in this vaccine. Possible safety concerns mentioned:

Infertility, and deadly reactions to the PEG in the vaccine, ADE (antibody dependent enhancements).
https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12_Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf

This clinical protocol above, while 146 pages, may be one of the most important pieces of literature you can read in order to gain informed consent for the Pfizer Covid-19 Injection.
Exposures, Adverse Reactions, Serious Adverse Reactions, and so much more.

“Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials of vaccine candidates have only been designed around immunogenicity as an efficacy endpoint and have not been designed to capture exposure of subjects to circulating virus after vaccination, which is when ADE/immunopathology is designed to occur. Thus, the absence of ADE evidence in COVID‐19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non‐theoretical risk to the subjects”.

The conclusion:
“While the COVID‐19 global health emergency justifies accelerated vaccine trials of candidates with known liabilities, such an acceleration is not inconsistent with additional attention paid to heightened informed consent procedures specific to COVID‐19 vaccine risks.”
(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13795)

Here is more detailed information from the study:

“Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.“

“Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”

Here is an abstract of this study on the National Library of Medicine Website: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/

December 30th, 2020, the FDA released a list of side effects that can be expected from the Covid Vaccine. Read Page 16 that has a working list with all the (serious) side effects to truly consider the risk.
https://www.fda.gov/media/143557/download?fbclid=IwAR2U4e-sAyIlFmRSsxwFnealE0E0PVEoLI6y2zFLWL2Y7QtCzpT0O41sMwM

Additional Reading:

https://healthandmoneynews.wordpress.com/2020/12/02/head-of-pfizer-research-covid-vaccine-is-female-sterilization/?fbclid=IwAR3Oey_04mGCgi1Yhcw9tjV5mLBcCz7BwOM9KC-L1CH_2bBQV3F_JEhKVso

PhD explains…
https://www.instagram.com/p/CIQ1J16A_9X/?igshid=17ag00w22r5a7&fbclid=IwAR272yR6AjI8AazJ-sQcptaB0YuyAV7kEKdAnPjrslhu2CNzSS-Zhy7vdKY

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leahrosenbaum/2020/05/08/fueled-by-500-million-in-federal-cash-moderna-races-to-make-1-billion-doses-of-an-unproven-cure

Pfizer announces deaths…
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/breaking-fda-announces-2-deaths-pfizer-vaccine-trial-participants-serious-adverse1

In the First Month…

it was not looking good for the covid-19 injection.

FROM THE CDC: 3,150 people vaccinated in ONE DAY are “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work” after vaccination.

This is a massive 2.7% of people who can no longer work after having the Pfizer vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-CLARK.pdf

Portuguese health worker, 41, dies two days after getting the Pfizer covid vaccine as her father says he ‘wants answers’
https://trib.al/eEWi66p

Mexican doctor hospitalized after receiving COVID-19 vaccine
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-mexico-vaccines-idUSKBN2970H3

Hundreds of Israelis get infected with Covid-19 after receiving Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
https://www.rt.com/news/511332-israel-vaccination-coronavirus-pfizer/

Wife of ‘perfectly healthy’ Miami doctor, 56, who died of a blood disorder 16 days after getting Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine is certain it was triggered by the jab, as drug giant investigates first death with a suspected link to shot.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9119431/Miami-doctor-58-dies-three-weeks-receiving-Pfizer-Covid-19-vaccine.html

75-year-old Israeli man dies 2 hours after getting Covid-19 vaccine.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/293865

Death of Swiss man after Pfizer vaccine.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-swiss-death-idUSKBN29413Y

88-year-old collapses and dies several hours after being vaccinated.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/293952

Thousands negatively affected after getting Covid-19 vaccine.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/thousands-negatively-affected-after-getting-covid-19-vaccine_3625914.html

Hospital worker with no prior allergies in intensive care with severe reaction after Pfizer Covid vaccine.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/16/hospital-worker-in-intensive-care-after-suffering-severe-allergic-reaction-to-covid-vaccine-13763695/

4 volunteers develop FACIAL PARALYSIS after taking Pfizer Covid-19 jab, prompting FDA to recommend ‘surveillance for cases’.
https://www.rt.com/usa/509081-pfizer-vaccine-fda-bells-palsy-covid/

Investigation launched as 2 people die in Norway nursing home days after receiving Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.
https://www.rt.com/news/511623-norway-covid19-vaccine-deaths/

Hundreds Sent to Emergency Room After Getting COVID-19 Vaccines
https://www.theepochtimes.com/hundreds-sent-to-emergency-room-after-getting-covid-19-vaccines_3644148.html

U.S. officials report more severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-allergy-idUSKBN29B2GS

NHS told not to give Covid vaccine to those with history of allergic reactions.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/09/pfizer-covid-vaccine-nhs-extreme-allergy-sufferers-regulators-reaction

COVID-19: Single vaccine dose leads to ‘greater risk’ from new coronavirus variants, South African experts warn
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-single-vaccine-dose-leads-to-greater-risk-from-new-coronavirus-variants-south-african-experts-warn-12180837

CDC reveals at least 21 Americans have suffered life threatening allergic reactions to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9119029/amp/At-21-Americans-life-threatening-anaphylaxis-receiving-Pfizers-vaccine-CDC-reveals.html

Woman experiences side effects of COVID-19 vaccine
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/woman-experiences-side-effects-of-covid-19-vaccine/amp/

COVID Vaccine Side Effects More Common After 2nd Dose.
http://www.boston.cbslocal.com/2021/01/05/covid-vaccine-side-effects-fever-reaction/amp/

Bulgaria Reports 4 Cases Of Side Effects From Pfizer Covid Vaccine.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/bulgaria-reports-4-cases-of-side-effects-from-pfizer-covid-vaccine-2347667

Two NHS workers suffer allergic reaction to Pfizer vaccine.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-vaccine-pfizer-nhs-oxford-covid-uk-cases/

23 die in Norway after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine
https://nypost.com/2021/01/15/23-die-in-norway-after-receiving-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine/

24 Dead and 137 Infected at NY Nursing Home After Experimental COVID Injections
https://documenttruth.com/?p=384256

55 People Died in US After Receiving COVID-19 Vaccines: Reporting System – https://www.theepochtimes.com/55-people-died-in-us-after-receiving-covid-19-vaccines-reporting-system_3659152.html

In Summary, in the first month, these were the REAL Covid-19 Injections Facts:

• VAERS showed 501 deaths by 1/29.

• 37 people including at least one doctor have died of very unusual platelet dysfunction— not like standard ITP

• 37 yo Ortho surgeon and others have died from “multi organ inflammation syndrome”.

• France stopped vaccinating over 65 yo due to deaths.

• Local 70 year old had sudden progressive weakness and dementia that began 1 week post Covid shot, requiring hospitalization after downhill 2 week course.

• No successful animal trial was completed because of animal deaths by mechanisms very similar to what we are seeing now in humans.

• Pfizer’s claim of 95% effectiveness was reviewed in British Medical Journal to be actually 19-30% and that was relative effectiveness. This means it doesn’t prevent disease it only lessens symptoms if you get the disease. ( Maybe) Absolute effectiveness <1%.

• Anaphylaxis rate was already 5x average rate of usual vaccines.

• mRNA technology could never pass safety standards for use as a “drug”— but is totally ok as a vaccine where there is zero liability. ( It was tried and failed as a drug therapy for Crigler-Najjar)

Drug companies stalled on looking at the issues that matter. It wasn’t just the % of injury overall, which may have been small while the drug was being rolled out. It was the type and consistency of injury. By ignoring consistent unusual side effects (think thalidomide) the problems/deaths accrue until they cannot ignore the problem.

People including doctors and nurses have been brainwashed to believe that any concerns are just “conspiracy theories” by uneducated boobs. They discount physicians and scientists speaking out, but remain unwilling to actually do the researching of the data themselves. They are taking a genetic experimental unapproved agents with zero track record, they don’t really know what’s in it, they don’t know how it works, and they don’t know the calamitous history of its development.

Given the scary history of “immune enhancement” and “pathogenic priming” when dealing with Coronaviruses, we had only begun to see the death.

• Pathogenic Priming Confirmed:
  • An independent study has confirmed the IPAK hypothesis of Pathogenic Priming.  The new study was conducted by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital and Loma Linda University School of Medicine, and Immunosciences, Inc. and was published in the journal Frontiers in Immunology.
    “Reaction of Human Monoclonal Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Proteins With Tissue Antigens: Implications for Autoimmune Diseases”: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.617089/full

Finally, unlike actual vaccines, this is gene therapy so you cant undo the effects with complimentary treatment.

• “Modified RNA has a direct effect on DNA”: https://phys.org/news/2020-01-rna-effect-dna.html?fbclid=IwAR0Q_vLLcU3f7h6f8F7if1Gtl-BevHHD2FLYHvMrJ8gCMfiKokSOUN1PrU0

• From Dr. David Martin, January 5th, 2021:

“This is not a vaccine. They are using the term ‘vaccine’ to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine.

This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards. And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission.

And that is not what this is. They (Moderna and Pfizer) have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it  is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, ‘What other treatments are there?’…

The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell. It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology – it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package.

So, we need to be really clear on making sure we don’t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation but this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine. As a result, it must be clear to everyone listening that we will not fall for this failed definition just like we will not fall for their industrial chemical definition of health. Both of them are functionally flawed and are an implicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. I get frustrated when I hear activists and lawyers say, ‘we  are going to fight the vaccine’. If you stipulate it’s a vaccine, you’ve  already lost the battle. It’s not a vaccine. It is made to make you sick.”

• From an Anonymous Doctor:

“In my previous blog, “Will an RNA Vaccine Permanently Alter My DNA?”, I laid out several molecular pathways that would potentially enable the RNA in an mRNA vaccine to be copied and permanently integrated into our DNA. I was absolutely not surprised to find that the majority of people claimed that this prospect was impossible; in fact, I was expecting this response – partly because most people don’t possess a deep enough understanding of molecular biology, and partly because of other implicit biases.
After all, we’ve been told in no uncertain terms that it would be impossible for the mRNA in a vaccine to become integrated into our DNA, simply because “RNA doesn’t work that way.”  Well, this current research which was released not too long after my original article demonstrates that yes, indeed, “RNA does work that way”. In my original article, I spelled out this exact molecular pathway.
Specifically, a new study by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA. (study linked below). This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome. They also found that the exact pathway that I laid out in in my original article is more than likely the pathway being used (retrotransposon, and in particular a LINE-1 element) for this retro-integration to occur.
And, unlike my previous blog where I hypothesize that such an occurrence would be extremely rare (mainly because I was attempting to temper expectations more conservatively due to the lack of empirical evidence), it appears that this integration of viral RNA segments into our DNA is not as rare as I initially hypothesized. It’s difficult for me to put a number on the probability due to data limitations present in the paper, but based on the frequency they were able to measure this phenomenon in both petri dishes and COVID patients, the probability is much greater than I initially anticipated. Due to this current research, I now place this risk as a more probable event than my original estimation.
To be fair, this study didn’t show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA. However, they did show, quite convincingly, that there exists a viable cellular pathway whereby snippets of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA could become integrated into our genomic DNA. In my opinion, more research is needed to both corroborate these findings, and to close some gaps.
That being said, this data can be used to make a conjecture as to whether the RNA present in an RNA vaccine could potentially alter human DNA. This is because an mRNA vaccine consists of snippets of the viral RNA from the genome of SARS-CoV-2; in particular, the current mRNA vaccines harbor stabilized mRNA which encodes the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which is the protein that enables the virus to bind to cell-surface receptors and infect our cells.
This was thought near impossible. Based on this ground-breaking study, I would hope that the highly presumptuous claim that such a scenario is impossible will find its way to the trash bin labeled: “Things We Were Absolutely and Unequivocally Certain Couldn’t Happen Which Actually Happened”; although, I have a suspicious feeling that the importance of this study will be minimized in quick order with reports from experts who attempt to poke holes in their work. It’s important to add that this paper is a pre-print that is not peer-reviewed yet; but I went through all of the data, methods, and results, and I see very little wrong with the paper, and some gaps that need closing- but, at least from the standpoint of being able to answer the question: can RNA from the coronavirus use existing cellular pathways to integrate permanently into our DNA? From that perspective, their paper is rock-solid. Also, please take note that these are respected scientists from MIT and Harvard.
Quoting from their paper: “In support of this hypothesis, we found chimeric transcripts consisting of viral fused to cellular sequences in published data sets of SARS-CoV-2 infected cultured cells and primary cells of patients, consistent with the transcription of viral sequences integrated into the genome. To experimentally corroborate the possibility of viral retro-integration, we describe evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse transcribed in human cells by reverse transcriptase (RT) from LINE-1 elements or by HIV-1 RT, and that these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed. Human endogenous LINE-1 expression was induced upon SARS-CoV-2 infection or by cytokine exposure in cultured cells, suggesting a molecular mechanism for SARS-CoV-2 retro-integration in patients. This novel feature of SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain why patients can continue to produce viral RNA after recovery and suggests a new aspect of RNA virus replication.”
Why did these researchers bother to investigate whether viral RNA could become hardwired into our genomic DNA? It turns out their motive had nothing to do with mRNA vaccines. The researchers were puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone. It was also shown that these people were not reinfected. The authors sought to answer how a PCR test is able to detect segments of viral RNA when the virus is presumably absent from a person’s body.  They hypothesized that somehow segments of the viral RNA were being copied into DNA and then integrated permanently into the DNA of somatic cells. This would allow these cells to continuously churn out pieces of viral RNA that would be detected in a PCR test, even though no active infection existed. Through their experiments, they did not find full-length viral RNA integrated into genomic DNA; rather, they found smaller segments of the viral DNA, mostly representing the nucleocapsid (N) protein of the virus, although other viral segments were found integrated into human DNA at a lower frequency.

In this paper, they demonstrate that:
1) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 Viral RNA can become integrated into human genomic DNA.
2) This newly acquired viral sequence is not silent, meaning that these genetically modified regions of genomic DNA are transcriptionally active (DNA is being converted back into RNA).
3) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA retro-integrated into human genomic DNA in cell culture. This retro-integration into genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients is also implied indirectly from the detection of chimeric RNA transcripts in cells derived from COVID-19 patients. Although their RNA seq data suggests that genomic alteration is taking place in COVID-19 patients, to prove this point conclusively, PCR, DNA sequencing, or Southern Blot should be carried out on purified genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients to prove this point conclusively. This is a gap that needs to be closed in the research. The in vitro data in human cell lines, however, is air tight.
4) This viral retro-integration of RNA into DNA can be induced by endogenous LINE-1 retrotransposons, which produce an active reverse transcriptase (RT) that converts RNA into DNA. (All humans have multiple copies of LINE-1 retrotransposons residing in their genome.). The frequency of retro-integration of viral RNA into DNA is positively correlated with LINE-1 expression levels in the cell.
5) These LINE-1 retrotransposons can be activated by viral infection with SARS-CoV-2, or cytokine exposure to cells, and this increases the probability of retro-integration.

Instead of going through all of their results in detail (you can do that if you like by reading their paper linked below), I will answer the big question on everyone’s mind – If the virus is able to accomplish this, then why should I care if the vaccine does the same thing?
Well, first let’s just address the big elephant in the room first. First, you should care because, “THEY TOLD YOU THAT THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE AND TO JUST SHUT UP AND TAKE THE VACCINE.” These pathways that I hypothesized (and these researchers verified with their experiments) are not unknown to people who understand molecular biology at a deeper level. This is not hidden knowledge which is only available to the initiated.  I can assure you that the people who are developing the vaccines are people who understand molecular biology at a very sophisticated level.  So, why didn’t they discover this, or even ask this question, or even do some experiments to rule it out? Instead, they just used superficially simplistic biology 101 as a smoke screen to tell you that RNA doesn’t convert into DNA. This is utterly disingenuous, and this lack of candor is what motivated me to write my original article.  They could have figured this out easily.

Second, there’s a big difference between the scenario where people randomly, and unwittingly, have their genetics monkeyed with because they were exposed to the coronavirus, and the scenario where we willfully vaccinate billions of people while telling them this isn’t happening. Wouldn’t you agree? What is the logic in saying, “Well, this bad thing may or may not happen to you, so we’re going to remove the mystery and ensure that it happens to everyone.”? In my best estimate, this is an ethical decision that you ought to make, not them.

Third, the RNA in the vaccine is a different animal than the RNA produced by the virus. The RNA in the vaccine is artificially engineered. First, it is engineered to stay around in your cells for a much longer time than usual (RNA is naturally unstable and degrades quickly in the cell). Second, it is engineered such that it is efficient at being translated into protein (they accomplish this by codon optimization). Increasing the stability of the RNA increases the probability that it will become integrated into your DNA; and, increasing the translation efficiency increases the amount of protein translated from the RNA if it does happen to become incorporated into your DNA in a transcriptionally active region of your genome. Theoretically, this means that whatever negative effects are associated with the natural process of viral RNA/DNA integration, these negative effects could be more frequent and more pronounced with the vaccine when compared to the natural virus.

As a side note, these researchers found that the genetic information for the nucleocapsid “N” protein was, by far, the largest culprit for being permanently integrated into human DNA (because this RNA is more abundant when the virus replicates in our cells). The vaccine, on the other hand, contains RNA that encodes the Spike (S) protein. Therefore, if the mRNA from the vaccine (or subsegments thereof) were to make its way into a transcriptionally-active region of our genome through a retro-integration process, it will cause our cells to produce an over-abundance of Spike protein, rather than N protein. Our immune system does make antibodies to both N and S proteins, but it is the Spike protein which is the prime target for our immune system because it exists on the outside of the virus. If our cells become permanent (rather than temporary) Spike Protein producing factories due to permanent alteration of our genomic DNA, this could lead to serious autoimmune problems. I would imagine that autoimmunity profiles arising from such a scenario would be differentiated based on order of events (i.e., whether or not someone is vaccinated before or after exposure to coronavirus).

Again, this is a theoretical exercise I am presenting for consideration. I am not making the claim that an mRNA vaccine will permanently alter your genomic DNA, and I didn’t make this claim in my first article, although it appears that troll sites made the fallacious claim that I did.  I simply asked the question, and provided hypothetical, plausible molecular pathways by which such an event could occur. I believe this current research validates that this is at least plausible, and most likely probable. It most certainly deserves closer inspection and testing to rule this possibility out, and I would hope that a rigorous and comprehensive test program would be instituted with the same enthusiasm that propelled the vaccine haphazardly through the normal safety checkpoints.

Obviously, even given this information, people are still free to get vaccinated, and will do so according to the overall balance of risks and rewards that they perceive in their mind. The purpose of my article is to make sure you can make that assessment fairly by possessing all potential risks and rewards, rather than an incomplete set. For something as important as this, you should not be operating in the dark.

I would encourage you to share this article to let others know of the potential risks and rewards.

Reference Article: Zhang, Liguo, Alexsia Richards, Andrew Khalil, Emile Wogram, Haiting Ma, Richard A. Young, and Rudolf Jaenisch. “SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome.” bioRxiv (2020).”

Covid-19 Injection Info Continued…

One year later…

The adverse reactions reported following covid-19 injection have not only exploded over the last year, but surpassed ALL vaccine adverse reactions reported for at least the last 32 years.

At this point in time, the experimental covid-19 injections are producing 185,540% more cases, and 4,768% more deaths, than ALL FDA-approved vaccines. (Source)

For those who tell you that the Covid-19 injection is authorized, approved or licensed remind them of these facts, especially if they are considering that the covid-19 injection is a good idea for children:

The injections are still in Stage 3 Clinical Trials that do not finish until early 2023:

Currently given Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) etc. all these terms mean they are only being used because of an “emergency” situation. These injections have not been fully licensed anywhere in the world.

AstraZeneca Trials: AZ Trials
Pfizer Trials: Pfizer Trials
AZ example short term approval terms: AZ Approval Terms
Pfizer example short term approval terms: Pfizer Approval Terms

The public should only begin to use drugs or vaccines that are in Stage 4 clinical trials

Pfizer tells us this: Stage 3 not normal

The animals trials for coronavirus vaccines have always failed because the animals got sick and/or died:

Studies in Ferrets: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035421
Cats: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jvms/60/1/60_1_49/_article
Mice: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382/
Mice: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17194199/
Mice: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18941225/

The initial trials were short and flawed:

More information on the vaccines is shown in the links below:
Pfizer Trials
AZ Trials
Covid-19 Injection information leaflet

What is the latest scientific evidence saying on the efficacy/ effectiveness of these experimental injections:

Absolute Risk Reduction i.e. the true impact that the injection itself was shown to have at reducing your chances of getting sick with Covid-19 was just 0.84% for Pfizer and 1.28% for AZ (per the Lancet study linked below).

Link https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext

The injections have numerous serious and fatal short term side effects and no long term safety data.

Link Adverse Reaction: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions

Furthermore, a major law firm confirms the FDA deceived America️, there is NO approved covid-19 injection currently on the market.

In their press release the law firm further clarifies:

“Albeit confusing, and probably intentionally so, this summarizes the current status of the Pfizer-BioNTech shots:

• ️All existing Pfizer vials (in the hundreds of millions), remain under the federal Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (meaning people have the “option to accept or refuse”);
• The third or “booster” Pfizer shot is identical to the above and remains under the EUA with limited use to certain categories of people;
• BioNTech received FDA approval for people ages 16 and above under the name Comirnaty, but there are no Comirnaty doses available in the United States;
• In other words, there is currently NO FDA approved COVID-19 injection available anywhere in the United States. Every COVID shot in America remains under the EUA law and thus people have the “option to accept or refuse” them; and
• Even when an FDA approved COVID shot becomes available, individuals are protected by federal law and many states laws from being forced to get these shots based on their sincere religious beliefs or conscience rights.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210921104940/https://principia-scientific.com/major-law-firm-confirms-fda-deceived-america-with-its-approval-of-pfizer-vax/

In Summary: Final Points to Consider Regarding the Covid-19 Injections.

1.    The Covid-19 injections are mRNA vaccines. mRNA vaccines are a completely new type of vaccine. No mRNA vaccine has ever been licensed for human use before. In essence, we have very little idea what to expect from this injection on the long-term. They are quickly proving to not be effective nor safe.

2.    Traditional vaccines simply introduce pieces of a virus to stimulate an immune reaction. The new mRNA vaccines are completely different. It actually injects (transfects) molecules of synthetic genetic material from non-humans sources into our cells. Once in the cells, the genetic material interacts with our transfer RNA (tRNA) to make a foreign protein that supposedly teaches the body to destroy the virus being coded for. Note that these newly created proteins are not regulated by our own DNA, and are thus completely foreign to our cells. What they are fully capable of doing is unknown.

3.    The mRNA molecule is vulnerable to destruction. So, in order to protect the fragile mRNA strands while they are being inserted into our DNA they are coated with PEGylated lipid nanoparticles.  This coating hides the mRNA from our immune system which ordinarily would kill any foreign material injected into the body. PEGylated lipid nanoparticles have been used in several different drugs for years. Because of their effect on immune system balance, several studies have shown them to induce allergies and autoimmune diseases.  Additionally, PEGylated lipid nanoparticles have been shown to trigger their own immune reactions, and to cause damage to the liver.

4.    These experimental injections are additionally contaminated with aluminum, mercury, and possibly formaldehyde. The manufacturers have not yet disclosed what other toxins they contain.

5.    Since viruses mutate frequently, the chance of any vaccine working for more than a year is unlikely. That is why the flu vaccine changes every year. This fact shines a bright light on the major flop of the covid-19 injections as they push a 4th booster in a years time.

6.    Absolutely no long term safety studies will have been done to ensure that any of these experimental injections don’t cause the cancer, seizures, heart disease, allergies, and autoimmune diseases seen with other vaccines. If you ever wanted to be guinea pig for Big Pharma, now is your golden opportunity.

7.    Many experts question whether the mRNA technology is ready for prime time. In November 2020, Dr. Peter Jay Hotez said of the new mRNA vaccines, “I worry about innovation at the expense of practicality because they [the mRNA vaccines] are weighted toward technology platforms that have never made it to licensure before.” Dr. Hotez is Professor of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology & Microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, where he is also Director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

8.    Michal Linial, PhD is a Professor of Biochemistry. Because of her research and forecasts on COVID-19, Dr. Linial has been widely quoted in the media. She recently stated, “I won’t be taking it [the mRNA vaccine] immediately – probably not for at least the coming year. We have to wait and see whether it really works. We will have a safety profile for only a certain number of months, so if there is a long-term effect after two years, we cannot know.”

9.    In November 2020, The Washington Post reported on hesitancy among healthcare professionals in the United States to the mRNA vaccines, citing surveys which reported that: “some did not want to be in the first round, so they could wait and see if there are potential side effects”, and that “doctors and nurses want more data before championing vaccines to end the pandemic”. To this date tens if not hundreds of thousands have walked away from their jobs due to mandates in the workplace, as well as school.

10. Since the time the death rate from Covid-19 resumed to the normal flu death rate way back in early September of 2020, the covid pandemic has been over. Therefore, at that point in time no vaccine was ever needed. The current scare tactics regarding “escalating cases” is based on a PCR test that prior to being recalled would exceed 34 amplifications causing +90% false positive rate unless it is performed between the 3rd and 5th day after the first day of symptoms. It is 100% inaccurate in people with no symptoms. This is well established in the scientific literature. The current scare tactics regarding “excess hospitalizations and deaths” are more related to adverse reactions than viral injury.

11. The other reason you don’t need a vaccine for COVID-19 is that substantial community immunity has already taken place in the United States. This is the primary reason for the end of the pandemic.

144 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted: https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/

12.  Anyone who after reading all this still wants to get injected with the mRNA vaccine, should at the very least have their blood checked for COVID-19 antibodies. There is no need for a vaccine in persons already naturally immunized.

Covid-19 Resources

Below we have compiled as many resources possible to aid every Nebraskan in need of the evidence to support an informed decision. As well, we hope that this information can prevent discrimination within the workplace/school and educate those with the authority over others.

Exemptions

Nurses and doctors are leaving, not because of covid-19, but because of covid-19 policy. The abuse of the hospital’s policy is running them out, the same happened with nursing homes. These mandates include even people not even working with patients!!

In many cases even pregnancy and other autoimmune disorders have not qualified for medical exemption. Intimidation is all they have. They’re a big dog with a big bark and no bite. They use the media to push lies that are not factually backed by law.

Jacobsen v. Massachusetts – proves exemptions must ALWAYS be allowed. Not that mandates are Constitutional

Our NE and US Constitution trump the Medical Institutions wants and desires to be dictators.

Our country has a history of propagating pandemics in order to control. If they feed society the fear of a virus long enough, even a majorly benign illness, too many people have proven they will freely give up their rights.

Which doesn’t change the fact! That:

It is a violation of the NE Const. Article I-26: This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others, retained by the people, and all powers not herein delegated, remain with the people.
NE Const. Article I-30: Discrimination or grant of preferential treatment prohibited; public employment, public education, or public contracting; section. how construed; remedies.
(1) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

We have the right to choose our own medical treatment and prevention and furthermore, not to be subjected to secret medicine as per Neb Rev. Stat. 28-403. Administering secret medicine; penalty. If any physician or other person shall prescribe any drug or medicine to another person, the true nature and composition of which he does not, if inquired of, truly make known, but avow the same to be a secret medicine or composition, thereby endangering the life of such other person, he shall be guilty of a Class III misdemeanor.

We have the right to our Religious beliefs that attempting to enhance or do better than our God given immune system is violation of our religious beliefs – the Government, nor society, determines where that begins and ends. Neb. Const. art. I-4. Religious Freedom. All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to any religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious beliefs; but nothing herein hall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

Employers, Educational Institutions, Healthcare Facilities, and Businesses (private or publicly owned) that offer public services CANNOT discriminate against anyone. They cannot ask you to define or provide proof of your religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, many are demanding such proof anyway. As such is the case we aim to provide as many tools as possible to aid in that process.

Treatment Protocols

Additional Resources

• Nebraska Constitution
• The Time is Now: Dr Ben Tapper
• Mercola.com
• Weston A Price Foundation
• Children’s Health Defense
• The Medical Rebel: Dr Lee Merritt
• 144 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted
• American Frontline Doctors

Wanna Explore other Vaccines?

• Millions March Against Mandatory Vaccinations
• The Vaccine Guide
• The Vaccine Report
• Learntherisk.org
• National Vaccine Information Center
• Circleofmamas.com
  
• Documentaries
  • Vaxxed
  • Vaxxed II
  • Trace Amounts
    
• Books
  • Dissolving Illusions
  • Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies
  • Vaccines: A Reappraisal
  • The Unvaccinated Child: A Treatment Guide for Parents and Caregivers – 1st Edition

Contact info@nago.group with comments, questions, or concerns.