XPost: alt.survival, misc.survivalism

40 Facts You NEED to Know: The REAL Story of “Covid”

By Kit Knightly

e first published our hugely popular cribsheet in September of 2021 in
response to dozens – even hundreds – of reader requests for sources and data. It was intended as a resource and link dump as much as an article,
and intentionally free of interpretation, editorialising or opinion.

The response was incredible, within weeks it became our most-viewed
article of all time, and it has maintained steady traffic ever since.

But time moves on, and as new data was published and new facts came to
light, it became clear we needed to update the piece – not just in terms
of facts, but in terms of approach.

So, here are all the updated key facts and sources concerning the
alleged “pandemic”, to help you get a grasp on what has happened to the world since January 2020, and assist in the enlightenment of any of your friends who might be still trapped in the New Normal fog.

MENU
Symptoms – Diagnosis & PCR Tests – “Cases” & “Deaths” – Lockdowns –
Ventilators – Masks – Vaccines – Mortality Data – Planning & Deception –
Motives & Profits – Conclusion

*

PART I: SYMPTOMS
NEW!1. “Covid19” and the flu have IDENTICAL symptoms. There are no
symptoms or collections of symptoms unique or specific to “Covid” and
only “Covid”. All “Covid” symptoms are common to many other diseases and
conditions, including the collection of common respiratory infections colloquially known as “the flu”.

This is readily admitted by mainstream sources and “experts”, who
routinely describe “Covid” symptoms as “flu like”.

According to the US Center for Disease Control’s own website comparing “Covid” and the flu:

You cannot tell the difference between flu and COVID-19 just by looking
at the symptoms alone because they have some of the same symptoms.

While the UK’s NHS states:

The symptoms [of Covid] are very similar to symptoms of other illnesses,
such as colds and flu.

While all mainstream sources couch the admission in soft language –
“some of the same symptoms”, “very similar” – the truth is the symptoms
are identical. The only points of difference ever observed are
equivocations on severity and onset time.

This article from Health Partners highlights that “Covid” can be both
more severe OR milder than the flu, noting that “Covid” can sometimes “feel more like a cold”

While according to the Mayo Clinic, in their article on “Covid” vs the
flu, the only difference in symptoms is that they “appear at different times”.

*

NEW!2. “Ground glass opacities” are NOT unique to “Covid”. Early in the pandemic, it was reported that medical imaging revealed what they call “ground glass opacity” in the lungs of suspected “Covid” cases and that this was being used to diagnose patients, but ground glass anomalies are
not unique to “Covid”.

According to a German paper published in the Radiologie journal in 2010:

Ground glass opacity (GGO) is defined as diffuse pulmonary infiltration
[which can be caused by] edema, airspace and interstitial pneumonia. non-infectious pneumonitis as well as tumor manifestations.
Physiological processes, such as poor ventilation of dependent lung
areas and effects of expiration can also present as ground glass opacity.

In 2012 the Journal of Respiratory Care published a paper on “The
Imaging of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome” which described GGOs
thus [emphasis added]:

Ground-glass opacification on CT is a non-specific sign that reflects an overall reduction in the air content of the affected lung

In 2022, the Lancet published a case study from an Indian doctor
literally titled “Ground glass opacities are not always COVID-19”.

Another article, published by Health.com in May 2022, underlines that:

Ground-glass opacities (GCOs) aren’t specific to COVID-19 […] they can
show up due to other conditions and infections

In short, GGOs are a common presentation of pulmonary illness or injury,
and are associated with pneumonia, pneumonitis, tuberculosis, and many
other conditions.

*

NEW!3. A loss of smell and taste is NOT unique to “covid”. As with GGOs,
it has been widely reported that a loss of the sense of taste and sense
of smell is the telltale sign of “Covid”, but that is a known symptom of many upper respiratory infections.

According to a 2001 article published on the website of the Univerity of Connecticut School of Medicine:

In adults, the two most common causes of smell problems that we see at
our Clinic are: (1) Smell loss due to an ongoing process in the nose
and/or sinuses such as nasal allergies and (2) smell loss due to injury
of the specialized nerve tissue at the top of the nose (or possibly the
higher smell pathways in the brain) from a previous viral upper
respiratory infection.

Many common medical conditions are known to cause both acute and chronic
damage to the sense of smell and taste, according to the UK’s NHS:

Changes in sense of smell are most often caused by a cold or flu,
sinusitis (sinus infection) [or] allergies (like hay fever)

*

PART II: DIAGNOSIS & PCR TESTS
NEW!4. It is not possible to clinically diagnose “Covid19”. Clinical diagnosis is the practice of diagnosing a disease based on a unique
symptom or collection of symptoms. Wiktionary defines it as:

The estimated identification of the disease underlying a patient’s
complaints based merely on signs, symptoms and medical history of the
patient rather than on laboratory examination or medical imaging.

Since “Covid19” has no unique symptomatic profile[1], and since ALL
major symptoms of “Covid” can potentially apply to literally every
common respiratory infection, it is impossible to diagnose “Covid19”
based on symptoms.

*

NEW!5. Lateral flow tests are unreliable. Throughout the “pandemic” the most frequently used “self-test” for “Covid” were Lateral Flow Tests (LFTs). These tests are highly unreliable, and known to return positive
test results from household liquids such as fruit juice and soda.

Children in the UK frequently “broke” their LFTs using vinegar or
coca-cola in order to create false-positive tests and get a few days off school.

In February 2022, an “expert” told The Guardian that LFTs could create false positives based on the diet of the person being tested, or through “cross-reacting” with a different virus.

In February 2022, it was also reported by a team of “experts” from
Imperial College that LFTs can “miss” infectious people. In other words, the official position is that LFTs produce false negative results AND
false positive results.

Further, it is acknowledged – and the subject of explainer articles –
that LFT and PCR results will often contradict one another. Meaning you
can test positive on one, but not the other.

In short, lateral flow tests are of almost no diagnostic value whatsoever.

*

6. PCR tests were not designed to diagnose illness. The
Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is
described in the media as the “gold standard” for “Covid” diagnosis.

But Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the process, never intended it to be used as a diagnostic tool and said so publicly:

PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something
out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the
thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

*

7. PCR Tests have a history of being inaccurate and unreliable. The
“gold standard” PCR tests for “Covid” are known to produce a lot of false-positive results, by reacting to DNA material that is not specific
to Sars-Cov-2.

A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results
from the same test on the same day. In Germany, tests are known to have
reacted to common cold viruses. Some tests in the US even reacted to the negative control sample.

The late President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, submitted samples of
goat, pawpaw and motor oil for PCR testing, all came back positive for
the virus.

As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was
unreliable. Dr Wang Cheng, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical
Sciences told Chinese state television “The accuracy of the tests is
only 30-50%”. The Australian government’s own website claimed “There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility
of available COVID-19 tests.” And a Portuguese court ruled that PCR
tests were “unreliable” and should not be used for diagnosis.

The unreliability of PCR tests is not unique to “Covid”, either. A 2006 study found PCR tests for one virus responded to other viruses too. In
2007, reliance on PCR tests resulted in an “outbreak” of Whooping Cough that never actually existed.

You can read detailed breakdowns of the failings of PCR tests here, here
and here.

*

8. The CT values of the PCR tests are too high. PCR tests are run in
cycles, the number of cycles you use to get your result is known as your “cycle threshold” or CT value. Kary Mullis said: “If you have to go more than 40 cycles[…]there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”

The MIQE PCR guidelines agree, stating: “[CT] values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not
be reported”.

Dr Fauci himself even admitted anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable.

Dr Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California,
Riverside, told the New York Times: Any test with a cycle threshold
above 35 is too sensitive…I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive…A more reasonable cutoff would be 30
to 35″.

In the same article Dr Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public
Health, said the limit should be 30, and the author goes on to point out
that reducing the CT from 40 to 30 would have reduced “covid cases” in
some states by as much as 90%.

The CDC’s own data suggests no sample over 33 cycles could be cultured,
and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is
likely to be infectious.

Despite this, it is known almost all the labs in the US are running
their tests at least 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45. The NHS
“standard operating procedure” for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles.

Based on what we know about the CT values, the majority of PCR test
results are at best questionable.

*

9. The World Health Organization (Twice) Admitted PCR tests produced
false positives. In December 2020 WHO put out a briefing memo on the PCR process instructing labs to be wary of high CT values causing false
positive results:

when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were
required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.

Then, in January 2021, the WHO released another memo, this time warning
that “asymptomatic” positive PCR tests should be re-tested because they might be false positives:

Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a
new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different
NAT technology.

These announcements coincided with the initial launch of the “covid vaccines”.

*

10. The scientific basis for ALL “Covid” tests is questionable. The
genome of the Sars-Cov-2 virus was supposedly sequenced by Chinese
scientists in December 2019, then published on January 10th 2020. Less
than two weeks later, German virologists (Christian Drosten et al.) had allegedly used the genome to create assays for PCR tests.

They wrote a paper, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR, which was submitted for publication on January 21st
2020, and then accepted on January 22nd. Meaning the paper was allegedly “peer-reviewed” in less than 24 hours. A process that typically takes weeks.

Since then, a consortium of over forty life scientists has petitioned
for the withdrawal of the paper, writing a lengthy report detailing 10
major errors in the paper’s methodology.

They have also requested the release of the journal’s peer-review
report, to prove the paper really did pass through the peer-review
process. The journal has yet to comply.

The Corman-Drosten assays are the root of every “Covid” PCR test in the world. If the paper is questionable, every PCR test is also questionable.

*

PART III: “CASES” & “DEATHS”
11. Huge numbers of “Covid cases” are “asymptomatic”. Early in the “pandemic” it was reported that the majority of “Covid cases” never exhibited any symptoms. In March 2020, studies done in Italy were
suggesting 50-75% of positive Covid tests had no symptoms. Another UK
study from August 2020 found as much as 86% of “Covid patients”
experienced no viral symptoms at all.

A Chinese paper from March 2020 found over 80% of “asymptomatic cases”
were actually false positive test results.

In short, the vast majority of “cases” during the first year of the “pandemic” were people who never got sick at all.

Following a WHO directive to re-test asymptomatic cases [9] in January
2021 – just as the “vaccines” were first rolled out – the percentage of “asymptomatic cases” has been reportedly lower, approximately 40%.

*

NEW!12. “Covid case” numbers are inherently meaningless. From the onset
of the “pandemic”, a “Covid case” has been defined in terms guaranteed to artificially inflate statistics.

The World Health Organization’s definition of a “confirmed case” is anyone who gets a positive PCR result, regardless of symptoms or
personal history. Further, it is known that many health agencies around
the world – including the US CDC – include “probable cases” in their statistics.

The WHO defines a “probable case” as anyone who meets the “clinical criteria” (ie has flu-like symptoms) and has been in contact either a “confirmed case” OR another “probable case”:

Probable Case: A patient who meets clinical criteria AND is a contact of
a probable or confirmed case, or linked to a COVID-19 cluster.”

As established above, PCR tests do not work and produce false positives. Lateral flow tests also produce false positives. It is known these tests
may even give contradictory results for the same person at the same
time. “Covid19” also lacks a unique symptom profile, ruling out clinical diagnosis.

If you cannot reliably test for the disease in a lab, and cannot
identify it via a unique symptom profile, and many “cases” are
recognised as “asymptomatic”, then “Covid19” becomes a label with no meaning.

Absent any kind of reliable diagnostic method, case statistics for any
disease are inherently meaningless.

*

13. “Covid deaths” were created by statistical manipulation. Since “Covid” case statistics are inflated [12] it naturally follows that “Covid” death statistics would be likewise unreliable. In fact it was
noted from the very beginning of the “pandemic” that “Covid death” counts were being artificially inflated.

According to the UK’s Health Standards Agency, the WHO defined a “Covid death” in the following terms:

A COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death
resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or
confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of
death that cannot be related to COVID-19 disease (eg. trauma).

Throughout the “pandemic” many countries around the globe went even
further and defined a “Covid death” as a “death by any cause within 28/30/60 days of a positive test”.

Healthcare officials from Denmark, Italy, Germany, the UK, US, Northern
Ireland and others have all admitted to this practice:


The US CDC even records “probable” Covid deaths in their statistics.

Removing any distinction between dying of “Covid”, and dying of
something else after testing positive for Covid will naturally lead to completely meaningless numbers of “Covid deaths”.

British pathologist Dr John Lee was warning of this “substantial over-estimate” as early as April 2020. Other mainstream sources have
reported it, too.

Considering the huge percentage of “asymptomatic Covid infections” [11], the well-known prevalence of serious comorbidities [30] and the fact all “Covid tests” are entirely unreliable [II], this renders the “Covid” death numbers a completely meaningless statistic.

*

PART IV: LOCKDOWNS
14. Lockdowns do not prevent the spread of disease. There is little to
no evidence lockdowns have any impact on limiting “Covid deaths”. If you compare regions that locked down to regions that did not, you can see no pattern at all.


“Covid deaths” in Florida (no lockdown) vs California (lockdown)


“Covid deaths” in Sweden (no lockdown) vs UK (lockdown)

A pre-print meta-analysis from Johns Hopkins University found lockdowns
had almost no impact at all on “Covid19” mortality, while another paper
on the “Determinants of COVID-19 Fatalities” published in April of 2021 found:

little evidence that lockdowns reduced fatalities

*

15. Lockdowns kill people. There is strong evidence that lockdowns –
through social, economic and other public health damage – are deadlier
than the alleged “virus”.

Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19 described lockdowns as a “global catastrophe” in October 2020:

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the
primary means of control of the virus[…] it seems we may have a doubling
of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of
child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”

A UN report from April 2020 warned of 100,000s of children being killed
by the economic impact of lockdowns, while tens of millions more face
possible poverty and famine.

Unemployment, poverty, suicide, alcoholism, drug use and other
social/mental health crises are spiking all over the world. While missed
and delayed surgeries and screenings have already seen increased
mortality from heart disease, cancer and other conditions in many
countries around the world.

A World Bank report from June 2021 estimated close to 100 million people
had been plunged extreme poverty by so-called “anti-Covid measures”.

As of January 2023, healthcare services the world over are still
experiencing chaotic backlogs in treatment and diagnosis. The knock-on
effects of lockdown will likely hurt public health for years.

The impact of lockdown could account for any observed increases in
excess mortality.[33]

*

NEW!16. Babies born during lockdown have lower IQs. A study done at
Brown University found that children born after March 2020 had, on
average, IQs 21 points lower than previous generations, concluding:

questions remain regarding the impact of the work-from-home,
shelter-in-place, and other public health policies that have limited
social interaction and typical childhood experiences on early child neurodevelopment.

This mirrors reports in older children (aged 4-5) of stunted development
of social skills and inability to read facial cues.

*

Updated17. Hospitals were never unusually overburdened. The main
argument used to defend lockdowns is that “flattening the curve” would prevent a rapid influx of cases and protect healthcare systems from
collapse. But most healthcare systems were never close to collapse at all.

In March 2020 it was reported that hospitals in Spain and Italy were overflowing with patients, but this happens every flu season. In 2017
Spanish hospitals were at 200% capacity, and 2015 saw patients sleeping
in corridors. A JAMA paper from March 2020 found that Italian hospitals “typically run at 85-90% capacity in the winter months”.

In the UK, the NHS is regularly stretched to breaking point over the winter.

As part of their Covid policy, the NHS announced in Spring of 2020 that
they would be “re-organizing hospital capacity in new ways to treat
Covid and non-Covid patients separately” and that “as a result hospitals will experience capacity pressures at lower overall occupancy rates than
would previously have been the case.”

This means they removed thousands of beds.

Yes, during an alleged deadly pandemic, they actually reduced the
maximum occupancy of hospitals.

Despite this, the NHS never felt pressure beyond your typical flu
season, and at times actually had 4x more empty beds than normal.

In both the UK and US millions were spent on temporary emergency
hospitals that were never used.

An article in Health Policy in November 2021 found that, in all of
Western Europe, the “surge capacity” of ICU beds was exceeded for only
one day – in Lombardy on April 3rd 2020.

*

18. There was a massive increase in the use of “unlawful” DNRs.
Watchdogs and government agencies reported huge increases in the use of
Do Not Resuscitate Orders (DNRs) in the years 2020-2021.

As early as March 2020, when the “pandemic” was still in its early
stages, there were already papers appearing in mainstream journals
predicting “unilateral” DNR usage, something which had “rarely had a
role prior to Covid”:

clinicians in some health care settings may unilaterally decide to write
a DNR order. This latter approach is not uniformly accepted and, prior
to COVID-19, it rarely had a role. During this pandemic, however, in
extreme situations such as a patient with severe underlying chronic
illness and acute cardiopulmonary failure who is getting worse despite
maximal therapy, there may be a role for a unilateral DNR to reduce the
risk of medically futile CPR to patients, families, and health care workers.

In the US, hospitals considered “universal DNRs” for any patient who
tested positive for Covid, and whistleblowing nurses have admitted the
DNR system was abused in New York.

In the UK there was an “unprecedented” rise in “illegal” DNRs for disabled people, GP surgeries sent out letters to non-terminal patients recommending they sign DNR orders, whilst other doctors signed “blanket DNRs” for entire nursing homes.

A study done by Sheffield University found over one-third of all “suspected” Covid patients had a DNR attached to their file within 24
hours of hospital admission.

A paper published in the journal “Public Health Frontiers” in May 2021, made the “ethical” case for “unilateral” use of DNRs in Covid patients:

Some countries were forced to adopt a unilateral DNR policy for certain
patient groups […] In the current difficult situation…difficult
decisions are to be made. Societal rather than individual benefits might prevail.

Blanket use of coerced or illegal DNR orders could account for any
increases in mortality in 2020/21.[33]

*

PART V: VENTILATORS
Updated19. Ventilation is NOT a treatment for respiratory infections. Mechanical ventilation is not, and never has been, recommended treatment
for respiratory infection of any kind. In the early days of the
pandemic, many doctors came forward questioning the use of ventilators
to treat “Covid”.

Writing in The Spectator, Dr Matt Strauss stated:

Ventilators do not cure any disease. They can fill your lungs with air
when you find yourself unable to do so yourself. They are associated
with lung diseases in the public’s consciousness, but this is not in
fact their most common or most appropriate application.

German Pulmonologist Dr Thomas Voshaar, chairman of the Association of Pneumatological Clinics said:

When we read the first studies and reports from China and Italy, we
immediately asked ourselves why intubation was so common there. This contradicted our clinical experience with viral pneumonia.

Despite this, the WHO, CDC, ECDC and NHS all “recommended” Covid
patients be ventilated instead of using non-invasive methods.

This was not a medical policy designed to best treat the patients, but
rather to reduce the hypothetical spread of Covid by preventing patients
from exhaling aerosol droplets, this was made clear in officially
published guidelines.

*

20. Ventilators kill people. Putting someone on a ventilator who is
suffering from influenza, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, or any other condition which restricts breathing or affects the
lungs, will not alleviate any of those symptoms. In fact, it will almost certainly make it worse, and will kill many of them.

Intubation tubes are a potential source of an infection known as “ventilator-associated pneumonia”, which studies show affects up to 28%
of all people put on ventilators, and kills 20-55% of those infected.

Mechanical ventilation is also damaging to the physical structure of the
lungs, resulting in “ventilator-induced lung injury”, which can dramatically impact quality of life, and even result in death.

Experts estimate 40-50% of ventilated patients die, regardless of their disease. Around the world, between 66 and 86% of all “Covid patients”
put on ventilators died.

According to the “undercover nurse”, ventilators were being used so improperly in New York, they were destroying patients’ lungs:


This policy was negligence at best and potentially deliberate murder at
worst. This misuse of ventilators could account for any increase in
mortality in 2020/21 [33]

*

PART VI: MASKS
Updated21. Masks don’t work. At least a dozen scientific studies have
shown that masks do nothing to stop the spread of respiratory viruses.

One meta-analysis published by the CDC in May 2020 found “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”.

A Canadian review from July 2020 found “limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections”.

Another study with over 8000 subjects found masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor
against clinical respiratory infection.”

There are literally too many to quote them all, but you can read them: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Or read a summary by SPR here.

While some studies have been done claiming to show mask do work for
Covid, they are all seriously flawed. One relied on self-reported
surveys as data. Another was so badly designed that a panel of experts
demanded it be withdrawn. A third was withdrawn after its predictions
proved entirely incorrect.

The WHO commissioned its own meta-analysis in the Lancet, but that study
looked only at N95 masks and only in hospitals. [For a full rundown on
the bad data in this study click here.]

Aside from scientific evidence, there’s plenty of real-world evidence
that masks do nothing to halt the spread of disease.

For example, North Dakota and South Dakota had near-identical “case” figures, despite one having a mask mandate and the other not:


In Kansas, counties without mask mandates actually had fewer Covid
“cases” than counties with mask mandates. And despite masks being very common in Japan, they had their worst flu outbreak in decades in 2019.

Not only do masks not work, but it was widely known they did not work
before 2020.

A 2016 literature review published in the Journal of Oral Health found:

there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness
of masks for respiratory protection.

(This study was quietly removed from the journal’s website in June 2020, because it was “no longer relevant in the current climate”.)

Another study, published in 2020 but carried out in 2019, found:

no significant effect of face masks on transmission of
laboratory-confirmed influenza.

In his 2020 review, “Masks Don’t Work”, Dr Denis Rancourt cites studies from 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016, 2017 and 2019…none of which found any significant benefit at all from wearing a mask.

And, most tellingly, in their own report on influenza from 2019, the WHO
itself noted that:

there is no evidence that [masks are] effective in reducing transmission

*

Updated22. Masks are bad for your health. Wearing a mask for long
periods, wearing the same mask more than once, and other aspects of
cloth masks can be bad for your health. A long study on the detrimental
effects of mask-wearing was recently published by the International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Dr. James Meehan reported in August 2020 he was seeing increases in
bacterial pneumonia, fungal infections, and facial rashes.

Masks are also known to contain plastic microfibers, which damage the
lungs when inhaled and may be potentially carcinogenic.

Childen wearing masks encourages mouth-breathing, which results in
facial deformities.

People around the world have passed out due to CO2 poisoning while
wearing their masks, and some children in China even suffered sudden
cardiac arrest.

Moreover, masks may actually increase the likelihood of respiratory
disease, a trial of cloth masks from 2015 found that:

Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result
in an increased risk of infection.

While a new study published in July 2022 found that masks, especially
those worn more than once, were breeding grounds for both bacteria and
fungal microbes.

Another peer-reviewed paper on mask effectiveness, from April 2022, found:

While no cause-effect conclusions could be inferred from this
observational analysis, the lack of negative correlations between mask
usage and COVID-19 cases and deaths suggest that the widespread use of
masks […] was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Moreover, the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western
Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had
harmful unintended consequences.

*

Updated23. Masks are bad for the planet. Millions upon millions of
disposable masks have been used per month for over a year. A report from
the UN found the Covid19 pandemic will likely result in plastic waste
more than doubling in the next few years., and the vast majority of that
is face masks.

The report goes on to warn these masks (and other medical waste) will
clog sewage and irrigation systems, which will have knock-on effects on
public health, irrigation and agriculture.

A study from the University of Swansea found “heavy metals and plastic
fibres were released when throw-away masks were submerged in water.”
These materials are toxic to both people and wildlife.

Another study, published in 2022, found that:

disposable face masks and plastic gloves could pose an ongoing risk to
wildlife for tens if not hundreds of years.

*

PART VII: VACCINES
24. Covid “vaccines” are totally unprecedented. Before 2020 no
successful vaccine against a human coronavirus had ever been developed.

Following the advent of “Covid”, we allegedly made over 20 of them in 18 months.

Scientists have been trying to develop a SARS and MERS vaccine for years
with little success. Some of the failed SARS vaccines actually caused hypersensitivity to the SARS virus. Meaning that vaccinated mice could potentially get the disease more severely than unvaccinated mice.
Another attempt caused liver damage in ferrets.

Whereas the theory behind traditional vaccines is that exposing the body
to a weakened strain of a microorganism will trigger an immune response,
many of these new Covid “vaccines” are mRNA vaccines.

mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines theoretically work by
injecting viral mRNA into the body, where it replicates inside your
cells and encourages your body to recognise, and make antigens for, the “spike proteins” of the virus.

mRNA vaccines have been the subject of research since the 1990s, but

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)