For more than a year and a half I have seen a strange picture. Thousands of qualified professionals representing medical science and medical practice and expressing opinions on the COVID-19 problem that are different from, say, those of the WHO, are being persecuted and ostracized. Of course, in medicine there is a lot of unclear about which controversy can and should be, but there are things that are obvious, like 2 X 2 = 4.
WHO and its COVID-19 campaigners are trying to convince that 2 X 2 = 5 or 3. The answer may vary, but it must always be in line with the government’s policy. And this is done in the same way as described George Orwell in the novel “1984”. There, the protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, ends up in the dungeons of the Ministry of Love, where they begin to re-educate him with the help of torture. One of the party bosses, O’Brien, is involved in the re-education. He periodically shows his hand to the prisoner, extending four fingers, and asks: “How many fingers, Winston?” Winston answers the same: “Four.” After each such answer, he is punished with severe pain. And everything is repeated all over again. Until finally Winston Smith begins muttering, “Four! Five! Four! How many do you need. Just stop, stop hurting! “
Let me show you with two examples how many people believed that two and two are not four, but three or five.
First example – face masks. They supposedly protect people from the virus. In the spring of last year, WHO sent out a “recommendation” on the need for mass use of masks. In a number of countries, reputable physicians have raised doubts, even objections, to the “recommendation”. There were such doubts and objections in Russia as well. So, in May last year, the head of the Department of Microbiology, Virology and Immunology of the First Moscow State Medical University named after Sechenov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vitaly Zverev opposed the requirement for everyone to wear gloves and masks. He stated that they can even be hazardous to health: “In two hours [маска] turns from a means of protection into a means of spreading infection: in addition to coronavirus, we have a lot of everything else in the air – bacteria, fungi that settle on the mask and then can infect you “… There have been thousands and thousands of such objections to the WHO “recommendation” on wearing masks from reputable doctors around the world.
The WHO was quick to strengthen its “recommendation” by commissioning a study on the effectiveness of masks sometime in April last year. The study was carried out promptly, its results were published in June 2020 in one of the most respected medical journals. Lancet… Full name of the material: Physical distancing, face masks and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis (Physical distancing, face masks and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis). In fact, there was no research, and the article was a compilation of 29 publications on the topic of masks, made by different authors at different times. Almost all of them concerned the use of masks in the premises of medical institutions (hospitals, clinics, etc.). None of these publications resulted from “Randomized controlled trials” (RCTs) that are accepted in medical science. This is an experimental study designed to reduce sources of bias when testing the effectiveness of new treatments or prevention. The result is achieved here by randomly assigning subjects to two or more groups, with different attitudes towards them, and then comparing their results. One group – the experimental group – evaluates the intervention, while the other, usually called the control group, has a cardinal difference, such as no intervention or the use of a placebo. The effectiveness of treatment or prevention is assessed by comparing the experimental group with the control group. Review authors in Lancet managed to philosophize about masks, dispensing with the RCT method, which is familiar and understandable to doctors. One of those who, a year ago, carefully analyzed the lie about masks at the stage of its inception (publication in Lancet), – Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Toronto Peter Jueni… He called the WHO study “Methodologically flawed” and “essentially useless”…
The most surprising thing is that after the publication of the WHO review on masks by physicians in a number of countries, independent studies were carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of masks as a means of protection against the virus using the RCT method. Of particular note is a study by Danish doctors, a brief description of which was published in October 2020. The study lasted about six months (started in April 2020), 6000 people participated in the experiment. Henning Bundgaard, Professor and Chief Physician of the Royal Hospital (Rigshospital), one of the leaders of the study, upon completion, stated with satisfaction: “This is the largest study of its kind in the world and is expected to be an important factor in regulatory decisions regarding the use of masks.”… The research materials were sent to three of the most respected medical journals – The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (Journal of the American Medical Association – JAMA)… However, the journals refused to publish RCT data obtained by Danish scientists as a result of full-fledged experiments. Reason: The study did not reveal any effectiveness of masks as a means of protecting against the virus.
Second example concerns PCR tests. Every day, tens of millions of such tests are carried out around the world to find out whether a person is infected with the coronavirus or not. This is a method for diagnosing infections based on the use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR, PCR). The author of the invention, made in 1983, is an American scientist Kary Mullis, who later received the Nobel Prize for this invention. The inventor of the PCR test died in August 2019, several months before the start of a “pandemic” and the massive (worldwide) use of this method to identify the presence of coronavirus in the human body.
Even during his lifetime, the Nobel Prize laureate warned that the PCR test is not a universal method that allows one to unambiguously identify an infection. If you set yourself the goal of finding this or that infection in a person, then by adjusting the test system accordingly, this can be done. K. Mullis spoke about this in one of his last video speeches. By the way, he closely followed the activities of the doctor Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for the Study of Allergic and Infectious Diseases (USA), and repeatedly called him a “liar” and “illiterate physician.” Today Fauci is the main ideologist of the fight against the “pandemic” in America and an authoritative adviser to WHO. It was he who “blessed” at the beginning of last year the massive use of PCR tests in the United States to identify coronavirus infection, ignoring the warnings of the inventor of the method about the limited scope of its use and the likelihood of serious errors when trying to overly widespread use. However, on a command from the WHO, the massive use of PCR tests began in most countries of the world.
Many well-known doctors spoke out against this falsification. One of them is a doctor Sucharit Bhakdi, a luminary of European medical science, professor at the University of Mainz (Germany), where he headed the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene in 1991-2012. Here are excerpts from one of the video presentations by this renowned scientist (spring 2021). He gives an interview to the editor of the magazine New American to Alex Newman… “The pandemic is fake. It was based on a PCR test that was very flawed. This means dangerously inaccurate … giving false positive data, which, unfortunately, were taken as the main diagnostic criterion … People who are not sick are tested using a test that in most cases lies. ” The professor explains that there are false positives when a patient tests positive despite the absence of the virus; and false negative results, when a patient who has contracted the virus shows a negative result. Dr. Bhakdi noted that the PCR test will give a positive result if it detects an influenza virus or other coronavirus other than SARS-CoV-2. “This is not a specific test. Most of the diagnoses are wrong ”, – he said.
The professor also drew attention to the fact that in the testing system one can arbitrarily change the border, above which there will be “plus” and below “minus”. The system can be adjusted so that it more often gives “plus”. He points out that in America the PCR test system has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As the number of positive tests increased, more people were forced to get vaccinated. The professor does not exclude that this was intended.
The only “justification” for the use of the PCR test for the identification of coronavirus was the work of German doctors Victor Corman and Christian Drostenpublished in an international journal Eurosurveillance… The chronology of events is interesting: the article was submitted to the journal on January 21, 2020, accepted for publication on January 22, posted on the Internet on January 23. The article did not pass the required peer review. Incredibly, Drosten’s test protocol, which he already sent to WHO in Geneva on January 17, was officially recommended by the WHO as a test to determine the presence of coronavirus in Wuhan even before the article was published. This whole scam is described in detail in an article by a famous American researcher By William Engdahl (William Engdahl) In Germany, Merkel’s coronavirus scandal erupted. False positive results and Drosten’s PCR test (Coronavirus scandal that erupted in Germany Merkel. False positive results and Drosten’s PCR tests) published on August 10, 2021.
Engdahl calls the operation to legalize PCR tests “a fraud” based on a pseudoscientific publication by Corman-Drosten. And even earlier, in November 2020, a detailed analysis of the article by Corman – Drosten appeared. Review report by Corman-Drosten et al. Eurovision 2020 “… This is not just a scientific article, but a call of 23 world-class scientists – virologists, microbiologists, other specialists, members of the International Consortium of Scientists in the Field of Life Sciences (ICSLS), withdraw the Corman-Drosten article, and cancel the PCR tests. This article has identified the “ten fatal mistakes” of the “scientific” rationale needed to fuel the psychosis called “pandemic.” However, to this day, the article by Corman-Drosten remains where it appeared: in the magazine Eurosurveillance… The journal, by the way, is the official organ of the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (European Center for Disease Prevention and Control – ECDPC)responsible for the fight against the “pandemic” in the European Union. Reactions to the appeal of 23 scientists ICSLS from the side ECDPC did not follow. Medical scientists are not tortured yet in the dungeons of the Ministry of Love, they are simply gagged.
If you notice an error in the text, select it and press Ctrl + Enter to send the information to the editor.