[ITA] Lettera per contestare tampone obbligatorio per erogazione prestazione sanitaria

Recentemente mi sono imbattuto per la prima volta nella richiesta di tampone PCR obbligatorio pena la mancata erogazione di prestazione sanitaria.

Ho contestato la cosa via PEC. Ecco il testo (generalizzato per evitare di riportare informazioni private):

Qualche giorno fa mi sono sottoposto a una visita OMISSIS presso il vostro OMISSIS, e mi è stato detto che è il caso [di fare l’intervento]. In allegato la prescrizione.

Essendo rientrato in Italia di recente dopo 12 anni all’estero, ho appreso con sorpresa che mi viene richiesto un tampone molecolare SARS-CoV-2 come prerequisito obbligatorio all’intervento. 

  • La procedura normalmente prevederebbe il consenso da parte del paziente; ma nel caso presente, la prestazione sanitaria (intervento di cui sopra) è offerta a condizione che si effettui un tampone molecolare, rendendo difatti quest’ultimo un trattamento sanitario obbligatorio. Dovessi infatti rifiutarmi (come ho provato), mi viene negata la prestazione sanitaria
  • La rilevazione di RNA virale per mezzo di PCR non equivale a infettività [19]
  • Il workflow diagnostico a mezzo RT-PCR per SARS-CoV-2 [1] è stato contestato da più parti. Recentemente una revisione esterna è stata presentata, insieme a una retraction letter presentata direttamente a Eurosurveillance. [2]
  • OMS ha recentemente riconosciuto “an elevated risk for false SARS-CoV-2 results when testing specimens using RT-PCR reagents on open systems” [3]
  • A riprova degli ultimi due punti e principalmente sulla base di due pubblicazioni [4, 5], la Corte d’appello di Lisbona ha riconosciuto che i test PCR non sono adatti a stabilire oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio che la positività equivale a infezione da SARS-CoV-2 [6, 20] – e con quella sentenza vennero annullate una serie di quarantene di persone asintomatiche
  • La procedura è invasiva
  • La procedura obbligatoria su una persona sana lascia perplessi, specialmente alla luce del punto precedente. Nonostante sia stata forzata a “chiarire e ritrattare” spostandosi su un più vago “non si sa”, quanto affermato da Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove a giugno sembra esser rimasto vero: i dati non suggeriscono affatto che l’epidemia è causata principalmente da diffusione asintomatica.[7] Il che confermerebbe le aspettative di tutti, come anche Fauci stesso disse “in tutta la storia dei virus respiratori di qualsiasi tipo, la trasmissione asintomatica non è mai stata la causa di focolai”. Le pubblicazioni usate di solito [8,9,10,11,12,13] per giustificare la diffusione asintomatica sono tutte state contestate da diversi esperti. La stessa diffusione presintomatica sembra avere ruolo marginale [14,15]. Infine, pubblicazioni recenti suggeriscono esplicitamente che la diffusione asintomatica è minima se non addirittura inesistente [16,17,18].

Per tutte le ragioni di cui sopra, vi chiedo di esercitare la medicina in libertà e indipendenza di giudizio e di comportamento, e chiedo di non essere sottoposto obbligatoriamente e contro la mia volontà a un trattamento sanitario non propedeutico all’intervento in oggetto; allo stesso tempo di non essere arbitrariamente negato la prestazione medica in oggetto. 

Se, nonostante tutto, ciò non vi fosse possibile, devo chiedervi di mettere per iscritto: che il tampone molecolare viene prescritto obbligatoriamente sotto vostra totale responsabilità; che fornirete al sottoscritto i risultati completi, incluso il valore CT; e che, qualora il test dovesse risultare positivo, vi impegnerete a effettuare una coltura virale per confermare il risultato del tampone. 

Se sceglierete di negare tale dichiarazione scritta, tale negazione verrà presa come ammissione di negazione arbitraria di prestazione sanitaria.


[1]: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

[2]: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

[3]: http://who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users

[4]: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext

[5]: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603

[6]: https://www.onb.it/2020/11/22/la-corte-dappello-portoghese-ritiene-inaffidabili-i-test-pcr-per-il-covid-19/

[7]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html

[8]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33141862/

[9]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32960881/

[10]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33031427/

[11]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3586675

[12]: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/11/20-2263_article

[13]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2488-1 

[14]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32271722/

[15]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.29.20164590v1

[16]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

[17]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102?fbclid=IwAR1MICnQ1tda9_4iAQAfpwQJhjenKLAKQyVcqFRLxocQk2mkbpFWoAgTM9I

[18]: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851

[19]: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3862

[20]: https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2020-11-27/covid-pcr-test-reliability-doubtful-portugal-judges/56962 

Dear English churches that have decided to close despite being allowed to stay open

I hope this finds you well, and your year has started well enough, all things considered.

I’ve read with sadness and disappointment that some English churches have decided to close the doors once again, despite the government allowing them to stay open. Amongst reasons for doing this there is:

  • alleged increased risk-factors due to the new more-virulent form of the virus, which could allegedly put people at risk through the action of opening the church building
  • desire to be seen by the local community as acting responsibly; gathering might be a “bad witness”.

Based on that, I am going to say a few things. Please, understand this is not me pointing the finger. It’s me sharing and caring for my brothers and sisters in England.

The image above is proof enough that the government is willingly and knowingly imposing unnecessary lockdowns. If I have access to this basic data, they do too. At the time of the first lockdown (which in hindsight I still find unjustified, dangerous, and outright unconstitutional anyway) there’s a peak in excess deaths that we simply no longer find later on.

To those who object that the “NHS is under immense strain”, I can only answer that based on my research over the past months, this is in most part “normal” for winter period. There’s an additional strain that I believe is due to hysteria and misdiagnoses due to a flawed mass-testing strategy. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Either way, the money should be spent in upgrading the healthcare systems (which everywhere in Europe, for example, have undergone cuts after cuts for the past 10 years at least), and not on flawed testing campaigns and unconstitutional tracing systems (22bln/year in the UK for test & trace, and they turn around and say they closed down Nightingale due to lack of staff?).

The number of cases in the UK is high mainly because the testing capacity of the UK has reached absurd levels; as an example, the UK carries out on average 14 times more tests per day than Italy, at the moment.

Number of cases mean absolutely nothing if you don’t have excess deaths, which is the standard way of measuring the severity of an epidemic.

Number of cases also mean nothing if the testing strategy is flawed.

WHO themselves said the new variant does not really behave any different to the old ones. Also, from medical literature, when coronaviruses mutate, they become more infectious, but less deadly. Meaning, they spread more but do less harm.

I believe it’s about time to stop looking up to the government, and realise that there is a concerted effort to bring the western countries on their knees, in order to enact the World Economic Forum’s agenda that goes by the name of Great Reset. The WEF founder himself has written a book called COVID-19: The Great Reset, clearly linking the pandemic to their agenda, which however was already public matter as of 2017. I appreciate it’s hard for some people to conceive such a large scale communal effort. Yet they are not hiding it. Though they have the ability to market it positively, as in this video from the Royal Family, some politicians have had enough discernment to call it what it is in an official UN address: global totalitarianism (as a related aside, watch this creepy conversation between Neil Ferguson and Tony Blair; or this review of Pope Francis’ latest book by catholic apologist Taylor Marshall).

The Western Church (in general) must acknowledge their faulty understanding and application of Romans 13 during this period. This article does a very good job at explaining how Paul never suggested an unquestioning submission to the authorities; Paul’s own experience instructs us to use every legal means in our society to push back evil, and correct abusive governments, which, though are meant to be God’s servants, can easily fall away from that. The Bible clearly teaches that people and nations chosen by God for a purpose can easily end up disobeying God. Israel itself is the prime example of this.

Never before in the history of the West we used totalitarianism to handle a healthcare emergency. Lockdowns, social distancing, and face masks on healthy people (no, there’s no such a thing as an asymptomatic spreader) are unconstitutional in all western countries that I checked, and violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both these things would be completely meaningless if the rights codified in constitutions and human rights declarations weren’t the very God-given liberties bestowed onto us by the Creator God; liberties that our own brothers and sisters over the centuries, with their influence, and their boldness in walking in justice with God (Micah 6:8), have ensured would be codified in such earthly documents.

The mentality of lockdowns stems from worldviews that are vehemently opposed to our biblical worldview; they are tools normally used by totalitarian states like China (though many think of Communism in terms of politics, it is instead a fully fledged violently atheistic worldview, where the Party or the State takes the place of God).

The West has been blessed with biblical wisdom more than any other part of the world, and we have understood over the centuries that imposing draconian regulations on people is not the way. It is far more adequate and just to leave the choice open to each and everyone. In this case, the choice to either come to the physical gathering or stay home.

Enforcing a closure isn’t Christian, because it tramples upon the very liberties each of God’s image-bearers has.

Enforcing a closure isn’t compassionate, because there’s not just Covid in this world. The Church (as a whole) is failing to look at the big picture. Several studies have now proven that lockdowns, from the stricter to the milder, have had no effect whatsoever on the spread of the virus. I quote from a paper:

The lockdowns in most Western countries have thrown the world into the most severe recession since World War II and the most rapidly developing recession ever seen in mature market economies. They have also caused an erosion of fundamental rights and the separation of powers in large part of the world as both democratic and autocratic regimes have misused their emergency powers and ignored constitutional limits to policy-making. Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended.

No photo description available.

Lockdown have created misery, despair, a gigantic economical crisis, increase of suicides by 1000%, destroyed the mental health of many, increased domestic abuse, child abuse, drug abuse, and alcohol abuse.

Why is it that since 2020, all that everyone cares about is Covid, the risk of Covid, or people sick with Covid? What about all the other people? What about the state-mandated child abuse, that is, forced isolation of little human beings that need socialising in order to grow mentally sane? And shall we talk of the psychological damage face masks cane have on both grown-ups and youngsters?

Above all, as Christians, what about all those people we can’t reach? Why has the Western Church largely accepted to suspend all outreach until further notice? (And no, there’s no way we can make up for that with online outreach). How is that ‘Christian’ in any meaning of the word? What kind of message does that give to the people around us? That we care more about “this life” than the eternal life offered by Jesus?

How different was the Church during the Cholera Outbreak in London, 1854

Therefore I dissent with the choice of closing a church in the face of the privilege of being able to remain open. I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that a church closing willingly despite the liberty of remaining open provides the community with a testimony of acting responsibly. Rather, I maintain it will give the message that we believe just as the world does. That we are afraid, just like they are. That we have no hope, just like they don’t.

Churches have always remained open, no matter what kind of crisis was raging. They have been a beacon of hope in the midst of wars and plagues. A light in the dark. And what do we do since 2020? We put the light under the bushel. Worse, we blow off the candle; we switch off the lamp.

The bottom line here is that we are witnessing a massive satanic involvement in the western governments. They are lying knowingly. We’ve been told there’s no treatment, when it’s not true. This is a review from the University of Liverpool about Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid. Doctors have been saying it works, since April. Referring to Ivermectin, renowned professor Thomas Borody said that Covid is easier to treat than the flu; it was back in August. Also, this is a meta-analysis that estimates the number of deaths we could’ve avoided if we didn’t irrationally ban hydroxychloroquine— 945,000 people and counting at the time I write this.

However, the worst thing is that they have disguised as science what are really coercitive methods straight from the Biderman Chart of Coercion (see this psychology class material, then compare to this table).

They have no intention to stop using these abusive methods that China managed to cleverly smuggle over here (Notice how China has been fine since March, suddenly all disappeared. No, it wasn’t the lockdown, because we know they don’t work).

Inasmuch as the Bible tells us that the time will come when Satan will manage to unite the world and prepare the field for the Antichrist to come, in no way that means that we, the Church of God, the Pillar of the Truth, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Restrainer (2 These 2:6), are to stand by, and watch evil happen. Even worse, obey the laws of Satan (through the government) as if we were obeying God himself!

Dissenting experts all around the world said time and again that the most compassionate and “normal” way to handle this is to protect the vulnerable and let everyone else go on with their lives, back to normal, without restrictions of any kind. Yet 2020 has been the year of censorship: any expert that wasn’t agreeing with the narrative has been almost completely banned from TV, papers, and even social media, which all went on a censorship spree, taking down video after video, and article after article, if they didn’t agree with the narrative. Orwellian at the very least, since they have also started “editing history and science”, by editing old articles from before 2019 so they’d support 2020’s narrative!

Given these people have no intention to stop abusing their powers, the Church is at a crossroads: do we continue to submit to Satan? Or do we submit to God?

With every blessing in Christ.

“Again, the new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists’ puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value. Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man.”

C. S. Lewis

Ivermectin is the game changer. Scrap the vaccines.

Some have been saying this since April. The evidence is solid in the literature, too, now. Here’s a meta analysis from the University of Liverpool, sponsored by WHO.

ITA – Professore di Infermieristica e Vaccino Covid-19

Il prof. Festini ha deciso di non vaccinarsi. Per due motivi principali: uno, non c’è abbastanza tempo in 7 mesi per sperimentare qualsivoglia medicinale; e due, perché lui ha già avuto problemi gravi causati da vaccina influenzale, e quindi da allora non tocca più vaccini affini.

Su un secondo post Facebook, ormai rimosso perché mezzo mondo gli stava rispondendo, ha scritto:

“Una premessa per chi desidera riprendere questo post (che a differenza di quelli indebitamente pubblicati, lascerò pubblici) per commenti o per farci degli articoli. Mi fanno piacere tutte le critiche fondate e infondate ma non tollero insulti e sbeffeggiamenti alla mia persona. In particolare metto in guardia coloro che accosteranno il mio nome anche indirettamente ed in modo suggestivo ai termini NO-VAX, ANTI-VAX, NEGAZIONISTA ed altri di egual significato. Sono insulti sanguinosi alla mia onorabilità e chi li userà può già contare sulla mia querela. Chi ha usato quei termini per definirmi è ancora in tempo per modificarli.

Per chi ha letto gli articoletti di Bocci e Carratu’ sulla Repubblica -ripresi da altri giornali senxa chiedermi conferme o smentite- ed è curioso di avere informazioni che non siano state, diciamo così, “filtrate” dai due giornalisti.- Entrambi si sono dimenticati di dire che il principale motivo per cui io non farò il vaccino è perché nel 1995 ho avuto una patologia neurologica seria -fortunatamente risoltasi dopo circa 6 mesi- a seguito della vaccinazione antinfluenzale di quella stagione. I medici mi hanno detto di evitare vaccinazioni future. – Entrambi si sono “dimenticati” di dire che non mi hanno mai intervistato, che non ho rilasciato dichiarazioni pubbliche ma che hanno costruito gli articoli su dei post PRIVATI non destinati alla diffusione pubblica e che usavano perciò un linguaggio non accademico, confidenziale e presentando concetti complessi in modo molto semplificato ad uso degli amici.

Sono veramente costernato di questo modo di fare giornalismo- anche se a qualcuno piacerebbe bollarmi come negazionista, ahimè per loro, non lo sono. Se lo fossi, non si spiegherebbe perché da molti mesi eseguo come volontario i tamponi Covid a domicilio e presso uno dei drive-through della Toscana. io non ho espresso critiche contro “Il Vaccino”: ho richiamato l’attenzione su alcuni aspetti degni di attenzione su di “un” vaccino, utilizzando i dati ufficiali.

Tali dati indicano che mentre la riduzione relativa del rischio determinata da quello specifico vaccino è effettivamente del 95%, la riduzione assoluta del rischio è piccola, circa lo 0,8%. È la presentazione di questa ovvietà statistica che ha scatenato la caccia alle streghe, quasi che fosse un tabù da non nominare mai. Perché è piccola ? Proprio perché il rischio di partenza è già molto piccolo. E su questo dovremmo riflettere. Non sono l’unico in ambito accademico a pensarla così: https://blogs.bmj.com/…/peter-doshi-pfizer-and…/

Quando si assumono farmaci il bilancio costi/benefici va ponderato con estrema cura, specie quando si programma una somministrazione di massa.Nel caso attuale, forse per emotività, una discussione seria e approfondita su questo aspetto fondamentale non c’è stata, dando per scontato che i benefici siano talmente superiori ai costi (ovviamente intendo soprattutto costi in salute) che non valga la pena parlarne. Invece sarebbe opportuno.

Lo studio alla base del Comirnaty non è ancora terminato. Dei 44mila reclutati, solo 36600 hanno per ora completato le 2 somministrazioni previste dal protocollo. In altre parole, il vaccino è stato autorizzato all’uso sulla base dell’80% dei dati. Il 20% mancante -e che arriverà in seguito- ha la potenzialità di determinare un dato finale completamente diverso, ad esempio dimostrare l’inefficacia del trattamento. Il Comirnaty, quindi, è a tutti gli effetti ancora allo stato sperimentale. Quindi occorre prudenza.

La durata dell’osservazione sui soggetti sottoposti alla sperimentazione è insolitamente breve. Sia i soggetti vaccinati che quelli non vaccinati sono circa 18mila. L’osservazione complessiva di ciascun gruppo è stata di circa 2200 anni/paziente, equivalenti a 803mila giorni/paziente. Ogni paziente quindi è stato osservato in media per 45 giorni circa dopo l’inoculazione. Ne consegue che qualunque affermazione si faccia su questo vaccino (tossicità, effetti avversi, durata della copertura) non può oltrepassare l’orizzonte temporale di circa 45 giorni.

Non è stata valutata la tossicità su esseri umani (quello che di solito si fa nella fase 1) ma solo su ratti. La cancerogenicità invece non è stata valutata neppure sui ratti. Il vaccino non può essere somministrato a bambini sotto i 12 anni. Per i soggetti sopra i 75 anni d’età l’intervallo di confidenza statistica dell’efficacia va da -13% a 100%, cioè non è statisticamente significativo; questo significa che non è possibile affermare che sia efficace sugli ultra 75enni. Quindi, fino a prova contraria, deve essere considerato inefficace in quella fascia d’età. Nella fascia 64-75anni l’intervallo di confidenza è molto ampio (da 53% a 99,8%) e questo significa incertezza. Si ammette la possibilità che l’efficacia reale sia anche poco superiore al 50%. Solo nella fascia 16-64anni l’efficacia ha un intervallo accettabile. Ci si dovrebbe porre quindi la domanda se sia davvero conveniente un vaccino che non si può somministrare ai bambini, che non è efficace nei grandi anziani e che ha un’efficacia un po’ incerta nei 64-75enni.

Questo e questo soltanto è ciò che ho da dire. E se qualcuno trova quello che ho scritto una bestemmia da buttare al rogo, il problema è suo, non mio. Il dubbio, la critica, la messa in discussione continua sono l’essenza della Scienza, ciò che la fa progredire. Chi presenta la Scienza come una granitica Verità, si sbaglia; soprattutto nell’area biomedica, dove ogni affermazione deve essere sempre fatta in termini di probabilità, non di certezza.

Un’avvertenza a chi volesse riprendere le mie parole e farne un articolo: le critiche nel merito mi fanno piacere (se ho possibilità di replica), gli attacchi personali invece non li tollero. Ho la querela facile e i mezzi per portarne avanti quante ne servono.In particolare, riterrei particolarmente grave e insultante essere accostato in qualunque modo al termine negazionista.Perché l’unica cosa che nego è la buona fede, l’onestà intellettuale e l’obiettività di alcuni giornalisti.”

Campagna cinese di propaganda lockdown

Di Michael P. Senger, avvocato e ricercatore con sede ad Atlanta, in Georgia. Il suo account Twitter è @MichaelPSenger .
Tradotto da Google e non revisionato. Si dovrebbe capire.

Nelle parole di Simon Leys, parafrasando il grande sinologo László Ladány, anche la propaganda più mendace deve necessariamente intrattenere una qualche relazione con la verità. A Wuhan alla fine di dicembre, il dottor Li Wenliang ha avvertito i suoi amici che una nuova malattia simile alla SARS aveva iniziato a diffondersi rapidamente. Il messaggio di Li è diventato inavvertitamente virale sui social media cinesi, causando panico e rabbia diffusi al Partito Comunista Cinese. Il 7 gennaio, Xi Jinping ha informato lasua cerchia ristretta che la situazione a Wuhan avrebbe richiesto la loro supervisione personale.

Continue reading

Imposing vaccinations equates to Nazism

The fruits borne by those who fear Covid instead of God

Those who call upon forced #Covid19 vaccination have no understanding or respect of the fundamental rights bestowed by the Creator God upon each of us, aside from being scientifically inept and misinformed. They, for all intents and purpose, align with nazism and communism.

Western constitutions, many borne out of the abuse of Nazism, which were rooted in pseudo-science just like this pandemic response, usually account for a single reason to suspend fundamental rights: WAR.

It’s not a chance, then, the pandemic response has been framed with the language of war. Yet, this is not a war, even though they want to persuade you otherwise. And no constitution accounts for suspension of rights due to a health crisis.

Those who call upon such extreme technocratic measures have a deeper problem. The media-led psycho-terrorism has exposed them to their deepest fear, which they had buried within them: DEATH.

Most of these terrorised people don’t have the certainty of life eternal in Christ, so they have developed a religious attitude towards the technocrats and their lies, trying to find hope where there is none: in man. They fear death and want a way out of it.

But only Christ defeated death. Even if #Covid were truly serious as they claim (and it’s not). Even if the vaccine were effective and safe (and it’s not). Death wouldn’t disappear. How many of the vaccinated will go on and die the next day/week/month for unrelated causes?

The terror instilled by the fear mongers into people has leveraged a uniqueness of modern man: death is a taboo. Something you don’t think about it. Modern, western man, is used to feel secure in their comforts and material riches. They anaesthetise themselves.

Monder man, faced with the reality of death, a bit like Neo was faced with reality after being disconnected from Matrix, have panicked. Their psyche cracked. And now they have given into fear, Satan’s preferred tool. And they have allowed fear to possess them.

When that happens, when Satan has his way with a person to such an extent, this person becomes fully a slave. Truth and rationality become an enemy. And so do all the people who embrace truth and rationality in their purest form: the Christian that renews their mind (Ro 12:2).

Originally tweeted by Vincenzo Russo ✝️ 🇬🇧 🇮🇹 (@enzoru) on December 27, 2020.

Vitamin D Supplementation Associated to Better Survival in Hospitalized Frail Elderly COVID-19 Patients: The GERIA-COVID Quasi-Experimental Study – PubMed

Regular bolus vitamin D supplementation was associated with less severe COVID-19 and better survival in frail elderly.
— Read on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33147894/

Lisbon Court of Appeal rules against PCR tests

This is somewhat old news, but I failed to report it here:

The PCR test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”, said the Lisbon Court of Appeal.

This is the ruling of the court. The news has been reported also by the Italian National Order of Biologists.

The ruling cites two main papers:

This is not news. Lots of scientists and doctors around the world know about the problems with mass PCR testing.

Recently, 22 scientists published an external peer review of the publication entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020), which formed the basis for worldwide mass PCR testing. The scientists have highlighted 10 major flaws in the original paper.

Other resources about PCR can be found on this site.

These two articles, however, remain a good start:

And remember: PCRs are not a diagnostic tool.

Chinese Communist Party’s members have infiltrated Pfizer and AstraZeneca

So, the “new” coronavirus originated from China. And many publications have now discounted the “official bat” origin (for one, the virus was circulating before the official start of the epidemic).

Now we find out that pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and AstraZeneca – both involved in the development of coronavirus vaccines – employed a total 123 Chinese Communist Party loyalists.

And you still want me to believe that it’s just a coincidence that the pandemic management measures came straight out of Biderman’s Chart of Coercion?

You must be a conspiracy theorist.

© 2021 Diarium Neminis

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑