Hello there: a quick statement from the author before jumping into “New Year… New Outlook: Get Back to “Nature” in 2021″:
For the past 3 months, most all of my blog posts were “rejected” by social media platforms – even when following ALL guidelines set out by these self-proclaimed “neutral” companies.
Now… Here I am. A Doctor. A Speaker. An Author. A retired Educator and proud Italian from Bensonhurst, (Brooklyn) New York- just trying to share thoroughly-researched information that could help us all through these troubling times.
The only difference is, today I have to come up with tricky headlines like: “New Year… New Outlook: Get Back to “Nature” in 2021″ to (hopefully) skate by the social media police and get my message across. Let’s see what happens…
For repeat-readers of my blogs (thank you all for the support by the way) you’ll see that this intro section is roughly the same for each blog from now on. This is intentional and is designed to thwart any “skimming” of my content… preventing these so-called “neutral” platforms from “rejecting” any of the free speech they claim to support. The real “meat and potatoes” start just below…
Contradicting Science and Fact Creates “Pseudo-Experts”
This makes no sense….I thought “science” was based on a specific protocol that eliminates guessing? I thought “fact” was something that actually exists as in truth? So how can some “experts” have opposing views on the same science or fact? The only answer is that there is an agenda driving the “pseudo-expert”.
Bill Gates: King of the “Pseudo-Experts”
As an example, Bill Gates has attacked Trumps “health advisor” Dr. Scott Atlas because of Dr. Atlas’s stance on Covid-19. Dr. Atlas is an MD and a Fellow of the Hoover Institute. Bill gates is a billionaire college drop-out with no experience in healthcare; yet Gates has bought his place as a ‘Pseudo-Expert’ in healthcare.
Battle of the Experts: Hodkinson vs. Fauci
Other “actual” viral pathology experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Roger Hodkinson have opposite statements about the validity of what we are being told about Covid-19.
Dr. Fauci has blatantly contradicted his professional analysis of Covid-19; i.e., his views on masks, lockdowns and quarantines, from that of his peer expert Dr. Hodkinson.
Dr. Hodkinson remains solid in his resolve with the following statement:
“There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous, this (COVID-19 pandemic) is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. This is not Ebola. It’s not SARS. It’s politics playing medicine, and that’s a very dangerous game.”Dr. Rodger Hodkinson
FCAP | FRCPC
Both Fauci and Hodkinson can’t be scientifically or factually correct if we accept that there is only one science or fact.
Where Did We Even Get this Idea of Quarantining, Anyway?
Quarantining an entire population is not some set-in-stone technique that has been used for decades to stem the spread of a virus. It was first proposed in 2006 by two government doctors, when President George W. Bush asked for a plan to combat pandemics. That plan eventually became the published research paper named “Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza”.
FUN FACT #1:
None of the authors of this paper are infectious disease specialists or experts.
FUN FACT #2:
Two of the “authors” aren’t even doctors at all.
FUN FACT #3:
One of the (non-doctor) authors, Laura M. Glass, was (at time of publication) a High School Student– cited because this entire paper was based on her science class project.
Despite the above, this high school science project- backed by folks without any experience in pandemics, cemented quarantining at the heart of our national playbook for responding to pandemics. How ridiculous is that?!!!
What Does Science Say About Quarantining?
In response to the High School science project that somehow became the “law of the land” for pandemics, Dr. D.A. Henderson and 3 other ACTUAL epidemiologists authored a rebuttal research paper with: “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza”.
Some notable points from this paper are the following:
“There was no known science to support the notion that a national quarantine would halt the spread of infection.”Henderson | Inglesby | Nuzzo | O’Toole
“(Quarantine) could increase the risk of infection for people living in close quarters. “Henderson | Inglesby | Nuzzo | O’Toole
“Closing theaters, malls, restaurants, stores and bars, church services and athletic events, would have serious disruptive consequences.”Henderson | Inglesby | Nuzzo | O’Toole
“Closing schools is impractical and carries the possibility of a seriously adverse outcome.”Henderson | Inglesby | Nuzzo | O’Toole
The serious problems with quarantining are best summed up in this paper’s conclusion:
“Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”Dr. D.A. Henderson
Dr. Thomas V. Inglesby
Dr. Jennifer B. Nuzzo
Dr. Tara O’Toole
Back to Social Distancing
As touched upon previously, the idea of reducing viral infections by ‘social distancing’ was not based on science either. It was first introduced in 2006 as the result of a hypothetical high school science experiment by a 14 yr. old girl named Laura Glass.
With the help of her father Laura constructed a computer model simulating the data from the Asian Flu epidemic of 1957. The experiment concluded that a distance of 6 feet between subjects would significantly reduce the spread of viral infection. The project, largely hypothetical, did not include any scientists or immunologists but was slowly accepted as verified, scientific research. That High School Experiment is named: Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza and is even posted on the Centers for Disease Control website.
What Does Science Say About Social Distancing?
Science states that viruses like COVID-19 are aerosol in nature, meaning that they float within our breathing space. Science also states that you can fit over 500,000,000 viruses on the head of a pin. Does it seem reasonable to think that standing 6 feet apart would actually avoid contracting the virus?
“Social Distancing” is untested pseudoscience particularly as it relates to halting the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The CDC provides no links to any peer-reviewed social distancing studies that bolster its official guidance.
What About Lockdowns?
People fail to realize that the world of microbes IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR ENVIRONMENT. Compromised individuals will succumb to their deadly effects. This COVID-19 pandemic is changing the rules of microbes.
Have you noticed that lockdowns have done virtually nothing to slow the pandemic but has had a devastating effect on our country’s economy? United States Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin stated:
“There is a risk of permanent damage” to the economy if (the country) remains closed.”Steve Mnuchin
United States Secretary of the Treasury
Hong Kong Flu Pandemic of 1968-69: No Lockdown… Woodstock Happened Instead
During the 1968 Hong Kong Flu pandemic, which pretty much mimics the current Covid-19 pandemic, our country handled the pandemic much differently. There were no lockdowns, quarantines, social distancing or face mask mandates. In fact, it was the same year as Woodstock.
What Does Science Say About Lockdowns?
The only “natural” way to safeguard against the spread of the virus is to create a “killing zone” within the body by the production of natural antibodies. The “experts” we see and hear from rarely encourage natural exposure since it would eliminate their “expertness”. My grandmother taught us how to fight viral infections; not by FEAR but by understanding that you cannot stop viral infections, you can only adapt. Antiviral medications have proven valuable in mitigating the duration of the infection, but not in prevention altogether.
The ultimate anti-lockdown principle of the past was to encourage exposure to create herd immunity. Some may remember what our parents did in the past during a ‘chicken pox’ outbreak? All the kids were put together for a party rather than locked up and isolated in a room for 2 weeks.
Ultimately, there is surprisingly little evidence that lockdowns work. A statistician named William M. Briggs, wrote a blog post comparing countries that locked down with countries that didn’t, and concluded the following:
“In every case, countries with no lockdowns demonstrated a fraction of deaths per million than countries with lockdowns.”William M Briggs
Professor – Cornell Medical School
As of May 12, 2020 the U.S. had 237 deaths per million people. Taiwan, a no-lockdown country, had 0.3 deaths per million. Belgium, a lockdown country, has had 763 deaths per million. Sweden, a no lockdown country, has had 347 deaths per million; with a similar population as Belgium. Ethiopia, with a population of 109 million, had no lockdown with a death rate of 0.04 per million.
Science does not support political or economic agendas. We cannot depend on political figures in power to dictate scientific mandates in the absence of real scientific evidence.
In short, “science” and the natural course of a viral infection has been circumvented by NON MEDICAL public officials; hell-bent on an agenda-driven experiment to test the “compliance” of the people. Our constitutional rights are being dismantled in the name of “social progressivism”. It’s time we educate ourselves and collectively stand up against these injustices.