We Flattened The Covid Curve Why Not the Autism Curve
In Memoriam Josh Edwards Age 27

Thermometers Break All Former Weapons Related Rules in US Schools

Weapons related behaviors prohibited on school property include, [WP3P] Bringing a toy/look-alike gun to school/school sponsored event.” – PPS Code of Student Conduct

"We've had a problem at this school. The boys have gone around fake shooting and making paper guns at class. It's inappropriate. ....school authorities telling students, including Nathan, that any gun-related behavior would have serious consequences." Columbus Ohio



Children who've been taught every day that anything that resembles a gun, including their own fingers, is disallowed on school grounds will now have to process the fact that the teachers and staff who used to conduct lock down drills will now be pointing gun-like thermometers inches from their faces, while masked.  

Where are the public health officials, social workers and school psychologists screaming that this message will terrify and traumatize many students? The psychological impact of having to pass a health screening every day by what looks like a weapon seems like  a threat to current and future health.



Laura Hayes

Ronald Kostoff,

Thank you for the information you posted. Excellent and worth the read.

There is quite a list needing to be “quarantined” (i.e. immediately banned and permanently eliminated from use in the case of products and technologies; tried, sentenced, imprisoned, and made to pay for damages inflicted, from both corporate and personal accounts, in the case of people), and those with “Covid”, or those with whom they have had contact, are not the real and present threat to humanity.

Grace Green

What we all must do is to go out and behave completely normally especially when we are around children, to let them see that there is another way. There's a special place in hell reserved for those who are inflicting this terror on our little ones. State employees terrorized my children when they were young, and they are not ever going to be allowed to forget it!


Wow. Just wow....

Ronald Kostoff

Three days ago, I posted links to a recently published Editorial and monograph. The monograph site has been down much of the time since then. Appendix 2 of the monograph presents a very different perspective on the nature of this 'pandemic', and allows for a very different interpretation of many posted articles on the pandemic (including the recently posted AoA article by Becker and Blaxill, which ignored the stress-based toxic stimuli added to the mix starting ~22 March with the mandated lockdowns and media hysteria). I have reproduced Appendix 2 below, since I have no idea when the site will be operable again.


A2-A. Viral Pandemics
Appendix 1 showed some of the roles played by viruses in the biosphere, and their centrality to life itself. The present appendix examines how this key component of the life process has morphed into a dangerous entity in the public consciousness.
Sometimes analogies can be highly instructive. We start this appendix with two analogies that illustrate the contributions of viruses to pandemics. The following boxes contain these analogies.

There is a large house in the desert; the roof has been completely neglected for thirty years. Ten large holes have opened up on the roof. Because there has been no rain, these holes have not been repaired, but have continued to grow. One day, a once-in-a-thousand-year rainstorm arrives. Water comes pouring through the holes in the roof. An emergency request for help is sent. First responders, neighbors, etc., come to help, and spend the day with buckets and pumps bailing out the water. They leave, the owners of the house have survived, but, because dry conditions re-emerge, they do absolutely nothing to repair the holes in the roof. Three years later, another once-in-a-thousand-year rainstorm arrives, and another panic response ensues.
Was the rain the cause of the chaos and damage; was it the holes in the roof; was it both?
Would we have worried about the rain if there were no holes in the roof?

Metaphorically, the rain is the coronavirus, and the holes in the roof are the toxic stimuli to which each person is exposed, and which contribute to weakening the immune system. Without the toxic stimuli and the associated weakened immune system, the coronavirus exposure/infection has little/no effect, except to (typically) generate antibodies that show up in the serum. That is seen in many healthy people, and the same was seen in the 2002-2003 SARS pandemic. It's hard to get exact numbers of people exposed but minimally affected, since not everyone is being tested, and those who are tested tend to be heavily weighted towards those exhibiting serious symptoms.
In this hypothetical case, is the rain the culprit? In the case of no holes in the roof, the rain had no effect. It only had an effect when combined with the holes in the roof. If a cause must be assigned, why shouldn't it be assigned to the holes in the roof, rather than the rain?

Assume there is a person standing in a room, with nothing else in the room but four metallic walls, a metallic ceiling, and a metallic floor. This person lights a match, and throws it on the floor. What will happen? Answer: nothing. The match burns itself out.
Now assume there's a flammable handkerchief on the floor. This person throws the lighted match on the handkerchief. What will happen? Answer: the handkerchief will burn for about a minute, and burn itself out. Still no problem.
Now assume there are a hundred pounds of ammonium nitrate (an explosive also used in agriculture) on the floor, as well as ten other flammable/explosive compounds. The person throws the lighted match on the floor. What will happen? Answer: the person will be transported to the next world!!!
Metaphorically, the match is the coronavirus, and the explosive/flammable components are the toxic stimuli to which the person is exposed, and which contribute to weakening the immune system. Without the toxic stimuli and the associated weakened immune system, the coronavirus exposure has little/no effect, except to (typically) generate antibodies that show up in the serum. That is seen in many healthy people, and the same was seen in the 2002-2003 SARS pandemic. It's hard to get exact numbers of people exposed but minimally affected, since not everyone is being tested, and those who are tested tend to be heavily weighted towards those exhibiting serious symptoms.
In this hypothetical case, is the match the culprit? In the completely bare room, the match had no effect. It only had an effect when combined with the explosive/flammable material. If a cause must be assigned, why shouldn't it be assigned to the ammonium nitrate, or some of the other explosive/flammable materials?

Both of the above analogies reflect the fact that we may be looking at the trees, and missing the forest, with respect to COVID-19. Let’s focus on the quarantine (lockdown). It has been implemented widely across the globe. Those affected most severely by SARS-CoV-2 typically develop pneumonia, and die from pneumonia (or other severe respiratory disease). That's the official version, but it's far more nuanced and complicated. Some background, first.
The first author has developed a general protocol for preventing and reversing chronic diseases, and has developed protocols specifically for three chronic diseases (CKD (Chronic kidney disease), AD (Alzheimer’s disease), PN (Peripheral neuropathy)/PAD (Peripheral arterial disease)) [16]. The key component of the protocol is identifying the foundational contributing factors to the diseases (i.e., the causes), and eliminating those foundational causes. The qualifier 'foundational' is used, since the causes identified are not other diseases (which some/much of the medical community uses in part when talking about causes), but rather tangible items that are (in theory) under individual or government regulatory control (e.g., smoking, excess alcohol, brominated flame retardants, heavy metals, pesticides, wireless radiation, etc.).

For the three chronic diseases examined, anywhere from 500-1,000 foundational causes each have been identified from the premier biomedical literature, and this number was viewed as a gross under-estimation of the actual number of foundational causes that exist in reality. Many of these foundational causes (such as those listed above) are pervasive, meaning that they impact multiple diseases [24]. One would expect that pneumonia (the central fatal consequence of the COVID-19 (and SARS-CoV) coronavirus infection) would also have hundreds of foundational causes as well. This is a key point.

The first author also studied the SARS coronavirus pandemic of 2002-2003, and published two papers on the topic [12-13]. The key takeaway from those studies was that there were roughly three types of consequences for the people who were exposed to/infected by the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV). One group exhibited no symptoms, and the only measures of exposure/infection were SARS coronavirus antibodies in their blood (where the blood was tested for non-SARS-related reasons). The second group exhibited symptoms characteristic of respiratory infections, and recovered after some level of discomfort. There were about 8,000 people globally who exhibited these symptoms, and went for medical care. The third group mainly developed pneumonia, and those that eventually succumbed died from the pneumonia. There were about 800 people globally in this latter group. However, this latter group was not a random selection of the 8,000. Its members had high comorbidity, weakened immune systems, and tended to be heavily populated by the elderly.

Comorbidity in common usage is typically used to mean other diseases. As stated in the main text of this monograph, each of these diseases can be viewed as a proxy for the hundreds of foundational factors that contribute to its development. Thus, if the cause-related co-ordinate systems are switched from diseases to foundational contributing factors (where the foundational causes are the independent variables and the diseases are the dependent variables), the high comorbidity group that succumbed to SARS had high numbers of foundational contributing factors to disease. This is the key point.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has some commonalities with the SARS pandemic. Most of the deaths in both cases resulted from pneumonia. Most of the deaths are among the elderly, and appear to be most prevalent among those with high comorbidities and weakened immune systems. From the perspective of the foundational contributing factor-based co-ordinate system, most of the fatalities are among those exposed (over their lifetime, as well as currently) to large numbers of foundational contributing factors to disease. There may be some fatalities for people born with weakened immune systems.

In general, the public is being exposed to a mixture of toxic stimuli, and it is the effect of the mixture that is driving the myriad consequences [22]. Different people will be exposed to different mixtures, and, based on the composition of the mixtures and a person's genetic makeup and overall level of health, will respond differently. There can be substantial synergies among the mixture constituents, resulting in enhanced adverse effects from the combination [22, 25]. The key concept here is that the mixture is determining the outcome, not necessarily any one of its constituents in isolation.

The response of the governments worldwide (including the USA) to COVID-19 has been to impose a quarantine on the public, to restrict exposure to only one of the many constituents of the toxic stimuli mixture, SARS-CoV-2. This is one of the few constituents of the mixture that cannot be related to a technology offshoot, or to a technology that has production and/or consumption stakeholder backing (e.g., pesticides, industrial chemicals, radiation sources, etc.).

Thus, the present quarantine eliminates only one of the many constituents of the mixture, and it is the component that does not have strong production and/or consumption stakeholder backing!

If blame for the pandemic can be assigned to the one constituent of the toxic mixture with no backing from the aforementioned powerful stakeholders, then these production and/or consumption stakeholders are protected from responsibility and ensuing legal consequences. Assigning blame for the pandemic to Mother Nature rather than those who bear the major responsibility ensures that these harmful practices and their associated pandemics (including the annual deaths of the most vulnerable demographic related to the so-called influenza pandemics) will continue unabated.

Why are not any of the other constituents of the mixture being placed under quarantine? Why are not smoking, or air pollution, or excess alcohol, or wireless radiation, or agrochemicals, or industrial chemicals, being placed under quarantine? Approximately 403,000 deaths globally (as of 8 June 2020) [https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu] have been ascribed to SARS-CoV-2, and the total deaths ascribed to the three coronavirus pandemics over the past two decades would raise the above estimate by an additional 1,700 deaths. The fatalities that can be related to some (perhaps most) other constituents of the toxic stimulus mixture of foundational causes are far greater globally, when all their adverse effects are integrated.

Placing responsibility for the pandemic (and especially the deaths associated with the pandemic) on non-anthropogenic causes is not limited to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In both the SARS pandemic and COVID-19, another of the factors assigned responsibility for some of the deaths is immune dysfunction and the associated ‘cytokine storm’: “the severity of disease might be due to immune dysregulation, rather than to the level of viremia. This dysregulation would be characterized by an insufficient type I interferon response (too little and too late), paralleled by an aberrant pro-inflammatory chemokine secretion by alveolar macrophages, dendritic cells and pneumocytes” [26]. Stated another way: “one could describe the unsuccessful immune response to SARS as “stuck in innate immunity,” whereas the progression to adaptive immunity, with antibody production, strongly correlated with favorable outcomes.” [27]. In other words, in some cases, the severe problems experienced by the most vulnerable demographic stem from the immune system’s inability to switch from innate defense to adaptive defense in a timely manner.

As the main body of the text has shown, there are many hundreds of foundational factors that contribute to the weakening of the immune system. The most vulnerable demographic tends to have many comorbidities, which translates to exposure to many of the foundational factors that contribute to a weakened immune system. Therefore, the weakened immune system becomes the dependent variable, and its inability to switch from innate mode to adaptive mode may not be due (in some/many/most cases) to some intrinsic defect, but rather to the adverse effects from exposures to the many foundational factors that contribute to its dysfunction. Again, the responsibility for immune system dysfunction reported in both the mainstream media and the biomedical literature is not assigned to production and/or consumption stakeholder interests behind the foundational contributing factors, but rather assigned to some defect in the immune system for which the production and/or consumption stakeholders bear no responsibility.

It is clear from the SARS results (and probably the present COVID-19 results) that exposure to the coronavirus (for the most part) results in no outward symptoms or mild symptoms, in the absence of large numbers of other toxic stimuli. Thus, a more protective quarantine, for the current pandemic and against future pandemics, would be to impose quarantines against the intrinsically toxic constituents of the mixture. Whether they would have the same very-short-term benefits as the present coronavirus quarantine/lockdown is questionable, but from the long-term perspective, the broader quarantine would be very protective against future viral attacks on the most vulnerable demographic, including the annual influenza infections.

To be fully protective in the present pandemic and against future pandemics, both tactical reactive responses to survive the immediate threat and strategic proactive responses to prevent the problem and damage from re-occurring are required. Toward that end, the first author published a document on identifying tactical and strategic treatments for COVID-19 [17]. That document serves as the basis for the analysis presented in the present monograph.

A2-B. Assignment of Deaths in Viral Pandemics

Much of the discussion concerning the COVID-19 pandemic in the media and elsewhere revolves around the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19. There are two main problems here: the validity of assigning deaths to the consequences of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and the uniformity of the criteria for assigning deaths to COVID-19. The previous section presented the argument that the deaths are mainly a consequence of exposure to a toxic mixture, and any assignment of responsibility or blame should be to the toxic mixture rather than any one pre-selected constituent. The virus is the trigger, and if there are no bullets in the chamber, pulling the trigger has no effect!

The criteria for assigning deaths to COVID-19 are not uniform across countries and, in the USA, not uniform across states. In addition, the highest-level guidance in the USA for assigning COVID-19 deaths is somewhat ‘soft’. For example, consider the guidance for assigning deaths to COVID-19 distributed to medical personnel by the National Center for Health Statistics [28]:

“If the death certificate reports terms such as “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” these terms would be assigned the new ICD code. It Is not likely that NCHS will follow up on these cases ... COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”

This wording allows a substantial level of flexibility in assigning a death to COVID-19, or any of the other comorbidities with which the most vulnerable demographic is associated. This is an important factor, since there are myriad political and financial motivations associated with assigning deaths to COVID-19.

For example, as stated by Scott Jensen, a physician in Minnesota and member of the State Senate [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fact-check-medicare-hospitals-paid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/]:

“Because if it's a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for – if they're Medicare – typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000. But if it's COVID-19 pneumonia, then it's $13,000, and if that COVID-19 pneumonia patient ends up on a ventilator, it goes up to $39,000.”

So, while there is no uniformity in assigning deaths to SARS-CoV-2, even if there were, the basic concept and the basic data are completely flawed, as shown above. This assignment of deaths to one constituent of a multi-constituent mixture is purely arbitrary, and a political act done for political (and financial) purposes.

Michael S.

I haven't followed all the comments recently - shame on me - but I going to post this in hopes that if it was posted before, some have missed it. This is a very important timeline detailing the planning run-up to the current Covid-19 hysteria. Brought to you by Children's Health Defense:


Michael S.

Peggy Hall works in education in OC. In response to the California Back to School Guidelines, she did some research showing that per CalOSHA, the masks DO NOT prevent the wearer from contracting the Covid-19 virus:


@ 2:20 into video #1:
From the CAL-OSHA Safety and Health Guidance Protocols:
“Cloth face covers are not protective equipment and do not protect the person wearing a cloth face cover from COVID-19”

She also shows later in the video that the 7 mask studies referred to by the CDC show no conclusive evidence that masks provide protections from Covid-19.

The two videos she made are very informative, fact and logic based, and are relatively straightforward to understand. I recommend watching and sharing them.

I also donated to her support fund.

Michael S.

Bob Moffit

"Where are the public health officials, social workers and school psychologists screaming that this message will terrify and traumatize many students? The psychological impact of having to pass a health screening every day by what looks like a weapon seems like a threat to current and future health."

Indeed ... WHERE ARE PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS, SOCIAL WORKERS, TEACHERS AND SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS as schools prepare to re-open with various protocols and polices being installed that will FOREVER ALTER NORMAL CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT??? Placing children from day one inside plastic cubicles .. everyone wearing masks .. social distancing prohibiting NORMAL childhood social interaction with classmates and teachers .. no touching, no hugging, no joyous celebratory conduct with peers …????????


go Trump

Prayers should go out this day to the family of Jeff Bradstreet, who was lost a few days before Father's Day in 2015.

Dr. Bradstreet was one of the few who was actually trying to figure out protocols which might help recover vaccine damaged children. His office was raided and he was found shot in a North Carolina river a few days later.


Grace Green

Very true, and thanks for your additional information, Laura. I have also heard that many school children will be required to wear a face mask for up to seven hours a day! This will put their health, mental health and even potentially their lives at risk, when they are not actually at risk from any alleged virus. Unbelievably wicked!

Laura Hayes

Excellent point! Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

And for any who missed this comment I posted yesterday, please have a read today!

Parents and Educators...THIS IS FOR YOU!

The email below is from a fellow activist. Please read it all the way through AND watch the 2 brief videos at the end by attorney Leigh Dundas. Then, share this critically important information with your school board, superintendent, principal, school nurse, teachers, daycare workers, county supervisors, legislators, governor, county sheriff, religious leaders, and with every parent you know! Laura Hayes

Dear Friends,

Schools are figuring out how to open back up, and their decisions will have a strong effect on our children’s physical and mental health. Attorney Leigh Dundas has put together some excellent information - including links to the scientific studies and two videos - that you can use in talking to your Boards of Education, Governors, County Supervisors, etc. Please read, watch, and act on it!

Warm regards,
(Activist's name here)

P.S. The Orange County Board of Supervisors rescinded their mandatory mask order after receiving this information last week.

From Leigh:

First, a disclaimer: this email does not constitute legal or medical advice, nor the formation of an attorney-client relationship. Please feel free to make use of this information, as needed, in your own lives.

Letter sent to the Supervisors of Orange County, California:

NOTICE: 6/9/20 Mask-Wearing Caused DANGEROUS Drops in Oxygen Levels in OC Residents

Dear Supervisors:

I wish to thank you again for taking the time yesterday to focus on the mandatory mask order. As I was inside the building when the OC residents decided to begin donning masks on the County Hall steps, it was not until this morning that I was presented with the data.

At the request of certain educators in OC, I summarized the data in an email. I am forwarding that email (below) for your review as well. Given this information, I am hereby requesting an immediate response by OC Health Department to the effect that mask wearing - which causes such precipitous drops in oxygenation - is healthy. Frankly, I doubt that such a statement can or will be forthcoming, given that every medical study worldwide holds that catastrophic medical situations and death occur in these low oxygen ranges.

If no statement can be propounded by OC Health Department - that it is medically safe for one to have oxygenation levels below 92% - then I would expect an immediate retraction of the Department’s order IN FULL regarding mask wearing. Even "recommending" such an action - now that we are all on notice that mask wearing for even a few minutes creates immediate and dangerous hypoxemia - puts OC residents at risk of catastrophic organ failure and death, with untold liability facing the the Board and its agencies for same.

Leigh Dundas, Esq.

Leigh’s email to the Orange County Board of Supervisors on the same day:

Provided below is a brief list of new studies from recent days -- but at the outset of this email I want to take a brief detour to summarize the results of what happened to OC residents wearing masks yesterday. This is a MUST READ BEFORE ANY EDUCATOR EVEN BEGINS TO CONSIDER MANDATORY MASKING OF STUDENTS OR TEACHERS.

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, OC residents turned out en masse to the Board of Supervisors meeting to protest the mandatory mask order. At the meeting the health officer provided zero medical-scientific data that mandatory mask-wearing was safe, particularly during summertime high temperatures, or in the context of young children - nor could he provide any study showing mask-wearing is effective at containing viral transmission in order to combat the myriad studies showing it is NOT effective at viral containment.

At the meeting numerous doctors, attorneys, educators, psychologists, parents, and concerned residents cited medical studies on the harms from mask-wearing. So upset were these residents by the failure of the health officer to rescind the medically-unsubstantiated mandatory mask order - which intransigent position also drew hours of heavy fire from the Supervisors - or even to provide any studies showing efficacy of mask-wearing, that the residents proceeded to go outside onto the steps of the County Hall, at noon, in the 100 degree heat, and put on the "mandated masks" while using a Pulse Oximeter to measure their oxygen levels and heart rate.

The results were nothing short of horrifying:

ALL of the individuals had their oxygen rate drop from a healthy 98 or 99% (without the mask) - a total of five, ten, and sometimes twenty full points - within a few minutes of mask-wearing. Medically, below 92% is considered "dangerous" - while below 90% oxygen merits a denomination of "hypoxemic" The AVERAGE drop of these OC residents in oxygenation was more than 12 points, into the hypoxemic range.

Two of the participants, one a very fit daily runner, and one a very fit nurse, had their oxygen rates drop into the 70s - where organ damage, systems failure, and death can occur. ALL participants suffered dangerous drops in oxygen: 43% fell into the "dangerous" zone, 29% in the hypoxemic zone, and 29% fell into the extremely dangerous hypoxemic zone (where cardiac arrest, organ failure and death occur.) Even those who just stood around in the masks doing absolutely nothing had frightening drops in oxygen levels. As context, most of the participants were in decently good health, and not overweight. I'm sure I don't need to extrapolate for the reader what could happen if this test were performed with an average cross section of citizens, i.e., with the nearly 40% of OC residents who suffer from at least one chronic health condition, and with the more than 20% of OC residents who are obese. It is a striking juxtaposition to note that Medicare and most insurance companies will pay for people with oxygen rates of less than 88% to get supplemental oxygen and all carriers and health experts advise you to seek immediate medical intervention below 88% - and the average oxygen rate was two points less than that at 86% after only a few minutes of mask-wearing.

Given the data from yesterday, let me underscore once more in no uncertain terms, and in language that is absolutely unmistakable: the liability that an OC School District or Board will be facing if it mandates mask-wearing for students or teachers is truly incalculable, in the event the mask-wearing causes a drop in oxygen (which we now know it likely will), which then leads to a medical complication or death. We have no idea what will happen to children who are made to wear masks in the triple digit weather of mid-August, but my guess is that their systems, being less developed and often more sensitive -- compounded by the fact that children are notoriously poor at self-regulation and are traditionally MUCH more active than adults -- will fare very badly indeed. Recent headlines have made quite clear that death of children and losses of consciousness can and do occur: https://nypost.com/2020/05/06/two-boys-drop-dead-in-china-while-wearing-masks-during-gym-class/ and https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/two-schoolboys-collapse-and-die-just-six-days-apart-in-china-while-wearing-face-masks-c-1017871 and https://nypost.com/2020/04/24/driver-crashes-car-after-passing-out-from-wearing-n95-mask/.

Let me now turn to the original reason for writing this email, which was to provide you a Summary of Medical Data (June 2020) from Switzerland, which further throws into serious question why educational agencies would make any changes to school protocols - if we are not similarly prepared to make massive overhauls based on the flu season each year (which seasonal flu actually affects children more than COVID does):

• "According to the latest immunological and serological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) is at most 0.1% and thus in the range of a strong seasonal influenza (flu)."
• "Even in the global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work."
• "The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.” https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR1HebavrIpzi2bkq7Djm86JOyh5hTeIRw8QbjhPaSkI_eUOzpUItrWKtj8

Also, New England Journal of Medicine notes that masking is ineffective in community settings, and that even in healthcare arenas, it's highest and best use is not to reduce viral transmission but people's anxiety:
• "The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a REFLEXIVE REACTION TO ANXIETY over the pandemic.... Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19."
New England Journal of Medicine (May, 21, 2020).https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?fbclid=IwAR2XUtZJCUW-fGrayqv481-PmqTaAlaYU2V6w0YBcB9fi5KDC-iv5xhy-cE

Finally, the World Health Organization came out yesterday (June 8, 2020), concluding in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that asymptomatic patients are NOT spreaders of the virus, which simply confirmed what earlier studies in May had found. Accordingly, we should NOT be worried that Little Johnny is going to catch the virus and bring Covid home to kill Grandma. Put simply: masking and social distancing are unnecessary, will create more medical and psychological damage than benefit, and are unneeded as healthy people and asymptomatic positive people DO NOT SPREAD THE VIRUS (so just keep the sneezy-coughers out of class -- which is standard -- and we will be just fine):

• "Coronavirus patients without symptoms aren’t driving the spread of the virus, World Health Organization officials said Monday, casting doubt on concerns by some researchers that the disease could be difficult to contain due to asymptomatic infections. 'We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing,' she said. 'They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.’" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html

Leigh Dundas, Esq.

The masks study video: https://youtu.be/WqhwwLbNZqo
The history of social distancing and the harm of using it in schools: https://youtu.be/NWh99sSF2Zs

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)