Thank you for the link. I not only copied it to my personal device but also made a print copy and will save it for my kids and grandkids to read. May God richly bless Dr. Blaylock for writing this article!
It is secure as long as Dr. Russell Blaylock isn't regarded as a conspiracy theorist.
He has lead the resistance to the adoption of hydrolyzed vegetable protein in processed foods as a direct and covert replacement for aspartame and monosodium glutamate for decades. Two of his books are treasured parts of my personal health library.
A snippit from that article, which is full of great anti-scamdemic thoughts and resources, says masks worse than useless:
Concerning facemasks, studies have shown that outside of health-care settings, mask use offers little to no protection against SARS-CoV-2,[ 23 , 98 , 112 ] but that it can induce many physiological complications. Indeed, the prolonged wearing of a mask (cloth, surgical, FFP2 (N95)) inevitably leads to all the repercussions associated with hypoxia and hypercapnia. In addition, the clinical effects of its prolonged wear could be similar to an intensification of chronic stress reactions.[ 97 ] Instead of masks, hand hygiene is one of the most important ways to prevent acquiring and spreading respiratory infections.[ 45 ]
Facemasks. The argument that they aren't effective under medical scientific study is irrelevant to those who mandated them. They care not about this or any study applying the natural sciences. That wasn't ever their point or their claim of efficacy.
They just said they were scientifically proven to be safe and effective, the "best science," called for by experts. Knowing that most people would assume they were talking about medical science, natural science.
But therein lies their cleverness. Hiding in the ambiguity of the word, "science," in plain sight. They meant a different type of science. Behavioral Science. The science of propaganda, symbols, psychological appeals that manipulate perceptions. "Oh, there must be an invisible danger in the air around me! I must be careful. It's super scary. All of these people I see wearing masks remind me." And not seeing a person's face is kind of frightening, like masked hijackers and bank robbers. Fear amplification. Aka, terrorizing. But claimed to be the best behavioral science-based non-pharmaceutical intervention. To fix people from their ignorant "optimism bias" that makes them think there's nothing to fear.
Behavioral Science. Aka the Science of Totalitarianism. That's what claims of mask efficacy were based on. Deceptively concealed in the ambiguity of the word, 'science.' A pseudoscience. And citing any medical science that disproves their medical efficacy is summarily ignored by those who impose them. With smug dismissal of the ignorant masses who fixate on the wrong type of science the more sophisticated and educated elite mean. As Obama's spokesperson said about his unmasked birthday party attendees when the masses and servant class were told to mask up.
They did. Unfortunately, the inquiry that UK Telegraph piece helped prompt has been used to justify their totalitarianism, and to call for even more, harsher, stricter restrictions and mandates. For pandemics and virtually any public health emergency they declare. From today's testimony by former PM David Cameron. Who first brought the Science of Totalitarianism into the UK as the Behavioural Insights Team at the same time that Obama created the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team in the US. These are sister efforts; what happens in the UK is meant to happen in the US, as well. They are doubling down on totalitarianism and expanding the scope based upon his remarks to the formal inquiry:
" - He said more time should have been spent assessing the risk of a pandemic with asymptomatic transmission. “When you think what would be different if more time had been spent on a highly infectious, asymptomatic pandemic, different recommendations would have been made about what was necessary to prepare for that,” he said.
- I now believe, however, that it might have been helpful if I had delved into the pandemic influenza risks myself … This is not because I believe such a review would have been likely to lead to any significant improvements in our preparedness for a pandemic flu itself, but rather because it might have led me to question whether we were adequately prepared to deal with the risks of forms of respiratory disease other than pandemic influenza.
- David Cameron tells Covid inquiry pandemic planning under his government did not focus enough on non-flu threats
David Cameron is giving evidence to the Covid inquiry since 11am. He was prime minister from 2010 until 2016, and he said that although pandemics were seen as a “tier 1 risk”, there was too much focus on the risk of a flu pandemic, and not enough on the risk of another type.
He said he had been asking himself why that happened, and it was “very hard” to give an answer. He said:
This is the thing I keep coming back to, which is that pandemic was a ‘tier 1 risk’ – pandemics were looked at, but … much more time was spent on pandemic flu and the dangers of pandemic flu rather than on potential pandemics of other more respiratory diseases like Covid turned out to be. And, you know, I think this is so important because so many consequences follow from that.
And I’ve been sort of wrestling with … I think the architecture [to deal with large-scale emergencies] was good – the national security council, the national security adviser, the risk register, and also this new security risk assessment, which was perhaps a bit more dynamic.
But that’s where I keep coming back to … is, so much time was spent on a pandemic influenza and that was seen as the greatest danger – and we had very bad years for flu so it is a big danger.
But why wasn’t more time and more questions asked about what turned out to be the pandemic that we faced? It’s very hard to answer why that’s the case. And I’m sure this public inquiry is going to spend a lot of time on that."
'Still up' might not last—be sure to secure a copy on personal device 😉 --> download ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/pdf/SNI-13-167.pdf
Thank you for the link. I not only copied it to my personal device but also made a print copy and will save it for my kids and grandkids to read. May God richly bless Dr. Blaylock for writing this article!
Awesome - Printing now! Cheers!
It is secure as long as Dr. Russell Blaylock isn't regarded as a conspiracy theorist.
He has lead the resistance to the adoption of hydrolyzed vegetable protein in processed foods as a direct and covert replacement for aspartame and monosodium glutamate for decades. Two of his books are treasured parts of my personal health library.
Where can Dr. Blaylock’s books be found, if you know.
amazon.com/russell-blaylock-Books/s?k=russell+blaylock&rh=n%3A283155 among other places.
Thank you!
He makes me proud to share his last name :)
I am equally proud to share the name of the man that Fargo, North Dakota was named for.
It is more likely to remain on its original publication site at surgicalneurologyint.com/surgicalint-articles/covid-update-what-is-the-truth/
Awesome! On your link to his site, I searched 'ivermectin'. Found this goodie.
https://surgicalneurologyint.com/surgicalint-articles/the-pharmaceutical-industry-is-dangerous-to-health-further-proof-with-covid-19/
Thanks for the share!
A snippit from that article, which is full of great anti-scamdemic thoughts and resources, says masks worse than useless:
Concerning facemasks, studies have shown that outside of health-care settings, mask use offers little to no protection against SARS-CoV-2,[ 23 , 98 , 112 ] but that it can induce many physiological complications. Indeed, the prolonged wearing of a mask (cloth, surgical, FFP2 (N95)) inevitably leads to all the repercussions associated with hypoxia and hypercapnia. In addition, the clinical effects of its prolonged wear could be similar to an intensification of chronic stress reactions.[ 97 ] Instead of masks, hand hygiene is one of the most important ways to prevent acquiring and spreading respiratory infections.[ 45 ]
Facemasks. The argument that they aren't effective under medical scientific study is irrelevant to those who mandated them. They care not about this or any study applying the natural sciences. That wasn't ever their point or their claim of efficacy.
They just said they were scientifically proven to be safe and effective, the "best science," called for by experts. Knowing that most people would assume they were talking about medical science, natural science.
But therein lies their cleverness. Hiding in the ambiguity of the word, "science," in plain sight. They meant a different type of science. Behavioral Science. The science of propaganda, symbols, psychological appeals that manipulate perceptions. "Oh, there must be an invisible danger in the air around me! I must be careful. It's super scary. All of these people I see wearing masks remind me." And not seeing a person's face is kind of frightening, like masked hijackers and bank robbers. Fear amplification. Aka, terrorizing. But claimed to be the best behavioral science-based non-pharmaceutical intervention. To fix people from their ignorant "optimism bias" that makes them think there's nothing to fear.
Behavioral Science. Aka the Science of Totalitarianism. That's what claims of mask efficacy were based on. Deceptively concealed in the ambiguity of the word, 'science.' A pseudoscience. And citing any medical science that disproves their medical efficacy is summarily ignored by those who impose them. With smug dismissal of the ignorant masses who fixate on the wrong type of science the more sophisticated and educated elite mean. As Obama's spokesperson said about his unmasked birthday party attendees when the masses and servant class were told to mask up.
Use of fear to control behaviour in Covid crisis was ‘totalitarian’, admit scientists
UK Guardian, May 14, 2021
https://web.archive.org/web/20210519003131/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit-totalitarian-use-fear-control-behaviour-covid/
Wow. They actually admit it.
They did. Unfortunately, the inquiry that UK Telegraph piece helped prompt has been used to justify their totalitarianism, and to call for even more, harsher, stricter restrictions and mandates. For pandemics and virtually any public health emergency they declare. From today's testimony by former PM David Cameron. Who first brought the Science of Totalitarianism into the UK as the Behavioural Insights Team at the same time that Obama created the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team in the US. These are sister efforts; what happens in the UK is meant to happen in the US, as well. They are doubling down on totalitarianism and expanding the scope based upon his remarks to the formal inquiry:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/jun/19/rishi-sunak-boris-johnson-keir-starmer-privileges-committee-report-tories-labour-uk-politics-live?topics=PERSON%3ADavid+Cameron#key-events-carousel-desktop
" - He said more time should have been spent assessing the risk of a pandemic with asymptomatic transmission. “When you think what would be different if more time had been spent on a highly infectious, asymptomatic pandemic, different recommendations would have been made about what was necessary to prepare for that,” he said.
- I now believe, however, that it might have been helpful if I had delved into the pandemic influenza risks myself … This is not because I believe such a review would have been likely to lead to any significant improvements in our preparedness for a pandemic flu itself, but rather because it might have led me to question whether we were adequately prepared to deal with the risks of forms of respiratory disease other than pandemic influenza.
- David Cameron tells Covid inquiry pandemic planning under his government did not focus enough on non-flu threats
David Cameron is giving evidence to the Covid inquiry since 11am. He was prime minister from 2010 until 2016, and he said that although pandemics were seen as a “tier 1 risk”, there was too much focus on the risk of a flu pandemic, and not enough on the risk of another type.
He said he had been asking himself why that happened, and it was “very hard” to give an answer. He said:
This is the thing I keep coming back to, which is that pandemic was a ‘tier 1 risk’ – pandemics were looked at, but … much more time was spent on pandemic flu and the dangers of pandemic flu rather than on potential pandemics of other more respiratory diseases like Covid turned out to be. And, you know, I think this is so important because so many consequences follow from that.
And I’ve been sort of wrestling with … I think the architecture [to deal with large-scale emergencies] was good – the national security council, the national security adviser, the risk register, and also this new security risk assessment, which was perhaps a bit more dynamic.
But that’s where I keep coming back to … is, so much time was spent on a pandemic influenza and that was seen as the greatest danger – and we had very bad years for flu so it is a big danger.
But why wasn’t more time and more questions asked about what turned out to be the pandemic that we faced? It’s very hard to answer why that’s the case. And I’m sure this public inquiry is going to spend a lot of time on that."
Just discovered you; following you now on Substack
Fox - our favorite word around here is $cience.
Bingo this comment!!
That is awesome BFM, thanks!
PDF version for download:
The pharmaceutical industry is dangerous to health. Further proof with COVID-19
by Fabien Deruelle, Independent Researcher, Ronchin, France
https://surgicalneurologyint.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/11949/SNI-13-475.pdf
I signed up (no charge) to save any worthy pieces there also.
Thank you! Printed, saved!
Thanks for that, done!
Thanks, saved !
Thank you!