It Has Only Taken Two Years for Scientists Today to Start to Figure Out What They Knew Right After the Spanish Flu

 Well, look at that, our modern scientists finally figured out what they knew right after the Spanish flu—lockdowns failed to stopCOVID-19 deaths and spread, and limiting gatherings might have increased COVID-19 deaths. Some scientists are also finally admitting that COVID-19boosters don’t help, either. Granted we have known for decades that mRNA shots are only effective for about 3 months in humans and we knew that although large numbers of antibodies were produced right after vaccination but those numbers did not effectively stop the virus after about 1 month—Guess what? we are working on our fourth booster one year on here in the West. With the serious side effects now finally being reported, we have to ask if these experimental non-vaccines that don't prevent you from getting or giving COVID-19 are worth it. I am not an alarmist or a conspiracy theorist. I never have been. But from the beginning, I have said and continue to say that what we are doing—lockdowns, masks, fake vaccines—is making the COVID-19 problem worse based on hundreds of years of science that we have thrown out the window—and now science is finally being able to publish the truth—albeit in a limited manner. Not that the world is listening--Kiribati just enacted lockdown and others are still in lockdown mode or just now coming out of it. The persons and countries who first suggested lockdowns should be made to pay the rest of the world for their un-scientific sins.

You want COVID-19 to go away, well, there is a simple answer—stop testing. If we tested for flu as much as we tested for COVID-19, the numbers and deaths from flu would be 10 times higher than what we have. But we don’t test everyone who walks into a doctor’s office for flu or mandate everyone who shows up to work with flu symptoms get tested for it before being allowed back to work. And that is what is really killing our economy and supply chains and hospitals and every other place. The problem is that the available jobs we have are being falsely created temporarily to meet demand while people are out sick with COVID—whether they are sick or not. Our actually job situation is in a much worse place than what they are telling us. In addition, stopping testing will make COVID-19 and the money and power that came with it disappear.  April is the next spike, let’s see if the CDC decides to relinquish its power over the world or not.

I knew all this was bunk from the beginning and questioned why the CDC, which I completely trusted prior to March 2020, was lying or at least misleading people from everything to the concentration of their bleach water to masks—but I have lost too many friends because of their bunk to say I told you so. Now, I know that a lot of people made money off of us—the poor who couldn’t afford to rent out an entire hotel during lockdowns or throw a party on their yachts or buy the best foods or get moved to the front of the health care line and get a private room in a hospital. The problem is that they have done it at the cost of our lives. I really don’t mind rich or privileged people having more things or opportunities than me. But when those people are getting their money by inflicting more suffering on the poor, I have a serious problem with that. It takes great restraint to not curse them as more of my unvaccinated friends are being denied medical care after getting COVID-19 from some hapless,vaccinated sheep who believed he or she could go out with COVID-19 symptomssince they received these fake “vaccines.” And frankly, I don’t really care if you are vaccinated or not—if you are sick, whether its from “vaccine” side effects or a minor cold—stay home. Also, keep in mind that mRNA vaccines were not used because they could be quickly developed- China developed 2 traditional vaccines in the same time it took us to pump mRNA and adenovirus vaccines out. They are being used because they are cheap. Name one time when something "cheap" worked as well or better than the real thing.

Perfect Study to Show Pro-Mask Bias

 This study was perfectly written to show a pro-mask point of view. 

First and foremost, it is not a randomized controlled trial but rather an after-the-fact, what-do-you remember about your illness study. The researchers conclude, however, that the study (done on only 124 households) confirms that wearing masks will stop COVID-19 transmission and that transmission occurs in the first couple of days after symptom onset because all the primary subjects were hospitalized immediately as per China's policies. 

"This study confirms that the highest risk of household transmission is prior to symptom onset, but that precautionary NPIs, such as mask use...can prevent COVID-19 transmission during the pandemic."

Wait a minute... Look at this data published in the study:

Time interval from illness onset to medical isolation (days):

                                Total                    Families without                Families with

                                                            secondary transmission      secondary transmission

≤2                             32 (25.8)             26 (31.3)                             6 (14.6)           – Ref 

>2                             92 (74.2)              57 (68.7)                             35 (85.4)       0.05 2.66 (1.00 to 7.12)

So, according to their own data 85.4% of the families that caught COVID-19 from a loved one in their homes had that same loved one in their homes for MORE THAN 2 DAYS. How does that mean you are most likely to get it in the first two days or before symptoms appear? 

Now, these researchers were not asking people after the fact if they had caught COVID-19 from the primary case. Nor were they testing everyone in the family to see if they had really gotten COVID-19 from the person during the first two weeks when they could have caught it. No. Instead, a family member had to not only catch COVID-19 from the primary case, but then that person had to have symptoms severe enough that they went to the hospital, have a test confirming it, and where they would then be quarantined for who knows how long. Now, lets say you are family and Dad comes home sick from work with COVID-19. He goes to the hospital and is put there for a minimum of 2 weeks (and probably longer since this was in the first months of the pandemic when everyone thought you could get it for two months afterward). Jr. gets COVID-19 from dad, but at 10 years old he has no symptoms and nobody knows because they never test him. Mom also gets COVID-19 from dad, but she only has minor symptoms and she is already under forced quarantine because dad had it. As a mother, do you (a) go to the hospital (where you will be quarantined) and try to find someone else to watch your son who is supposed to be quarantined from everyone because of his exposure or (b) suck it up and take care of your son and household? Grandma gets COVID-19, but she doesn't have it that badly and doesn't want to go to the hospital, so she spends time in her room using old-school traditional medicine. Voila, no secondary transmission in that family. 

Now, lets remember, the WHO tested 70,000 people in the beginning of this and confirmed that the transmission rate among household members was about 80%. This study of 124 families says household transmission is only 23%!!! Wow. There were 26 families that did not have secondary transmission and never wore masks. There were 21 families with secondary transmission that never wore masks. So, 47 families never wore masks and 55% of those families did not have secondary transmission as defined by the study's perimeters. Either WHO and their huge study were wrong or this study is wrong. Considering most of the data in this study did not have statistical significance, I think I will go with WHO.

But let's look at the real mask data they are promoting (as well as the 100+ news agencies that picked this up). 

No of family members wearing mask at home before primary case’s illness onset date (median (IQR))

                                Total                    Families without                Families with

                                                            secondary transmission      secondary transmission

None                       31 (25.6)                 27 (33.3)                             4 (10.0)       – Ref 

One or more           90 (74.4)                 54 (66.7)                              36 (90.0)   0.009 0.22 (0.07 to 0.69)

There is a lot wrong with this data. My first impression was that it is almost identical to the data above concerning how long it took to get into the hospital quarantine. Were the same families that were not wearing masks prior to the onset of the disease also waiting to go to the hospital? If that is true that could invalidate all the data--but this similarity is not mentioned or explained anywhere in the text. Second, why are only 121 of the 124 families recorded here? Third, and this is the most interesting: why isn't the data broken down into "none" "some" and "all"? Or better yet, "all" and "none or not everyone wore a mask"? What the authors are trying to say and what they have statistically proven is that only one person in your family has to wear a mask at all times and the entire family will be safe. If Grandma wears a mask, no one will get COVID-19 according to the way this data is set up and analyzed. Ironically, the authors did divide the categories into "none" "some" "all" for mask use after the illness onset. No reason was given for combining the two categories. This is concerning since one person wearing a mask in a household of four would have questionable effect on disease transmission. It could be argued if the person was the primary case or the only caregiver for the primary case prior to hospital admission, there may be some benefit, but the problem with that scenario is that this statistic is covering mask use before the primary case had symptoms. It is highly unlikely the only person wearing a mask would fall into these two categories. Further, it would be impossible to replicate these results if that happened. 

In the yellow journalism that has encompassed the peer-review process, this paper has been cited again and again as well as in news stories. 

Here is some information with citations you can share if you want to know the truth about Dr. Fauci and his relationship with big pharma: in the 1980s, Dr. Fauci made an announcement that the FDA should fast track AZT trials for HIV. This shocked the FDA because they knew AZT had failed as a cancer treatment. The company that makes AZT stopped trials after 17 weeks because they stated it would be "unethical" to deny it to the placebo group. AZT caused people with HIV to be more sick, die sooner, and it accelerated HIV mutations into resistant strains. Currently, AZT is not recommended as a sole treatment for HIV, and when used in combination with other drugs 50% of the people who start it have to be pulled off it. Unfortunately, many of the people with HIV who suffered because they took AZT that had been recommended for general use by Dr. Fauci (instead of last resort emergency use as approved by the FDA) are now dead. Big pharma charge $8000 per month to every person who took AZT during its height. 

After that, Dr. Fauci legally took kick-backs from pharmaceutical companies for developing and getting Interleukin-2 approved as another HIV drug. Fauci claimed he felt uncomfortable about taking the kickbacks and "donated them to charity." Still, despite Fauci's research showing Interleukin-2 helped fight HIV, four years later independent research showed Interleukin-2 was ineffective and detrimental to HIV patients because it weakened immune cells and made the ineffective. 

Dr. Fauci continued to take kickbacks from big pharma and use funds donated to the NSAID/NIH to specifically support big pharma research. This creates questionable ethics cycles: for example in the current pandemic, Bill Gates invested in Moderna and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has regularly donated money to NSAID which Dr. Fauci directed to Moderna research. Dr. Fauci became the gatekeeper between Moderna and the FDA (and here), and in an ironically similar situation to that during the AZT release, Moderna stopped placebo trials as soon as it received emergency use authorization (before determining statistically significant effectiveness or side effects) because it would be "unethical" to deny the vaccine to the placebo group. 

During the 2014 Ebola "crisis," Dr. Fauci pushed for emergency use of Remdesivir, again this drug was found to be ineffective against Ebola after independent studies. 

Dr. Fauci refuses to disclose his financial ties, but his net worth is apparently in the millions. When he completely flipflopped on masks, no one questioned him despite the NAS stating there was no scientific evidence that masks prevented asymptomatic spread (and that it was highly unlikely they did). With his past history of promoting bad drugs and flipflopping suddenly, why hasn't he been investigated?

Further, just as with AZT, Dr. Fauci again promoted Remdesivir as a COVID-19 treatment and pushed it through emergency use. Independent studies showed that people who took Remdesivir early showed no statistically significant benefit (however, Remdesivir patients suffered twice the number of side effects), were ignored. Further Remdesivir did not significantly reduce death rates or rates of serious disease even in the NIH funded study. When the WHO stated Remdesivir given to the sickest later in the course of the disease did not help them at all, WHO was attacked for not taking into account people who had been given the drug earlier. In fact, Fauci has criticized all studies that show Redmesivir is not clinically effective at treating COVID-19 and comes with serious side effects (as seen in the article above). 

Although the past evidence is enough to raise question about Dr. Fauci's conduct, full research should be done, including his financial situation and how he has handled NIH funds and determined which companies get grants to perform research. At the least, the FDA should immediately cancel EUAs without independent research and full clinical trials because of the misinformation leading to deaths surrounding Dr. Fauci's previous research projects. 

Arizona and Georgia Need to Mask Up NOW!!!

Two states votes many of their population want Joe Biden in (who has promised to mandate masks), but these states do not have mandatory mask laws. This needs to be changed immediately. If their people want Biden for president, they need to put their masks on right now. 

Stop the Lies

 I love "research" like this.

This shows just how stupid and uninformed these researchers and news article writers are. Whenever you read a paper that talks about how they "saw" a reduction in "droplets" you can toss it. 

The average droplet that comes out of your mouth and spreads disease is 0.7 um. That is smaller than a single red blood cell. You CANNOT SEE IT with the unaided human eye. Any "research" that is looking at droplets you can see unaided is not even remotely looking at the real problem.

Cloth masks and non-medical masks do not stop the spread of disease and should not be sold in the United States as medical devices for this purpose because the FDA is refusing to do its job and regulate them. The CDC should be fined and arrested for pushing snake-water, but the FDA is looking the other way. This government corruption needs to stop. 

Stop the lies--don't share this garbage. If you see someone sharing a video or research paper that shows droplets that are visible to the human eye and then shows how masks affect these droplets, please do not share it and let others know that despite the large number of droplets you can see there are millions more that you cannot see and the mask cannot stop these. 

I normally would like citations for this information, but my $3 e-book has an entire chapter with over 100 citations against the use of masks because of their inability to filter disease, their increase of disease spread, and the numerous health problems they cause. The benefit of the e-book is that all you have to do is click since more than 90% of the links are to free online journal articles.

I just wish I knew why governments are encouraging and forcing people to do things that will increase the spread of COVID-19. 

Hitler's Big Lie and the COVID-19 Pandemic

I have written a new book, filled with citations to help clear up the mystery surrounding all the COVID-19 misinformation. Here is the description:

 The misinformation surrounding COVID-19 has possibly been the largest since the propaganda created in Nazi Germany. With even the CDC first telling everyone not to wear masks and now telling everyone to wear them, it can be extremely difficult to discover just what is right and what is wrong. Who do you trust? This book, filled with more than 300 cited references, was written to help you find the truth. It is a must-read if you are confused or if you want to find out if you have been able to sort through all the lies successfully. 30% of all the profits from the sale of this book will be divided equally and donated to a local YMCA and a summer camp that have been hit hard financially because of the COVID-19 business closures.

You can find the book on Amazon at the following links:

Full color version paperback: https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Big-Lie-COVID-19-Pandemic/dp/B08FP5V3JN/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1597677713&refinements=p_27%3AJennifer+J.+Reinoehl&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Jennifer+J.+Reinoehl

Color E-book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08G56JQVB

Black and white version paperback & black and white large print paperback--links to be posted within the next week or so. 

I am also going to be running some Goodreads Giveaways and will post those links as soon as they are ready. 

According to the FDA, that mask the CDC is requiring you to wear isn't protecting you from disease.

The CDC states here we must wear cloth face coverings because they may prevent the spread. It recommends:

 "CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.  Cloth face coverings fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials at low cost can be used as an additional, voluntary public health measure.

The cloth face coverings recommended are not surgical masks or N-95 respirators.  Those are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance."

However, the FDA gives guidance here (here ) for the non-surgical masks which the CDC is telling everyone to wear: 

"Masks for non-medical purposes are not medical devices and are not regulated by the FDA.

Under the policy, the FDA believes face masks not intended to provide liquid barrier protection [i.e. non-medical masks] do not create such an undue risk where:

• The face masks include labeling that:
  • Accurately describes the product as a face mask (as opposed to a surgical mask or filtering facepiece respirator);
  • Includes a list of body-contacting materials (which does not include any drugs or biologics); and
  • Includes recommendations and general statements that would reduce the risk of use. For example, recommendations against use:
    • In any surgical setting or where significant exposure to liquid, bodily, or other hazardous fluids may be expected;
    • In a clinical setting where the infection risks level through inhalation exposure is high;
    • In the presence of a high intensity heat source or flammable gas;
• The face masks are not intended for any use that would create such an undue risk. For example, the labeling does not include uses for antimicrobial or antiviral protection, infection prevention or reduction, or related uses, and does not include particulate filtration claims."

In other words, the FDA says that it is okay to manufacture and sell these non-medical masks, but they cannot protect you from infection and must be clear about stating this. So, why is the CDC recommending we all wear them? 

Think about it. If a cloth mask won't protect you from symptomatic transmission, why would anyone, including the CDC, think it would protect you from asymptomatic transmission?

To further muddy the waters, the FDA is now allowing millions of non-surgical (but surgical looking) masks to flood into the country from China. None of these masks protect anyone from disease, but they are being marketed as such because of the CDC guidelines, which imply they do. How many of our healthcare workers are now wearing cloth masks that do not protect them from anything? How many of our healthcare workers are wearing cheap, surgical mask imitations that will not protect them from liquids (i.e. the droplets that transmit the disease).