It is a testimony to the power of propaganda, institutional capture, and the desire to socially conform that masking of the general population has successfully been imposed during the COVID-19 era. The harms from this imposition are palpable, and potentially long-term and gargantuan, not the least of which is the psychological training of the public to comply with an absurd measure that has direct personal negative impact. I review the mounting evidence of the obvious: Universal masking harms people and society, without any detectable benefit.

By November 1993 Catholic publica- tions appeared saying an abortifacient vaccine was being used as a tetanus prophylactic. In November 2014, the Catholic Church asserted that such a program was underway in Kenya. Three independent Nairobi accredited bio- chemistry laboratories tested samples from vials of the WHO tetanus vaccine being used in March 2014 and found hCG where none should be present. In October 2014, 6 additional vials were obtained by Catholic doctors and were tested in 6 accredited laboratories. Again, hCG was found in half the samples. Subsequently, Nairobi’s AgriQ Quest laboratory, in two sets of analyses, again found hCG in the same vaccine vials that tested positive earlier but found no hCG in 52 samples alleged by the WHO to be vials of the vaccine used in the Kenya campaign 40 with the same identifying batch numbers as the vials that tested positive for hCG. Given that hCG was found in at least half the WHO vaccine samples known by the doctors involved in administering the vaccines

There is a mismatch between the data published by the authorities and the reality on the ground. They have three sources of information, besides the emails and adverse event reports they receive through the Internet. These three sources are Israeli news site Ynet, the Israeli Health Ministry database, and the U.S. federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. In January 2021, there were 3,000 records of vaccine adverse events, including 2,900 for mRNA vaccines. Compared to other years, mortality is 40 times higher.

Evidence from five RCTs suggests that ivermectin probably reduces deaths by an average of 83% (somewhere between 65% to 92%) compared with no ivermectin treatment. For people being treated for COVID-19 the risk of death was 1.4% for people in the ivermectin group compared with 8.4% among those in the control group. The findings were assessed as being of moderate certainty as some of the included studies were at risk of bias.