Global Covid Summit 2022 with Dr. Robert Malone

Declaration IV – Restore Scientific Integrity

A Joint Statement, representing 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists to end the National Emergency, Restore Scientific Integrity, and Address Crimes Against Humanity.

17,000 physicians and medical scientists declare that the state of medical emergency must be lifted, scientific integrity restored, and crimes against humanity addressed.

We, the physicians and medical scientists of the world, united through our loyalty to the Hippocratic Oath, recognize that the disastrous COVID-19 public health policies imposed on doctors and our patients are the culmination of a corrupt medical alliance of pharmaceutical, insurance, and healthcare institutions, along with the financial trusts which control them. They have infiltrated our medical system at every level, and are protected and supported by a parallel alliance of big tech, media, academics and government agencies who profited from this orchestrated catastrophe.

This corrupt alliance has compromised the integrity of our most prestigious medical societies to which we belong, generating an illusion of scientific consensus by substituting truth with propaganda. This alliance continues to advance unscientific claims by censoring data, and intimidating and firing doctors and scientists for simply publishing actual clinical results or treating their patients with proven, life-saving medicine. These catastrophic decisions came at the expense of the innocent, who are forced to suffer health damage and death caused by intentionally withholding critical and time-sensitive treatments, or as a result of coerced genetic therapy injections, which are neither safe nor effective.

The medical community has denied patients the fundamental human right to provide true informed consent for the experimental COVID-19 injections. Our patients are also blocked from obtaining the information necessary to understand risks and benefits of vaccines, and their alternatives, due to widespread censorship and propaganda spread by governments, public health officials and media. Patients continue to be subjected to forced lock-downs which harm their health, careers and children’s education, and damage social and family bonds critical to civil society. This is not a coincidence. In the book entitled “COVID-19: The Great Reset”, leadership of this alliance has clearly stated their intention is to leverage COVID-19 as an “opportunity” to reset our entire global society, culture, political structures, and economy.

Our 17,000 Global COVID Summit physicians and medical scientists represent a much larger, enlightened global medical community who refuse to be compromised, and are united and willing to risk the wrath of the corrupt medical alliance to defend the health of their patients.

The mission of the Global COVID Summit is to end this orchestrated crisis, which has been illegitimately imposed on the world, and to formally declare that the actions of this corrupt alliance constitute nothing less than crimes against humanity.

We must restore the people’s trust in medicine, which begins with free and open dialogue between physicians and medical scientists. We must restore medical rights and patient autonomy. This includes the foundational principle of the sacred doctor-patient relationship. The social need for this is decades overdue, and therefore, we the physicians of the world are compelled to take action.

After two years of scientific research, millions of patients treated, hundreds of clinical trials performed and scientific data shared, we have demonstrated and documented our success in understanding and combating COVID-19. In considering the risks versus benefits of major policy decisions, our Global COVID Summit of 17,000 physicians and medical scientists from all over the world have reached consensus on the following foundational principles:

  1. We declare and the data confirm that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end.
  2. We declare doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving medical treatment.
  3. We declare the state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic, should be immediately terminated.
  4. We declare medical privacy should never again be violated, and all travel and social restrictions must cease.
  5. We declare masks are not and have never been effective protection against an airborne respiratory virus in the community setting.
  6. We declare funding and research must be established for vaccination damage, death and suffering.
  7. We declare no opportunity should be denied, including education, career, military service or medical treatment, over unwillingness to take an injection.
  8. We declare that first amendment violations and medical censorship by government, technology and media companies should cease, and the Bill of Rights be upheld.
  9. We declare that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, and their enablers, withheld and willfully omitted safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians, and should be immediately indicted for fraud.
  10. We declare government and medical agencies must be held accountable.

Watch the full video here’s the link.


Millions of Lives Should Have Been Saved – What the World Wasn’t Supposed to Know

Millions of Lives Should Have Been Saved – What the World Wasn’t Supposed to Know

Who changed the scientific conclusions of a paper that could have saved millions? At last, we may have a name.

This is a scandal of immense proportions that warrants an immediate investigation.

If what you are about to learn was playing out onscreen, the collective gasp of the audience at the moment of reveal would register at deafening decibels.

First, let’s set the stage:

— Over one year ago, there were ample peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials that provided strong evidence on ivermectin’s efficacy as a treatment for COVID in every disease phase.

— A paper considering these many studies was written by lead author Dr. Andrew Hill at the University of Liverpool for the World Health Organization’s COVID Guideline Development Group. Hill was an early and vigorous proponent for ivermectin. His paper showed that ivermectin could reduce deaths by 75% if used throughout the world.

— Inexplicably, just days before its publication, the paper appeared on a pre-print server, with its conclusions changed. Instead of concluding that Ivermectin—one of the world’s safest and most inexpensive drugs— should be rolled out globally, it now concluded that more studies on Ivermectin were needed before it could be recommended worldwide.  Given the totality of scientific evidence for Ivermectin, it was a stunning—actually shocking—reversal by Dr. Hill.

—In an urgent Zoom call to Dr. Hill initiated by Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy, Dr. Hill admitted to her that one of his study’s sponsors, Unitaid, had a say in the conclusions of his paper. But he would not divulge the name(s) of those who altered the paper’s conclusions.

But now, “The Digger” on Substack (aka producer/director Phil Harper) has revealed the name of the person who could have edited the paper’s conclusions—which led to the WHO’s non-recommendation of the use of ivermectin. That decision could have led to the unnecessary deaths of millions across the world.


Mr. Harper studied the PDF of the paper, wanting to learn the identity of its “ghost” author. “The hope was that some artifact on the PDF would reveal something, maybe a font was different, maybe there was a hidden comment, maybe some tracked changes had been saved to the document,” said Harper. “None of those lines of inquiry came to anything.”

Then it came to him. Was it in the PDF’s metadata? “Sometimes it’s the most obvious of things,” Harper writes. “The ‘v1_stamped’ version of the paper did indeed have metadata. It even had author information inside the metadata. Expecting to see Andrew Hill listed as the author, instead, I saw a name I recognized. Andrew Owen.

“Unless someone used his computer, Andrew Owen has his digital fingerprint on the Andrew Hill paper.”

Professor Andrew Owen is the person who allegedly edited the critical Andrew Hill paper on Ivermectin. He was also in receipt of consultancy fees from pharmaceutical companies with competing products.

As it turns out, Andrew Owen is a Professor of Pharmacology & Therapeutics and co-Director of the Centre of Excellence in Long-acting Therapeutics (CELT) at the University of Liverpool. He is also scientific advisor to the WHO’s COVID-19 Guideline Development Group. Just days before Dr. Hill’s paper was to be published, a $40M grant from Unitaid, the paper’s sponsor, was given to CELT —of which Owen is the project lead.The $40 million contract was actually a commercial agreement between Unitaid, the University of Liverpool and Tandem Nano Ltd (a start-up company that commercializes ‘Solid Lipid Nanoparticle’ delivery mechanisms)— for which Andrew Owen is a top shareholder,” says Harper.

Furthermore, Harper writes that, “Andrew Owen is prolific in the art of receiving money from pharmaceutical companies. He’s received research funding from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Tibotec, Roche Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Myers Squibb.”


Read the entire essay HERE. In it, Harper reveals much, much more. This is just the latest in a series of postings on ‘The Digger’ exposing the machinations and the backdoor wheeling and dealing to prevent ivermectin from saving lives so that other, more profitable (and scientifically proven more dangerous) designer drugs could take center stage and make bank.

The Great Facemask Debate –  121 Links and References to Scientific Studies

The Great Facemask Debate – 121 Links and References to Scientific Studies

121 References to Scientific Studies on Facemask Effectiveness

We have provided the following information to assist you in your research so you can make a fully informed decision on the matter of wearing facemask.  We cannot yet find any independent peer-reviewed studies without any conflict of interest to support the idea that wearing a facemask outside a medical or dusty setting will do anyhting to improve your health or the health of others.

We recommend you take the time to educate yourself as much as possible by reading as many of the following links as you can.  This extensive list has been collected over time, some links may no longer be valid.  Please report invalid links so we can correct them.

Masks, False safety and real dangers Part 1

1. Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers
and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review
A 29 study meta-analysis review that included 11 studies and 18 random control trials of 26,444
participants. This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might
reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections.

2. Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment
“We did not observe associaGon between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19
spread in US states.”

3. 16 Studies: Effectiveness of personal protec4ve measures in reducing pandemic influenza
This meta-analyses concluded that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protecGve
effect, and face mask use provided a non-significant protecGve effect.
4. Study: Experimental investigation of indoor aerosol dispersion and accumula4on in the
context of COVID-19: Effects of masks and ventilation
This study published by the American Institute of Physics found that face masks reduced
indoor aerosols by 12% at most — which is not enough to prevent infections.
5. Study: Non-pharmaceu4cal Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Non-healthcare SePngs-
Personal Protec4ve and Environmental Measures
The use of face masks, either by infected or non-infected persons, does not have a
significant effect on influenza transmission.

6. Study: Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses
“There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask makes li;le or no difference to
the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask.”

7. Study: An Overview on the Role of Rela4ve Humidity in Airborne Transmission of SARS-
CoV-2 in Indoor Environment
RelaGve Humidity (RH) is an important factor responsible for airborne transmission of SARS-
CoV-2 virus. In dry indoor areas, chances of airborne transmission are higher than humid
areas. Indoor air at 40 to 60 percent RH is the opGmum level for human health. Important
to set minimum RH standard for indoor environments.

8. 29 Studies: Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infec4ons in
Healthcare Workers
This meta-analysis concluded that evidence of a protecGve effect of masks or respirators
against verified respiratory infecGon was not staGsGcally significant.

9. Study: “Exercise with face mask; Are we handling a devil’s sword?” – A physiological
There is no evidence to suggest that wearing a mask during exercise offers any benefit from
the droplet transfer from the virus. [This is noteworthy, as the argument is that although
masks can not filter out the SARS-CoV-2 virus, that they may be able to filter out droplets
that carry the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This study seems to say no.]

10. Study: A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in
healthcare workers
Penetration of cloth masks by influenza particles was almost 97 percent and medical masks
44 percent — so cloth masks are essentially useless, and “medical grade” masks don’t
provide adequate protection. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results
caution against the use of cloth masks.
[Note: influenza particles are over three times the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (see here),
so it can be inferred that the filter efficiency for the SARS-CoV-2 virus would be worse.]

11. Study: Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms – a costly and unnecessary ritual?
The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced
ventilation seems to be unnecessary. [An argument from mask proponents is that wearing a
mask protects others from you. This study seems to say no.]

12. Study: Face mask against viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims
A large randomized controlled trial with 8000± participants, found that face masks “did not
seem to be effecGve against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against
clinical respiratory infection.”

13. Study: Simple respiratory protection–evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth
masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles
“Results obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal
protecGon against nanoparGcles, including those in the size ranges of virus-containing
parGcles in exhaled breath.” [SARS-CoV-2 virus is about .1 micron = 100 nm]

14. Study: Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human
subject evalua4on with NaCl aerosol represen4ng bacterial and viral par4cle size range
“The study indicates that N95 filtering face piece respirators may not achieve the expected
protecGon level against bacteria and viruses.”

15. Study: Analysis of the Effects of COVID-19 Mask Mandates on Hospital Resource
Consump4on and Mortality at the County Level
There was no reducGon in per-populaGon daily mortality, hospital bed, ICU bed, or
venGlator occupancy of COVID-19-posiGve paGents a;ributable to the implementaGon of a
mask-wearing mandate.

16. Study: Modeling of the Transmission of Coronaviruses, etc. in Dental Clinics
The evidence suggests that transmission probability is strongly driven by indoor air quality
— specifically venGlaGon — and the least by respiratory protecGon via mask use.

17. 16 Studies: Evidence for Community Cloth Face Masking to Limit the Spread of SARS-
CoV-2: A Critical Review
This review looked at the quality of the studies supporting masking. “Of sixteen meta-
analyses, eight were equivocal or critical as to whether evidence supports a public
recommendaGon of masks, and the remaining supported a public mask intervention on
limited evidence, primarily on the basis of the precautionary principle.”

18. Study: Aerosol penetra4on and leakage characteris4cs of masks used in the health care
“We conclude that the protecGon provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in
environments containing potenGally hazardous sub-micrometer sized aerosols.” [Note: the
SARS-CoV-2 virus is a sub-micrometer sized parGcle.]

19. 3 Studies: Disposable surgical face masks for preven4ng surgical wound infec4on in clean
“We included three trials, involving a total of 2106 parGcipants. There was no staGsGcally
significant difference in infecGon rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of
the trials.”

20. 2 Studies: Disposable surgical face masks: a systema4c review
“Two randomized controlled trials were included involving a total of 1453 paGents. …in a
large trial there was no difference in infecGon rates between the masked and unmasked

21. Study: Face seal leakage of half masks and surgical masks
“The filtraGon efficiency of the filter materials was good, over 95%, for parGcles above 5
micron in diameter but great variaGon existed for smaller parGcles.” Coronavirus is .1±
microns, therefore these masks would not offer good protecGon from that virus.

22. Study: Comparison of the Filter Efficiency of Medical Non-woven Fabrics against Three
Different Microbe Aerosols
“The filter efficiencies against influenza virus parGcles were the lowest.”
[Note: influenza parGcles are over three Gmes the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (see here),
so it can be inferred that the filter efficiency for the SARS-CoV-2 virus would be worse.]

23. Study: Aerosol penetration through surgical masks
“Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by
health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the sub-micrometer size aerosols
containing pathogens.” [The SARS-CoV-2 virus is sub-micrometer.]

24. 6 Studies: Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A
systema4c review and meta-analysis
This meta-analysis was of six Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) involving 9,171
parGcipants. The conclusion: “the use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is
not associated with a lower risk of laboratory- confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95
respirators should not be recommended for the general public.”

25. Study: N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preven4ng Influenza Among Health Care
Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial
“2371 parGcipants completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among
outpaGent health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by parGcipants
resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

26. Commentary: Universal Masking in Hospitals in the COVID-19 Era
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine (wri;en by five physicians) came to the
conclusion that face masks offer li;le to no protecGon in everyday life.

27. Study: Masking lack of evidence with politics
“It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable
uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.”

28. 12 Studies: Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review
In this meta-analysis of twelve studies, the authors found li;le data to support the use of
face masks to prevent wearers from becoming infected.

29. Study: Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among
health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial
Face mask use in healthcare workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in
terms of colds symptoms or geqng colds.

30. Study: Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommenda4on to Other Public Health Measures
to Prevent SARS- CoV-2 Infec4on in Danish Mask Wearers
The COVID-19 infection results between mask wearers and the control group were not
statistically significant.

31. CDC: “CDC is not aware of any randomized controlled trials that show that masks, or
double masks, or cloth face coverings are effective against COVID-19.”

32. Study: Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza
“Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to
prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals.” [Note that droplets are significantly
larger than the SARS-CoV-2 virus.]

33. Study: Evaluating the efficacy of cloth face masks in reducing particulate mader exposure
“Our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals
from particles <2.5 micron.” [Coronavirus is .1± micron.]

34. Study: Assessment of Proficiency of Mask Donning Among the General Public in
The survey was administered to 2499 adults, who were given instrucGons for proper mask
use. Subsequently, only 12.6% passed the Visual Mask Fit (VMF) test. This would indicate
that the compliance of children would be lower yet.

35. 17 Studies: The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a
systema4c review of the scien4fic evidence
Seventeen studies were reviewed in this meta-analysis. “None of the studies we reviewed
established a conclusive relaGonship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protecGon against
influenza infecGon.”
[Note: influenza parGcles are over three Gmes the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (see here),
so it can be inferred that the filter efficiency for the SARS-CoV-2 virus would be worse.]

36. Study: Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review
This study used 5462 peer-reviewed arGcles and 41 grey literature records. Conclusion:
“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to criGcal shortages of medical-grade PPE. AlternaGve
forms of facial protecGon offer inferior protecGon.”

37. Study: Particle removal from air by face masks made from Sterilization Wraps:
Effectiveness and Reusability
“We found that 60 GSM face mask had particle capture efficiency of 94% for total particles
greater than 0.3 microns.” [These are be;er quality masks than standard cloth masks, so
cloth masks would provide li;le effectiveness for the .1 micron SARS-CoV-2 virus.]

38. Study: Visualizing the effec4veness of face masks in obstruc4ng respiratory jets
A few studies have considered the filtraGon efficiency of homemade masks made with
different types of fabric; however, there is no broad consensus regarding their effecGveness
in minimizing disease transmission.


A Further 83 Compelling References

We have provided the following information to assist you in your research.

1 T Jacobson, J Kler, et al. Direct human health risks of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Nat Sustain. 201 (8). 691-701.

2 D Sin, S Man, et al. Arterial carbon dioxide tension on admission as a marker of in-hospital mortality in community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Med. Feb 1 2005. 118 (2). 145-150.

3 P Murtagh, V Giubergia, et al. Lower respiratory infections by adenovirus in children. Clinical features and ris factors for bronchiolitis obliterans and mortality. Ped Pulm. 44. 450-456.

4 N Nin, A Muriel et al. Severe hypercapnia and outcome of mechanically ventilated patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Int Care Med 43. 200-208.

5 K Moser, E Shibel, et al. Acute respiratory failure in obstructive lung disease. JAMA. Aug 13 1973. 225. 705-7

6 B Chandrasekaran, S Fernandes. Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword? – A physiological hypothesis. Nov 2020. 144 (110002). doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110002

7 M Joyner, D Casey. Regulation of increased blood flow (hyperemia) to muscles during exercise: a hierarchy of competing physiological needs. Physiol Rev. Apr 2015. 95 (2). 549-601. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00035.2013.

8 Carbon Dioxide Health Hazard Information Sheet. Food Safety Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture

9 Z Zhaoshi. Potential risks when some special people wear masks. No. 1 Dept of Neurology, The Third Hospital Jilin University. Apr 18 2020.

11 Occupational Chemical Database: Carbon Dioxide. US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

12 Carbon Dioxide Health Hazard Information Sheet. Food Safety Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture. Dioxide.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

13 Acid-base physiology, 4.4 Respiratory acidosis-Metabolic effects.

14 J Williams, J Krah, et al. The physiological burden of prolonged PPE use on healthcare workers during long shifts. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Jun 10 2020. blog/2020/06/10/ppe-burden/  (link is now invalid)

15 R Roberge, A Coca, et al. Physiological impact of the N95 filtering facepiece respirator on healthcare workers. Respir Care. May 2010. 55 (5). 569-577.

16 M Shigemura, e Lecuona et al. Effects of hypercapnia on the lung. J Physiol. Jan3 2017. 595 (8).

17 C Vohwinkel, E Lecuona et al. Elevated CO(2) levels cause mitochondrial dysfunction and impair cell proliferation. J Biol Chem. Oct 28 2011. 286 (43). 37067-76. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.290056.

18 C Kempeneers, C Seaton, et al. Ciliary functional analysis: beating a path towards standardization. Pediatr Pulmonol. Oct 2019. 54 (10). 1627-1638.

19 E Laserna, O Sibila, et al. Hypocapnia and hypercapnia are predictors for ICU admission and mortality in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Chest. Nove 2012. 142 (5): 1193-1199. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-0576

20 A Lardner. The effects of extracellular pH on immune function. J Leukoc Biol. Apr 2001. 69 (4). 522-30

21 C Lang, P Dong, et al. Effect of CO2 on LPS-induced cytokine responses in rats alveolar macrophages. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. Jul 2005. 289 (1). L96-L103. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00394.2004

22 S Casalino-Matsuda, N Wang, et al. Hypercapnia alters expression of immune response, nucleosome assembly and lipid metabolism genes in differentiated human bronchial epithelial cells. Sep 10 2018. Sci Rep. 13508.

23 D O’Croinin, et al. Sustained hypercapnic acidosis during pulmonary infection increases bacterial load and worsens lung injury. Crit Care Med. 36. 2128-2135.

24 B Borovoy, C Huber, Maria Crisler. Masks, false safety and real dangers, Part 2: Microbial challenges from masks. Oct 2020.

25 D Morens, J Taubenberger, et al. Predominant role of bacterial pneumonia as a cause of death in pandemic influenza: implications for pandemic influenza preparedness. J Inf Dis. Octo 1 2008. 198 (7). 962-970.

26 J Williams, J Cichowitz, et al. The physiological burden of prolonged PPE use on healthcare workers during long shifts. US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Science Blog. Jun 10 2020.

27 D Harmening. Clinical Hematology and Fundamentals of Hemostasis, 4 th ed. Davis Company. 2002. 349. 28 L Costanzo. Physiology. W B Saunders Company. 1998. 286-287.

29 A Yartsev. Pharmacology of carbon dioxide. Deranged Physiology. primary-exam/required-reading/respiratory-system/Chapter%20311/pharmacology-carbon-dioxide

30 A Voulgaris, O Marrone, et al. Chronic kidney disease in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. A narrative review. Sleep Med Rev. 2019. 10 (47). 74-89.

31 Medicine Libre Texts. 6.4: Metabolic effects. Aug 13 2020. base_Physiology_(Brandis)/06%3A_Respiratory_Acidosis/6.04%3A_Metabolic_Effects

32 C Smith, J Whitelaw, et al. Carbon dioxide rebreathing in respiratory protective devices: influence of speech and wor rate in full-face masks. Ergonomics. 2013. 56 (5): 781-790.

33 D Stevens, B Jackson, et al. The impact of obstructive sleep apnoea on balance, gait and falls risk: a narrative review of the literature. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. Feb 2020. 10glaa014. Online ahead of print.

34 E Lim, R Seet, etal. Headaches and the N-95 face-mask amongst healthcare providers. Acta Neurol Scand Mar 2006. 113 (3). 199-202. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00560.x

35 N Fabregas, J Fernández-Candil. Hypercapnia. Dec 2016. In book Complications in Neuroanesthesia. 157-168.

36 J Sayers, R Smith, et al. Effects of carbon dioxide on mental performance. J Appl Physiol. Jul 1985. 63 (1). 25- 30. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1987.63.1.25

37 U Satish, M Mendell, et al. Is CO2 an indoor pollutant? Direct effects of low-to-moderate CO2 concentrations on human decision-making performance. Environ Health Perspect. Dec 2012. 120 (12). 1671-1677.

38 Y Yang, C Sun, et al. The effect of moderately increased CO2 concentration on perception of coherent motion. Aviat Space Environ Med. Mar 1997. 68 (3). 187-191.

39 K Azuma, N Kagi, et al. Effects of low-level inhalation exposure to carbon dioxide in indoor environments: A short review on human health and psychomotor performance. Environ Int. Dec 2018. 121 (Pt1). 51-56. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.059

40 A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia 2008. 19. 121-126.

41 T Kao, K Huang, et al. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Formos Med Assoc. Aug 2004. 103 (8). 624-628.

42 Bureau of Labor Statistics. News Release. USDL-11-1247. National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2010. Preliminary Results. Aug 25 2011.,3

43 D Spelce, R McKay, et al. Respiratory protection for oxygen deficient atmospheres. J Int Soc Respir Prot. 2016. 33 (2).

44 K Fedor. Noninvasive respiratory support in infants and children. Respiratory Care. Jun 2017. Vol 62 (6). 699- 717. doi: 10.4187/respcare.05244

45 J Weinstein, J Smith. Pediatric BIPAP. J Emer Med Svcs. Sep 19 2019.

46 US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Confined or enclosed spaces and other dangerous atmospheres >> Oxygen deficient or oxygen enriched atmospheres.

47 Z Zhaoshi. Potential risks when some special people wear masks. No. 1 Dept of Neurology, The Third Hospital of Jilin University. Apr 18 2020.

48 C Luther. OSHA oxygen concentration standards. Sep 15 2020. concentration-standards-15047.html

49 D Spelce, R McKay, et al. Respiratory protection for oxygen deficient atmospheres. J Int Soc Respir Prot. 2016. 33 (2).

50 J Henry. Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. 19th ed. WB Saunders Co. © 1996. P. 86.

51 T Carbonell, R Rama. Respiratory hypoxia and oxidative stress in the brain.Is the endogenous erythropoietin an antioxidant? Current Chem Biol. 2009. 3 (3). erythropoietin-antioxidant

52 K Blomgren, H Hagberg. Free radicals, mitochondria and hypoxia-ischemia in the developing brain. Free radic Biol Med. Feb 1 2006. 40 (3). 388-397.

53 G Padhy, A Gangwar, et al. Plasma kallikrein-bradykinin pathway promotes circulatory nitric oxide metabolite availability during hypoxia. Nitric Oxide. Vol 55-56. May-June 2016. 36-44.

54 J Greenwod. Mechanisms of blood-brain barrier breakdown. Neuroradiology. 1991. 33 (2): 95-100. doi: 10.1007/BF00588242.

55 M Griesz-Brisson. Interview. Technocracy News.

56 C St. Croix, B Morgan, et al. Fatiguing inspiratory muscle work causes reflex sympathetic activation in humans. J Physiol. Dec 1 2000. 529 Pt 2 (Pt 2). 493-504. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.00493.x.

57 V Melnikov, V Divert, et al. Baseline values of cardiovascular and respiratory parameters predict response to acute hypoxia in young healthy men. Physiol Res. 2017. 66 (3). 467-479.

58 J Crawford, T Isbell, et al. Hypoxia, red blood cells, and nitrite regulate NO-dependent hypoxic vasodilation. Blood. Jan 15 2006. 107 (2). 566-574.

59 J Henry. Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. 19th ed. WB Saunders Co. © 1996. P. 599.

60 MedGen. Erythroid hyperplasia.

61 D Harmening. Clinical Hematology and Fundamentals of Hemostasis., 4 th ed. Davis Company. 2002. 348-349.

62 E Cummins, D Crean. Hypoxia and inflammatory bowel disease. Microbes and Infection. 19 (3). March 2017. 210-221.

63 N Zeitouni, S Chotikatum, et al. The impact of hypoxia on intestinal epithelial cell functions: consequences for invasion by bacterial pathogens. Mol Cell Ped. 2016. 14.

64 W Zhu. Should, and how can, exercise be done during a coronavirus outbreak? An interview with Dr. Jeffrey A Woods. J Sport Health Sci. Mar 2020. 9 (2). 105-107. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.01.005.

65 M Hogan, R Cox, et al. Lactate accumulation during incremental exercise with varied inspired oxygen fractions. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. Oct 1983. 55 (4). 1134-1140. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1983.55.4.1134

66 O Warburg. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. Feb 24 1956. 123 (3191). DOI:10.1126/science.123.3191.309.

67 O Warburg. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. Feb 24 1956. 123 (3191).

68 A Chambers, S Matosevic. Immunometabolic dysfunction of natural killer cells mediated by the hypoxia-CD73 axis in solid tumors. Front Mol Biosci. 2019. 6 (60). Jul 24 2019.

69 G Crittenden. Is your mask giving you lung cancer? Oct 21 2020.

70 M Chua, W Cheng, et al. Face masks in the new COVID-19 normal: materials, testing and perspectives. Research (Wash DC) Aug 7 2020.

71 Solvay. Material for Covid-19 PPE and medical equipment: N-95 masks.

72 M Chua, W Cheng, et al. Face masks in the new COVID-19 normal: materials, testing and perspectives. Research (Wash DC) Aug 7 2020.

73 P Pierozan, F Jemeren, et al. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) exposure promotes proliferation, migration and invasion potential in human breast epithelial cells. Arch Toxicol. 2018. (92 (5). 1729-1739. Mar 3 2018.

74 K Steenland, T Fletcher, et al. Epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Environ Health Perspect. Aug 2010. 118 (8): 1100-1108.

75 D Lukashev, B Klebanov. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha and its activation- inducible short isoform I.1 negatively regulate functions of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. J Immun. Oct 15 2006. 177 (8). 4962 – 4965. DOI:

76 A Sant, A McMichael. Revealing the role of CD-4+ T cells in viral immunity. J Exp Med. Jul 30 2012. 209 (8).

77 B Borovoy, C Huber, Maria Crisler. Masks, false safety and real dangers, Part 2: Microbial challenges from masks. Oct 2020.

78 J Lan, Z Song, et al. Research letter: Skin damage among health care workers managing coronavirus disease- 2019. Mar 9 2020. J Am Acad Dermatol. 82 (5). 1215-1216.

79 US Food and Drug Administration. Definition of a medical device. Section 201(h).

80 US Food and Drug Administration. Medical device overview. overview#What%20is%20a%20medical%20device

81 Us Food and Drug Administration. “Who can write a prescription for a medical device?”

82 E Sinkule, J Powell, et al. Evaluation of N95 respirator use with a surgical mask cover: effects on breathing resistance and inhaled carbon dioxide. [Table 4] Ann Occup Hygiene. Oct 29 2012. 57 (3). 384-398.

83 Z Zhaoshi. Potential risks when some special people wear masks. No. 1 Dept of Neurology, The Third Hospital of Jilin University. Apr 18 2020.

51 Child Death Reports from the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after Injection/Vaccination as Part of the Ongoing SARS-CoV2/COVID19 Clinical Trials

51 Child Death Reports from the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after Injection/Vaccination as Part of the Ongoing SARS-CoV2/COVID19 Clinical Trials


1. 5 months old boy, 1 day after Pfizer, exposure via breast milk:
2. 17 year old girl, 8 days after Pfizer injection:
3. 16 year old girl, 9 days after Pfizer injection:
4. 15 year old boy, 1 day after Pfizer injection:
5. 17 year old boy, 8 days after Pfizer injection:
6. 17 year old boy, 4 days after Pfizer injection:
7. 15 year old boy, 23 days after Pfizer injection:
8. 16 year old boy, 4 days after Pfizer injection:
9. 17 year old girl, 15 days after Pfizer injection:
10. 13 year old boy, 1 day after Pfizer injection:
11. 16 year old girl, 21 days after Pfizer injection:
12. 17 year old girl, 6 days after Pfizer injection:
13. 13 year old boy, 17 days after Pfizer injection:
14. 16 year old boy, 27 days after Pfizer injection:
15. 16 year old boy, 6 days after Pfizer injection:
16. 16 year old boy, 4 days after Pfizer injection:
17. 13 year old girl, 26 days after Pfizer injection:
18. 13 year old girl, days until death after Pfizer injection not noted
19. 17 year old boy, 94 days after Pfizer injection:
20. 16 year old girl, 9 days after Pfizer injection:
21. 11 year old girl, days until death after Pfizer injection not noted
22. 16 year old boy, 23 days after Pfizer injection
23. 16 year old girl, 1 day after Pfizer injection:
24. 15 year old boy, 6 days after Pfizer injection:
25. 12 year old girl, 22 days after Pfizer injection:
26. 13 year old female, 15 days after Pfizer injection:
27. 17 year old girl, 33 days after Pfizer injection:
28. 16 year old girl, days until death after Pfizer injection not noted
29. 17 year old girl, 36 days after Pfizer injection:
30. 16 year old girl, 9 days after Pfizer injection:
31. 16 year old girl, 2 days after Pfizer injection:
32. 5 year old girl, 4 days after Pfizer injection:
33. 16 year old boy, 8 days after Pfizer injection:

Continued : Links to Remaining individual VAERS records of the 51 children who have died following a Pfizer Injection (data to 17th December 2021):

Page 2 of 2


34. 15 year old girl, onset on day of Pfizer injection:
35. 13 year old boy, 2 days after Pfizer injection:
36. 15 year old boy, 4 days after Pfizer injection:
37. 17 year old girl, days until death after Pfizer injection not noted
38. 14 year old boy, 38 days after Pfizer injection:
39. 16 year old boy, 6 days after Pfizer injection:
40. 1 year old girl, 2 days after Pfizer injection (age incorrect):
41. Foetal death (usually not included as a death), 7 days after Pfizer injection:
42. 16 year old girl, days until death not noted:
43. 17 year old boy, 9 days after Pfizer injection:
44. 15 year old boy, on day of Pfizer injection:
45. 13 year old boy, on day of Pfizer injection:
46. 12 year old boy, on day of Pfizer injection:
47. 17 year old girl, on day of Pfizer injection:
48. 13 year old girl, 31 days after Pfizer injection:
49. 14 year old girl, on day of Pfizer injection
50. 17 year old boy, 3 days after Pfizer injection
51. 17 year old boy, 7 days after Pfizer injection