DR. MASSIMO CITRO: La falsa pandemia 2020 smontata punto per punto.

I am just a simple doctor who tries to make medicine as it was taught to us. He has also collaborated with the Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier. There is a beautiful photograph. Luc Antoine Montagnier received us in 2010 in Paris because he was complimenting our research. These are the three studies published by Montagnier, which we remember as the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2008, together with the biomathematician Jean-Claude Perez. They published these three studies where they identified, in the V1-1 sequence that was sent all over the world in the first years of last year, of this virus, they identified some small segments, let's say sequences, inserted of HIV-1, that is, the AIDS virus. The scientific community, instead of checking and verifying the validity of their statements, which is done on every researcher, especially since this was a Nobel Prize, hysterically responded that it was not possible that there were these HIV inserts and that if there were, there would have been natural mutations. This was also stated by the famous Pasteur Institute in Paris, from which Montagnier comes from and which at the time supported the nomination of Montagnier to the Nobel Prize. And this is a big lie, because the researchers of the Pasteur Institute in Paris pretended to forget that in 2004, you can find it in the book, in 2004 the Pasteur Institute in Paris inaugurated its homologue in China, in Shanghai. Pasteur Institute in Shanghai. And from that moment on, French researchers went to China to teach their Chinese colleagues how to insert these fragments of HIV, not in the coronavirus, but in innocuous viruses. These are called HIV pseudotypes. The aim was to find a vaccine for AIDS. This is the beginning. But, and we see it in the following, the Chinese, already a year later, have begun to insert HIV in the coronavirus. So when they say, it is not possible that there are HIV segments in this coronavirus, they tell a lie, because it is 15 years that the Chinese insert HIV in the coronavirus. And it is all published. We see it there, 2008, 2009, 2010, where they continue to say, I take pieces of HIV and insert them in the coronavirus. This is because they did it. What is declared is to look for a vaccine for SARS. But in reality, perhaps, the hypothesis is this, that they are trying to make a biological weapon. Because, in fact, when one tries to make a vaccine, it tends to make it attenuated, not so dangerous. Here, instead, every work aimed to bring a greater aggressiveness and virulence of the virus. First of all, this virus, fortunately, is not deadly. It is a virus that must scare. We can classify it like this. Why? You know that each pathogen is denoted by three characteristics. The contagiousness, the morbidity, which is the ability to make people sick, and the lethality. Now, this virus has a very high contagiousness, there is no doubt about this. A low morbidity and a very low lethality, which, I speak at least of the first wave, because they are official data of the first wave, is placed between 0.2% and 0.3%. According to many authors I reported there, not last is our very good Giorgio Palu, who estimated it between 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.6%. It seems even lower. So, at the level of a normal influence. So, it is not a virus ... Fear was created immediately, it evolved. Ah, if one cures the patient as soon as he gets sick, this heals. We have seen it on our patients, continuously. Fortunately, everyone is around 3-5 days, if it is cured immediately. If days have already passed, maybe there is more. Of course, if we do not cure them, or cure them too late, we really risk the severe form. So, there is a will, in my opinion, clear, to want to make people sick. Because literature and clinical experience convince us that you can cure, you can heal, and you have to, you have to avoid going, to evolve in the severe form. The State, and unfortunately I must mention also the Order of the Doctors, it was a shame. Let us remember that the Order of the Doctors has now become for years, unfortunately, an auxiliary and subsidiary body of the State. They get rid of it. I think it's not a big deal, because if you are a body of the State, you are no longer an Order of the Doctors. This is logical. Because they tell you, you have to do everything the State says. I would only have doubts. Let's say that the State is wrong, or that one day, maybe there is already, but anyway, one day, a criminal or genetic government comes, we saw it in Germany in the 1930s, which imposes on doctors to kill sick children, because it is genetic. Many have done it, at that time. 200,000 children killed in Berlin with the Teffir action, which I also remembered, and it is also there, in the novel Javert. I did not sleep the nights I read the book. Is it sad? I did not sleep all night, because I did not know that these projects had also been done in America. Yes, yes, genetics was born in England. In the 1900s. Very good. In Africa. Yes, and then lately, also in Africa, in Asia, in India, with vaccines. But we get there. So, if one day, a government says to us doctors, you have to kill people, we do not have the right, we have the duty to rebel. So I do not like that the Order of the Doctors is, in my personal opinion, that it is an organ dependent on the State. And you can see it from here. Because, what does the Order say? That, in fact, it has had reports that some have kept the studies open and went to the infected patient to visit him. But of course, who should go to the infected patient? The baker or the shopkeeper? In an epidemic, the last category that must disappear is that of doctors, who, on the contrary, during the Spanish flu, went to the streets to treat people, or during the plagues of the past. And instead it says, you do not have to do it because it contravenes the spirit of the government. I believe that this writing contravenes the spirit of medicine. And if one contravenes the provisions of the government, a serious deontological violation is defined and one will intervene with sanctions. You understand that then the colleagues of the Mutua were at home, because they say, I must also be sanctioned. It is true, and I put it in the book, that instead the CTS, in those days, had in an important statement, had said that instead the doctor has the obligation to go to the infected patient as soon as they withdraw the convention. So one says, what do I do? In any way I move, I am sanctioned. These are the inconsistencies of this epidemic. And then there is the other famous ministerial circular that does not prohibit autopsies, but prohibits them de facto, because it says, one should not proceed with autopsies and diagnostic encounters, but how? And when we face a new pathology, the first thing to do are autopsies. It is in the history of medicine. So that's what gives us the indication. And we must thank the courageous colleagues of Bergamo and others who have done, contravening this, and have been sanctioned, many, have done autopsies that have revealed the thromboembolias. We have saved thousands of people with this. But if it had been for the State, for the system, for the government, it would have been known, many more people would have died. And this is serious. Here we come to the scandal of hydroxychloroquine. One wonders, why have they fiercely attacked this molecule from the beginning? My answer is certainly because it worked too well. There is no other explanation. We come to the scandal some have called the Lancetgate scandal. So, on May 22 of last year, two of the greatest, most authoritative magazines in the world of medicine, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, published this article of four authors where they claimed to have analyzed as many as 96,000 posters of COVID-19 patients from more than 600 hospitals around the world and published it without any control by the referees. There was no verification on this. They published it to say in summary, hydroxychloroquine and also, with or without the famous zitromicine, not only is it useless, but it is dangerous because it gives toxic reactions at the cardiological level. It has been said that practically everyone or almost died. This article was completely invented, then you will find the whole story there, so much so that a few days later, on June 4, it was withdrawn, apologizing, saying it has no scientific value. Yes, but in the meantime, however... Now it has become the property of all the emitters, the stream, our virologists who every day we see on TV. And above all, the WHO and the governments have withdrawn hydroxychloroquine. But if we go back to the previous one, I would like to point out how the falsity of the system makes it so that in the summer, in the AIFA reports to the doctors and colleagues of the Mutua, instead of saying, look, these two articles have no value, so we reject them because they were false, invented, they wrote that they had been withdrawn for possible important defects in the database. This is the politically correct which means a lie. So we have to look for the truth. There were no defects in the database, it was completely invented. And in fact, in the next one, we see it, the former minister of French health in a broadcast in June of last year on TV, tells that Richard Horton is the director of the Lancet magazine, he would have said this, that he has confessed that the pharmaceutical industry is so powerful financially that they force us to publish works that are not founded and they tell us, journalists, us of the magazines, what they want. He has defined this criminal. So there is also the confession that these two articles were false and had been pushed by the pharmaceutical industry. One of the many communications where the AIFA, after the reports in synthesis. You can also use it, but be careful, know that if you prescribe hydroxychloroquine, it is a molecule that is completely ineffective, this is what they say, which has had a lot of adverse events, even if not serious, so if they are not serious, okay, we explain, that the third point was to fail in the tests performed in the hospital and of which there are few negative data. So it is clear that a colleague in front of this says, damn it, I prescribe this, because then they warned me if something happens, I am also guilty. The AIFA writes through the SSN, antibiotics only in case of bacterial superimposition show that they have not understood or pretend not to understand that instead the use of antibiotics is because it has an antiviral action and synergistic with hydroxychloroquine. They say, you can use paracetamol, desametazone, then cortisone, but not before 72 hours. So, I would like to ask these gentlemen, why do I have to wait three days to treat the patient? So, on the one hand, the system is telling us that it is a very serious pandemic, deadly, the event of the century, of the millennium, so everyone dies. Then, when the patient begins to feel bad, I have to watch him and be vigilant and say, I look at you, let's see if by chance you get in bad shape and go to the hospital and die, but I do not treat you. But why? Apart from the rescue mission. But why? If on the one hand it is so serious, you are lucky to have drugs, give them to him, even just the simple cortisone, that any non-specialist the last ignorant I feel, but I say, the cortisone works, let's give it to him. No, three days without giving anything, but if I give it to him immediately, in three days the patient is already healed, this is the difference and you can see it on the field. Paracetamol, tachypyrin, why? If there is something contraindicated, it is tachypyrin, because tachypyrin makes the patient evolve more quickly in severe form, it is in publications, even in low doses. So, why is tachypyrin It is because in these protocols that I define of death it has been inserted. The only explanation is to hurt people, because at the scientific level there is no other motivation. What did LOMS do? Nothing, he did nothing. He worked very well. He worked well, that is, he did not give tachypyrin to the alarms, etc. He even continued to deny the contagiousness of human to human. Because you see, LOMS is in charge of those who have power and the Director General, this Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Can you trust him? Everyone will make their own judgment. I say, the data are, he is not a doctor and it is the first time that at the head of LOMS there is no doctor, but a biologist. Two, among his various affiliations there is also in Ethiopia to belong to the People's Liberation Front, Tigray, a region from which he comes, which is a terrorist Marxist-Leninist defined by the world entities as one of the worst terrorist associations and therefore this has its past and present. Lately it has also been denounced and reported in the book by an association for human rights in Ethiopia not only for incompetence but also, as you see, violation of human rights, crimes against humanity for things he did in Ethiopia. Now, I say, he is not perhaps the most transparent figure to put at the head of LOMS, but he has gone there with the votes of the Communist China and above all with the financial and political of Mr. William Henry Gates, third Bill for friends, not for us and therefore this gentleman, the richest man in the world is the one who finances the fact LOMS. But we arrive immediately at the end of the 1700s, early 1800s with Malthus. The Malthusian foresees, we summarize it briefly, that he was a rebel and lived in America, right? No, in England. In England and he says, he begins to say precisely the resources will end, of the land and therefore the population grows in a geometric way and the others in an arithmetic way and therefore must be limited. How do you reduce the world population? Malthus writes it clearly. One, with everything that can be the carnage, the pestilences, the wars that kill a certain part of the population. The other is the famous denatality, that is, we have to push everything that leads to sterility, that is, does not make children, starting with the exaltation of homosexuality. Beyond the sacred rights of anyone, we agree, but all this push, which is really excessive in some cases, is only aimed at denatality. So it is a, how to say, a Malthusian-type project, as well as the exaltation of sexuality in all its forms, because it does not make children, the family that must split, it does not make children, How can you say, the woman in the career hardly becomes a mother, the abortion, then everything else, so it is part of a de-natal design, it is called de-natalism. We come to the eugenics. Francis Galton says, we, to reduce the world population, we must start eliminating, first sterilize, then eventually eliminate also at the physical level all those who are deaf-mute, blind, epileptic, retarded children and so on. But also the poor. The poor, very good. The ignorant poor. Here, because here there is also the contempt of the mass by the system, because the mass is ignorant and then above all for them it is a proof of emotions and this is. But also the elderly, because they do not bring income, so they are a weight for society and you have to make money. You understand how we get to this situation. The print is Malthusian or genetic. The poor, how to solve, once asked Malthus, the problem of poverty. It is easy, just eliminate the poor and we have no more problems. Remove the subsidies and let them die. Exactly, because they eat, they are parasites, of course. This is the British imprint of the British crown. Let's not forget that the English are the most racist in the world. There are so many nice speeches, but they are. Neugenetics was born as an idea, as a philosophy, in England. Then it is experimented in the early 1900s in the United States. In those years we have the sterilization of millions of Americans against their will. The principle is then transferred in the 1920s in Germany to this corporal named Adolf Hitler, who not only, with his exaltation, says, not only I sterilize them, but I make them out. And that's where it all comes from, all the famous crimes of the Third Reich. Fortunately, we remember the doctors who were bent to do the will of the criminal of the Nazi government of that time, were imprisoned in Nuremberg in 1946, rightly, because they were no longer doctors, among other things. So this is a bit the story. Neugenetics is put into action. So Bill Gates? Yes, Mr. Gates above all is one of the pinnacles of Neugenetics, and it is not an invention, because he is a son of art. He himself says it in an interview reported in the 2003 book, which was made to disappear from the Internet, but which I found. Well, we have a copy in English, I had printed it. Yes, yes, the original one. No, no, we print everything, because here the censorship is that, where he remembers that his father, who was in the association of the Planet Parenthood, and says, we were children and we heard our parents. We remember that Gates' mother is a Maxwell, therefore a family of bankers. Bankers are a genus, almost all, for Neugenetics. So he says, we as children grew up with these ideas and we participated in the parents' discussions. So he is a son of art. So there is no doubt. So what happened? There was a turn in his life years ago, he stopped being an entrepreneur with his computer life, and he dedicated himself to this delirium, I call it a delirium, a vaccine delirium. So he must vaccinate the whole world. And he began to finance, and continues to finance, vaccination campaigns all over the world, which have criminal charges. And these are also sadly documented, in India, in Africa and so on. They have also lost causes, with so many requests for remittances. Yes, yes, they have been reported. Because they had vaccinated, now the women are pregnant. In Africa they have sterilized, with the excuse of the vaccine for tetanus, millions of African women, without their knowledge. Then we complain that the system is now commanding us. Yes, but gentlemen, we are also allowing it. These are decades that go beyond legality and we are quiet. Perhaps it is time to say, enough, we are beyond every limit. There should be magistrates who must intervene, even at the level of international law. Someone will want to denounce him for crimes against humanity. This man, a little psychopathic, probably he is, but it is his problem. But he has no right to ruin the lives of others. This is a historical thing that happened in 1976, and it is a statement made on the Fortune magazine by the then director of Merck, Eric Hudson, we see him here, here is Eric Hudson, who declared that until now the pharmaceutical industry has obviously earned from the sick, but from now on we will also earn from health. This is an important step, because in fact it is so, from there, slowly, the industry has begun to suggest to invent, because they are invented, certain non-existent syndromes. I quote among these, the most important is ADHD, which allows the industry to give, to supply to children from nursery and elementary school or psychopharmaceuticals and amphetamines. Now, the child who has a lack of attention and who is lively, so maybe he does not care much about what he is listening to at school, my grandmother, who lived 93 years and who had not studied, but who was a wise woman, because she learned from life, would have said and said, well, if the child is careless and lively, it is because he is fine, it is a good sign. It means that he does not care about those things, he does not care about anything, first thing. But our experience on the field, on those few children we treated with ADHD, we saw that they were all intoxicated by food intolerance. If you identify the food, you drain it, you detoxify it, you clean it, little by little it returns to follow the lessons well. So there is no need to give psychopharmaceuticals, but they are invented syndromes. And then, be careful, because building, as it seems to have happened now, epidemics, to be able to sell vaccines, means to be able to earn healthy people. So they are applying what the pharmaceutical industry had already announced in the 70s. And if you want, let's talk about vaccines at this point. Maybe later we'll try to understand if all vaccines are the same, if they are talking about vaccines... Yes, yes, yes, immediately, look, I wanted to report this already another time, because I am, when I say, are you in favor, but it is certain that we are in favor of vaccines, we would miss, we are doctors, as if they said, are you in favor or not of antibiotics, we would miss it. Fleming, as a gender, has made sensational discoveries, that have made medicine. It's all about seeing the use that is made of it. So I wanted to remember, with those two references to ancient Rome, the famous Antonine plague, which was a plague, a plague, let's say, in the second century AD, during the Antonine Empire, and it was an epidemic of Viola, which Lucio Vero, we see at the top right, who was the emperor at that time, during the campaign against the Partisans, brought to Rome with his troops from Persia. Then the legions spread it throughout the empire, and the fact is that at that time, Lucio Vero himself died, the same emperor, perhaps, someone also says Marco Aurelio, who followed him, anyway, Lucio Vero for sure, at that time, the chronists told us that, on average, in Rome, 2,000 people a day died of Viola, and that, in total, this epidemic was estimated as 5 million deaths in the world, so much worse than this. So, if there had been, at the time, Dr. Gender, we are here instead in 1796 in England, perhaps we would have avoided all those deaths, indeed, we would have certainly avoided them. Gender makes the first vaccine, we see it right there, while he vaccinates the son of his gardener for Viola, and from there, then, in the early 1800s, in England, vaccination spread and they managed to save thousands of people. But beware, Viola is a disease that would not have existed, now it no longer exists, it was also the first disease in the 80s of the last century and it began to disappear from the face of the earth thanks to vaccination. However, beware, it is an infection that could not be cured, especially at that time. The same goes for polio, that is, why is the vaccine born? To prevent, to try to limit an epidemic infection that has no therapy, therefore incurable. If, however, it has therapy, let's ask ourselves if the game is worth the candle, because the vaccine is not like... The vaccine is a mini, mini intervention, because a pathogen or its purified part is inoculated, etc., but still, I'm putting a pathogenic agent, so it has reactions, this is known, it is not fantasy. So, if the risk-benefit ratio is in favor, therefore, small risk or medium risk, a great benefit like in Viola, perfect, it's coming. Or tomorrow, let's hope it never comes, because tomorrow is a weak epidemic, 100% lethality. Let's get vaccinated, like... Today, what is the ratio? The ratio is very high risk, and now we'll see why. Benefit? Zero. Because there is no benefit. I still want to understand now, humbly, I'm just a doctor, I ask the luminaries, what is the benefit? At the beginning they tell you, the vaccine will prevent infection. No, because no vaccine prevents this. The vaccine gives you antibodies, so if you take the pathogen, you have more reaction capacity, ok? Then they tell you that it will give you a milder infection. This is the latest version. But, excuse me, when this infection starts, it's always mild. It's not that one, suddenly, we're talking about suddenly, boom, in a second comes the pneumonia, the thromboembolia, and I'm in the hospital, no? Hours or days pass, in which I have the first symptoms, so I have a mild infection, they call it anglo-saxon, not severe. And so, if I cure it at that moment, and the cures are there, the problem is solved, I don't need to vaccinate. So, benefit? Zero. It's a completely useless vaccine. The literature says so, the experience on the field and common sense say so. Of course, if we terrorize people, on purpose, with this media fear, then everyone will have to get vaccinated. So, this is a preprint that came out in December last year. In this study, it is confirmed that the virus, so not the vaccine, the virus can integrate into our DNA. And it does, and it's part of the disease chronicles. But be careful, if the virus can do it, at the moment I inject, spreading per vaccine, I'm doing a genetic implant, an mRNA, small, synthetic, everything you want, but it's always an RNA in the cell. In the meantime, I can trigger a cytokinetic storm immediately. Also because there is written, no? Genetic therapy and not a vaccine. That is, when you sign the consent form, there is written genetic therapy. Of course, of course. So it's not a vaccine, it would require a separate legislation, because the vaccine, by definition, is the pathogen or its part purified, attenuated, etc. So it's proteic. But here, instead, we're talking about a genetic code. And it can also be, through reverse transcriptase, transcribed into our DNA. The industry says no. But science says it's plausible. So, imagine, I'll do it in a simple way, a very long chain, which is the DNA of kilometers. In this thread, it can be inserted in a point where it does not create damage. Okay, nothing happens. But it is inserted in a point where it can de-authenticate a gene of a disease or a tumor. We'll see this in a few years. We'll see it immediately. So, who says that the vaccine does not create problems, should first certify it in person, and then guarantee, and we don't know on what scientific basis it is, that in the next ten years it will have no consequences. But you see, they say, don't worry, this is the mainstream saying, don't worry, because science tells you that there are no risks. Science doesn't say it, the industry is saying it. They are two different things. The industry is dispatched for science. The industry says it, of course, it did it, so it will tell you that its product is safe. It's obvious, but the industry doesn't say it, because it's like going to a butcher and asking, well, it's good to become vegan, you laugh, it's normal. But if, instead, we look at science, science is not saying it, because it has no elements to evaluate, because it's all new. So it's the industry. I know that the experimentation ends in 2023, right? For Pfizer, yes, for Moderna it ends in December 2022. And those who are making the vaccines now, are doing phase 3 of the experimentation. So it's obvious, just know it. Attention. The risk, on the other hand, is very high, and among the many risks, I don't want to go into details now, but you'll find them, the most important is this antibody-dependent enhancement. In English it's called ADE, Antibody Dependent Enhancement. This, however, attention, we know from the literature for many years, that viruses, they are called RNA, the single chain, like the coronavirus, are subject to a very high risk of ADE, for their very nature. Because, as we said, they are viruses that form almost species, they are called like that, so they are continuous mutations, that nature makes to adapt them to the environment, and to create a new viral species, that is, their way of being. This is true for viruses. All coronaviruses, so SARS, MERS, COVID-19, Dengue, which is a flavivirus, Ebola, Zika, HIV, there are all these, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make a vaccine. People should ask themselves, why, since HIV belongs to this group, and for 40 years there has been AIDS, which is much more dangerous than the current infection, and which has made millions, and continues to make millions of deaths, why haven't we managed in 40 years to have a vaccine? Why in 20 years we still don't have a vaccine for SARS? For that reason. Why, 3-4 years ago, in the East, the vaccination campaigns for Dengue, but also for RSV, and they all died, they gave up, they said, we can't, we can't, we have to resign ourselves, it is currently impossible to have a valid and safe vaccine for the RNA virus. How is it that in a few months, in this situation, they say they have found a safe and effective vaccine? It seems a little strange, but in fact, here I quote our Loretta, rightly, she reminds us how this happens. I do it in a simple way, I try to be clear. So, these types of RNA virus, in a single chain, when they infect the person, they can, not always, but they can create antibodies called sub-optimals, that is, either they are too few, or they are weak, and it ends there, one stays like this. Then the virus meets again, which is not the same, because changing, it is almost the same, but it enhances this thing of the sub-optimal antibodies. And so it happens, it can happen, that the virus is hooked by the antibody, it is brought into the macrophages, into the other cells presenting the antigen, inside it must normally be broken up, and then its antigens, placed on the surface of the macrophage, are presented to the lymphocytes, which are the immune system, which then build the antibodies. This may not happen in the ADE, it doesn't happen, because the virus is not broken up, and on the contrary, it begins to replicate inside the macrophage. It is very serious, because it means that that pathogen has infected our immune system, it escapes the control of the immune system, it strengthens, when it comes out, it devastates, and among the many serious things, Loretta Bolganne remembers it, the pulmonitis eosinophila, which is difficult to cure worse than this. So, the fact that the macrophage replicates and also blocks the production of interferon-1, is very serious. This is in the literature, we are not inventing something. This study says it clearly, a few months ago, that these vaccines can sensitize to more serious diseases. SARS, MERS, RSV have never been approved, and they can worsen the disease, the ADE. So, the patient should have an adequate understanding that he is taking this risk. But they don't tell him, it should be disclosed, but they don't tell people this thing, that there is this very high risk. If someone has already had the disease, he should never be vaccinated. And I thank my colleague Lopalco, who a few weeks ago, asked a question, is there a risk of this, and also of being infectious compared to others, which is another consequence. He said, there is no risk, there is certainty, we know it. So, who is vaccinated is infectious? So, if I meet a vaccinated person... In fact, the companies say it, keep the distance, the mask, because you are... Why aren't the quarantines done? They should be done, but also for the vaccination of the influence, they should be done. There are four fundamental conditions in the world for the agencies to give the approval for emergency, fast track, which means, we skip a whole series of operations for the vaccine, here they are, to get to the approval. So, in the experimental phase. The first, you must have a pandemic with many deaths, and they did it. Effective in preventing, we have many doubts. Also the third, because you have to show that the benefits exceed the risks, when it is not true, we said it before. The fourth is a delirium, because they say, you, to get the approval, you have to declare that there are no other therapies. This is a lie, because there are therapies. The first and the fourth were built on purpose. So, they show that only the vaccine can cure humanity, and it is not true. So, dropping the fourth condition, they did not have the right for the approval of these vaccines for emergency. So, they are illegal, as well as experimental. How do you know if you develop COVID or if it is a vaccine reaction? Why? In the meantime, the infection is one thing, what happens? This is who is infected, who should not be vaccinated, because he risks his life, but also who does not know that he has been infected, because he had the asymptomatic form, but he can have suboptimal antibodies. He receives the vaccine, which is not the same wild virus that infected him, because in the meantime it has changed. The vaccines are all modeled on the WAN1 sequence, which is the one that China gave at the beginning of last year to the world. So, it is different. Here is where the ADE is created. Tromboemboli? Why am I surprised by tromboemboli? They are injecting the spike. What does the spike do in literature? It produces tromboemboli. It is cardiotoxic, it is neurotoxic, you know. Ask Loretta Bolgan, who is much more experienced than me, she confirms it. There are all the studies, even published there. So, if I inject the spike, I know that it produces tromboemboli. And after the injection, one or two days later, the patient has the tromboembolia lictus. I can't pretend not to know. Two plus two is four. I provoked it. I want to remind Dr. Peter Doshi, who teaches pharmaceutical research at the University of Maryland, and above all he is co-director of the British Medical Journal, one of the most authoritative magazines, that in various editorials, he says that these vaccines, the most important thing is the last line, do not reduce the possibility of getting sick, they do not stop the epidemic. So, he also says that they are useless. On January 4th this year, he wrote that he managed, like other scientists, to check the 92 pages of Pfizer's report on the vaccine, because they cannot be disclosed, the public cannot know, but a commission of scientists was asked to evaluate it, and he made the calculations again, and he saw that there were errors, I don't know if they were intentional, but the famous claim of 95% would go down to almost 29%, so they would not have had the right to approve, being below 50%. So, according to the studies of this doctor, this researcher, Pfizer covers 25%? He talks about 22-29%, let's say that 29% is not 95%. So, we have useless vaccines, not effective, as it was said, and above all, very dangerous. According to the criteria of a healthy medicine, before vaccinating, everyone should do a screening, first of all to see if he already had the disease, so he must be excluded immediately from the vaccination, but be careful, because one can have had, I had it twice, for example, but even after 4 months I had almost zero antibodies, because the coronavirus, you know, either they don't give you antibodies, sometimes it happens, or they give them to you for a very short time. The one I had a year ago has no antibodies today, but it can have given those famous suboptimal antibodies So, how can we assess if one is at risk, an allergic subject, a subject with a disorder in the immune system, so self-immune, or high tumor, must be exempted? Absolutely, this is common sense. These are not the categories considered fragile, that must be vaccinated first. This is a lie, but it has no scientific basis. This is politics, but it is not science, because, according to common sense, at least according to the medicine that was taught to me, if today we have a new medicine that is taught by politicians, by the industry, by journalists, I withdraw, I say I am a poor ignorant, I have also taken the praise, so I am the last of the fools. The system tells you, you have to believe my lies, absolutely, and so I invent the denial, when it is they who deny the evidence, we are not the ones who deny something, we say, sir, the thing is like this, but it is confined to this, it is not dramatic as you have painted it, you brought it to the dramatization, not by curing people, you have to believe, then you have to obey, because we are in a police state, there is a global coup d'etat, and you have to fight against the virus, which is the great enemy, the virus, here is the old psychology, there is always the good and the bad, now the bad is the virus, first it was terrorism, then it will be something else, so there is always a bad to fight, and so they have created a whole scenic apparatus of war, the bulletin of war every day, how many are infected, which does not mean anything, tell me who is sick, not who is infected, which does not mean anything, the positive, then we can talk in another episode of the PCR that is not worth anything, then they tell you, I'll put you on fire, all the restrictions, we are at war, yes, you have to fight, but gentlemen, now these are the 45 who say they are anti-fascists, anti-Nazis, freedom, etc., yes, but they are applying to believe, to obey and to fight, so there is a bit of incongruity, let's wake up, because this dictatorship is worse than a Nazi dictatorship, a 15-year-old boy who came with his mother during the visit, I saw him a little angry, he says, I'm very angry with these people here because they are Nazis, I say, nice as an idea, but tell me why for you they are Nazis? Because you see, if you at the time you saw one like Hitler, you immediately understood that he wanted to hurt you, but you see these, they seem good people, so 15 years, he understood this, he is one of the few, if indeed the gentlemen who command are convinced that we are continually exposed to this risk, which I do not believe now, then make a quarantine, last a month, whatever, but definitive, and then start working again, because so, no, so instead the design in my opinion is to send on the rails with the families, impoverish the people, kneel the nations to make the nations disappear, because we do not forget that with the genetic design there is also this, the only government, the inheritance of our traditions, of our cultures, to get to ... This is unacceptable, we want to resume to have character and not be scared by this virus, let's remember that the virus can be cured, the vaccine cannot be cured, they want the immunity of Greece, it is impossible at the scientific level to reach the immunity of Greece for RNA virus in a single chain, and it is the speech we made before. So stop telling lies, people begin to reason, I say only, no one must do acts of faith, plots, negations, you just have to say, observe and reason, let's resume our existence, our freedom, our individuality, the system wants to make disappear any kind of identity, political identity, cultural identity, territorial identity, personal identity, sexual identity, we are favoring pedophilia, we are raping children and young people with this thing. But Mr. Gates, not directly, but the famous Planet Parenthood, which is the most important ideogenetic association in the world in the United States, has been paying for a few years millions of dollars, Hollywood, to make screenplays or, how do you say, TV screenplays, all based on homosexuality. Ah, here it is no longer the Holy Spirit of people's rights. Here is a plague, an epidemic of homosexuality, of confusion, of sex made by art to... Liquid sex, isn't it? Yes. They no longer want identity. You have to be a mass in the form of slaves, reduced in number, with everything we said before. You will be replaced by artificial intelligence. There is no intelligence that can replace the genius of the human being. What can people do, and I close to give a little ability to get out of it, take a stand, make the famous civil disobedience which is legal, because we have given Nobel Prizes to those who have done this in history. We cannot say that Gandhi was outlawed, but one can declare it and say I refuse to do this because I disobey civilly, so it's all non-violent, I recommend, never. I delete this by definition. We are not that miserable creature made of cells that we see in the mirror. Because those who do not believe us are a fact. We are spiritual entities, not of this dimension. Jesus, if we are Christians, he told us clearly, you are in the world but you are not of this world. All religions and philosophies told us the same thing, everyone in his own way. But then we regain our dignity, not only human, but above all the spiritual one, that no one can put us in prison or take us out of it. If we detach ourselves from things, but he gives me the fine, who cares, but he puts me in prison, put it, but you can not convince me, you can not bend me, because I am a spiritual entity, each of us of thought, not of this world. Do you want to ruin the world? It's your problem, but we are not. We belong to the kingdom of heaven. And here I would like the great absence, we can talk about it another time, the Church, which was present in another way, but did not reiterate this concept. Faced with a pandemic, a world pain, we must remember that we are not of this world. And this is already our strength, in the face of any power. I am just a simple doctor who tries to do medicine as it was taught to us. It's a mission, all of it.