TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @CaelorumAngelus
@CaelorumAngelus - Angelus caelorum 🧣
🇺🇳Ain't No Rest for the Wicked Dr. Sherry Tenpenny: The UN just voted to turn us all into global digital citizen slaves Over the weekend, the United Nations adopted a document: The "Pact for the Future". It was passed through a procedure called the "Silence Procedure",which 🧶 https://t.co/Yzkye6nKMa
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker, Dr. Sherry Tenpenny, discusses a United Nations document called the "Pact of the Future," passed using a "silence procedure." She claims it's a World Health Organization workaround after failing to pass a treaty.
According to the speaker, the pact, allegedly accepted by 193 nations, aims for a fully digital power structure to control the masses. She states that everyone will be expected to have a biometric digital ID, marking them as global citizens. Dissenting opinions will be labeled as misinformation and punished by an AI-operated system. Punishments may include being locked out of bank accounts, restricted purchases, and travel limitations. The speaker characterizes this as a future imposed by unelected UN bureaucrats.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi, everyone. This is doctor Sherry 10penny, and I wanna do a quick update about a document that got passed by the United Nations this weekend called the pact of the future document. It's 2 parts, 1 on science and technology and one about the youth and future generations. It is quite egregious, and it was done by a procedure called the silence procedure, which makes it a pact. And if no one objected, it is automatically adopted and put into the record as being completely adopted.
This is the World Health Organization's runaround since our our end around. Since they were not able to get the World Health Organization treaty passed, they decided to take it to the general assembly, and it is even more egregious than what the World Health Organization was wanting to get passed. Let me just read you something really quickly about what is inside of this pact that is now being accepted by a 193 nations around the world and equally open armed accepted by our current administration. Everyone, it says that this is the power structure of fully digital and maximized for the control of the masses. Everyone will be expected to have a biometric digital ID that marks them not just as citizens of an individual country, but as a global citizen.
So anytime you hear global citizen or anytime you hear sustainability, think that this is an egregious thing that's happening at the level of the World Health Organization and the United Nations. Anyone that has a dissonant opinion will be labeled as misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation and memory hold. Perpetrators for unimproved information will be fact checked and punished by the system, which will be operated and enforced by artificial intelligence. Punishments will include being locked out of one's bank account, being unable to make certain purchases, unable to get on an airplane, on a subway, drive on public roads. This is the future according to to the world's self appointed overlords at the United Nations.
These are unelected bureaucrats that are making decisions about our country, our sovereignty around the world. Nothing could be
@CaelorumAngelus - Angelus caelorum 🧣
🇺🇸Here's Fauci in March 2021 saying that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was "virtually 100% protective against hospitalizations and death" Remember that in May 2022 the FDA restricted the J&J vaccine due to the high risk of blood clots.👇🏻 https://t.co/OW9P94jzSu
Video Transcript AI Summary
I am Dr. Anthony Fauci, and I recommend the Johnson and Johnson vaccine for its effectiveness with just one dose. This vaccine uses a specific platform to trigger a strong immune response against the virus. It is 72% effective in preventing moderate to severe disease and nearly 100% effective against hospitalizations and death. The vaccine does not contain the virus itself, only a protein to stimulate immunity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I would definitely take the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. My name is doctor Anthony Fauci, and I'm the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical adviser to president Biden, and I'm going to answer questions about the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. This is a vaccine that works, and it only requires one dose. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine uses a particular, what we call, vaccine platform. And you inject it into the body, the body sees that protein, makes a good immune response against the entire virus.
The COVID vaccine doesn't give you COVID because it's not the virus. It's just one protein from the virus that induces your body to make a good response against the whole virus. Well, it's not tested in the United States. It's 72% effective in preventing you from getting moderate to severe disease, but virtually a 100% protective against hospitalizations and death as proven by this trial that was done.
@CaelorumAngelus - Angelus caelorum 🧣
🇺🇸David Rockefeller, in 1994, during an UN Ambassadors’ Dinner, just said casually that the “world population should be decreased by the UN in a way that is “sensible to religion and moral consideration” in another words: you will be eliminated as painless as possible.👇🏻 https://t.co/yDPVpWzphW
Video Transcript AI Summary
Improved public health has led to a 60% decline in infant mortality and an increase in average life expectancy from 46 to 63 years. However, this has resulted in a rapid population growth, reaching almost 6 billion people and potentially exceeding 6 billion by 2020. The negative impact of this growth on our ecosystems is evident, with increased exploitation of energy and water resources and dangerous levels of pollution. To ensure a decent life on our planet, nations must work together to address population growth, overconsumption, and environmental degradation. The recent UN meeting in Cairo focused on population growth, but controversies arose due to divisive issues with moral implications. The United Nations should play a crucial role in stabilizing population and promoting economic development while considering religious and moral values.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me illustrate. Improved public health has caused the world's infant mortality rate to decline by 60% over the last 40 years. In the same period, the world's average life expectancy has increased from 46 years in 19 fifties to 63 years today. This is a development of which, as individuals, we can only applaud. However, the result of these positive measures is a world population that has risen during the same short period of time geometrically to almost 6,000,000,000 people and could easily exceeds 6,000,000,000 by the year 2020.
The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident. In particular, the rapid and growing exploitation of the world's supply of energy and water is a matter of deep concern, and the toxic byproducts of widespread industrialization have increased as atmospheric pollution to dangerous levels. Unless nations will agree to work together to tackle to these cross border challenges posed by population growth, overconsumption of resources, and environmental degradation, the prospects for a decent life on our planet will be threatened. The recent UN meeting in Cairo is appropriately focused on one of these key issues, population growth, but the controversies which have erupted at the conference illustrate the problem of coming to grips with issues that are deeply divisive and which have a profound moral dimension. The United Nations can and should play an essential role in helping the world find a satisfactory way of stabilizing world population, and stimulating economic development in a manner that is sensitive to religious and moral consideration.
@CaelorumAngelus - Angelus caelorum 🧣
#Masks Can’t Reduce Covid Infection Rates or Transmission of Any Virus - Stephen Petty Viruses travel in aerosols that stay suspended in air up to 50 days "Industrial hygienist Stephen Petty gave excellent testimony in the New Hampshire Senate on how masks don’t block
Video Transcript AI Summary
Steven Petty, an expert in industrial hygiene, discusses the misconceptions surrounding the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19. He highlights that industrial hygiene is a specialized field focused on identifying and controlling environmental factors that can harm individuals. Petty challenges the belief that masks are effective by presenting data showing that COVID-19 cases do not decrease over time, regardless of mask usage. He references studies, such as the Bundgaard study in Denmark and a similar study in Florida, which found no significant difference in disease rates between those wearing masks and those without.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My name is Steven Petty. I'm a certified industrial hygienist, certified safety professional, professional engineer. I've been working 45 years in the field of health and safety. Spent my entire life trying to protect workers and the public from toxins, a sample for anthrax, biotoxins, the whole list. I've been in over 400 cases named with respect to exposure control and exposure, NPPE.
And most recently, I testified in the state of Kentucky. And as a result of my testimony, the mask mandate was overturned statewide. So let me introduce the topic of industrial hygiene. Industrial hygiene is not well understood by many. We have a lot of physicians talking about industrial hygiene.
It's not their field. Industrial hygiene is a science and art devoted to anticipation, recognition, evaluation and control of environmental factors and stressors that can cause you to be sick, make you feel bad or even kill you. And I've testified 400 times in those sorts of cases. The problem is that we have a lot of physicians talking about things like that. And they may be perfectly talented folks, but it's not their sandbox.
When I'm in trials, we have a physician that talks about the disease, and I talk about exposure and exposure control and PPE. The last the physician that talked earlier, I'm here to show you that every statement he made is false. Let me go then. There's really 3 ways you can look at why masks can and cannot work, and I'm on Page 3 of my handouts at the top slide. This is a plot of cases of COVID in New Hampshire with time.
If you really believe that masks could work, You would expect the cases would drop with time. They do not. You can draw this plot for any state or any country in the world. What you see is where people are indoors more in the northern climates, the wintertime, disease rates go up. That's a well understood industrial hygiene fact that's over 100 years old, and you see that in this plot.
Now I want to move you on to the epidemiology, and there are lots of studies, but at the bottom of Page 4. Probably the one that's most relevant is the Bundgaard study out of Denmark. They looked at 6,000 or so folks, 3,000 with masks, 3,000 without masks. They found no difference in disease rate. Similar study was done on schools in Florida, same outcome, and that's on the bottom of Page 5.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes CDC studies for lacking control groups and having confounding factors, making it impossible to determine the effectiveness of masks. They argue that the real solution lies in engineering controls of ventilation and dilution. The speaker emphasizes the size difference between visible dust, the virus, and a human hair, suggesting that masks are ineffective in preventing the virus from entering or escaping. They dismiss the idea of source control and claim that COVID particles are primarily aerosols.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In Michigan about the CDC studies and showed that almost all the studies they cited suffered from 2 flaws. One, they didn't have a control group, that is, a group not wearing masks as similar to a group that was wearing masks, to see what the differences were. If you don't have a control group, how do you know it makes a difference? The other thing is there were confounding factors where there were multiple things going on at the same time with or without a control group like air conditioning changes, separation, quarantine and masking. There's no way to know whether masking has any effect at all.
The real solution has always been, for 50 years, engineering controls of ventilation, dilution or in destruction. And those solutions, I've actually implemented in real schools beginning in 2020, and I work with many, many school districts to implement them. This isn't about a mask or a respirator. Those are the least desirable options. It's always about getting rid of the problem.
Now let's look at this issue from a micro perspective real quickly. And again, I'm on the bottom of Page 7. If you can see visible dust, it's on the order of 50 microns. It may or may not mean anything. The virus is 500x smaller than what you can see.
If you look at a cross section of a human hair, I've got a plot on the bottom of Page 7, you see that dot. That dot is 10x the size of a virus. It's a micron or so. So the the COVID particle is 1,000 times smaller than the cross section of human hair. And I ask everybody the simple question: You wear your mask, can you slip a human hair by the side of your mask?
Of course, you can, especially below the eyes. It's a super freeway for the virus to come and go. This source control argument is bogus. Source control means the person wearing the mask, somehow or other, those viruses can't escape the mask. That's just nonsense.
If you got the super freeway, it doesn't the virus doesn't care whether it's coming in or going out. A couple of things that need to be talked about real quickly. There's been great disinformation about, COVID being a droplet. Now particles can be classified in 2 bins, droplets and aerosols. The data I show on Page 8 shows that over 99.9% of the particles are aerosols, less than 5 microns.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker explains that droplets are not the main issue with COVID-19 transmission, as they fall to the ground quickly. However, aerosols can remain suspended in the air for up to 50 days. To address this, the speaker suggests diluting, filtering, or destroying the aerosols through ventilation. They argue that masks cannot fully seal and are not effective enough, as they should provide at least a 90% relative risk reduction. The speaker compares the use of masks to protect against COVID-19 to using masks for asbestos workers, stating that a 1% solution is insufficient when better solutions like ventilation exist. They also mention that N95 masks are not even used for asbestos workers.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Not droplets. That's not the problem. The other thing that you see on the bottom is, droplets fall to the ground very quickly. So even though they're a very small fraction, they'll fall to the ground on the order of minutes. If you look on the top of Page 9, though, and you look at aerosols, it takes up to 50 days for them to fall.
So these things are suspended in the air for days days, so there's no way you have a COVID meter on your chest or your head. The only way that you're going to know if somebody is in IL-four and is sick the day before, you have no way of knowing whether that stuff is still there or not. So what's the solution? The solution is dilute it with ventilation, filter it out or destroy it. It always has been the solution.
The National Safety Council gave us those solutions from an industrial hygiene standpoint, in 1950, over 70 years ago. People talk about these masks. Why can masks not work? Bottom of Page 9. The problem is you cannot seal a mask by definition.
A mask that seals is a respirator. I also want to talk a little bit, they say, well, I'm on now on Page 11. I want to whip through this. They say, well, they might do a little bit of good. Well, that isn't our in Industrial Hygiene, we don't look at solutions that do a little bit of good.
It might help 1% of the people. We have a requirement that we're going to provide a solution that helps the public. It better have at least a 90% relative risk reduction. So how would you feel if I walked in and I said to asbestos workers, let's put you in a mask, it might save 1% of you from asbestosis, but the other 99% will get it, I think, I would lose all my licenses. And by the way, asbestos fiber, on average, is 50 times larger in a COVID particle.
And we have very high end respirators, PAPRs, that are used to protect asbestos workers, and I'm certified in protecting asbestos workers. So why in the world would you take a 1% solution when you need 90% when we have solutions like ventilation destruction infiltration that do meet that 90% requirement from industrial hygiene. The other thing you hear about all the time is on Page 12, you see the top. Well, let's move on to N95s. As I just said, we wouldn't even use an N95 for asbestos workers.