Criminal Case Against LinkedIn For Suppressing Life-Saving Information

March 23, 2021: Dear LinkedIn and Rochelle (professionally and personally), 
 
You are hereby served notice to substantiate your claims against my comments. 
 
First off, in the context of guaranteeing free speech, you are not allowed to be a phone company that demands that its users only talk about “approved topics” in approved ways. For example, you are endangering my life and the lives of my progeny, by restricting my access to information like G. Vanden Bossche saying “do read what I posted (on LinkedIn), because it is pure science.”
 
 
Caption: 
Image of G. Vanden Bossche saying “do read what I posted (on LinkedIn), because it is pure science.”
 
 
You are now required to answer: 
 
1) What does LinkedIn as a company, and what does “Rochelle” have against pure science. 
 
 
Moving along, regarding LinkedIn and Rochelle taking issue with the following comment:
 
 
‘Comment posted on Sun, 01 Nov 2020 14:25:12 GMT stating ‘Masks are immune suppressive and they increase infection risk. Christian Drosten sold the world a faked PCR test, and now they “can’t find” his dissertation. My alma mater can do better.’
 
 
2) LinkedIn is to disprove the following then…
 
Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD is a Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist with a PhD in Pharmacology, with special interest in neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuroregeneration and neuroplasticity. This is what she has to say about masks and their effects on our brains:
“The rebreathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen depravation. There are nerve cells for example in the hippocampus, that can’t be longer than 3 minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive. The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, issues in concentration, slowing down of the reaction time – reactions of the cognitive system.
However, when you have chronic oxygen depravation, all of those symptoms disappear, because you get used to it. But your efficiency will remain impaired and the undersupply of oxygen in your brain continues to progress.
We know that neurodegenerative diseases take years to decades to develop. If today you forget your phone number, the breakdown in your brain would have already started 20 or 30 years ago.
 
 2.1) Does LinkedIn have better mask-wearing specialists on staff to disprove Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson’s warnings?
 
3) Here is a list of 10 studies for LinkedIn to disprove, providing real-world not FAKE science backing your claims that not only are masks healthy and necessary, but that information warning people about the use of masks is so dangerous that it must be censored. 
 
  1. A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source)
  2. A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. (Source)
  3. A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no significant evidence supporting the effectiveness of non-medical and medical face masks in the community. Furthermore, the European CDC advises against the use of FFP2/N95 respirators by the general public. (Source)
  4. A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)
  5. A May 2020 cross-country study by the University of East Anglia (preprint) found that a mask requirement was of no benefit and could even increase the risk of infection. (Source)
  6. An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). (Source)
  7. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that cloth face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. (Source)
  8. An April 2020 Cochrane review (preprint) found that face masks didn’t reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. (Source)
  9. A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)
  10. An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. (Source)
4) LinkedIn and Rochell Personally must disprove the following dozen studies
 
  1. There is increasing evidence that the novel coronavirus is transmitted, at least in indoor settings, not only by droplets but also by smaller aerosols. However, due to their large pore size and poor fit, cloth masks cannot filter out aerosols (see video analysis below): over 90% of aerosols penetrate or bypass the mask and fill a medium-sized room within minutes.
  2. The WHO admitted to the BBC that its June 2020 mask policy update was due not to new evidence but “political lobbying”: “We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny.” (D. Cohen, BBC Medical Corresponent).
  3. To date, the only randomized controlled trial (RCT) on face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting found no statistically significant benefit (see above). However, three major journals refused to publish this study, delaying its publication by several months.
  4. An analysis by the US CDC found that 85% of people infected with the new coronavirus reported wearing a mask “always” (70.6%) or “often” (14.4%). Compared to the control group of uninfected people, always wearing a mask did not reduce the risk of infection.
  5. Researchers from the University of Minnesota found that the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 is just 300 virions (viral particles), whereas a single minute of normal speaking may generate more than 750,000 virions, making cloth face masks unlikely to prevent an infection.
  6. Japan, despite its widespread use of face masks, experienced its most recent influenza epidemic with more than 5 million people falling ill just one year ago, in January and February 2019. However, unlike SARS-CoV-2, the influenza virus is easily transmitted by children, too.
  7. Austrian scientists found that the introduction, retraction and re-introduction of a face mask mandate in Austria had no influence on the coronavirus infection rate.
  8. In the US state of Kansas, the 90 counties without mask mandates had lower coronavirus infection rates than the 15 counties with mask mandates. To hide this fact, the Kansas health department tried to manipulate the official statistics and data presentation.
  9. Contrary to common belief, studies in hospitals found that the wearing of a medical mask by surgeons during operations didn’t reduce post-operative bacterial wound infections in patients.
  10. During the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic, the use of cloth face masks among the general population was widespread and in some places mandatory, but they made no difference.
  11. Asian countries with low covid infection rates, most of them neighboring China, benefited not from face masks but mainly from early border closures. This is confirmed by Scandinavian countries Norway, Finland and Denmark, which didn’t introduce mask mandates but closed borders early and saw very low covid infection and death rates, too.
  12. German scientists found that in and on N95 (FFP2) masks, the novel coronavirus remains infectious for several days, much longer than on most other materials, thus significantly increasing the risk of infection by touching or reusing such masks.
5) You must prove that re-breathing festering mucous and saliva is healthy. 
 
6) You must prove that oxygen deprivation and carbon-dioxide inhalation are healthy. 
 
Let’s move on to: 
 
‘Scott Kardas yes. actually. try all science prior to March 2020, and all sound science since. honestly, it’s unbelievable that ppl can’t investigate on their own and are stuck in some kind of covidcultist google information bubble… how about: it is utterly outrageous to claim that obligatory public masking can “contain” a virus. try actually substantiating that outrageous claim. and yes, i can come back and show that i’ve done your homework for you, but i’ll give it a few days. re increasing infection. just actually look at the data. look at what masks do to individuals. maybe measure the air quality under your own mask. look online for lawsuits. use common sense. re the microbiome. umm, masks cover your mouth. it’s amazing. i mean uhhh, yeah restricting breathing is good for you…and it will “contain” a virus. let’s make smoking obligatory for lung health, speeding obligatory on roads, and heavy boots obligatory if you want to go swimming.’
 
7) LinkedIn must now provide the evidence that it has that proves that masking mandates can contain a virus. 
 
 
Regarding 
 
Comment on Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:24:13 GMT stating ‘Masks are immune suppressive, increase infection, and damage our microbiome. You can do better U of I.’
 
8) That is my alma mater, but a different location, look:
 
 
8.1) How about LinkedIn rewiew actual facts and not damage my professional relationships by banning me from LinkedIn?
 
9) My current estimate for damages caused by this restriction is 100,000 USD. 
 
Moving on…
 
10) By restricting actual scientific discourse, LinkedIn is threatening: my life, the life of my progeny, and the lives of those who would inform themselves about actual masking science. Linked in must now also disprove the science collected in the following two diagrams: 
 
 
and
 
 
 
those images PROVE without a shadow of a doubt that when you compile REAL SCIENCE, the result indicates that mask wearing is dangerous, that it damages our microbiome, and that the result is increased risk of alzheimers, cardiovascular disease, various cancers, cystiv fibrosis, periodontis, caries, diabetes, and arthritis. 
 
10.1) LinkedIn and Rochelle are to disprove Dr. Shiva’s results using his cytosolve software to analyze the impact of mask-wearing on our oral health and microbiome. 
 
LinkedIn can 
 
1) Pay an out of court settlement of 100,000 USD for damages caused by illegal censorship — and reinstate my LinkedIn account within 15 days 
 
or Linked in and Rochelle personally will face further legal consequences for criminal censorship and damage to non-covid-cultist businesspersons. 
 
Best,
dainis w michel

Related Articles

Responses

  1. Hey, Ryan! I had an idea regarding how we can resolve this issue.

    1) You wear a mask with your warmed up festering saliva and snot and all…and do a lot of mouth breathing.
    2) I’ll continue living a normal non-face-phobic smile&hug friendly life
    3) When you die of a fungal or bacterial lung infection, you leave me 10 million dollars

    What do you think of that agreement?

    Best,
    dainis