Vienna 07/10/2025
Entire blog as a free PDF eBook.
March marked the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. Does anyone remember the scaremongering about the hole in the ozone layer? Don’t go out in the sun without sunscreen! Ideally, use factor 20 or higher! The hole in the ozone layer and the associated fear of skin cancer remained in vogue until the end of the 20th century and even a little longer.
As if to counter climate hysteria, the disruption of the protective ozone layer in the atmosphere—which isn’t a disruption at all, but a normal, dynamic phenomenon—disappeared on its own, and the media celebrated the Montreal Protocol as a resounding success. Myths about human influence on everything that can and cannot be changed continue to spread to this day. Why is this? The answer is simple: the biggest polluters from industry have taken over the environmental protection baton and are defining what is healthy and what is unhealthy for the planet.
I found an interesting article on Midwestendoctor.com: Dermatology’s Disastrous War Against The Sun.
… one of the paradigm changing moments for Pierre Kory (which he discusses with Russel Brand here) was that after he testified to the Senate about ivermectin, he was put into a state of shock by the onslaught of media and medical journal campaigns from every direction trying to tank ivermectin and destroy he and his colleagues’ reputations (e.g., they got fired and had their papers which had already passed peer-review retracted). Two weeks into it, he got an email from Professor William B Grant (a vitamin D expert) that said “Dear Dr. Korey, what they’re doing to ivermectin they’ve been doing to vitamin D for decades” and included a 2017 paper detailing the exact playbook industry uses again and again to bury inconvenient science.
Anyone who believes that medicine serves health is mistaken. Medicine serves a piece of paper, commonly known as money. Fighting disease contradicts this goal. Therefore, medicine is concerned with alleviating symptoms and preventing the development of new diseases through the side effects of chemical preparations sold in pharmacies. If you work in the medical field, don’t feel attacked by me—that’s not what it’s about. I worked in a hospital’s intensive care unit for a year and a half immediately after graduating, and it’s not my goal to fight people in that field. There are medical fields that save lives. I usually cite trauma surgery as an example.
It’s not medical professionals, or at least not most of them, who are responsible for the disastrous health care system. It’s not doctors who have spoken out against natural healing methods like sunlight and vitamin D. You might say, “But the doctor told me to stay out of the sun!” He told me because that’s how he was taught, and he definitely doesn’t have time to check every lie he’s been fed during medical school and residency.
…there are two potentially effective screening tools for prostate cancer, one which will reduce their chances of dying from the disease by between 20 and 30 per cent, while the other will save one life after 10,000 person-years of screening. As a consumer or as a public health official, which one would you buy into? They all vote for the first; yet the two programmes are the same, they were just packaged differently. To continue marketing screening in terms of relative risk reduction in breast cancer mortality is disingenuous in the extreme.
Author of the article: Marek Wojcik
Email: worldscam3@gmail.com
<If you like what I write, it would help a lot to further spread these articles if you share them with your friends on social media.