There were many lies that we were told during the Covid-19 pandemic. These are lessons that we should have learned by now. The point is to never fall into these mistakes again. Sadly many lies came from the government, and from health institutions.
These institutions are supposed to “protect and take care of us”. Yet they based their positions on poor insights and bad scientific evidence.
The main lies that we were told are the following.
- 1. We all were going to die and the media was telling the truth.
- 2. Masks work and prevent the spread
- 3. Masks are harmless.
- 4. Lockdowns work, stop the spread, and are harmless.
- 5. Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and Vitamin D are useless.
- 6. The vaccine was safe.
- 7. The vaccine was effective.
- 8. The COVID-19 vaccine is ethical
- 9. The pandemic wasn't planned but was found in nature
- 10. The government wanted to protect us
- Conclusion:
1. We all were going to die and the media was telling the truth.
The terms epidemic and pandemic do not refer to the mortality of a virus but to its geographical distribution and spread. This is in any disease, deadly or not. The words epidemic and pandemic scare people, making them think that it is a significantly dangerous disease in all cases.
We know that the most affected were the elderly and those who were immunocompromised. Those who died of the coronavirus had at least 2 comorbidities (88%) such as diabetes, obesity, heart disease, chronic smoking, transplants, arthritis, etc.
These patients, if they had not died from this virus, could have died from any other virus, or any other kind of infection such as bacterial pneumonia. As well as being at risk of death from their comorbidities.
Why was so much fear instilled by the media and by governments? One of the reasons is that the models were wrong from the beginning.
Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson created the widely cited coronavirus model at Imperial College London. Thanks to this, government decisions were made. He initially said that 2.2 million people would die in the USA and 500,000 people would die of Coronavirus in the United Kingdom if something was not done.
Neil Ferguson resigned in early May saying:
“I accept that I made a mistake in judgment and that a wrong course of action was taken as a consequence, so I take a step back in my relationship with the government’s scientific emergency group”.
Additionally, he met a woman during quarantine, when he told everyone to stay home. Which indicates he didn’t even believe his own statements.
From the beginning, the disease was treated by the media as if it were Ebola. Ebola has a 65% mortality rate. In general, the more deadly a disease is, the less contagious it is, and the more contagious a disease is, the less deadly it is. Coronavirus is contagious, but the death rate is 0.2-0.4% according to the CDC.
This resulted in great cruelty, such as leaving people to die alone, (since they did not allow relatives to go into the hospitals) and not giving them an adequate burial.
The media spoke about how many cases there were, and how many deaths there were in order to scare us all. However, they rarely talk about the vast majority of people who simply recovered at home, or about the people who required hospitalization but recovered anyway.
They won’t show you statistics of the other causes of death that were killing people in the world at the same time in a much greater proportion, such as abortions, cancer, suicide, or traffic accidents.
In the United States, what apparently happened is that they inflated the numbers. Hospitals received money from the government and had to justify its use, otherwise, they had to return it.
That explains why many people around the world have complained that their relatives had died of other causes and the certificate said they died from Coronavirus.
The rest of this post covers several of the lies that the media and governments pushed on us.
2. Masks work and prevent the spread
Many people were ostracized because they didn’t want to wear a mask. They were called science deniers. However, this was the most widespread lie out there. Unfortunately, the ones that spread this lie were governments, the media, doctors, and other healthcare workers.
They just followed a narrative without questioning it, and without going deep into the science, in order to see if what they were promoting was correct.
The lethality of the virus is not to the degree that justifies all the measures that were taken. There are no scientific studies that support the use of cloth or surgical masks in the general population as a clear way to avoid infection.
Even the WHO in the beginning stated on their webpage, that mask use was limited to sick coronavirus patients or care-giving people. It was not recommended for the general population.
The surgical mask was created with the purpose of the surgeon not contaminating an open wound with saliva or sweat. It may prevent the spread of bacteria. Bacteria is massive compared to that of a virus. A bacteria can be seen with a normal microscope.
Viruses on the other hand need an electric microscope to be seen. The COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) particle is 0.125 micrometers/microns (μm). A regular surgical mask isn’t effective at blocking particles smaller than 100 μm. It is like trying to trap mosquitos with a fishing net.
N-95 masks will block 95% of tiny air particles down to 0.3 μm from reaching the wearer’s face. That is twice the size of the COVID-19 virus. These masks were the only ones considered to be effective if used properly during the pandemic.
However, the science never supported the use of masks to prevent the transmission of a respiratory viral infection. Many of scientific studies were made before, during, and after the pandemic that proved that the use of masks was useless.
Starting with the cloth masks. The study named: Evaluating the efficacy of cloth facemasks in reducing particulate matter exposure concluded:
“Standard N95 mask performance was used as a control to compare the results with cloth masks, and our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles<2.5 μm. Compared with cloth masks, disposable surgical masks are more effective in reducing particulate exposure.“
The surgical mask for healthcare workers was useless. We can see this in the following 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 health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.”
Another study called “Masks for Prevention of Viral Respiratory Infections among Health Care Workers and the Public: PEER Umbrella Systematic Review” Proved:
This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenzalike illness was found among mask users. In health care workers, the results show no difference between N95 masks and surgical masks on the risk of confirmed influenza or other confirmed viral respiratory infections, although possible benefits from N95 masks were found for preventing influenzalike illness or other clinical respiratory infections. Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial.
Regarding particularly the N95 masks one study was done specifically for covid-19 in the general population. Assessment of Proficiency of N95 Mask Donning Among the General Public in Singapore. The conclusion was:
“These findings support ongoing recommendations against the use of N95 masks by the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic.5 N95 mask use by the general public may not translate into effective protection but instead provide false reassurance. Beyond N95 masks, proficiency among the general public in donning surgical masks needs to be assessed.”
There was a famous Danish study that proved that there was no significant difference when comparing face mask wearers against non-face wearers.
The study is called: Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The results showed:
A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was -0.3 percentage point.
One last study among the many that were conducted is the following:
Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy
In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.
Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.
There was no scientific proof before, during, or after the pandemic. So who were real science deniers?
3. Masks are harmless.
This wasn’t a pushed lie, but more like an assumption that everyone had or maybe didn’t even think about. The truth is that masks had side effects, even when most of us thought they were harmless.
I think this was because they caused a false sense of safety and protection.
In children, they cause delays in the learning of speech. This is especially troubling because Covid-19 posed such a low threat to children.
A German study named Corona Children studies “Co-Ki”: First results of a Germany-wide registry on mouth and nose covering (mask) in children. Found several negative effects of the use of masks in children. Including:
On a total of 25,930 children. The average wearing time of the mask was 270 minutes per day. Impairments caused by wearing the mask were reported by 68% of the parents. These included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%) impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).
The children were also exposed to dangerous levels of carbon dioxide, especially the younger ones.
To deprive a child’s or an adolescent’s brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal. Oxygen deficiency inhibits the development of the brain, and the damage that has taken place as a result CANNOT be reversed.
COVID-19 Masks Are a Crime Against Humanity and Child Abuse
The use of masks also increased symptoms of dyspnea while walking. This was in healthy patients. I can’t imagine what it would be like for a patient with pulmonary diseases like COPD or Asthma. In this last one, it could increase the risk of an Asthma attack.
Related to dyspnea, there was a report of students dying from exercising while wearing masks. This is how bad it can get.
The use of masks regularly increases bacterial or other respiratory infections too. This is because the mouth hosts a lot of bacteria and even fungi. Once aspirated they can cause pneumonia. We can see that in the following study: Masks, False Safety and Real Dangers, Part 2: Microbial Challenges from masks
Masks have been shown consistently over time and throughout the world to have no significant preventative impact against any known pathogenic microbes. Specifically, regarding COVID-19
Masks have also been demonstrated historically to contribute to increased infections within the respiratory tract. We have examined the common occurrence of oral and nasal pathogens accessing deeper tissues and blood, and potential consequences of such events. We have demonstrated from the clinical and historical data cited herein, we conclude the use of face masks will contribute to far more morbidity and mortality than has occurred due to COVID-19.
The use of masks can increase your chances of getting infected with COVID-19.
Did you know that the use of masks also means an increased risk of breathing microplastics? Who wants to breathe that daily? There are other risks for sensitive people like Face masks dermatitis.
4. Lockdowns work, stop the spread, and are harmless.
In the past lockdowns were always used to isolate the sick, or people with close exposure to the disease. They were never intended to be used to isolate the healthy.
What bothered me the most were the people who said to others often with a lot of entitlement, “stay home”. Who were those people to commend others to stay in their homes?
I don’t care if they were civilians or the government. That goes directly against our fundamental liberties. The consequences of these measurements are obvious. In the end, studies showed that they didn’t work at all. Not only that, lockdowns caused a lot of harm to society.
A Study from Johns Hopkins called: A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality concluded:
While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.
The economic repercussions are the most obvious, but people believe that thinking on the economic side is selfish. The problem is not the economic impact as such, but the consequences of the economic impact.
The loss of jobs causes extreme suffering. Each 1% of unemployment produces a 3.3% increase in drug overdoses and a 0.99% increase in suicides according to the Lancet medical journal. This is based on experiences, not on models.
If unemployment reached levels of 32% 77,000 US citizens could have died from suicides and overdoses. Those are deaths that should also have to be taken into account. To say that paying attention to economic losses is selfish, is far from true. Not to mention the people who lost their businesses and their homes.
There were other repercussions too. Many people didn’t get good medical care for other diseases and ended up dying from those. This includes cancer patients and patients who didn’t look for treatment after having a heart attack. Also, there was a reduction in elective care.
There were psychological and psychiatric implications too. According to a study from The Lancet:
Most reviewed studies reported negative psychological effects including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma.
The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence
We had depression and a high increase in suicidal rates. Also, there was an increase in domestic abuse during the lockdowns.
5. Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and Vitamin D are useless.
There was a lot of fearmongering around hydroxychloroquine, telling lies like it caused cardiac issues. Studies proved otherwise.
HCQ is apparently not dangerous to the heart and indeed is cardioprotective. It results in a lower incidence of cardiac events as well as lower levels of arrhythmia, cholesterol and thrombosis. No TDP deaths from HCQ were reported in the peer-reviewed literature. The potential risk of fatal arrhythmia—for example, TDP—from HCQ appears to be merely theoretical.
Hydroxychloroquine is protective to the heart, not harmful: a systematic review
Hydroxicloquine is an antimalarial medication. It has been used successfully, and safely, for years to prevent Malaria in Africa. Also, it is used in the treatment of autoimmune diseases like lupus. It was used as a prophylactic to prevent getting COVID-19 and also as a treatment.
There was a lot of pushback despite the scientific evidence in its favor.
Successful protocols against COVID-19 infection were developed with Hydroxychloroquine, and saved a lot of lives. There were preventive protocols and early treatment protocols. The most famous one was Doctor Zelenko’s protocol.
His protocol also included other useful medications, like steroids, antibiotics, blood thinners, Vitamin D, and Zinc. Vitamin D deficiency was related directly to COVID-19 deaths, but nobody seems to have any interest in this.
Ivermectin was another medication that was included in these protocols. This medication was also vilified. The media mocked those who advocated for it like a “horse dewormer”. Ivermectin is an antiparasitic commonly used in humans.
However, the science has proved its efficacy:
In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline rec- ommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically de- ployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
Not just that, there is a lawsuit related to the use of Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic against the FDA. The FDA agreed to settle.
There are a lot of benefits from this medication besides the protocols against COVID-19. For example, it also seems to be effective against cancer.
As mentioned above, the broad-spectrum antiparasitic drug IVM, which is widely used in the field of parasitic control, has many advantages that suggest that it is worth developing as a potential new anticancer drug. IVM selectively inhibits the proliferation of tumors at a dose that is not toxic to normal cells and can reverse the MDR of tumors.
Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug
The media and many others vilified or ignored these medications, although they were effective. The reason for this was that if you have an effective treatment against COVID, you can’t have emergency authorization for the vaccine.
It all was about money, big pharma benefiting from it, and pushing the vaccine on everyone. The medications mentioned before are very cheap and their safety has been proven over decades. But they won’t benefit from it, just the patients.
6. The vaccine was safe.
When the vaccine came along, I had several issues with it, just by using common sense. Because of this I never took it. Don’t ever again let fearmongering scare you enough to not think critically, and to not make good decisions about your health.
Research as much as you can, and use common sense, regardless of what the media and the government tells you.
Here are the concerns I had since the beginning.
It was an experimental and new vaccine.
For a vaccine to come onto the market, it requires years of research and various stages of testing. After that, it finally will get it on the market, and we can be sure that it is safe for the population.
Making it available suddenly, does not seem proper to me. Especially when there have been other vaccines like the H1N1 or the HPV vaccines, released without such rush, that have had serious secondary repercussions. We are talking about neurological damage in healthy people.
Despite the vaccine being experimental, they wanted to force it on everyone, and prohibit people from things like traveling or working if they did not take the vaccine and have documented proof of doing so.
We need to know about the efficacy and safety before a medication or vaccine is approved, even if it is an emergency. In the end, it was highly ineffective and not safe.
The technology used in it, especially in the Pfizer and Moderna (mRNA vaccines), was never used before in humans.
Normal vaccines are made with live attenuated viruses, or virus fragments that help us identify, the antigen and produce the antibodies. These vaccines are made with RNA or DNA.
In theory, they would be injecting us with the mRNA (a list of genetic instructions) to be replicated to produce the antibody. It is necessary to have a more in-depth study about how these vaccines would work.
In vitro studies showed that mRNA in vaccines behaves like transcriptase reverse. This means that the RNA can be integrated into the genome and therefore change your DNA.
One of the creators of this technology Dr. Malone was against this use of that technology and they censored him, because of his dissent.
By agreeing to take the vaccine, you are agreeing to be part of that experiment.
This is an experimental vaccine, that was authorized not because it was ready, but because there was an alleged emergency. As a result, the entire population became a Guinea pig.
The vaccine was authorized after only 2 months of safety data. This of course is not enough for a vaccine that was used all across the globe.
At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable.
Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months
If you have a side effect, from the vaccine, your concerns may be dismissed. You can’t even sue the manufacturers, the government, or the employer if you were forced to take it in order to preserve your job.
The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.
You also can’t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment.
You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either.
There was never an informed consent given to the people taking the vaccine about the side effects known and unknown.
In the medical field, when you get a procedure, or even when you get certain medications, you need to sign an informed consent.
This is a legal document containing the possible side effects of a medication, or procedure. What are their risks and the benefits? It’s your body at the end of the day, and you need to know what is happening.
Even food is labeled with ingredients and nutritional information. People were largely unaware of the known side effects and risks. Even less of the potential future side effects.
The vaccine was never safe
This vaccine showed the most amount of side effects I have ever seen in a vaccine, or even in a medication. Because of this, I considered it to be the worst medical product ever created.
You can find the side effects of this vaccine on the VAERS (vaccine adverse reaction system) data. Here you can find all the side effects, or most of them, and the deaths so far. You can also compare how deadly this vaccine is compared to all the others since 1990.
You can find a complete list of vaccine side effects on the Swiss Policy Research website.
7. The vaccine was effective.
There has never been an effective vaccine against coronavirus viruses before.
Despite the media and the government telling us otherwise, the COVID-19 vaccine’s effectiveness after all these years has been shown to be very poor.
In August 2021 a study from the Mayo Clinic showed that after six months, the Pfizer vaccine provided just 42% effectiveness at reducing infection, and an Israeli study showed about a 16% effectiveness for symptomatic infections. A study in The Lancet showed a dramatic decline in vaccine-induced immunity over just five months. Another study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) found that the decline accelerates after the fourth month to reach only about 20% effectiveness by the fifth month.
Vaccine Effectiveness Covid Pedia America’s Frontline doctors.
Not only was the vaccine not effective, but it also caused higher infection rates, and because of that, a higher transmission rate. This is called Negative Effectiveness.
Pamela Acker is an expert in vaccines, who worked in the field for many years. She has a book called “Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective“, published in 2020 by the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation.
In the book, she explains that we still do not have a safe and effective vaccine for a Coronavirus infection. Even after the SARS virus in 2002 (the first disease caused by a coronavirus), and then with the MERS virus in 2012, (also a coronavirus).
She also mentions that the results of research with vaccines, and these coronaviruses, showed a severe inflammatory response mediated by eosinophils. This inflammatory response damages the lungs, skin, digestive tract, and nervous system.
Also, the vaccines caused another reaction called “antibody-dependent enhancement“. This increased the virulence of the disease, with an increased infection of the virus.
The virus mutates so fast that the initial vaccine couldn’t keep up.
The vaccine also doesn’t make much sense because the virus mutates. If the virus mutates, the vaccine the labs created will not work, because the virus will continue to mutate.
On the other hand, over time, we all have been in contact with the virus and have developed immunity. Also, as the virus mutates it becomes less virulent and less deadly. Therefore a vaccine is no longer needed.
8. The COVID-19 vaccine is ethical
Most of the commercialized vaccines were not ethical, since they used aborted derived baby cells either in their vaccines or in the research for the vaccine.
Aborted fetal lines have been used in research and in some vaccines for years now. It is kind of disgusting for me. As a society, we should demand from the vaccine manufacturers better.
This was a concern for many, especially people of faith who refused the vaccine based on this reason as part of a religious exemption.
The best information I have found about this topic, with all the vaccines and the fetal lines associated with it, can be found on the Lozier Institute website. You can also get this information on the Children of God for Life website. In Spanish, you can find information on the DAVID contra Coviat website.
9. The pandemic wasn’t planned but was found in nature
We were told the virus came from an undercooked bat in China. This is far from the truth.
The main piece of evidence that the pandemic was created, and didn’t come from nature, is that Dr. Fauci founded the Wuhan lab to develop gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses, of course with US money.
In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.
Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research
To know more about the real origin of this pandemic, I recommend the article: “On the Origin of SARS Coronavirus 2” from the Swiss policy research.
There are other indirect hints about more people associated with or interested in the creation of this pandemic. For example the controversial figure of Bill Gates, and the Famous Event 201.
In October 2019, Bill Gates and his foundation, together with The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Economic Forum, simulated a pandemic. This was just before the pandemic emerged.
Why did they do this? This was called “Event 201” and you can see more about it on their website.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. The exercise illustrated areas where public/private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences.
https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/event-201-pandemic-tabletop-exercise
In February 2010, Gates gave a TED Talk called “Innovating to Zero”. He explained a formula to try to bring to zero the CO2 that “humanity generates”. He claimed that for the good of humanity, we must decrease the population.
That is why it is called innovating to zero. He explicitly said that if “we do a good job with vaccines, health services, and reproductive services (abortion) we can lower the population to 15%”.
In April 2015, Bill Gates gave another TED talk about how the next thing that would kill the world would be an epidemic that we were not prepared for. It is a curious statement because humanity has survived epidemics since humanity has existed.
The main thing that ended up helping to eradicate those has always been hygiene. How funny that he knows so much about pandemics. Here is the video.
Mr. Gates is not a doctor, and he does not have studies in science, microbiology, or any related science. His main work was computers and technology. So why did he become so important in this matter?
If he is a software genius, his operating system leaves much to be desired, as it is very vulnerable to “viruses”, unlike other systems such as iOS or Linux. Then they sell you the antivirus, and this is all a great deal for them.
It sounds as if he has planned everything, and used this same logic by investing in, or partnering with, leading vaccine producers. We can see this on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation site.
This is why they created an alliance called Gavi, to “help” children. Associated with institutions like the WHO, and the World Bank. I stopped trusting these groups a long time ago because their objective is to promote agendas like abortion, and massive debt for countries.
He is supposed to be a great philanthropist and to be helping humanity. At the same time, people started associating him with the disease and the vaccine.
10. The government wanted to protect us
Some governments around the world, during the pandemic, were very restrictive. We could see this too in some places in the United States. People used their freedom to associate and protest with good reason because the measures were so ridiculous.
This was quite worrying because with the excuse of protecting our health, many governments acted tyrannically. Fighting to defend our freedoms is not in opposition to saving lives and is not something superficial. Once you give up freedoms, those freedoms are very difficult to recover.
A lot of people have died throughout history defending freedom. So we have no excuse to allow anybody to take these freedoms from us when we can protect them peacefully and with little risk.
Authoritarianism was not exclusive to the United States, don’t forget the concentration camps in Australia. This country was one of the most abusive with its laws about COVID-19.
The media was used by the government to keep us controlled by fear, demonizing anyone who dared to question the narrative. This includes anything from the lethality of the virus, questioning the measures taken, to not wanting to use the vaccine, or wanting to use alternative medications.
Conclusion:
We need to learn from these lessons, and not allow it to happen again. Next time, when someone like the WHO, the UN, our own governments, or the media tries to make us submissive using the excuse of protecting us, we need to know it’s not true and how to act.
We need to use common sense, and to try and listen to different opinions. We need to stand up for our freedoms.
If you want to know more about this topic, I would suggest the America’s Frontline Doctors website, and the Swiss Policy Research website.
English 
Español de México