This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally aired on Oct. 15, 2020. To listen to the entire program, please click HERE.

Sam Rohrer:                      Hello, and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand in the Gap today. I’m Sam Rohrer, and I’m going to be joined in just a moment by a favorite guest of mine, and our listeners, and that’s the President and co-founder of Citizens Council for Health Freedom. Twila Brase is her name. This is our monthly Health Freedom Update, which according to so many comments that we’re getting from listeners across the country is really becoming one of your more favorite program emphasis. The reason is health, and health freedom, are two big things very important to all Americans, and particularly important to God-fearing and patriotic Americans who love freedom and love good health. So all of that, you put that together, big issue and I think that’s why this program, and this focus, is being commented on.

                                             Our focus today will be no exception to what we’ve been doing, either in content, relevance, or emphasis. Our theme is this, Health Freedom Update, COVID lockdowns, masks, and the Great Barrington Declaration. For instance, we’re going to discuss President Trump, his three-tiered COVID infection treatment plan, his amazingly quick recovery, and we’re going to find out from Twila her perspective, what lessons we should learn from what has happened. We’re going to share the latest guidance about COVID lockdowns, the comment of the World Health Organization against lockdowns, but then Twila is going to identify that little wiggle room caveat they built into their statement. We’ll talk about a ruling from a judge in Spain about lockdowns and human rights, and we’re going to talk about key information about a court case right here in the United States relative to the lockdowns right in the state of Michigan.

                                             We’re also going to present the latest research on masking, and we’ll share what in the world the World Bank is doing appropriating 160 billion dollars for COVID vaccinations and treatments for over a billion people around the world. In case you’ve not heard of, or signed, the Great Barrington Declaration written and signed by scores of infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists from around the world, all expressing their very grave concerns about the damaging impacts of COVID-19 policies, we’re going to tell you about that and how you can sign it. All of this in today’s Stand in the Gap today Health Freedom Update. With that, let me welcome right now, Twila. Thanks for being with me.

Twila Brase:                       Oh, I’m glad to be here. Thanks so much, Sam.

Sam Rohrer:                      You are welcome. Let’s start with a post analysis if we could. That’s a great thing to do in all medical matters, and we’re going to treat it that way. The President’s contact with COVID-19. He tested positive for COVID-19, we remember. So did Melania. Certain others who attended the event where the President announced his pick of Supreme Court nominee, Amy Barrett, and the news ran wild. Pelosi, “We need to begin implementing the succession of government leadership plans, that the President should step aside. He should lock himself away for two weeks, that the hearing should be stopped.” But then, within days the pronouncement from the White House physician that the President tests negative. Clearly is normal, look at his activity that’s going on right now, and the issue somewhat disappeared, but the President still remains attacked over that issue. Would you care to comment on what happened and anything that comes out of that?

Twila Brase:                       Well, yeah. We are in political season right now and there’s a lot of people who don’t want President Trump to win, and so anything to take him down is probably why the attacks continue. It just doesn’t follow … He doesn’t follow the narrative, because they want everybody locked down. They want … Two weeks later they still want you locked down as soon as you have even a possible. Nobody’s even talking about the fact that the PCR tests that New York, the New York Times of all places, announced, but almost nobody is talking about the fact that up to 90% of the PCR positive tests, the COVID positive tests, done through the nose they’re likely not positive, up to 90%. So, there’s a lot of people who have been locked down that shouldn’t have been locked down, and their friends have been locked down that shouldn’t have been locked down, through these quarantine measures. So, I think it’s just not being talked about the way it should be, because what are we, how many days are we away from the election? Is it three weeks or you know-

Sam Rohrer:                      Of course, yeah.

Twila Brase:                       So, I think that’s a lot of what’s happening here.

Sam Rohrer:                      Well, that’s my perspective as well, and that’s what you said, because it all is in that category. As soon as you hear Pelosi saying, “All right, lock him away, take him off,” that is exactly what they would want, but that’s not medical protocol, at least legitimate. Let’s go to this, because the President when he confirmed that he was positive, with whatever test he had, they whisk him off to the hospital, to the care center there, and began a three-tier level treatment of him. Now, some said that they did that because he really was very serious condition and they had to throw everything they could at the problem. Others said it was a multi-level approach of just normal good protocol. Others I’ve heard said, “Well, you know what, at the end of the day it probably didn’t do anything. People were praying and God just healed him, and that’s the way it is.”

                                             What happened to the best of your knowledge? Why was that treatment the way it was as far as you know? Was it ever a serious matter with him in his recovery being so quick and all that? What do we learn from that that can be extended perhaps more broadly around the country?

Twila Brase:                       So, Science Magazine has actually the best sort of rundown as to exactly what happened, and I encourage people to take a look at it. He … So, there were three things that were implemented, and the first thing is called Regeneron, and it’s really experimental use of antibody treatments, and one of them came out of plasma from somebody who had survived COVID-19, and the other came out of, it’s kind of interesting, out of a mouse. So, they had engineered this mouse to have a human immune system, and so it’s called a monoclonal treatment. It’s cloning of these B cells, which are immune cells. So, these were the two antibodies, this cocktail, that he was given from Regeneron.

                                             Then, added to that was something called Remdesivir, which is an antiviral treatment which is meant to decrease viral load. In other words decrease the amount of virus you even have in your body. Then, the last thing was a steroid called dexamethasone, which is a common long … We’ve had that one for a very long time, but what it does is it dampens the immune response, and which sounds kind of weird probably to people, because you think you really want a big immune response. But, in COVID-19 it’s something called the cytokine storm, and this thing takes over your lungs and starts to block all ability of the oxygen to get to the little capillaries that then supply the rest of your body, and you don’t want that cytokine storm to get going. So, they have found that the dexamethasone, particularly earlier before you ever get an event, is a really good thing to keep that from happening.

Sam Rohrer:                      All right. So, they did a lot of different things but it clearly worked. That’s a good thing for everybody, and maybe you’ll have a chance to comment a little further on is that now the kind of protocol that anybody who is serious with it ought to be treated with? We’ll talk about that later.

                                           Ladies and gentlemen, our theme today, this is our Health Freedom Update, COVID lockdown, masks, and the Great Barrington Declaration. Our special guest Twila Brase. When we come back we’re going to talk about lockdowns, the World Health Organization, and more.

Well, welcome back to Stand in the Gap today. I’m Sam Rohrer. Our theme Health Freedom Update, COVID, lockdowns, or COVID lockdowns rather, masks and the Great Barrington Declaration. Our special guest Twila Brase, who is the President and co-founder of Citizens Council for Health Freedom. Their website at Twila, before we get into the issue of the lockdowns, which is a big issue, I want to have you say just a quick comment. We’re talking about the President, his three-tiered level of treatment, and all, because he recovered so quickly. Your comment, as far as you know was the President ever in an acute perspective? Was the treatment that was given to him because he was in an acute position at any time or what? What do you know about that?

Twila Brase:        Yes. So, apparently according to the doctors he had two episodes of transient drop in the oxygen saturation. So, people have COVID-19 and they end up with a terrible cough, and terrible fever, and all sorts of things, but their oxygen level never drops. It never gets to that point, and they recover before it gets to that point. He apparently had two drops. Sometimes people who are really getting severe COVID-19 it’s not just a transient drop, it keeps going down. As the one doctor talked about, he’d seen somebody at 30%, and you’re supposed to be in the 92-98% level of oxygen, or even 95-98. So, it could have been precipitous, but it wasn’t, and so I think they were treating him as though it could happen.

Sam Rohrer:                      All right. That sounds like good medical practice to me. Thanks for clarifying that.

                                             Ladies and gentlemen, we’ll shift gears here right now. Since the Presidential declaration of the COVID emergency earlier this year, and the subsequent, as we’ve talked about before, universal declarations, meaning all of the other 50 governors did the same thing, lockdowns on business, travel, gatherings, and churches, have become the policy of choice by many many, and certainly the nations of the world pursued lockdowns as the way to go. Most of the world was locked down for some point in time, and the results actually have been, and are increasingly evident. They are devastating. Increased starvation, the expectation for famine across Africa, in particular, is happening. Hundreds of thousands of businesses have closed forever with an expected here in the United States numbers, I just saw, by the end of the year expected 500,000 was the number that I read. Restaurants alone will be closed forever by the end of the year.

                                             Then, just a few days ago, the World Health Organization released a statement seemingly condemning lockdowns as a policy. But the question is, what did they actually say? In the end, I asked, What difference does it make what they said? Twila, a lot of people got excited, and hopeful, with the words from the World Health Organization seemingly condemning lockdowns to control COVID. But, the World Health Organization, they were the first ones who helped to create the panic in the first place, and they’ve regularly contradicted themselves along the way. So, what did they actually say?

Twila Brase:                       The WHO … We give way too much money to the World Health Organization given what has all transpired here. What the doctor who was representing the World Health Organization said is they don’t believe in lockdowns as a primary means of control, and I know that for most of the public out there you sort of like gloss over those words and go, “Yay.” But, clearly they’re saying primary, and it’s really important to look at that word, which means that they do support lockdowns. They still support lockdowns. They say that lockdowns should only be used to have time to regroup, to reorganize, to rebalance, to take pressure off of the healthcare system so that doctors and nurses are relieved who are exhausted, that sort of thing. But, they’re sort of like threading the needle.

                                             They’re not saying they don’t support lockdowns. They are saying that they want more of the mandates so that when the lockdown comes off the peak doesn’t keep going up. So, I don’t really think that they’re opposing lockdowns per se. They do say things like, “It’s making the poor poorer,” and that’s correct. It’s keeping people from getting cancer screenings, and that’s correct. So, I think they might be threading the needle here in order to make themselves look good, but they are absolutely not saying no to lockdowns, they’re still supporting lockdowns.

Sam Rohrer:                      Ah, the fine print, Twila. I tell you, you got to look at it. Thanks for clarifying that. But the lockdowns have had devastating effects. Matter of fact, I saw a judge in Spain made a very, very important ruling from the perspective of that nation relative to lockdowns. What did he rule?

Twila Brase:                       Well, and it’s interesting because Madrid has been having protests in the streets. In Europe there’s a lot of protests in the streets and big cities, and Madrid, in Spain, is one of those. Now, it went to a judge, and the judge said that it was against human rights, that the lockdown was against human rights. Could the judge be any more accurate about that? I mean, that’s just like so true, it really is. It’s against freedom, it’s against human rights to engage in all sorts of things with their neighbors, with getting food, with getting access to care, with just living freely, speaking freely, breathing freely. It is. It is exactly what the judge said.

Sam Rohrer:                      All right. Then, come back home right now. World Health Organization, make a statement. It sounds good but not necessarily all that good. Spain says, “Yes. The judge says it’s a human rights violation.” I’d agree with him, just like you said. Here in the United States there was a court ruling in Michigan. The governor took some actions there, and court, state court, I believe, weighed in. What was the issue there about and what was the finding there relative to lockdowns?

Twila Brase:                       So, the minute the Michigan legislature sued the governor saying that this law, which is a 1945 law, that gives the governor these emergency powers, they said that they wanted to release her powers, not let her continue to extend her powers, and so they sued. It went all the way up to the Supreme Court, and on October 2nd the Supreme Court said, “What you’re doing is unconstitutional.” You have the legislature, through this law, has delegated powers to the administration, and to the regulators, that is unconstitutional according to the Michigan Constitution. So, the governor cannot extend her orders. Well, then the governor essentially appealed that back to the Supreme Court asking to be able to keep them in place until October 30th.

                                             In the meantime, because that immediately set her orders at risk, the Health Department, the State Health Department, issued public health orders that are essentially the same as the executive orders, and they did it under a 1978 law. Well, then on October 12th, the Supreme Court ruled, “No, we will not allow you to extend them until October 30th.” Immediately, those executive powers are gone. But, of course, that did not impact what the State Health Department had put in place, and so here we go with essentially bypassing, the governor bypassed the Supreme Court and let her administration, her Commissioner of Health, implement orders in order to keep the state on lockdown.

Sam Rohrer:                      Twila. It goes right to the heart of your organization, Citizens Council for Health Freedom, and why we do this emphasis Health Freedom Update, because we had a health issue called COVID. We’ve got policies coming out of it that directly are undercutting, and compromising, our health freedom. Even beyond health freedom, ladies and gentlemen, you need to be aware this is our constitutional freedom. So, whether it be lockdowns, or masking requirements that we’re going to talk about in the next segment, or vaccinations, which we’re going to talk about in the next segment, key things, information that’s happening. The reason it’s such a concern is that you have government, executive branch in most cases, who have no constitutional authority to make the law are making law.

                                             Whenever an unauthorized body makes law guaranteed what you’re going to get is unconstitutional, unlawful laws. That is how it impacts our health in this case, and our freedom. Twila, these things that we’re talking about right here, they are major because it goes to … If it’s allowed to stand these kind of freedoms that are being lost right now I don’t see them coming back without a major, major issue. Talk to us a little bit more about why listeners need to be so very concerned about, literally, cutting out the law that guarantees our freedoms.

Twila Brase:                       Right. So, we are a rule-of-law country, and every state has a constitution, and most of them mimic the Constitution of the United States. When we allow bureaucrats, and that includes governors, when we allow them to legislate by using executive powers, and executive orders, and things that the constitutions of the state don’t actually allow, because the laws that they come up with through executive orders, or they act as laws, there is something that your legislators, your representatives, have never said “yes” or “no” to. In too many states the governor just keeps getting to go forward until the legislature tells him to stop, and that can be difficult. What it should be is that the governor has to go back to the legislature and say, “Can I extend my emergency powers?” Or, as in the case in Michigan, they shouldn’t have the emergency powers without the authority of the legislature on each emergency.

Sam Rohrer:                      Absolutely. Ladies and gentlemen, what we’ve talked about before, that’s why we here in Pennsylvania have made broadly known, restore the law approach to how this issue needs to be fixed. Go to that website we’ve established,, Read our open letter, a resolution, and it puts the emphasis on correcting this problem in the hands of the legislatures across this country. They are not stepping up, they’ve got to step up. Stay with us, we’ll be back right now, talking about vaccinations and masks next.


                                             We’re going to jump right into the continuing focus here today on the program, our Health Freedom Update, COVID lockdowns. We talked about that. We gave an update in segment one about the circumstance with the President, his treatment, and what we can learn from that. I want to move now into the other major area that is arising out of COVID policies, as we have clearly established in the last segment, are primarily coming, these dictates, these guidelines, whatever you call them, and many have called different things, guidelines, dictates. Many refer to them as laws. They’re not law. They are a regulation, they are a dictate, they’re a guideline, coming out of our, generally, Departments of Health across the country, or the governor’s office. In either case, they’re both executive branches.

                                             In some cases they’re supported by the judiciary. The case in Pennsylvania, the actual Supreme Court stepped in and supported the tyranny of the governor here in Pennsylvania. Up in Michigan, the court stepped in and they ruled against the governor, but she’s going ahead and doing it anyway. This is a problem. Well, all of these things that are so problematic, these dictates, these areas, on this whole scheme of trying to address COVID starts with a lockdown and then it comes out of that. While there are some areas, like the World Health Organization statement, even though they caveated it very carefully, the judge in Spain, and so forth, pushing back on the lockdowns, masking and vaccinations, I’m going to submit, are driving full speed ahead fueled by billions of dollars of special interest monies, and supported by dangerous health “experts” who recommend a lot of things based on feelings-based statistics and, I’m going to say, aborted previously-established medical science.

                                             So, medical science has been thrown out the window in these things, and the World Bank just announced, I think it was yesterday, the availability of 160 billion dollars, 160 billion dollars, for COVID vaccinations, and other treatments, for they say over a billion people, and what they are saying at this point are developing nations. The real goal an oppression on people’s freedoms, I think, is only just beginning. This is all prep stuff for what’s coming. We’re going to go here now. Twila, I want to start with masking here at this point before we go into the vaccinations. The masking has been out there first. It’s visible. The vaccinations are coming down the road as we’ll find out. Research just came out.

                                             Just last night a 24-year-old friend of mine told me that he had posted on Facebook material taken right off of the CDC website showing that approximately 70% of people testing positive for COVID were pretty avid maskers, and only a very small percentage of those that tested positive they’d never wore a mask, or hardly ever wear a mask. So, big issue, but then within an hour Facebook, their newly-imposed fact checkers marked it as false news, even though he took it right off of the CDC website. So, this tells me we’ve got big issues here. So, what does the latest research that you have seen, Twila, what’s it say about masking information, and why are they working so hard to bury it, or discredit it?

Twila Brase:                       Well, I have to say, and you probably understand that, as well as your listeners, that just because Facebook or Twitter banned something doesn’t mean that it isn’t true, as we even found out what the Hunter Biden story yesterday, right? One of the biggest publications in the whole world and it gets banned by Twitter as though it was just some little publication somewhere.

                                             That CDC study is a really important study because it looked at about 330 people, and 154 of them were cases. In other words, they were actually symptomatic and they had COVID. The other 160 had symptoms but they were not COVID. So, they probably had the flu or something. So, what they found is that 70.6% of those with COVID were, for the 14 days before they got symptoms, for those 14 days they always wore masks, 70.6%. Another 14.4% of those who got COVID often wore a mask during those 14 days before their symptoms came. So, what we’re really talking about here is that 85% of this sample, which came from 11 healthcare systems around the country, that they looked at people from around 11, and they pulled them all together. What they found is 85% of them often, or always, wore masks before they got symptoms and turned up with COVID. That is a lot of people wearing masks that aren’t helping.

Sam Rohrer:                      That is a big deal. Now we’ve got to get into the vaccination, but very practically speaking what then does that show? I mean, it’s apparent to me kind of what it shows, they don’t do any good which is exactly what you’ve been saying, but this is a very significant statistics. That ought to change policies, but is it?

Twila Brase:                       Right? So, I can see some of the people on the other side saying, “Well, the real problem is that the other people weren’t wearing masks.” You know, there were among other people who weren’t wearing masks. Now, we either have to agree that the mask itself, the material of the masks, either it protects you or it doesn’t. So, either that material works or it doesn’t. It’s not about other people. Scientists have said, cloth masks don’t work for source control, which means to protect others, and they don’t work for PPE, personal protective equipment.

                                             Two researchers out of Chicago, and that is posted on the University of Minnesota website, and they were challenged, and they refused to take that down. So, the reality is if you even get a box of masks from the hospital, it will say on there, “This does not protect you from viruses.” Well, it doesn’t … Having somebody else wear a mask doesn’t protect the other people either, because the mask it’s not magic. So, anyway, it should change policy, but as Dr. Osterholm said, “People are acting based on emotion rather than on science.”

Sam Rohrer:                      Yeah, real quickly. The other day I was in a setting where there was a person working with me. It was a video shooting setting, and a person was putting makeup on me so she was close to me. She had a mask on, she said, “I’m going to need to wear the mask.” I said, “That’s fine,” and as she was talking to me the air from her mouth as she was talking was coming all over me. I could feel every word that was coming out through the air that came through the mask. I said, “Oh, well.”

                                             Anyway, let’s go on to something else. The World Bank just came out and said that they have now appropriated 160 billion dollars for vaccinations, and other matters, to deal with this issue around the world. Tells me there’s a lot of money in the pipeline, there’s a lot of gas in the tank, and we are only at the beginning stages of vaccinations which to me sound a whole lot worse when I think about somebody wanting to poke something into my arm than it is a mask which, as we know, doesn’t work and all of that. So, talk to me about the vaccinations issue.

Twila Brase:                       So, the … Yes, there’s so much push on the vaccines, but the interesting thing is what’s happening to the vaccines. So, they have money. That money is going to June 2021, and I think it’s whether there’s even going to be a vaccine that anybody’s going to trust to take, because as it stands right now there’s one … There’s one, which is Moderna, which has an RNA-based vaccine which just submitted it for approval in Canada, but the interesting thing about this is it went through phase 1, and then it went into phase 2. Phase 2 is supposed to last for 15 months, and they’re supposed to check people who are sick and see how it impacts them. They almost immediately moved into phase 3, which is the last testing. They’re not even done with phase 3, because how can you be done with phase 3 if you’re not done with phase 2? Anyway, they’ve submitted it to Canada.

                                             But, at the same time, we have Johnson & Johnson who had one adverse effect, and so they halted their trials. Eli Lilly with an antibody version of the vaccine, they had a reaction, a bad reaction, so they halted their trials. AstraZeneca halted their trials in September because of a neurological problem. So. the real question is with all this money flying is anybody, except maybe the poor and uninformed in other countries, perhaps, who don’t have radio, and don’t have video, and can’t see the news whether or not … Who’s going to take these vaccines, and will they believe them? Then, how will the mask mandate be used to push a vaccine mandate, like you get to lose your mask if you take the vaccine? We’ll trust that you’ve been immunized, right. They don’t really know if it’s going to work. I think that’s an interesting thing. How can they know if usually it takes at least five years, Bill Gates says, to even get a vaccine out. Other people say four years, and what are we looking at here, we haven’t even had this virus for a year?

Sam Rohrer:                      Those are all logical questions, but we’re not dealing in a logical world are we, Twila?

Twila Brase:                       No.

Sam Rohrer:                      So, those logical questions should lead to a logical conclusion. Okay, we’re just about done, but do you think, really, in light of all these things, and the problems that are happening with that, do you think that when we get by the election all of this just goes away, like some people say?

Twila Brase:                       Well, I think there could be a major upset, although when you’ve got that much money in play that part will probably still push on. All that to say that SARS and MERS in the early 2000s, they were trying to get a vaccine and lo and behold the virus just went away, it just disappeared. That could certainly happen with SARS-CoV-2, and then people are going to like, “No, I’m not taking that. Nobody’s getting sick anymore.” I don’t know. I think there’s a lot up in the air that we do not know what will happen with or without the [crosstalk 00:29:07]

Sam Rohrer:                      Up in the air, and in the air, absolutely. When we come back we’re going to talk. If you haven’t heard about it, you need to, the Great Barrington Resolution, a push back to all of these silly dangerous policies.


                                             We move into our final segment now. We’ve talked on this Health Freedom Update today with Twila Brase. Three major issues, lockdowns, masks, and then the latest on vaccinations. As these continue to unroll it’s a lot of these things are clearly fueled by the election. Whether or not it automatically dissipates as some people say when we get by the election, we find out what are going to be the results of maybe, maybe not.

                                             I will say that the trillion dollars, or whatever the number is, that has found its way into Big Pharma to produce vaccines it’s going to go somewhere. The 160 billion dollars allocated now by the World Bank for that very purpose, that’s a lot of money in the tank. So, you’re going to have some action coming forth out of it, but we need to be aware of it, because at the end of the day all of these things are problematic because they’re coming from entities that are not lawmaking bodies. They are executive branch, it’s unlawful. They are un-medical, they’re not sound science, and they are, in every one of these cases, they limit, and abridge, our freedoms, as even the judge in Spain ruled with lockdowns, it’s a violation of basic human rights.

                                             So you say, “Why in the world are we doing this?” Well, that’s why we’re talking about it because we shouldn’t. We’ve wondered where are those who believe in good science and good medicine? Why aren’t those who know the truth doing more? Well, some have. One thing that COVID virus has demonstrated, to me anyways, is just how quickly historical experience, medical science, constitutional guarantees of freedom, and otherwise complete political enemies can decide, and implement, nearly worldwide policies on 7 billion people and get away with it. If you think about that, it’s amazing. I don’t remember any event in the history of the world where the entire world’s leadership, in lockstep fashion, almost on cue, implement nearly the same identical policy decisions, and the same globalist agenda, which it is, happened overnight and they got away with it. Not only that they continue to get away with it. It makes no sense does it?

                                             Driven by a medical code of conduct, and a commitment to truth, though, a large group of infectious disease epidemiologists, and public health scientists from around the world, came together. They assembled a document, and they signed what is known as the Great Barrington Declaration. In the first sentence of that declaration reads this, “The Great Barrington Declaration, as infectious disease epidemiologists, and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and we recommend an approach we call, focused protection.” Then they go on to talk about that. Twila, this I know had to have gotten your attention. Can you share with our listeners effectively what this Great Barrington Declaration is all about? Who really is behind it? How significant is this declaration?

Twila Brase:                       So, the last I heard there are somewhere in the order of … I heard somebody say 300,000 signers, and I heard somebody else say 500,000 signers, but it started with Dr. Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Dr. Sunetra Gupta from Oxford in England, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford. Dr. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, they were both on with Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis, maybe I think at the very end of September if I’m correct. He was talking to them about whether the lockdowns were good or not. It’s a two-hour round table with three epidemiologists and public health professionals. It’s really wonderful, and the day after DeSantis lifted all, just lifted everything, and said that even the cities, and the counties, couldn’t impose strict regulations unless they reported to the governor that they had a good rationale.

                                             So, all the masking mandates went away, all of that stuff went away. So, these epidemiologists who are concerned all around the world, came together in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, to sign this, and that’s where it came out of. Then, all sorts of people, from doctors, to regular people, to policy folks, to concerned individuals everywhere, have been signing this. I believe there’s like 30,000 experts within that whole group that have already signed it.

                                             The interesting thing, it doesn’t really talk about economic, the economic consequences, but it’s really all talking about health, and mental health, and physical health, and the fact that all sorts of children are being denied access to school, and people are being denied access to screenings, or getting their cancer treated, all sorts of things that are happening. They say this will lead to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.

                                             They talk about something called herd immunity, and I heard them talk about this with governor DeSantis, as well. They really believe this focused protection means that you focus on the elderly, and protecting the elderly, and you let those who have really minimal risk, the young, or the younger, so people under 60, essentially, go off and have normal lives, because for the most part they’re just going to get COVID-19, they’re not going to suffer severe COVID-19, and amongst them all will be built up herd immunity. Herd immunity, which I call community immunity, herd immunity is when the virus has nowhere to go because it keeps running into people who are immune, and either they’re immune because of they’ve had a different type of coronavirus in the past and so their T-cells are all activated, they’ve gotten COVID-19 and so they’re immune to it and, of course, if they’ve gotten a vaccine they would also have immunity if any kind of vaccine was actually found.

                                             What happens is it runs out of susceptible people, and then it just goes away, or it becomes endemic which is what H1N1 is, which caused a pandemic in 2009. It’s still here in the United States. It’s still roaming around, but for the most part people are immune to it and so nobody even thinks about it anymore. That’s what they expect will happen with COVID-19. So, this Declaration is basically saying, “Let the young have normal lives, masks off, school in, shopping up, whatever, and then ask the elderly to be more protective and do more to protect the elderly.”

Sam Rohrer:                      Twila, that’s really what you’ve been saying all along, isn’t it?

Twila Brase:                       Well, I think you do have to look at who’s dying, and who’s dying are people who are elderly, 65 and over. There are, absolutely there are young people. There are people in every age that have died, but almost all of them have either marked other conditions like obesity, or diabetes, or a heart condition. They’re just more susceptible to the COVID-19, which enters the lungs and then has all of these impacts on the vascular system.

Sam Rohrer:                      Well, that website, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to go there and look at it, it’s a great read. It’s not real long,, which stands for Great Barrington Declaration, Can I ask you if you signed it, Twila?

Twila Brase:                       I wanted to look at it in great … I don’t sign things very readily, so I wanted to look at it and see if anybody had any contentions with it.

Sam Rohrer:                      That’s good. I will say, I had read what I could read on there. I did sign it for whatever good that does. It’s an important thing. There’s 22 countries on this page I’m looking at that have already, professionals from 22 countries, have already signed, and they’re adding very shortly Korea, Serbia, and Indonesia. There’ll be the 22nd, 3rd, 4th, 26th countries. It’s a very, very significant deal.

                                             Twila, we’re out of time. Great information. Thank you for being with us, again. Ladies and gentlemen, you can go to her site, sign up, get the information that they’re sending,, and then our site, as well, Go there, listen to this program in archive form, communicate to us, partner with us in prayer, partner with us in finances.