Colleen Huber, NMD

October 29, 2020

Twitter locked me out for 7 days, they say because I criticized the high number of cycle thresholds at which “the COVID19 test” (PCR) is run.  

This is not a new criticism of PCR use.  The New York Times said the same.  Others say it on Twitter a lot.  

But then a funny thing happened.

I then saw what I think was the real reason for the censorship, and I now wonder if there is a different topic that actually led to the censorship.

The timing of my being locked out of Twitter happened to be at 3:02 am on 10/22/2020, which was less than 4 hours before release of a Reuters story, at 6:40 am that same morning, which criticized my discussion of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s research, in which he and his team found bacterial pneumonia as the overwhelming cause of death in the 1918-1919 “Spanish Flu” pandemic.  Yes, they found bacterial pneumonia as the cause of death – everywhere they looked –  in what you had always thought was a viral flu pandemic.  More on that later.

I suspect – but I cannot prove – that Reuters colluded with Twitter, in order to suppress any rebuttal from me, which led to my 7-day lockout from Twitter.  

The timing of those two events, first the lockout at 3:02 am, and then the Reuters article at 6:40 am, (and necessarily in that order to more effectively silence me) was a few hours apart in the middle of the night/early morning on October 22, 2020.  This looks suspicious to me.  And the reason given by Twitter for the lockout is unlikely, because of the following.

Every day since early 2020 many people on Twitter express disagreement with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), aka “the COVID19 test” being run at such high number of cycles that as the inventor of the test, the late Dr. Kary Mullis warned, “you can find almost anything in anybody.”  

Here is a video of Dr. Mullis himself saying that, at time stamp 0:55.

Many people are appalled at the high number of cycle thresholds, or iterations, at which the PCR “tests” are run, which has led to abundant exaggeration of how many people are affected by COVID-19. I see the same criticism of PCR frequently on Twitter, of abuse of PCR (and resulting severe abuse of the general public).  Yet, from what I have seen, nobody was locked out of Twitter for that comment but me.  


Here is Twitter alleging that was the reason I was locked out.

Let’s now get back to clarifying the controversy regarding what Dr. Fauci said.

In 2008, the Journal of Infectious Diseases published research by Dr. Fauci’s research team that showed that bacterial pneumonia was found to be the cause of death in all (“uniformly”) of the specimens they studied from autopsies of people who died in the 1918-1919 “Spanish Flu” pandemic.  That pandemic was by far the largest in centuries.  It claimed the lives of 50 million to 100 million people, with wide variation in those numbers due to overlap with post World War I famine, and sorting out who died of which cause.  At any rate, and with either figure, the pandemic killed 3% to 6% of the world’s population at that time.  Most people assume that the microbial killer was influenza virus.  But Dr. Fauci’s research indicates that no, the cause of death in all the cadavers they examined was bacterial pneumonia, that was from common upper respiratory tract bacteria.  Although the research team considers the possibility of viral-bacterial co-pathogenesis, the conclusions were clearly expressed.

Here is that article by Dr. Fauci.

Here is a screenshot of the abstract, where you can read their Results paragraph for yourself.

Dr. Fauci and his team found in their conclusion:

“The majority of deaths in the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory-tract bacteria.”

Recently, my research team and I came across this article of Dr. Fauci and his research team.  It was surprising to us to find that Dr. Fauci had said this back in 2008.  After all, he has been a ubiquitous presence in the US media, especially in 2020, ostensibly an authority on the COVID-19 pandemic, which he has numerous times mentioned as having to do with a virus, specifically SARS CoV-2.

So we quoted Dr. Fauci’s article in our latest research paper on masks.  That paper is here:

What could Dr. Fauci’s 2008 findings in the 1918-1919 pandemic have to do with masks? 


We explore that question in our paper, in which we discuss microbial challenges from masks.  We also consider that the last time that Americans experimented with mask-wearing, it was in that same 1918-1919 pandemic.  And then our American ancestors of that time abandoned that practice.  Use of masks was criticized during that pandemic as being already a discredited practice from the known medical science of 1918.  Certainly, mask-wearing is even more discredited in the scientific community in our time.  In fact, no scientific journal at all prior to March 2020 alleged that masks have any value against transmission of viral infections. 

None at all.  Not one research article.


Since March 2020, there is so much mainstream media encouragement for mask use, as well as government officials’ legally questionable use of “mask mandates,” that opinion pieces about this phenomenon have even crept into the scientific journals.


Well, at 6:40 am on October 22, 2020, Reuters published an opinion piece alleging that I had misrepresented Dr. Fauci’s research.  3 hours earlier I had been effectively silenced from the largest platform on which I have a voice, Twitter.  Reuters alleged that Dr. Fauci’s research team, yes, admittedly had found bacterial pneumonia in those who had died in the 1918-1919 pandemic, but that those deaths were actually due to viral pneumonia. 


As you already know, from the screenshot and link above, that is not what Dr. Fauci’s team found.  Dr. Fauci’s team had admitted that those lethal cases they found were of “secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory-tract bacteria.”  In that same paper, Dr. Fauci’s team had found that incidence of viral pneumonia “appears to be low, even in pandemic peaks.”  This is the opposite of what Reuters implies.


The quote again, photographed above, from the abstract of Dr. Fauci’s paper was


“The majority of deaths in the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory-tract bacteria.”


Which is right up there in the screenshot from the abstract.


Now that I had been safely silenced by Twitter 3 hours earlier, and suddenly no longer in a position to  make a public rebuttal, Reuters came out with the following strawman story, posting in it a number of my tweets.

The strawman aspect of the Reuters story is the pretense that I said that Dr. Fauci’s research team  had written about masks.  That was not the case.  It was my research team that tied 1918-1919 bacterial pneumonia to masks.  Not Fauci’s team; their team had found bacterial pneumonia as cause of death in every specimen they studied from that time.

Why do we connect the bacterial pneumonia deaths that wiped out so many people, some estimate 45 million of the 50 million who died in the “Spanish Flu,” to masks?  We cite a number of reasons:

– Temporal / historical:  That 1918-1919 pandemic was the last time that Americans had experimented with masks.  That includes all-day masks, mask shaming, mask mandates and ubiquitous puritanical measures taken to assure that most people were not caught without a mask in public.  Then as now, there is a rise in bacterial pneumonia in hospitals.  But now, there is vastly deeper pharmaceutical industry involvement in the mass media.  So the rise in bacterial pneumonia, as well as other staph and strep infections, is seen and heard anecdotally so far from doctors and nurses seeing this increase ourselves in clinical practice, as the mainstream media ignores that phenomenon to focus on COVID-19.

–  Both in the 1918-1919 pandemic and now in 2020, masked individuals are found to suffer more influenza-like illness and more respiratory illnesses than unmasked individuals, as we reference and discuss in our paper, linked below.

– In our paper, we also discuss air flow dynamics in mask use and that upper respiratory microbes are more likely to enter deeply into the lungs of a masked individual.  There, microbes are more life-threatening and harder to eliminate by expectoration and normal ciliary escalation.  It is expected that mask-wearers have a higher risk of bacterial pneumonia than non-mask wearers.

Here is our paper on the subject:

If Reuters would like to debate me on the subject, they may, but it really looks bad to start a week-long censorship late one night, followed 3 hours later by a one-sided critical article, in which Reuters did not even attempt to reach me for comment.

Source: Censorship vs the science on masks | primarydoctor


Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.

We would be glad to have your feedback.

Buy Me A Coffee