This Book is free of charge and can in no way constitute a source of business.
You are free to copy this Book for your preaching, or for distribution, or also for your Evangelism on Social Media, provided that its content is not modified or altered in any way, and that the website mcreveil.org is cited as the source.
Woe to you, greedy agents of satan who will try to market these teachings and testimonies!
Woe to you, sons of satan who like to publish these teachings and testimonies on Social Media while hiding the address of the website www.mcreveil.org, or falsifying their contents!
Know that you can escape the justice system of men, but you certainly will not escape the judgment of God.
You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to Hell? Matthew 23:33
This Book is regularly updated. We recommend that you download the latest version from www.mcreveil.org.
(Updated on 01 01 2024)
brothers and dear friends, we
would like to make available to you the transcript of an interview that
natural health coach, Jérémie
Mercier, gave to the Canadian researcher, Professor Denis Rancourt,
and other so-called barrier measures. As you will see, Professor
demonstrated the total uselessness of masks and so-called barrier
joins many other Researchers who are constantly alerting the world
diabolical plan of the luciferian rulers of this world, who have
Covid-19 pandemic to exterminate the world.
of the Interview
Hello everyone! This is Jérémie Mercier.
Today, I am delighted to welcome Canadian researcher Denis Rancourt,
who is a
researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association and who recently
article that has had a huge impact. It's his article "Masks Don't
Work". So he's talking about the surgical masks or the FFP2 masks that
people are using today hoping to protect themselves from the Covid
Hello Denis Rancourt.
Hello, it's good to be here.
We're going to talk about this study that
caused a lot of noise. What did this study consist of? And what were
So I did a review of scientific articles. I
looked for all the comparative studies that had been done in a rigorous
what we call "randomized controlled trials" that compared the
probability of being infected by a virus that causes a respiratory
you wear a mask versus when you don't wear a mask. And they studied two
of masks: surgical masks and also masks with very small pores, which I
you call FFP2.
That's it, yes!
And so I looked at all these studies. There
have been many. There have been many studies of this type for the last
years, so there is a fairly consistent literature and there are even
that are meta-analyses of comparative studies. And I relied on all
studies where we verified by laboratory measurement that there had
an infection, rather than simply relying on what is called
"self-reporting" where we say "yes, I had symptoms, that sort of
thing" because it's well established that when you do it that way, it's
biased that it's of no value. So I only relied on good, rigorous
have been several and there are none in all the studies... There is no
in terms of reducing the risk of getting infected with a respiratory
Whether it's with a surgical mask or a FFP2
mask. Do we agree?
Exactly, with either one or the other. And
there are also studies that don't compare what happens without a mask,
compare the two types of masks. These studies also find no difference
one mask and the other, even though the masks are physically very
So I feel like saying: "it's an
earthquake", for all those people who are convinced today of the
usefulness of the mask because the French government and many
the world, many health agencies recommend the wearing of the mask, or
oblige it in certain circumstances.
The scientific studies are clear; there have
been several large studies in hospitals, health care centres and in
settings. There is no study that detects any advantage in relation to
of disease when you wear a mask, and moreover, it is well known that
The World Health Organization.
That's it, they say it clearly. They do not
recommend that masks be used in a public context. And they explicitly
there is no scientific study that has shown an advantage in such
it's clear both in the scientific literature and in the most reputable
international bodies. There is no advantage to having a mask in a
So, two seconds, that means that there is no
advantage either for the public, so people who want to avoid... the
citizen who wants to avoid getting infected. But there's no benefit
the carers who, in France, have been clamouring for masks to protect
themselves. Even for them, it is not effective in their conditions?
I would say especially for them, because the
majority of the studies have been done in hospital and health care
where people... where they treat patients, where there are lots of
infected with all sorts of things. And there's no benefit that can be
in all these studies.
that means that the carers who asked for
these masks were in fact asking for an illusion of safety, right?
Yes, and it was purely labour policy, if you
like, to ask for these masks. There's no... it's not based on a
Right, and there is no situation: transport,
shops, schools that justifies wearing a mask, so?
No. That is to say that the studies, all the
studies that have been done show no advantage. Now, did they do a study
school specifically? No. You know what I mean? There are so many
but in all the circumstances where it's been tested, whether it's even
people, in community circumstances, in all the circumstances, they
benefit. So that's the first thing. After that, secondly, we can ask
the question: "But why, why don't the masks work?" And that's a
different and separate question. There is the strict statistical result
there is no benefit statistically. But after that, there's the question
"but how do we understand that?" And I think you can only ask that
question if you have an idea of how the disease is transmitted. You
know the mode of transmission in order to be able to talk intelligently
how to prevent this transmission. And what has happened in recent
that we have come to understand the nature of the transmission of this
disease. We now know, and this was established with the work of Shaman
in 2010, that these are diseases that are spread by very fine
smallest groupings of aerosol particles that are suspended in the air.
there are particles that carry viruses that are suspended in the air
for a long
time. The smallest of these particles is the mode of transmission. It's
larger particles that you eject when you speak or sneeze. It's not
particles that are important in terms of transmission vectors, but
fine aerosol particles...
are not stopped by the masks, then!
are not stopped by the masks and which
cannot be stopped by the masks, according to what we know about the
the nature of the fluids carrying such particles. Because the masks
have a pore
diameter that can be small compared to the most efficient masks: 0.3
micrometres, but there are still aerosol particles that can be smaller
that. That's one thing. And secondly, this pore is not the important
because it's not the bottleneck, there are always openings that are
between the lung and the outside, even when you wear a mask, when you
wear it well. There are always wrinkles in the skin that create
are always imperfections in the skin that create openings. There is
positioning of the mask that is not perfect. You move the mask because
comfortable. Even health care workers who are trained to wear masks
etc., are known to move the mask and adjust it, etc. Masks age, can be
stretched, can be worn out, can be bent by accident. So there are
are pores that are larger than others. There are necessarily openings
much larger than the diameter that is given by the manufacturer for the
in the mask material.
means that theoretically, the masks could
be useful. But in practice, it's not possible for them to be useful
there will always be a defect, whether it's in the fitting or in the
itself, which will mean that the viral particles will get through
they're still going to pass. Now they
could have an effect, even if the majority of the particles that are
and that could infect us were bigger than, say, the diameter of the
happens? A particle sticks to the mask. Does it then, when you breathe,
evaporate and the virus particles are released and you end up breathing
in? We don't know. There has been no study that answers this question.
don't know in detail the mechanism, why the masks don't work? But every
have done measurements, when we check the infection, it doesn't work.
no benefit. All the studies on masks that simply demonstrate that a
stop droplets or stop large particles are irrelevant because these
particles fall very quickly, are not real aerosol particles that are
the air fluid, which is the real mode of transmission of this disease.
why the disease is hyper contagious and that's why the disease goes
the lungs because it's breathing like air and it goes deep into the
is the nature of all these types of diseases. So, given this mode of
transmission, which is now understood and known, we can imagine why
cannot work. It must also be said that there are many scientific
are done and used indiscriminately, which are not really relevant
example, if I do a study that shows that when I sneeze, the droplets
spread any more than... will fall quickly in a metre or two, it's not
to that disease because that's not the mode of transmission. The vector
transmission is really the aerosol particles suspended in the air which
part of the fluid. All the droplets that fall quickly, that are larger,
are extracted by gravity, have no relevance in this debate.
then, at one point, there was talk of
perhaps transmission of the disease by infected surfaces. Even that, in
end, it has no value?
again, we can do scientific measurements
where we show that a virus can survive on a given surface, whether it's
or metal. You can study different surfaces, but it's not relevant
not the transmission vector, even if you touch that virus, even if, in
principle, in theory, you could then put your fingers in your mouth,
and so on.
It's not an efficient way of transmitting the disease, far from it. And
diseases are now well understood and they always have a seasonal cycle.
are very contagious in the winter, when the air is dry, when the
humidity is low, and not contagious at all when the air is humid,
aerosol particles condense the water molecules and fall rapidly, become
and are no longer airborne. So the contagion cycle is very well known
know the mechanism. But I can show you some graphs that illustrate
example, I don't know, we've been studying this for decades. If we look
total mortality over the years, for example, I'll show you a graph from
93 where we can see, through all the pandemics and everything, how
"all-cause" mortality varies with time. This is the mortality per
month or per week. So there are peaks in mortality during the winter
air is dry in countries in intermediate latitudes and lows in the
the air is humid. It has always been like that. And these types of
cause the most, even more heart attacks in the winter, and that would
be due to
the interaction between these viruses that cause respiratory stress and
disease. There are studies that show that. So, basically, we now
these cycles and we understand that the cycles come from the mode of
transmission. And all the rest is fluff, whether it's scientific papers
If you're serious and you really look and you try to understand the
and you look at the science and the level of understanding that we have
modes of transmission and the type of diseases that it is, it's
aerosol particles and masks can't do anything about that. Because when
out, the airflow is going to be through these little openings that are
around the mask, etc. And it's going to come out as easily as it's
come in. And it's going to come out as easily as it went in, so it
protect the person you're with - if you're wearing a mask - or
doesn't reduce the risk of being infected if there are such particles
space where you are.
that means that when sometimes you get the
impression that masks were worn almost everywhere in certain countries,
particularly in Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or
Singapore, it wasn't the mask that stopped the epidemic from spreading.
always complicated when you want to say
things like that because it takes studies. You need to do a serious
field study. It takes verifying infections with laboratory
takes measuring the density of pathogens in the air. Is walking around
in any case, a situation where you are at risk when there are draughts
wind? I would say not. The main risk is indoors where the air is
the particles are airborne. It becomes complicated studies. There is
fact that these seasonal variations that I have shown, there are no
variations when you are near the equator, when it is always more or
enough to condense such particles so that they do not remain suspended.
are so many factors. There's also the idea that "do we really know how
many people have been infected"? I mean on the scale of China, do we
how many people had basically a respiratory viral infection like that,
recovered at home? We've been coexisting and co-evolving with viruses
cause these diseases for a long time. It's been a very long time.
been around for thousands of years, so we haven't died. And in history,
there have been diseases of this type that were particularly virulent,
say that in the Middle Ages, for example, etc., these were also
where a large part of the population had an immune system that was
for reasons of diet, for reasons of social stress, for reasons of
For all sorts of reasons, the immune system, the level of health was
and mortality was at a much younger age, etc. on average. So there
been... Because what's important is the infection gets into our lungs.
that, there's a whole battle between the immune system and the virus.
will infect one or more first cells. The immune system will try to
pieces of protein from that virus on the surface of that molecule. If
it and recognises it as foreign, it will kill that cell before it has a
to produce, to reproduce the virus, and so there's this dynamic battle
inside us. And that's common and that's all the time. Now, the immune
in order for it to be fast enough, for it to be fast, requires a lot of
metabolic energy. If you're already spending a lot of metabolic energy
fighting off other infections, fighting off stress, etc., you're
you're likely to die from this new pathogen. The risk of dying is much
So the immune status of the person, of the individual, is much more
in determining whether that individual will survive or not, than the
nature of the virus in question of that type.
So then, there's another question that
comes up, which is "since masks are not useful, are there any gestures
because we've talked a lot about barrier gestures, particularly in
France - are
there any gestures that are useful?" In particular, we talked about
least one metre away from others, washing your hands frequently, using
hydroalcoholic gel. Is this useful in the context of Covid, which is a
absolutely not. I mean, there are studies
that have shown that large particles will fall within one or two
has nothing to do with it. The vector of transmission is airborne
particles that fill the volume of our facilities, places where there
infected people. When you go in there and breathe that air, you are
whether you have a mask or not, and it has nothing to do with a few
away. The space, the very volume of the building fills up. There are
studies that have shown this. They took air samples at different
buildings all over the place, and they analysed the density of
were there with genetic methods. And they were able to show how the air
full of these suspended aerosol particles. Whether it's in hospitals,
childcare centres, everywhere in the season of these diseases, there
walking around and there are volumes like that that are basically
it's full. And that's how you get it. You get it by visiting someone,
home, in a house that is heated in winter. And there are no big cold
currents going through there where you remove all the airborne
is no way of filtering these particles, it is too fine. And that's how
it is in
the buildings, in the institutions and in the houses where people are
that's where you get these diseases. It has nothing to do with the "two
metres". You can sit down, you can eat at a big table and be two metres
away from each other and have conversations. If someone had a cold a
ago and they don't have any symptoms anymore, there are still particles
air in principle. There are draughts, there is a lot of movement. There
risk of catching this disease in this way. It doesn't have to be two
we can wash our hands fifty times with
hydroalcoholic gel and wear a mask, but it won't change anything.
transmission vector is not contact to
contact. So washing your hands doesn't help. Washing your hands is good
pathogens of the type where it's important, such as pathogens related
excrement, pathogens related to mucous substances, to water that is
very harmful bacteria, etc., because nutritive substances have been
that these pathogens will grow well in that water, so you mustn't
mustn't drink the water. It's all about contact. Diseases that are
sexually are also contact diseases. But respiratory viral diseases are
completely different. The vector of transmission is different. It
much good to wash your hands. We do it because it's part of the
Doctors do it because it's in the procedures. But they also have lots
pathogens that they have to worry about. But no, it's useless. We are
world where we are not using scientific knowledge. We're just doing
give ourselves a good impression of supporting public health.
I also imagine that it gives an illusion of
security, whereas if we wanted to go through with this idea of
ourselves from the virus, we would have to be dressed almost like a
suit in the P4 laboratories with an overpressure suit and then an
that is separate from space, right?
but these systems are only useful in
conditions where there are research laboratories that make particular
pathogens, that genetically modify them. They don't want it to get out
environment or they don't want to contaminate their scientific samples
pathogens that we would have in our body, so there is an isolation that
completely at the level of the environment of the person versus the
So, in applications like that, in advanced or military research, it
to do that. But in the real world, with real people whose immune
exposed to a whole range of viruses of this type every season, it is
to think in these terms. We don't want to sanitise, we want to live
viruses as we always do. We want our immune system to learn because it
learning and being trained. And we want to be healthy so that our
can react when it's time to react.
far as I know, this aspect of the immune
system is absent from the "official scientific" debate today, it is
No. We are in a kind of crazy world where we
think we can create a sterile environment in a real environment that is
pathogens. Biologists say, "There's everything everywhere". And
that's true. And it's almost impossible to live in a sterile
even in a hospital environment where we put people at risk, by opening
for operations, etc., it's essentially impossible to prevent
have to try to accompany the person, put them in conditions where they
heal, use intervention methods when there is an infection. But really
preventing by sterilization is almost impossible.
So, given all the information you're
sharing with us, namely that barrier measures are useless in the case
respiratory viral infections, that the mask is also useless, but yet
have health agencies, medical academies, and governments that recommend
even oblige people to wear a mask in public transport, in certain
How can we resist this, and is there any possibility of disobeying
rules, which are not based on science? For example, would having a
article that takes up these points make it possible to respond to a
inspector who would, for example, want to get you off the bus because
have the mandatory mask? What can we do?
the controller has scientific knowledge and
is sensitive to scientific arguments, it could work, but I think it
rather rare to meet such a controller... In any case, it is not
and laws that are based on science. So I don't see how science can be
counter them. Because it's made up, it's made up for political reasons
control, so it's difficult... There's no magic weapon that's scientific
can really use, but science helps us because it motivates us
who want to understand, who want to learn, who want to reason, who want
justify why they resist and why they have resistance, science will help
But in front of the judges, the police and the politicians, there is
nothing. There are hardly any scientific arguments that can work
are insensitive to these arguments.
is there a danger - because we talked about
the fact that the mask was useless in the case of the Covid epidemic -
wearing a mask for too long also have a danger on health, for example?
of the things that has been proven by
comparative studies is that workers in hospitals, in health care
wear masks versus those who don't, have headaches much more often. This
statistically valid, it has been demonstrated. This is one of the
effects that has been absolutely proven, and there is no positive
effect in the
sense of reducing the risk. So that's what's known. As for the rest, it
becomes: what do we think of the mechanisms, what do we think is
can imagine all sorts of dangers related to the mask. Of course, if a
fragile in hospital, we don't want to put a mask on them, we want to
breathe as much as possible. Of course, someone who has to breathe very
because they're doing a rigorous exercise, it's perhaps better not to
mask on. If you're used to making a really vigorous effort and you do
effort for a long time, but this time you put on a mask because you've
told to put on a mask, it can put you in danger. There are reports of
who feel faint, etc., who have had car accidents because they were not
breathing well enough in their car while wearing a mask, etc. But these
anecdotes. These are not systematic, rigorous studies, but they are
There's also the fact that the mask will accumulate everything in the
so, after that, it will be manipulated, perhaps it will be put back on,
know, but all sorts of scenarios can be invented, but these are not
are known. There have been no serious comparative studies.
what does this say about our society, this
mass of people who today go out wearing a mask when there is no valid
go out wearing a mask from a health point of view?
it's people who believe in authority, in
what they're told, and who want to do the right thing and who want to
others do too. They are in society, and they don't dare to be the
contradicts this good way of doing things. But there is a danger when
imposes a rule which is not based on science and which does not really
reason to exist. And that we accept this rule for reasons of authority
reasons other than good reasons and rules that change our behaviour
The danger is that we become accustomed to accepting rules via the
authority, and so it gradually brings us closer to a totalitarian
this slow march towards the totalitarian state. It drags us into it.
is a real effect that I believe. There have been scientific studies
and I think it's a real phenomenon. Society has a great tendency, as it
- it's a hierarchy of dominance - and we tend to drift towards a
state. And we have to fight to bring things back a bit from time to
time. So I
think that accepting rules like that, without any reason, goes in that
direction. And that is a real danger for society, I think.
the last question - so your paper on masks
is very popular on the internet, it's been read hundreds of thousands
- does that make you want to submit it to a peer-reviewed journal to
give it some additional authority?
could perhaps give him additional authority,
but he has already had all the impact that he will have. All the
the field have read it and will not cite it because it is not in a
at least they have read it, they have considered it, they have even
comments, they have sent me messages. The information is out there, the
is out there, and even the researchers in the field know that I am a
person who is going to be very critical of what they are going to do
point onwards and the studies that are going to come out. And they now
criteria I use to critique their work because I've critiqued papers in
journal article and so that's already had its impact. And the journal
process is a frustrating process where you have to sanitise your words
can't be too direct, even when you have a scientific conclusion that is
You can't use direct language and so on. I know this well because I
submitted more than a hundred articles to journals of this type and
been well cited, etc. One of my fields of research, moreover, is
in the environment, so aerosols, all that, is something I know well.
frustrating the review process, because the competitors who have
articles about masks are going to read my article and they, in their
have made little comments to sell their salad like: "masks could help,
it's possible that masks help". And they're going to be very frustrated
with a very definitive article that says "look, there hasn't been a
study that shows a benefit that's statistically valid". So that
people and so the reviewers make negative comments. After that, you get
discussions with the publisher. I don't want to waste my time doing
of thing. People can evaluate my arguments, reject them if they want,
them if they want, I don't care.
you had a lot of feedback from engineers,
researchers and scientists in this field. Have any of them brought you
arguments that could have changed your opinion as expressed in the
I had a lot of comments and a lot of
criticism, but there was nothing that defeated the rigorous aspects of
had concluded. For example, there are many who said "But no, but there
plenty of studies that show that masks stop droplets of all kinds".
is irrelevant because we're not talking about droplets here, it's a
as I said - of fine aerosol particles. It's the fluidity of the air
important, the fluidity of the air, and so it has nothing to do with
because you can show that a fabric or a mask stops droplets does not
it is relevant.
yet, this is the argument used all the time
because it's visual... but the argument
assumes that the propagation vector is through these droplets. If we
we pull this carpet out from under people's feet, there is no longer
argument. And it's really not the vector of propagation. Yes, in the
laboratory, you can cause an infection by taking a fluid from an
person, by injecting it into the nose or the lungs of a person, you can
successfully infect. But in the natural way, in the contagion of that
that's not how it happens and therefore it's not relevant. The fact
that it is possible
is not relevant. The real question is "in an epidemic, what happens and
what is the vector of propagation?"
to finish, what advice would you give to
all those people who have been panicked for several months with the
who have seen the number of deaths increase every day, who have heard
recommendations to make these barrier gestures, to avoid others, to
themselves, to wash their hands with hydroalcoholic gel, to put on a
etc.? What can we say to these people?
can you say to someone who has been
panicked by things they've heard on TV or the internet? What can you
someone who feels panic or fear, just because the government says
says that the health authorities have said such and such a thing, and
on their common sense, on their personal experience, on their
they have lived for several seasons, where they have had this type of
And he doesn't ask the question "but if they say it's a serious
how many more people than normal have died? Can I have that figure?
me how many people you've tested for this thing with a test I don't
Tell me if there are really more people dying." And when you ask that
the answer is very clear and I could show you another graph, for
is "all-cause mortality" depending on the time in Europe, for all of
Europe. And here we see the recent peak, this is the Covid peak, but it
finer than the others. The area under the peaks as a function of time,
can go much further and still be about the same. No more people are
this very fine peak, we can understand it. It took place in New York,
York City, and it took place in England. There are plenty of states,
states where there is no such peak. There's nothing going on. For
can show you California, which has a population larger than Canada. And
there's no spike here that would be due to Covid. And the red lines
that I put
are where it was announced as a pandemic. From then on, everyone saw
everywhere. The spike in question was due - we now understand - it was
the fact that many jurisdictions sent their patients who were in
centres for the elderly, in health centres other than hospitals, to
free up the
hospitals in preparation for an epidemic that never existed, or almost
existed. So they accelerated the infection of entire institutions full
vulnerable people. And so there was a very rapid rise in mortality and
very dramatic in New York and so on. And it's due to these methods of
operating. Also, in the United States they were treating the sickest
with mechanical ventilators. There is a rigorous scientific study that
that these ventilators killed the people on whom they were imposed.
been accelerated deaths due to so-called pandemic response policies,
have been no more deaths in total than there typically are in any
season due to
this type of disease.
artificially, somewhere due to
inappropriate policies, we have created a peak in mortality over a
period of time...
some places where these absolutely harmful,
absolutely horrible policies have been applied. For example, I have the
here for England and Wales, where you see from one season to the next -
area under the peak is the total mortality for that season - and
was this big peak. There are no more deaths. The total area is about
okay? And if there were more deaths, it's because they were stressed
who might not have died, died because of their stress level. The damage
to their immune systems by turning their lives upside down and so on.
a small effect. Basically, there have not been more deaths. It's not a
that has created more built-in mortality that there always is with
statistically, if we take a step back,
there is no excess mortality compared to usual.
it, I mean, it's not even statistical.
It's real solid figures, we can integrate each season over a year. We
at the surplus of deaths "from all causes" and we can see that it
falls within the norm. There were places where there were more deaths,
they were killed, in places where there were aberrant policies. But
there were no dead people in the streets. There were no morgues that
full, there was none of that.
so, in the end, that's how we can reassure
these people, that despite all the media hype, there is no unusual
I don't know if we can reassure these
people. I hope that they'll get to the end of their fears, that it'll
them out so much and that in the end they'll be forced to give up and
that they're not dead. And then that they have to go on, and that there
something psychological going on there. But it's so not rational, this
And it's so based on what we've heard. It reminds me a bit of baboons
jungle walking around in a herd. And one of them sees some kind of a
thing there and thinks it might be a baboon-killing lion and starts
and runs to the trees and everybody starts screaming and runs to the
They go up the trees, they spend a lot of energy and they stay in the
a long time... until, they've watched long enough, they haven't seen a
they haven't seen any danger. And then slowly they'll go back down...
next time somebody gets mad, they're going to get angry, and then the
thing will happen. I mean, we're social animals in a dominance
behave like that. It's hard to reason with people when they're reacting
shout and then they just want to run into the tree.
I think this image is very telling. In
any case, thank you for sharing. Well, anyway, I think we've done the
think that if you've made it to the end of this video, you've
masks are useless in the context of the Covid epidemic, that barrier
are useless, on the contrary, it's a royal road to the establishment of
that is increasingly authoritarian and that, well, we behaved like
right? Okay. Well, in any case, thank you very much Denis Rancourt for
very clear, very relevant explanations, I would even say unusually
sense. Because we have seen so little common sense during this Covid
it is really good to hear that and to see the intellectual rigour that
and that you have transmitted via this article. So, it's in English,
the link on the video. I don't know if... I think there's a French
maybe too, right?
I wrote an article in English that
criticised Canadian politics. And that article was translated into
I'll put the links under the video, and I
invite you to comment on the video and to share it because it's time to
our senses, to come back to something more rational and to stop
things that are not based at all on science, but on beliefs, on "we
it's like that because it seems logical" when in fact, it's not at all
logical or verified, or anything. Thank you very much Denis Rancourt.
was a pleasure for me. It was a pleasure to
be with you.
you soon, goodbye!
friends, there are several other
very interesting articles exposing the satanic project called Covid-19,
purpose of the race of vipers who rule this world. You can find these
on the website www.mcreveil.org, in the Health section and the
section. Please make the effort to read these articles, and share them
as possible, to alert as many people as possible while there is still
to all who love our Lord Jesus
Christ with an undying love!
Dear brothers and sisters,
If you have run away from fake churches and would like to know what to do, here are the two options available to you:
1- See if around you there are some other children of God who fear God and desire to live according to the Sound Doctrine. If you find any, feel free to join them.
2- If you do not find one and wish to join us, our doors are open to you. The only thing we will ask you to do is to first read all the Teachings that the Lord has given us, and which are on our website www.mcreveil.org, to reassure yourself that they are in conformity with the Bible. If you find them in accordance with the Bible, and are ready to submit to Jesus Christ, and live by the demands of His word, we will gladly welcome you.
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you!
Source & Contact: