THE EVIDENCE FOR FACE MASKS “IS NOT VERY STRONG IN EITHER DIRECTION”,

But that advice may change in the future should “scientific evidence” emerge.British deputy chief medical officer Dr. Jenny Harries
If there is no “scientific evidence” to support face masks, what are all of the draconian, authoritarian mask laws based upon??
“Dr. Harries said that the wearing of masks in hallways and communal areas ‘can be very reassuring in those enclosed environments’ despite the lack of definitive science”
So people are being ticketed, arrested and violently assaulted by authorities and lunatics alike to “reassure” the snowflakes?
The people of this world had better decide which public mentality is going to prevail, because it is quite evident which public mentality the establishment prefers: scared and on your knees.

I HEREBY ORDER NON-CONGREGATE SHELTERING BE UTILIZED THROUGHOUT THE STATE FOR THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO SAFELY SELF-QUARANTINE IN THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE

No, that’s not a quote from some cheesy, dystopic sci-fi movie.
That’s Ohio.

NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNOR DECLARES MARTIAL LAW IN ALL BUT NAME

Authorizes health officers “to investigate, including inspecting sites on public and private property without the consent of the owners” and state officials “to settle with such suspected violators without court action.”

THE W.H.O. HIRED A P.R. FIRM TO PERSUADE CELEBRITIES TO ESPOUSE THEIR PROPAGANDA

The whole of the “mainstream” narrative is just a manipulation of information, designed to make us think and act in unison, while true knowledge is suppressed and censored

ELECTED VIRGINIA DEMOCRAT COUNTY OFFICIALS HOLD SECRET BLM MEETING WITH POLICE

…And fail to invite their fellow Republican board members.

conspiracy

[ kuhn-spir-uh-see ] noun,
1. an unlawful plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.
2. a combination of persons for a secret or unlawful purpose.
3. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

“In this meta-analysis, face masks were found to have no detectable effect against transmission of viral infections.”

“Compared to no masks, there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”

PHARMACISTS ARE BEING TOLD TO DEFY DOCTORS ON HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE

Rational, professional doctors are beginning to see the conspiracy behind the hoax

SHOULD SCHOOLS HAVE EVER CLOSED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

  • According to the CDC, 101 children age 0 to 14 have died from influenza, while 31 children have died from COVID-19.
  • No evidence exists to support the theory that children pose a threat to educational professionals in a school or classroom setting, but there is a great deal of evidence to support the safety of in-person education.
  • According to the CDC, 131,332 Americans have died from pneumonia and 121,374 from COVID-19 as of July 11th, 2020.
  • Had the CDC used its industry standard, Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003, as it has for all other causes of death for the last 17 years, the COVID-19 fatality count would be approximately 90.2% lower than it currently is.

BANNED! CENSORED! DOCTORS INVADE WASHINGTON AND PROCLAIM TO THE PEOPLE: “IT’S A HOAX!”, ARE THEN PROMPTLY DELETED!

“America’s Frontline Doctors”, a national group of qualified and respected physicians, held a press conference in Washington on 7/27/20. During this conference, they explained that the hype and restrictions surrounding the covid-19 situation are based on misinformation and untruths.

Within hours, their website, their videos, their supporter’s endorsements and reports were DELETED from the internet by facebook, google, twitter and other tech platforms.

Fortunately, videos of their presser are still available.

UPDATE: 7/31/20 – America’s Frontline Doctors have a new website: https://americasfrontlinedoctorsummit.com/

“IF (VIRAL) TRANSMISSION THROUGH EXHALED BREATH HASN’T BEEN PROVEN, ALL OTHER FINDINGS ARE IRRELEVANT”

From Dr. Tom Cowan, M.D.

Dear friends,

People around the world are being led into an increasingly downtrodden and disease-laden state, not by some viral infection but by wildly unscientific “science.”  A study published in the April 2020 Nature magazine that reports that wearing masks can slow the spread of the virus is an example of such deception.  As I will show, the authors of this article repeatedly make unsupportable claims, and even present data that cast doubt on their own methodology.  The peer reviewers of Nature apparently didn’t catch these obvious contradictions.  Let’s look in some detail at the statements and claims (in italics below) in this paper.

“We found that the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols.”

This statement implies that the authors looked for and found detectable virus in some respiratory droplets and aerosols (but only in a minority of their subjects, who were actively sick — itself a surprising finding).  It is widely known that the only way to prove the presence of a virus in a sample is to actually see the virus under electron microscopy.  There is no mention of having done any electron microscopy on any sample. When they claim they did not detect virus, what they mean is that the surrogate PCR test, which detects fragments of genetic material, was negative.  However, nowhere in the medical literature is there conclusive proof that this genetic material originates from any novel virus.

“Another limitation is that we did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus or rhinovirus detected in exhaled breath.”

The premise of mandating the wearing of masks is that it prevents transmission of disease. Neither this study, nor any other study we’ve seen, proves transmission of any disease through exhaled breath. Amazingly, these authors acknowledge they didn’t even attempt to prove transmission. What’s more amazing is that this study is being used as evidence that wearing masks is an effective method of preventing or lowering the incidence of disease transmission. If transmission through breath can’t be proven, then all other findings in this study are rendered irrelevant.

“After one or more of the candidate respiratory viruses was detected by the viral panel from the nasal swab, all the samples from the same participant (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols) were then tested with RT–PCR specific for the candidate virus(es) for determination of virus concentration in the samples. Infectious influenza virus was identified by viral culture using MDCK cells as described previously, whereas viral culture was not performed for coronavirus and rhinovirus.”

These statements need careful examination and explanation, as they get to the core of the misleading conclusions of the study.  First, they state that the method they used to detect the presence of the virus was the RT-PCR test, which, as I said, does not detect virus at all.  Rather, it detects genetic material, which they only assume must have come from the virus in question.

Then, they say that with influenza virus, they did attempt to confirm the accuracy of the RT-PCR testing with viral “cultures.”  Viral culturing is itself a deceptive process, which I won’t expand on here, but let’s assume that it is a “gold standard” for finding the presence of “live viruses.”  In other words, it would be akin to doing a strep culture for someone with a sore throat.  If the culture was positive, you have proof that the strep bacteria was present.  (Still, the presence of the bacteria doesn’t prove causation.) This positive culture allows you to check the accuracy of the rapid strep test, which detects only pieces of strep or antibodies to strep, so it confirms the validity of your surrogate test.

First, the study authors admit they didn’t do any culturing with the coronavirus, but they did with four of the six participants who tested PCR-positive to influenza virus with droplets collected through the mask.  Again, with these four participants, a very small number to be sure, they decided to do an internal check on the accuracy of their PCR testing.  What they found is only two people showed a positive culture.  Even using their own flawed assumptions about viral culture, this finding demonstrates that the PCR test was falsely positive a whopping 50 percent of the time.  To put this in common language, what they “proved” is that the very test they used to determine whether a mask stopped the spread of a coronavirus was no more accurate than a coin flip.  Fifty percent of the time, by their own account, a positive test (for influenza virus) is incorrect, and there is no virus present. 

In a sane world, this study’s conclusion should have been, “Our data demonstrate that doing PCR or RT-PCR testing is an inaccurate way of detecting virus or the utility of masks to stop the spread of a virus.”  They then should have called for larger, carefully controlled studies to determine whether the PCR testing has any utility at all (It doesn’t). 

Most lay people and, incredibly, most physicians will have no idea how to read this study and determine its validity.  So, people read the abstract or conclusion (or, worse yet, an article’s headline0, and believe what the authors assert.  That is the problem.  Unless someone actually helps people understand exactly what these studies are showing, and calls out the deceptive nature of much of this whole peer-reviewed science enterprise, most people will continue to be led down a path that could be disastrous personally and societally. 

Tom Cowan, M.D.
DrTomCowan.com

MASKING RATIONALITY: THE SCIENCE OF DECEPTION

While the mass-media works in the science of treachery and deception, true scientific medical studies clearly show face coverings of various kinds do little if anything to prevent respiratory illnesses caused by aerosolized viruses, the supposed overwhelming contributor to viral illness

Create your website at WordPress.com
Get started