PLEASE USE A NAME WHEN COMMENTING

Showing posts with label Censoring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Censoring. Show all posts

06 June 2021

NETANYAHU: Biggest Election Fraud


Shin Bet’s (Biden’s Big Tech) Style Censorship

May I not express my opinion? 

Is expressing this incitement?”


Rabbi Chaim Druckman, one of the leading rabbis of the religious Zionist community in Israel, wondered this morning (Sunday) how expressing his opinion as expressed through the "Letter of the Rabbis" is interpreted as incitement.


"The rabbis' letter calling for 'doing everything' to prevent the Bennett-Lapid government - can only be incitement in the imagination of those who think it is incitement," Rabbi Druckman said in an interview with Kol Chai radio.


He said, "For months there were demonstrations in front of the prime minister's house - and we did not hear the Shin Bet chief say it was incitement, suddenly my letter is incitement. I did not imagine that anyone would see this as incitement.”


[. . .]  He questioned the Sin Bet's statements that there have been threats of violence against Yamina MKs. "I do not understand, what happened? What was the urgency of issuing a statement on Shabbat? 


Where was the head of the Shin Bet 

when Jews were attacked in Lod?


https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/307555


* * *


Netanyahu: Biggest election fraud in the history of democracy


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday opened the Likud faction meeting by renouncing incitement from any direction.


"We condemn all incitement on all sides. For months they have been calling to murder me and my family. All around there is silence. Incitement is out of bounds on either side," Netanyahu said.


However, Netanyahu added that criticism is not incitement. "The principle is clear - incitement and violence will always be out of bounds. But freedom of expression is not incitement. The words of the Right cannot be treated as incitement while the words of the Left are treated as freedom of expression.”


"We are witnessing the biggest election fraud in the history of the state, in my opinion in the history of democracies - people rightly feel cheated," Netanyahu added.


"It is impossible to shut their mouths. Facebook blocked posts by right-wingers because they published the address of MK Nir Orbach for right-wing demonstrations and left posts by left-wingers who posted exactly the same address," the prime minister added.


https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/307560


14 February 2021

One Case of Medical Tyranny

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 14, 2021

My Expulsion from Medical Practice 

Censorship and economic ruin threaten dissenting physicians

by Dr. Albert Louis


(OMNS Feb 14, 2021) It's a very bizarre state of affairs when, as a doctor for over 30 years, I suddenly find myself completely isolated from people I know, and from humanity. In this situation, there seems to be no way to help with healing or caring or treating, because I have been expelled like a priest excommunicated from the church. I have been cancelled.


This happened because I was not conforming to the religion of medicine. I said things that were against the perceived modus vivendi. I was immediately suspended and completely and utterly cut off, as if I were a dangerous, evil person.


This sense of doing wrong eats into your guts. It is like you have done some kind of severe sin, where you have done something so bad and so awful, that you can never be recuperated or saved because you've gone against absolute authority.


Now, this authority is determined and written by AHPRA, the medical board of Australia which produces the code of behavior. [1]


This code of behavior was not something I had contradicted in public. I hadn't attacked or injured a patient. I had posted on Facebook statements which were inimical to the system, because I criticized issues about the system which were not good.


Looking outward into the world beyond medicine, I have learned that the best companies are run with their employees feeling a group spirit, where the team is heard, understood, and appreciated.


But over the past two to three years, when working in medical practices, I've seen no such thing as a team spirit. I found modern medical clinics in Australia to be like workhouses, where the doctors are consumed with input and output of patients. The only thing that the practice owners care about is a throughput of patients to give an indecent profit.


So doctors effectively become part of a cattle market that accepts as many patients as possible to be treated with a preset path of investigations, drugs, and referrals, and are quickly released. Beyond that, the doctors must also have good marks on social media to make sure that the patients return.


This medical meat market lacks the previous dedication of the medical profession to treating or caring about patients. It seems that, the whole system has become so computerized and automated that it has become the "fast-food" modernization of medicine.

Apparently, there is no such thing as medical practice in the absolute sense anymore. Caring goes out of the window. 


Nowadays, a patient arrives, and it's in and out within five minutes, and all the patient gets is a drug - often an antidepressant!

Considering our modern world, I realized that this new concept of medical practice is part and parcel of what is happening in the larger society. It seems that we no longer have a society that even cares about itself.


In medical lectures and webinars I see health professionals giving lip service to the need for patients to be looked upon with a certain sense of care by the doctors -- the therapeutic agents. Yet this seems an utter hypocrisy because doctors nowadays are more concerned about the efficacious use of investigational processes and therapeutic agents than a direct relationship with the patient.


In fact, there's no such thing as a partnership in medicine anymore, even in functional medicine. This has gone out the window because society and particularly the medical system frowns upon anything to do with mind, body, or with healing itself.


People are eating the wrong kinds of food because doctors have not been taught nutrition in medical school, and have not learned that food is one of the most powerful therapeutic agents. People are eating themselves to death by the toxic foods that they get from their local stores.


Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, unemployment, marginalization, and alienation due to the need to keep separate have increased, and have accelerated to the extent that there is a significant increase in mental illness.


This is because priority is placed on COVID-19 itself. In medical practices, other illnesses are being left behind and people are no longer being treated to the extent they were previously for chronic illness, heart disease, and cancer.


In this COVID-19 epidemic situation, the simple nutritional supplements that could prevent COVID-19, such as vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc, magnesium, and hydrogen peroxide sprays are looked upon by the medical establishment as being useless and are banned. This is also the case with social media who rely on "fact checkers" who have not been educated in nutrition.


Hippocrates said "Let food be your medicine and medicine your food." This applies to an excellent diet that provides the essential nutrients while avoiding excess sugar and processed foods with empty calories, as well as safe and inexpensive vitamin and mineral supplements. It can also apply to drugs that are effective against COVID-19 and do little harm such as hydroxychloroquine/zinc and ivermectin. If everyone would take the vitamin and mineral supplements (vitamin C 1000mg 3x/day or more, vitamin D 5000IU/day, magnesium 400 mg/day, zinc 20 mg/day, etc.) we could end the pandemic in a month. [2-7] But any doctor who says these things in public will be cancelled.


This epidemic has been handled as if the governments in charge are following rules from some unknown puppet master. Each knows how to follow the rules, and the rules are such that every government is being taken for a ride and they don't even realize it. I am referring to individual governments who do not realize they are being taken for a ride by the profit-seeking medical establishment. Is it the WHO, the drug companies, or are we all responsible?


I started listening today about the need for sending vaccines to Africa, Egypt, and India. This was on the BBC and they were talking so eloquently about the need for vaccines, particularly for health workers. These vaccines have been put out in a rush without the full testing that should be done before a vaccine is given to large populations. The mRNA vaccines are quite new and may have unforeseen consequences and yet the medical authorities don't seem to care. Already many adverse effects are being reported and ignored.


And what could really help Africa and India is not being talked about. Even when hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are being given they're not being widely discussed. What they did talk about on this particular BBC presentation was the fact that over 2 billion people, particularly in Africa and India have sanitation problems. There are so few latrines that many people die from cholera. Also one billion people have no bathing facilities. If philanthropists really cared, instead of focusing on vaccinations and billions of dollars for drug companies, they should be providing education, latrines, clean water and bathing facilities, and excellent nutrition and vitamin supplements to the poor!


The international and USA media make no connection between the fact that people are going to get COVID-19 simply because they haven't got the immune strength to defend themselves against a virus, any virus! And what about the new COVID-19 variants that may be able to evade current vaccines? Virus variants are nothing new, that's how viruses propagate, and that's why the annual flu vaccines aren't universally effective. Bottom line - the immune system empowered with adequate nutrition and supplementation will likely provide excellent protection -- as a strong immune system can generate new antibodies faster than new vaccines can be developed!


Most medical doctors and especially the media, or should we say the "propaganda industry," don't know about the social determinants of health -- education, low psychological stress, good hygiene, excellent nutrition. They just think that the vaccine is a magical cure, which allows everyone to ignore other solutions. This will likely continue as long as the media suppress relevant information and medical professionals avoid learning about nutrition. This is utter absolute stupidity and hypocrisy.


(Editor's note from Andrew W. Saul: Normally I include a brief "about the author" statement here, but in this case, if I did so, Dr. Louis would be in even more hot water than he or she already is. Suffice to say that, as a journalist, I opt to protect my sources. To that end, Dr. Louis is a pseudonym. But the doctor, an Australian, is very real indeed)


____________________________


NOTE: This seems to be a case of abnormal persecution, of a long-held medical profession that centers on the well-being of the patient and not the edicts of a pharmaceutical establishment that seeks to control how doctors treat patients in compliance with the financial accruement of their interventions”.


 

23 August 2020

Censored: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy And Why Face Masks Don’t Work

WHY HAVE MASKS BEEN WEAPONIZED

With most Israelis wearing masks, the rate of infection is climbing, and the mortality rate keeps increasing. So why are Israelis getting sick? Why are protest gatherings being allowed? Why is the Corona Intelligencia not being able to devise an approach to control Israeli behavior? Is this virus only a 100 year event? Or was this sent from Shamayim to wake up Israelis to recognize there is a Creator in the world, and He wants His Children to return to their Har-Sinai behavior. The initial restrictions were to counter behavioral transgressions against the purpose for the creation of earth and humanity. 

Based on Unknown Aspects of Mask Wearing, the Israeli Corona Intelligencia should find a better approach, other than the counter-productive advice from the WHO and CDC. Counter productive equals prolonged coronavirus contagion, all instituted to increase fear and anticipation of a (ineffective) vaccine, when there are OTHER medicines and therapeutics to prevent the progression of the virus to the deadly dangerous stage.

************

SCIENCE RELEVANT TO SOCIAL BEHAVIOR POLICY

Denis Rancourt, PhD, has published over 100 peer-reviewed studies in his career, but ResearchGate choose to censor and remove this paper because it didn’t fit the narrative of the Great Panic of 2020 over COVID-19. Such censorship proves the existence of an alternative agenda. Again, this underscores the Technocrat methodology of shaming, ridiculing and censoring anybody that comes forth with real science that refutes their pseudo-science. TN Editor

Masks and Respirators do not work.

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Review of the Medical Literature

Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:


Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

“A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Conclusion Regarding That Masks Do Not Work

No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

Masks and respirators do not work.

Precautionary Principle Turned on Its Head with Masks

In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic, and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks. In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease and of Why Masks Do Not Work

In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and that is caused by viruses. For example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular. (Publisher’s note: All links to source references to studies here forward are found at the end of this article.)

For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has “Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity,” here:






















The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity (“viable decay”), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets (“physical loss”): “Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical.”

The latter (“physical loss”) seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle/droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven “decay.” Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A “virion” is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet “viable decay” of a virion has not been explained or studied.

In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependent on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol/droplets. Shaman’s quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether “viable decay” or “physical loss.”

The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is “the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible.” The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19–1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid-summer values of just larger than “1” and dry-winter values typically as large as “4” (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modeling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modeling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).

To put it simply, the “second wave” of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the “second wave” is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., “physical loss”), then Shaman’s work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centers, and on-board airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):

“Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus −3 concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m . On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 μm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modeling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 × 105 genome copies m−3 air h−1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies m−2 h−1 by Brownian motion. Over one hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission.”

Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).

Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.


Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:

  1. Most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility
  2. It is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host
  3. The 50-percent probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virions
  4. There are typically 10 to 3rd power − 10 to 7th power virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μm
  5. The 50-percent probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet
  6. For further background:
  7. A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).
  8. Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.
  9. Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans,“we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections.”
  10. Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90 percent of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed.

All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).


Why There Can Never Be an Empirical Test of a Nation-Wide Mask-Wearing Policy

As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results [because]:

  1. Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.
  2. Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.
  3. Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).
  4. The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.
  5. Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.
  6. Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.
  7. Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
  8. Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
  9. Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

Unknown Aspects of Mask Wearing

Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

  1. Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?
  2. Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
  3. Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
  4. What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
  5. How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?
  6. What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?
  7. Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?
  8. Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification?
  9. What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?
  10. Do the masks shed fibers or substances that are harmful when inhaled?

Conclusion

By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.


Otherwise, what is the point of publicly funded science?


The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Denis G. Rancourt is a researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA.ca) and is formerly a tenured professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada. This paper was originally published at Rancourt’s account on ResearchGate.net. As of June 5, 2020, this paper was removed from his profile by its administrators at Researchgate.net/profile/D_Rancourt. At Rancourt’s blog ActivistTeacher.blogspot.com, he recounts the notification and responses he received from ResearchGate.net and states, “This is censorship of my scientific work like I have never experienced before.”

The original April 2020 white paper in .pdf format is available here, complete with charts that have not been reprinted in the Reader print or web versions. 


Endnotes available here

16 August 2020

US States Stockpiling Food? ….. China Food CRISIS!

Ice Age Farmer – But don’t YOU do it!

Washington State has been stocking away millions of dollars of non-perishable food -- so have other US states, and the federal government -- in anticipation of "the need ahead." If states are preparing, so too must you be today. And spread the word. 

Video report from KIRO: https://youtu.be/916MEF_ETCM

Also see Alaska Prepper's coverage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqWsp...

FULL SHOW NOTES: http://www.iceagefarmer.com/2020/08/1..



China's FOOD CRISIS: Recycling Food, Limiting Orders, 
Censoring Eating on Social Media  
China has launched a "CLEAN YOUR PLATE" campaign, indicating that we are entering a global food crisis and moreover that it is YOUR fault for wasting too much food. Eating shows are being censored from the internet, and social media sites are telling users to "value food." Restaurants are limited, no longer able to serve meals to each person! And "AgriFoodTech" companies are working to "Upcycle" food waste and FEED IT BACK TO YOU as other foods ... or even an innocent looking cup of coffee. Christian breaks down this next-level nanny state encroachments and this latest salvo -- which sets the tone for the rest of the world -- in the war on food. 

 

29 July 2020

Frontline Doctors On Censorship

Frontline Doctors On Censorship: We’re Coming After You Big Tech – We Will Not Be Silenced!

Less than 24 hours after the Frontline Doctors first press conference in Washington D.C. was censored and removed from Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, and after having their own website knocked offline in an attempt to silence them, the doctors were back in front of the steps of the Supreme Court building today (Tuesday, July 28, 2020) for their second press conference, at great risk to their lives, their families, and their jobs, as they remained determined to bring the truth directly to the American people that a cure for COVID exists, and that the public does not need to cower in fear anymore.

While the corporate media continues to blacklist the group of doctors and refuses to cover their press conferences, some hecklers showed up to try and drown out the speakers.

See: The Lost Book of Remedies

The fact that these doctors are seeing a 100% cure rate for COVID patients is a message Big Pharma, Big Tech, and their political leaders do not want the public to hear. Because it would mean that their drugs and their coming vaccines are worthless and unnecessary.

They do not want healthy Americans. They want sick Americans cowering in fear so they can control us for their own purposes.

Dr. Simone Gold was the first doctor to speak today, and she said:

We are finally coming forward, at great personal and professional costs to ourselves.

We’re tired of seeing patients die in front of us, and we’re even more upset to see the spider web of fear that is enveloping the American public.

When there’s a treatment, there’s a cure. People have been afraid to say that.

But what else do you call it if you give somebody the medication early, and it aborts the disease process?

We’re coming after you Big Tech. We’re coming after you.

We won’t be silenced. The First Amendment is first for a reason. There’s thousands of us.

Dr. Richard Urso was another doctor who spoke today:

We cannot let our patients die without treatment. And that’s the major thing that’s happened.

We’ve been told to hide in our houses, wear a mask, and wait for a vaccine.

That’s not a strategy. We have a strategy.

Hydroxychloroquine works. Withholding it from patients is shameful.

Watch the full press conference as filmed by Breitbart News (let us know if it disappears link below).


This video is of a press conference that took place in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, July 28, 2020, held by the group America’s Frontline Doctors and organized and sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots Foundation. The press conference featured frontline doctors sharing their views and opinions on the novel coronavirus, the medical response to the pandemic, and the censorship they have experienced from Big Tech.
____________________________________
The only cure for this censorship and cruelty is for more people to stand tall and speak out.
Brian Shilavy is the Editor of Health Impact News, where this article first appeared. Image: Dr. Richard Urso speaking at today’s Press Conference with Frontline Doctors. www.naturalblaze.com/

What Went Wrong? OR RIGHT!

Donald Trump Defends Censored Doctors for Recommending Hydroxychloroquine 

President Donald Trump defended Tuesday a group of doctors who spoke about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine on Monday at a press conference. 

Trump said he was aware that Facebook, Twitter, and Google had removed videos of the group America’s Frontline Doctors at their Capitol Hill press conference on Monday. The video of the doctors published by Breitbart News on Facebook was wildly popular online before the platform removed it. 

 “I don’t know why, I think they are very respected doctors,” Trump said, questioning the social media companies for deciding to remove the videos. Trump spoke about the videos during a press conference on Tuesday on the ongoing coronavirus crisis in the United States. 

 The president said that he knew of many doctors who believed hydroxychloroquine was “extremely successful,” especially when combined with zinc and azithromycin. “Many doctors think its extremely good and some people don’t. 

Some people, I think, it’s become very political,” he said. “I happen to believe in it.” Trump reminded reporters that he took the drug for 14 days with no side effects. “It’s safe. It doesn’t cause problems. I had no problem. I had absolutely no problem,” Trump said and added, “It didn’t get me and it’s not going to hopefully hurt anybody.” 

 Trump also cited studies on the effectiveness of the drug, despite other health experts warning against it. “I’ve read a lot about hydroxy,” Trump said, citing a study from the Henry Ford Health System and support for the effectiveness of the drug from Yale School of Public Health Dr. Harvey Risch

 Trump said that the opposition to the drug was based entirely on politics. “I think it could have a very positive impact in the early stages, and I don’t think you lose anything by doing it, other than politically, 

it doesn’t seem to be too popular, you know why? Because I recommend it.” 

Source:  breitbart.com



 

28 July 2020

White Coat Summit in DC – The Facts Speak, The Truth is Heard

DC American Doctors set up a Summit 
and are calling out the establishment - the pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors and MSM
We don’t need masks and lockdowns
We already have a cure HCQ
Why did pharmacists assn block HCQ
Why did governors block the distribution of HCQ
We are going to see many class action lawsuits – hospitals, doctors etc. are involved
Common Sense and actual Science - Masks don’t work AAPS

Courageous Dr Stella Immanuel – Her initial video was blocked by UT 
but preserved at below link on DRive.

This is a Redirect Video Link https://bit.ly/2CW57Pb and DRIVE.google

PragerU

@prageru

American doctors are holding a “White Coat Summit” in Washington, D.C. to address “a massive disinformation campaign” by the media about coronavirus.

Watch as Dr. Stella Immanuel tackles the media's narrative about hydroxychloroquine
twitter/prageru

_______________________




_______________________

Dr. Simone Gold, MD, JD, FABEM
FACTS LEAD. OPINIONS FOLLOW
thegoldopinion



________________________
Dr. Simone Gold and Dr. Dan Wohlgelernter discuss the demonization and politicization of Hydroxychloroquine. 
Studies set up to fail, murder investigations, and more!


_______________________

America’s Frontline Doctors White Coat Summit
American doctors are holding a “White Coat Summit” on Capitol Hill TODAY and tomorrow (July 27-28) to address what they call “a massive disinformation campaign” surrounding the Chinese coronavirus to which “American life has fallen casualty.” “If Americans continue to let so-called experts and media personalities make their decisions, the great American experiment of a Constitutional Republic with Representative Democracy, will cease,” reads the event’s information page.”

You really need to watch Dr Stella Immanuel, a West African born and trained Doctor, who now practices in Houston. She has had 100% success on over 350 patients with HCQ + AZT + Zinc. See her impassioned speech during the summit press conference held on the SCOTUS front steps (Watch the video from 5 min to 11 min):  breitbart.com/health: dispel disinformation campaign.

This group is doing an excellent job presenting the science and studies behind HCQ and (more importantly) sharing their frontline success treating COVID-19. A lot of this information will not be new to the PP Tribe, but it is awesome to see this many Doctors organizing together in a summit to share this message in incontrovertible form in Washington, DC. It is so inspiring to see DOCTORS standing up for their patients. They are calling us to action. I will be phoning my Governor, both Senators, my Congressman and local hospital directors to tell them I want my doctors to be able to prescribe HCQ now.

You can get more information from their website at americasfrontlinedoctors


LIVE from the steps of the US Supreme Court. America’s Frontline Doctors - Physicians from around the country address the American people about Covid-19 and the importance of reopening schools and our society. Schedule at https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors…

THE WHITE PAPERS:

White Paper on Hydroxychloroquine

View the PDF

This is the culmination of months-long research from all sources. It explains how Americans have come to be in the grip of fear. All the myths and all the misconceptions about a safe, generic drug that has been FDA approved for 65 years, given to pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, the elderly and the immune-compromised for years and decades without complication, are finally put in the trash heap where they belong. You will have the indisputable proof that you have been massively lied to, often very intentionally. At first you will first be heartbroken. And then you will be furious. Good. Because then you will demand change.

Compendium of HCQ Studies

View the PDF

The safety of HCQ is irrefutable. The evidence supporting HCQ efficacy against Covid-19 is also overwhelming. All negative HCQ studies have used either: too much, used it alone (it needs Zinc), or used it late (it should be early.) The treatment dose is 200 mg HCQ twice a day for five days + Zinc 50 (elemental) daily. The prophylactic dose is 400 mg HCQ weekly + Zinc 50 (elemental) daily.

(There are studies right now to see if HCQ 200 mg. weekly is sufficient.) This is very low dose. (The usual dose of HCQ in Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis is 400 mg. daily for years.) There are telemedicine physicians who are aware of the facts and if you are concerned about this, please see one. It is also over the counter in many places in the world including Indonesia and most of South America.

Crowning of Hashem by Rav Avigdor Miller ·

Living Rav Avigdor formerly Simchas Hachaim Publishing Chapter 10 of Crowning Hashem · Rav Miller on Rosh Hashanah Aspects of Rosh Hashanah ...