‘If you have a disease, right, Covid-19, that you can treat everybody so no-one need die, then what I am saying is, You don’t need lock-down. And if you don’t need the lock-down then you don’t need social distancing , quarantining or masks. So there is no need for the masks.
But it is well known from physiology that we need oxygen to live, and the masks clearly and verifiably reduce the oxygen that you take in to dangerously low levels, but increase your carbon dioxide.
The carbon dioxide level behind the masks is actually at toxic levels. So they are poisoning themselves.
So I think it’s one of the worst policy decisions ever, and one of the most harmful ever for the people living in the UK.”
Professor Dolores Cahill, University College Dublin.
The interview by Liam Galvin was posted on 30 December 2020.
My take on it
The first wealth is health.
In the context of policy responses to Covid-19, masks have been either mandated or encouraged at various times and in various places by various authorities, on the pretext of ‘stopping the spread’. Sydney is there now.
In a bare 16 minutes Professor Cahill explains logically why masks are a very, very bad policy measure. In brief, masks are unnecessary, they provide no benefit, and they are harmful to our health, particularly by reducing our oxygen intake.
Please watch the interview.
Professor Cahill has impressive credentials, both professionally and personally. It is perhaps a natural consequence of these complementary attributes that she would first become vice chair of the Scientific Committee of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), a partnership between the European Commission and the drugs industry to promote new drugs; and then be asked to resign from that committee once her ‘counter-narrative’ concerns and live-saving practical advice were aired publicly.
“The first wealth is health.” Ralph Waldo Emerson penned these words recognizing that good health is essential to the prosperity of the American people. It is a perverse irony that governments should be pursuing a policy that verifiably depletes such personal wealth. And to what end?
Yet again, it all depends on what you believe, which heavily depends on who you believe. We get to choose. And those choices have consequences – for the individual, and for government.