Masking: No pro’s, just cons

The statement

“More Than a Dozen Credible Medical Studies Prove Face Masks Do Not Work Even In Hospitals!

The medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.”

The source

Arthur Firstenberg writing in Vision Launch Media (August 15, 2020)

( https://visionlaunch.com/more-than-a-dozen-credible-medical-studies-prove-face-masks-do-not-work-even-in-hospitals/ )
 

My take on it

First, the pro’s.

The main argument used to support masking as a public health measure is that they stop or significantly impede transmission of the virus from one person to another.The science does not support that argument.

I have also heard NSW Chief Medical Officer Kerry Chant say words to the effect that (notwithstanding the case against them) masks are still helpful as a reminder to the public to be on their guard. In all the circumstances that statement is ignorant, insensitive, and condescending. And against the public interest..

The cons?

Expired air is a waste product of bodily function. As Martin Geddes pointed out, to re-breathe our expired air makes as much sense as eating our own scat, or drinking our own urine or sweat.

Atmospheric air contains about 20.9% oxygen.  Expired air contains about 16%.  Atmospheric air contains about 0.04% (400ppm) carbon dioxide.  Expired air contains 4%, a hundred times more.

So the re-breathing of our expired air deprives our bodies of life-sustaining oxygen, and intoxicates them with CO2. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Some of my earlier posts indicate how bad.

And then there are the adverse impacts on social interaction, and particularly on childhood formation.

For a more detailed treatment , may I recommend The Case Against Masking by Dr Judy Mikovits.

Lock-down: “Stop this human sacrifice.”

The statement

“The leadership of NSW seems not to have considered any of these costs in deciding how to respond to the recent uptick in COVID cases. Where is the argument that the actions taken are expected to yield maximum total welfare? Why are we still focusing rabidly on COVID when the country hasn’t lost a person with that disease since last year and hundreds of people are suffering and dying daily of all manner of other things?

I deduce that total welfare is not the NSW government’s maximand. Consider that we are hearing disproportionately about counts of cases, rather than counts of people suffering symptoms or hospitalised. If we counted cases of all viruses that infect us, and treated them like the fearsome pestilence of the sort that COVID has been elevated to in the media, we would do nothing all day but hide under the bed. What matters is human suffering and death – not whether someone tests positive to a particular virus. …..

What is going on here is not the fight of our lives against a fearsome pestilence. It is politicians willingly sacrificing their people’s welfare, hoping the people see their actions as a sufficient offering. It’s the modern analogue of killing virgins in the hope of getting a good harvest.

We need to stop this madness.” 

The source

Professor Gigi Foster, UNSW Professor of Economics, in an op-ed piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, Monday 28 June 2021 ( https://www.smh.com.au/national/stop-this-human-sacrifice-the-case-against-lockdowns-20210627-p584o7.html )

My take on it

Professor Foster is asking the same questions – the right questions – that she raised at the outset. Where is the impact assessment that examines the case for such extraordinary policy initiatives? Where are the numbers? What metrics should we be using?

The absence of such impact assessment by government is a telling indictment.

Still the question is, Why?

One credible explanation is that a proper impact assessment would come out against these policies.

Does this mean that government is more committed to a particular course of action than it is to the public welfare? Ideological, rather than logical?

“There is a man who is wise in his own eyes. There is more hope for a fool than for him.” (Proverbs 26:12)

Has Professor Foster reached the only reasonable conclusion? “I deduce that total welfare is not the NSW government’s maximand.”

What pandemic? “No excess deaths from all causes globally in 2020”

The statement

Despite COVID getting the greatest media attention of any event since World War II, the latest data from a respected statistics website shows that, globally, the number of deaths from all causes for 2020 was no higher than expected, given previous years’ totals. In addition, the annual world death rate per one thousand in population has been steadily declining since 1950, from 20 per thousand in 1950, to 7.6 per thousand in 2020, the same as in 2019.  …

The data shows that total world deaths from all causes held steady at about 58.8 million per year since 2019. In 2017 the total was 58.7 million. If anything, global deaths were lower than expected last year, due to aging Baby Boomer demographics, which accounts for a slight, normal rise in deaths in most years.

In global terms, if excess deaths are the criteria, there was no pandemic.

The source

Corona Virus News, 9 June 2021

(https://coronanews123.wordpress.com/2021/06/09/global-data-shows-no-excess-deaths-worldwide-in-2020-massive-london-march-against-forced-injections-blacked-out-by-media/)

My take on it

At the outset some people were suspicious as to whether overall deaths would substantiate the doomsday claims.  With the passage of time the numbers are in.  They confirm the original suspicion.

The tragedy is that an orchestrated fear campaign has had its effect.   

COVID-19 ‘has NO credible natural ancestor’

The statement

“An explosive new study on the origins of COVID-19 pandemic claims researchers found ‘unique fingerprints’ in samples of the virus that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a lab – supporting theories that it escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.”

The source

Daily Mail, 29 May 2012

( https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9629563/Chinese-scientists-created-COVID-19-lab-tried-cover-tracks-new-study-claims.html)

This article refers to a new 22-page paper authored by British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen set to be published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery.

My take on it

Does this qualify as News?   In my own case, only because it refers to a new study.

More than a year ago eminent scientists were reporting that foreign insertions could be clearly identified in the native gene sequences.  Dr Judy Mikovits, if I recall correctly, was one.

The original Gain of Function  research (‘purposive manipulation’), the release of the virus and the endeavour by WRI to cover its tracks, are in my view very disappointing, but hardly “shocking allegations”.  I wish they were.

According to the article,  “the majority of experts have until recently staunchly denied the origins of COVID-19 were anything other than a natural infection leaping from animals to humans.”

Which takes me back to something my father said to me:  ‘If ever you find yourself in the majority, get down on your knees and examine your conscience.’

A majority vote never made anything true.  Pick your sources and your experts wisely.

Nor indeed do I accept that the majority of experts held the view claimed in the article.  Certainly it has been the official narrative, as choreographed and jealously guarded by government, biocrats and the media. That barrier to the free flow of information has simply served to delay and frustrate the fruits of independent enquiry. This paper is just one evidence of that.