Mandatory masks: “a depraved act of violence”

The Statement

“Being forced to rebreathe your own exhaled air is no different in principle to being made to consume your own pee, scat, or puke. It’s one thing to do it as a voluntary act in a private fetish context (each to their own, live and let live); but is a depraved act of violence when enforced by the state and corporations under duress.”

The Source

Martin Geddes, Martin Geddes Channel on Telegram, 7 May 2021

My take on it

Not everyone is so gifted at both thinking and writing.

For more, may I recommend Open Your Mind to Change, by the same author?

Lockdown: Ineffectual, says the evidence

The statement

“Here are the 25 most stringent lockdown states graphed against the 25 least stringent; there must be a radical different between the two groups, right?
Shouldn’t those hospitalization numbers be wildly different? And yet you can’t even tell them apart.”

The source

Eric @IAmTheActualET on Twitter, cited by Dr Tom Woods

( )

My take on it

As a measure, ‘Hospitalisations’ has much to commend it, although the evidence suggests that it has been compromised by mis-attribution.   We can only hope that the mis-attribution was balanced between the two quotients.

As for the implication, I am already persuaded.

How about you?  What would it take?

Was it Benjamin Franklin who said, “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

So I’ll sign off with that ad line from Hyundai:  “Please consider.”

Masks for kids: High Court evidence is that risk was never considered

The statement

“At the High Court hearing today, 30 April 2021, it was revealed to the Court that neither the Tapton School Academy Trust (which runs 4 secondary schools) nor the government had conducted any assessment of the risk of harms from requiring children to wear masks in schools.

At the same time the Court received unchallenged evidence that wearing masks could result in causing pulmonary fibrosis, being “among the worst diseases that can be suffered or witnessed. It kills exceedingly slowly, by ever-thickening matrix formation, a kind of scar tissue, obstructing the alveoli and reducing their air exchange. The illness worsens over time, and suffocates the victim very gradually. Nothing is available to the sufferer from conventional medicine.”     

Also unchallenged was evidence of psychological harm suffered by children because of the pressure upon them to wear masks and the need to conform to the authority of teachers and their peers.

Against this background, the child (whose name and school remain subject to a Court anonymity order) asked the Court for an order stopping the school encouraging mask-wearing by children.

Roger Ter Haar QC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) has reserved his judgment but indicated he expects to provide his decision in writing by next Wednesday 05 May 2021.”

The source

My take on it

Tapton Secondary School is located in the UK, so I gather that this action is proceeding in the High Court of England and Wales.

I have my own view as to the wisdom of wearing masks in response to Covid.  Those views have been formed by examining some of the arguments and evidence for and against.

Not everyone who does take that approach, reaches the same conclusion as I have.

And of course not everyone takes that evidence-based approach.

The question is, Should we expect that evidence-based approach from government?

Of course we should.

And should we expect that evidence-based approach of those who are entrusted with the care of our children, and specifically of schools and teachers  – in loco parentis?

Of course we should.

To me it is unsurprising that an institution such as a school should just follow government guidelines unquestioningly.  I witnessed the same attitude early last year when I contacted aged care institutions in Australia in an effort to forestall what I saw coming.  They pointed me to the government.

The government formally holds that trust.  The government is all the more responsible for weighing the evidence for and against any policy; of assessing the impact.  The evidence is that in this case the UK government did not.

That is a breach of trust. 

The Covid ‘jab’: “a stunningly high ratio of deaths to vaccinations” goes unchallenged

The statement

“Reporting a death requires a healthcare worker to enter it into the system,” he said. And if the death does not occur within the normal 15-minute monitoring period they often go unreported. Most deaths occur within 72 hours of the shot. “They pile up on day one, two and three,” he said.

As a matter of comparison: There are 20 to 30 deaths reported every year to VAERS related to the flu shot. That’s with 195 million receiving flu shots. Compare that to the COVID shot, which resulted in 2,602 reported deaths through 77 million vaccinations.

That’s a stunningly high ratio of deaths to vaccinations, the highest for any vaccine in U.S. history, and yet no major media outlet has launched an investigation. Independent journalists and researchers such as Alex Newman, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Leo Hohmann have been ruthlessly censored.”

The Source

Dr Peter McCullough.  Dr McCullough holds the honour of being the most cited medical doctor on COVID-19 treatments at the National Library of Medicine, with more than 600 citations. He has testified before Congress and won numerous awards during his distinguished medical career.

( )

My take on it

Yet again the evidence indicates that what is extraordinary about Covid-19 is not so much the disease itself, but the policy response of government in general, and of biocrats in particular.  In this case it is that the adverse effects threshold that would normally have interrupted the use of these vaccines much earlier, has been dramatically raised.  Perhaps even set aside.

And yet again the media are complicit in not calling out that policy response as exceptional.

Which is pretty much what many of us have come to expect.

But not to accept.