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)

( )

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.

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.