by Iain Davis
They then decided that their results were wrong and adjusted their methodology to produce new ones. This time they found:
"In an adjusted analysis of compliant subjects, masks as a group had protective efficacy in excess of 80%"
Needless to say this didn't make much of an impact upon the scientific evidence base for mask use. Changing your methodology because you don't like the outcome isn't usually a scientific principle.
Long, Y. et al. (2020) [42] looked at available RCTs to see if any provided evidence that masks either protecting wearer or others from viral respiratory infections. There was none, and the scientists concluded:
“A total of six RCTs involving 9171 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 (ILI) using N95 respirators and surgical masks.”
Under political pressure to shift the narrative, The WHO hastily commissioned a meta-analysis (a study of available studies) on the efficacy of face masks and social distancing [43]. The Lancet published it and the WHO then cited their own study as the primary evidence for suddenly changing their stance on face masks. The researchers stated that they looked at:
"172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies.....Our search did not identify any randomised trials of COVID-19, SARS, or MERS....The primary limitation of our study is that all studies were non-randomised"
This was a meta-analysis on the efficacy of face masks for a viral ILI's which excluded all the available RCTs. Yet the researchers said the main limitation of their study was the lack of randomised trials. The reason for this very strange omission by the researchers became clear in the footnotes:
"The funder contributed to defining the scope of the review."
By insisting that the researchers stick rigidly to SARS-CoV-2 studies, of which there were very few, and ignoring all other ILI research, the WHO ruled out the relevant RCTs from the Lancet paper. Otherwise, the study they commissioned would have concluded that there was no evidence that face masks worked. This was not what the core conspirators and their informed influencers wanted.
An independent study by Spanish scientists, also published in the Lancet [44], which looked at clusters of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Spain, established very different findings. The scientists didn't see any evidence of any transmission reduction with the use of face masks:
"We observed no association of risk of transmission with reported mask usage."
Noting the lack of RCTs proving that mask were any use for SARS-CoV-2, a team of Danish scientists took it upon themselves to conduct one [45]. The evidence was already reasonably clear, but the scientists wanted to see if SARS-CoV-2 behaved differently to other viral respiratory infections. It didn't:
"No statistically significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 incidence was observed....infection rates were similar between groups."
Medical practitioners wear sterile masks once and discard them after use. Sometimes they have to wear them for prolonged periods and this correlates with an increased likelihood of them experiencing headaches [46]. This suggests that oxygen levels are depleted when you obstruct your airway.
Some studies indicate that this is the case [47]. When researchers investigated the respiratory consequences [48] of wearing N95 masks among health workers their conclusion was concerning:
"N95 mask materials...impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system"
Medical N95 masks are much better quality than the soggy, cloth muzzles people commonly wore throughout the pseudopandemic. Health professionals are trained to keep their masks as sterile as possible, monitor their condition and dispose of them properly. People wandering around the supermarket or delivering Pizza are not.
If the State franchise was to be believed then discarded masks must have presented potential bio-hazards. Yet no effort was made to provide hazardous material disposal bins in any public spaces.
Wearing masks for a long time, especially low-quality cloth or paper masks, increases the risk of bacterial infection. A 2018 study by scientist in Shanghai [49] found that bacteria accumulated quickly on the surface of surgical masks (SMs). They concluded:
"This study provides strong evidence for the identification of SMs as source of bacterial contamination.......which should be a cause for alarm"
Research from the American Association for Cancer Research [50] indicated that oral microbes can enter the lungs via unconscious aspiration. These were associated with advanced stage lung cancer. Of particular concern were the Veillonella, Prevotella, and Streptococcus bacteria. So allowing them to coagulate around your mouth and nose probably wasn't a very good idea.
Not only was the increased risk of bacterial infection [51] well known, so too was the increased risk of respiratory influenza like illness (ILI's). Bacterial infection is a primary cause of pneumonia. Pneumonia is usually a significant contributor to ARDS mortality.
In an RCT comparing cloth masks to medical masks, Australian researchers [52] found that cloth masks not only presented a higher ILI risk than medical masks they were worse than wearing no mask at all:
"Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm....The results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection...cloth masks should not be recommended."
If the intention was to reduce the spread of infection and protect vulnerable people then just about the worst thing you could possibly do was recommend that everyone wear bargain bucket face masks. State franchise pseudopandemic face mask policy also increased the likelihood of infection and ill health.
There was never any relevant scientific justification for social distancing. The arbitrary selection of the "two meter rule," demanding that everyone stay apart, was not based upon any relevant scientific research [53].
Scientists from across the country analysed the WHO's Lancet paper and found only 5 of the 172 studies they cited had anything at all to say about social distancing. Of those just one looked specifically at proximity and that paper found no evidence that it made any difference to the spread of viral respiratory infections.
Viral transmission is not controlled, or limited in any way, by bits of cloth on your face or plastic barriers erected in supermarkets and restaurants. These measures are useless and believing that they could ever possibly stop the transmission of an airborne virus was a total delusion. The disinformation suggesting these barriers work was forced upon the public and businesses by the politicians, their selected scientists and the MSM.
The seasonal pattern of respiratory infections is clearly affected, first and foremost, by atmospheric conditions. This is why we have a winter flu season. A study by Shaman et al (2010) showed the clear correlation between excess respiratory mortality and relative atmospheric humidity [54]. This confirmed earlier animal studies by Lowen et al (2007) [55] and others.
Imperial College London's (ICL's) estimated R0 value took no account of seasonal humidity and wrongly assumed infection was independent of these environmental controls. Respiratory illness, such as COVID 19, are seasonal and will rise and fall accordingly. It has nothing whatsoever to do with face masks, lockdowns or standing further apart.
SARS-CoV-2 virions are unimaginably small, around 0.25 microns or less. This is comparable to 1/100th of the cross-sectional diameter of a human hair. Even N95 respirators, with 0.3 - 0.5 micron impenetrability, struggle to cope [56] with virions this small.
At this scale virions are airborne [57]. They are aerosol particles and the slightest disturbance in air flow will send them flying. They are much smaller than the weave of a cloth face mask and have no problem at all traversing over
, under and around plastic "safety screens."
They are virtually impervious to gravitational sedimentation and can practically fly across entire continents, if the wind is with them. They are everywhere and on everything.
This is why lab technicians who work with viruses wear pressurised, hermetically sealed, full NBC suits not plastic fibre masks. The slightest gap or tear results in them having to undergo full decontamination and antiviral therapy.
The idea, fed to the public, that you could stick a bit of cloth on your face for protection (either from infection or transmission), walk around or otherwise avoid an aerosol distributed virus by standing two meters apart was abject nonsense. Moreover, precisely because they are airborne, virus concentration is higher indoors than outside [58].
Prior to the pseudopandemic the alleged "second wave" was called seasonal variation [59]. As we moved into a genuine winter flu season in the autumn of 2020/2021, increased mortality, especially among the most vulnerable was expected.
There was less need for the State franchise to deploy their policy weapons to maintain the pseudopandemic narrative. With their deceptive testing regime and COVID 19 death registration system in place, normal winter mortality could be blamed on COVID 19. However, just to be on the safe side, they deployed them anyway.
Just as they did during the spring outbreak, in order to free up space in the NHS, the UK State tried to discharge SARS-CoV-2 positive patients [60] into care homes, which they rebranded as "designated settings." The claimed need to do this was in response to the alleged overcrowding crisis in hospitals. As we shall see, this too was not what the State franchise claimed. However, during the second wave, private care home providers resisted.
As the staffing crisis in care sector escalated, with up to 50% of staff absent [61], largely due to them having to self-isolate following a positive test, with many suffering from additional stress, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) were working with the care sector to designate some care homes as sinks for COVID 19 patients. The CQC stated [62]:
"These settings are admitting people who are discharged from hospital with a COVID-positive test who will be moving or going back into a care home setting. This is to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 (coronavirus) in care homes...... The Government’s aim is for each local authority to have access to at least one designated setting as soon as possible."
These weren't purpose built facilities. These were existing care homes, with vulnerable residents already living in them. The State Franchise's safety plan was as follows:
"NHS provider organisations must ensure all people being discharged into care homes have received a COVID-19 test within the preceding 48 hours of the discharge date.....All individuals who test positive for COVID-19 within 48 hours of being discharged into a care home should be discharged into a designated setting."
Following the disaster that occurred in the Spring "outbreak," many local authorities were unwilling to participate in the State's designated COVID 19 community scheme. But perhaps more importantly, private care home providers were even less enthusiastic. Insurers, confronted with mounting private litigation for deaths ostensibly caused by State franchise policy but blamed upon care home providers, began to refuse cover for care homes who knowingly accepted [63] SARS-CoV-2 residents into their establishments.
As a result, by late October to mid December 2020 mortality followed the typical winter pattern. Statistically significant access mortality [64] first emerged in England in Week 45, ending 11th of November. This was declining, as you might expect for a winter respiratory season.
By week 52 and 53 [65] Public Health England reported no statistically significant excess mortality for the period. They cautioned that this may be due to delays in reporting over the Christmas period. Though this seems unlikely, as mortality had been declining for weeks.
The UK State franchise COVID 19 vaccine trials rolled out in care settings nationally, beginning on the 8th December 2020. The distribution was completed by late January 2021. This trial of unlicensed vaccines, which did not have marketing authority from the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), corresponded to a massive spike in mortality [66] in care homes. The CQC reported a 46% increase in care home deaths [67] in just one week during the vaccine roll out.
According to the UK State, on the 21st November, the average number of COVID 19 deaths per day was 464.7. This had dropped to 427.3 by the start of the vaccine roll out, on the 10th of December. This represented a gradual 8% decline over a couple of weeks. By the 19th of January, with the vaccine roll out of the over 80's nearing completion, it stood at 1,272. An increase in daily mortality of just over 270% in 7 weeks.
Without an investigation of the startling increase in mortality that directly corresponded to the vaccine roll out, we may never know if there was a link. However, any refusal to investigate this would be untenable. Such a clear correlation warrants examination. Given that every other pseudopandemic mitigation policy added to mortality, this correlation must be investigated.
Other harmful State franchise policies also made an unwelcome return during the normal winter respiratory illness season. Once again the widespread use of enforced do not resuscitate orders [68] (DNAR) were reported, not just for the care home residents but also for people with disabilities, again including those with learning disabilities [69].
It was policies such as these which contributed to the statistical fact that 6 out of 10 so called COVID 19 deaths were of people with some degree of disability. The NHS found:
"Between 24 January and 20 November 2020 in England, the risk of death involving COVID-19 was 3.1 times greater for more-disabled men and 1.9 times greater for less-disabled men, compared to non-disabled men. Among women, the risk of death was 3.5 times greater for more-disabled women and 2.0 times greater for less-disabled women"
In every way imaginable the policy decisions and advice given to the public throughout the pseudopandemic increased the infection and subsequent mortality risk. When all of them achieve the same elevation of risk coincidence ceases to be credible.
Regrettably, our deeply held beliefs about the nature of our society, coupled with our ignorance of history and faith in "the science," render us incapable of recognising the truth. We are conditioned to believe the State is a protective influence, almost from birth. If we ever consider the possibility that the State may actively seek to harm us, especially the most vulnerable, we experience an uncomfortable schism in our thought processes (cognitive dissonance.)
Our inability to even countenance this possibility has repeatedly allowed to the worst atrocities in human history to proceed unchallenged. We never realise until it is too late.
Despite accurately describing this cull, the leading UK care charities the Alzheimer's Society, Marie Curie, Age UK, Care England and Independent Age all attributed this stomach churning mortality conveyor belt to coronavirus. While organisational cognitive dissonance may be evident, their call for a comprehensive government plan to support social care [70] illustrated that many knew what was happening but were helpless in the face of State authority.
They wrote an open letter to the State franchise, published on April 14th 2020:
"We are appalled by the devastation which coronavirus is causing in the care system and we have all been inundated with desperate calls from the people we support, so we are demanding a comprehensive care package to support social care through the pandemic......we urgently need testing and protective equipment made available to care homes – as we’re seeing people in them being abandoned to the worst that coronavirus can do. Instead of being allowed hospital care, to see their loved ones and to have the reassurance that testing allows; and for the staff who care for them to have even the most basic of PPE, they are told they cannot go to hospital, routinely asked to sign Do Not Resuscitate orders, and cut off from their families when they need them most....Older people’s lives are not worth less. Care home staff are not second class carers. The Government
must step in and make it clear that no-one will be abandoned to this virus simply because of their age, condition or where they live."
The UK State did not step in to save anyone. It continued to pursue exactly the same policies throughout the alleged "second wave." Even a few isolated voices in the MSM pointed out what they referred to as culpable neglect [71].
The State franchise continued to heap yet more disastrous regulations and policies upon the health and care sectors, consistently boosting mortality figures, all to be blamed upon COVID 19. The lives of the most vulnerable meant nothing, as the core conspirators and informed influencers pushed ahead with their pseudopandemic.
Sources:
[1] - https://in-this-together.com/operation-gladio-false-flag-evidence/
[2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201103110634/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOC_1990_324_R_0186_01&from=EN
[3] - https://archive.org/details/operationgladio
[4] - https://web.archive.org/web/20190628024353/https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
[5] - https://archive.is/Q3Hrn
[6] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200909021715/https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/19/over-1000-deaths-day-uk-ministers-accused-downplaying-covid-19-peak
[7] - https://www.euromomo.eu/
[8] - https://archive.is/qtT22
[9] - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/746063/20181001_National_Framework_for_CHC_and_FNC_-_October_2018_Revised.pdf
[10] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200729105150/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53574265
[11] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210210125304/https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4607/documents/46709/default/
[12] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200519034049/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/879639/covid-19-adult-social-care-action-plan.pdf
[13] - https://www.hsj.co.uk/patient-safety/prejudiced-hospital-admissions-guidance-for-the-elderly-dropped-by-nhse/7027414.article