@ Roy Sophveason
And here is a follow up interview with the lead author as it seems you need the clarification he provides:
And I would agree with Stephen. To force masks, the authorities should have to have been able to point to evidence they worked. There is ZERO evidence of such.
1 ( +9 / -8 )
Very unpleasant that some people are accusing people on the right of being racist.
Historically it was the US political left that was racist.
Those to the right suspect that race bating and demonisation of the right is used by the left political leadership to sow division and maintain a voting block. Note that does not make your average leftie a racist.
-6 ( +6 / -12 )
iraira...the point the authors make (in their study of mask studies) is that all the mask studies have been poorly executed. And the lead author goes on to say in the interview (and I paraphrase), that masks could not be mandated when there was no evidence for their efficacy.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
You might have read the accompanying interview with the lead author I linked to.
As he says, if masks are to be mandated, then someone should have done a proper study and not the nonsense that has been churned out.
Not a single study has shown masks work. Perhaps if a proper study were to be carried out, then maybe some benefit would be demonstrated? Somewhat strange that it never crossed the minds of governments and their scientific advisors to do so...
2 ( +5 / -3 )
Well, you could have clicked on the links.
The authors found 78 relevant studies and conclude with low to moderate confidence that masking does not work. Moderate confidence if a lab study.
The reason for this confidence level is the poor quality of the studies they were examining. ie, no studies of merit have been conducted, so it is hard to have confidence in them.
If a government or any institution wants to push masking, then they need to conduct a study that shows it has benefit, and then to conduct a risk - benefit analysis before mandating anything.
9 ( +13 / -4 )
There have been no studies of merit showing masking works.
Cochrane review study here:
And an interview with the lead author about it here:
4 ( +9 / -5 )
Unfortunately the WHO has become highly politicised and not trustworthy.
Back at the start of 2020 I could search the WHO database for info on masking and all the studies they listed showed masks either did not work or had negative efficacy.
WHO isn't searchable in that manner anymore and no way to know if they still have those studies on file. But news reports at the time were saying that the WHO ddid not support mask wearing:
“There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly,” Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday.
(March 31 2020)
10 ( +13 / -3 )
One of the points one of the Oxford University scientists makes, is if the governments wanted to show that masks might be beneficial, why have they never done a proper study?
And are you really dissing the Cochrane review?!
0 ( +5 / -5 )
It is time to stop wearing masks for covid and flu, full stop.
There are zero studies showing masks to be effective.
Latest word from the Cochrane review and no doubt you can google the authors as they have been interviewed and are very scathing about those that think masks have been shown to be effective:
-4 ( +8 / -12 )
Again, how do you explain all institutions that know about the topic clearly supporting the value of masks? a world wide conspiracy? obviously if the people that know more about the pandemic say something does work and show the evidence for it just pretending they must all be wrong is not an argument.
Partly mass formation psychosis and partly people not wanting to lose their jobs as they were being forced to 'think' the right way and getting bombarded with misinformation, of which you seem to be an unfortunate part.
Are you still defending jabs too, even though Anthony Fauci now says they don't work, and in fact could never have worked?
Governments got this totally wrong, either in error or deliberately, case by case.
0 ( +9 / -9 )
The latest meta study about masks concludes they do not work. Low to moderate confidence as the studies available to study are not always well run:
-5 ( +8 / -13 )
wallaceToday 09:53 am JST
Obama signed an executive order to allow Biden access to documents and some of the retrieved were Obama memos.
Where does it say that Biden was allowed to remove classified documents? Granting access is s totally different thing.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
As president, Trump could declassify anything, and had signed an executive order that the simple act of removing the documents would declassify them.
As VP, Biden could only declassify documents he had himself classified. So far there is no evidence the documents he had in multiple unsecure locations had been declassified.
Former President Donald Trump, for instance, spewed vitriol at the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller during an investigation into whether his 2016 campaign coordinated with Russia, repeatedly deriding it as a “witch hunt" and claiming, falsely, that it was led by “angry Democrats.”
LOL. That has been proven to be EXACTLY the case. But one might add the FBI, CIA and others into the conspiracy of course.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
For peeps that haven't seen a previous comment by me, igG3 antibodies 'eat' a virus. IgG4 tell the body to ignore it, rather like an allergy. Not a healthy state of affairs to have your body ignoring a virus as it does its work.
0 ( +6 / -6 )
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decides on mask wearing by taking into factors such as the number of hospitalized patients.
And the US has no way of working that oput properly, and grossly over-estimates non 'vaccinated' hospitalisations.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Perhaps you can find a Chinese institution promoting mRNA? You would think that with the apparent failure of their more traditional style vaccine they would have jumped on the mRNA bandwagon? Perhaps they are not beholden to western 'big pharma'.
It is surprising anyone would jump on untested drugs and inject them into the majority of a population don't you think? Don't you think many institutions have compromised themselves by jumping onto something untested and finding it hard to back down? it will be interesting to see what the AG of Florida turns up with the investigation into how these shots were authorized.
And did you read the articles above? There is a distinct difference between how igG3 and igG4 antibodies operate. The authors show how the mRNA jabs are making immune systems make the wrong type of antibody. Reasonable people may disagree on the consequences of that. But preventing the body from clearing the virus efficiently is clearly a problem.
-3 ( +5 / -8 )
Yet that is what the scientific data clearly proves and what every institution of science and medicine clearly say, who is more likely to be wrong? the world experts of every country? or a nameless person on the internet that offers absolutely no evidence?
Where is your evidence? "Every" institution of science and medicine? Really?!
-10 ( +8 / -18 )
The government should release figures showing what proportion are 'vaccinated' and how many are reinfections.
research has shown that the mRNA 'vaccines' are negatively impacting the functioning of the immunized persons immune systems. Particularly from the 3rd shot.
They make your body tolerate the infection, much like tolerating an allergy.
This means lowered or no symptoms. But it also means the virus takes longer to clear and damages the body in the meantime.
Conclusions put forward by this research include the 'vaccinated' will not develop proper immunity. They will keep catching covid over and over again. Their bodies will also be variant factories. They will spread covid asymptomatically. It is also possible they are developing tolerances to other viruses, thus repeating these problems with other viruses.
You can read an explanation here:
And the original study here:
-14 ( +9 / -23 )
Hobbs was Sec of State and in charge of the election which took a week to count votes from heavily Republican areas, but broke for Hobbs.
Luck? Or by design?
She should have at least recused herself to avoid the image of malfeasance.
-10 ( +1 / -11 )
Infantino and Samoura added: “No one people or culture or nation is ‘better’ than any other.
That is simply not true and in fact impossible.
That would negate the ability for humans to improve their nations. And would mean we have made no improvements. or they think all peoples and nations equally improve or get worse all at the same time.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Here is a good resource on why your source is completely invalid because of their promotion of false, debunked information and impossible conspiracy theories
Except, of course, that link does not address mask efficacy at all.
One might even look at the url and conclude it is politically motivated.
I also note that before mask mandates were put in place, all of the mask studies on the WHO website were completely against mask use, generally showing negative efficacy. It is now harder or maybe impossible to find them on WHO. Well, they redefined pandemic as well, so no surprise there, as it is all about the politics, and not about science whatsoever. Covid era studies are unfortunately tainted by that politics.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
This is a good resource with some of the 150 peer reviewed studies showing masks AT BEST do not work:
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
What is this?
Are you frightened of Indian people in your town? "The EU did it," said Farage.
Please source that quote.
There has been a long trend of people of a certain political mindset that likes to demonise people they disagree with.
It is both unfair and dangerous.
0 ( +5 / -5 )
It was pure ideologically driven trickledown BS that has never and will never work.
Thanks for the ideological cliche.
Or it might be seen as tax cutting to stimulate growth ala Thatcher, Reagan, JFK.
-4 ( +3 / -7 )
Hard to know where to start with this nonsense.
Well do at least try, for my amusement.
0 ( +5 / -5 )
Chatham house opinion!!!
This was a soft coup d'etat by globalists!
Similar to what happened to Berlusconi in Italy and the Greek PM prior to that.
Truss' policies were good for the long-term economic health of GB, but the 'money markets' were in trouble due to the policies of the last 2 decades. The old EU policy of forcing pension funds to keep 70% of their assets in government bonds is a massive millstone as interest rates rise.
-9 ( +6 / -15 )
Typical Thailand with a legal grey zone.
If the govt feels recreational cannabis damages the reputation of Thailand, they will outlaw it strongly.
Anywhere selling it will then need, ummm... cooperation from the police.
Otherwise there will be expensive licenses. And still maybe cooperation from the local constabulary.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
UK met office has unfortunately been populated by climate zombie zealots. As usual, they are cherry picking data points again, rather as the fraudulent IPCC does. See a debunking of this latest report here:
-2 ( +4 / -6 )
And your post doesn't say the PCr test is inaccurate, it recommends a better test that can test for both flu and covid at the same time
Do you think the CDC would admit that? Perhaps read between the lines? Whybdidntheybwithdraw authorisation if the test was so good?
Keep on mind that the creator of the PCR system, Mullis, said it should not be used for diagnostics.
And isn't it strange that flu disappeared for a couple of years?
-4 ( +1 / -5 )