offguardian--2020-06-22--Face Masks Have Put Us In A State

Face Masks Have Put Us In A State

Face masks must be worn in the UK on public transport ( to begin with ) by order of the State .
We will explore the reasons why people might comply or resist this diktat .
What reasons are there to wear a face mask , do they make sense and what does our compliance or resistance say about us ?
The State Is A State Of Mind The State is a belief system .
It is a faith , rather like a religion .
There ’ s nothing intrinsically wrong with faith .
It doesn ’ t necessarily mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Faith can be a powerful force for good .
It all depend upon what the belief is .
If your faith dictates that you treat all with love , compassion and respect then your belief is “ right.
” If you live in accordance with your faith then you are living in the truth , regardless of which deity you follow .
However , if your faith teaches you that you are better than “ non believers , ” that yours in the only true way and that those who don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , deserve to be punished , you are “ wrong.
” You are not living in harmony with the truth .
People who believe in the State are called statists .
Those who don ’ t , broadly come under the umbrella term anarchists .
For statists , the anarchist is despised .
Life without their State is unimaginable , therefore those who wish to live without it must be evil .
The anarchist has long been reviled by statists as the dangerous subversive .
Despite the perpetual myth that “ anarchy ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is not what anarchy means .
Anarchy encompasses a broad range of political , economic and sociological perspectives with one commonality .
The State is considered both harmful and unnecessary .
For statists an absence of the State must mean “ chaos.
” A free for all with no law , no social security , no healthcare , no infrastructure and mob rule .
This is the opposite of anarchy .
Anarchy is not society without rules .
It is society without rulers .
All religions have their representatives .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rabbi ’ s etc .
They are perhaps the leading voices , but they aren ’ t the only representatives .
There are envoys , missionaries , TV evangelists , religious correspondents and so on .
The State is no different .
We have politicians and governmental advisers , as the leading voices , but there are also NGO spokespersons , union officials , the academic & scientific orthodoxy , lords and ladies , multinational CEO ’ s , central bankers , business leaders and more .
Of these , the most powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shape public opinion are the mainstream media ( MSM . )
The core tenet of the statist ’ s faith is that a small group of people are best placed to tell all the other people what to do .
This is a belief in absolute hierarchical authority .
There ’ s nothing wrong with hierarchical authority .
It is difficult to see how we could ever organise anything more than a barbecue without it .
It is over the issue of how we authorise it where the statists and the anarchists diverge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctor you temporarily cede your authority to them .
You trust that they know more about medical science than you do , so you allow them to make decisions about your health and follow their advice .
However , outside of your healthcare , you don ’ t permanently give your authority away to your doctor .
When you buy a car you don ’ t phone your GP to ask their permission .
Generally in life we cede our authority to others on a case by case basis .
Our authority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intact .
We retain our individual sovereignty .
Most people understand this .
We can become defensive , even aggressive , if we feel someone else is telling us what to do when we haven ’ t given them our specific authority to do so .
Yet for some reason , when it comes to the State , statists give this group of people absolute authority over every aspect of , not only their own , but everyone ’ s lives .
Just as religion is often based upon a belief in supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the devotee ’ s life , so statism accepts that special “ selected ” people have power and influence over the every aspect of the statist ’ s life .
In most religions you offer prayers to your deity , acknowledging your faith .
Statists offer votes to cede their individual sovereignty and autonomy to the State .
This isn ’ t a temporary arrangement .
Whoever you vote for you get the permanent State .
The State ’ s authority comes entirely from the statist .
Without their belief it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competing ideologies statists may follow , a trust in the legitimacy of absolute hierarchical authority is universal .
This trust is not shared by the anarchist .
Power corrupts absolutely , in the anarchists view , and history demonstrates it .
Much better to retain your own sovereignty and temporarily devolve authority , depending upon your needs at the time .
Just as we do nearly every day .
Anarchy is already the way we order society in our day to day lives .
We don ’ t need an overarching State to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go , who we work for , trade with or take advice from .
We can and do order our society despite interference from the State , not because of it .
The State takes money from us by force so that it can spend it on its priorities .
If we need to build a road , the State uses our money to employ a private contractor to build it .
Why do we need the middle men , ask the anarchists .
So they can take their cut ?
The State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to build roads and hospitals .
Absolute hierarchical authority over everything leads to nothing but corruption , oppression and war .
We know this , history teaches us this fact .
Yet we still persist with the idea that if we just vote harder next time it won ’ t happen again .
It is beyond ironic that the statist will often chide the anarchist for , what they see as , their naive perception of human nature .
Statists claim that it is inevitable that the corrupt , the violent and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Precisely the point made by anarchists , who suggest that not freely giving away your authority to the power crazed might therefore be a good idea .
The British like to think their modern democratic society has evolved to produce some sort of egalitarian meritocracy .
It hasn ’ t .
Relative inequality is as bad as it ’ s ever been while , at the same time , a tiny clique of carefully selected people rule us .
We never escaped the rule of the aristocracy .
It ’ s just that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We don ’ t .
We just elect their representatives .
Why Are You Really Wearing A Face Mask And so we come to the State ’ s decree that we should all wear face masks on public transport ( initially . )
Ostensibly , both to protect others from our own transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and to stop us catching the deadly virus .
It is perhaps worth noting , according to official statistics , despite the UK Lockdown regime producing one of the worst infection and mortality rates in the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has supposedly affected 0.45 % and led to the deaths of 0.06 % of the UK population .
If there are health risks associated with wearing face masks , and there are , this notion of protection rapidly becomes a nonsense .
However , people must have their reasons to wear a face mask .
So what are they ?
The first could be that you are a statist .
You believe that the state representatives ( government officials ) know more about reality than you do .
You trust them to tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their claim that they have special knowledge and have your best interests , and those of your fellow citizens , at heart .
You gave them your authority to control your life , and the lives of everyone else , when you participated in the ordination ritual .
You did this by putting a cross on a piece of paper some time ago .
In all likelihood you didn ’ t actually vote for your nominal rulers .
The 2019 UK general election turnout was 67.25 % of the eligible vote .
Boris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that total .
Just over 29.3 % of the British electorate voted for their representative government .
Nearly 71 % didn ’ t .
Seventy percent of the British people do not want Boris Johnson or the Conservatives to force them to obey their rules .
However , all conform because we think we live in a democracy .
For statists this is how it should be .
It doesn ’ t matter that by using the supposed democratic system , less than a third of the population determine what more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s the principle that matters .
The principle appears to be mob rule .
The second reason , one shared by many statists and anarchists alike , is that you are forced to do as you are told .
With a monopoly on the use of force , the State is the only body in society that can initiate force and get away with it .
While nearly everyone in the UK would say it is morally indefensible to use physical force to make someone do whatever you tell them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s OK for a tiny group of people in Westminster , Holyrood , The Senned and Stormont to use physical force , or the threat of it , to control millions .
Cognitive dissonance exemplified .
Nonetheless , it is what it is .
If you need to take the bus or the train to work you are now forced to wear a face mask .
Not because you believe there ’ s any point to it , but because you won ’ t be able to get to work and feed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are honest with ourselves , unless convinced by the science , we will wear a face mask on public transport for two reasons .
We are either happy to accept that special people we ’ ve never met have sole authority to tell us what to do , as a slave owner would command a willing slave , or we are scared that they will use force to punish or harm us if we don ’ t comply .
We call this a free and open democratic State .
The final reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask is that you are convinced by the scientific evidence .
You believe that donning a cheap or homemade face mask will protect you and others from a disease which you have a 0.45 % chance of contracting and a 99.94 % chance of surviving .
Why you would imagine that the science shows that wearing a crappy face mask will stave off the minuscule threat of infection is difficult to say .
For many , perhaps it is because that is what the mainstream media ( an organ of the State ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has said other things at other times .
On the 4th March the State ’ s Chief Medical Officer , Chris Whitty , said : On the 23rd April the State ’ s Chief Scientific Adviser , Patrick Vallance said : On the 24th April the State ’ s Health Secretary , Matt Hancock , said : On the 28th April the State ’ s Ministry of Defence Chief Scientific Adviser , Dame Angela McLean , representing the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies ( SAGE ) , said : An unusually clear and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 4th of June the UK State ’ s Secretary of Transport , Grant Shapps , told us that we did have to wear face-masks on public transport ?
Shapps said : Wearing a clinical N95 face mask is frowned upon by the State .
Better to wrap a scalf around your head , a bandanna , old handkerchief or one of those paper face masks you used to be able to buy from the market before the State put all the stall holders out of business .
Begging the question , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April and 4th June to convince the State that wearing a torn T shirt on your face will save you and others from COVID 19 ?
Albeit limited .
Obviously N95 standard face masks are better suited to the task than a bit of rag .
So what is the scientific evidence that N95 masks could protect you , or someone else , from a viral respiratory infection .
Smith , J.D .
et al .
( 2016 ) undertook further meta analysis of the available studies on face masks .
They stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( 2019 ) undertook a study of healthcare workers to assess the relative effectiveness of face masks and respirators : Long , Y. et al .
( 2020 ) looked at six randomised clinical trials ( RCT ’ s ) of face masks to ascertain if they protected either the wearer or others around them from any viral respiratory illness .
They didn ’ t : Face masks work well for surgeons who want to avoid dribbling or sneezing into their patients , but are useless when it comes to stopping viral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of COVID 19 there is no evidence that they achieve anything at all .
As far as anyone knows viruses spread through tiny long residence time aerosol particles .
The virions – the spiky ball we are all now familiar with – are much , much , smaller than the weave in the fabric , even of N95 clinical face masks .
If your hope is to protect yourself against a viral respiratory infection , covering your face with with a face mask you bought online is about as useful as concrete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify their silly policy ?
It seems analysis released by the Royal Society DELVE Initiative on 4th May , convinced SAGE to change their advice .
There are no RCT studies anywhere in the analysis which show any protective benefit of face masks for stopping viral respiratory infections .
This is because there aren ’ t any .
However , it does cite some MSM articles , a number of studies about water droplets spread when you exhale , which are obviously stopped when you cover your face , and some statements from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ None of which is relevant to demonstrating that face masks protect against viral respiratory infections .
It also cites some studies which again found no benefit from face masks .
The Royal DELVE also cite studies with no conclusions : It is impossible to see how the Royal Society concluded from their analysis that face masks should be widely worn .
Which is probably why they didn ’ t .
Ultimately they offered no conclusion at all : They could , but they almost certainly don ’ t .
Nor is there any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you find yourself sat on a bus struggling to breath through your mum ’ s tea towel , please take a moment to rationalise why you are doing it .
Are you doing it because you believe the State ’ s Transport Secretary has some special insight into ‘ da science ?
’ Less than a third of your fellow citizens devolved their authority to him .
Whether you were among that number or not , if you voted at all , you only have yourself to blame .
By doing so you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffering the consequences .
Are you wearing it because you recognise that not doing so could result in a fine , non payment of which could potentially place you behind bars ?
If so , perhaps it ’ s time to acknowledge that you are doing it under duress .
The threat of violence is clear and you have acquiesced .
It ’ s an offer you can ’ t refuse because you need to go to work .
They ’ ve got you , and there ’ s nothing you can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ask you to vote for your wannabe ruler .
Are you wearing it because you have been told that the policy is led by the science ?
The mainstream media said the science was settled and you believed it ?
This would suggest that you mistakenly believe it will protect you from a disease that not only presents virtually no threat to you at all ( if you are of working age ) it is disappearing so quickly vaccine developers are running out of test subjects ( not that they need any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should accept that you are wearing a face mask because reasons .
There really isn ’ t any more to it than that .
The State , on the other hand , has some very clear ambitions and ordering you to muzzle yourself is an important part of your operant conditioning .
By wearing your face mask for no reason , you are demonstrating your obedience to the State .
If you behave correctly some aspects of the lockdown may be lifted .
If you don ’ t , well… As the State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is going to be significant economic disruption .
As usual , times are going to be tough for the majority but multinational corporations are going to do very well out of it .
If you think about it , this might make you angry .
Therefore , your blind faith in your representative leaders matters a great deal to the State .
As the situation deteriorates , through necessity , people are going to resist .
Controlling the statist majority , through fear , is vital for the high priesthood of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moral high ground .
Comically , the MSM propaganda machine insist all this devastation is due to the impact of coronavirus .
Of course it isn ’ t .
It is entirely a result of the State ’ s deliberate lockdown policy decisions .
These are intended to create the permanent , abnormal future State being sold to you as the new normal .
Ripe for the Great Reset .
The deliberate destruction of the economy , the implosion of local communities , the removal of civil liberties , termination of small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and establishing deterrents to stop you socialising and interacting with others , would not have been possible had we not all been scared witless .
Something which SAGE were clear about from the outset .
In their discussion on March 23rd , SAGE ’ s behavioural science sub-group SPI-B presented a paper which has clearly influenced the State ’ s lockdown policy agenda .
This appears to be the only policy aspect that has been led by the science .
But it isn ’ t virology or epidemiology , it ’ s behavioural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPI-B stated .
Complacency , as far as the State is concerned , is not unquestioningly believing everything they tell you .
If you don ’ t accept their narrative , if you reject their edicts and have no faith in their authority , then you are ‘ complacent.
’ The State ’ s way is the only way .
This is not a tolerant religion .
Instilling fear in millions of people , to ensure they comply , requires a mass propaganda campaign .
SAGE were clear on the MSM ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Appendix B of the paper , SPI-B recommended the following : Your sense of personal threat is key for the State to get you to accept the Great Reset .
What better way to convince you than to cover everyone ’ s face ?
Fearful of disease , mistrusting and confused , the State is showing you a glimpse of hell .
Only total supplication will deliver your salvation in the form of a vaccine , immunity passports and universal basic income in a cashless society .
Everything your are , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlled by the State .
Not everyone wants this , though it seems the majority do .
So the next time you see someone refusing to wear a face mask , don ’ t assume that you are doing the right thing and they ’ re not , simply because you are the one wearing the mask .
If they resist the call to be afraid , if they refuse to social distance and reject the behaviour change that does not mean they don ’ t care about you or vulnerable people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps you should ask them why they refuse to wear the State ’ s face mask .
You can read more of Iain Davis ’ work at his blog In This Together

Iain Davis
Face masks must be worn in the UK on public transport (to begin with) by order of the State. We will explore the reasons why people might comply or resist this diktat. What reasons are there to wear a face mask, do they make sense and what does our compliance or resistance say about us?
The State Is A State Of Mind
The State is a belief system. It is a faith, rather like a religion. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with faith. It doesn’t necessarily mean the belief itself is “wrong.” Faith can be a powerful force for good. It all depend upon what the belief is.
If your faith dictates that you treat all with love, compassion and respect then your belief is “right.” If you live in accordance with your faith then you are living in the truth, regardless of which deity you follow.
However, if your faith teaches you that you are better than “non believers,” that yours in the only true way and that those who don’t follow your beliefs, or your deity, deserve to be punished, you are “wrong.” You are not living in harmony with the truth.
People who believe in the State are called statists. Those who don’t, broadly come under the umbrella term anarchists. For statists, the anarchist is despised. Life without their State is unimaginable, therefore those who wish to live without it must be evil. The anarchist has long been reviled by statists as the dangerous subversive.
Despite the perpetual myth that “anarchy” is synonymous with “chaos,” that is not what anarchy means. Anarchy encompasses a broad range of political, economic and sociological perspectives with one commonality. The State is considered both harmful and unnecessary.
For statists an absence of the State must mean “chaos.” A free for all with no law, no social security, no healthcare, no infrastructure and mob rule. This is the opposite of anarchy. Anarchy is not society without rules. It is society without rulers.
All religions have their representatives. There are cardinals, bishops, imams and and rabbi’s etc. They are perhaps the leading voices, but they aren’t the only representatives. There are envoys, missionaries, TV evangelists, religious correspondents and so on.
The State is no different. We have politicians and governmental advisers, as the leading voices, but there are also NGO spokespersons, union officials, the academic & scientific orthodoxy, lords and ladies, multinational CEO’s, central bankers, business leaders and more. Of these, the most powerful, in terms of their ability to shape public opinion are the mainstream media (MSM.)
The core tenet of the statist’s faith is that a small group of people are best placed to tell all the other people what to do. This is a belief in absolute hierarchical authority.
There’s nothing wrong with hierarchical authority. It is difficult to see how we could ever organise anything more than a barbecue without it. It is over the issue of how we authorise it where the statists and the anarchists diverge.
When you need to see a doctor you temporarily cede your authority to them. You trust that they know more about medical science than you do, so you allow them to make decisions about your health and follow their advice.
However, outside of your healthcare, you don’t permanently give your authority away to your doctor. When you buy a car you don’t phone your GP to ask their permission.
Generally in life we cede our authority to others on a case by case basis. Our authority, in all other decisions, remains otherwise intact. We retain our individual sovereignty.
Most people understand this. We can become defensive, even aggressive, if we feel someone else is telling us what to do when we haven’t given them our specific authority to do so.
Yet for some reason, when it comes to the State, statists give this group of people absolute authority over every aspect of, not only their own, but everyone’s lives. Just as religion is often based upon a belief in supreme beings, who have power or influence over the devotee’s life, so statism accepts that special “selected” people have power and influence over the every aspect of the statist’s life.
In most religions you offer prayers to your deity, acknowledging your faith. Statists offer votes to cede their individual sovereignty and autonomy to the State. This isn’t a temporary arrangement. Whoever you vote for you get the permanent State.
The State’s authority comes entirely from the statist. Without their belief it would be nothing. Regardless of any other competing ideologies statists may follow, a trust in the legitimacy of absolute hierarchical authority is universal.
This trust is not shared by the anarchist. Power corrupts absolutely, in the anarchists view, and history demonstrates it. Much better to retain your own sovereignty and temporarily devolve authority, depending upon your needs at the time. Just as we do nearly every day.
Anarchy is already the way we order society in our day to day lives. We don’t need an overarching State to control who we meet, where we go, who we work for, trade with or take advice from. We can and do order our society despite interference from the State, not because of it.
The State takes money from us by force so that it can spend it on its priorities. If we need to build a road, the State uses our money to employ a private contractor to build it. Why do we need the middle men, ask the anarchists. So they can take their cut?
The State doesn’t just take our money to build roads and hospitals. Absolute hierarchical authority over everything leads to nothing but corruption, oppression and war. We know this, history teaches us this fact. Yet we still persist with the idea that if we just vote harder next time it won’t happen again.
It is beyond ironic that the statist will often chide the anarchist for, what they see as, their naive perception of human nature. Statists claim that it is inevitable that the corrupt, the violent and the unworthy will seek and exploit power. Precisely the point made by anarchists, who suggest that not freely giving away your authority to the power crazed might therefore be a good idea.
The British like to think their modern democratic society has evolved to produce some sort of egalitarian meritocracy. It hasn’t.
Relative inequality is as bad as it’s ever been while, at the same time, a tiny clique of carefully selected people rule us. We never escaped the rule of the aristocracy. It’s just that we now think we elect them. We don’t. We just elect their representatives.
Why Are You Really Wearing A Face Mask
And so we come to the State’s decree that we should all wear face masks on public transport (initially.) Ostensibly, both to protect others from our own transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and to stop us catching the deadly virus. It is perhaps worth noting, according to official statistics, despite the UK Lockdown regime producing one of the worst infection and mortality rates in the world, we are talking about a disease that has supposedly affected 0.45% and led to the deaths of 0.06% of the UK population.
If there are health risks associated with wearing face masks, and there are, this notion of protection rapidly becomes a nonsense. However, people must have their reasons to wear a face mask. So what are they?
The first could be that you are a statist. You believe that the state representatives (government officials) know more about reality than you do. You trust them to tell you what to do. You accept their claim that they have special knowledge and have your best interests, and those of your fellow citizens, at heart.
You gave them your authority to control your life, and the lives of everyone else, when you participated in the ordination ritual. You did this by putting a cross on a piece of paper some time ago.
In all likelihood you didn’t actually vote for your nominal rulers. The 2019 UK general election turnout was 67.25% of the eligible vote. Boris Johnson’s Conservatives received 43.6% of that total. Just over 29.3% of the British electorate voted for their representative government. Nearly 71% didn’t.
Seventy percent of the British people do not want Boris Johnson or the Conservatives to force them to obey their rules. However, all conform because we think we live in a democracy. For statists this is how it should be.
It doesn’t matter that by using the supposed democratic system, less than a third of the population determine what more than two thirds can do and say. It’s the principle that matters. The principle appears to be mob rule.
The second reason, one shared by many statists and anarchists alike, is that you are forced to do as you are told. With a monopoly on the use of force, the State is the only body in society that can initiate force and get away with it.
While nearly everyone in the UK would say it is morally indefensible to use physical force to make someone do whatever you tell them, it is surprising how many think it’s OK for a tiny group of people in Westminster, Holyrood, The Senned and Stormont to use physical force, or the threat of it, to control millions. Cognitive dissonance exemplified.
Nonetheless, it is what it is. If you need to take the bus or the train to work you are now forced to wear a face mask. Not because you believe there’s any point to it, but because you won’t be able to get to work and feed your family otherwise.
So, if we are honest with ourselves, unless convinced by the science, we will wear a face mask on public transport for two reasons. We are either happy to accept that special people we’ve never met have sole authority to tell us what to do, as a slave owner would command a willing slave, or we are scared that they will use force to punish or harm us if we don’t comply. We call this a free and open democratic State.
The Science Behind Wearing A Face Mask
The final reason you might elect to wear a face mask is that you are convinced by the scientific evidence. You believe that donning a cheap or homemade face mask will protect you and others from a disease which you have a 0.45% chance of contracting and a 99.94% chance of surviving.
Why you would imagine that the science shows that wearing a crappy face mask will stave off the minuscule threat of infection is difficult to say. For many, perhaps it is because that is what the mainstream media (an organ of the State) told them. However, the State has said other things at other times.
On the 4th March the State’s Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, said:
In terms of wearing a mask our advice is clear, that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection really reduces the risk almost not at all.”
On the 23rd April the State’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Patrick Vallance said:
The evidence on face masks has always been quite variable, quite weak. It’s quite difficult to know exactly, there’s no real trials on it.”
On the 24th April the State’s Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, said:
The evidence around the use of masks by the general public, especially outdoors, is extremely weak.”
On the 28th April the State’s Ministry of Defence Chief Scientific Adviser, Dame Angela McLean, representing the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), said:
The recommendation from SAGE is completely clear, which is there is weak evidence of a small effect in which a face mask can prevent a source of infection going from somebody who is infected to the people around them.”
An unusually clear and consistent message from the State. On the 4th of June the UK State’s Secretary of Transport, Grant Shapps, told us that we did have to wear face-masks on public transport? Shapps said:
That doesn’t mean surgical masks, which we must keep for clinical settings. It means the kind of face covering you can easily make at home….wearing a face covering offers some – albeit limited – protection against the spread of the virus.”
Wearing a clinical N95 face mask is frowned upon by the State. Better to wrap a scalf around your head, a bandanna, old handkerchief or one of those paper face masks you used to be able to buy from the market before the State put all the stall holders out of business.
Begging the question, what new scientific breakthrough emerged between the 29th April and 4th June to convince the State that wearing a torn T shirt on your face will save you and others from COVID 19? Albeit limited.
Obviously N95 standard face masks are better suited to the task than a bit of rag. So what is the scientific evidence that N95 masks could protect you, or someone else, from a viral respiratory infection.
Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) concluded:
N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.”
Cowling, B. et al. (2010) found:
None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H).”
bin-Reza et al. (2012) meta analysis discovered:
There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”
Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) undertook further meta analysis of the available studies on face masks. They stated:
We identified 6 clinical studies … In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”
Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) undertook a study of healthcare workers to assess the relative effectiveness of face masks and respirators:
Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Long, Y. et al. (2020) looked at six randomised clinical trials (RCT’s) of face masks to ascertain if they protected either the wearer or others around them from any viral respiratory illness. They didn’t:
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 using N95 respirators and surgical masks….The 4 use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Face masks work well for surgeons who want to avoid dribbling or sneezing into their patients, but are useless when it comes to stopping viral infections. In terms of preventing the spread of COVID 19 there is no evidence that they achieve anything at all.
As far as anyone knows viruses spread through tiny long residence time aerosol particles. The virions – the spiky ball we are all now familiar with – are much, much, smaller than the weave in the fabric, even of N95 clinical face masks.
If your hope is to protect yourself against a viral respiratory infection, covering your face with with a face mask you bought online is about as useful as concrete lifebuoy. So how do the State justify their silly policy? It seems analysis released by the Royal Society DELVE Initiative on 4th May, convinced SAGE to change their advice.
There are no RCT studies anywhere in the analysis which show any protective benefit of face masks for stopping viral respiratory infections. This is because there aren’t any.
However, it does cite some MSM articles, a number of studies about water droplets spread when you exhale, which are obviously stopped when you cover your face, and some statements from the U.S. Center for Disease Control. None of which is relevant to demonstrating that face masks protect against viral respiratory infections.
It also cites some studies which again found no benefit from face masks.
Brainard et al. (2020) stated:
The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of face masks as a protective measure against COVID-19.”
The Royal DELVE also cite studies with no conclusions:
The lack of statistical power prevents us to draw formal conclusion regarding effectiveness of face masks in the context of a seasonal epidemic.”
Canini et al. (2010)
It is impossible to see how the Royal Society concluded from their analysis that face masks should be widely worn. Which is probably why they didn’t. Ultimately they offered no conclusion at all:
Face masks could offer an important tool for contributing to the management of community transmission of Covid19.”
They could, but they almost certainly don’t. Nor is there any reason to think they will.
Wearing A Face Mask Because Reasons
If you find yourself sat on a bus struggling to breath through your mum’s tea towel, please take a moment to rationalise why you are doing it. Are you doing it because you believe the State’s Transport Secretary has some special insight into ‘da science?’
Less than a third of your fellow citizens devolved their authority to him. Whether you were among that number or not, if you voted at all, you only have yourself to blame. By doing so you legitimised his power and now you are suffering the consequences.
Are you wearing it because you recognise that not doing so could result in a fine, non payment of which could potentially place you behind bars?
If so, perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that you are doing it under duress. The threat of violence is clear and you have acquiesced. It’s an offer you can’t refuse because you need to go to work. They’ve got you, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Remember that next time they ask you to vote for your wannabe ruler.
Are you wearing it because you have been told that the policy is led by the science? The mainstream media said the science was settled and you believed it?
This would suggest that you mistakenly believe it will protect you from a disease that not only presents virtually no threat to you at all (if you are of working age) it is disappearing so quickly vaccine developers are running out of test subjects (not that they need any.)
From your perspective maybe you should accept that you are wearing a face mask because reasons. There really isn’t any more to it than that.
The State, on the other hand, has some very clear ambitions and ordering you to muzzle yourself is an important part of your operant conditioning. By wearing your face mask for no reason, you are demonstrating your obedience to the State. If you behave correctly some aspects of the lockdown may be lifted. If you don’t, well…
As the State forges ahead with the Great Reset, there is going to be significant economic disruption.
As usual, times are going to be tough for the majority but multinational corporations are going to do very well out of it. If you think about it, this might make you angry. Therefore, your blind faith in your representative leaders matters a great deal to the State.
As the situation deteriorates, through necessity, people are going to resist. Controlling the statist majority, through fear, is vital for the high priesthood of the State to maintain their illegitimate claims to the moral high ground.
Comically, the MSM propaganda machine insist all this devastation is due to the impact of coronavirus. Of course it isn’t. It is entirely a result of the State’s deliberate lockdown policy decisions.
These are intended to create the permanent, abnormal future State being sold to you as the new normal. Ripe for the Great Reset.
The deliberate destruction of the economy, the implosion of local communities, the removal of civil liberties, termination of small businesses, eradication of the high street and establishing deterrents to stop you socialising and interacting with others, would not have been possible had we not all been scared witless. Something which SAGE were clear about from the outset.
In their discussion on March 23rd, SAGE’s behavioural science sub-group SPI-B presented a paper which has clearly influenced the State’s lockdown policy agenda.
This appears to be the only policy aspect that has been led by the science.
But it isn’t virology or epidemiology, it’s behavioural science aimed at your behaviour modification. SPI-B stated.
A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened…The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent.”
Complacency, as far as the State is concerned, is not unquestioningly believing everything they tell you. If you don’t accept their narrative, if you reject their edicts and have no faith in their authority, then you are ‘complacent.’ The State’s way is the only way. This is not a tolerant religion.
Instilling fear in millions of people, to ensure they comply, requires a mass propaganda campaign. SAGE were clear on the MSM’s role. One they have dutifully fulfilled.
In Appendix B of the paper, SPI-B recommended the following:
Use media to increase sense of personal threat.”
Your sense of personal threat is key for the State to get you to accept the Great Reset. What better way to convince you than to cover everyone’s face?
Fearful of disease, mistrusting and confused, the State is showing you a glimpse of hell. Only total supplication will deliver your salvation in the form of a vaccine, immunity passports and universal basic income in a cashless society. Everything your are, everything you do and everything you believe controlled by the State.
Not everyone wants this, though it seems the majority do. So the next time you see someone refusing to wear a face mask, don’t assume that you are doing the right thing and they’re not, simply because you are the one wearing the mask.
If they resist the call to be afraid, if they refuse to social distance and reject the behaviour change that does not mean they don’t care about you or vulnerable people.
In all likelihood they care deeply. Perhaps you should ask them why they refuse to wear the State’s face mask.
You can read more of Iain Davis’ work at his blog In This Together


offguardian--2020-06-23--The “Deadly” Hydroxychloroquine Publishing Scandal

A publishing scandal recently erupted around the use of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) to treat Covid 19 .
It is also known as quinine and chloroquine , and is on the WHO list of essential medicines .
The bark of the South American quina-quina tree has been used to treat malaria for 400 years .
Quinine , a generic drug costing pennies a dose , is available for purchase online .
In rare cases it can cause dizziness and irregular heartbeat .
In late May , 2020 , The Lancet published a four-author study claiming that HCQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been shown conclusively to be a hazard for heart death .
The data allegedly covered 96,000 patients in 671 hospitals on six continents .
After the article had spent 13 days in the headlines , dogged by scientific objections , three of the authors retracted it on June 5 .
Meanwhile , during an expert closed-door meeting leaked May 24 in France , The Lancet and NEJM editors explained how financially powerful pharmaceutical players were “ criminally ” corrupting medical science to advance their interests .
On May 22 , 2020 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s two top medical journals – published the stunning claim that 671 hospitals on six continents were reporting life-threatening heart rhythms in patients taking hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) for Covid-19 .
The headlines that followed were breath-taking .
Although wider access to the drug had recently been urged in a petition signed by nearly 500,000 French doctors and citizens , WHO and other agencies responded to the article by immediately suspending the clinical trials that may have cleared it for use .
North American headlines did not mention that HCQ has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the list began in 1977 .
Nor did they mention an investigative report on the bad press that hydroxychloroquine had been getting prior to May 22 , and how financial interests had been intersecting with medicine to favour Gilead ’ s new , more expensive drug , Remdesivir .
The statistics behind the headlines As a Canadian health sciences librarian who delivered statistics to a large public health agency for 25 years , I sensed almost immediately that the article had to be flawed .
Why ?
Because health statistics are developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , causing them to exist in isolated data “ stovepipes.
” Many health databases , even within a single region or country , are not standardized and are thus virtually useless for comparative research .
How , I wondered , could 671 hospitals worldwide , including Asia and Africa , report comparable treatment outcomes for 96,000 Covid patients ?
And so quickly ?
The Lancet is strong in public health and surely suspected this .
Its award-winning editor-in-chief , Dr. Richard Horton , has been in his job since 1995 .
So how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepted ?
Here is what I discovered .
To some extent , authors submitting articles to medical journals are on the honour system , in which cited databases are trusted by the editors , yet are available for inspection if questioned .
[ 2 ] On May 28 , an open letter from 200 scientists to the authors and The Lancet requested details of the data and an independent audit .
The letter was “ signed by clinicians , medical researchers , statisticians , and ethicists from across the world.
” ( full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to supply the data , or even the hospital names .
Meanwhile , investigative analysis was showing the statistics to be deeply flawed .
If this were not enough , the lead author was found to be in a conflict of interest with HCQ ’ s rival drug , Remdesivir : In view of the foregoing , the article was retracted by three of its authors on June 5 .
How did this fraud get past The Lancet reviewers in the first place ?
The answer emerges from what has remained an obscure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quoted in the alternative media .
On May 24 , a closed-door Chatham House expert meeting about Covid included the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and the NEJM .
Comments regarding the article were leaked to the French press by a well-known health figure , Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy , [ xvii ] who felt compelled to blow the whistle .
His resulting BFM TV interview was posted to YouTube with English subtitles on May 31 , but it was not picked up by the English-speaking media .
These were The Lancet editor Dr. Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Dr. Douste-Blazy : Doust-Blazy made his own comments on Horton ’ s words : The final words in Doust-Blazy ’ s interview were : The scientific process of building a trustworthy knowledge base is one of the foundations of our civilization .
Violating this process is a crime against both truth and humanity .
Evidently the North American media does not consider this extraordinary crime to be worth reporting .
Originally published at Global Research .
An interesting side note , before this fake study was published , Dr Wolfgang Wodarg theorised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher death rate in patients of African ancestry – ed .

Elizabeth Woodworth
Summary
A publishing scandal recently erupted around the use of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat Covid 19. It is also known as quinine and chloroquine, and is on the WHO list of essential medicines.
The bark of the South American quina-quina tree has been used to treat malaria for 400 years. Quinine, a generic drug costing pennies a dose, is available for purchase online. In rare cases it can cause dizziness and irregular heartbeat.
In late May, 2020, The Lancet published a four-author study claiming that HCQ used in hospitals to treat Covid-19 had been shown conclusively to be a hazard for heart death. The data allegedly covered 96,000 patients in 671 hospitals on six continents.
After the article had spent 13 days in the headlines, dogged by scientific objections, three of the authors retracted it on June 5.
Meanwhile, during an expert closed-door meeting leaked May 24 in France, The Lancet and NEJM editors explained how financially powerful pharmaceutical players were “criminally” corrupting medical science to advance their interests.
*
On May 22, 2020, the time-honoured Lancet – one of the world’s two top medical journals – published the stunning claim that 671 hospitals on six continents were reporting life-threatening heart rhythms in patients taking hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for Covid-19.
The headlines that followed were breath-taking.
Although wider access to the drug had recently been urged in a petition signed by nearly 500,000 French doctors and citizens, WHO and other agencies responded to the article by immediately suspending the clinical trials that may have cleared it for use.
North American headlines did not mention that HCQ has been on the WHO list of essential drugs since the list began in 1977. Nor did they mention an investigative report on the bad press that hydroxychloroquine had been getting prior to May 22, and how financial interests had been intersecting with medicine to favour Gilead’s new, more expensive drug, Remdesivir.
The statistics behind the headlines
As a Canadian health sciences librarian who delivered statistics to a large public health agency for 25 years, I sensed almost immediately that the article had to be flawed.
Why? Because health statistics are developed for different purposes and in different contexts, causing them to exist in isolated data “stovepipes.” Many health databases, even within a single region or country, are not standardized and are thus virtually useless for comparative research.
How, I wondered, could 671 hospitals worldwide, including Asia and Africa, report comparable treatment outcomes for 96,000 Covid patients? And so quickly?
The Lancet is strong in public health and surely suspected this. Its award-winning editor-in-chief, Dr. Richard Horton, has been in his job since 1995.
So how could the damning HCQ claims have been accepted? Here is what I discovered.
The honour system in medical publishing
To some extent, authors submitting articles to medical journals are on the honour system, in which cited databases are trusted by the editors, yet are available for inspection if questioned.[2]
On May 28, an open letter from 200 scientists to the authors and The Lancet requested details of the data and an independent audit. The letter was “signed by clinicians, medical researchers, statisticians, and ethicists from across the world.” (full text here.)
The authors declined to supply the data, or even the hospital names. Meanwhile, investigative analysis was showing the statistics to be deeply flawed.
If this were not enough, the lead author was found to be in a conflict of interest with HCQ’s rival drug, Remdesivir:
Dr. Mandeep Mehra, the lead co-author is a director at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, which is credited with funding the study. Dr. Mehra and The Lancet failed to disclose that Brigham Hospital has a partnership with Gilead and is currently conducting two trials testing Remdesivir, the prime competitor of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19, the focus of the study.”
In view of the foregoing, the article was retracted by three of its authors on June 5.
How did this fraud get past The Lancet reviewers in the first place?
The answer emerges from what has remained an obscure French interview, although it has been quoted in the alternative media.
On May 24, a closed-door Chatham House expert meeting about Covid included the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and the NEJM. Comments regarding the article were leaked to the French press by a well-known health figure, Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy,[xvii] who felt compelled to blow the whistle.
His resulting BFM TV interview was posted to YouTube with English subtitles on May 31, but it was not picked up by the English-speaking media.
These were The Lancet editor Dr. Richard Horton’s words, as reported by Dr. Douste-Blazy:
If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want to conclude.”
Doust-Blazy made his own comments on Horton’s words:
I never thought the boss of The Lancet could say that. And the boss of the New England Journal of Medicine too. He even said it was ‘criminal’. The word was used by them.”
The final words in Doust-Blazy’s interview were:
When there is an outbreak like Covid, in reality, there are people like us – doctors – who see mortality and suffering. And there are people who see dollars. That’s it.”
The scientific process of building a trustworthy knowledge base is one of the foundations of our civilization. Violating this process is a crime against both truth and humanity.
Evidently the North American media does not consider this extraordinary crime to be worth reporting.
Originally published at Global Research. An interesting side note, before this fake study was published, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg theorised that use of HCQ may explain the higher death rate in patients of African ancestry – ed.
Notes:- [1] Famous weekly British medical journal, founded in 1823. [2] The Lancet and NEJM editors could not be expected to comb through data from 671 hospitals to verify their accuracy – especially when submitted by four doctors.


offguardian--2020-06-23--WATCH: Who Will Fact Check the Fact Checkers?

We ’ ve all come across online fact checkers that purport to warn us away from independent media sites under @ @ @ @ @ from fake news .
But who is behind these fact check sites ?
How do @ @ @ @ @ these ham-fisted attempts at soft censorship aren ’ t the solution to online misinformation , @ @ @ @ @ for this week ’ s important edition of The Corbett Report podcast , where we @ @ @ @ @ information gatekeeping and ask “ Who will fact check the fact checkers ?
” For @ @ @ @ @ audio-only version click here .

We’ve all come across online fact checkers that purport to warn us away from independent media sites under the guise of protecting us from fake news. But who is behind these fact check sites? How do they operate? And if these ham-fisted attempts at soft censorship aren’t the solution to online misinformation, what is? Join James for this week’s important edition of The Corbett Report podcast, where we explore the murky world of information gatekeeping and ask “Who will fact check the fact checkers?”
For links, sources and an audio-only version click here. SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN For direct-transfer bank details click here. Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest vKontakte


offguardian--2020-06-23--Site Announcement – E-mail Subscription Issues

Recently we have received several emails from subscribers , worried that they are no longer receiving updates and notifications when @ @ @ @ @ Rather than reply individually , we thought it best to simply make a group announcement @ @ @ @ @ have had to turn off email notifications following some technical problems with the third-party software @ @ @ @ @ our mailing list .
We are currently researching better options , in the hopes of @ @ @ @ @ next few days .
Thank you for the concern and kind words expressed in your @ @ @ @ @ the inconvenience .

Recently we have received several emails from subscribers, worried that they are no longer receiving updates and notifications when we publish new content. Rather than reply individually, we thought it best to simply make a group announcement.
In short, we have had to turn off email notifications following some technical problems with the third-party software we use to automatically contact our mailing list.
We are currently researching better options, in the hopes of resuming normal service in the next few days.
Thank you for the concern and kind words expressed in your emails.
And apologies for the inconvenience.
OffG Team


offguardian--2020-06-24--Colorado Adopts Mandatory Vaccinations for Children

Since the arrival of the coronavirus , the use of and familiarity with vaccines has dramatically increased prompting a more aware and questioning public .
With little more than a 48-hour public notice , many Coloradans were enjoying a brilliant Sunday afternoon as the State Senate Health and Insurance Committee was squirreled away in the confines of the State Capitol to approve the School Entry Immunization Act , also known as SB 20-163 .
While a Sunday afternoon may not seem an appropriate time for a legislative body to accept witness testimony or to conduct its legislative business unless there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participation .
That kind of strategy has a way of boomeranging with a loss of public trust and confidence ; yet the Democrats had an intense legislative urge to codify SB 163 with as little public input as possible .
The Dems control both Houses of the General Assembly as well as the Governor ’ s mansion ; thereby controlling the State ’ s entire legislative agenda .
What the Democrats were not counting on was Robert F. Kennedy , Jr. , on his way to becoming a national icon , who arrived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was allotted two minutes to address the committee .
What else the Dems were not counting on was a last-minute rally attended by 3,000 outside the Capitol that Sunday afternoon .
Kennedy quoted one of the Democratic members of the Committee who told the media : Speaking to the throng , Kennedy went on to call out the Democrats : Adoption of SB 163 was accomplished on a party-line vote ; beginning with Committee approval and through the Senate and House votes to adoption .
During House consideration , a bipartisan amendment was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2022 election but the majority on the Conference Committee removed that language .
In addition , much of the state ’ s MSM provided minimal reporting on the Dems slipping SB 163 through on a Sunday afternoon , Kennedy ’ s appearance before the Committee or the size of the last-minute rally .
As its name implies , SB 163 mandates “ immunizations “ for all children entering Colorado public schools ; thereby taking the decision out of the parent ’ s hands and requiring a doctor to certify approval .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ akin to Orwell ’ s 1984 Big Brother regime is disturbing .
SB 163 requires the State ’ s educational system to aid and abet in the monitoring of its students as it requires each public school to collect each proof of immunization and each exemption request that is filed .
Each school must also establish a tracking system and provide an annual report on that school ’ s rate of immunizations and the number of exemptions issued .
Such bureaucratese indicates , rather than a parental responsibility , each child ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district throughout that child ’ s history as a student .
Of special interest , SB 163 indicates there is an onerous “ submission process ” for those wishing to claim a non-medical exemption such as a “ religious belief whose teachings are opposed to immunizations or a personal belief opposed to immunizations.
” Those individuals must submit a “ certificate ” that their chosen religion has adopted a policy regarding vaccinations and a certificate that they have completed an online “ educational module “ , which you can expect to be little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtues of vaccinations .
As adopted , SB 163 is compatible with another totalitarian oriented legislation introduced by Congressional Democrats as HR 6666 , the Trace Act ( Testing , Reaching and Contacting Everyone ) .
The TRACE Act will establish a nationwide vaccine monitoring system with a force of vaccine tracking agents .
Much of the American public remains unaware that frequently used synthetic materials such as mercury , aluminum , msg , formaldehyde , polysorbate 80. and glyphosate are routinely inserted ( among other ingredients ) , which RFK Jr identifies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autoimmune disease .
The US was the first country in the world to be founded on the concept that each person has an inherent individual right to live their own life without government intrusion .
Those rights were enshrined in the Bill of Rights , the Fourteenth Amendment and remain a bedrock of the American system .
Just as the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision was based on an individual right to choose , the same inherent right exists for those who deserve the choice to vaccinate .
Colorado Governor Jared Polis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
Renee Parsons is a former member of the ACLU ’ s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter .
She has been an elected public official in Colorado , an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington DC .
She may be reached at .

Renée Parsons
Since the arrival of the coronavirus, the use of and familiarity with vaccines has dramatically increased prompting a more aware and questioning public. With little more than a 48-hour public notice, many Coloradans were enjoying a brilliant Sunday afternoon as the State Senate Health and Insurance Committee was squirreled away in the confines of the State Capitol to approve the School Entry Immunization Act, also known as SB 20-163.
While a Sunday afternoon may not seem an appropriate time for a legislative body to accept witness testimony or to conduct its legislative business unless there is a clear intent to limit public participation. That kind of strategy has a way of boomeranging with a loss of public trust and confidence; yet the Democrats had an intense legislative urge to codify SB 163 with as little public input as possible. The Dems control both Houses of the General Assembly as well as the Governor’s mansion; thereby controlling the State’s entire legislative agenda.
What the Democrats were not counting on was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on his way to becoming a national icon, who arrived to testify against SB 136. He was allotted two minutes to address the committee. What else the Dems were not counting on was a last-minute rally attended by 3,000 outside the Capitol that Sunday afternoon. Kennedy quoted one of the Democratic members of the Committee who told the media:
If we can’t get a vaccination bill passed during a pandemic, then we’ll never get it passed.”
Speaking to the throng, Kennedy went on to call out the Democrats:
I am a lifelong Democrat …what they are doing here today is antithetical to every value that the Democratic party has expressed in its 200 year history.”
Adoption of SB 163 was accomplished on a party-line vote; beginning with Committee approval and through the Senate and House votes to adoption. During House consideration, a bipartisan amendment was added to allow for a voter referendum in the 2022 election but the majority on the Conference Committee removed that language.
In addition, much of the state’s MSM provided minimal reporting on the Dems slipping SB 163 through on a Sunday afternoon, Kennedy’s appearance before the Committee or the size of the last-minute rally.
As its name implies, SB 163 mandates “immunizations“ for all children entering Colorado public schools; thereby taking the decision out of the parent’s hands and requiring a doctor to certify approval. The fact that the bill contains elements akin to Orwell’s 1984 Big Brother regime is disturbing.
SB 163 requires the State’s educational system to aid and abet in the monitoring of its students as it requires each public school to collect each proof of immunization and each exemption request that is filed.
Each school must also establish a tracking system and provide an annual report on that school’s rate of immunizations and the number of exemptions issued.
Such bureaucratese indicates, rather than a parental responsibility, each child’s vaccination will be tracked by the school district throughout that child’s history as a student.
Of special interest, SB 163 indicates there is an onerous “submission process” for those wishing to claim a non-medical exemption such as a “religious belief whose teachings are opposed to immunizations or a personal belief opposed to immunizations.”
Those individuals must submit a “certificate” that their chosen religion has adopted a policy regarding vaccinations and a certificate that they have completed an online “educational module“, which you can expect to be little more than a one-sided harangue on the virtues of vaccinations.
As adopted, SB 163 is compatible with another totalitarian oriented legislation introduced by Congressional Democrats as HR 6666, the Trace Act (Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone). The TRACE Act will establish a nationwide vaccine monitoring system with a force of vaccine tracking agents.
Much of the American public remains unaware that frequently used synthetic materials such as mercury, aluminum, msg, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80. and glyphosate are routinely inserted (among other ingredients), which RFK Jr identifies as neurotoxins, carcinogens or related to autoimmune disease.
The US was the first country in the world to be founded on the concept that each person has an inherent individual right to live their own life without government intrusion. Those rights were enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment and remain a bedrock of the American system. Just as the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision was based on an individual right to choose, the same inherent right exists for those who deserve the choice to vaccinate.
Colorado Governor Jared Polis has promised to sign SB 163 into law.
Renee Parsons is a former member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She may be reached at [email protected] .


offguardian--2020-06-24--“Covid-19 Has Turned Public Health into a Patient-Killing Experiment”

Potentially lethal doses of the therapeutic drug hydroxychloroquine are being administered in ‘ clinical trials ’ , sometimes without patient consent .
Nearly a quarter of those participating in one such trial subsequently died .
From the beginning of the SARS-COV-2/COVID19 pandemic rollout there have been disturbing hints , rumours and even overt whistleblower claims of seemingly gross medical malpractice connected with the treatment and handling of allegedly infected people .
We have heard about mandatory Do Not Resuscitate orders issued for the elderly , cognitively challenged people , autistic people and even children with fairly minor congenital conditions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of invasive ventilation that can only increase the numbers of covid19 deaths ’ , and of general levels of incompetence and poor practice that must have the same result .
And now we have evidence of three clinical trials which require patients to be given up to 4 times the normal dosage of hydroxychloroquine , with or without their consent .
In one of these studies over 25 % of patients died .
This has been unearthed by Dr. Meryl Nass MD , and is covered in detail over at her site and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a site dedicated to exposing unethical practice in the medical community .
The three studies are : Solidarity , conducted by the World Health Organization , on 3500 Covid-19 patients at 400 hospitals , across 35 countries .
As well as Hydroxychloroqine the trial included Remdesivir , Lopinavir with Ritonavir , Lopinavir with Ritonavir plus Interferon beta-1a .
Recovery , conducted in the UK , sponsored by the Wellcome Trust ( GlaxoSmithKline ) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK government .
1,542 patients took part , of whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an ongoing multi-national project that is now trialing hydroxychloroquine as a SARSCOV2 therapy .
Doses employed in all studies were way above normal therapeutic doses and could well have proved fatal , especially to the very frail and compromised people enrolled in the trial , many of whom were already on ventilators or other forms of assisted breathing .
In fact to even be considered for the Remap trial a patient had to be “ close to death , either on a ventilator or in shock , on pressor medications.
” Neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients with poor kidney or liver function , who might have increased difficulty in processing the drug .
Only actual liver failure was grounds for reducing the dose : Patient consent was not considered necessary : Ironically , the Solidarity hydroxychloroquine trial was suspended on May 25th following the Surgisphere report in The Lancet that claimed 35 % higher death rates in patients receiving Hydroxychloroquine , but which later turned out to be fraudulent , and indeed Nass suggests these medical trials are cynically sacrificing human subjects as part of the ongoing war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prove it does not work or is unsafe : This is more than possible of course , but I also think we need to set these frankly murderous “ trials ” within the wider context mentioned above – the distribution of DNRs to healthy or mildly compromised people , the brutal system of almost deliberately induced and needless deaths described by the whistleblower nurses in the US , the deaths by ‘ accidental ’ neglect in care homes .
These are all beginning to add up to something very dark and very strange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond public scrutiny .
Whether this is deliberate policy or some dreadful perfect storm of institutionalised fear and chronic under-funding is hard to say .
But something truly grotesque and potentially evil is going on here , and we can ’ t afford to ignore it .

Catte Black
Potentially lethal doses of the therapeutic drug hydroxychloroquine are being administered in ‘clinical trials’, sometimes without patient consent. Nearly a quarter of those participating in one such trial subsequently died.
From the beginning of the SARS-COV-2/COVID19 pandemic rollout there have been disturbing hints, rumours and even overt whistleblower claims of seemingly gross medical malpractice connected with the treatment and handling of allegedly infected people.
We have heard about mandatory Do Not Resuscitate orders issued for the elderly, cognitively challenged people, autistic people and even children with fairly minor congenital conditions.
We have heard of terrifyingly inappropriate usage of invasive ventilation that can only increase the numbers of covid19 deaths’, and of general levels of incompetence and poor practice that must have the same result.
And now we have evidence of three clinical trials which require patients to be given up to 4 times the normal dosage of hydroxychloroquine, with or without their consent. In one of these studies over 25% of patients died.
This has been unearthed by Dr. Meryl Nass MD, and is covered in detail over at her site and at the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a site dedicated to exposing unethical practice in the medical community.
The three studies are:
Solidarity, conducted by the World Health Organization, on 3500 Covid-19 patients at 400 hospitals, across 35 countries. As well as Hydroxychloroqine the trial included Remdesivir, Lopinavir with Ritonavir, Lopinavir with Ritonavir plus Interferon beta-1a.
Recovery, conducted in the UK, sponsored by the Wellcome Trust (GlaxoSmithKline) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK government. 1,542 patients took part, of whom 396 (25.7%) died
Remap, an ongoing multi-national project that is now trialing hydroxychloroquine as a SARSCOV2 therapy.
Doses employed in all studies were way above normal therapeutic doses and could well have proved fatal, especially to the very frail and compromised people enrolled in the trial, many of whom were already on ventilators or other forms of assisted breathing. In fact to even be considered for the Remap trial a patient had to be “close to death, either on a ventilator or in shock, on pressor medications.”
Neither was any allowance made in dosage for patients with poor kidney or liver function, who might have increased difficulty in processing the drug. Only actual liver failure was grounds for reducing the dose:
No dose adjustment is necessary for renal dysfunction or concomitant use of renal replacement therapy. Clinicians should consider a dose adjustment in the presence of liver failure, however no dose adjustment is necessary for abnormal liver function tests in the absence of liver failure.
Patient consent was not considered necessary:
For patients who are not competent to consent, either prospective agreement or entry via waiver of consent or some form of deferred consent can be applied, as required by an appropriate ethical review body.”
Ironically, the Solidarity hydroxychloroquine trial was suspended on May 25th following the Surgisphere report in The Lancet that claimed 35% higher death rates in patients receiving Hydroxychloroquine, but which later turned out to be fraudulent, and indeed Nass suggests these medical trials are cynically sacrificing human subjects as part of the ongoing war against hydroxychloroquine, in a bid to prove it does not work or is unsafe:
Why is public health being turned on its head? REMAP-Covid is the third major multicenter clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine to give toxic doses to Covid patients. Who or what is behind this concerted effort to maim or kill patients in order to kill any appearance of benefit from hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of Covid-19?
This is more than possible of course, but I also think we need to set these frankly murderous “trials” within the wider context mentioned above – the distribution of DNRs to healthy or mildly compromised people, the brutal system of almost deliberately induced and needless deaths described by the whistleblower nurses in the US, the deaths by ‘accidental’ neglect in care homes.
These are all beginning to add up to something very dark and very strange going on in the shadows, just beyond public scrutiny. Whether this is deliberate policy or some dreadful perfect storm of institutionalised fear and chronic under-funding is hard to say. But something truly grotesque and potentially evil is going on here, and we can’t afford to ignore it.


offguardian--2020-06-25--Capitalism and the Throttling of Democracy in India

The deregulation of international capital flows ( financial liberalisation ) has effectively turned the planet into a free-for-all bonanza for the world ’ s richest capitalists .
Under the post-World-War Two Bretton Woods monetary regime , nations put restrictions on the flow of capital .
Domestic firms and banks could not freely borrow from banks elsewhere or from international capital markets , without seeking permission , and they could not simply take their money in and out of other countries .
Domestic financial markets were segmented from international ones elsewhere .
Governments could to a large extent run their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or fiscal policies devised by others .
They could also have their own tax and industrial policies without having to seek market confidence or worry about capital flight .
However , the dismantling of Bretton Woods and the deregulation of global capital movement has led to the greater incidence of financial crises ( including sovereign debt ) and has deepened the level of dependency of nation states on capital markets .
If we turn to India , we can see the implications very clearly .
The increasing deregulation of financial capital flows means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dictate domestic policy .
Successive administrations have made the country dependent on volatile flows of foreign capital and India ’ s foreign exchange reserves have been built up by borrowing and foreign investments .
For policy makers , the fear of capital flight is ever-present .
Policies are often governed by the drive to attract and retain foreign capital inflows .
The author ( s ) of a recent article by the Research Unit for Political Economy ( RUPE ) notes that instead of imposing controls on flows of foreign capital and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Indian government has chosen to submit to the regime of foreign finance , awaiting signals on how much it can spend , giving up any pretence of economic sovereignty .
Anxious to shore up foreign exchange holdings , the Modi-led government is trying to attract even more risky foreign investments .
Moreover , in a time of economic and social crisis , resulting from the draconian coronavirus-related lockdown , public spending to ameliorate the desperate situations of those affected has been abysmally low .
This falls into line with the imperatives of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to curb spending so that private investors can occupy the arena left open .
RUPE notes that the Indian government is also appealing to the US for help in addressing India ’ s foreign exchange conundrum ( its foreign exchange reserves are largely based on borrowing which could exit ) .
This will require some kind of ‘ payback ’ .
Such payback could come in the form of a future trade deal .
India is currently involved in ongoing trade talks with the US .
If this deal goes through and India @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devastate the dairy , poultry , soybean , maize and other sectors and severely deepen the crisis in the countryside .
Ranil Salgado , mission chief for India at the IMF , says that when the economic shock ( resulting from the coronavirus lockdown ) passes , it ’ s important that India returns to its path of undertaking long-term reforms .
This would mean global conglomerates being able to further hollow out the remnants of nation state sovereignty .
Foreign capital is in the process of displacing the prevailing agrifood model before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector under its control .
Millions of small-scale and marginal farmers are already suffering economic distress and leaving farming as the sector is deliberately made financially non-viable for them .
The Modi administration is fully on board with the World Bank ’ s pro-corporate ‘ enabling the business of agriculture ’ and other such policies aimed at further incorporating nation states into the neoliberal fold and which equate neoliberal fundamentalism with ‘ development ’ .
Recent developments will merely serve to accelerate this process as we see with regard to the Karnataka Land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easier for business to purchase agricultural land ( resulting in increased landlessness and urban migration ) and the undermining of the Agricultural Produce Market Committees ( mandis ) , part of an ongoing process to dismantle India ’ s public distribution system and price support mechanisms for farmers .
These ‘ reforms ’ are ultimately about ‘ liberalising ’ agriculture to further ease the entrance of foreign agribusiness interests like Cargill – even as ordinary Indians suffer .
And have no doubt , they are suffering .
A recent news analysis report claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to waste in four months , even as the poor went hungry as a result of the coronavirus lockdown .
The authors claim that this resulted from the government being wedded to neoliberal ideology and the dogma of ‘ fiscal prudence ’ .
They also ask why the Food Corporation of India has been holding such a large surplus of grain and conclude that it is because the government has been unwilling to expand the public distribution scheme .
In effect , US agribusiness wants India to tighten ‘ fiscal prudence ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on agriculture .
The aim is to further displace peasant farmers thereby driving even more people to cities and ensure corporate consolidation and commercialisation of the sector based on industrial-scale monocrop farms incorporated into global supply chains dominated by transnational agribusiness and retail giants .
This runs counter to what is actually required .
The various lockdowns around the globe have already exposed the fragility of the global food system , dominated by long-line supply chains and global conglomerates – which effectively suck food and wealth from the Global South to the richer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the need for a radical transformation of the prevailing globalised food regime founded on one which reduces dependency on global conglomerates , external proprietary inputs , distant volatile commodity markets and patented technologies .
Practical solutions to the ( global ) agrarian crisis must be based on sustainable agriculture which places the small farmer at the centre of policies : far-sighted and sustained policy initiatives centred on self-sufficiency , localisation , food sovereignty , regenerative agriculture and agroecology .
On a macro level , economist Prabhat Patnaik argues that India must delink from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign trade and expand the domestic market through the protection and encouragement of petty production , including peasant agriculture ; increase welfare expenditure by the state ; and commit to a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income .
Rather than have transnational agribusiness corporations determining global and regional policies and private capital throttling democracy , we require a system of healthy food and sustainable agriculture that is run for human need .
In fact , what may actually be required is an alternative to ‘ development ’ because , as post-development theorist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severe , both between and within nations , and environmental devastation and human dislocation , driven by political as well as ecological factors , continue to worsen .
These are the symptoms of the failure of ‘ development ’ , a concept based on capitalism ’ s overproduction-overconsumption ‘ growth ’ logic with all that follows in terms of environmental degradation and the economic plunder of nations and peoples .
Looking at the situation in Latin America , Escobar says development strategies have centred on large-scale interventions , such as the expansion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ port development .
And it is similar in India : commodity monocropping ; immiseration in the countryside ; the appropriation of biodiversity ( the means of subsistence for millions of rural dwellers ) ; unnecessary and inappropriate environment-destroying , people-displacing infrastructure projects ; and state-backed violence against the poorest and most marginalised sections of society .
Perhaps we should be taking our cue from the world ’ s indigenous peoples whose societies display a deep connection with and respect for nature .
Their economics and cultures often represent the antithesis of capitalism and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through restraint in what is taken from nature , rather than hierarchy and competition .
This was echoed by Noam Chomsky during a 2014 interview : With this in mind , soil , water , seeds , land , forests and other natural resources must be democratically controlled and recognised as common wealth and the scaling up of agroecological approaches should be a lynchpin of genuine rural development , which in turn must be modelled on the notion of food sovereignty .
Genuine food security in principle derives from food sovereignty , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is based on the right of peoples and sovereign states to democratically determine their own agricultural and food policies .
The struggle to assert genuine self-determination and democratic development in India involves challenging the dominance of private ( international ) capital .
It also entails disputing the authority of a central state and its machinery that , at independence , was designed to consolidate power at the centre , quell dissent , divide the masses and , with the undemocratic and unaccountable influence of foreign interests like the Ford Foundation and more recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately serve the interests of both old and new colonial masters .

Colin Todhunter
The deregulation of international capital flows (financial liberalisation) has effectively turned the planet into a free-for-all bonanza for the world’s richest capitalists. Under the post-World-War Two Bretton Woods monetary regime, nations put restrictions on the flow of capital.
Domestic firms and banks could not freely borrow from banks elsewhere or from international capital markets, without seeking permission, and they could not simply take their money in and out of other countries.
Domestic financial markets were segmented from international ones elsewhere. Governments could to a large extent run their own macroeconomic policy without being restrained by monetary or fiscal policies devised by others. They could also have their own tax and industrial policies without having to seek market confidence or worry about capital flight.
However, the dismantling of Bretton Woods and the deregulation of global capital movement has led to the greater incidence of financial crises (including sovereign debt) and has deepened the level of dependency of nation states on capital markets.
If we turn to India, we can see the implications very clearly. The increasing deregulation of financial capital flows means that global finance is in a position to dictate domestic policy.
Successive administrations have made the country dependent on volatile flows of foreign capital and India’s foreign exchange reserves have been built up by borrowing and foreign investments. For policy makers, the fear of capital flight is ever-present. Policies are often governed by the drive to attract and retain foreign capital inflows.
The author(s) of a recent article by the Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE) notes that instead of imposing controls on flows of foreign capital and pursuing a path of democratic development, the Indian government has chosen to submit to the regime of foreign finance, awaiting signals on how much it can spend, giving up any pretence of economic sovereignty.
Anxious to shore up foreign exchange holdings, the Modi-led government is trying to attract even more risky foreign investments. Moreover, in a time of economic and social crisis, resulting from the draconian coronavirus-related lockdown, public spending to ameliorate the desperate situations of those affected has been abysmally low. This falls into line with the imperatives of global capital, which requires nation states to curb spending so that private investors can occupy the arena left open.
RUPE notes that the Indian government is also appealing to the US for help in addressing India’s foreign exchange conundrum (its foreign exchange reserves are largely based on borrowing which could exit). This will require some kind of ‘payback’.
Such payback could come in the form of a future trade deal. India is currently involved in ongoing trade talks with the US. If this deal goes through and India capitulates to US demands, it could devastate the dairy, poultry, soybean, maize and other sectors and severely deepen the crisis in the countryside.
Ranil Salgado, mission chief for India at the IMF, says that when the economic shock (resulting from the coronavirus lockdown) passes, it’s important that India returns to its path of undertaking long-term reforms. This would mean global conglomerates being able to further hollow out the remnants of nation state sovereignty.
Foreign capital is in the process of displacing the prevailing agrifood model before bringing India’s food and agriculture sector under its control. Millions of small-scale and marginal farmers are already suffering economic distress and leaving farming as the sector is deliberately made financially non-viable for them. The Modi administration is fully on board with the World Bank’s pro-corporate ‘enabling the business of agriculture’ and other such policies aimed at further incorporating nation states into the neoliberal fold and which equate neoliberal fundamentalism with ‘development’.
Recent developments will merely serve to accelerate this process as we see with regard to the Karnataka Land Reform Act, which will make it easier for business to purchase agricultural land (resulting in increased landlessness and urban migration) and the undermining of the Agricultural Produce Market Committees (mandis), part of an ongoing process to dismantle India’s public distribution system and price support mechanisms for farmers. These ‘reforms’ are ultimately about ‘liberalising’ agriculture to further ease the entrance of foreign agribusiness interests like Cargill – even as ordinary Indians suffer.
And have no doubt, they are suffering. A recent news analysis report claims India let 65 million tonnes of grain go to waste in four months, even as the poor went hungry as a result of the coronavirus lockdown.
The authors claim that this resulted from the government being wedded to neoliberal ideology and the dogma of ‘fiscal prudence’. They also ask why the Food Corporation of India has been holding such a large surplus of grain and conclude that it is because the government has been unwilling to expand the public distribution scheme.
In effect, US agribusiness wants India to tighten ‘fiscal prudence’, reduce subsidies and public sector spending on agriculture. The aim is to further displace peasant farmers thereby driving even more people to cities and ensure corporate consolidation and commercialisation of the sector based on industrial-scale monocrop farms incorporated into global supply chains dominated by transnational agribusiness and retail giants.
This runs counter to what is actually required. The various lockdowns around the globe have already exposed the fragility of the global food system, dominated by long-line supply chains and global conglomerates – which effectively suck food and wealth from the Global South to the richer nations.
What we have seen underscores the need for a radical transformation of the prevailing globalised food regime founded on one which reduces dependency on global conglomerates, external proprietary inputs, distant volatile commodity markets and patented technologies.
Practical solutions to the (global) agrarian crisis must be based on sustainable agriculture which places the small farmer at the centre of policies: far-sighted and sustained policy initiatives centred on self-sufficiency, localisation, food sovereignty, regenerative agriculture and agroecology.
On a macro level, economist Prabhat Patnaik argues that India must delink from neoliberal globalisation via capital controls; manage foreign trade and expand the domestic market through the protection and encouragement of petty production, including peasant agriculture; increase welfare expenditure by the state; and commit to a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income.
Rather than have transnational agribusiness corporations determining global and regional policies and private capital throttling democracy, we require a system of healthy food and sustainable agriculture that is run for human need.
In fact, what may actually be required is an alternative to ‘development’ because, as post-development theorist Arturo Escobar explains, global inequality remains severe, both between and within nations, and environmental devastation and human dislocation, driven by political as well as ecological factors, continue to worsen.
These are the symptoms of the failure of ‘development’, a concept based on capitalism’s overproduction-overconsumption ‘growth’ logic with all that follows in terms of environmental degradation and the economic plunder of nations and peoples.
Looking at the situation in Latin America, Escobar says development strategies have centred on large-scale interventions, such as the expansion of oil palm plantations, mining and large port development. And it is similar in India: commodity monocropping; immiseration in the countryside; the appropriation of biodiversity (the means of subsistence for millions of rural dwellers); unnecessary and inappropriate environment-destroying, people-displacing infrastructure projects; and state-backed violence against the poorest and most marginalised sections of society.
Perhaps we should be taking our cue from the world’s indigenous peoples whose societies display a deep connection with and respect for nature. Their economics and cultures often represent the antithesis of capitalism and industrialisation: the promotion of long-term sustainability through restraint in what is taken from nature, rather than hierarchy and competition.
This was echoed by Noam Chomsky during a 2014 interview:
There are sectors of the global population trying to impede the global catastrophe. There are other sectors trying to accelerate it. Take a look at whom they are. Those who are trying to impede it are the ones we call backward, indigenous populations – the First Nations in Canada, the aboriginals in Australia, the tribal people in India. Who is accelerating it? The most privileged, so-called advanced, educated populations of the world.”
With this in mind, soil, water, seeds, land, forests and other natural resources must be democratically controlled and recognised as common wealth and the scaling up of agroecological approaches should be a lynchpin of genuine rural development, which in turn must be modelled on the notion of food sovereignty.
Renowned agronomist MS Swaminathan says:
Independent foreign policy is only possible with food security. Therefore, food has more than just eating implications. It protects national sovereignty, national rights and national prestige.”
Genuine food security in principle derives from food sovereignty, which, in a very broad sense, is based on the right of peoples and sovereign states to democratically determine their own agricultural and food policies.
The struggle to assert genuine self-determination and democratic development in India involves challenging the dominance of private (international) capital. It also entails disputing the authority of a central state and its machinery that, at independence, was designed to consolidate power at the centre, quell dissent, divide the masses and, with the undemocratic and unaccountable influence of foreign interests like the Ford Foundation and more recently the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, ultimately serve the interests of both old and new colonial masters.