lewrockwell--2020-07-30--Masks — the Most Controversial COVID-19 Debate?

The question of whether we should wear face masks or not to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is a hotly contested issue .
Part of the confusion may be related to the difference between viral particles spread via respiratory droplets , and viral particles spread via the air itself .
I believe it ’ s important to realize the difference between these two modes of transmission , and to not overestimate the protection you can get or give others by wearing a mask .
The science1,2 clearly shows face coverings of various kinds do little if anything to prevent respiratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health authorities still insist that something is better than nothing , though , since they do inhibit the dissemination of viral-laden respiratory droplets .
But influenza viruses — coronaviruses that cause the common cold and SARS-CoV-2 — all spread via the air , not just via droplets or touching contaminated surfaces , and it ’ s important to realize that preventing droplet contamination does not mean you also prevent the transmission of the aerosolized virus .
( The aerosol part of transmission is regrettably overlooked in the video above , which reviews a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
NatureWise Vitamin D3 ... Best Price : null Buy New $ 10.99 ( $ 0.12 / Count ) SARS-CoV-2 is an aerosolized virus , meaning it floats in the air .
One of the issues at hand is the size of the virus .
If the gaps in the mask are larger than the virus , it stands to reason it can not block the virus from entering or escaping the mask .
SARS-CoV-2 is a beta-coronavirus with a diameter between 60 nanometers ( nm ) and 140 nm , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .3 This is about half the size of most viruses , which tend to measure between 0.02 microns to 0.3 microns.4 Virus-laden saliva or respiratory droplets expelled when talking or coughing , however , measure between 5 and 10 microns.5 N95 masks can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns,6 so they may prevent a majority of respiratory droplets from escaping , but not aerosolized viruses .
Lab testing7 has shown 3M surgical masks can block up to 75 % of particles measuring between 0.02 microns and 1 micron , while cloth masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of respiratory particles of this size .
For cloth masks , cotton-chiffon , cotton-silk hybrids , and high thread count cotton materials provide the best droplet filtration .
As reported by the Emergency Medicine News journal:8 So , in summary , if you are a carrier of the virus , by wearing a surgical mask , you theoretically lower the amount of viral-laden respiratory droplets that you deposit into your environment by about 75 % .
As such , you could argue that surgical masks lower the overall contamination risk to others if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you are infected and wear a surgical mask , others in close proximity will be protected to some degree from getting hit by your contaminated respiratory droplets .
Turmeric Curcumin with ... Best Price : null Buy New $ 18.79 ( $ 0.21 / Count ) That said , the force by which you expel the droplets also matters .
Back in April 2020 , a small South Korean study10 found that surgical and cloth masks were unable to block SARS-CoV-2 from the coughs of COVID-19 patients .
The journal retracted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not restricted to respiratory droplets , though .
It ’ s also in the air itself , and these aerosolized particles are far tinier .
To block these , you ’ d need a mask that prevents all air flow , and that , of course , wouldn ’ t work , since you need air flow to survive .
Now , the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is actually recommending people wear cloth masks — not surgical masks or N95 , which they recommend for health care workers only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only do cloth masks fail to provide any protection against aerosolized viruses , as noted above , they also provide very little protection in terms of blocking respiratory droplets .
As reported by The National Academies of Sciences in its Rapid Expert Consultation on the Effectiveness of Fabric Masks for the COVID-19 Pandemic report , published April 8 , 2020:13 So , regardless of the mask , it will not prevent you from exhaling or inhaling the aerosolized virus , but cloth masks are clearly the least preferable option if you actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as their ability to block respiratory droplets is also limited .
In particular , masks with airflow valves on the front should be avoided , as the valve lets out unfiltered air , thus negating the small benefit you might expect from a mask.14 What We Learned From the Mask for Flu Policy Amazing Formulas Hyalu ... Buy New $ 13.99 ( $ 0.12 / Count ) To put the mask controversy into some perspective , let ’ s compare it to what we learned from the masking for influenza controversy a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , the Ontario Nurses Association ( ONA ) won its second of two grievances filed against the Toronto Academic Health Science Network ’ s ( TAHSN ) “ vaccinate or mask ” ( VOM ) policy .
As reported by the ONA:15 In summary , the ONA argued , and Kaplan agreed , that the rule forcing unvaccinated nurses to wear a surgical mask during flu season to protect patients from influenza was not supported by science and was most likely an attempt to drive up vaccination rates among staff .
TAHSN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks can serve as a method of source control of infected HCWs [ health care workers ] who may or may not have symptoms .
Masks may also prevent unvaccinated HCWs from as yet unrecognized infected patients or visitors.
” 17 Like the previous arbitrator , Kaplan disagreed .
High Potency Vitamin D ... Buy New $ 19.97 ( $ 0.06 / Count ) Despite the lack of supporting science , in its current guidance19 on mask use to prevent the spread of influenza , the CDC calls for health care personnel to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whenever they ’ re within 6 feet of an influenza patient .
They also now recommend that anyone suspected of having influenza who enters a medical facility should wear a mask “ at all times until they are isolated in a private room.
” The CDC does point out that “ Masks are not usually recommended in non-healthcare settings , ” and that “ No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons , including those at high risk for complications , to prevent exposure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ add that : When was the last time you wore a mask during influenza season ?
Never ?
Me either .
Have you ever even heard the CDC recommend mask wearing to prevent the spread of influenza in previous years ?
Surgical masks used in healthcare settings such as during surgery are meant to prevent bacterial infections , as bacteria are much larger than viruses .
Frunutta Zinc 5 mg + V ... Buy New $ 14.99 ( $ 0.17 / Count ) What has changed is that the CDC is now suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in public during influenza season , might be a good idea .
Where ’ s the evidence showing masks help prevent the spread of influenza ?
Are masks an effective way to reduce the spread of respiratory illnesses , or are these mask recommendations just another strategy to make the public surrender to irrational medical tyranny that is likely to radically increase implementation of mandatory vaccination ?
Of course , these vaccinations would not just be for the flu but also COVID-19 once a vaccine becomes available .
April 1 , 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy ( CIDRAP ) published a commentary20 by retired professor Lisa Brosseau , ScD , and Margaret Sietsema , Ph.D. , assistant professor at the University of Illinois , arguing that mandates calling for the wearing of cloth masks or face coverings in public are “ not based on sound data.
” Both are experts on respiratory protection and infectious diseases .
July 16 , the following editor ’ s note was added to the article : The addition of that editor ’ s note is more proof that this issue is politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ succumbing to censorship pressure to remove the article entirely , as it makes some excellent points .
Among them : •While data for cloth masks are limited , laboratory studies have shown cloth masks “ offer very low filter collection efficiency for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission , particularly from pre- or asymptomatic individuals who are not coughing or sneezing.
” •While the CDC has added several scientific references in support of cloth face coverings to its mask guidelines , upon reviewing them , Brosseau and Sietsema @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonstandardized methods or are not relevant to cloth face coverings because they evaluate respirators or surgical masks.
” •On the issue of whether wearing a cloth mask is better than nothing , Brosseau and Sietsema say “ we simply don ’ t know at this point.
” They also stress there ’ s been “ an evolution in the messaging around cloth masks , ” starting out with warnings that they can not replace the need for physical distancing , to current messaging saying they ’ re equivalent to physical distancing .
Worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can help protect others if you ’ re infected , the CDC and others are now implying cloth masks can also protect the wearer , even though there ’ s no evidence for this at all .
•The authors also point out several important facts that have been ignored and overlooked in modeling studies purporting to demonstrate that masks can flatten the curve and lower the case load .
Among them is the fact that “ Transmission is not simply a function of short random interactions between individuals , but rather a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the time exposed to that concentration , ” and that “ A cloth mask or face covering does very little to prevent the emission or inhalation of small particles , ” which is “ an important mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2.
” Articles published before the COVID-19 outbreak also offer evidence that the mask rules are not driven by science but rather by politics .
For example , in October 2019 , Medical Xpress reported that not only is the influenza vaccine only 15 % effective , on average , but wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , a review of interventions for flu epidemics published by the World Health Organization also concluded the evidence leaned against using face masks , with the exception of one study that suggested N95 masks may offer some protection:23 We can also look at countries where people routinely wear face masks to protect themselves against air pollution , such as Japan .
Despite widespread routine mask wearing out in public , they still suffer major influenza outbreaks.24 Last but not least , face masks must be put on , removed and disposed of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from them .
Readers Digest recently published “ 11 Mistakes You ’ re Probably Making with Face Masks , ” 25 reviewing all the ways in which you might nullify the mask ’ s benefit .
Where ’ s the Evidence to Support Shift in Mask Guidance ?
What are we to make of health mandates that aren ’ t based on compelling scientific evidence ?
You may recall Dr. Anthony Fauci has flip-flopped on this issue over the past few months , in mid-February telling us:26 By mid-June , he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wear a mask .
But where is the data supporting this 180-degree shift in position ?
Contrary to what you ’ d assume , even some of the most recently published research claims masks provide little to no benefit .
Case in point is a policy review paper28 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020 — the CDC ’ s own journal — which reviews “ the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures … in non-healthcare settings.
” According to this policy review:29 Pages 970 to 972 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : When confronted with his previous statements , Fauci tried to justify his earlier statements saying they ’ d feared panic buying might trigger PPE shortages in hospitals.30 A problem with that rationalization is that the two supply chains are separate .
Retail customers typically can not buy personal protective equipment from the same medical distributors that hospitals do .
Another problem is that lying to the public is unacceptable , even if you think you have a good reason .
I guess the question is , does anyone actually care about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 , Twitter post , Ivor Cummins34 asks whether empirical evidence matters anymore , and presents statistical evidence showing that mask mandates have not had any impact , positive or negative , on infection rates .
Empirical evidence refers to “ observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
” In other words , can you show , after the fact , that an intervention led to the desired result you were after ?
In the case of mask wearing , the empirical evidence suggests it ’ s a useless intervention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let alone eliminated , infections in countries after the mandate was implemented .
Fall of the Republic , Rise of Corporations in US If mask wearing does not actually reduce infection rates , why are we doing it ?
Conversely , if SARS-CoV-2 is sensitive to ultraviolet rays and heat and is inactivated at temperatures at or above 80.6 degrees Fahrenheit or 27 Celsius,35 why aren ’ t we being told to spend more time outdoors this summer rather than closing parks and beaches and telling us to stay at home ?
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the south during summer , realize behavior changes as more people spend time indoors in air conditioning – essentially the same indoor behavior that occurs in northern latitudes during winter .
As noted in Jeremy Elliott ’ s video monologue above , pandemic responses appear to have little to do with protecting public health , and everything to do with the promotion of a political agenda that aims to strip us of our personal freedoms and groom us to accept a radical loss of our civil liberties .
He proposes mask mandates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see how well artificial intelligence-based facial recognition systems work .
Whether that ’ s true or not , we ’ re certainly seeing a rapid roll-out of draconian tracking and tracing systems that , when combined with banking and other systems will eliminate any trace of freedom .
I believe there is a time and a place for wearing a mask .
If you ’ re visiting a hospital or nursing home , wearing a mask , ideally an N95 or surgical mask , makes sense for both patient and visitor .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go out , wearing a medical-grade mask would be wise .
But to mandate masks for all , everywhere , at all times — Broward County , Florida has even issued an emergency order36 mandating masks to be worn inside your own residence !
— makes little sense from a health standpoint .
Let ’ s face it : SARS-CoV-2 is likely to be with us going forward , just like other pandemic influenza viruses that have emerged in the past .
So , just how long are we expected to wear masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to choose between vaccinations or permanent mask wearing ?
As you ponder these questions , remember that we will never be able to prevent all death , be it from influenza , COVID-19 , tuberculosis or any other viral infection , no matter what we do , and no matter how many of our freedoms we give up .
Just like the nurses previously , will this become a mask or vax position for the future ?
Will your only way out of a mask be through vaccines ?
Most objections to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks themselves , but to the mandate , and well-documented consequences such as oxygen deprivation which should give pause when considering a legal requirement of wearing masks in public .
We already see that most will wear makes in public regardless of mandates .
But , it seems entirely irresponsible and unethical for governments to mandate such a practice for everyone .
It is clear nearly everyone is being regularly exposed to the propaganda of the mainstream media that is seeking to convince you that masks will help .
So , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wear masks because you believe that they will prevent the spread of this virus and save lives .
I get it , but if you carefully evaluate the evidence independent of the mainstream narrative , it is likely you will conclude that this recommendation has nothing to do with decreasing the spread of the virus , but more to indoctrinate you into submission .
In my recent interview with Patrick Wood , he provides compelling evidence that this has been a carefully crafted technocratic strategy that has been in place for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submitting to these orders , it is likely you are setting the stage for the inevitable mandatory vaccinations coming soon that I am planning a number of future articles on .
So , watch the recent video from Wood above , and consider not complying with their recommendations .
The Best of Joseph Mercola

The question of whether we should wear face masks or not to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is a hotly contested issue. Part of the confusion may be related to the difference between viral particles spread via respiratory droplets, and viral particles spread via the air itself.
I believe it’s important to realize the difference between these two modes of transmission, and to not overestimate the protection you can get or give others by wearing a mask.
The science1,2 clearly shows face coverings of various kinds do little if anything to prevent respiratory illnesses caused by aerosolized viruses. Many health authorities still insist that something is better than nothing, though, since they do inhibit the dissemination of viral-laden respiratory droplets.
But influenza viruses — coronaviruses that cause the common cold and SARS-CoV-2 — all spread via the air, not just via droplets or touching contaminated surfaces, and it’s important to realize that preventing droplet contamination does not mean you also prevent the transmission of the aerosolized virus. (The aerosol part of transmission is regrettably overlooked in the video above, which reviews a number of problems with mandatory mask recommendations.) NatureWise Vitamin D3 ... Buy New $10.99 ($0.12 / Count) (as of 03:15 UTC - Details)
Size Matters
SARS-CoV-2 is an aerosolized virus, meaning it floats in the air. One of the issues at hand is the size of the virus. If the gaps in the mask are larger than the virus, it stands to reason it cannot block the virus from entering or escaping the mask.
SARS-CoV-2 is a beta-coronavirus with a diameter between 60 nanometers (nm) and 140 nm, or 0.06 to 0.14 microns (micrometers).3 This is about half the size of most viruses, which tend to measure between 0.02 microns to 0.3 microns.4
Virus-laden saliva or respiratory droplets expelled when talking or coughing, however, measure between 5 and 10 microns.5 N95 masks can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns,6 so they may prevent a majority of respiratory droplets from escaping, but not aerosolized viruses.
Lab testing7 has shown 3M surgical masks can block up to 75% of particles measuring between 0.02 microns and 1 micron, while cloth masks block between 30% and 60% of respiratory particles of this size. For cloth masks, cotton-chiffon, cotton-silk hybrids, and high thread count cotton materials provide the best droplet filtration. As reported by the Emergency Medicine News journal:8
“Mueller, et al.,9 placed a particle counter inside various masks worn by a volunteer to sense 0.04 micron NaCl particles aerosolized in ambient air, and found that adding a nylon stocking overlayer to the mask improved virus blockade for all types, including surgical masks. This simple addition improved many of the homemade cloth masks to the baseline level of a surgical mask.”
So, in summary, if you are a carrier of the virus, by wearing a surgical mask, you theoretically lower the amount of viral-laden respiratory droplets that you deposit into your environment by about 75%.
As such, you could argue that surgical masks lower the overall contamination risk to others if you are a carrier of the virus. If you are infected and wear a surgical mask, others in close proximity will be protected to some degree from getting hit by your contaminated respiratory droplets. Turmeric Curcumin with... Buy New $18.79 ($0.21 / Count) (as of 10:20 UTC - Details)
That said, the force by which you expel the droplets also matters. Back in April 2020, a small South Korean study10 found that surgical and cloth masks were unable to block SARS-CoV-2 from the coughs of COVID-19 patients. The journal retracted the paper several weeks later.11,12
Masks Cannot Block Aerosolized Viruses
The virus is not restricted to respiratory droplets, though. It’s also in the air itself, and these aerosolized particles are far tinier. To block these, you’d need a mask that prevents all air flow, and that, of course, wouldn’t work, since you need air flow to survive.
There is little evidence regarding the transmission of small aerosolized particulates of the size potentially exhaled by asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.
Now, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is actually recommending people wear cloth masks — not surgical masks or N95, which they recommend for health care workers only. The problem with this is that not only do cloth masks fail to provide any protection against aerosolized viruses, as noted above, they also provide very little protection in terms of blocking respiratory droplets.
As reported by The National Academies of Sciences in its Rapid Expert Consultation on the Effectiveness of Fabric Masks for the COVID-19 Pandemic report, published April 8, 2020:13
“The evidence from … laboratory filtration studies suggest that … fabric masks may reduce the transmission of larger respiratory droplets. There is little evidence regarding the transmission of small aerosolized particulates of the size potentially exhaled by asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.”
So, regardless of the mask, it will not prevent you from exhaling or inhaling the aerosolized virus, but cloth masks are clearly the least preferable option if you actually want to reduce the spread of infection, as their ability to block respiratory droplets is also limited.
In particular, masks with airflow valves on the front should be avoided, as the valve lets out unfiltered air, thus negating the small benefit you might expect from a mask.14
What We Learned From the Mask for Flu Policy
Amazing Formulas Hyalu... Buy New $13.99 ($0.12 / Count) (as of 04:17 UTC - Details) To put the mask controversy into some perspective, let’s compare it to what we learned from the masking for influenza controversy a couple of years back. In September 2018, the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) won its second of two grievances filed against the Toronto Academic Health Science Network’s (TAHSN) “vaccinate or mask” (VOM) policy. As reported by the ONA:15
“These policies force nurses and other health-care workers to wear an unfitted surgical mask for the entirety of their shift if they choose not to receive the influenza vaccine.
After reviewing extensive expert evidence submitted by both ONA and St. Michael’s Hospital, which was the lead case for the TAHSN group, Arbitrator William Kaplan, in his September 6 decision,16 found that St. Michael’s VOM policy is ‘illogical and makes no sense’ and ‘is the exact opposite of being reasonable.’ In reaching this conclusion, Arbitrator Kaplan rejected the hospital’s evidence.
This is the second such win for ONA. In 2015, Arbitrator James Hayes struck down the same type of policy in an arbitration that included other Ontario hospitals across the province … Hayes found there was ‘scant evidence’ that forcing nurses to use masks reduced the transmission of influenza to patients.
Despite this clear ruling, the majority of TAHSN hospitals refused to follow the Hayes award and maintained their respective VOM policies. As a result, ONA was forced to litigate this matter again at St. Michael’s Hospital …
ONA’s well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was insufficient evidence to support the St. Michael’s policy and no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals.
They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask.”
No Direct Evidence Masks Prevent Spread of Influenza
In summary, the ONA argued, and Kaplan agreed, that the rule forcing unvaccinated nurses to wear a surgical mask during flu season to protect patients from influenza was not supported by science and was most likely an attempt to drive up vaccination rates among staff.
TAHSN argued that “The wearing of face masks can serve as a method of source control of infected HCWs [health care workers] who may or may not have symptoms. Masks may also prevent unvaccinated HCWs from as yet unrecognized infected patients or visitors.”17 Like the previous arbitrator, Kaplan disagreed. High Potency Vitamin D... Buy New $19.97 ($0.06 / Count) (as of 11:23 UTC - Details)
“I … find that the weight of scientific evidence said to support the VOM Policy on patient safety grounds is insufficient to warrant the imposition of a mask-wearing requirement for up to six months every year.
Absent adequate support for the freestanding patient safety purpose alleged, I conclude that the Policy operates to coerce influenza immunization and, thereby, undermines the collective agreement right of employees to refuse vaccination,” Kaplan wrote,18 adding that the TAHSN’s mask rule:
“… was made in the admitted absence of direct evidence that mask- wearing HCWs protected patients from influenza; but on the basis of ‘indirect evidence [that] suggests it does.’
The only fair words to describe the evidence advanced in support of the masking component of the VOM policy in the THASN report, and in this proceeding, are insufficient, inadequate, and completely unpersuasive.”
CDC Now Promotes Mask Wearing for Flu
Despite the lack of supporting science, in its current guidance19 on mask use to prevent the spread of influenza, the CDC calls for health care personnel to wear a surgical mask or fit-tested respirator whenever they’re within 6 feet of an influenza patient.
They also now recommend that anyone suspected of having influenza who enters a medical facility should wear a mask “at all times until they are isolated in a private room.”
The CDC does point out that “Masks are not usually recommended in non-healthcare settings,” and that “No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza viruses.” Still, they add that:
“If unvaccinated high-risk persons decide to wear masks during periods of increased respiratory illness activity in the community, it is likely they will need to wear them any time they are in a public place and when they are around other household members.”
When was the last time you wore a mask during influenza season? Never? Me either. Have you ever even heard the CDC recommend mask wearing to prevent the spread of influenza in previous years?
Surgical masks used in healthcare settings such as during surgery are meant to prevent bacterial infections, as bacteria are much larger than viruses. Frunutta Zinc 5 mg + V... Buy New $14.99 ($0.17 / Count) (as of 05:10 UTC - Details)
What has changed is that the CDC is now suggesting mask wearing, both at home and in public during influenza season, might be a good idea. Where’s the evidence showing masks help prevent the spread of influenza?
Are masks an effective way to reduce the spread of respiratory illnesses, or are these mask recommendations just another strategy to make the public surrender to irrational medical tyranny that is likely to radically increase implementation of mandatory vaccination? Of course, these vaccinations would not just be for the flu but also COVID-19 once a vaccine becomes available.
Cloth Masks Offer False Sense of Security
April 1, 2020, the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) published a commentary20 by retired professor Lisa Brosseau, ScD, and Margaret Sietsema, Ph.D., assistant professor at the University of Illinois, arguing that mandates calling for the wearing of cloth masks or face coverings in public are “not based on sound data.” Both are experts on respiratory protection and infectious diseases. July 16, the following editor’s note was added to the article:
“The authors and CIDRAP have received requests in recent weeks to remove this article from the CIDRAP website. Reasons have included: (1) we don’t truly know that cloth masks (face coverings) are not effective, since the data are so limited, (2) wearing a cloth mask or face covering is better than doing nothing.
(3) the article is being used by individuals and groups to support non-mask wearing where mandated and (4) there are now many modeling studies suggesting that cloth masks or face coverings could be effective at flattening the curve and preventing many cases of infection.”
The addition of that editor’s note is more proof that this issue is politically driven. Kudos to CIDRAP for not succumbing to censorship pressure to remove the article entirely, as it makes some excellent points. Among them:
•While data for cloth masks are limited, laboratory studies have shown cloth masks “offer very low filter collection efficiency for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission, particularly from pre- or asymptomatic individuals who are not coughing or sneezing.”
•While the CDC has added several scientific references in support of cloth face coverings to its mask guidelines, upon reviewing them, Brosseau and Sietsema say they “employ very crude, nonstandardized methods or are not relevant to cloth face coverings because they evaluate respirators or surgical masks.”
•On the issue of whether wearing a cloth mask is better than nothing, Brosseau and Sietsema say “we simply don’t know at this point.” They also stress there’s been “an evolution in the messaging around cloth masks,” starting out with warnings that they cannot replace the need for physical distancing, to current messaging saying they’re equivalent to physical distancing.
Worse, while cloth masks, at best, can help protect others if you’re infected, the CDC and others are now implying cloth masks can also protect the wearer, even though there’s no evidence for this at all.
“We are concerned that many people do not understand the very limited degree of protection a cloth mask or face covering likely offers as source control for people located nearby … Cloth masks and face coverings likely do not offer the same degree of protection as physical distancing, isolation, or limiting personal contact time,” Brosseau and Sietsema write.
•The authors also point out several important facts that have been ignored and overlooked in modeling studies purporting to demonstrate that masks can flatten the curve and lower the case load.
Among them is the fact that “Transmission is not simply a function of short random interactions between individuals, but rather a function of particle concentration in the air and the time exposed to that concentration,” and that “A cloth mask or face covering does very little to prevent the emission or inhalation of small particles,” which is “an important mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2.”
Surgical Masks Cannot Protect Against Influenza
Articles published before the COVID-19 outbreak also offer evidence that the mask rules are not driven by science but rather by politics. For example, in October 2019, Medical Xpress reported that not only is the influenza vaccine only 15% effective, on average, but wearing a surgical mask is equally ineffective:21
“A study that is often cited as evidence that surgical masks work is a randomized trial from 2009 that compared surgical masks with a specialist mask called an N95 respirator — a mask that fits snugly and filters at least 95% of very small (0.3 micron) particles.
The study,22 published in JAMA, found that surgical masks were as effective as N95 respirators at preventing the flu, which is to say, not all that effective because, of the 446 nurses who took part in this study, nearly one in four (24%) in the surgical mask group still got the flu as did 23% of those who wore the N95 respirator.
And, because both groups wore masks, it’s impossible to say how they would have fared compared with not wearing a mask at all. Basically, there is no strong evidence to support well people wearing surgical masks in public.”
In 2019, a review of interventions for flu epidemics published by the World Health Organization also concluded the evidence leaned against using face masks, with the exception of one study that suggested N95 masks may offer some protection:23
“Ten relevant RCTs were identified for this review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of community-based use of face masks, including more than 6000 participants in total. Most trials combined face masks with improved hand hygiene, and examined the use of face masks in infected individuals (source control) and in susceptible individuals.
In the pooled analysis, although the point estimates suggested a relative risk reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza of 22% in the face mask group, and a reduction of 8% in the face mask group regardless of whether or not hand hygiene was also enhanced, the evidence was insufficient to exclude chance as an explanation for the reduced risk of transmission.
A study suggested that surgical and N95 (respirator) masks were effective in preventing the spread of influenza … There is a moderate overall quality of evidence that face masks do not have a substantial effect on transmission of influenza …
Reusable cloth face masks are not recommended. Medical face masks are generally not reusable, and an adequate supply would be essential if the use of face masks was recommended. If worn by a symptomatic case, that person might require multiple masks per day for multiple days of illness.”
We can also look at countries where people routinely wear face masks to protect themselves against air pollution, such as Japan. Despite widespread routine mask wearing out in public, they still suffer major influenza outbreaks.24
Last but not least, face masks must be put on, removed and disposed of properly in order for you to benefit from them. Readers Digest recently published “11 Mistakes You’re Probably Making with Face Masks,”25 reviewing all the ways in which you might nullify the mask’s benefit.
Where’s the Evidence to Support Shift in Mask Guidance?
What are we to make of health mandates that aren’t based on compelling scientific evidence? You may recall Dr. Anthony Fauci has flip-flopped on this issue over the past few months, in mid-February telling us:26
“If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn’t really do much to protect you. People start saying, ‘Should I start wearing a mask?’ Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask.”
March 8, he told 60 Minutes:27
“Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks. There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask may make people feel a little bit better, and it might even stop a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.”
By mid-June, he’d reversed course, and was urging everyone to wear a mask. But where is the data supporting this 180-degree shift in position?
Contrary to what you’d assume, even some of the most recently published research claims masks provide little to no benefit. Case in point is a policy review paper28 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020 — the CDC’s own journal — which reviews “the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures … in non-healthcare settings.” According to this policy review:29
“Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning.”
Pages 970 to 972 of the review include the following quotes:
“In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks …
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids …
There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.
Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza … In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission.”
When confronted with his previous statements, Fauci tried to justify his earlier statements saying they’d feared panic buying might trigger PPE shortages in hospitals.30
A problem with that rationalization is that the two supply chains are separate. Retail customers typically cannot buy personal protective equipment from the same medical distributors that hospitals do. Another problem is that lying to the public is unacceptable, even if you think you have a good reason.
Does Empirical Evidence Matter Anymore?
I guess the question is, does anyone actually care about the science?31,32,33 In a July 12, 2020, Twitter post, Ivor Cummins34 asks whether empirical evidence matters anymore, and presents statistical evidence showing that mask mandates have not had any impact, positive or negative, on infection rates.
Empirical evidence refers to “observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.” In other words, can you show, after the fact, that an intervention led to the desired result you were after? In the case of mask wearing, the empirical evidence suggests it’s a useless intervention, as it has not lowered, let alone eliminated, infections in countries after the mandate was implemented.
Fall of the Republic, Rise of Corporations in US
If mask wearing does not actually reduce infection rates, why are we doing it? Conversely, if SARS-CoV-2 is sensitive to ultraviolet rays and heat and is inactivated at temperatures at or above 80.6 degrees Fahrenheit or 27 Celsius,35 why aren’t we being told to spend more time outdoors this summer rather than closing parks and beaches and telling us to stay at home?
For those wondering why there are rising cases in the south during summer, realize behavior changes as more people spend time indoors in air conditioning – essentially the same indoor behavior that occurs in northern latitudes during winter.
As noted in Jeremy Elliott’s video monologue above, pandemic responses appear to have little to do with protecting public health, and everything to do with the promotion of a political agenda that aims to strip us of our personal freedoms and groom us to accept a radical loss of our civil liberties.
He proposes mask mandates may actually be a test run to see how well artificial intelligence-based facial recognition systems work. Whether that’s true or not, we’re certainly seeing a rapid roll-out of draconian tracking and tracing systems that, when combined with banking and other systems will eliminate any trace of freedom.
I believe there is a time and a place for wearing a mask. If you’re visiting a hospital or nursing home, wearing a mask, ideally an N95 or surgical mask, makes sense for both patient and visitor. If you suspect you have COVID-19 and must go out, wearing a medical-grade mask would be wise.
But to mandate masks for all, everywhere, at all times — Broward County, Florida has even issued an emergency order36 mandating masks to be worn inside your own residence! — makes little sense from a health standpoint.
Let’s face it: SARS-CoV-2 is likely to be with us going forward, just like other pandemic influenza viruses that have emerged in the past. So, just how long are we expected to wear masks everywhere we go? Will we be forced to choose between vaccinations or permanent mask wearing?
As you ponder these questions, remember that we will never be able to prevent all death, be it from influenza, COVID-19, tuberculosis or any other viral infection, no matter what we do, and no matter how many of our freedoms we give up.
Just like the nurses previously, will this become a mask or vax position for the future? Will your only way out of a mask be through vaccines?
Consider Peaceful Civil Disobedience
Most objections to mask wearing requirements are not to the masks themselves, but to the mandate, and well-documented consequences such as oxygen deprivation which should give pause when considering a legal requirement of wearing masks in public. We already see that most will wear makes in public regardless of mandates. But, it seems entirely irresponsible and unethical for governments to mandate such a practice for everyone.
It is clear nearly everyone is being regularly exposed to the propaganda of the mainstream media that is seeking to convince you that masks will help. So, it is beyond understandable that you would want everyone to wear masks because you believe that they will prevent the spread of this virus and save lives.
I get it, but if you carefully evaluate the evidence independent of the mainstream narrative, it is likely you will conclude that this recommendation has nothing to do with decreasing the spread of the virus, but more to indoctrinate you into submission.
In my recent interview with Patrick Wood, he provides compelling evidence that this has been a carefully crafted technocratic strategy that has been in place for the last 50 years or so. By submitting to these orders, it is likely you are setting the stage for the inevitable mandatory vaccinations coming soon that I am planning a number of future articles on. So, watch the recent video from Wood above, and consider not complying with their recommendations.
Sources and References
The Best of Dr. Joseph Mercola


lewrockwell--2020-07-31--Hydroxychloroquine: the Narrative That It Doesn’t Work Is the Biggest Hoax in Recent Human History

“ I do not know Trump or Bolsonaro ” , said Didier Raoult , a professor of infectious diseases at the IHU-Marseille , on 24 June , the French National Assembly , when provided a testimonial for a special commission .
There I saw that the teacher has already started to understand the hole that got involved and who were responsible for creating the first wave that fucked him .
This wave , after all , placed him , by chance , as an important piece at the center of the chessboard of the most ferocious geopolitical dispute since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition to the denial of knowing Trump or Bolsonaro , which is quite fun , where Raoult tried to distance himself from these two demented leaders , the infectologist reported serious things : he suffered death threats soon after proposing the treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin , two cheap and generic drugs .
The doctor behind the threats was found .
It ’ s from a university hospital in Nantes .
Incidentally , he was the person who received the most money from Gilead , a large pharmaceutical company , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propose to put together , piece by piece , the puzzle of what I consider the biggest farce in modern history .
I don ’ t worry about producing a short text .
It will have analyzes , including new ones , and from different points of view .
Unreported Truths abou ... Berenson , Alex Buy New $ 5.99 It involves science , healing , politics , geopolitics , mass and group psychology .
With the scenario set , it is not difficult to predict good and bad things that will happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Throughout the text , the reader will understand the most important thing : the circumstance of how this false narrative was put together .
The reader will also be prompted , by itself , to conclude whether the treatment proposed by Didier Raout works or not .
And you will also understand how the majority of the North American scientific class , from Latin America and Europe , regions of the globe under strong influence from the USA , were directed to an incredibly gross error .
In addition to the facts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ links , all I write are my own opinions , based on the facts , in first person , from my point of view , of how I see the world going completely insane in front of me .
I am not afraid to sign my name when publishing it , even though I know that the almost unanimity of Brazilian scientists are against the application of these drugs and repeat that “ there is no scientific evidence ” of the functioning .
And one thing I ’ m sure will attract attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give examples with incredibly basic logic , as if I were talking to children , to explain the facts .
It is necessary .
The farce has gone so far that I need many examples and analogies to bring reason back .
Signed , I make it available to cover me , today or in the future , if my analyzes prove to be incorrect , after all , it is not a simple or light claim .

“I do not know Trump or Bolsonaro”, said Didier Raoult, a professor of infectious diseases at the IHU-Marseille, on 24 June, the French National Assembly, when provided a testimonial for a special commission.
There I saw that the teacher has already started to understand the hole that got involved and who were responsible for creating the first wave that fucked him.
This wave, after all, placed him, by chance, as an important piece at the center of the chessboard of the most ferocious geopolitical dispute since the end of the Soviet Union.
In addition to the denial of knowing Trump or Bolsonaro, which is quite fun, where Raoult tried to distance himself from these two demented leaders, the infectologist reported serious things: he suffered death threats soon after proposing the treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, two cheap and generic drugs.
The doctor behind the threats was found. It’s from a university hospital in Nantes. Incidentally, he was the person who received the most money from Gilead, a large pharmaceutical company, in the past 6 years.
Here I propose to put together, piece by piece, the puzzle of what I consider the biggest farce in modern history. I don’t worry about producing a short text. It will have analyzes, including new ones, and from different points of view. Unreported Truths abou... Berenson, Alex Buy New $5.99 (as of 03:17 UTC - Details)
It involves science, healing, politics, geopolitics, mass and group psychology. With the scenario set, it is not difficult to predict good and bad things that will happen in the coming months and years.
Throughout the text, the reader will understand the most important thing: the circumstance of how this false narrative was put together. The reader will also be prompted, by itself, to conclude whether the treatment proposed by Didier Raout works or not.
And you will also understand how the majority of the North American scientific class, from Latin America and Europe, regions of the globe under strong influence from the USA, were directed to an incredibly gross error.
In addition to the facts and figures, which are accompanied by external links, all I write are my own opinions, based on the facts, in first person, from my point of view, of how I see the world going completely insane in front of me.
I am not afraid to sign my name when publishing it, even though I know that the almost unanimity of Brazilian scientists are against the application of these drugs and repeat that “there is no scientific evidence” of the functioning.
And one thing I’m sure will attract attention. The fact that I have to give examples with incredibly basic logic, as if I were talking to children, to explain the facts. It is necessary. The farce has gone so far that I need many examples and analogies to bring reason back.
Signed, I make it available to cover me, today or in the future, if my analyzes prove to be incorrect, after all, it is not a simple or light claim.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-07-31--The Hocus ‘Science’ Behind Lockdown

The Hocus ‘Science’ Behind Lockdown

Fraud ( from 14th century Latin ) n – deceit , trickery , intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender legal rights : and art of deceiving or misrepresenting ; imposter , cheat , one who is not who that person pretends to be : something that is not what it appears to be Hoax ( probable contraction of hocus , circa 1796 ) n – an act intended to trick or dupe : something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication ; v – to trick into believing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often preposterous Swindle ( from Old English , coined circa 1782 , “ to vanish ” ) v – to take money or property by fraud or deceit .
COVID-19 : Lockdowns on ... Betrus , Michael Buy New $ 16.99 Frauds often have powerful counter-narratives .
When Wirecard went straight from a DAX-30 €12bn capitalisation to insolvency in June , we wondered not only why it had taken so long for the auditor to seek confirmation of cash balances but why so many investors had been hoodwinked for so long by its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ player at the epicentre of the digital payments industry .
We had also long been inclined to believe that $ 4bn FTSE-100 member NMC Healthcare ’ s management had been siphoning off shareholders ’ assets ( and that the same was true of its smaller sister “ fintech ” company Finablr ) , but were bemused to see continued institutional demand for insider share placings and belief in faked takeover rumours , right up until the declared insolvency in March .
Whilst we think there is plentiful potential for further stock-market flops it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate failings have now been dwarfed by the unnecessary damage caused by the “ science ” behind lockdown and the current parallel focus on a vaccine as the sole long-term COVID solution1 .
When lockdown was imposed , we were told we were facing a second Spanish flu pandemic ( thought to have killed up to 50 million people2 ) ; that hospitals would be overrun and there would be 500,000 deaths in the UK alone3 .
This was a powerful and emotive narrative , but it was never true4 .
Governments and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College ’ s now discredited doomsday scenario built on a hypothetical , badly coded model5 , ignoring its author ’ s history of failed doomsday predictions6 and the different views of other scientists7 .
Brainwashing : Its Hist ... Hunter , Edward Best Price : $ 19.04 Buy New $ 9.98 Alternative evidence-based ( i.e .
theories based on facts ) population samples already existed : the most prominent being the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship ; which at the end of February accounted for over half of all confirmed infections outside of China8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideal experiment of a closed population ” , according to Stamford Professor of Medicine John Ioannidis .
“ You know exactly who is there and at risk and you can measure everyone ” 9 .
Quarantined for over a month after a virus outbreak , the entire cruise ship ‘ closed population ’ of 3,711 passengers and crew , with an average age of 58 , were repeatedly tested .
There were 705 cases ( 19 % total infection rate ) and six deaths ( a Case Fatality Rate of just 1 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually 14 in total10 ) .
This compared to 116 deaths that would have been predicted by the Imperial model11 ) .
Over half of the cruise ship cases were asymptomatic12 , at a time when the official “ science ” behind the lockdown , Prof. Neil Ferguson ( UK ) , dismissed the lack of any evidence for a high proportion of cases so mild that they had no symptoms13 and Dr Anthony Fauci ( US ) had written in the New England Journal of Medicine that in the event of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID mortality rate would ultimately be “ akin to a severe seasonal influenza ” 14 ( a statement which he now at least seems to have clearly forgotten in his enthusiasm for a vaccine solution ) .
Great Hoaxes , Swindles ... Madison , Joyce Best Price : $ 10.00 Buy New $ 45.63 The cruise ship deaths were exclusively amongst an over 70 ’ s age cohort15 .
Although the Diamond Princess sample size was small it remains the earliest and most accurate predictor of mortality , infection and asymptomatic cases16 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ younger population would logically lead to downward revision on the mortality risk and upwards revisions to the level of asymptomatic cases .
COVID outbreaks aboard naval ships with younger populations confirmed this : only 1 death and 3 hospitalised cases out of 1,156 infections on the USS Theodore Roosevelt17 ; zero deaths out of 1,046 confirmed cases on the Charles de Gaulle18 .
Even in ships which could not carry out effective social distancing the virus mortality rate , whilst a serious public health risk , was certainly not the “ Spanish flu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out across population samples ( and not just on the patients hospitalised ) studies came to the same conclusion : the rate of infection was higher than thought with more harmless cases19 and therefore the ultimate mortality risk was much lower than originally claimed20 .
Despite this empirical evidence and the contrarian opinions of other expert epidemiologists which have since proven to be much more accurate21 , the Imperial College virus narrative of “ the worst pandemic in 100 years22 ” ( Fig .
1 ) did not change : governments , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubled down on the “ dialogue of doom ” 24 .
Ferguson then broke his own lockdown in a tryst with his married lover and justified it by claiming he had antibody immunity25 ( which given what we now know about decaying antibodies may not have been correct ) .26 The population mortality risk of the virus was initially estimated at 3.8 % by the WHO28 which had arrived at this number simply by dividing the number of Chinese deaths by the number of confirmed cases , ignoring the fact that only a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually been tested ; that asymptomatic cases were likely to be significantly underrepresented in testing and that the more serious cases were likely highly correlated to serious symptoms .
This basic statistical error of simply dividing deaths by reported infections not only exaggerated the severity of the risk but led directly to policy error on hospital capacity and care home deaths .

Fraud (from 14th century Latin) n – deceit, trickery, intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender legal rights: and art of deceiving or misrepresenting; imposter, cheat, one who is not who that person pretends to be: something that is not what it appears to be
Hoax (probable contraction of hocus, circa 1796) n – an act intended to trick or dupe: something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication; v – to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous
Swindle (from Old English, coined circa 1782, “to vanish”) v – to take money or property by fraud or deceit.
“Great Hoaxes, Swindles, Scandals, Cons, Stings and Scams” Joyce Madison, 1992
COVID-19: Lockdowns on... Betrus, Michael Buy New $16.99 (as of 03:38 UTC - Details) Frauds often have powerful counter-narratives. When Wirecard went straight from a DAX-30 €12bn capitalisation to insolvency in June, we wondered not only why it had taken so long for the auditor to seek confirmation of cash balances but why so many investors had been hoodwinked for so long by its empty claims to have been a legitimate player at the epicentre of the digital payments industry. We had also long been inclined to believe that $4bn FTSE-100 member NMC Healthcare’s management had been siphoning off shareholders’ assets (and that the same was true of its smaller sister “fintech” company Finablr), but were bemused to see continued institutional demand for insider share placings and belief in faked takeover rumours, right up until the declared insolvency in March. Whilst we think there is plentiful potential for further stock-market flops it is time to consider whether these serious corporate failings have now been dwarfed by the unnecessary damage caused by the “science” behind lockdown and the current parallel focus on a vaccine as the sole long-term COVID solution1.
Part 1 – The hocus “science” behind lockdown
When lockdown was imposed, we were told we were facing a second Spanish flu pandemic (thought to have killed up to 50 million people2); that hospitals would be overrun and there would be 500,000 deaths in the UK alone3. This was a powerful and emotive narrative, but it was never true4. Governments and an obedient media focused exclusively on Imperial College’s now discredited doomsday scenario built on a hypothetical, badly coded model5, ignoring its author’s history of failed doomsday predictions6 and the different views of other scientists7.
Brainwashing: Its Hist... Hunter, Edward Best Price: $19.04 Buy New $9.98 (as of 05:25 UTC - Details) Alternative evidence-based (i.e. theories based on facts) population samples already existed: the most prominent being the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship; which at the end of February accounted for over half of all confirmed infections outside of China8. “Cruise ships are like an ideal experiment of a closed population”, according to Stamford Professor of Medicine John Ioannidis. “You know exactly who is there and at risk and you can measure everyone” 9.
Quarantined for over a month after a virus outbreak, the entire cruise ship ‘closed population’ of 3,711 passengers and crew, with an average age of 58, were repeatedly tested. There were 705 cases (19% total infection rate) and six deaths (a Case Fatality Rate of just 1%) by the end of March (eventually 14 in total10). This compared to 116 deaths that would have been predicted by the Imperial model11).
Over half of the cruise ship cases were asymptomatic12, at a time when the official “science” behind the lockdown, Prof. Neil Ferguson (UK), dismissed the lack of any evidence for a high proportion of cases so mild that they had no symptoms13 and Dr Anthony Fauci (US) had written in the New England Journal of Medicine that in the event of a high proportion of asymptomatic cases, the COVID mortality rate would ultimately be “akin to a severe seasonal influenza”14 (a statement which he now at least seems to have clearly forgotten in his enthusiasm for a vaccine solution). Great Hoaxes, Swindles... Madison, Joyce Best Price: $10.00 Buy New $45.63 (as of 03:38 UTC - Details)
The cruise ship deaths were exclusively amongst an over 70’s age cohort15. Although the Diamond Princess sample size was small it remains the earliest and most accurate predictor of mortality, infection and asymptomatic cases16. Extrapolating this data to the wider, younger population would logically lead to downward revision on the mortality risk and upwards revisions to the level of asymptomatic cases. COVID outbreaks aboard naval ships with younger populations confirmed this: only 1 death and 3 hospitalised cases out of 1,156 infections on the USS Theodore Roosevelt17; zero deaths out of 1,046 confirmed cases on the Charles de Gaulle18. Even in ships which could not carry out effective social distancing the virus mortality rate, whilst a serious public health risk, was certainly not the “Spanish flu”.
As more testing was carried out across population samples (and not just on the patients hospitalised) studies came to the same conclusion: the rate of infection was higher than thought with more harmless cases19 and therefore the ultimate mortality risk was much lower than originally claimed20. Despite this empirical evidence and the contrarian opinions of other expert epidemiologists which have since proven to be much more accurate21, the Imperial College virus narrative of “the worst pandemic in 100 years22”(Fig. 1) did not change: governments, the media23 and the official “science” doubled down on the “dialogue of doom”24. Ferguson then broke his own lockdown in a tryst with his married lover and justified it by claiming he had antibody immunity25 (which given what we now know about decaying antibodies may not have been correct).26
Fig 1. COVID-19 mortality in perspective27
The population mortality risk of the virus was initially estimated at 3.8% by the WHO28 which had arrived at this number simply by dividing the number of Chinese deaths by the number of confirmed cases, ignoring the fact that only a small proportion of likely infected people had actually been tested; that asymptomatic cases were likely to be significantly underrepresented in testing and that the more serious cases were likely highly correlated to serious symptoms. This basic statistical error of simply dividing deaths by reported infections not only exaggerated the severity of the risk but led directly to policy error on hospital capacity and care home deaths.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-07-31--Hydroxychloroquine, COVID, FDA; and Pharma and All Its Whores Around the World

“ We are talking about private contracts outside the scope of government .
We ’ re talking about local barter , and the issuing of local currencies , the building of private money systems .
During the Great Depression , many citizens looked around and said , ‘ We still have land and food , we still have commodities .
Nothing has changed here .
We just have to invent a way to conduct commerce among ourselves.
’ One estimate states that , during the Depression of the 1930s , there were 1500 private money systems across America.
” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) I have made my case concerning the fake pandemic .
Many times now .
From the beginning—the failure to isolate , purify , or actually discover a novel coronavirus by correct procedures .
The meaningless diagnostic tests and the meaningless case numbers .
The propaganda .
The use of “ the virus ” as a cover story obscuring high-level corporate and government crimes .
Of course , many people believe in the COVID-19 virus .
And of these , some have been seeking treatments outside the bounds of government certification .
Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Charles Buy New $ 5.99 This is their right .
They are exercising freedom in managing their own health .
And so some of them are taking hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) .
The FDA , which certifies all medical drugs as safe and effective , before they are released for public use , has not recommended HCQ for COVID treatment .
It has banned the drug for that purpose , outside of hospitals and clinical trials .
The FDA ‘ s track record—which I ’ ve been documenting for the past 25 years—is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review I became aware of was authored in 2000 , by Dr. Barbara Starfield , and published on July 26th of that year , in the Journal of the American Medical Association .
Starfield stated that , annually , FDA-approved medicines kill 106,000 Americans .
That ’ s over a million Americans per decade .
So relying on the FDA to decide whether HCQ is a useful drug is not a concession some Americans are willing to make .
Pharma and all its allies and minions and whores are focusing on a jackpot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new antiviral drugs .
Pharma does not want competition .
It definitely does not want to see a landscape in which all sorts of alternative treatments for COVID ( or any purported disease ) are rampant and free-wheeling .
We are seeing multiple censorship actions across platforms , when people , including doctors , speak positively about HCQ .
Fauci is very much in the pro-Pharma camp , of course .
He and Gates want an RNA vaccine to come to market , by any means necessary .
They also want antiviral drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharp reader spelled out the Pharma-anticipated future for these new ( toxic ) antiviral medicines .
And not just for COVID .
Up to now , there has been very little mainstream progress in getting drugs specifically designed to treat viruses into the marketplace .
This is Pharma ’ s big opportunity .
They envision a trillion-dollar operation that will elevate antivirals ( for treating any viruses ) to the level of , say , antibiotics , which are used against bacteria .
COVID would simply be the first major “ breakthrough.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr Joel S Buy New $ 9.95 So we have a war going on .
HCQ and other alternative modalities vs. vaccines and antivirals .
Pharma does not want to lose this one .
It would be disastrous .
I am not touting HCQ .
I am putting it this way : if many people are convinced , or become convinced , that HCQ is a drug of choice , and if they believe it is helping them , then a major rebellion against Pharma and the FDA and its counterparts around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it spurs the use of other alternatives on which Pharma makes zero profits .
So-called natural health and alternative medicine have been booming since the 1980s .
A new escalation would send very serious shock waves through the pharmaceutical industry .
Fauci is well aware of this .
He is fronting for the industry in every possible way .
Trump , with his statements favoring HCQ , has become a major threat in that regard .
When you see new reports of soaring COVID case numbers—a con which I ’ ve documented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only witnessing a planned strategy to maintain the war against the economy and therefore against billions of people whose lives are at stake ; you ’ re also watching a justification for pushing antivirals and vaccines .
For the benefit of Pharma .
The last thing the pharmaceutical industry wants to see is their own case-number con giving birth to wildcat outbreaks of health freedom .
People leaving the nest .
People going elsewhere for treatment .
Individuals making decisions about their own treatments—this is very serious business .
People should look deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of various HCQ protocols , they should consider : dosage levels ; when in the course of illness the drug would be given ( early or late ) ; whether there is illness requiring treatment to begin with ; whether people may have a heredity condition which could make HCQ perilous or even lethal—these are some of the relevant considerations .
The FDA and Pharma want to be the first and last word .
Compromised : How Money ... Bruner , Seamus Best Price : $ 8.28 Buy New $ 16.99 Life and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and last word .
In that regard , there is another issue : licenses vs. contracts .
The medical cartel , backed by governments , has established medical boards which grant licenses to practice medicine .
These special persons , doctors , are handed the right to treat and cure diseases .
This is an attempt to create a monopoly .
There is another avenue : private contracts .
Here is the analogy I ’ ve used to describe this situation .
Two adults , Joe and Fred , enter into an agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condition .
He will be the patient .
Fred will be the practitioner .
Fred has a well on his property .
Fred believes the water has a special healing quality .
He will give some of it ( or sell it ) to Joe , who will drink it over the course of two weeks .
Both men , in their contract , agree that no legal liability will be attached to the outcome .
They are both responsible .
They are of sound mind .
They don ’ t require government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Joe and Fred are operating on their own .
They have that natural right .
They also have the right to be wrong—in case the water treatment doesn ’ t work , or is harmful .
Of course , all sorts of meddlers will claim this arrangement is illegal and absurd .
Meddlers always try to curb freedom .
That ’ s their crusade in life .
They can ’ t stand the idea of people making their own choices and decisions and then accepting the consequences .
I ’ m not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governments are prime meddlers .
I ’ m saying these contracts ( and not just in the arena of healing ) stand outside governments .
They are citizen-to-citizen .
They are prior to government .
They are intrinsically more real than government .
THIS is what COMMUNITY actually means .
The Best of Jon Rappoport

“We are talking about private contracts outside the scope of government. We’re talking about local barter, and the issuing of local currencies, the building of private money systems. During the Great Depression, many citizens looked around and said, ‘We still have land and food, we still have commodities. Nothing has changed here. We just have to invent a way to conduct commerce among ourselves.’ One estimate states that, during the Depression of the 1930s, there were 1500 private money systems across America.” (My notes for “The Underground”)
I have made my case concerning the fake pandemic. Many times now.
From the beginning—the failure to isolate, purify, or actually discover a novel coronavirus by correct procedures. The meaningless diagnostic tests and the meaningless case numbers. The propaganda. The use of “the virus” as a cover story obscuring high-level corporate and government crimes.
Of course, many people believe in the COVID-19 virus. And of these, some have been seeking treatments outside the bounds of government certification. Fauci: The Bernie Mado... Ortleb, Charles Buy New $5.99 (as of 02:55 UTC - Details)
This is their right. They are exercising freedom in managing their own health. And so some of them are taking hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
The FDA, which certifies all medical drugs as safe and effective, before they are released for public use, has not recommended HCQ for COVID treatment. It has banned the drug for that purpose, outside of hospitals and clinical trials.
The FDA‘s track record—which I’ve been documenting for the past 25 years—is a horror show. The first key review I became aware of was authored in 2000, by Dr. Barbara Starfield, and published on July 26th of that year, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Starfield stated that, annually, FDA-approved medicines kill 106,000 Americans. That’s over a million Americans per decade. So relying on the FDA to decide whether HCQ is a useful drug is not a concession some Americans are willing to make.
Pharma and all its allies and minions and whores are focusing on a jackpot bonanza for COVID treatment: vaccines and new antiviral drugs. Pharma does not want competition. It definitely does not want to see a landscape in which all sorts of alternative treatments for COVID (or any purported disease) are rampant and free-wheeling.
We are seeing multiple censorship actions across platforms, when people, including doctors, speak positively about HCQ.
Fauci is very much in the pro-Pharma camp, of course. He and Gates want an RNA vaccine to come to market, by any means necessary. They also want antiviral drugs to dominate COVID treatment.
A very sharp reader spelled out the Pharma-anticipated future for these new (toxic) antiviral medicines. And not just for COVID. Up to now, there has been very little mainstream progress in getting drugs specifically designed to treat viruses into the marketplace. This is Pharma’s big opportunity. They envision a trillion-dollar operation that will elevate antivirals (for treating any viruses) to the level of, say, antibiotics, which are used against bacteria. COVID would simply be the first major “breakthrough.” A VOYAGE IN IMAGINATIO... Holmes, Dr Joel S Buy New $9.95 (as of 04:21 UTC - Details)
So we have a war going on. HCQ and other alternative modalities vs. vaccines and antivirals. Pharma does not want to lose this one. It would be disastrous.
I am not touting HCQ. I am putting it this way: if many people are convinced, or become convinced, that HCQ is a drug of choice, and if they believe it is helping them, then a major rebellion against Pharma and the FDA and its counterparts around the world takes off. It soars. And it spurs the use of other alternatives on which Pharma makes zero profits.
So-called natural health and alternative medicine have been booming since the 1980s. A new escalation would send very serious shock waves through the pharmaceutical industry.
Fauci is well aware of this. He is fronting for the industry in every possible way. Trump, with his statements favoring HCQ, has become a major threat in that regard.
When you see new reports of soaring COVID case numbers—a con which I’ve documented six ways from Sunday—you’re not only witnessing a planned strategy to maintain the war against the economy and therefore against billions of people whose lives are at stake; you’re also watching a justification for pushing antivirals and vaccines. For the benefit of Pharma.
The last thing the pharmaceutical industry wants to see is their own case-number con giving birth to wildcat outbreaks of health freedom. People leaving the nest. People going elsewhere for treatment.
Individuals making decisions about their own treatments—this is very serious business. People should look deeply before making choices. In the case of various HCQ protocols, they should consider: dosage levels; when in the course of illness the drug would be given (early or late); whether there is illness requiring treatment to begin with; whether people may have a heredity condition which could make HCQ perilous or even lethal—these are some of the relevant considerations.
The FDA and Pharma want to be the first and last word. Compromised: How Money... Bruner, Seamus Best Price: $8.28 Buy New $16.99 (as of 04:53 UTC - Details)
Life and Liberty say they are not the first and last word.
In that regard, there is another issue: licenses vs. contracts. The medical cartel, backed by governments, has established medical boards which grant licenses to practice medicine. These special persons, doctors, are handed the right to treat and cure diseases. This is an attempt to create a monopoly.
There is another avenue: private contracts. Here is the analogy I’ve used to describe this situation. Two adults, Joe and Fred, enter into an agreement. Joe says he has a health condition. He will be the patient. Fred will be the practitioner. Fred has a well on his property. Fred believes the water has a special healing quality. He will give some of it (or sell it) to Joe, who will drink it over the course of two weeks.
Both men, in their contract, agree that no legal liability will be attached to the outcome. They are both responsible. They are of sound mind. They don’t require government permission to sign or fulfill their contract.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Joe and Fred are operating on their own. They have that natural right. They also have the right to be wrong—in case the water treatment doesn’t work, or is harmful.
Of course, all sorts of meddlers will claim this arrangement is illegal and absurd. Meddlers always try to curb freedom. That’s their crusade in life. They can’t stand the idea of people making their own choices and decisions and then accepting the consequences.
I’m not saying governments will honor such contracts. Governments are prime meddlers. I’m saying these contracts (and not just in the arena of healing) stand outside governments. They are citizen-to-citizen. They are prior to government. They are intrinsically more real than government.
THIS is what COMMUNITY actually means.
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
The Best of Jon Rappoport


lewrockwell--2020-07-31--Trump Can Ensure a V-shaped Economic Recovery by Heeding Lessons of 1921

A “ U ” or a “ V ” ?
That is the question – whether the economic recovery from the Covid-19 shutdown will be a long drawn-out process , a wide , flattish “ U ” , or a sharp , upward-bound one , a “ V ” .
To best wrestle with this question , let us look back a bit at some economic history regarding recessions and depressions , focusing on the US .
Is this of interest to those following the course of the Chinese economy ?
Of course .
When the US sneezes , China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , the opposite is true as well .
Right now , the political relationship between these two countries has soured .
But this will not , hopefully , always be true .
In any case , economic law still operates , no matter what are the diplomatic relationships between nations .
The Forgotten Depressi ... Grant , James Best Price : $ 4.24 Buy New $ 7.19 The depression in 1921 was short-lived – maybe not a V , but at least a very narrow U .
It was created by prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as if by Adam Smith ’ s “ invisible hand ” to engage in more long-term capital goods investments than the voluntary saving investment decisions of the populace would warrant , based on their time preference between present and future consumption .
Happily , during the 1921 depression , the government of president Warren G. Harding did not intervene with monetary stimulus , and the entire episode was over not in a matter of weeks ( the V ) or years ( a fattish U ) , but months ( a narrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which stretched from 1929-1941 ( a morbidly obese U ) stemmed from identical causes .
Here , I am subscribing to the Austrian analysis of Ludvig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek , not the Milton Friedman monetarist explanation of a lowered stock of money in the 1930s .
But presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt “ fixed ” this by propping up heavy industries whose extent was overblown by the previous artificially lowered interest rates , in an early “ too big to fail ” paroxysm .
The Smoot-Hawley tariff added insult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on any early recovery .
The blunder of 2008 also stemmed from unwise governmental policy .
In 1992 , the geniuses at the Boston Federal Reserve implied that the banking system was racist , since banks were more likely to reject mortgage applications by blacks and Hispanics compared to whites .
Rather , in my view , their favourite colour was green : the ranking in terms of credit reliability and collateral determined lending practices .
But the US Department of Housing and Urban Development contributed to the eventual crisis by diverting mortgages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the housing market .
Only when bankruptcies were finally allowed did we escape from that debacle .
Call that a fattish , but not an obese , U .
This brings us to present considerations .
As an Austro-libertarian , I see government failure as the cause of virtually all depressions , and we are certainly in one now .
However , I am forced to admit an exception to this general rule .
The depression of 2020 is a product of some very vicious little virus critters , not the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smiley , Gene Best Price : $ 1.68 Buy New $ 7.94 I now predict the sharpest of Vs , but if and only if , all other things being equal , the Trump administration cleaves to market principles .
First , and perhaps most important , stop paying people more to stay home from work than the salaries they can garner from their employers .
It is beyond me why US President Donald Trump ever agreed to any such a scheme in the first place .
Does he not want to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not realise that a fast recovery , a V , will help him inordinately in that regard ?
Does he not realise that if people do not get back to work , there will be no recovery at all ?
Second , do not commit the same error as the Smoot-Hawley tariff .
Trump should beware this error , because he has a natural protectionist instinct in his intellectual armamentarium .
He should mightily resist it .
Third , do not give in to our friends on the left who wish to boost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 15 , or to raise it at all .
This is an unemployment creator par excellence , particularly for unskilled workers .
Meltdown : A Free-Marke ... Thomas E. Woods Best Price : $ 0.25 Buy New $ 20.00 Does Trump not realise that a large part of his success in battening down the unemployment rate for the black community , and particularly for younger , less skilled , African Americans , stems from his holding the line on this matter ?
The Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security programme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should be strongly resisted .
Fourth , in no particular order , Trump should use all his good offices to stop the maniacal US Federal Reserve from furiously pumping money into the economy .
These are the seeds for the next business cycle downturn , and risk another bout of inflation , which we certainly do not need to compound our economic difficulties .
So , Mr President , embrace the free enterprise system , attain a V , a very narrow and sharp one , and the prognostication for November will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walter E. Block

A “U” or a “V”? That is the question – whether the economic recovery from the Covid-19 shutdown will be a long drawn-out process, a wide, flattish “U”, or a sharp, upward-bound one, a “V”.
To best wrestle with this question, let us look back a bit at some economic history regarding recessions and depressions, focusing on the US. Is this of interest to those following the course of the Chinese economy? Of course. When the US sneezes, China catches a cold. And, of course, the opposite is true as well.
Right now, the political relationship between these two countries has soured. But this will not, hopefully, always be true. In any case, economic law still operates, no matter what are the diplomatic relationships between nations.
The Forgotten Depressi... Grant, James Best Price: $4.24 Buy New $7.19 (as of 11:35 UTC - Details) The depression in 1921 was short-lived – maybe not a V, but at least a very narrow U. It was created by prior governmental monetary mismanagement, which led investors, as if by Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to engage in more long-term capital goods investments than the voluntary saving investment decisions of the populace would warrant, based on their time preference between present and future consumption.
Happily, during the 1921 depression, the government of president Warren G. Harding did not intervene with monetary stimulus, and the entire episode was over not in a matter of weeks (the V) or years (a fattish U), but months (a narrow U).
The Great Depression, which stretched from 1929-1941 (a morbidly obese U) stemmed from identical causes. Here, I am subscribing to the Austrian analysis of Ludvig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, not the Milton Friedman monetarist explanation of a lowered stock of money in the 1930s.
But presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt “fixed” this by propping up heavy industries whose extent was overblown by the previous artificially lowered interest rates, in an early “too big to fail” paroxysm. The Smoot-Hawley tariff added insult to injury, and put the kibosh on any early recovery.
The blunder of 2008 also stemmed from unwise governmental policy. In 1992, the geniuses at the Boston Federal Reserve implied that the banking system was racist, since banks were more likely to reject mortgage applications by blacks and Hispanics compared to whites.
Rather, in my view, their favourite colour was green: the ranking in terms of credit reliability and collateral determined lending practices.
But the US Department of Housing and Urban Development contributed to the eventual crisis by diverting mortgages; billions of dollars were improperly diverted into the housing market. Only when bankruptcies were finally allowed did we escape from that debacle. Call that a fattish, but not an obese, U.
This brings us to present considerations. As an Austro-libertarian, I see government failure as the cause of virtually all depressions, and we are certainly in one now. However, I am forced to admit an exception to this general rule. The depression of 2020 is a product of some very vicious little virus critters, not the state apparatus. Rethinking the Great D... Smiley, Gene Best Price: $1.68 Buy New $7.94 (as of 03:42 UTC - Details)
I now predict the sharpest of Vs, but if and only if, all other things being equal, the Trump administration cleaves to market principles. First, and perhaps most important, stop paying people more to stay home from work than the salaries they can garner from their employers.
It is beyond me why US President Donald Trump ever agreed to any such a scheme in the first place.
Does he not want to win the election in November? Does he not realise that a fast recovery, a V, will help him inordinately in that regard? Does he not realise that if people do not get back to work, there will be no recovery at all?
Second, do not commit the same error as the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Trump should beware this error, because he has a natural protectionist instinct in his intellectual armamentarium. He should mightily resist it.
Third, do not give in to our friends on the left who wish to boost the federal minimum wage level to US$15, or to raise it at all. This is an unemployment creator par excellence, particularly for unskilled workers.
Meltdown: A Free-Marke... Thomas E. Woods Best Price: $0.25 Buy New $20.00 (as of 02:20 UTC - Details) Does Trump not realise that a large part of his success in battening down the unemployment rate for the black community, and particularly for younger, less skilled, African Americans, stems from his holding the line on this matter? The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security programme already has provisions in this direction and they should be strongly resisted.
Fourth, in no particular order, Trump should use all his good offices to stop the maniacal US Federal Reserve from furiously pumping money into the economy. These are the seeds for the next business cycle downturn, and risk another bout of inflation, which we certainly do not need to compound our economic difficulties.
So, Mr President, embrace the free enterprise system, attain a V, a very narrow and sharp one, and the prognostication for November will be significantly boosted.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
The Best of Walter E. Block