Face Masks do not Reduce the Spread of Respiratory Viruses
Every controlled study ever concducted on the effectiveness of face masks during respiratory epidemics has shown no statistically dsignificant reduction in the spread of infection. The following meta-analysis of 14 studies was published by CDC in 2020. Nevertheless, face mask mandates were based on the non-scientific inference that just because masks capture droplets then they must reduce the spread of infection. This conclusion does not follow. Every time you cough or sneeze into a mask, some particles will indeed be captured by the mask, but the next time you sneeze or cough into the same mask, the previously captured droplets will be atomised/aerosolised and emitted outwards anyway. The mask does not make the viral particles disappear but only temporarily delays their dispersion.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
Now if you add hand touching to the mask, as people often do because the mask causes discomfort, you just end up spreading the same viral particles by hand. We also know that after 20 minutes bacterial cultures begin to proliferate in the mask itself, and the mask becomes a potential source of bacterial lung infection. This is indeed what happened during the Spanish flu pandemic, where most people did not die from the virus but from bacterial pneumonia. This was confirmed by a study, which had Dr. Fauci as one of the authors:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2599911/
Irrespective of the epidemiological considerations discussed above, face masks are also psychologically damaging, undermining our sense of self and our social relations. I have discussed the relevant mechanisms here: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3840787
And then there is the famous “Still Face Experiment” by Edward Tronick: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=apzXGEbZht0
Every controlled study ever concducted on the effectiveness of face masks during respiratory epidemics has shown no statistically dsignificant reduction in the spread of infection. The following meta-analysis of 14 studies was published by CDC in 2020. Nevertheless, face mask mandates were based on the non-scientific inference that just because masks capture droplets then they must reduce the spread of infection. This conclusion does not follow. Every time you cough or sneeze into a mask, some particles will indeed be captured by the mask, but the next time you sneeze or cough into the same mask, the previously captured droplets will be atomised/aerosolised and emitted outwards anyway. The mask does not make the viral particles disappear but only temporarily delays their dispersion.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
Now if you add hand touching to the mask, as people often do because the mask causes discomfort, you just end up spreading the same viral particles by hand. We also know that after 20 minutes bacterial cultures begin to proliferate in the mask itself, and the mask becomes a potential source of bacterial lung infection. This is indeed what happened during the Spanish flu pandemic, where most people did not die from the virus but from bacterial pneumonia. This was confirmed by a study, which had Dr. Fauci as one of the authors:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2599911/
Irrespective of the epidemiological considerations discussed above, face masks are also psychologically damaging, undermining our sense of self and our social relations. I have discussed the relevant mechanisms here: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3840787
And then there is the famous “Still Face Experiment” by Edward Tronick: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=apzXGEbZht0
Emerging Infectious Diseases journal
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures
My Email to TGA regarding Safety of Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine
Good morning,
I am referring to the latest report from Pfizer: “Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine”
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159
This Randomised Controlled Study examines safety and effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine. The single controlled variable in this study is the intervention (BNT162b2) vs. no-intervention (Placebo).
Authors report 15 deaths at the end of the blinded study period in the BNT162b2 arm, and 14 deaths in the Placebo arm. Additional 5 deaths are reported soon after unblinding, all of these deaths occurred following vaccination. Considering only the deaths reported during the blinded study period, the Relative Risk of Death for the intervention is (15-14)/14=7% higher than for no-intervention. This is the only conclusion that obtains as a result of the controlled variable, but is alarmingly not elaborated in the conclusions; every other inference about causes of death relates to uncontrolled variables and is therefore speculative, not supported by the RCT protocol.
In short, the vaccines is at least 7% more likely to cause death than natural/unprotected exposure to Covid.
If the post unblinding deaths are included in the calculus, the observed relative risk of the intervention is even higher.
The Pfizer vaccine is now shown (by their own RCT) to be more harmful than Covid and its authorisation should be withdrawn.
Please kindly advise about your determination in this matter.
Good morning,
I am referring to the latest report from Pfizer: “Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine”
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159
This Randomised Controlled Study examines safety and effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine. The single controlled variable in this study is the intervention (BNT162b2) vs. no-intervention (Placebo).
Authors report 15 deaths at the end of the blinded study period in the BNT162b2 arm, and 14 deaths in the Placebo arm. Additional 5 deaths are reported soon after unblinding, all of these deaths occurred following vaccination. Considering only the deaths reported during the blinded study period, the Relative Risk of Death for the intervention is (15-14)/14=7% higher than for no-intervention. This is the only conclusion that obtains as a result of the controlled variable, but is alarmingly not elaborated in the conclusions; every other inference about causes of death relates to uncontrolled variables and is therefore speculative, not supported by the RCT protocol.
In short, the vaccines is at least 7% more likely to cause death than natural/unprotected exposure to Covid.
If the post unblinding deaths are included in the calculus, the observed relative risk of the intervention is even higher.
The Pfizer vaccine is now shown (by their own RCT) to be more harmful than Covid and its authorisation should be withdrawn.
Please kindly advise about your determination in this matter.
medRxiv
Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine
Background BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against COVID-19 and is currently authorized for…
Forwarded from Michael Kowalik
Science is Value-free. It can tell us only what is; not what ought to be. Therefore, deferring to “science” to justify “what ought to be” is at best an error, at worst a deception.
We need more fully unvaccinated volunteers to be the control group for the long term vaccine efficacy and safety study. It is a huge sacrifice to forgo the protection that vaccine gives us in the middle of the pandemic, but without unvaccinated heroes we will never know how effective these vaccines are. So please consider being part of the placebo arm of this amazing global experiment.
If you stand to lose your job or membership in an institution because you refuse to be injected with a foreign substance, I might be able to help you. I am an expert in medical ethics. Send me an email describing your situation at kowalik.michael@pm.me
UPDATE for SYDNEY: If you reside in LGA of Concern; “in order to work outside their area of concern, authorised workers must now have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Monday 6 September.
Authorised workers under the age of 16 years will be exempt from the requirement to be vaccinated. Rapid antigen testing will no longer be an alternative to vaccination.” https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20210827_01.aspx If the above applies to you, there is little room for negotiations with the employer. I suggest organising with everyone affected and acting in common interest. It seems only a massive industrial action can defeat these unethical and fundamentally unlawful requirements.
UPDATE for SYDNEY: If you reside in LGA of Concern; “in order to work outside their area of concern, authorised workers must now have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Monday 6 September.
Authorised workers under the age of 16 years will be exempt from the requirement to be vaccinated. Rapid antigen testing will no longer be an alternative to vaccination.” https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20210827_01.aspx If the above applies to you, there is little room for negotiations with the employer. I suggest organising with everyone affected and acting in common interest. It seems only a massive industrial action can defeat these unethical and fundamentally unlawful requirements.
Forwarded from 🙏💜TjoniJ💜🙏
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Omg this is gold.... 😂😂😂
Those who legislate to the contrary are criminally insane and cannot be reasoned with. https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN2939
There is ONE day left on this petition. THIS is the one that counts, addressing the problem at its moral core. It will amount to nothing unless you can help to achieve 100,000 signatures. https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN2939