Covid-19 - The Lies and the Fraud by Terence Smart (best e book reader .txt) 📖
- Author: Terence Smart
Book online «Covid-19 - The Lies and the Fraud by Terence Smart (best e book reader .txt) 📖». Author Terence Smart
“And that brings me to the second element that enables this doctrine of everybody being a danger. And that is the asymptomatic driver thesis. It rests on very shaky grounds. I was absolutely aghast to find out the poor quality of the science underpinning this idea. One of the seminal papers involved one woman who reputedly infected 16 of her colleagues while asymptomatic. But a tiny little bit of investigation pulled out the reality that she was being treated for flu-like symptoms. And with that evaporates a substantial underpinning of the whole asymptomatic transmission story”. - Nick Hudson – founder of PANDA (Pandemics - Data & Analytics)
Anthony Fauci (Director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) knew this in January 2020, he told the world that in the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks.
Fauci and the WHO (Bill Gates) then changed their minds and said asymptomatic people can spread a disease because it supports the agenda that they want to push which is social distancing, masks, lockdowns, fear and the solution which is the vaccines and vaccine passports. But it is quite clear that history and decades of science do not change in a matter of months. They were lying.
No Scientific Evidence for the Social Distancing 2M Rule
Another of the baseless COVID assumptions is that all this social distancing or physical distancing is backed by solid scientific evidence. It’s not. Whether it’s 6 feet, 1.5 meters or 2 meters, the virus seems to be able to jump different distances depending upon what country it is in. The fact is there is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule.
Britain's two-metre social distancing rule is based on no evidence, leading scientists have claimed amid mounting calls to drop the measure.
Two University of Oxford experts argue there is little proof to support the restriction, after reviewing a World Health Organization paper on the topic.
Of 38 studies, only one looked specifically at coronavirus infections in relation to a specific distancing measure of two metres — and it found it had no effect.
The pair of scientists claimed the evidence in favour of the two-metre rule is of 'poor quality' and impacting Britain's chance to go about normal daily life.
Oxford professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson said: 'Social-distancing has become the norm.
“The two-metre rule, however, is also seriously impacting schools, pubs, restaurants and our ability to go about our daily lives. Handwashing and encouragement are what we need, not formalized rules. This means trying to keep a distance from each other where possible and avoiding spending time indoors in crowded places. Much of the evidence informing policy in this outbreak is poor quality”.
A senior statistician at the University of Dundee also found the data for two-metre guidelines — which informed experts at the WHO — is flawed.
Meanwhile UK governmental advisor Robert Dingwall said:
“We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population …I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-metre rule was conjured up out of nowhere … Well, there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for a one-metre distance which comes out of indoor studies in clinical and experimental settings. There’s never been a scientific basis for two metres, it’s kind of a rule of thumb. But it’s not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.”
A rule of thumb is a means of estimation made according to a rough and ready practical rule, not based on science or exact measurement.
MIT researchers challenge indoor social distancing rules: 'No safer at 60 feet than 6 feet'
A new study out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is challenging major COVID-19 mitigation measures of the past year, claiming the widely accepted six-foot "social distancing" rule is more or less meaningless in indoor settings.
The study https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118 authored by MIT chemical engineering Prof. Martin Bazant and applied mathematics Prof. John Bush, "characterize[s] the evolution of the concentration of pathogen-laden droplets in a well-mixed room, and the associated risk of infection to its occupants."
Those regulations have led most notably to widespread closures of schools for more than a year, as well as significantly curtailed economic activity, particularly among restaurants, bars, theatre’s and live entertainment venues.
Bazant and Bush in their new study suggest that the six-foot rule is largely irrelevant and that individuals are at risk from contracting the virus even if they are ten times farther away from an infectious individual.
According to models of "closed, well-mixed" spaces, the authors claim, pathogens are "distributed uniformly throughout" the local environment. "In such well-mixed spaces, one is no safer from airborne pathogens at 60 ft. than 6 ft.," the study states.
https://www.sott.net/article/451959-MIT-researchers-challenge-indoor-social-distancing-rules-No-safer-at-60-feet-than-6-feet
LIE 3: Masks stop the spread of a virus.
Truth: This lie depends on people believing lie number 2. Healthy people with no symptoms should wear masks to stop the spread of a deadly virus and there are no negative effects on your body by wearing them. Literally there is dozens of articles, videos and studies by doctors, OSHA inspectors, professors and health professionals which show that masks worn by the general public do not stop the spread of a virus in fact they contribute to the virus spreading and to lowering your immune system. Cases and deaths rose in every country after mask mandates where brought in, shouldn’t it have been the opposite. Masks should have been brought in at the height of the covid cases and deaths in MarchApril not when there was no cases and deaths in July 2020. They were brought in at this time to keep the fear in the minds of the public that the virus is still among us when it actually was not. The wearing of masks keeps people fearful and that is why governments will not tell you to remove them for a long time, perhaps years. Make people fearful and you can make them do anything.
A new study conducted by a team of Danish researchers has found that face masks have no effect in controlling the spread of COVID-19.
A study conducted by a team of Danish researchers has found that face masks have no effect in controlling the spread of COVID-19. The new finding comes at a time when WHO is strictly advocating people to wear masks to contain the pandemic effectively.
The study which is known as the Danmask-19 trial was conducted in the Spring 2020 with more than 3,000 participants. During the time of this trial, the general public was not asked to wear masks as a precautionary measure to control coronavirus.
Out of the 3,000 participants, 1,500 people were given surgical masks. Researchers also made sure that these participants are changing these masks every eight hours. After one month, PCR tests were conducted on these 1,500 participants, and the results were compared with non-mask users.
The results were pretty surprising, as there was no significant difference between mask users and non-maskers when it comes to getting contracted with coronavirus. According to the study report, 1.8 percent of mask users were infected with coronavirus when compared to 2.3 percent of non-maskers.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
A September report by the CDC found that more than 70 percent of COVID-positive patients contracted the virus in spite of faithful mask wearing while in public. Moreover, 14 percent of the patients who said they “often” wore masks were also infected. Meanwhile, just four percent of the COVID-positive patients said they “never” wore masks in the 14 days before the onset of their illness.
The authoritative New England Medical Journal investigated the circumstances necessary for contamination. The conclusion of five scientists is that face masks are of no use at all. Infection only occurs after someone has been standing very close to an infected person with symptoms for several minutes.
‘We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection’ — New England Journal of Medicine (21 May, 2020)
Public health authorities define a significant exposure to covid-19 as face-to-face contact within one and a half meters with a patient who has covid-19 symptoms. That contact must be maintained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes).
A large scale study was conducted to determine once and for all, whether face masks are useful for dentists. The result of this historic study was surprising:
'These and other studies show that viruses or other submicron particles are not filtered by face masks.' - Dr John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC
It should be concluded from these and similar studies that the filter material of face masks does not retain or filter out viruses
Viruses are very, very, very small. Microns across. You can only see them with an electron microscope. As such the weave of a cloth mask provides almost no resistance to their passage.
The advice above from the WHO was in March 2020 but they changed their minds later on or where pressured to.
A very extensive study carried out by nine scientists shows that the prolonged use of face masks in fact increases the risk of infection!
'This study is the first RCT of mouth masks, and the results warn against the use of face masks. Moisture retention, re-use of face masks and poor filtration can lead to an increased risk of infection.' - BMJ Medical Report
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
There’s also the issue of other possible complications, such as hypercapnia, an excess of carbon dioxide in the blood caused by re-breathing your own expelled air. It’s also been shown that mask use can exacerbate chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) and perhaps other respiratory issues as shown in the study below.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31992666/
Face mask manufacturers warn: no protection against a virus.
Some honest manufacturers of face masks correctly inform their users that their products offer no protection against covid-19 and other viruses. If these medical ear loop masks - that have multiple layers (!) - don't help, then the self fabricated masks offer no protection either.
On the contrary: they block oxygen flow, which weakens the body and therefor lowers the immune system, which results in higher risk of infection.
Masks Harm Kids: 68% of Parents Report Alarming Psychological and Physical Problems in First-of-its-kind Study
A German study involving over 25,000 children reveals that major negative impacts on the physical, psychological, and behavioral health of children may be far more widespread than reported in the media and by government officials -- affecting approximately 68% and contributing to 24 distinct health complaints, according to parent submitted observations.
The study was designed to both explore the accumulating narratives reported by parents, educators, and doctors about increasing problems and health complaints in children and adolescents wearing masks, as well as to provide the first known online registry where parents, doctors, teachers, and others can enter their first-hand observations. The registry and the questionnaire can be found online at www.co-ki-masken.de
By 26.10.2020 the registry had been used by 20,353 people. In this publication we
Comments (0)