Home | About | Donate

Orwellian: Ardent Covidiots Vow NOBODY WILL TAKE ARE FREEDOM AWAY

Speaking of preventing. Germany, Austria, UK, Belgium, Italy all implemented mask mandates, yet “Cases” have risen; per the media, quite alarmingly this Fall. UK even implemented yet another lockdown.

Taboo to bring up in these circles, but look at Sweden’s record without a mask mandate. Maybe we could learn something from their “experts.” Just a thought.

If not mistaken you are from Canada, correct? Have you ever heard of this Pathologist/Virologist - Roger Hodkinson?

Take a listen.


One would think there would be some interest in Fauci’s relation to China and Wuhan Lab? But I guess that’s deemed not newsworthy.

Sweden has higher cases and deaths per Capita then Germany and Denmark…

Compare New Zealand to sweden.

There no single solution. Mask wearing is one of many things that is done to prevent spread. Social distancing , hand washing , limits on gatherings and the like are others. The rise in cases was predicted a long time ago as we are entering Flu season. . The virus spreads because it gets aerosolized through sneezing or heavy breathing (they found as example one of the single largest sources of cluster breakouts here in BC is people gathering indoors to exercise in large groups). Walking through a public area where many people have gathered will see more of that virus aerosolized then if one walked through a woods where no one else around. Breathing in the air in a crowded area makes one more likely to breathe in the virus. Masks prevent the escape of water droplets when sneezing or even talking and while not 100 percent effective if they only stop 20 percent of the virus from escaping people are exposed to that much less.

The naysayers claim the size of the virus is so small masks can not filter it out. This is not the point. The point is to prevent those water droplets from escaping which help to aerosolize the virus. Water droplets from a sneeze as example can also land on a surface which another person might touch. The water droplet is a type of “container” for carrying the virus… If droplets are prevented from landing on a surface because I am wearing a mask then it less likely that surface gets contaminated.

This does not mean one can not contract the disease because one has a mask on. It means if one were to measure the amount of the virus in the air in ppm it would be lower when there more people wearing masks in that area.


It’s not newsworthy and has been debunked.

By whom? Proof?

Oxford Professor Carl Heneghan’s article on the Danish study was “flagged” by Facebook as “false,” further proof of my initial assertion of the suppression of alternative views.

Heneghan posted - “I’m aware this is happening to others - what has happened to academic freedom and freedom of speech? There is nothing in this article that is ‘false’”

Good question Professor.

Which has nothing to do with the rationale for wearing masks which I outlined nor with the fact that the Danish study flawed. Experts also claimed that on September 11 2001 three steel framed skyscrapers all collapsed onto their own foot print because of fire. I also question their methodology. I would point out alternate viewpoints are also suppressed.

What happened to the ability to think critically and question what is presented to us?

1 Like

I read a lot of research papers, basically for my own self-education and I’ve been following coronaviruses since the SARS + MERS “epidemics”. For a long time its been apparent that we would continue to see coronavirus epidemics and that we needed a different approach than vaccines in combating them, because they mutate so rapidly. Even if we come up with a vaccine, its likely we’ll still keep seeing new SARS variants, the more and the faster people travel, its likely the more we will see them spread.

The existence of a research lab in Wuhan that studies zoonotic illness, (which was actually collaborating with US labs in doing (controversial) research on bat viruses) also became the subject of a lot of speculation, as indeed it should have.

I also thought about this lab last year when Wuhan was rocked by protests against the building of a huge waste incinerator there.

Its still unwise to attribute blame to anybody. It also really matters little, given that now this virus is out in the wild. Its likely that we’ll never be rid of it, quite possibly necessitating a change in how people behave, given that I can hop on a plane and in less than a day be anywhere else in the entire world.

So, give the misinformed poor people a break. They have to feed their kids - they are looking at losing everything they own, as well as their only connection to their only home they ever had, in many cases.

They deserve some compassion. Only the most wise and responsible scientists should have the power to make decisions on things like this, politicians are among the last people who should have responsibilities like that.

No doubt Trump was thinking of all the US manufacturers with plants in other countries when he insisted that it was not an emergency, knowing that US firms costly investments in production lines would be offline - shut down because of unsafe working conditions a bit faster if we ourselves shut down factories here. That’s what all that stuff was really about.

Expensive equipment is probably seen as more important than human lives now. That’s the way it was in the past too. Its kind of a problem inherent to the system we have now.

Look up “force majure” and the law of contracts in the international setting. US companies have an exceptional amount of investment in countries like China.

Its entirely possible that due to coronavirus, literally millions of businesses around the world will have to be redesigned to improve ventilation and keep people from breathing others exhaled air.

Entire neighborhoods where people live very close to one another, sharing air shafts and subways and so on, become much less attractive places to live. Unless you absolutely have to.

This is impacting a lot of peoples, as well as businesses.

The Danish study was not a study about the effectiveness of wearing masks. It was a study of the effectiveness of being recommended to wear a mask at a time when health officials were not recommending it for the general public in Denmark. People were randomized to either be recommended to wear a mask or to not having that recommendation. Those recommended were also given a supply of masks - but the purpose of the study was not to present comparative data about mask wearing. Indeed, they did not even ask the control group about how often they wore a mask.


The Gov of Iowa told people no mask needed before the election----now after the elction she imposes a mask mandate??? How many died from her political ploy???