Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
Here’s a news flash: Millions are watching serious cases of medical damage and even death grow and very little efficacy for these still experimental vaccines. If they work so well, why are they pushing booster after booster? Why are the most outbreaks clearly among the vaxxed?
Vaxx zealots have now had to admit that the purpose for all this force is that symptoms will be less severe. Really? Former health nuts were more careful about their tap water but now, they dutifully line up to take jab after jab after jab.
We are to believe that there’s nothing suspicious about the growing body of knowledge being suppressed or ignored about the dangers of these vaccines just as organized bullying and intimidation tactics continue and are even ramped up against those who refuse!
The argument for the use of force depends on the ridiculous and fraudulent claim that the unvaxxed are a threat to the vaxxed. If one gets past that preposterous notion, why would the vaxxed continue such fear and animosity toward the un-vaxxed?
Through the years, Rosen has rightfully pointed out that in a free society, 100% agreement is hardly a goal. Yet here, he seems to be saying that approximately 80 million people deserve the discrimination they get if they don’t comply. Huh?
We don’t demean those who refuse chemotherapy and I’m fairly sure most would oppose any government that would force it on patients “for their own good,” so why such anger at those who have said no? Didn’t we once revere the Patient’s Bill of Rights?
The deadliest virus right now is the one that is essential for socialism/communism to take hold, and it’s spreading rapidly: the crushing of dissent.
Full-scale mainstream mediapropaganda is being used to play on the emotions and constantly push fear and contempt for “Refusniks.” That makes the growing persecution and punishment of them more palatable to the public. We hope it won’t work.
It does appear to be working to some extent in Rosen’s case, whose article laid the responsibility for that persecution on the victims themselves. If they would just comply, they wouldn’t be inconvenienced.
Communist regimes begin with just that sort of emotional blackmail and they never stop with one group of scapegoats.
Most people have little to no conscious awareness of why they do the things they do. Their behavior is on auto-pilot 99% of the time as their subconscious mind steers them toward meeting its own needs.
It doesn’t matter to the subconscious if its mistaken and the behavior is self-destructive or even dangerous, so long as it thinks it is fulfilling its basic drive to keep you safe amongst your tribe.
We’re hard-wired for social conformity, even when doing so may present an immediate danger to our safety. This phenomenon is well-known, and is illustrated in a social experiment overseen by psychology professor Dominic Abrams in which researchers attempt to answer the following question.
“Behaving differently from your group can make you an outcast. But what would you do if you knew your group was entirely wrong? Would you, for example, sit in a burning room, just because everyone else does?” – Dangerous Conformity
In a hotel room rigged with hidden cameras and microphones, participants in a staged internet marketing event attempt to influence the survival instincts of another by pretending to ignore smoke and smoke alarms in a conference room with eight people.
In short, when the participant was alone in the room when the smoke appeared, their survival instincts kicked in and they left the dangerous situation quickly, even abandoning their possessions.
When the participants was in the room with seven other people who pretended to ignore the smoke, the participant did nothing, staying in the room on an average of thirteen minutes, long enough to have killed them in a real fire.
“I was looking for some sort of reaction from someone else, even just the slightest little thing that they’d recognized that there was something, you know, going on here. For me, to knod of react on that and then do something about it, I kind of needed prodding.” ~ Participant
Investigators found that the majority of deaths occurred in the restaurant where people simply did not evacuate, presumably because of the ingrained and group behavior of waiting to pay the check.
“Now everybody’s looking at the smoke, but in some ways that gives the group even more influence. After all, if everybody can see the smoke and no one’s panicking, well, it’d be crazy of him to do it to.” ~ Psychology Professor Dominic Abrams
One lesson here is that when people are alone they tend to take responsibility for themselves, however, when part of a group, a person tends to figure out which behavior is the most acceptable to the others, look for the expectable scripted behavior, not embarrass themself by taking the lead, and defer to the norm of the group, even when the norm is dangerous.
Another lesson is that our behavior isn’t scripted by the conscious mind. Instead, behavior is mostly governed by the subconscious mind. If we lack the self-awareness and knowledge of how we choose our behavior, the more likely it is that we will mimic those around us, parrot what everyone else is talking about, and go along with anything just to get along, even at the risk of our own lives.
Today we are witnessing a dangerous manifestation of this. Heavily influenced by 24-hour news and social media culture, masses of people are frozen in the face of overwhelming pressure to conform, forgoing consideration of their own health, wellness and personal conviction, and refusing to object to ever greater control measures.
Many of the ideas to approach our current situation don’t make rational sense, and will certainly create ever-growing dangers for ourselves, however, not wanting to suffer the embarrassment of taking action, so many fail to react to the greater dangers being presented and move toward conformity with the herd.
This concept is twisted even further when you mix in the presence of authority, as demonstrated by Phillip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971. Zimbardo’s experiment showed us just how quickly and easily people will conform to the roles of master and subject.
In 1963, Stanley Milgram’s also famous social psychology research showed how a uniform as benign as a lab coat and a clipboard is enough to create a sense of authority amongst others, and that people will consciously physically harm others just because an authority figure instructed them to do so.
This has disturbing echoes in today’s world where all of a sudden so many people feel compelled to demand what medicines another takes, and some even support the idea of severely restricting the freedoms of those who do not conform.
Constantly scanning the environment for clues on how to best fit into its tribe, the aim of the subconscious mind is to be a non-threat to others and to adopt the average behavior of those around. This means that an individual can be compelled to act against his/her own interests in the subconcious’ drive to seek security within its tribe.
At the personal level, manifestations of subconsciously following dangerous herd behavior include all forms of self-sabotage and self attack. Commonly, these take form as poor eating and spending habits, the deterioration of the physical body, dependence on a dangerous medical establishment for health, and deference to psychiatry for mental wellness.
So many people are living as their lesser selves today, constantly pulled down by the average behavior of a sick and dysfunctional tribe.
The most fulfilling lives are those self-directed by our own creativity and our own ambition, and though you may honestly desire to self-actualize into your most powerful self, unless you are aware of how your unconscious mind influences you and pits you against yourself for its own survival, you’re going to have a hard time overcoming the incredible influence of nature.
These children are being essentially tortured by a corrupt medical establishment that seeks to inject pregnant women with experimental gene-altering medical treatments, all while denying them knowledge of vitamin D, zinc and other preventative interventions that carry almost zero risk.
In Oregon, they’re trying to make masks permanent so that the fascism Oregon health officials can demonize people for not wearing a mask, even five years from now. It’s pure insanity and it’s a crime against humanity.
Today’s Situation Update podcast covers the truth of how all the covid vaccines used in America cause blood clots, too.
And it covers Maxine Waters and her direct incitement of politically motivated violence, as well as NASA’s hilarious claim that they have a helicopter flying on Mars — a planet which NASA claims has only 0.6% of Earth’s atmosphere. It’s an incredible moment in history, for sure, when NASA claims to have flown a helicopter on a planet with virtually no atmosphere (which is obviously required for the helicopter rotor to produce lift).
There are many millions of Americans today in the post-election environment that feel uneasy about the fate of the country given the rise of a Biden presidency. And though I understand why this tension exists, I want to offer a possible “silver lining”; a different way of looking at the situation:
With Biden in the White House, there is no longer any ambiguity about what conservatives (and some of the more courageous moderates) need to do and need to accomplish. Now we know where we stand, and now the stakes are clear.
With Trump in office, a lot of liberty minded people became a little too comfortable, to the point that they were inactive. They actually believed the system could be repaired and corruption ended from within, and without much effort on our part beyond our votes. Trump made many conservatives lazy.
Then there was the Q-anon-sense floating around on the web which also misled some freedom activists into thinking that people much higher placed or “smarter” than us were fighting the good fight behind the scenes and that the globalists would be swept up in a grand 4D chess maneuver. This was a fantasy; it was never going to happen. Finally, everyone knows this and we can get on with the business of fighting the real battles ahead.
I think we are reaching a stage in the conflict between freedom advocates and collectivist tyrants when many illusions are going to melt away, and all we will be left with is cold hard reality. Now is the time when we find out who is going to stand their ground and fight for what they believe in, and who is going to cower and submit just to save their own skin. Now is the time when we find out who has balls.
The last four years plus the election of 2020 have revealed that political solutions are out the window. A lot of conservatives should have known better, but maybe it takes a perceived disaster to shock some people out of their waking dreams. Elections, voting, potential third parties; it’s all Kabuki theater. It’s all a facade to keep us docile and under control.
The liberty movement cannot revolve around a single political figure. We cannot bottleneck our efforts into the hands of one man or one political party. The fight is up to us – each of us as individuals. It was ALWAYS up to us.
A different form of organization needs to happen if Americans are going to protect our freedoms; a grassroots approach from the ground up rather than the top down. There will of course be people who stand out as teachers and pioneers, those that lead by example. But overall, the movement will not be acting on orders from on high. Rather, it will be acting according to self motivation. The liberty movement is not driven by personalities, but by shared principles which take on a life of their own.
I’m not worried about Biden. In fact, his presence may be the best thing to happen to conservative unity in well over a decade. The only thing I worry about, as noted, is who is going to stand their ground, and who is going to give in?
Biden may also be a wake up call for any moderate democrats out there who thought that by voting for a hair-sniffing corporate puppet they might put an end to the division and civil unrest in the nation. I think they will discover that Joe will attract even MORE civil unrest. He might trigger more looting and rioting by Antifa and BLM than Trump did, by the simple fact these insane people will assume that Biden will be malleable and easier to exploit.
Biden himself is not all that important; he is nothing more than a foil for bigger events and a proxy for more nefarious people. His presence signals that the “Great Reset” agenda is fully greenlit. This agenda has a pretty obvious set of goals, many of them openly admitted to by the World Economic Forum, and some of them strongly implied by the extreme political left and the media. They include:
1) Perpetual pandemic lockdowns and economic controls until the population submits to medical tyranny.
2) Medical passports and contact tracing as a part of everyday life.
3) The censorship and de-platforming of all voices that oppose the agenda.
4) Greatly reduced economic activity in the name of stopping “climate change”.
5) Greatly increased poverty and the loss of private property.
6) The introduction of “Universal Basic Income” in which the government becomes the all-powerful welfare provider and nursemaid for a generation of dependent and desperate people.
7) A cashless society and digital currency system where privacy in trade is completely erased.
8) The creation of a “shared economy” in which no one will own anything and independent production is outlawed.
9) The deletion of national borders and the end of sovereignty and self-determination.
10) The centralization of global political power into the hands of a select few elitists.
Now, you would think that most sensible people would be opposed to such a dystopian agenda. It would inevitably lead to mass death in economic terms, as well as war. Unless you are a psychopath that gets a vicarious thrill from the brutal oppression of millions of people, or you are a globalist that stands to gain immense power, there is nothing about the Reset that benefits you.
That said, there will still be millions of useful idiots that support totalitarian policies, and they will act to enforce them. Some of them will be convinced that they are serving the “greater good”, and others will think that they can “earn a place at the table” if they lick the boots of tyrants long enough. Bottom line? It’s not just the globalists we need to worry about, it is also the contingent of zombies they have duped or bribed into serving the Reset.
The information war is about to take a backseat and a new fight is about to begin. But how will it start?
I believe the first test for conservatives will be Biden’s pandemic response. The Reset agenda and the pandemic are closely intertwined. Do not be misled by calls from Democrats to reopen the economy; there are strings attached.
When New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that the state needed to reopen, or there would be “nothing left”, he also consistently hinted that vaccination numbers needed to improve. There are two big lies involved in this narrative – The first is that the vaccination rollout has failed on a technical level.
They want us to believe that only around 60% of the first 2 million vaccine doses have been administered because the state and hospitals failed to get them to citizens fast enough. The truth is, as we’ve seen in numerous polls of Americans and medical staff, millions of people DO NOT WANT to take the vaccine. The situation in New York must be shocking to establishment elites; it’s one of the most leftists states in the US and yet they can’t seem to trick enough people into taking the shot.
The same is true across the country, and it’s not because of bureaucratic failure, it is a propaganda failure.
Second, Cuomo’s statements hint that though lockdowns are destroying the economy, vaccine saturation is paramount. The message is this – “Take the vaccine, or the economy will crash.” The pandemic response is a carrot and stick approach: The lockdowns are the stick, and the reopenings are the carrot.
Of course, even if most people get vaccinated and submit to medical passports and contact tracing like good little slaves, this does not mean life will go back to normal. On the contrary, things will get much worse.
As I have noted in past articles like ‘Waves Of Mutilation: Medical Tyranny And The Cashless Society’, the globalists have admitted that the covid mandates and controls are going to be in place for many years, perhaps forever. Elites at MIT and the Imperial College Of London have written extensively about a strategy I call “Wave Theory”, in which governments constantly batter the public with waves of lockdowns followed by brief windows of partial openings and limited freedom.
The reopenings are a trick, a way to release public tension like a steam valve and make everyone think that the crisis is almost over. Then, the draconian mandates are brought back once again. This will never end. The only way to stop it is to remove the globalists from power and crush the Reset agenda.
A new narrative is already being injected into the mainstream media hinting that even vaccinations will not lead to freedom.
Anthony Fauci and others have argued that those who are vaccinated still need to follow lockdown mandates and wear masks. This policy completely ignores the scientific FACT that the death rate of covid is only 0.26% for anyone outside of a nursing home. It ignores the fact that masks have been consistently proven to do nothing to stop the spread of the virus. It ignores the fact that hospitals across the US have remained mostly empty, with only 15% of capacity in use during Covid . And, it ignores the fact that the vaccines are barely tested experimental cocktails that even the former VP of Pfizer has warned might cause dangerous autoimmune reactions and infertility.
On top of this, more and more stories about “covid mutations” are hitting the news wire. They are supposedly more infectious and more deadly than the original (which runs contrary to the natural evolution of the vast majority of viruses), and the mutation in South Africa is also “possibly” unaffected by existing vaccines. There is no concrete proof to support any of the claims, but I think you see where all of this is headed, right?
My guess is that in about two months the CDC and WHO will announce a new global outbreak of a more deadly strain of Covid. They will say the current vaccines are ineffective, and that lockdowns must continue. Hundreds of millions of people around the world are savvy to the old covid-19 scheme, so the elites are going to introduce covid-20, and covid-21, and covid-22, etc.
Biden will call for Level 4 lockdowns similar to those implemented in Europe and Australia, and this is where conservatives must draw a line in the sand and announce that we are not subject to unconstitutional restrictions, that we are breaking free. This will be our first major test.
It’s not enough to simply say “I won’t submit” when the consequences are minimal. One must be willing to fight back even when the consequences are dire. Being willing to lose everything for what you believe, being willing to possibly die for your values and principles means you are no longer a spectator in history, but an actor that can affect the future. Anything less is not enough to win the war that is coming.
It’s quite clear to see for anybody who is doing deep research into the COVID pandemic that there is a big split within the scientific/ medical community as to whether or not the measures being taken by governments around the world, like lockdowns, masking and social distancing are appropriate, effective and necessary.
It’s quite a concern to many that doctors and scientists who oppose the views and perception being given to us by mainstream media about the pandemic are largely ignored and censored.
Somebody like Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, can receive instant virality yet thousands of scientists and experts in the field who disagree seem to be ignored, censored and never really given the light of day to share their research, data, and opinions.
This was recently expressed by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine in an article written for The Hill titled “Facts, not fear, will stop the pandemic.”
In that article he expresses that the case fatality rate from the virus has dropped sharply since March, and that it’s now 99.95 percent for people under the age of 70 and 95 percent for people over the age of 70.
He also recently expressed this fact on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Network conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner, who interviews leading researchers and thinkers in health care about their JAMA articles.
Bhattacharya cited this study published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, along with approximately 50 others as expressed in the video interview.
In the article he wrote for The Hill, he points out a number of facts regarding the implications of lockdown measures.
The media have paid scant attention to the enormous medical and psychological harms from the lockdowns in use to slow the pandemic. Despite the enormous collateral damage lockdowns have caused, England, France, Germany, Spain and other European countries are all intensifying their lockdowns once again.
By lockdowns, we mean the all-too-familiar shuttered schools and universities, closed playgrounds and parks, silent churches and bankrupt stores and businesses that have become emblematic of American civic life these past months.
The relative dearth of reporting on the harms caused by lockdowns is odd, since lives lost from lockdown are no less important than lives lost from COVID infection. But they’ve received much less media attention.
The harms from lockdown have been catastrophic. Consider the psychological harm. Reader, since you’re reading this in lockdown, you can undoubtedly relate to the isolation and loneliness that these policies can cause by shutting down typical channels for social interaction.
In June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that one in four young adults had seriously considered suicide. Opioid and other drug related deaths are on a sharp and unsurprising upswing.
Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation, 80 million children at risk for diphtheria, measles and polio, and 1.8 million patients at risk of death from tuberculosis.
The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID.
Criticism of lockdowns has been a common theme. Early on during the first wave of the pandemic, a report published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″ has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May.
A response by Professor David Paton, Professor of Economics at the University of Nottingham and Professor Ellen Townsend, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Nottingham School of Medicine, to an article published in the the BMJ in November titled “Screening the healthy population for covid-19 is of unknown value, but is being introduced worldwide” states,
Taken together, the data are clear both that national lockdowns are not a necessary condition for Covid-19 infections to decrease and that the Prime Minister was incorrect to suggest to MPs that infections were increasing rapidly in England prior to lockdown and that without national measures, the NHS would be overwhelmed…
Lockdowns have never previously been used in response to a pandemic. They have significant and serious consequences for health (including mental health), livelihoods and the economy.
Around 21,000 excess deaths during the first UK lockdown were not Covid-19 deaths. These are people who would have lived had there not been a lockdown.
It is well established that the first lockdown had an enormously negative effect on mental health in young people as compared to adults.
The more we lockdown, the more we risk the mental health of young people, the greater the likelihood the economy will be destroyed, the greater the ultimate impact on our future health and mental health.
Sadly, we know that global economic recession is associated with increased poor mental health and suicide rates.
According to a recent study published in Pediatrics, lockdown and social distancing measures are strongly correlated with an increase in suicidal thoughts, attempts and behaviour.
According to Dr. John Lee, a former Professor of Pathology and NHS consultant pathologist,
Lockdowns cannot eradicate the disease or protect the public…They lead to only economic meltdown, social despair and direct harms to health from other causes…Scientifically, medically and morally lockdowns have no justification in dealing with Covid.
These facts and many others are what inspired Bhattacharya, along with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology to create The Great Barrington Declaration.
The declaration strongly opposes lockdown measures that are being and have been put in place by various governments around the globe. The declaration has an impressive list of co-signers from renowned doctors and professors in the field from around the world, and now has nearly 50,000 signatures from doctors and scientists. The declaration also has approximately 660,000 signatures from concerned citizens.
In the article they argue that, “In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.”
According to the AIER,
The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population.
AIER gathered data that was put together by engineer Ivor Cummins Ivor Cummins but has also added its own in the summary they posted, which you can see below.
The studies are focused only on lockdown measures and they “do not get into the myriad of associated issues that have vexed the world such as mask mandates, PCR-testing issues, death misclassification problem, or any particular issues associated with travel restrictions, restaurant closures, and hundreds of other particulars about which whole libraries will be written in the future.”
You can access those studies posted by the AIER here.
Other concerns with regards to lockdowns are the fact that they are based on “positive” results from a PCR test. Just because a person, especially an asymptomatic person, tests positive does not mean they have COVID. We seem to be forgetting this.
For example, 22 researchers have put out a paper explaining why, according to them, it’s quite clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases. As a result we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives.
The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe recently stated that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent false positives. This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it.
In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50%.
There are many examples, the list goes on and on and you can read more about that specifically here.
Although deaths are currently running at normal levels, fear is being driven by inflation of Covid “ases” caused by inappropriate use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test. This test is hypersensitive and highly susceptible to contamination, particularly when not processed with utmost rigour by properly trained staff. Case inflation also occurs from use of excessive number number of rounds of amplification cycles (termed CT) which amplifies non-infectious viral fragments and cross-reacting nucleotides from non-Covid coronaviruses/other respiratory viruses. These become mis-labelled as Covid.
Even Dr. Fauci confirms that a positive result using CT above 34 is invalid. An obvious improvement is to immediately halt any use of CTs above 34 and ensure that or CTs between 25 and 34, two consecutive positive results are required before confirming a case as Covid positive. – Eshani M King, Evidence Based Research in Immunology and Health, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, UK. (Source, BMJ)
Many concerns have also been raised about the death count, with various public health authorities admitting to counting deaths as COVID when they’re not actually a result of COVID. For example, Ontario (Canada) public health clearly states that deaths will be marked as COVID deaths whether or not it’s clear if COVID was the cause or contributed to the death. This means that those who did not die as a result of COVID are included in the death count. You can read more about that and see many more examples, here.
The ease to which people could be terrorised into surrendering basic freedoms which are fundamental to our existence..came as a shock to me…History will look back on measures – as a monument of collective hysteria & government folly.” – Jonathan Sumption, former British supreme court justice. (source)
The Takeaway Implementation of the current draconian measures that so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. –Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.
Why is there so much suppression of science and scientists who oppose the narrative and information being put out by the World Health Organization?
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)
Why is there a digital fact-checker going around the internet censoring information?
Should people not have the right to examine information, publications and evidence transparently, openly and determine for themselves what they wish to believe?
Why are government health authorities not consulting with independent scientific organizations to determine the right course of action during this pandemic?
Why do tens of thousands of doctors and scientists oppose the measures being taken by our governments?
Do we really want to give these entities so much power that they can basically do whatever they choose against the will of so many people? Do governments even represent the will of the people and have our best interests at heart or is something else going on here? Why do we as a society fail to have proper discussions about controversial topics? Why are controversial stances that go against the grain always labelled as a “conspiracy theory” and ridiculed by mainstream media no matter how strong the evidence is behind them?
“A group is suing Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum and Tulsa Health Department Executive Director Bruce Dart, saying the city’s mask mandate is harmful to healthy people,” reports Activist Post. The group includes business owners and two doctors who “are asking the city to immediately repeal the mask mandate which was passed by city council last month.”
“…the fear factor has got to step back. This idea that I don’t want to give you something that I don’t even know that I have is almost at the point of ridiculous. Let’s use some common sense.”
Dr. James Meehan, MD followed by warning that mask wearing has “well-known risks that have been well-studied and they’re not being discussed in the risk analysis.
“I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections. Reports coming from my colleagues, all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise.
“Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly… in a non-sterile fashion… They’re becoming contaminated. They’re pulling them off of their car seat, off the rearview mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they’re reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time.”
Dr. Meehan adds:
“New research is showing that cloth masks may be increasing the aerosolization of the SARS-COV-2 virus into the environment causing an increased transmission of the disease…”
In conclusion, Dr. Meehan states:
“In February and March we were told not to wear masks. What changed? The science didn’t change. The politics did. This is about compliance. It’s not about science… Our opposition is using low-level retrospective observational studies that should not be the basis for making a medical decision of this nature.”