Well Mister Patrick Wood, I tried, I really tried to read your drivel,
I've seldom seen someone dragging red herring behind them, while they
beat up on Straw men. You go off dragging and grunting all about
science and pseudoscience, while we are concerned with the rising
numbers of people contacting COVID-19, and what we can do to slow it
down or eradicate it. . We are learning of serious complications
suffered buy some who contact this virus. What we want is to know
what is working and what is not working.
Masks seem to block the spray from our breath, so some of us are
promoting it. Call it what you will, it still is one piece of
prevention. Washing our hands in approved solutions seems to be a
good idea, too. Until we know for certain how this virus is spread,
we need to take all the safe practices that we can. When the Fox
breaks into the Hen House, the Hens do not debate whether they should
use science or pseudo science as protection from the Foxes, the hens
just follow chicken logic and begin yelling their heads off. There
may be better techniques with fancy names, but squawking is the one
method they know. We're doing the best we can, while you go about
undermining our efforts, even to the point of questioning the
constitutionality of insisting people wear masks. It's not found in
the Constitution. Nor is wearing clothes, or driving the speed
limits, or stopping at red lights, or dumping your poop pots in the
gutter. Many of our laws and regulations are set in place to protect
people as best we can. While we can't regulate carelessness or greed,
we can establish controls. It's no different than if you show up at a
fine restaurant and are told that you must have a tie in order to gain
entrance. That's not in the constitution either. Nor is the dog
leash law. Nor is running down the street in nothing but your
undershorts. We've had such regulations from our very beginnings as a
nation. So why are you trashing our efforts to protect ourselves now?
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/20, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I rarely forward an e-mail from another list but I just wanted you folks to
see what kind of dribble folks are trying to peddle. The far right is
trading national safety for a few misguided votes. This is sad stuff.
-----Original Message-----
From: Blind exchange and discussion <BLIND-X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of Rovin Customer
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 2:02 AM
To: BLIND-X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Article on face masks
Hello people, Ed Lopez back here. It has been a while sense I have been on
this list. Here is an article on face masks you may want to read very
carefully. Before anybody goes on this rave about face masks, read this
first.
The Miserable Pseudo-Science Behind Face Masks, Social Distancing And
Contact Tracing POSTED BY PATRICK WOOD 1033SC ON JUNE 19, 2020 In a great
suppression of free speech, technocrats working the COVID-19 pandemic are
shaming, ridiculing, bullying and marginalizing anyone who questions their
pseudo-science and shifting positions. The state-mandated wearing of face
masks, social distancing and contact tracing are all unconstitutional and in
some cases, illegal.
By Patrick Wood, June 2020
Once upon a time, there was something called science. It included the
discovery of truth about nature, the elements, the universe, etc. It was
practiced by honest and accountable practitioners called scientists and
engineers. They often invented cool new things as a result of their studies,
but generally they had no primal urge to use their knowledge to dominate
other people, groups or even entire societies.
Then certain other scientists and engineers rose up and made a discovery of
their own. If true science was ever-so-slightly skewed and engineering
disciplines were applied to society at large, then they could indeed use
their “knowledge” to dominate and control other people, groups, entire
societies or even, heaven forbid, the entire planet.
The first group pursued science. The second group pursued pseudo-science.
Merriam-Webster defines pseudo-science as “a system of theories,
assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.” The Oxford
dictionary clarifies by stating, “a collection of beliefs or practices
mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.“
Pseudo-science quickly emerged as the principal domain of Technocrats, but
they soon found that scientific debate with those promoting real science was
most inconvenient to their social engineering goals. The solution was
simple: claim that their own pseudo-science was indeed the real science, and
then refuse debate by excluding all other voices to the contrary.
In the context of pseudo-science, this report will examine the three primary
tools of fighting COVID-19: face masks, social distancing and contact
tracing.
Face masks
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website plainly
states <https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/covid-19-faq.html> that cloth
face masks “Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible
infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate
filtration.”
But, what about surgical masks? OHSA is clear here also that they “will not
protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to
loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”
But then right under these statements, OSHA furiously backpedaled by adding
an FAQ section on COVID-19 directly underneath and stated
<https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/covid-19-faq.html>,
OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face
coverings at work. Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) without knowing it (i.e., those who are
asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) from spreading potentially infectious
respiratory droplets to others. This is known as source control.
Consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
recommendation
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html>
for all people to wear cloth face coverings when in public and around other
people, wearing cloth face coverings, if appropriate for the work
environment and job tasks, conserves other types of personal protective
equipment (PPE), such as surgical masks, for healthcare settings where such
equipment is needed most.
So, wearing a face mask cannot protect you from getting COVID, but it is
supposedly able to keep someone else from getting it from you? OSHA is
speaking out of both sides of its mouth. What it calls “source control”
likely puts the real motive out in the open: since you are the source, it’s
about controlling YOU. There is no true scientific rationale for anyone but
the sick and medical workers to wear masks.
The truly healthy have no business wearing a mask, period.
But, what about asymptomatic carriers?
On June 8, 2020, Maria Van Herkhove, PhD., head of the World Health
Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit released a compilation of
a number of contact tracing programs from various nations and plainly stated
“From the data we have, it still seems to be very rare that an asymptomatic
person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”
This writer hates to think what happened to Dr. Herkhove overnight at the
hands of her WHO handlers, because the next day she also furiously
backpedaled and stated “I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that
that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is
very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies.”
It is clear that Dr. Herkhove’s first statement that naively repeated the
clear facts of the matter did not follow the WHO’s justification for
non-infectious people to wear masks. In fact, the entire mask wearing
narrative hangs on the single pseudo-scientific idea that asymptomatic
people can spread the virus.
In a recent Technocracy News article authored by highly-respected
neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD titled Face Masks Pose Serious Risks
To The Healthy,
<https://technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/>
he concluded, “there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any
kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus.”
(Blaylock represents real science.)
Nevertheless, in the face of clear evidence of the worthlessness of face
masks for preventing disease,
States and municipalities are mandating that face masks be worn by all
citizens when outside their home Large and small companies are forcing their
employees to wear masks People at large are scared to death to not wear a
face mask for fear of getting sick or being mask-shamed by others if they
take it off.
Breath Is Vital To Life
Many people believe that face masks lower the percentage of oxygen available
for inhaling because you rebreathe much of your exhausted breath. However,
a face mask itself does not retain a significant amount of your exhaled
breath since most of it is exhaled through the mask into the open
atmosphere. Furthermore, when you inhale, most of the air delivered to your
lungs comes from outside the mask.
The real science is much more complicated than the amount of residual air
contained within a face mask.
The real problem with breathing through a mask is that the lungs and chest
muscles must exert a lot of extra energy to inhale and exhale. In other
words, you must work harder to breathe the same amount of fresh air that you
would normally breathe without a mask.
For this reason, those who already have impaired lung functions, minor as
they may be, should never wear a mask unless it is for a specific purpose
for a very short period of time. The older you are, especially those over
70, lung capacity and muscle strength decline rapidly.
This writer has already encountered several retail store employees, forced
by their employers to wear a face mask during work hours, who exhibit
symptoms like headache, shortness of breath or dizziness. When asked if they
relate their symptoms to wearing the mask, every single one has emphatically
said “Yes!”.
Workers with the most physically demanding jobs are the most likely to
exhibit these kind of symptoms. Other considerations are age, any
preexisting conditions of the lungs (like pleurisy, COPD, chronic
bronchitis, pneumonia, etc.) or chest muscles and factors like poor physical
condition and obesity. Actually, any debilitating health condition should be
a red flag. In other words, those who are prone to get winded without a face
mask will immediately be at a disadvantage when wearing a mask. The net
effect is that the lungs receive less fresh air with vital oxygen even as
the body is under more physical stress.
Every employer and government entity that mandates the wearing of face masks
should be required to do two things: first, they should carefully consider
each employee as an individual to determine their suitability for wearing a
mask. All factors mentioned above should be included, and in any case, no
one should be required to wear a mask if it puts too much stress on their
lungs.
Many state-level politicians are now mandating the wearing of face masks for
all citizens in public places. They have fallen prey to pseudo-science and
are now putting entire populations at risk for physical harm that has
nothing to do with the COVID-19 virus.
In sum, lung strength, physical condition, age, pre-existing conditions,
physical demands of the job, etc., should all be carefully considered by
all. A blanket statement that all employees or all citizens should wear face
masks it wholly inappropriate.
Social Distancing
Adding to the fear of contagion, people across the nation are driven to
practice social distancing, or staying 6 feet apart at all times. This is
practiced to excess in almost every commercial establishment with markers
taped or painted on the floor and shopping isles converted into one-way
travel only.
Yet, two real scientists at the University of Oxford in Britain, Professors
Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, wrote in The Telegraph
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/15/no-scientific-evidence-support-disastrous-two-metre-rule/>
(UK) recently that “the two-metre rule has no basis in science.” Their
article was titled There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous
two-metre rule.
According to these scientists,
The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support
of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive,
but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine
the reliability of their findings. Recall bias arises in research when
participants do not remember previous events accurately, and it is
problematic when studies look back in time at how people behaved, including
how closely they stood from others.
More concerning was that only five of the 172 studies reported specifically
on Covid exposure and proximity with infection. These studies included a
total of merely 477 patients, with just 26 actual cases of infection. In
only one study was a specific distance measure reported: “came within six
feet of the index patient”. The result showed no effect of distance on
contracting Covid.
Heneghan and Jefferson further noted,
On further independent inspection of 15 studies included in the review, we
found multiple inconsistencies in the data, numerical mistakes and unsound
methods in 13 of them. When assumptions over distance were made, we could
not replicate any of them.
This is the hallmark of modern pseudo-science: inconsistencies in the data,
numerical mistakes, unsound methods and inability to replicate results.
What is the real purpose of social distancing? It certainly is not to
curtail contagion. The only other possibility is to curtail economic
activity and prevent social cohesion. Humans are social beings, after all,
and lack of close proximity leads to depression, anxiety and even serious
health consequences.
Contact Tracing
Contact tracing is an established practice in modern medicine. It is useful
for the early stages of serious infectious diseases like Ebola, tuberculosis
and sexually transmitted diseases like chlamydia.
Every credible expert on contact tracing says that it is effective only up
to the point of mass distribution. In other words, during the early stages
of a contagion or a slow moving or very serious disease.
In the case of COVID-19, the horse has already left the barn. Except to
harass people, there is nothing useful that contact tracing can accomplish.
Yet, almost every state in America is implementing a wide-ranging contact
tracing program that may ultimately employ some 300,000 tracers.
The Center for Disease Control website states that
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/contact-tracing.html>
“Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact>
(any individual within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes)
of laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19 patients.”
Furthermore, CDC complete definition of “close contact” is,
Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes
starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2
days prior to specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated.
If you are “exposed” to such a person, your personal information will be
collected and you will be contacted by the “tracer” to be instructed to
quarantine for up to two weeks. The infected person could have been mistaken
about having contact with you. They could be someone who just wants to get
you in trouble. If you live in Washington state, where all restaurants are
now required to record the contact information of every patron, you might
not have a clue who was infected, but you will be quarantined anyway.
Now, the CDC’s declaration of “6 feet” above takes us back to social
distancing, where we just learned above that there is “no effect of distance
on contracting COVID” in the first place.
Thus, find that contact tracing misses the mark on two main points: first,
the virus is too widespread throughout the population to make tracing
effective and second, the criteria of six feet for defining a “contact” is
bogus.
So, why are governors, mayors and health departments ramping up for a
nationwide exercise in obtrusive contact tracing? Again, pursuing a path of
pseudo-science, the intended outcome is control over people.
Conclusion
The American public is being spoon-fed a steady diet of pseudo-science in
order to justify the wearing of face masks, social distancing and contact
tracing. Yet, the actual science points in the polar opposite direction.
Furthermore, those who try to present the real science are shamed, ridiculed
and bullied for having such narrow-minded views.
This is a clear sign of Technocrats-at-work. Instead, these are the ones who
should be exposed, shamed and ridiculed.
In sum, these dangerous and destructive policies are designed to curtail
economic activity, break down social cohesion and control people. Moreover,
they fit the original mission statement of Technocracy as far back as 1938:
Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation
of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services
to the entire population…
It is highly doubtful that most state and local leaders understand the lack
of real and verified science behind their actions and mandates.
Nevertheless, they are implementing policies that are destructive to our
economic system, harmful to our personal health and ruinous to personal
liberty.