“It is probable, that if surgical facemasks were to be introduced today, without the historical impetus currently associated with their use, the experimental evidence would not be sufficiently compelling to incorporate facemasks into surgical practice.”
From 2015 article Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery
A frightening amount of censorship is occurring at the moment. Of all things, facemasks are a bone of contention. Used historically in specific medical settings, mainly to do with preventing large splash contamination, their potential usefulness has been very specific and required intensive training to ensure skilled use and prevent cross contamination. A year ago they became a political tool recommended in various generalised settings, signifying a constant reminder that there’s a virus to be afraid of. Children as young as two years old are now being masked for hours everyday in some preschool settings. Some are even masking babies. The futility and dangers of their use in generalised situations, particularly but not only in relation to child developmental harms, are ignored in favour of alarmist signalling. Experts are shouting into the wind against this. They are persistently ignored until a certain level of readership is reached, when they are censored.
These events come as a worrying sign of the level of power one specific man has over the world of public health. Presented for some decades now, as a philanthropist contributing to public health, his intent is coming to light and it is quite the opposite of my previous assumptions of benevolence.
Denis Rancourt, a Canadian physicist analysing Covid-19 pandemic issues, has been removed from ResearchGate, an online site where millions of scientists share papers and network amongst each other. Rancourt had a ResearchGate account since 2015 and has thousands of citations, meaning a large readership. In their correspondence with Rancourt, ResearchGate claimed their permanent lock of his account was as a result of Rancourt’s science review analysing the use of facemasks which “contradicts the public health advice and/or legal requirements of credible agencies and governments. We therefore concluded that under our policies the reports had the potential to cause harm“. Why would a platform which exists for scientists to review and debate each other’s work, allowing for the best possible evidence to evolve, do this?
There seem to be few media outlets not under Gates influence. Dr Martin Kulldorff, a renowned Infectious Disease Epidemiologist based at Harvard University, mentioned a few days ago that it was a year since he called for age-focused protection based on the age-graduated risk for Covid-19. Rejected by multiple media outlets, he finally had to self-publish his findings which received little attention.
Yesterday Kulldorff and the Great Barrington Declaration lead signatory scientists who collaborated in response to their collective experience of censorship, as a way of trying to be heard amongst the noise of “everyone lockdown”, held another roundtable with Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida. Their initial roundtable, a month ago, was removed from YouTube with the cited reason that one of them argued there was no indication for the masking of children. (There isn’t. The harms are numerous).
Kulldorff, Gupta and Bhattacharya also joined a Covid-19 summit held yesterday by Ontario doctors responding to the alarmist public health response and related censorship occurring in today’s intimidating environment of silencing anyone who disagrees with the consensus view that lockdowns are a public health response with any merit. This was moderated by Dr Richard Schabas, public health physician and prior Chief Medical Officer for Ontario between 1987-1997. He trained Ontario’s current CMO and has been outspoken about previous pandemic fearmongering such as SARS1 and H5N1. Dr Kulvinder Kaur Gill, a courageous Canadian doctor who has experienced aggressive censorship and received warnings from her College of Physicians for speaking out against the lockdowns, presented the opening and closing references of this summit.
Both of these public health summits, which represent public health as it was once practiced without controversy, are expected to be removed from YouTube. They should be uploaded to other sites as soon as possible, at which time I can update the links.
A note to remember : lockdown has already increased Bill Gates’ profits by 20%. Big Pharma connections and increased online learning and work technology requirements are two examples of why. This should raise questions about why lockdown is being promoted as a public health response by Gates directly in multiple interviews with mainstream media, as well as via his networks in academia and media. The only credible evidence available (eg Bendavid, Bhattacharya and Ioannidis February published research) suggests that lockdown has questionable benefits relating to curbing a respiratory virus and causes many health-related and other harms across society.
alicespringstomind 