- The Facts:
One of Europes leading neurologists, Dr. Margareta Griesz-Brisson, MD, PhD, recently gave an interview sharing her opinion that masks are dangerous and should not be mandated. Her interview was removed from YouTube.
- Reflect On:
How are so many renowned doctors and scientists sharing information that, according to many fact-checkers, is completely false? Her opinion is shared by many but again, according to many fact checkers, is completely false.
What Happened: Dr. Margareta Griesz-Brisson, MD, PhD, is one of Europes leading neurologists who is currently based in London, UK. She is currently the Medical Director of The London Neurology & Pain Clinic and also serves as a medico-legal experts in the UK, Norway, Germany, Switzerland and the United States. She specializes in neurology, neuro-regeneration, neuroplasticity, neurotoxicology, environmental medicine and pain management.
She is one of thousands of doctors and scientists from around the world who have strongly disagreed with the measures taken by the World Health Organization at multiple governments to combat COVID-19.
-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe and Dr. Madhava Setty deliver a special report aimed at gaining clarity around the COVID-19 vaccine. Is it safe and effective? Can it actually change your DNA? Click here to listen!
Is this false news? No, she actually gave an interview explaining why she believes masks are dangerous. What may be false is the claim that masks are dangerous, as multiple internet-fact checkers will likely claim is untrue, and already have. That said you should, as a viewer, be allowed to hear multiple sides of expert opinion and make choices for yourself.
In a recent interview, she states the following:
I am following the events in Germany with growing concern, in Germany and worldwide, corona turned out to be a moderate flu and the measures are an absolute disaster on every level…Our health is greatly in our own hands, through good food, good water, a lot of movement, sociability, joy, friends love and lots and lots of fresh air…We can strengthen our immune system. Have you noticed something, exactly those things our governments have forbidden us….The much loved mouth and nose cover…the re-breathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding with carbon dioxide. But we know that the human brain is so sensitive to oxygen deprivation that our nerve cells for instance in the hippocampus who can’t be longer than 3 minutes without oxygen, they can’t survive. The acute warning symptoms air headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, concentration, slow down in concentration time…But chronic deprivation, all those symptoms disappear because people get used to it, but your efficiency will remain impaired. And oxygen undersupply in your brain continues to progress. We know that neurodegenerative diseases need years to decades. So if today you forget your phone number, the break-down in your brain already started 20 or 30 years ago.
While you’re thinking you have to get used to your mask and your own exhaled air, the degenerative processes in your brain are getting amplified through the oxygen deprivation…The second problem of the brain is the nerve cells are not really dividing themselves, so in case our government generously lets us go without masks…the lost nerve cells will no longer be regenerated, what is gone is gone. This is extremely important for fearful people who actually think that they are protecting themselves from the virus. The virus has approximately size of 0.0 micrometers, the pores of the regular masks have a size of 80 to 500 micrometers and are getting bigger though each washing. The common masks does not at all protect you from the virus. I do not wear a mask, I need my brain to think, I want to have a clear head…and not in a carbon dioxide anesthesia….Oxygen deprivation is dangerous for every single brain…
For children, masks are an absolute no no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system…Their brain is also insanely active and has so much to learn…The youth brain is thirsting for oxygen…In children…every organ is metabolically active, to deprive a child’s brain of oxygen, or even just to restrict this is absolutely criminal…The damage because of it cannot be reversed…We don’t need a clinical study for that, it is simple simple indisputable physiology…Conscious and purposefully induced oxygen deficiency is a deliberate…health hazard and an absolute medical contraindication….This therapy, this method, this measure should not be used, should not be allowed to be used. To use an absolute medical contraindication…by force…there must be definitely and serious reasons and they must be presented to competent in-disciplinary independent bodies to authorize this…
It’s no secret that scientists and doctors who express and explain why they believe masks aren’t effective, and lockdown measures are doing more harm than good, as well as the idea that COVID is not dangerous, are being subjected to massive amounts of censorship. The interview with Dr. Margareta Griesz-Brisson has been removed from YouTube, for example. This level of censorship is something we’ve never really seen before.
There are many who oppose what’s happening, more than 500 doctors and scientists in Germany, for example, have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19 restrictions. They oppose the measures that have been taken by governments.
Is She Correct About Masks?
Claims that the virus is too small for the masks to be effective have been heavily challenged by internet fact-checkers. For example, here’s an article published by USA Today explaining why masks are efficient enough to block COVID-19. It explains why that despite the size of the COVID particle, masks are still effective. Here’s another one from a Taiwan fact-checking organization. CDC director Robert Redfield recently stated that wearing a mask might be “more guaranteed” to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine.
On the other hand, a paper published a couple of months ago in the New England Journal of Medicine by, Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D states:
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
There are also a number of studies suddenly emerging claiming that wearing a mask can supposedly help stop the transmission of Covid-19. That’s important to note. For example, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that wearing a wet washcloth greatly reduces exposure to speech droplets in the air. Another study in ACS Nano observed that well-fitted face masks made of common materials, such as cotton, can filter out between 80 and 99% of droplets, depending on droplet size. Finally, Jeremy Howard, a research scientist at the University of San Francisco, and other scientists have compiled a list of research publications supporting the use of face coverings for reducing disease transmission.
It’s not hard to see why people are so confused.
Below is a quote from a very interesting paper published in 2016, titled “The Surgical Mask Is A Bad Fit For Risk Reduction.”
As represented by our cinema and other media, Western society expects too much of masks. In the public’s mind, the still-legitimate use of masks for source control has gone off-label; masks are thought to prevent infection. From here, another problem arises: because surgical masks are thought to protect against infection in the community setting, people wearing masks for legitimate purposes (those who have a cough in a hospital, say) form part of the larger misperception and act to reinforce it. Even this proper use of surgical masks is incorporated into a larger improper use in the era of pandemic fear, especially in Asia, where such fear is high. The widespread misconception about the use of surgical masks — that wearing a mask protects against the transmission of virus — is a problem of the kind theorized by German sociologist Ulrich Beck.
The birth of the mask came from the realization that surgical wounds need protection from the droplets released in the breath of surgeons. The technology was applied outside the operating room in an effort to control the spread of infectious epidemics. In the 1919 influenza pandemic, masks were available and were dispensed to populations, but they had no impact on the epidemic curve. At the time, it was unknown that the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can theoretically penetrate the surgical mask barrier. As recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, “face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.” A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus…
A study published in 2015 found that cloth masks can increase healthcare workers risk of infection. It also called into question the efficacy of medical masks. You can read more about that and access it here.
The physiological effects of breathing elevated inhaled CO2 may include changes in visual performance, modified exercise endurance, headaches and dyspnea. The psychological effects include decreased reasoning and alertness, increased irritability, severe dyspnea, headache, dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss. (source)
Is She Correct That It’s “Flu Like?”
Many scientists and doctors in North America are also expressing the same sentiments. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.
A group of Canadian doctors in the province of Ontario have come together and written an open letter to Ontario premier Doug Ford. The letter is signed by 20 doctors and professors of medicine from faculties at the University of Toronto, McMaster University and the University of Ottawa and from hospitals such as Sick Kids. The letter was sent to ford on September 27th, and it argues against a return to lockdown measures as a way to tackle rising COVID-19 cases. You can read more about that here.
A report published in the British Medical Journal 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 peak of the virus.
The examples above are a few out of many.
The CDC also released new infection/fatality estimates that also has many people and experts calling into question the severity of the virus, this was well after John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old. It turns out he was right.
On the other hand, According to the fact-checker Health Feedback,
Scientists have observed that some survivors suffer from damage to various organs, including the lungs and heart, as well as the nervous system. Such damage could lead to chronic health problems, as this news article in Science reported, although it is currently unclear exactly how long such damage persists and how often it occurs. However, the long-term health effects of COVID-19 can be so severe that physicians and researchers are preparing to provide rehabilitation services to patients to facilitate their return to a functional life[2,3].
Finally, even a small IFR can translate into a large number of deaths if the virus spreads among a large group of people. Indeed, in spite of COVID-19’s relatively small IFR, the U.S. has recorded more than 200,000 COVID-19 deaths at the time of this review’s publication while there have been more than 1 million COVID-19 deaths worldwide, according to the Coronavirus Resource Center by Johns Hopkins University.
You can read their full post here.
We have to ask ourselves, why are so many experts in the field being completely censored, and why we are being told there is a clear consensus when there is in no way a consensus. Why is there so much information being shared that completely contradicts the narrative of our federal health regulatory agencies and organizations like the WHO? Why are we being made to believe that there is no solution for this except for a vaccine? Why is it so hard to find out what’s going on these days, and why is there so much conflicting information out there?
Does the politicization of science play a role? Can we continue to rely and obey the advice given to us by public health authorities, or should independent bodies be given as much attention regardless of their view? Why is certain information emphasized and the contradicting information from credible sources silenced? What’s going on here? Is our perception of major global events heavily influenced and controlled for ulterior motives?
As we write this, we are prepared for the possibility that a fact checker will shut this article down for it’s balanced journalism, that is to say, it’s giving you an unbiased look at both sides of the story. Something that apparently is lost from journalism in both the mainstream and alternative these days.
Elizondo, Mellon & Justice Are Officially Leaving To The Stars Academy
- The Facts:
UFO/UAP research organization To The Stars Academy officially announces the departure of COO Steve Justice, Director of Special Programs Luis Elizondo and Advisor Chris Mellon.
- Reflect On:
With so much mainstream attention on the UFO subject right now, many are wondering whether the public is being told the truth, or a sanitized version of it. Will we see new and groundbreaking material soon from these 3 key voices?
Since 2017, To The Stars Academy (TTSA) has been in the news in relation to groundbreaking events in mainstream UFO/UAP culture. You likely remember TTSA’s release of video footage showing UFOs making incredible maneuvers in the sky. The video was taken by a US Navy pilot while tracking and following the object for as long as possible. The story was heavily covered in mainstream and alternative media after the New York Times broke the story.
Since that day, TTSA has been in the limelight when it comes to the mainstream discussion of UFO disclosure. But with that success also came doubt and controversy. Why was the media suddenly interested in a topic it had ridiculed for so long? Credible evidence has been available for decades, so why is it only be acknowledged now? Why is TTSA getting so much attention when many other credible organizations, people, and whistleblowers were saying the same thing for years?
This skepticism amongst long time UFO researchers is fair, as these are good questions that don’t have clear or obvious answers. Further, TTSA was comprised of many former government and intelligence agency employees, former operations office at the CIA Jim Semivan, former CIA employee Dr. Nor Kahn, former Pentagon employee Lue Elizondo, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Christopher Mellon. With a roster like that, those with skeptical minds in a space shrouded by secrecy and deception would naturally question whether these ex-government employees are now in favor of disclosing government secrets, or whether they are part of a decade long cover-up program. This is healthy skepticism, it no no way means that these people are part of some sort of agenda to shape the perception of the masses when it comes to this phenomenon, but it’s an important discussion to have.
All that said, how can one deny the value TTSA has brought to this discussion? They have created massive awareness around UFOs/UAPs within the masses with their work, and this has resulted in a greater audience willing to explore this important subject credibly. As I have often said, just because there may exist an agenda to manipulate public perception on a subject, it doesn’t mean it won’t backfire and instead create massive positive public awareness.
Years ago we wrote an open letter to comedian and podcast host Joe Rogan about UFOs, as during that time he was denying the legitimacy of the subject and it was clear he had not truly looked into it. That piece was viewed hundreds of thousands of times, perhaps it got on his radar, perhaps it didn’t. But look now, with TTSA’s work and a change in the mainstream conversation, Joe Rogan has significantly changed his tune about the UFO phenomenon and is sharing that open-mindedness with millions of his podcast listeners. All this said, it’s hard to say TTSA has done anything but good.
But I’ll add one more small piece to this, people have been encouraged others to keep an open mind about TTSA’s intentions as some believe their focus is on a potential “ET threat narrative,” and this is believed to be part of a greater governmental agenda – even if that means by focusing on a threat it will bring haste to political action. You can hear these perspectives from researchers like Dr. Steven Greer and US constitutional lawyer Daniel Sheehan, both of who I shared screen time with in Dr. Greer’s latest film Close Encounters of The 5th Kind.
Nonetheless, the roster and goals at TTSA are now changing.
In a statement, TTSA informs the public:
TTSA now enters its natural evolution as a company as we adapt to a new global landscape with new opportunities and priorities. TTSA looks to build on the momentum of business initiatives where we are seeing success and which are increasingly likely to yield shareholder value. Data collection, artificial intelligence and entertainment opportunities remain our mainstays as key opportunities going forward and we are excited to announce more soon.
As we enter this new phase, inevitable changes will come with it, including a change in personnel.
We are incredibly grateful for the founding team members who helped establish TTSA, including COO Steve Justice, Director of Special Programs Luis Elizondo and Advisor Chris Mellon, who are moving on to focus on other endeavors, as TTSA continues to develop the new chapter in its evolution.
“This change does not alter the relationship TTSA and I have established or our collective dedication to the mission,” said Luis Elizondo. “We will continue to collaborate and strengthen our partnerships as we face new priorities and opportunities in the wake of COVID-19.”
TTSA thanks Steve, Luis and Chris for their meaningful contribution to the establishment of TTSA and an extraordinary three years. We wish them all the best in their future undertakings.
It’s important to note that just because your favorite UFO researcher might have an opinion about a key aspect of this discussion, it may not be accurate or true. In the 12 years our team has been researching the UFO and extraterrestrial phenomenon, it’s clear that there is not much of whole-hearted collaboration, and there is a great deal of infighting and differing opinions about what is going on. That said, it’s important to keep an open mind, follow the evidence, listen to multiple sources, and dig deep to uncover what is available. I truly believe true disclosure has happened in many ways already, after we now have full disclosure from governments that UFOs exist. The question now is who’s manning them? We know much more about that question already, and don’t need the government to tell us so. This is why I feel full disclosure will happen primarily through the people – not necessarily a slow, sanitized, drip from the government.
The information released by TTSA is merely the tip of a massive iceberg, an iceberg that we already know a lot more about than what has been disclosed to the public. Here’s to hoping that Elizondo, Mellon, and Justice plan to focus on bringing that information to the masses in a timely fashion – my hunch is they already know a lot more than they have shared over the last 3 years.
New Stanford Study Claims Lockdowns Are Not Effective To Stop Spread of COVID
- The Facts:
Four professors from Stanford School of Medicine have published a paper showing that lockdowns, stay at home orders and business closures are not an effective tool for stopping the spread of COVID. There are many studies claiming the same.
- Reflect On:
Why is information, science and evidence that opposes recommendations that governments are making sometimes ridiculed, censored, and largely unacknowledged? Why is scientific debate being discouraged?
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. – source)(
What Happened: A study published by four medical professors from Stanford University has failed to find evidence supporting the use of what they call “Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions” (NPIs) like lockdowns, social-distancing, business closures and stay at home orders. According to the study, these measures have not been sufficient and are not sufficient to stop the spread of COVID and therefore are not necessary to combat the spread of the virus. Although they do mention that “the data cannot fully exclude the possibility of some benefits” they mention that “even if they exist, these benefits may not match the numerous harms of these aggressive measures.”
The authors used England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden and the United States for the study. They found “No clear, significant, beneficial” effects of the methods being implemented (lockdowns, business closures, stay at home orders etc) to combat COVID case growth in any country.
You can access the full study here for a deeper discussion/analysis.
This Isn’t The Only Study: The recently published study by the Stanford professors is not the first. There are many examples.
“A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes” by Rabail Chaudhry, George Dranitsaris, Talha Mubashir, Justyna Bartoszko, Sheila Riazi. EClinicalMedicine 25 (2020) 100464. “[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”
“Was Germany’s Corona Lockdown Necessary?” by Christof Kuhbandner, Stefan Homburg, Harald Walach, Stefan Hockertz. Advance: Sage Preprint, June 23, 2020. “Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective. Several reasons for such an autonomous decline have been suggested. One is that differences in host susceptibility and behavior can result in herd immunity at a relatively low prevalence level. Accounting for individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to the coronavirus yields a maximum of 17% to 20% of the population that needs to be infected to reach herd immunity, an estimate that is empirically supported by the cohort of the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Another reason is that seasonality may also play an important role in dissipation.”
“Comment on Flaxman et al. (2020): The illusory effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe” by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner. June 17, 2020. Advance, Sage Pre-Print. “In a recent article, Flaxman et al. allege that non-pharmaceutical interventions imposed by 11 European countries saved millions of lives. We show that their methods involve circular reasoning. The purported effects are pure artefacts, which contradict the data. Moreover, we demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective.”
Did COVID-19 infections decline before UK lockdown? by Simon N. Wood. Cornell University pre-print, August 8, 2020. “A Bayesian inverse problem approach applied to UK data on COVID-19 deaths and the disease duration distribution suggests that infections were in decline before full UK lockdown (24 March 2020), and that infections in Sweden started to decline only a day or two later. An analysis of UK data using the model of Flaxman et al. (2020, Nature 584) gives the same result under relaxation of its prior assumptions on R.”
Professor Ben Israel’s Analysis of virus transmission. April 16, 2020. “Some may claim that the decline in the number of additional patients every day is a result of the tight lockdown imposed by the government and health authorities. Examining the data of different countries around the world casts a heavy question mark on the above statement. It turns out that a similar pattern – rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies: some imposed a severe and immediate lockdown that included not only ‘social distancing’ and banning crowding, but also shutout of economy (like Israel); some ‘ignored’ the infection and continued almost a normal life (such as Taiwan, Korea or Sweden), and some initially adopted a lenient policy but soon reversed to a complete lockdown (such as Italy or the State of New York). Nonetheless, the data shows similar time constants amongst all these countries in regard to the initial rapid growth and the decline of the disease.”
“Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study” by Paul Raymond Hunter, Felipe Colon-Gonzalez, Julii Suzanne Brainard, Steve Rushton. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “The current epidemic of COVID-19 is unparalleled in recent history as are the social distancing interventions that have led to a significant halt on the economic and social life of so many countries. However, there is very little empirical evidence about which social distancing measures have the most impact… From both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact.”
“Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic” by Thomas Meunier. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “This phenomenological study assesses the impacts of full lockdown strategies applied in Italy, France, Spain and United Kingdom, on the slowdown of the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak. Comparing the trajectory of the epidemic before and after the lockdown, we find no evidence of any discontinuity in the growth rate, doubling time, and reproduction number trends. Extrapolating pre-lockdown growth rate trends, we provide estimates of the death toll in the absence of any lockdown policies, and show that these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures (as opposed to police-enforced home containment) experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic.”
“Lockdowns and Closures vs COVID – 19: COVID Wins” by Surjit S Bhalla, executive director for India of the International Monetary Fund. “For the first time in human history, lockdowns were used as a strategy to counter the virus. While conventional wisdom, to date, has been that lockdowns were successful (ranging from mild to spectacular) we find not one piece of evidence supporting this claim.”
There are dozens upon dozens of examples of published research showing and claiming that lockdown and other non-pharmacological methods for combating COVID have no benefit whatsoever on reducing the spread of the virus, so why are we being forced into these measures?
Below is a video of Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist (also one of the authors of the study mentioned at the beginning of this article) where the initiators of the declaration. Together, they created The Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration has an impressive list co-signers, and has also now been signed by more than 50,000 doctors and scientists and more than 700,000 concerned citizens, which is pretty impressive given the fact that it’s received no attention from mainstream media. Follow their twitter account here.
The declaration explains why these health professionals and scientists strongly oppose lockdown measures, and also brings up the topic of herd immunity. In the video below they explain their belief of why there should be a different response to the pandemic.
The Consequences of Lockdown: The consequences of lockdown are many. And we are doing so for a virus with a 99.95 percent survival rate for people under the age of 70, and a 95 percent survival rate for people over the age of 70.
In Ontario, Canada, a member of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s caucus is speaking out against his own government’s policies and calling for an end to the province-wide pandemic lockdown.“The lockdown isn’t working,” writes York Centre Progressive Conservative MPP Roman Baber in a letter to Ford. “It’s causing an avalanche of suicides, overdoses, bankruptcies, divorces and takes an immense toll on our children. Dozens of leading doctors implored you to end the lockdowns.” (source)
A letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”
Many experts who are opposing lockdowns are not advocating for no measures to be taken, instead many of them believe we don’t have to shut down businesses and keep people inside to protect the vulnerable. They advocate for a more focused type of protection, especially in light of all the harms that lockdown measures seem to be creating.
These harms were pondered early on in the pandemic, a report published in the British Medical Journal 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.
Bhattacharya, MD, PhD wrote an article for The Hill titled “Facts, not fear, will stop the pandemic.” In that 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.
The burden of these policies falls disproportionately on some of the most vulnerable. For example, isolation led to a 20 percent increase in dementia-related deaths among our elderly population. Moreover, retrospective analysis of the lockdown in the United States shows that patients skipped cancer screenings, childhood immunizations, diabetes management visits and even treatment for heart attacks.
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.
Other Strange Happenings: A lot of people are also raising concerns about COVID deaths being marked as COVID when they’re not really a result of COVID. You can read more about that, in detail here.
Concerns have also been raised with regards to PCR testing, you can read more about that in detail here.
Furthermore corruption and conflicts of interest also seem to be a big concern, you can read more about that in detail here.
The Takeaway: Never before have we seen actions taken by Western governments come under such scrutiny from so many people. COVID has really been a catalyst for more people to question what we are doing here on planet Earth, why we live the way we do and why we give so much power to governments that may not have the ability to make the best decisions for us due to a number of different factors.
The suppression and muzzling of scientists, journalists, doctors and people during this pandemic for simply providing information, evidence and opinions that oppose mainstream rhetoric has also forced many more people to question what’s happening here. The shutdown of open scientific debate is quite concerning, and social media platforms have completely banned the accounts of what seems to be thousands of health professionals, journalists and independent media outlets while someone like Dr. Anthony Fauci is given instant virality on television when expressing his views.
Why is it that we fail to have proper conversations about controversial topics and viewpoints? Why do we have to shut them down, ridicule them and ignore them? What’s going on here? Is there a battle to control the perception of the masses when it comes to not only this pandemic, but other topics as well? Why do we continue to listen to and rely on entities that don’t really have our best interests at hand? Is the political realm really a representation of truth? Can it provide us with the answers and advice we are looking for and ones that are actually good for us? Should we give governments such power where they can shut down the planet at will when so many people across the globe disagree? Should people have the freedom to do as they please? Should business closures, isolation, and stay at home orders simply be shifted to recommendations? Should people be able to choose what measures they wish to take and respect the decisions of others who oppose them? When everything is not so black and white as sometimes it is made out to be, I believe freedom of choice should always remain, what do you think? I don’t have the answers, but I do know that asking questions and having discussions is very important.
Poland Moves To Make Censorship By Facebook, Twitter & Other Big Tech Giants Illegal
- The Facts:
The Polish Government has announced that it will be taking steps to make censorship by big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter completely illegal.
- Reflect On:
Do these companies really have an interest in removing harmful content, or does their interest lie in removing information, no matter how true, that threatens their interests?
Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be on Facebook.
What Happened: The deactivation of Donald Trump’s social media accounts has sparked both praise and outrage across the globe. One fact, however, that remains unacknowledged on such a large scale is the deactivation of thousands of social media accounts which includes many doctors, scientists, journalists and people for sharing information, evidence, science and opinions that go against the grain, so to speak.
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. – source)(
The Polish government has responded as officials have denounced the deactivation of Trump’s social media accounts and has said that a draft law is now being prepared, in Poland. This law will make it illegal for tech companies to take similar actions there and regulate what information people are able to see and access.
According to Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, “Algorithms or the owners of corporate giants should not decide which views are right and which are not.” He said that there can be “no consent to censorship”, comparing social media companies regulation of information to Poland’s experience during the communist era. He said that “Censorship of free speech, which is the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, is now returning in the form of a new, commercial mechanism to combat those who think differently.”
Below are his words taken from a recent Facebook Post.
I was born and raised among people from whom freedom was the most valuable value. In Poland we are so attached to freedom because we know what it’s like when someone tried to limit it. For nearly 50 years we lived in a country where censorship was in force; in a country where Big Brother told us how to live, what think and feel – and what to think, say and write…That’s why we look at all attempts to restrict freedom with such anxiety.
One of the synonyms of freedom has always been the Internet for us. The most democratic medium in history, a forum where anyone can speak without embarrassment. A tool that allows every person to really influence reality, to an extent unknown several years ago. Freedom related to the lack of internet regulation has many positive effects. But they are also negative: big, transnational corporations, richer and more powerful than many countries, have gradually begun to dominate it. These corporations have only begun to treat our online activity as a source of profit and strengthening global domination. And also to ensure political correctness the way they like it. And fight those who oppose them.
Recently, we are increasingly dealing with practices that would seem to have gone on in the past. Censoring free speech, the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, returns today in the form of a new commercial mechanism to combat those who think differently
The discussion is about exchanging views, not gagging your mouth. We don’t have to agree with what our opponents write, but we can’t deny anyone from spreading views that are legal.
There is no, and cannot be, consent to censorship….Freedom of speech is the salt of democracy – that’s why we must defend it. Which views are right and which are not, cannot be decided by algorithms or owners of corporate giants.
Poland will always stand guard for democratic values, including freedom of speech. Social media owners cannot operate above the law. That’s why we’ll do everything to determine how Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other similar platforms operate. In Poland, we regulate this with appropriate and national regulations. We will also propose that similar regulations apply throughout the European Union.
Social media must serve us – the public, not the interests of its powerful owners. All people have the right to freedom of speech. Poland will defend this right.
This does not mean Poland has not succumb to the corruption that plagues multiple governments, it seems these days no government is free the burdens of many unethical and immoral actions and measures they take and may impose on the population. This article however, is focusing specifically on censorship. Perhaps this is simply a PR move to “look good.” I don’t know.
It’s great to see censorship on the minds of many and with all of the controversy that has crept into the mainstream, more people are definitely aware of the problem. I would, however, like to emphasize again that it’s not just Donald Trump that’s been subjected to it, it’s thousands of doctors, scientists, journalist and media organizations, like Collective Evolution as well.
We are living in an age where there is a digital authoritarian Orwellian type of “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t. Should people not have the right to examine information openly and transparently and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t?
All of this censorship obviously requires a mass amount of surveillance. It’s no secret that tech companies like Facebook and Amazon, for example, have strong connections to intelligence. If you look at Facebook, Google and Amazon employees for example, there are many who have come from very high positions within the Department of Defense.
Amazon appointed Keith Alexander, director of the NSA under Barack Obama. NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden pointed out in a recent interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald,
He was one of the senior architects of the mass surveillance program that courts have repeatedly now declared to be unlawful and unconstitutional…When you have this kind of incentive from a private industry to maintain the warmest possible relationship with the people in government, who not just buy from you but also have the possibility to end your business or change the way you do business…You now see this kind of soft corruption that happens in a constant way.
In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic. These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways…They’re trying to make you change your behaviour…
Snowden goes on to explain how people get upset when government tries to set the boundaries of what appropriate speech is by attempting to stop big tech censorship, he then says,
If you’re not comfortable letting the government determine the boundaries of appropriate political speech, why are you begging Mark Zuckerberg to do it?
I think the reality here is…it’s not really about freedom of speech, and it’s not really about protecting people from harm…I think what you see is the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication. That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try to gain control over this instrument of power.
What we see is an increasing tendency to silence journalists who say things that are in the minority.
I would argue, however, that big tech may not just be censoring “minority” opinions. When it comes to the coronavirus for example, there seems to be, in my opinion, a large majority of doctors, scientists and journalists who are presenting information, science, evidence and opinion that strongly oppose certain measures taken by governments to combat Covid, like lockdowns, for example. Yet somebody like Dr. Anthony Fauci can go on television anytime he wants and is given the gift of instant virality while other experts in the field with opposing views seem to be completely ignored.
I would argue that the mainstream can make the majority feel like the minority, and the minority feel like the majority.
Final Thoughts: Censorship of information, thoughts, opinions and more can be a tricky subject to debate. At the end of the day, information that should not be censored seems to be censored simply because it threatens various corporate and government initiatives, or because it opposes a narrative that we see within the mainstream media. This is exactly why people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, among many, face difficulty. What does it say about our world when we silence and jail those who expose unethical and immoral actions by those we give the most power to?
This, in my opinion, is just wrong and not something humanity should stand for. Already we’ve seen a massive growth of other social media platforms that don’t work with and engage in big tech censorship, like Telegram, for example, and this doesn’t really come as a surprise. Many people are under the opinion that Facebook or Twitter can do whatever they like because these are private companies, and we the users, choose to use them. That may be true, but at the same time why censor so much information that is clearly not false, but simply because you don’t want people to think that way? What we are seeing today is not censorship of harmful information but rather the continued and concerted effort to control the way people think. The information that is censored is constantly labelled as “misinformation” and “fake news” when again, that’s clearly debatable and in many cases simply not true.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. – Edward Bernay’s, Propaganda 1928
The good news is that censorship measures have exploded and have also acted as a catalyst for more people to question what’s happening on our planet, why, and ask themselves what can we do about it. The number of people asking questions today is more so than ever before, and although sometimes it presents itself and seems like chaos, perhaps we are simply experiencing birthing pains as humanity transitions into a new experience. The more this kind of activity happens, the more our collective eye begins to see our planet in another light. The veil is being lifted.
Right now all of this is simply a reflection of human consciousness, the need to control, the need for power, control and more. Once human consciousness shifts and as it continues to shift, perhaps one day we will have more “conscious corporations.”
The ‘Most Educated’ Astronaut Says Extraterrestrials “Are Doing Star Travel” At A UFO Conference
Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be...