Covid-19 news: Mask wearing cuts infections by 53 per cent

German Dr Thomas Jendges, Commits Suicide At The Age Of 55, Refusing To Be A Part Of What He Perceives As “Genocide”

r/vaccinememorialwall

•

Posted by

u/Av0gadr0

1 day ago

German Dr Thomas Jendges, Commits Suicide At The Age Of 55, Refusing To Be A Part Of What He Perceives As “Genocide”

The latest coronavirus news updated every day including coronavirus cases, the latest news, features and interviews from New Scientist and essential information about the covid-19 pandemic

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-covid-19-news-mask-wearing-cuts-infections-by-53-per-cent/#ixzz7CZro7n8p

Review of studies reinforces the effectiveness of face coverings, handwashing and social distancing

Mask wearing is one of the most effective public health measures for preventing covid-19, reducing incidence of the disease by 53 per cent, according to a review of published research.

Stella Talic at Monash University in Australia and her colleagues carried out a meta-analysis using data from 72 studies to assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions – measures that don’t involve drugs – at containing the virus.

Handwashing was also estimated to reduce covid-19 incidence by 53 per cent, but this result was not statistically significant because only a small number of studies on it were included. Physical distancing was found to reduce incidence by 25 per cent.

Excuse me if I am far more sceptical. The above is is a 'New Scientist' (of course heavily dependant on advertising revenue) summary of the actual Monash article. It seems to have been based on only six studies where the "risk of bias ranged from moderate to serious or critical." So the reliability of the simplified conclusion that masks reduce risk of infection by 53% is immediately fundamentally undermined. 

There is a gulf between simplistic conclusion and method employed in coming to it.  As always the results of an investigation depend heavily on multiple factors including bias and preferred outcome. The Monash conclusion is second hand. It is an assessment of an assessment. They call it a 'meta-analysis. There appears to be a total absence of critical analysis of the premise and method of the studies involved.

Not until I discover a study that compares the medical outcomes of two groups of matched people, one wearing masks all the time, the other never wearing one, will I be convinced that mask wearing confers any health benefit.  In fact I'd be prepared to put money on the fact that after an extended period, the mask wearers would have worse outcomes, particularly in relation to pulmonary aspects.

There is a question why such a study was not instituted, immediately the mask policy became obligatory or even years before it! The same question could be applied to the matter of the application of the jab by an agency independent of the manufacturers themselves.

If we are to believe the current 'case' rates, both 'vaccination' and the use of masks has been spectacularly ineffective. No one seems to acknowledge this fact. Instead government and health authorities continue, bull headed, to promote the same ludicrous policies.

If you can make head or tail of the substance of the following article on which the simplified conclusion that masks work is based, you are a better man than me Gunga Din.

Yes, Din! Din! Din!

   You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!   

   Though I’ve belted you and flayed you,   

      By the livin’ Gawd that made you,

   You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din! - Rudyard Kipling

Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

From: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302

Mask wearing and covid-19 incidence—Six studies with a total of 2627 people with covid-19 and 389 228 participants were included in the analysis examining the effect of mask wearing on incidence of covid-19 (table 1).364357606366 Overall pooled analysis showed a 53% reduction in covid-19 incidence (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75), although heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I2=84%) (fig 5). Risk of bias across the six studies ranged from moderate36576066 to serious or critical4363 (fig 2).

Table 1 

Study characteristics and main results from studies that assessed individual personal protective and environmental measures

• View popup
• View inline

Fig 5

Meta-analysis of evidence on association between mask wearing and incidence of covid-19 using unadjusted random effect model

• Download figure
 
• Open in new tab
 
• Download powerpoint

Mask wearing and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, covid-19 incidence, and covid-19 mortality—The results of additional studies that assessed mask wearing (not included in the meta-analysis because of substantial differences in the assessed outcomes) indicate a reduction in covid-19 incidence, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality. Specifically, a natural experiment across 200 countries showed 45.7% fewer covid-19 related mortality in countries where mask wearing was mandatory (table 1).49 Another natural experiment study in the US reported a 29% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 transmission (measured as the time varying reproductive number Rt) (risk ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.75) in states where mask wearing was mandatory.58

A comparative study in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region reported a statistically significant lower cumulative incidence of covid-19 associated with mask wearing than in selected countries where mask wearing was not mandatory (table 1).69 Similarly, another natural experiment involving 15 US states reported a 2% statistically significant daily decrease in covid-19 transmission (measured as case growth rate) at ≥21 days after mask wearing became mandatory,50 whereas a cross sectional study reported that a 10% increase in self-reported mask wearing was associated with greater odds for control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission (adjusted odds ratio 3.53, 95% confidence interval 2.03 to 6.43).45 The five studies were rated at moderate risk of bias (fig 2).

 1984 is truly upon us.

I'm tempted to write one of my articles on it (the Liverpool explosion) but I wonder what's the point? Nothing coming from government can be trusted these days. We are in a permanent and all-embracing state of deception and misinformation and we have only a vague idea of the secret agenda or who is pulling the strings. The consequences however are less opaque: a combination of all the restrictions of Covid-19, closely allied to the objectives of COP 26 result in greater surveillance, less personal freedom and an even more marked 'two-tier' system between those that comply and those that don't, those that have and those that have not. Psychological theory (largely based on the behaviour of rats - literally!) is well known. Thousands of experts pour out from our colleges and universities every year, yet still it hasn't dawned on the majority, how with billions of pounds of public money, it has been applied to manipulate and control them. At base it is the simple idea of 'carrot and stick' or should I say 'stick and carrot'? People have been 'terrorised'. Terrorised by acts of physical terror, by the unjustified threat of an infectious disease, by the threat of impending global doom. In all three cases the threat has been exaggerated and misrepresented. 'Lock-down' previously applied only to prisons and states of insurrection, has been subtly extended to more and more situations. It was used in the clearly fraudulent Boston Marathon event and and no one objected. It was not applied to the 7/7 London tube bombings, but it was to the Westminster attack, when even Parliament was 'locked-down'. From March 2020, and note the foresight, incredibly it was applied to the whole country on the back of an alleged deadly bug. Yet again the public complied and lessons were learned by those who planned it. A few weeks stretched to a few months. Now we wonder if the threat level, raised to 'severe' again following the suspicious Liverpool 'incident', will ever be lifted or the threat of covid will ever recede. So we have a triage of fears: global, biological and 'Islamic terrorist' to keep us in line, whilst ever more repressive laws are either acted or extended and monitoring technology becomes ever more sophisticated. Passes to travel or even shop are surreptitiously introduced and extended. No one objects to dogs being chipped do they, but every system needs to be trialled. This constitutes the perfect storm of fear and compliance. I have not even dealt with the multitude of 'carrots' that have been applied: the social and financial incentives, as banal as a free beef burger or the ability to enter a disco-tech, maintain social contact or even get an education or medical treatment. The hackneyed parallels with the dystopic 'Brave New World' and '1984' are there for all to see. Unless we become aware of the dangers, become more sceptical of the approved narrative pumped out continuously by the media, decide simply to say 'no, it will be an inevitability, and we shall all suffer the consequences.

The Liverpool 'incident' (as Boris called it)

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o2mePtHP9E

(Some unanswered questions)

• What evidence is there of 1. a bomb in the car, 2. a (badly burnt) body in the car?
• Who took the video and how did it get into the public domain so quickly?
• The report that he locked the terrorist in the car has been denied by his wife. Where did the story come from?
• Why did the passenger ask the driver to take him to the hospital (as reported) rather than the Remembrance celebrations?
• At what point did the taxi driver realise he was carrying a bomber?
• What sort of explosive device was it?
• If the drive thought or knew he was carrying a bomber or bomb, why did he park so close to a hospital building?
• How did he escape and survive the blast that did take place. How did the police know so quickly (within the hour?) what addresses to raid, given the man in the back of the cab had been incinerated beyond recognition, yet be unaware of their potential threat?
• Why were the people arrested by armed police, released so quickly?
• What was the nature of the explosive device shown and who made it?
• Was the alleged bomber acting alone or on the instructions of someone else? If an isolated 'incident' why raise the terror threat level to 'extreme' and forecast other likely similar events?
• All questions still waiting to be answered.

Couple of interesting facts regarding the number eleven which surprisingly seems to recur with regularly in connection with 'terrorist events':

The 'car bomb', if we should call it that, exploded at 11 am on Sunday 14th November, Remembrance Day, the first Sunday following the 11th of November. (It was on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, when the Armistice was signed in 1918, effectively ending the First World War)

On Thursday 11th Nov., 2021, our future King, William, visited (The Court Circular reports) the offices of MI5, Britain's Security Service. This followed a three week 'internship' of the three secret services in 1919.

Prince Charles became patron of the intelligence agencies in 2011 and has maintained a keen interest in the area. On the 21st October, 2021 he paid a visit to MI6.

The Queen's first public visit of 1919 was to GCHQ on the 14th February. On the 25th February, 2020 she made an unannounced visit to Thames House, Headquarters of MI5 to thank them for their work.

SIS secret military operation just happens to be: “22 SAS E SQN”

"Its work is so secret that its troops are kept apart from the other four Sabre Squadrons, A, B, D and G, at their headquarters in Hereford. The unit was originally called the Revolutionary Warfare Wing, or RWW, but to MI6 spies it was known as the Increment." Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15157602/the-increment-secret-unit-government/

Following from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o2mePtHP9E

Daily Mail

1.52M subscribers

SUBSCRIBE

The hero driver has been credited with saving many lives after locking an alleged suicide bomber inside his cab just moments before the vehicle blew up outside a hospital. The explosion turned David Perry's cab into a fireball outside the Liverpool Women's Hospital, seconds before the 11am minute's silence was due to take place yesterday. The explosion happens as the cab pulls up, then Mr Perry jumps out of the vehicle. The shocking video makes the driver even braver, as he may have locked the doors to stop the suspect entering the hospital, even if it cost him his own life. The male passenger, who had asked to go to the city's Service of Remembrance at Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral less than a mile away where 1,200 military personnel, veterans and families of the fallen had gathered, was the only person killed. A friend of married father-of-two Mr Perry, 45, said that he believed that the cathedral was the target but traffic and road closures led to the passenger, who has not been formally identified, asking the driver to park at the nearby Liverpool Women's Hospital instead. By locking him in, David appears to have stopped the man targeting  the hospital as the clock struck 11am. MI5 are said to be working with counter-terrorism police to confirm whether the Cathedral or the hospital was the true target and whether it was an Islamist attack.

From: https://inews.co.uk/news/liverpool-hospital-bomb-taxi-driver-wife-escape-explosion-miracle-1302077

Posting to social media, his wife Rachel Perry said: “I would just like to thank each and every one of you who have messaged asking how David is. He is doing ok but is extremely sore and just trying to process what’s happened.”

She also dismissed claims Mr Perry had locked the terrorist passenger in the back of the cab as “rumour” after Liverpool’s mayor Joanne Anderson told the press he had done so.

“There are a lot of rumours flying round about him being a hero and locking the passenger inside the car… but the truth of the matter is, he is without a doubt lucky to be alive,” Mrs Perry added.

“The explosion happened whilst he was in the car and how he managed to escape is an utter miracle. He certainly had some guardian angels looking over him.

“I would like to thank the amazing staff, doctors and nurses at the hospital, you were all amazing and also to the police officers and detectives who have been looking after us.”

She also asked the media for privacy, adding: “The most incomprehensible thing has happened to us and we just want to be able to deal with the situation as best we can. Let’s pray this doesn’t happen to anyone else.”

It is understood that the suspect, who was killed in the blast and is yet to be named, had asked Mr Perry to drive him to the hospital.

 “WHY DO SO MANY STILL BELIEVE?” 

DR. MATTIAS DESMET, PROFESSOR OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY AT GHENT UNIVERSITY, BELGIUM, GIVES AN EXCEPTIONALLY INCISIVE EXPLANATION

• 

  For the last eighteen months, since the lunacy over the Wuhan virus officially began, I’ve not heard a single person address — let alone address insightfully — the one thing above all others which for me, from right off, was the total giveaway to this entire deadly farce.

  In fact, there were two things very early on that could not be reconciled — the first of which was the immediate calculation by the powers-that-be of fatality rates before anything close to widespread testing had been done. This remains one of the truest giveaways: you cannot calculate fatality rates before you know infection rates, and you cannot know infection rates before widespread testing.

  Period.

  That’s mathematical law.

  This was and is a checkmate.

  The fact that within just a few days, world leaders and bureaucrats were telling us “3% to 5%” fatality rates — this was not only an intentional misrepresentation but also a clear-cut case of catastrophizing (actual fatality rates, according to the scrupulous Stanford epidemiologist John Iionadis, fall between 0.1 and 0.5 percent, which is much more like the regular seasonal flu), and catastrophizing, as I have admonished so many times this past year-and-a-half, should always be looked upon suspiciously.

  Always.

  The second and most significant of the two things that simply could not be reconciled is something that I’ve not only not had anyone answer: I’ve never even heard anyone else discuss it — even among those who didn’t buy into the mainstream narrative: people as skeptical as me.

  Until today.

  When I heard this gentleman today, I felt the scales fall from my eyes, and I am not kidding, either.

  This second thing I’m speaking of — the something that not one person among even the most dedicated and zealous catastrophists, not doctor, not scientist, not politician, not anyone, has ever addressed, even when I’ve directly and repeatedly asked — is this:

  How can anyone who purports to care about human life begin to justify the incalculable, irrefutable death and destruction these reckless and completely ineffective lockdown policies are having upon the innocent third-world poor, all across the world?

  How can any sane person justify creating astronomically more death and misery, and for an indefinite period of time, for a coronavirus which when treated with safe, abundant, inexpensive, effective, early-treatment protocols is far less lethal than the seasonal flu?

  No one has ever answered that question.

  I know I’ve written about this subject numerous times, and I don’t mean to be a broken record, but let me say again just for posterity: I have asked this question to more people than I could ever calculate, and not a single person — even the doctors and scientists — not one has ever in any way replied.

  I do mean that quite literally: there’s not ever even an attempt at a reply.

  It is truly among the most bizarre experiences of my entire life.

  It has at times felt for me like a dream — that ostensibly smart, compassionate human beings who in many, many cases are well-credentialed, simply say nothing. They remain mute and just stare. As if the words don’t compute. It is the closest thing I’ve ever experienced in real-life to feeling as if humans were under a Manchurian-Candidate-like spell, and it’s something I’ve thought into the ground.

  I was therefore astounded today when I came across the following interview, brand-new (September 21, 2021), between two people neither of whom I’d ever heard of before a few hours ago.

  The man being interviewed is one Dr. Mattias Desmet, a Professor of Clinical Psychology at Ghent University, in Belgium, and this entire discussion, from beginning to end, is absolutely riveting — the scope of its explanatory power unlike anything I’ve heard from anyone, at any point, on this surreal subject. You must watch it. It will throw open shut windows and it will cast gales of light upon the nightmarish chasmed darkness of the last eighteen months.

  At the five-minute mark, for instance, Professor Desmet, explaining when and why this global panic began to strike him as not-quite-right:

  “Another example of an absurd characteristic was that, from the beginning, institutions like the United Nations actually warned us that probably more people would die as a result of starvation, in developing countries, because of the lockdowns, than the number of victims the coronavirus could ever claim, even if there were no measures taken at all against the virus — which meant as much as: the ‘remedy’ was far worse than the actual disease. And still, nobody seemed to notice this. Everybody seemed to be so focused only on the coronavirus victims that people continued to be willing to buy into the story….”

  And at the forty-eight-minute mark:

  “In my opinion, the most important thing for people to do is to continue to speak out. Even if it’s just to say that you don’t agree with the mainstream narrative: because mass formation is provoked by the specific voice it’s gotten used to. Really, you have to take this literally. Totalitarian leaders know this very well: they start every new day with thirty minutes of propaganda, in which the voice of the leader constantly penetrates the consciousness of the population. So without mass media and without the ability to confront people, time and time again, with the voices of the leaders, no mass formation could continue as long as it continued in Germany and then in the Soviet Union. And the opposite of this is also true: if other voices are available in the public space, then the mass hypnosis will be disturbed.”

  I do sincerely implore you to watch and listen to this levelheaded, clear-thinking professor of psychology — no psycho-babbler here. He is smart and sane, and the world desperately needs more voices like his, and we can all learn from him and aspire to his powers of reason:

  The following three brief video-clips are, unfortunately, not nearly as inspiring.

  But they are every bit as important. The world is on the brink of a colossal disaster — the greatest disaster in human history — and we must all, each and every one of us, come together in unification and stand against it:

  Dr. Zev Zelenko, the world’s first and foremost physician to successfully treat the Wuhan virus, testifies to the Rabbinical court: “Wake up! This is World War III. This is genocide”:

  DR. JEAN THÉRON BEING ARRESTED & DRAGGED FROM OFFICE FOR PRESCRIBING ‘IVERMECTIN’ TO A COVID PATIENT IN FRENCH POLYNESIA:

  Mike Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer and an irrefutable voice of reason and sanity in this cesspool of “vaccine” propaganda, has issued what he believes may be a final warning, and I don’t necessarily think he’s wrong:

  Share this:

• The above from:  http://journalpulp.com/2021/09/22/why-do-so-many-still-believe-dr-mattias-desmet-professor-of-clinical-psychology-at-ghent-university-belgium-gives-an-exceptionally-incisive-explanation/?fbclid=IwAR3eiCwH24G9gYxXHFWiyQ-tHVQxAS0cUgUZllitAKvQJN2CgiqrpETdNAI

• 
  

  Dr. Mattias Desmet, Professor of Clinical Psychology, Ghent.

• 
  
  
  

• 
  

          Paths to Glory?

     (11:11:11)

Last night I watched 'Paths of Glory' on BBC 4 recounting a true and terrible event from WW1. Even though it dates from 1957 (when I was only eight) it was the first time I had seen it. It too was sombrely moving and a reminder how in war, individual lives are given scant regard, in contrast to the pomp and ceremony of remembrance celebrations. It is good to remember the self sacrifice but also the stupidity and evil of warfare in general, often powered by human conceit and hubris. The film was both written and directed by the famous Stanley Kubrick. He summed up his view on the true nature of man as follows: "Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved – that about sums it up. I’m interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure." He continued this theme in his later films which included, 'Dr Strangelove', 'A Clockwork Orange' and 'Full Metal Jacket', amongst others. Kubrick (1928 - 1999) was always controversial and thought provoking. His films are often said to have hidden meanings and some claim he was intimately involved in a moon landing fraud, utilizing the techniques perfected in his 1968 science fiction epic '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Some think his 1980 horror film 'The Shining' is an allegory of it. Whether true or not, I believe the past century will go down in the annals of human history as probably the most brutal and deceptive ever!

We can only be ambivalent about Remembrance Day. It evokes mixed feelings, the juxtaposition between militarism and pacifism. Militarism with its attributes of self-respect, self-sacrifice, discipline, order and comradery, set against the inevitable violence and cruelty, the subjection of individuality to the common purpose. The one day when the public gets an impression of the huge and complicated commitment in men and resources to the process of defending the UK and its interests. It is a snap-shot of the past and present, within the context of an extinguished empire and a fading world role, in a war-dominated century and the shifting tectonics of economic power. For the first time in over seventy years the monarch was notable for her absence, despite continuity being maintained by members of the Royal Family. A state ritual, that combines elements of religion, tradition and emotional gratitude to those who gave their service, suffering and even lives, in what were considered justified wars, was back in all its splendour after the depredations of a supposed pandemic. Hearing from men who lost close colleagues, limbs, eyes or sanity, can only be deeply moving, despite all the reservations we have regarding unjust wars and the brutal effects of them. So-called victory comes at a price to the defeated. Innocent civilians always suffer and are given scant regard by the victors. They too are notable in their absence from the grand parade. Politicians take centre stage in the commemorations and amazingly are not booed by the passing veterans. It seems a spirit of "We were all in this together", and "Let bygones be bygones" is the predominant ethos, as those that paid with their lives are rightly remembered. Thousands of marchers, thousands of observers, representing millions of others of a certain generation. But in another sense unrepresentative of a swiftly changing demographic and philosophical outlook. Will the cohesion and sentiment survive? Will the nation maintain its militaristic pretensions around the world as it struggles to meet its commitments at home? Can this almost unique exercise in sympathetic nostalgia withstand the predations of time and loss?

 So CO2!

The much maligned beneficial molecule.

Brian Cox vs Malcolm Roberts | Q&A 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf3TGmaLXow

Conversations That Matter: Environmentalist Patrick Moore

Part 1:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb-52nlv0qs

Part 2:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXxktLAsBPo

Dr Patrick Moore blows the gaff on the 'Global Warming' lie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXBBNcAvCsU

Tim Veater

Dom Lowe Yea I saw that one but haven't watched it yet. Disputation is absolutely central to scientific advancement. Science depends on an enquiring mind to pose the question and theory; the skill and facilities to set up the experiment; the honesty and application to get results that can be observed; suggesting a physical or chemical law to explain what is observed or theorised; and then testing it ad infinitum and subjecting it to critical peer review. Unfortunately we are now in an age where scientific research and opinion is subject to a powerful monoculture emanating from mainly government, deeply influenced by commercial interests, that bodes no dissent. We see it in the hypocrisy of COP26 and Covid 19. (Strange these numerical abbreviations) At the same time the public is urged to fear both CO2 and a virus, people are told to wear masks which obstruct oxygen, raise CO2 and do nothing to stop viruses! The people who preach the gospel of CO2 are the very ones who create most of the CO2 themselves. I remember in the seventies, the doom preachers were saying we were entering an ice age. Now it is global warming from CO2. It is very hard to measure whether the earth is in fact heating up or cooling down. John Locke was one of the first Englishmen (yes him again!) to systematically record the weather, but even so that is less than four hundred years, and earth timescales operate in millions. The Thames froze over in the "Great Frost" of 1683. It froze again in 1963. !816 was famously "a year without a summer" As you have probably realised I am very sceptical of what emanates from government sources, and the elites that represent them, on these subjects, as I do the theory that the relatively innocuous CO2 is the one and only villain of the piece. CO2 levels in the atmosphere stands at about 420 ppm (that's just 0.042%) and varies greatly according to location and circumstance. What of the 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, not to mention all the other trace elements? Why not equal concern for the amount of oxygen we are consuming in artificial man-made combustion processes. How many give this a second thought as they drive their car, take a plane trip or switch on an electrical appliance? "Climate science" is far from being an exact science. It NEEDS to be subject to rigorous debate and challenge. And for starters, we need to see individuals and nations that espouse the new dogma, lead by example not edict.