There have been many pandemics in the past. However, for the least deadly pandemic in 2000 years (Klaus Schwab - page 247) mandatory masks in the West has become a contentious issue.
Lets begin with the "science" back in April:
A little collaboration of our soon-to-be Supreme Leaders.
Cloth masks are useless by "Infection Control Today."
Fauci clearly explaining masks are only effective for symptomatic patients.
A study explicitly explaining masks can cause negative health effects.
The CDC explicitly confirming there is no real reduction in transmission when wearing masks.
Fast forward to the summer and Christ! Look how the "science" has changed.
Some argue that the Government lied to us in April because their was a shortage of masks. These people are actually saying they were okay with the Government lying which, (if true) would have caused many more deaths if the masks were effective. Obviously, this was not true. But, look at the mental gymnastics people will do to justify these actions when they're scared. There was no shortage of anything - face coverings could have been a plastic bag for all they care, as we are constantly told, any face covering will do - no specific hole size, just any sort of covering! That's how scientific we are these days. Any red flags yet?
The most obvious red flag should be we are told to "just listen to the experts" - only specific ones however. Yet these experts never seem to reference any science, just warnings such as "don't kill granny" (Unfortunately, Newsbeat removed this episode where Matt Hancock said "Don't kill your Granny by spreading coronavirus." That's the state of our Government - propaganda.)
The masks are contentious because before June, the science was very clear, the science is NOT settled. Face coverings were not particularly important in the grand scheme of pandemic prevention, and the "experts" seemed to agree. They even went as far to say as it face coverings gave a false sense of security. However, the results on Google have changed dramatically since April when there were many studies easy to find, dismissing the effectiveness of masks, it's coincidental I'm sure, that many new studies since April have been created and pushed forwards promoting effectiveness of masks.
The best way to make an informed decision is to read some actual science. So, let's have a look at some ACTUAL science.
Conclusions: The study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses.
Conclusion: Hand hygiene and face masks seemed to prevent household transmission of influenza virus when implemented within 36 hours of index patient symptom onset. These findings suggest that non-pharmaceutical interventions are important for mitigation of pandemic and interpandemic influenza.
However it is also important to note - "Sixty (8%) contacts in the 259 households had RT-PCR-confirmed influenza virus infection in the 7 days after intervention. Hand hygiene with or without facemasks seemed to reduce influenza transmission, but the differences compared with the control group were not significant."
The differences were NOT significant.
If we look at the National Foundation for Infectious Disease and scroll down to:
"Do face masks protect against COVID-19?
Face masks can help prevent an infected individual from spreading the virus. CDC recommends using breathable cloth such as 100 percent cotton, with two layers of fabric for optimal filtering. When held up to a bright light, the fabric should not let a lot of light shine through."
It is clear the majority of people wearing masks are not wearing masks that block light, therefore they are obviously not as effective as desired.
The honest truth is NOW, there are many studies arguing both for being in favour and against the use of masks in prevention of influenza transmission. Interestingly, as I mentioned before, a lot more seem to have been published since April in favour. How coincidental - I wonder who's funding these 'studies?'
Anyway, to a cynic like myself, this would suggest science manipulation to suit a global narrative. To less cynical people, it should prove one thing, proof that the science is not settled. Science is never settled (except when the establishment decides they have an agenda to push - cough* global warming *cough.) However, how many experts have you seen on the news presenting the other, more balanced side to masks? None. This is the most worrying trend. Only experts promoting the narrative are allowed on, this is called censorship. Do free countries censor information? No they do not. However, Governments wishing to implement a new agenda may have their reasons, which I will get into later.
There are many, many, many studies one can reference to prove the point they wish to make. I would like to look at other questions such as practicality and consequences of wearing masks in the long term.
Are there physical and psychological effects? Yes. But, they are not acknowledged by the "experts" we see on BBC and Sky News.
Observe the following study:
Surgical masks as source of bacterial contamination during operative procedures which was observing the risks of bacterial build up on the masks for surgeons. It concluded, "the source of bacterial contamination in SMs was the body surface of the surgeons rather than the OR environment. Moreover, we recommend that surgeons should change the mask after each operation, especially those beyond 2 hours. Double-layered SMs or those with excellent filtration function may also be a better alternative."
Another study suggests something similar - Contamination by respiratory viruses on outer surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers which concluded, "Respiratory pathogens on the outer surface of the used medical masks may result in self-contamination. The risk is higher with longer duration of mask use (> 6 h) and with higher rates of clinical contact. Protocols on duration of mask use should specify a maximum time of continuous use, and should consider guidance in high contact settings. Viruses were isolated from the upper sections of around 10% samples, but other sections of masks may also be contaminated. HCWs should be aware of these risks in order to protect themselves and people around them."
Now should common sense kick in here? The surgeons are told to constantly change their masks to reduce the risk of breathing in bacteria and virus particles they expire. Are school children, workers and now the public continuously changing their masks every hour? No.
This is going to cause more respiratory illnesses, especially heading into winter, and a cynic such as myself, would suggest they could link these new cases to 'covid cases.'
People put their masks down on surfaces, in their bags, or in their pockets then put them back on their faces. Come on. Think! It's not difficult to understand the basic contradictions. What's more, even in supermarkets people are touching all the products, touching their phones, scratching their face and various other body parts, then touching produce again. Are the trolleys and baskets wiped down after every use? The masks and sanitizer make no difference in reality because if we were really doing this properly, we would be wearing effective masks and washing our hands after touching every single item in the supermarket.
So, why are we doing this? More importantly, why is our Government promoting this fraudulent safety propaganda now?
Well, there is a psychological aspect to masks.
This study published in 2016 suggests - "We act out our collective anxiety about pandemics by wearing masks even when there isn’t a pandemic,1 but wearing masks reinforces the idea of a possible future of pandemic. The problem of affect in political terms is a contagious one: fear spreads among the public, leading to intensification of risk management — the classic example being 9/11 and the war on terrorism. Fear of ineffective risk spreading communicably becomes an ironic pun. Pandemics occurred in 1918, 1957, 1968, 2003 and 2009. Thus, the conversation changes from if the next pandemic will occur to when the next pandemic will occur. Because we are currently “between pandemics,” our existence is book-ended by the realized threats of the past and the reasonable threats of the future — to our detriment, with this detriment masked by the surgical mask itself."
The Charity - MIND - also acknowledges the stress masks offer to individuals, creating unnecessary anxiety.
The Government have a psychological team in sage who's job is to increase the public's fear and adapt the correct response. Sound like a free country? Observe this document written by the Behavioural Insights Team in the Government's secret SAGE committee which states -
"The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat (11). "
"Messaging needs to emphasise and explain the duty to protect others"
"Social disapproval from one’s community can play an important role in preventing anti-social behaviour or discouraging failure to enact pro-social behaviour (15). However, this needs to be carefully managed to avoid victimisation, scapegoating and misdirected criticism. It needs to be accompanied by clear messaging and promotion of strong collective identity." - This one is my favourite. They seemed to have forgotten the part of not creating victimisation - "Don't kill Granny!" Do me a favour!
The agenda of the Government is clear. It is trying increase fear within the population. Would you suggest this an appropriate action for Government who's trying to 'protect us'? If you do, I have a magic tea pot you'll be very interested in.
In my humble opinion, the masks are all for show and only became mandatory in the summer because the SAGE team knew they needed visual proof to keep the illusion of the "pandemic" alive.
There are other simple questions one should ask regarding the effectiveness of masks:
If the current case numbers are to be believed, we have more cases now than in the peak back in April - why is this the case? People have been wearing masks since June.
When masks became mandatory, why did we wait 10 days until Monday 15th June? If they were so important why not make it mandatory that day? Wouldn't we have saved more lives if we put the masks on a week earlier?
Sweden has not mandated masks and have been a lot more successful than us, why?
In conclusion, it is clear there is a heavy bias towards masks in the response. It is not conspiracy theory to read the science for yourself (even if Google has changed its algorithms to make certain studies much harder to find.) We're meant to be in this together. I do not think it is too much to ask for the experts we're told to listen to, to respond to the other experts. We are entitled to the science, not the message the Government wants to give us. I would demand the studies to be presented and debates to be held by conflicting experts and letting us decide. We have given the Government WAY too much power and we will be punished for doing so. It should worry you when they have made an issue such as face masks so explosive when it really shouldn't be.
The "science" is being manipulated and it is your duty to question every damn thing the Government says as a free citizen. This is the price of liberty, constant vigilance.
I will continue not to wear a mask because I have looked at the science and decided it's pointless. The propaganda of telling us "wear masks to protect others" is dangerous and should be obviously so. If this was true, we would have worn masks every winter during the flu season, every visit to the hospital etc. However, I fear this may well be included in the 'new normal' from now on.
The advice should be, "wear masks if you want to", but a Government has no right to mandate such actions if we're truly a free county. The science is not being followed - just some of it. The rest is being ignored and suppressed. If they're this deceitful with masks, how deceitful will they be with other expensive "science" coming down the road? cough* rushed vaccines *cough.
Whilst Matt Hancock dismisses evidence like vitamin D and zinc and promotes masks and vaccines, your common sense should be kicking in.
In summary - science is not settled as we are often told. Medical experts opposing these narratives are censored. One size fits all has never been an option - nothing in science has ever suggested this to be the case. The experts we're told to listen to never have to debate of defend their ludicrous predictions. Enough.