Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Results of massive Danish study released: Face masks do NOTHING to prevent COVID19

  1. #1

    Exclamation Results of massive Danish study released: Face masks do NOTHING to prevent COVID19

    Major Study Finds Masks Don’t Reduce COVID-19 Infection Rates

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18...fection-rates/

    November 18, 2020 By Jordan Davidson

    A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection.

    “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use,” the authors summarized their results.

    While mask-wearing has been advertised by health officials all around the world, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, the Danish researchers found that there was no statistically significant difference between wearing a mask or not in preventing people from contracting COVID-19.

    “In the third post hoc analysis, which investigated constellations of patient characteristics, we did not find a subgroup where face masks were effective at conventional levels of statistical significance,” researchers found.

    The randomized-control trial, which is considered the “gold-standard” design for scientific research, had a large sample size of more than 6,000 people. Most studies conducted on various kinds of face masks against various coronaviruses are neither randomized, controlled trials nor conducted regarding the specific SARS-CoV-2 virus currently affecting the world.

    This clinical trial was conducted from April through June in Denmark, a largely unmasked area with government recommendations only to social distance and wash hands frequently as the country began to reopen in May. Roughly half of the 6,024 participants, 4,862 of whom completed the study, were randomly assigned to wear surgical masks “outside the home among other persons together” while the other half continued to operate in public without a mask.

    After a month, 42 of the mask-wearers in the study (1.8 percent) were infected with the virus while 53 of the non-mask-wearers (2.1. percent) were infected with the virus. Statistically, this is not a significant difference between the two groups, suggesting these infection differences were a product of chance, say the study authors.

    “The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results,” the study states. “Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.”

    Some have noted Denmark’s population at the time of the study was less than 2 percent infected, participants were in charge of reporting their own COVID-19 tests, and other limitations. Dr. Christine Laine, editor-in-chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine, where the study is published, told The New York Times the research shows masks “are not a magic bullet.” In an article, Laine and other editors defended the journal’s decision to publish the study despite pushback.

    “More irresponsible would be to not publish the results of carefully designed research because the findings were not as favorable or definitive as some may have hoped,” they wrote.

    The mask study one of the largest of its kind ever completed.

    “These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect,” the study states, noting that the trial “did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
    We must picture Hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment. - C. S. Lewis



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    We must picture Hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment. - C. S. Lewis

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Major Study Finds Masks Don’t Reduce COVID-19 Infection Rates

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18...fection-rates/

    November 18, 2020 By Jordan Davidson

    A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection.

    “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use,” the authors summarized their results.

    While mask-wearing has been advertised by health officials all around the world, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, the Danish researchers found that there was no statistically significant difference between wearing a mask or not in preventing people from contracting COVID-19.

    “In the third post hoc analysis, which investigated constellations of patient characteristics, we did not find a subgroup where face masks were effective at conventional levels of statistical significance,” researchers found.

    The randomized-control trial, which is considered the “gold-standard” design for scientific research, had a large sample size of more than 6,000 people. Most studies conducted on various kinds of face masks against various coronaviruses are neither randomized, controlled trials nor conducted regarding the specific SARS-CoV-2 virus currently affecting the world.

    This clinical trial was conducted from April through June in Denmark, a largely unmasked area with government recommendations only to social distance and wash hands frequently as the country began to reopen in May. Roughly half of the 6,024 participants, 4,862 of whom completed the study, were randomly assigned to wear surgical masks “outside the home among other persons together” while the other half continued to operate in public without a mask.

    After a month, 42 of the mask-wearers in the study (1.8 percent) were infected with the virus while 53 of the non-mask-wearers (2.1. percent) were infected with the virus. Statistically, this is not a significant difference between the two groups, suggesting these infection differences were a product of chance, say the study authors.

    “The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results,” the study states. “Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.”

    Some have noted Denmark’s population at the time of the study was less than 2 percent infected, participants were in charge of reporting their own COVID-19 tests, and other limitations. Dr. Christine Laine, editor-in-chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine, where the study is published, told The New York Times the research shows masks “are not a magic bullet.” In an article, Laine and other editors defended the journal’s decision to publish the study despite pushback.

    “More irresponsible would be to not publish the results of carefully designed research because the findings were not as favorable or definitive as some may have hoped,” they wrote.

    The mask study one of the largest of its kind ever completed.

    “These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect,” the study states, noting that the trial “did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
    There is NOT one single scientific study which supports using face masks outside of a healthcare setting

    A- CDC

    Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

    B- THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO)


    2) Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for the
    general public

    Many countries have recommended the use of fabric
    masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present
    time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the
    community setting is not yet supported by high quality or
    direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and
    harms to consider (see below).

    c- The New England Journal of Medicine


    We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.


    Some of these scientific studies have been retracted for POLITICAL REASONS - the retractions did not, and could not identify a SCIENTIFIC STUDY requiring the retraction. For Shame.
    Last edited by Contumacious; 11-19-2020 at 08:50 AM.
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  5. #4
    Hush you. Be angry at Trump supporters like you are told to...

    NBC Blames Trump Supporters for Coronavirus Deaths, Tells Viewers “Be Angry” at Them

    https://ussanews.com/News1/2020/11/1...angry-at-them/

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Hush you. Be angry at Trump supporters like you are told to...

    NBC Blames Trump Supporters for Coronavirus Deaths, Tells Viewers “Be Angry” at Them

    https://ussanews.com/News1/2020/11/1...angry-at-them/
    yassuh...
    We must picture Hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment. - C. S. Lewis

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    There is NOT one single scientific study which supports using face masks outside of a healthcare setting


    We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.


    Some of these scientific studies have been retracted for POLITICAL REASONS - the retractions did not, and could not identify a SCIENTIFIC STUDY requiring the retraction. For Shame.
    We've known for over 100 years they do nothing to prevent flu (and other respiratory illness) transmission.

    This study specifically investigated COVID19 transmission and masking.

    That's what I felt was important to point out more than anything else.
    We must picture Hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment. - C. S. Lewis

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    We've known for over 100 years they do nothing to prevent flu (and other respiratory illness) transmission.

    This study specifically investigated COVID19 transmission and masking.

    That's what I felt was important to point out more than anything else.


    Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy


    .
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Hush you. Be angry at Trump supporters like you are told to...

    NBC Blames Trump Supporters for Coronavirus Deaths, Tells Viewers “Be Angry” at Them

    https://ussanews.com/News1/2020/11/1...angry-at-them/
    The Fake News Media aka THE SEE BS Network

    was seeking to remove Trump by ANY means necessary therefore they decided to weaponize covid19 thereby using to

    (a) tank the economy (b) force the states to use mail in ballots and (c) blame Trump for the disaster

    this was done 24/7 since at least February 2020
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    The Fake News Media aka THE SEE BS Network

    was seeking to remove Trump by ANY means necessary therefore they decided to weaponize covid19 thereby using to

    (a) tank the economy (b) force the states to use mail in ballots and (c) blame Trump for the disaster

    this was done 24/7 since at least February 2020
    They also blame all the violence in Democrat cities on him. The Nazi's are calling Trump the Nazi.....lol...The neocons are pulling out all of the stops this time. I'm wondering if he is going to make a deal with them before this is all over and attack Iran for them. He just set it up with the bull$#@! rhetoric with Iran being behind the attacks in Baghdad.
    Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.
    Thomas Jefferson

  12. #10
    Looks again like it's time to ignore "The Science!" and not make "data-driven" policies.

    It's pitifully clear that these dehumanizing dictates do nothing to save us from viruses, but they're sure effective at stroking the egos of every tin-pot despot who has come out the woodwork since the beginning of this medical-kabuki nightmare.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Badnon Wissenshaftler View Post
    Looks again like it's time to ignore "The Science!" and not make "data-driven" policies.

    It's pitifully clear that these dehumanizing dictates do nothing to save us from viruses, but they're sure effective at stroking the egos of every tin-pot despot who has come out the woodwork since the beginning of this medical-kabuki nightmare.
    Indeed.

    But it gets worse.

    In Germany , the government wanted to prove to the "rightwingers" that face masks , social distancing and the tyranny are necessary.

    They directed the BEST GERMAN MEDICAL UNIVERSITIES to study the issue and report.

    Their conclusion? Covid19 is a HOAX

    The government's decision : POLITICS TRUMPS SCIENCES - they tried to censor/suppress the report and continues its debunked policies.

    .
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    In Germany , the government wanted to prove to the "rightwingers" that face masks , social distancing and the tyranny are necessary.

    They directed the BEST GERMAN MEDICAL UNIVERSITIES to study the issue and report.

    Their conclusion? Covid19 is a HOAX

    The government's decision : POLITICS TRUMPS SCIENCES - they tried to censor/suppress the report and continues its debunked policies.

    .
    Interesting. Have a link?

  15. #13
    In other news water is wet.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  16. #14
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Major Study Finds Masks Don’t Reduce COVID-19 Infection Rates

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18...fection-rates/

    November 18, 2020 By Jordan Davidson

    A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection.

    “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use,” the authors summarized their results.

    While mask-wearing has been advertised by health officials all around the world, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, the Danish researchers found that there was no statistically significant difference between wearing a mask or not in preventing people from contracting COVID-19.

    “In the third post hoc analysis, which investigated constellations of patient characteristics, we did not find a subgroup where face masks were effective at conventional levels of statistical significance,” researchers found.

    The randomized-control trial, which is considered the “gold-standard” design for scientific research, had a large sample size of more than 6,000 people. Most studies conducted on various kinds of face masks against various coronaviruses are neither randomized, controlled trials nor conducted regarding the specific SARS-CoV-2 virus currently affecting the world.

    This clinical trial was conducted from April through June in Denmark, a largely unmasked area with government recommendations only to social distance and wash hands frequently as the country began to reopen in May. Roughly half of the 6,024 participants, 4,862 of whom completed the study, were randomly assigned to wear surgical masks “outside the home among other persons together” while the other half continued to operate in public without a mask.

    After a month, 42 of the mask-wearers in the study (1.8 percent) were infected with the virus while 53 of the non-mask-wearers (2.1. percent) were infected with the virus. Statistically, this is not a significant difference between the two groups, suggesting these infection differences were a product of chance, say the study authors.

    “The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results,” the study states. “Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.”

    Some have noted Denmark’s population at the time of the study was less than 2 percent infected, participants were in charge of reporting their own COVID-19 tests, and other limitations. Dr. Christine Laine, editor-in-chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine, where the study is published, told The New York Times the research shows masks “are not a magic bullet.” In an article, Laine and other editors defended the journal’s decision to publish the study despite pushback.

    “More irresponsible would be to not publish the results of carefully designed research because the findings were not as favorable or definitive as some may have hoped,” they wrote.



    The mask study one of the largest of its kind ever completed.

    “These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect,” the study states, noting that the trial “did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
    the adjustment: The study only assigned 50% to wear a mask, and this is why the masks had little effect. EVERYONE NEEDS TO WEAR ONE. etc...

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by bv3 View Post
    the adjustment: The study only assigned 50% to wear a mask, and this is why the masks had little effect. EVERYONE NEEDS TO WEAR ONE. etc...

    Herd "Maskunity"?
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Major Study Finds Masks Don’t Reduce COVID-19 Infection Rates

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18...fection-rates/

    November 18, 2020 By Jordan Davidson

    A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection.

    “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use,” the authors summarized their results.

    While mask-wearing has been advertised by health officials all around the world, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, the Danish researchers found that there was no statistically significant difference between wearing a mask or not in preventing people from contracting COVID-19.

    “In the third post hoc analysis, which investigated constellations of patient characteristics, we did not find a subgroup where face masks were effective at conventional levels of statistical significance,” researchers found.

    The randomized-control trial, which is considered the “gold-standard” design for scientific research, had a large sample size of more than 6,000 people. Most studies conducted on various kinds of face masks against various coronaviruses are neither randomized, controlled trials nor conducted regarding the specific SARS-CoV-2 virus currently affecting the world.

    This clinical trial was conducted from April through June in Denmark, a largely unmasked area with government recommendations only to social distance and wash hands frequently as the country began to reopen in May. Roughly half of the 6,024 participants, 4,862 of whom completed the study, were randomly assigned to wear surgical masks “outside the home among other persons together” while the other half continued to operate in public without a mask.

    After a month, 42 of the mask-wearers in the study (1.8 percent) were infected with the virus while 53 of the non-mask-wearers (2.1. percent) were infected with the virus. Statistically, this is not a significant difference between the two groups, suggesting these infection differences were a product of chance, say the study authors.

    “The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results,” the study states. “Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.”

    Some have noted Denmark’s population at the time of the study was less than 2 percent infected, participants were in charge of reporting their own COVID-19 tests, and other limitations. Dr. Christine Laine, editor-in-chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine, where the study is published, told The New York Times the research shows masks “are not a magic bullet.” In an article, Laine and other editors defended the journal’s decision to publish the study despite pushback.

    “More irresponsible would be to not publish the results of carefully designed research because the findings were not as favorable or definitive as some may have hoped,” they wrote.

    The mask study one of the largest of its kind ever completed.

    “These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect,” the study states, noting that the trial “did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
    To be fair to the side for advocating masks, even if it was 100% guaranteed to prevent exposure that would all go out the window with one absent minded rub of an eye. However, and all of our friends are medical providers from LNPs to neurosurgeons.....and they say wearing a mask isn't so much about making sure you never get infected. It's about decreasing the amount of airborne shedding a person infected can generate as well as decreasing the viral load someone exposed receives. The more you can do to decrease that amount the more chance you give your body to keep up the No Vacancy sign as well as (hopefully) mitigate symptoms if infected.

    I have a post to make after this regarding a drug that can be used both as a prophylactic treatment as well as an actual positive exposure treatment. They have some studies done with it, but my study is a small sample size of three. My father in law as well as his wife popped positive (someone took their confirmed positive child to vacation Bible school and he spread it everywhere) and we buried her this past weekend. But my wife, her father, and myself all used this drug and he made a full recovery.......and my wife and I have stayed negative. And no way we should be anything but positive with the kind of exposure we both had for 9 days straight.

    But even if that mask only gives you 2% more of a chance to stay/get healthy...take it man. I assure you.....regardless of some of the straight just dumb things people are saying......covid is in no world a cold or safer then the flu.
    "Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato

  21. #18


    Ron Paul: Major New Study: No Evidence Masks Work. Science is against using masks…

    https://choiceclips.whatfinger.com/2...t-using-masks/

    In the first comprehensive, peer-reviewed study the efficacy of face masks to prevent the spread of Covid has been called into question. Within the margin of error there is virtually no difference between a masked group and an unmasked group, Danish scientists discovered. Yet this major discovery about the virus is being completely ignored by authoritarian governors who are demanding even MORE intrusive mask mandates. Are we really following “the science”? Or politics
    We must picture Hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment. - C. S. Lewis

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    Indeed.

    But it gets worse.

    In Germany , the government wanted to prove to the "rightwingers" that face masks , social distancing and the tyranny are necessary.

    They directed the BEST GERMAN MEDICAL UNIVERSITIES to study the issue and report.

    Their conclusion? Covid19 is a HOAX

    The government's decision : POLITICS TRUMPS SCIENCES - they tried to censor/suppress the report and continues its debunked policies.

    .
    News Punch (they seem to be the main source for this in the US) has made several corrections to the story after they looked at it.

    1) The guy people are calling the whistle blower is the guy who wrote it. Speaking to Kohn

    2) The only association with that paper and the German government is that Kohn printed it on letterhead from the Ministry (he's an employee there. Well....he was).

    3) The "10 experts" who worked with Kohn weren't directed by anyone other then Kohn, nor was a single one of them a virologist or an epidemiologist

    4) Kohn took the paper to two news organization citing it to be a buried story investigating health concerns over COVID-19 that he was the project head for and cited his concern for people and the truth as to his motivation. Bear in mind he added several hundred thousand deaths to his total flu mortality number, said that all deaths related to COVID were people who were statistically within 12 months of end of life due to other ailments, and defended it citing that COVID was on par regarding a danger to health as other viruses. I have the entire report translated if you'd like to read it in it's entirety, which I would recommend as that would show you that he made those statements (along with many others) without any supporting data. Which means he either purposely lied or that he's too lazy or stupid to do a few minutes of reading to verify data on something he felt was important above all else.

    Make no mistake.....he didn't give two $#@!s about science or facts, he simply decided he knew what was better for everyone else. And when people think that it makes them feel righteous, so that would make it ok for him to talk out of his ass since he was serving a greater good. Understand, I'm not defending the German restrictions. And honestly, I have to give him props for his plan of action. He put together a document and listed supporting "facts" that supported his view, he put it together on letterhead from his place of work at the Ministry to make it more official looking, and he gave it out as a concerned citizen operating as a whistle blower as far as they knew since that would decrease how much open digging around they would do to verify everything he had said since his story added a sense of urgency as well as tight lipped.

    I know people will say that the German government is using their "deep state" powers to silence the one man who cared about humans and what was right. But if you want to say that they are so inept that they had someone head a project like that who obviously had no clue what he was doing (seriously, skim read the doc and it's like a 6th grader complied it), gave him a team of experts who also just happened to be the exact opposite of of any expertise you'd need, and not to mention it's filled with conclusions that a retarded monkey could dissect as BS......and yet it was this deeply hush and sensitive internal study of earth shattering facts that someone had to risk their livelihood to get it out?

    I'll tell you a good rule of thumb though. Anyone......and I mean ANYONE, who tries to tell you that seasonal flu is just as or more deadly then COVID 19 is either a $#@!ing moron, or they are hoping you are so they can get something from you.
    "Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Intoxiklown View Post
    News Punch (they seem to be the main source for this in the US) has made several corrections to the story after they looked at it.

    1) The guy people are calling the whistle blower is the guy who wrote it. Speaking to Kohn

    2) The only association with that paper and the German government is that Kohn printed it on letterhead from the Ministry (he's an employee there. Well....he was).

    3) The "10 experts" who worked with Kohn weren't directed by anyone other then Kohn, nor was a single one of them a virologist or an epidemiologist
    Quote Originally Posted by Intoxiklown View Post
    News Punch (they seem to be the main source for this in the US) has made several corrections to the story after they looked at it.
    and they are qualified to "correct" the story why

    1) The guy people are calling the whistle blower is the guy who wrote it. Speaking to Kohn
    WHAT?

    And you came to that conclusion how?

    The Doctors responded and ALL OF THEM SIGNED the response

    A critical analysis from the Ministry of the Interior on Corona crisis management was dismissed by the BMI as an individual opinion of an employee. The experts involved in the preparation of the paper are now turning against this. The BMI had to deal with the substantive arguments.

    .

    Furthermore the German Doctors' Findings have been confirmed by Dr. Stoyan Alexov, president of the Bulgarian Pathology Association,

    Moreover, what difference does it make that virologists were not part of the German medical team , virologists work for the CDC and NIH yet they admit that covid19 has NOT been isolated

    Background: The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories as virus isolates are unavailable
    Last edited by Contumacious; 11-20-2020 at 09:53 AM.
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  24. #21



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-19-2020, 08:27 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-24-2020, 10:49 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-16-2020, 07:47 AM
  4. Face masks don't work
    By helenpaul in forum Coronavirus SARS-CoV2
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-29-2020, 02:42 PM
  5. Ron Paul face masks
    By McDermit in forum Campaign Materials
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-12-2011, 03:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •