Forwarded from Alec Zeck
Doubling down on disturbing propaganda and social conditioning, this is what Parler’s Wikipedia page currently says, & it’s locked for editing.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-6817
Large Danish RCT of masks vs no masks for prevention of COVID19 infection FAILED, rather predictably (given influenza RCTs) with a non-significant & clinically IRRELEVANT “0.3%” absolute “risk reduction”. P VALUE OF 0.38 = no statistical significance in reducing spread.
The journal still concedes to pharma language trying to confer some benefit, but the data very clearly shows otherwise.
Large Danish RCT of masks vs no masks for prevention of COVID19 infection FAILED, rather predictably (given influenza RCTs) with a non-significant & clinically IRRELEVANT “0.3%” absolute “risk reduction”. P VALUE OF 0.38 = no statistical significance in reducing spread.
The journal still concedes to pharma language trying to confer some benefit, but the data very clearly shows otherwise.
Annals of Internal Medicine
Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers:…
Background: Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective…
Additional note: the study had a significant number of measures for adverse events:
bacteria, psychological, full healthcare, sick leave, infection in the household, other hospital diagnostics, etc.
None of these are included in the study. Why? Why did they deliberately leave this information out? I think I know why...
bacteria, psychological, full healthcare, sick leave, infection in the household, other hospital diagnostics, etc.
None of these are included in the study. Why? Why did they deliberately leave this information out? I think I know why...
following “the science” prior to the Danish study we have:
-FITTED N95 respirators MAY limit transmission
-cloth masks are ineffective & potentially lead to worse health outcomes than not wearing a mask
-community mask wearing has not been studied for longterm health effects
& now with the Danish study, we have 0.3% risk reduction as the STRONGEST argument for mask wearing to prevent COVID19 w/out even considering the negative effects of mask wearing (increased ILI, bacterial pneumonia, psych issues, etc.)
-FITTED N95 respirators MAY limit transmission
-cloth masks are ineffective & potentially lead to worse health outcomes than not wearing a mask
-community mask wearing has not been studied for longterm health effects
& now with the Danish study, we have 0.3% risk reduction as the STRONGEST argument for mask wearing to prevent COVID19 w/out even considering the negative effects of mask wearing (increased ILI, bacterial pneumonia, psych issues, etc.)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
This is a must listen. Dr. Roger Hodkinson, MA, MB, FRCPC, FCAP, is the CEO and medical director of Western Medical Assessments. Hodkinson was trained at Cambridge University in the UK. He is ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. He was the chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada Examination Committee and Pathology in Ottawa, Canada.
This is where it came from:
This testimony by a super highly credentialled pathologist is quite compelling, and may be able to reach people whose minds have cracked open just a wee little bit. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/health-expert-outraged-government-response-covid/
This testimony by a super highly credentialled pathologist is quite compelling, and may be able to reach people whose minds have cracked open just a wee little bit. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/health-expert-outraged-government-response-covid/
Children's Health Defense
Leading Canadian Health Expert Outraged at Government Response to COVID
“I would remind you all that using the province's own statistics, the risk of death under 65 in this province is one in 300,000. One in 300,000. You’ve got to get a grip on this.”