The CDC starts doubting itself

Granted, the question of mask mandates and vaccination passports looks secondary when compared to the overall goal of the so-called pandemic promoters, but still, even their own research questions the wisdom of their own decisions.

As Canada’s Global Research reports, America’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (a.k.a. CDC) looked carefully into the mandated face mask rules, as well as other so-called emergency ideas.

The word “carefully” is most important here: more than a dozen medical doctors, PhD researchers, and several attorneys, examined the mask mandates across their country. For their own reasons, they limited their reporting to numerical effects, including morbidity (number of infections in a given area within a given time frame) and mortality (number of fatalities compared to the abovementioned number of infections in a given area within a given time frame).

The WHO’s suicide

Incredibly, those are precisely the two standards that the World Health Organisation (WHO) dropped about a dozen years ago. That move came upon a recommendation by the WHO’s own so-called medical experts. Subsequent inquiry by the European Union’s health commission found that those medical experts would receive (and accept) lucrative offers from pharmaceutical companies engaged in creating prevention and treatment for flu outbursts at the time (bird flu, swine, flu, etc.).

Since the WHO at the same time also rewrote their third standard, known as speed of spread so as to make it perfectly insignificant, the European Union’s report basically stated that the WHO has stripped itself of any ability to determine anything, including epidemics and pandemics.

In any case, the CDC report is clear: it concludes that mask mandates were associated with an average 1.32-per-cent decrease in the growth rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths during the first 100 days after the mask policy was implemented.

Put bluntly: the difference between mask mandates and no mask mandates is 1.32 per cent.

Considering the evidence of willfully inflated data (hospitals get bonuses for each reported COVID-19 case, and another set of bonuses for what they report as COVID-related death), statisticians question even that 1.32 per cent figure.

Here’s the deal: judging by official reports, the flu has all but disappeared. Compared to the 2020-2021 season, when hit 56 million reported cases, this year’s numbers are as close to zero as you can get before hitting it.

Two schools of thought exist: either COVID-19 is nothing but another flu strain, or (if we consider influenza as a completely separate condition), someone must have either misdiagnosed or misreported cases of flu as cases of COVID-related illnesses.

Of course, far be it for the CDC to exclaim “Eureka!”

A note for the uninitiated: Eureka, an exclamation attributed to Ancient Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes. It signifies celebration of a discovery or invention. According to legend, Archimedes first used it when he discovered the principle that would be for ever named after him. It claims that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces.

Dive into your bathtub, if you don’t believe it.

Back to reality.

While the CDC establishes the correlation between mandatory mask wearing and lack of mandates is significant, it still finds it necessary to add, however cautiously (and verbatim) that mask mandates “have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19.”

The potential? Speak of useless verbiage. Oh, yes, several lawyers joined the CDC writers. The word potential is your typical attempt at providing an alibi to the CDC (alibism in scientific language, CYA, or cover your behind, in North American bureaucratese).

The funniest part: the WHO, shocked beyond belief by what it helped create, has backed off. It no longer views face masks as any kind of protection, and it no longer sees lockdowns as a way of stopping the spread, especially since it had no method how to calculate it, anyhow.

Who pays the piper?

Every official policy comes with a cost. While Americans who wear masks are more likely to get outside of their homes, where are they supposed to go if not to work? There’s no work, due to lockdowns.

Shopping? Who produces new goods during lockdowns?

There are even more serious repercussions, such as the alarming rise in severe mental health issues, including a spike in youth suicide, as a result of various public health policies, including mask mandates and lockdowns.

A paper published early January reported that, in late 2020, suicide rates among children in Japan jumped 49 per cent.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service (SAMHSA) in the U.S. reported an incredible 890 (eight-hundred-and-ninety) per cent increase in call volume to its nationwide suicide hotline since last April.

Nobody knows whether wearing masks makes people bold enough to go out and spend money on things such as foodstuffs, all the way to entertainment gadgets.

A few reports indicate that mask mandates force many to stay home to avoid the hassle.

Here’s another tragedy: The Washington Post reported on the latest CDC study thus: “After state lift restrictions, CDC says mask mandates can reduce deaths.”

The New York Times, another bold liar, headlined: “Wearing masks, the [CDC] study reported, was linked to fewer infections with the coronavirus and COVID-19 deaths.”

And the NBC didn’t stay far behind these flagbearers, either: the CDC report, it said with glee, was “strong evidence that mask mandates can slow the spread of the coronavirus.”

Bloody lies, all of it, of course.

But, should anyone express doubts about the official story (and figures), they are labelled “deniers,” and they are quite unceremoniously kicked off most of today’s social media. Remember George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth?

Come to think of it, Facebook, YouTube, Google, and their cohorts, should ban the CDC for publishing its doubts. They did ban a sitting U.S. President, after all, so why not a group of scientists?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: