Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Danish Study On Masks And COVID (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Danish Study On Masks And COVID
Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 134436
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 19, 2020 02:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

IP: Logged

Voix_de_la_Mer
Moderator

Posts: 2952
From: Sound
Registered: Aug 2011

posted November 19, 2020 03:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Voix_de_la_Mer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting. "inconclusive results".

Although, one of the measurements for COVID-19 infection rates in this study is the PCR test.
There are disputes around false-positives with this test. They need to resolve the alleged issues with the PCR test before they can use it as an accurate measurement of COVID-19 infection in any study on masks, or otherwise.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 134436
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 19, 2020 03:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It would be interesting to see If it can be replicated, and maybe in the US.

IP: Logged

Voix_de_la_Mer
Moderator

Posts: 2952
From: Sound
Registered: Aug 2011

posted November 19, 2020 03:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Voix_de_la_Mer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
It would be interesting to see If it can be replicated, and maybe in the US.

Yes, but they have to first resolve any inaccuracies with the measure, or the results don't mean anything. Replication should come after they know their measures are accurate.

IP: Logged

Linda Jones
Knowflake

Posts: 2093
From:
Registered: Jan 2012

posted November 22, 2020 08:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Linda Jones     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good post! This study is important

.
I was going to post this study. It was rejected by 3 scientific journals (bc it went against the elite mask narrative) & finally got published in Annals of Internal Medicine. I think they had to change the wording in the Discussion section to "inconclusive" to get it published. In the Results section, it is clear that their findings showed masks don't do much to protect against rona.

IP: Logged

Linda Jones
Knowflake

Posts: 2093
From:
Registered: Jan 2012

posted November 22, 2020 08:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Linda Jones     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Here's an 18 min video in which Dr Andrew Kaufman breaks down the Danish mask study. He explains it really well.

.
https://lbry.tv/@DrAndrewKaufman:f/Danish-Mask-Study-Revealed:3?

IP: Logged

Linda Jones
Knowflake

Posts: 2093
From:
Registered: Jan 2012

posted November 22, 2020 08:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Linda Jones     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Viox, your point abt the RT-PCR test being disputed is a good one. However, there are 2 reasons this study is still important -

.
1) the general population is still being tested by PCR, so the study is more reflective of what's going on in the general population; and

.
2) in randomized trials like this one, statistically the error generated by the PCR false positives & negatives gets evenly distributed between the control group & the test group, thereby lessening the impact of the error overall.

.
Hope this makes sense.

.
Anyway, see if you can watch the video. Kaufman makes it easy to understand what's going on.

IP: Logged

MarsSaturnDelight
Knowflake

Posts: 347
From:
Registered: Dec 2014

posted November 22, 2020 09:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for MarsSaturnDelight     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting, I quite what they were trying to do here.

Evaluating if mask wearing in a setting that does not require ‘mask wearing’ as a measure, is shown to be efficacious.

IP: Logged

Voix_de_la_Mer
Moderator

Posts: 2952
From: Sound
Registered: Aug 2011

posted November 22, 2020 12:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Voix_de_la_Mer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
OK. Let's break it down a bit and see whether this study can actually tell us something which is relevant to the current situation.

All studies are as good as their design, measures and limitations. So, let's start with the limitations, as you would expect any design flaws or issues to be in there anyway:

quote:
Limitation:
Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

The biggest issue I can see in the limitations is the "no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others"

Let's take a surgeon as an example of someone who frequently wears a mask. Why does the surgeon wear a mask? To avoid contaminating the patient. This was also discussed in the medical community way back at the start of the mask-querade, that wearing a mask reduces transmission of the virus from an infected person to a healthy person.

This study did not even address this pertinent question.

Let's examine the research aims from the background section:

quote:
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 effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both.

So, the researchers wanted to know

1. can a mask protect healthy people from catching COVID-19, or

2. can a mask reduce transmission of COVID-19 from an infected person to a healthy person, or

3. can a mask perform both of the above functions

In the limitations section, they state that they did not assess for research question 2., therefore, we have no results for research question 2. or 3.

They appear to have found (but I would need access to the full study with the operationalisation of all variables to confirm this) that in the conditions in which these participants were studied that mask wearing did in fact reduce infection rates by 50%. Semantics! Semantics! It's all about how you say it

"did not reduce infection rates in mask-wearers by more than 50%"

- another way to say this is:

'mask-wearing reduced infection rates by 50% across wearers'

50/50, for mask or no mask within the given conditions.

This appears to be why the results are inconclusive.

So, the only conclusion to draw from this study is that further study is required. And someone absolutely should assess the transmission risk from infected ---> healthy, as this is the presumption of mask wearing in the first place (at least in the UK).

Edited-error

IP: Logged

todd
Knowflake

Posts: 4213
From:
Registered: Jun 2009

posted November 22, 2020 04:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for todd     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
http://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Humansarefree.com

r(I an on mobile and can not copy and paste Todd)
Search for :
Danish newspaper reveals study on masks has been rejected by 3 medical journals

IP: Logged

todd
Knowflake

Posts: 4213
From:
Registered: Jun 2009

posted November 22, 2020 04:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for todd     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Beforeitsnews.com

Search for
CDC study based on 14 clinical trials show face masks do not work.

Published in "Emerging Infectious Diseases" published by the CDC vok 26,no 5 may 2020

The CDC reviewed 14 independent studies that showed masks do not stop transmission of viruses

IP: Logged

PhoenixRising
Knowflake

Posts: 1282
From:
Registered: May 2011

posted November 22, 2020 05:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for PhoenixRising     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you are blood type A and have match other profile data of blood work, you are at more risk of dying than any other group of people. This was observed in a study. Inflammation of the lungs is the major cause of death for such group. So type A people do wear masks if you wanna survive. Most whites are type A people. Even type AB should wear it.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 134436
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 22, 2020 07:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The studies concerned respiratory viruses. You have it backwards. Wearing masks can actually harm those susceptible to inflammation of the lungs.

IP: Logged

Linda Jones
Knowflake

Posts: 2093
From:
Registered: Jan 2012

posted November 22, 2020 07:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Linda Jones     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi Viox, i'll answer your recent post in a bit. It's been a hectic day bc of the holidays.

.
Meanwhile here's a CDC report that was done on July 2020 on covid & published on September 11, 2020, in their weekly MMR (morbidity & mortality report). Here's what they found -

.
CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks

.
"A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 “case-patients,” who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from health care facilities who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite “always” wearing a mask."

.
“In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public,” the report stated.

.
In addition, over 14 percent of the case-patients said they “often” wore a face covering and were still infected with the virus. The study also demonstrates that under 4 percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus even though they “never” wore a mask or face covering.

.
"Despite over 70 percent of the case-patient participants’ efforts to follow CDC recommendations by committing to always wearing face coverings at “gatherings with ≤10 or >10 persons in a home; shopping; dining at a restaurant; going to an office setting, salon, gym, bar/coffee shop, or church/religious gathering; or using public transportation,” they still contracted the virus.

.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/12/cdc-study-finds-overwhelming-majority-of-people-getting-coronavirus-wore-masks/

.
The part abt masks in the cdc report is buried all the way down in this link. Of course they don't want it to be front & center
👇

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm

IP: Logged

Linda Jones
Knowflake

Posts: 2093
From:
Registered: Jan 2012

posted November 22, 2020 07:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Linda Jones     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And here's a hot mic moment abt masks...when the truth spills out

.
HOT MIC MOMENT: LAWMAKERS ADMIT MASKS ARE ALL “POLITICAL THEATER”

.
https://www.wakingtimes.com/hot-mic-moment-lawmakers-admit-masks-are-all-political-theater/

IP: Logged

PhoenixRising
Knowflake

Posts: 1282
From:
Registered: May 2011

posted November 22, 2020 08:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for PhoenixRising     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:

The studies concerned respiratory viruses. You have it backwards. Wearing masks can actually harm those susceptible to inflammation of the lungs.

Vulnerable groups should wear masks if you are negative. If you are positive , I understand it leads to suffocation but then you are in the hospital until cured of the inflammation.
Makes sense?

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 134436
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 22, 2020 10:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No, that makes zero sense if those 14 studies are good science.

IP: Logged

PhoenixRising
Knowflake

Posts: 1282
From:
Registered: May 2011

posted November 23, 2020 01:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for PhoenixRising     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Those people should minimize contact with others and if blood type A should wear masks for brief periods and get out of the way. Brain can live without oxygen for 10s of minutes before it gets uncomfy. I don't think everyone has such a issue. Trust me a friend of mine is lying in bed in the hospital as we speak. He is out of danger because he isn't A type. But the virus did cause issues with other underlying issues he had.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 134436
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 23, 2020 03:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Every time you say mask I stop listening to anything else you have to say.

IP: Logged

GalacticCoreExplosion
Knowflake

Posts: 1773
From: Somewhere
Registered: Sep 2019

posted November 23, 2020 03:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for GalacticCoreExplosion     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Something I wrote a little while ago which may pertain:

Viruses are much smaller than the interstices or pores of the best masks. Masks block the initial expellent because the viruses are encased in a larger matrix of moisture/saliva or moisture/saliva + mucous. Moisture most often when expelled out by the mouth either through coughing or talking, and mucous+moisture most often by sneezing.

It is not easy for the viruses to become freed of mucous. Mucous is sticky, heavy, gluey, and is a good matrix to encapsulate viruses and other small particles, which is why our body uses mucous to move foreign invader type particles out of the body.

But what happens when the viruses are contained only within a moisture/saliva matrix? What happens when that moisture evaporates? Are not virus particles super light and super small? Are they not moved around by the slightest air current? Do they immediately die after being expelled by the body? How long does it take for that moisture they are encased in to evaporate? (Clue, in most conditions, not long at all–we’re talking a very small amount of moisture. If relative humidity is like 90% or higher, sure, it will take a bit longer).

Ultimately, masks are not that effective against viruses because of the above basic physics facts. Also, your eyes are another potential entry point for viruses. The eyes do have some protective adaptations/features/functions, but if your immune system is low enough to begin with, it might not be enough.

This is why my partner, many years ago, got a bad case of simultaneous strep throat and pink eye. Clearly her entire immune system was lowered at this point.

The above combination of factors is why a lot of pre Covid studies have shown only moderate to barely any effectiveness in mask use preventing the transmission of viral type infections.

Like this Japanese RCT study: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

Note the reason why they did this study to begin with-the reason is contained within the background statement:
“Health care workers outside surgical suites in Asia use surgical-type face masks commonly. Prevention of upper respiratory infection is one reason given, although evidence of effectiveness is lacking.*”

*GCE's use of bold

Will say for fairness and objectivity sake, the above sample was probably too small to be extremely significant, but this is not the only study which indicated similarly, Pre-Covid, which is why they stated the bolded part.

Well surprise, surprise, post Covid–there are a higher percentage of studies which indicate greater effectiveness for masks in relation to viral transmission. Funny how that works eh? Nothing to see here folks, just move along, masks will protect you no questions asked even though it goes against basic simple physics.

Note, masks are very effective for other microbes because these are much larger. A bacteria compared to a virus is like comparing a basketball to a flea. Good masks can block even “non matrix entangled” bacteria, yeast, molds, etc because good masks have interstices or pores small enough to block the free form particles of these other microbes.

But people don’t like to think for themselves or think critically. They prefer to be lazy and let others do it for them. And the appeal and bending to authority in humans is a very, very, very strong tendency in most–hence the Milgram and similar other psychological experiments wherein most people easily caved into believing, thinking, doing, etc what an “authority figure” told them to believe, think, do, etc EVEN if it involved doing harm to others.

(And there is massive, simply massive harm being done to the global economy in the name and interest of safety of a very small percentage of people. This will be eventually felt by many, many people in the long term. What should have been done, was all the rules, resources, “aid” [most of which went to mega corporations], etc should have been focused solely on those most vulnerable populations. You know, that would have actually made sense. And the most vulnerable population by far, has been people in nursing homes and care facilities–and these are not exactly people going out having a night on the town, clubbing, drinking, eating at restaurants, etc, etc. What good do all these various shut downs do for them anyways? And how many people even actually visit them?

And having worked with this population some in the past, to be very honest, the death of the body would be a welcome release to many of these Souls if they knew what truly awaited them beyond fears, dogma, etc. Many of these folks are heavily suffering in body, mind, and/or emotions. Many are clinging to life because of either fear, being kept alive by others, and/or a misplaced sense of duty/obligation to loved ones. When my body’s time comes, I shall welcome it with open arms and embrace it lovingly.)

We live in a very strange and irrational world indeed.

IP: Logged

Voix_de_la_Mer
Moderator

Posts: 2952
From: Sound
Registered: Aug 2011

posted November 23, 2020 05:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Voix_de_la_Mer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Linda Jones:
Hi Viox, i'll answer your recent post in a bit. It's been a hectic day bc of the holidays.

.
Meanwhile here's a CDC report that was done on July 2020 on covid & published on September 11, 2020, in their weekly MMR (morbidity & mortality report). Here's what they found -

.
[b]CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks

.
"A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 “case-patients,” who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from health care facilities who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite “always” wearing a mask."

.
“In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public,” the report stated.

.
In addition, over 14 percent of the case-patients said they “often” wore a face covering and were still infected with the virus. The study also demonstrates that under 4 percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus even though they “never” wore a mask or face covering.

.
"Despite over 70 percent of the case-patient participants’ efforts to follow CDC recommendations by committing to always wearing face coverings at “gatherings with ≤10 or >10 persons in a home; shopping; dining at a restaurant; going to an office setting, salon, gym, bar/coffee shop, or church/religious gathering; or using public transportation,” they still contracted the virus.

.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/12/cdc-study-finds-overwhelming-majority-of-people-getting-coronavirus-wore-masks/

.
The part abt masks in the cdc report is buried all the way down in this link. Of course they don't want it to be front & center
👇

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm[/B]


Hi Linda,

direct aerosol transmission (person 1's airways to person 2's airways) is only one way of catching the virus. The study this thread is about which I reviewed above actually found that masks have an effect in reducing infection rates by 50%, so they were not found to be totally ineffective, at least in this one study.

The virus can be transferred onto materials such as paper, plastic, etc and it can apparently live for differing amounts of time on different surfaces. So various protections are required to reduce the spread, not just masks. As an example, I work in a library, when people are returning books, they leave them on a designated shelf. Library staff do not touch the books for 72 hours, this is because the virus can live on plastic surfaces for up to 72 hours.

Other forms of transmission are people touching contaminated items in supermarkets and then touching their faces, or contaminated touch points on buses, etc.

Nothing is 100% effective for reducing transmission in isolation, but putting all measures together (including masks) means there is a better chance to reduce the transmission. I've yet to see any actual evidence that masks when used correctly actually increase the risk of transmission.

I understand that the American people feel that masks have been politicised, but I really don't feel that is the case here in the UK.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 134436
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 23, 2020 10:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well said! Or touching their contaminated masks, which people do all the time and probably don’t even know it. Watch people when you are out. Watch politicians that are stupid enough to give a speech and keep their mask on during it. I would only add that when one coughs or sneezes, a mask may not entirely block large droplets. They could be forced out the sides of the mask. Masks would help against bacterial transmission, such as with the highly contagious tuberculosis.

IP: Logged

GalacticCoreExplosion
Knowflake

Posts: 1773
From: Somewhere
Registered: Sep 2019

posted November 23, 2020 12:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for GalacticCoreExplosion     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
Well said! Or touching their contaminated masks, which people do all the time and probably don’t even know it. Watch people when you are out. Watch politicians that are stupid enough to give a speech and keep their mask on during it. I would only add that when one coughs or sneezes, a mask may not entirely block large droplets. They could be forced out the sides of the mask. Masks would help against bacterial transmission, such as with the highly contagious tuberculosis.

IP: Logged

Linda Jones
Knowflake

Posts: 2093
From:
Registered: Jan 2012

posted November 23, 2020 12:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Linda Jones     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
Hi Linda,

direct aerosol transmission (person 1's airways to person 2's airways) is only one way of catching the virus. The study this thread is about which I reviewed above actually found that masks have an effect in reducing infection rates by 50%, so they were not found to be totally ineffective, at least in this one study.

The virus can be transferred onto materials such as paper, plastic, etc and it can apparently live for differing amounts of time on different surfaces. So various protections are required to reduce the spread, not just masks. As an example, I work in a library, when people are returning books, they leave them on a designated shelf. Library staff do not touch the books for 72 hours, this is because the virus can live on plastic surfaces for up to 72 hours.

Other forms of transmission are people touching contaminated items in supermarkets and then touching their faces, or contaminated touch points on buses, etc.

Nothing is 100% effective for reducing transmission in isolation, but putting all measures together (including masks) means there is a better chance to reduce the transmission. I've yet to see any actual evidence that masks when used correctly actually increase the risk of transmission.

I understand that the American people feel that masks have been politicised, but I really don't feel that is the case here in the UK.


.
First a quick note to say that i didn't post the hot mic link to feed into the politicization of the issue. Covid is beyond politics, as i've said before, that's why, we all need to go past the politics to see even begin to see things clrealy.

.
I posted the hot mic link bc the ones exerting the control immediately above humans are the political minions. They're in the know abt why they're mandating masks for evyone. And they (along with other prominent public figures) are they only ones who can get "caught" going against their own narrative.

.
For example bill gates, the self appointed world health czar, & his wife have both said that absolutely everyone must wear masks. Yet there's no photo yet of bill wearing a mask. The 94 yr old queen herself stepped out with her family, with none of them wearing masks, i'm sure you must know abt this. Their excuse was that they all tested negative. If that's the criterion for mask wearing, then why is it that the whloe world has to wear it whether or not they test positive? Is it a case of "do as i say, but not as i do"?

.
The reason this mask study is important is bc it's the first *randomized* trial & randomized trials are accepted in the scientific community as being more accurate. The NIH mask report i posted was not a randomized study, but it does give an indication toward the leaning on the issue, specially when you see them burying it way down in their report

.
[The 14 studies Todd referred to are possibly studies registered w the NIH, but not necessarily funded by the NIH or conducted by the NIH. I haven't done the search but i know the last time i chkd, various trials, mostly done on the flu virus & not covid had been registered on the NIH site. Anyone can register their trial. But these are smaller trials]

.
The other important thing to note is that a META-ANALYSIS of at least 5 to 7 different *published* covid mask studies wld provide more conclusive evidence. But such studies, if at all funded (the majority of large study funding is now controlled by the NIH & this is worldwide)...are not easily published at all bc the elite control many of the science journal publications. Studies that support big pharma products are readily published. That's why this danish study was rejected several times before being accepted by the Annals of Int Med (i'm pretty sure they had to change the wording in order to get accepted). Unfortunately, this is what science has been reduced to now...i call it "scientism", not science

.
Now, without addressing your individual points abt the danish study (i'll get back to that), let's accept that the results of the danish study are inconclusive. This wld show clearly that there's no scientific basis for the enforcement of masks on everyone, bc there's no *conclusive* scientific data to support it.

.
Your other points abt transmission are v valid. I do want to point out that aerosolized virus can stay suspended for 25-30 feet, so the 6 feet social distancing rule seems a bit mindless...unless you scratch under the surface & realize that 6 feet is how much people need to stay aoart in order to be surveilled from satellites...then that distance suddenly doesn't seem mindless after all

.
.
"I've yet to see any actual evidence that masks when used correctly actually increase the risk of transmission."
.
This wld require a large scale extremely monitored trial, which of course hasn't been done on covid. Surgical masks are meant for single wear omly, without being touched. That is the only correct way to wear them. Tony foxy knows that people are walking around touching their masks all day long, yet he keeps insisting that people shld wear them. People are even being told to wash their masks & reuse them, which again is ridiculous & pointless bc they're no longer sterile.


.
Nothing is 100% effective for reducing transmission in isolation, but putting all measures together (including masks) means there is a better chance to reduce the transmission."
.
This is true. However, is this approach really sustainable? And for how long? There are reports that people will be expected to continue with masks & social distancing even *after* they've taken the covid vax. Can people really live in isolated bubbles? And what is the trade off? Depression, anxiety, & other mental disorders? Is it worth it in the long run when the mortality of the virus is only 1% or less? Bc we are vitalized & re-vitalized through close physical contact with others. This is a biological fact. It adds to our sense of well being, which in turn reduces infections & diseases.

.
In order to not make covid an endless saga for the whole world, we need to start looking at this virus from a different perspective, from the perspective of the TERRAIN (meaning our bodies & the regenerative power of our bodies) and the IMMUNE SYSTEM (whose job it is to handle pathogens), rather than looking outward to our environment from the point of view of the PATHOGEN, meaning that there's a killer virus out there trying to kill us. This is the wrong message being put out by public health officials. The health of our terrain is more important, bc we're constantly surrounded by so called pathogens. Sensible precautions MUST include boosting our own bodies to make them less easily susceptible to our environment, this is where the focus needs to shift. Why are tony & the others not talking abt how we can boost our immunity?

.
I'll post information on this on another thread. In order to understand the terrain, we have to go back to the GERM THEORY, which as taught in schools, including med schools, is wrong. This is the Rockefeller influenced garbage people have been taught. It benefits big pharma but not the health of the public. More on this later...

IP: Logged

Linda Jones
Knowflake

Posts: 2093
From:
Registered: Jan 2012

posted November 23, 2020 02:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Linda Jones     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Many important points in Galactic's post above

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2020

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a