After long stretches of time, logical and ethical people faced with repeated, seemingly endless, outbursts from mentally unhinged or unscrupulous neighbors can become almost deaf or blind to the absolute craziness of the problem. Normalcy bias sets in as the basic human instinct to make the best of things kicks in.
When it comes to the constitution-insulting, ethically-dubious, economically ruinous Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other political forces arrayed against us, we need not – we SHOULD not – allow normalcy bias to kick in, even as we acknowledge their unjustified positions of assumed “authority” over our lives.
And the newest info about the perfidious behavior of CDC “authorities” when it comes to the efficacy of masks is a great example of our opportunities to keep promoting the truth that exposes these bureaucrats.
Greg Piper reports for JustTheNews that the CDC just got exposed for misleading the public about another study – a study showing what many others have shown: that the political-media-adored “N95” mask did not work in a statistically significant way to be claimed as a barrier to COVID-19 infection.
“The CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which is widely cited but not externally peer-reviewed, serially exaggerated the evidence for mask-wearing among 77 such outside studies it published, according to an independent review by epidemiologists at the University of California San Francisco, the system's health sciences campus.
Just 14% of MMWR studies reached statistical significance and 30% actually studied mask effectiveness. Yet three-quarters concluded that masks were effective, authors Tracy Beth Hoeg, Alyson Haslam and Vinay Prasad wrote in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Medicine, the official journal of a consortium of five associations in academic internal medicine.”
Whoops.
Or is their promotion of a myopic narrative that stands in complete contradistinction from mask-wearing reality unintentional?
“None of the 77 was randomized, the strongest form of evidence, and just one study each ‘used causal language appropriately’ (‘particle filtration on mannequins’) or ‘cited conflicting evidence’ (mostly about influenza), they wrote. ‘The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data.’"
Good enough for government work, as the saying goes?
Related: Federal Judge Says Biden Admin Can't Tell Social Media Platforms To Censor Content | MRCTV
There’s more:
“Without naming her, the authors scolded former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky for citing a low-response phone survey with non-significant results as evidence that masks reduce infection by ‘more than 80%.’
Hoeg marveled on X, formerly Twitter, that the ‘5% of studies that reported higher cases rates in the masked group than the comparator group all concluded masks were effective!’"
Curiously, some of us were trying to get out the long-known truth about N95 masks with .03 micron weave-openings not stopping tiny .01 micron viral particles back in July of 2020, even as government forces at the CDC and Anthony Fauci bundled our tax money to spread falsehoods.
Those would be falsehoods that gave people false senses of security, kind of like the vaunted “jab efficacy” nonsense that bureaucrats and politicians pushed at us through their media meat-grinder.
And there’s more that the CDC seems to be eager for us to forget or never learn - mask mandates imposed by government on innocent people…hurt those people.
As Piper explains:
“Forcing people to wear a mask in public has a real tradeoff, according to a study of pandemic-related ‘decreased mobility’ and mental health in the Journal of the American Medical Association publication JAMA Network Open.
Psychiatrists at Rutgers, Harvard Medical School, the University of Pennsylvania and others found a ‘statistically significant, but very modest’ association between such mandates and ‘depressive symptom severity’ in recurring ‘non-probability’ internet surveys from May 2020 to April 2022. The association was greater for ‘policies cancelling public events.’"
Epidemiologist and economist, Dr. Jay Battacharya -- one of the originators of the Great Barrington Declaration, and a party to the Missouri v Biden lawsuit trying to bring some form of justice against the federal government moves to suppress/censor Battacharya’s ability to recommend traditional methods of viral protection, rather than the imposition of economy and rights devastation “lockdowns” -- he had some pointed comments about the continued government blindness to the destructive effects of the mandates.
"’The pandemic measures were tailor made to create isolation and dread at a time people needed comfort and connection,’ Stanford Medical School epidemiologist Jay Bhattacharya wrote of the study on X. ‘And these measures predictably failed to protect vulnerable people from covid.’"
Of course, the most important part of this troubling new information about the CDC, its fudging of study info, and the results of the mask mandates, is the one that seems most obvious, but also seems to be the most overlooked.
It’s the term “mandate.”
That’s the point beyond which one need look no further. Government mandates, or corporate mandates inspired by government pressure or subsidy, are immoral, full stop. Of course their outcomes are negative, because MANDATES are negative. They are immoral threats of government violence against people who do not comply, against people who just want to be left alone. Every measurement after that is irrelevant. Even if, hypothetically, a mask mandate or a lockdown order could stop 100 percent of all disease or misfortune, such aggression against peacefully-minded people are, from the outset, unacceptable and harmful to human rights.
Not only are they unconstitutional, they are unethical and evil.
That is what they do to you, these politicians and bureaucrats, these liars and media lapdogs, these duplicitous deceivers who run the machine they claim is “your government.”
The only “government” that is “yours” is your own governance over your own life. In a free world, you would be able to decide the rules for interaction on your property and others would be able to decide if they wanted to join you there. Similar property rights claims would exist for others, allowing all of us to decide the kinds of risks, freedom-benefits, and security tradeoffs we were willing to accept.
In lieu of that, our captors destroy our freedom and tell us they are “helping.”
The only way they can help is if they leave us alone.
Follow Us On X
The Leftist media could not hide their enjoyment in promoting the idea that the Catholic Church could be getting liberalized by Pope Francis. pic.twitter.com/uJenxZEJ3p
— MRCTV (@mrctv) October 5, 2023