12 C
Auckland
Wednesday, June 29, 2022
- Free Advertisement -spot_img
-- Free Advertisement --spot_img
HomeNewsHow to navigate the new subnormal—substituting misdirection for information

Today's Top 10

Guy Hatchard
Guy Hatchardhttps://hatchardreport.com/
Guy Hatchard PhD is a statistician and former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certification laboratory. Guy's book 'Your DNA Diet' is available on Amazon.com.

How to navigate the new subnormal—substituting misdirection for information

New subnormal news

There is a lot of self-help advice on offer in the pandemic, much of it useful and uplifting.

  • Improving our diet and exercise routines.
  • Searching for new directions and opportunities.
  • Connecting with like-minded people
  • And then there is the other side of the coin—should we be meekly accepting new restrictions or seeking new freedoms?

Masking the truth

Articles like the one in the autumn 2022 AA Directions magazine, advising masks are going to be part of our day-to-day lives for the foreseeable future, and teaching us how to recognise whether someone is smiling behind their mask, miss the point. Rather ask: Why are we wearing masks?

Yesterday in Stuff, science columnist Dr Siouxsie Wiles finally gets around to admitting that “you can’t rely on mRNA vaccines”. Her answer: become more strict about mask wearing. Is that possible? As I walked around Wellington shops yesterday, I didn’t see a single unmasked person.

Dr. Wiles, a British microbiologist who received the 2021 New Zealander of the Year Award for pandemic science communication, cites a new study which she says supports continuing use of masks at gatherings. Click on the link (most people don’t) and you arrive at a study that involves theoretical modelling rather than verified effects.

Mask studies (of which there are many) have not demonstrated large reductions in Covid transmission. They tend to be very technical in nature and focus on the comparative viral loads found in nasal and mask swabs. These measurements can only be connected to Covid transmission via theoretical modelling whose predictions are speculative and unproven.

Back in the real world, note the near universal combination of vaccination and mask wearing to date in New Zealand, which has not stopped Omicron transmission.

A study published in ClinMed entitled ‘Adverse Effects of Prolonged Mask Use among Healthcare Professionals during COVID-19’ surveyed 343 healthcare professionals in New York City hospitals obliged to wear masks throughout most of their working day. They reported: Headaches (71%), skin breakdown (50%), and impaired cognition (24%). Yes, you did read that right, one quarter of medical professionals wearing masks suffer decreased intellectual capacity.

The ClinMed study cited is just one of many. The adverse effects of mask wearing result from a combination of a number of possible factors:

  • Increased harmful bacteria concentrations in the respiratory tract and around the face.
  • Increased CO2 content in our lungs, which leads to lower oxygenation of our blood and brain, and can lead to hyperventilation.
  • Decreased social learning, communication, and development of children.
  • Polypropylene shedding of micro particles, which have only recently been discovered lodged deep in human lung tissue.
  • Allergic reactions to the formaldehyde content of masks (formaldehyde is a known carcinogen).

Even costly N95 masks do not stop the passage of air around the mask fitting, essentially negating their purpose. Prompting the observation it is like trying to stop mosquitos with chicken wire. Surgical masks or their equivalent are mainly required in hospitals and dirty environments like saw mills or building sites to protect the wearer from inhaling human tissue or large particulates.

So will Dr. Wiles advise us next week to wear a full deep sea diving suit? In the crazy world of the new subnormal apparently nothing absurd can be ruled out.

Hiding the truth from the public has become a medical imperative

There is a certain hysteria surrounding the realisation that mRNA vaccines don’t actually work and may be harmful. When my kids were growing up we used to read an amusing book to them, Lies My Mother Told Me. How many lies have we been told? Too many.

The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is:

  • 95% effective.
  • Completely safe.
  • Mostly stays in the upper arm muscle, as most traditional vaccines do.

This last is interesting because Pfizer did know before they released the mRNA vaccine, that it didn’t stay in the upper arm. They had completed a pre-clinical bio-distribution animal study which suggested that most of the mRNA vaccine spread throughout the body instead of staying at the injection site. The lipid nanoparticles (LNP), which encase the mRNA and help to breach cell walls, are actually highly mobile and ensure that the mRNA spreads rapidly to all the organ systems in the body. If you want the full story see this article by clinical immunologist Dr. Byram Bridle.

If we had known this, we would have realised early on that adverse reactions like liver and kidney damage, strokes, cardiac events, neurological conditions, and sudden onset cancers were not unrelated to vaccination as many victims were assured at the time by the Ministry of Health, GPs, and hospital staff.

Medical professionals assessing the causal connections between mRNA vaccination and subsequent adverse events were simply relying upon their prior knowledge about traditional vaccines. They thought they knew that vaccine ingredients mostly stayed at the injection site and eventually appeared in lymph nodes as they were cleaned up by the immune system.

Pfizer neglected to tell them this was not the case. In fact Pfizer didn’t seem to inform anybody, the damning data was hidden in an obscure study buried in the requirements of the various national regulatory processes supposedly scrutinising safety. Was our Medsafe informed? If they were, they didn’t notice. Anyone sounding the alarm seemed to be cancelled by the media and relegated to the ranks of conspiracy theorists.

Now we have some hard NZ data showing that the protective effect of mRNA vaccination is actually a myth, there appears to be a rush on the part of seasoned and highly decorated Covid science communicators like Dr. Siouxsie Wiles, member of the NZ Order of Merit, to rush and throw us a life line. We may not actually choose to be saved. We might instead get on with our own lives and make the best of what opportunities we can discover for ourselves. At least we will be rowing our own boat, not sinking in the good ship misinformation.

We used to think that only individuals desperate for income or close to death agreed to participate in drug trials. Unbelievably we have come to associate virtue with unthinking participation in medical experiments. A few people have acquired a taste for wielding authority, but you don’t have to surrender your freedom of medical choice.

 

Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID). Website: HatchardReport.com.

Guy is the author of ‘Your DNA Diet: Leveraging the Power of Consciousness To Heal Ourselves and Our World. An Ayurvedic Blueprint For Health and Wellness’.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of DTNZ.

No login required to comment. Name, email and web site fields are optional. Please remember to keep comments respectful. We believe in free speech. Unfortunately, due the actions of one online troll, we have had to implement a manual moderation system to ensure online discussion remains civil and constructive. Your views and voice are important. Your comment will be published after moderation unless it contains hate speech or defamatory statements.

5 COMMENTS

  1. highly decorated Covid science communicator…. mmm… you should have placed “highly decorated” in quotes…. How low “the kiwi of the year” fraud can go for political and media mesmerising gains?

    Masking is a catch 22 problem. If the mask can fliter very tiny particles, it will also affect the normal breathing cycle unless mechanical ventliation is incorporated. This is a matter of common sense.

    A theoretical study can be good as well as bad. It depends on what variables are included. There are hundreds of possible factors involved for studing the mask effect which is a multidimensional spacio-temporal problem. Most modellers just use a few variables because they cant solve a highly multidimensional problem due to what is known as “curse of dimensionality”. In physical, chemical and mathematical systems, a theoretical model can be useful with few critical variables. When it comes to modelling masking effects on virus like particles, the curse of dimensionality kills the problem and no realsitic solution can be found. Depending on the assumtions we make, diametrically opposite conclusions can be drawn.

    If we do clinical study for a short period of time, say for few hours to a day, we cannot possibly include all potential confounding factors. If we do the study for a longer period of time, we do not have any control on the level of virus presence and so such a study wont discover any “signifitcant” effect.

    It is reasonable to assume that the masking effect is very small when compared to other factor effects which are highly individualistic to the study participants. Not all breath at the same rate and at all the time. Natural protection exists in our noses (cells secrete small fluid-filled exosomes which is known to offer bacterial protection and not much is known about the virus protection mechanism). The measurable response variables are many in addition to just how much is flitered (which is not good response variable).

    A simple Google scholar search gets many articles that show almost no effect of masking. Even WHO advised against masking in the beginning and then they changed their position following the political science.
    Small studies, often randomised case-control type, are often run for a limited period in lab environment as against real life environment, and so they cannot be generalised. On the other hand, large scale natural experimental studies, do not measure so many nuisance factors involved for adjustment, and so they cant realistically discover a small and negligible effect masks may have.

    We have to use common sense and not mandate masking at all. There could be some minimal benefit but the cost and other side effects are greater. “Live and let live” is the way to go and individual choice must be respected on masking.

    Sad to see many of us have become maskaholics https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lgbi5p8-_EA

    • And adding to what you’ve stated is: What have they laced into the ‘Blue” masks they are issuing out!!
      Look up La Columna Quinta and see the results of their testing on masks and you will understand why its being pushed!!!

  2. What’s great is that I don’t even see the news anymore when I’m staring at the screen. All I see are the angles, the blatant lies and the agenda.

    Will never trust a damn thing these people say ever again. If they tell you it’s sunny outside, pack an umbrella.

    And slowly but surely, I’ve noticed even some of the deepest sleepers around me are beginning to wake up too.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Opinion

Daily Life

Wellington
broken clouds
10.7 ° C
11.2 °
9.4 °
95 %
4.6kmh
75 %
Tue
12 °
Wed
12 °
Thu
14 °
Fri
11 °
Sat
12 °
- Make Your Voice Heard -spot_img

Latest