The Australian Government is making up science in order to commit MASSIVE crimes.
Crimes or Science? It’s a thin wedge.
Australian writer and political commentator Nick Holt last week accused the Australian Government of “making up junk science” to justify its harsh lockdowns and mask mandates.
Mr Holt argued that the government was “committing MASSIVE crimes” by continuously “contradicting every Gold Standard scientific consensus on the planet” – a statement he reiterated during an interview on the One News America network with Dan Ball.
His argument is a hard one to deny, especially when it’s backed up by scientific opinion and experts as outlined in this article.
Once you look into the argument, it’s a hard one to deny, especially when it’s backed up by scientific opinion and experts as outlined in this article.
A study published on July 21, 2020, in The Lancet, a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal founded in 1823, indicated that government lockdowns were ineffective.
“…government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality,” the study concluded.
Similarly, a study published by Frontiers in Public Health several months after The Lancet paper found neither lockdowns nor lockdown stringency were correlated with lower death rates. “Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemic, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate,” the researchers concluded.
An article by Jon Miltimore for the Foundation for Economic Education articulates this report finding beautifully. It also exposes the false claim by Scott Morrison, Greg Hunt and other Liberal Nation members of parliament who claim their lockdown measures have saved 30,000 lives compared to the OECD average. Aside from being a ridiculous argument on several fronts, the bigger question from this report is how many lives have they sacrificed through these measures in the larger health care picture?
Research from Tel Aviv University said, “We would have expected to see fewer Covid-19 fatalities in countries with a tighter lockdown, but the data reveals that this is not the case,” Once more this is articulated in an article by Brian Blum for United with Israel. One of the standout observations from this study was “Countries that responded quickly with social-distancing measures – not necessarily with a tight lockdown – ultimately emerged from the first outbreak with better results. Even in Sweden, a country that never imposed a lockdown, we can see that the early decrease in mobility, starting in March, was manifested in the mortality rate.”
The World Health Organisation’s June 5, 2020, guidance on face mask use said “there’s no direct evidence that universal masking of healthy people is an effective intervention against respiratory illnesses.” A policy review paper published in the CDC’s journal “Emerging Infectious Diseases”, found that masks did not protect against influenza in non-healthcare settings. “There is no reason, in my view, for wearing masks outside,” said Lidia Morawska, a researcher and director of the WHO-collaborating International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health.
Twenty-two Danish medical doctors from Copenhagen Hospital assessed whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers’ risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures. The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use.
The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection. ‘The results could indicate a more moderate degree of protection of 15 to 20 [percent], however, the study could not rule out that face masks do not provide any protection.’
The results from the Danish study – called Danmask-19 – mirror the findings of studies into influenza.
Professor Heneghan and Dr Jefferson added: “The low number of studies into the effect different interventions have on the spread of Covid-19 – a subject of global importance – suggests there is a total lack of interest from governments in pursuing evidence-based medicine.”
At the start of the pandemic, even Dr Anthony Fauci said there was no reason for people to be wearing masks.
“When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even stop a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is and often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”
US Surgeon General Dr William Schaffner of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine said “There is no role for these masks in the community,” he told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday.
“These masks need to be prioritized for health care professionals that as part of their job are taking care of individuals.”
In November 2020, Four world-leading Epidemiologists behind the Great Barrington declaration not only made extensive arguments against lockdowns, but they also sat down for a two-hour extensive interview with David Zweig, an independent journalist who writes for the New York Times to make their argument.
These experts were;
Martin Kulldorf, PhD – Professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Biostatistician and Epidemiologist in the division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharma economics, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital. His current research centres on developing new statistical methods for post-market drug and vaccine safety surveillance.
Sunetra Gupta – Infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford, England. Professor Gupta has performed research on the transmission dynamics of various infectious diseases including malaria, influenza and COVID-19.
Jay Bhattacharya – Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Dr Bhattacharya’s peer-reviewed research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health and health policy journals.
Stefan Baral, MD (remotely) – Physician epidemiologist and an Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (JHSPH)
With patience and careful explanation, the panel revealed the lockdown agenda was cruel pseudoscience that has had a devastating economic, medical, social, and cultural impact on everyone but especially the poor and struggling.
Are these not the experts our political elite continually lecture us to listen to?
In this interview amongst many thoughts and observations, the following was noted – “The term ‘Herd Immunity for some reason has been maligned, when in reality over history this is how humans have resolved various viruses. A Pathogen (virus) spreads through individuals and as they recover they become immune to that virus, as it spreads through a community that community can then achieve what science refers to as ‘Herd Immunity.’
This term for whatever reason through the Covid-19 scenario has been largely demonised. We have arrived at this point due to a lack of education and sophistication of thinking.”
These four experts went even further, “The third strategy which most governments aren’t implementing is to let herd immunity build up in the population while protecting the vulnerable within society until you reach the point where those with immunity are actually protecting those who are vulnerable to it.”
This strategy they outlined is not unique it has been a long-accepted strategy of dealing with viruses and pandemics built up over centuries that was abandoned by governments across the globe for covid-19 in favour of lockdowns and contact tracing.
It’s ironic that a country like Sweden, which stayed with this tried and true approach and saw life, outside some sensible restrictions, continues as close to normal as possible throughout this pandemic are now enjoying consecutive days of zero cases. Interestingly after being derided for their approach initially they are now never mentioned by our political and bureaucratic elite and even worse not raised in questioning by either an incompetent or compliant media.
In Corporate life, if a CEO implemented a change of policy from tried and proved methods that resulted in the loss of significant revenue, plunged their company into massive debt and caused unnecessary deaths and injury, they not only would have their shareholders in revolt and demanding their resignations, they would be subject to criminal prosecution.
Is the standard so different for our politicians and bureaucrats overseeing our current strategy in defiance of accepted scientific methods?
Whether through constitutional or International law, I am sure in time that legal minds of significant capability will find a way. While we wait though what damage will be caused? What suffering will be inflicted? What price do we as a society pay by not calling it out sooner? How much of our fabric as a society will be torn as politicians look to divide us to avoid attention being drawn to their own failures?
Let’s hope it’s a price we can tolerate and recover from rather than one that doesn’t leave a permanent stain on our collective psyche as a nation. My fear is that we may have already reached that point and don’t even know it yet.
If so we will be paying a severe punishment as a nation for our feigned ignorance of our leader’s actions, knowing they were wrong, unethical and potentially criminal. Actions that many were prepared to not only turn a blind eye to but actions they even endorsed just to get their comfortable lives back all while being content in sacrificing others on the pyre of their false virtuousness.
Let us ultimately hope that Lady Justice is truly blind and she directs an avenging stare upon all those that deserve it.