Wearing a Mask

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,725
No, no I cannot prove it.
Thank-you for admitting that.

There is so much wrong with your post above that I wouldn’t really know where to even start to address it.
Is there? Or does it seem that way after a lifetime of programming to accept the assumptions of allopathic medicine?

You do realise that when they talk about viruses and locomotion, they are primarily talking about the movement of the virus around the body or plant or whatever. They are not referring to the viruses ability to move from person to person.
Viruses cannot move independently - it’s one of the reasons they have to use a host.
If a virus isn't alive, but is instead simply a small chain of DNA/RNA manufactured within its host cell to address a specific toxic situation IN THAT CELL, which is then wrapped up in a protein wrapper/trash bag and ejected from the cell when the job is done, how does it find its way into a cell in someone else's body please? And has anyone ever witnessed that happening?

If you research that, you'll find the answer is no.

They don’t move from person to person themselves. They are transmitted in a variety of different ways according to where they shed.
And what exactly does "transmitted" mean to you please? Even if it is assumed they manage to make it from one person to another, how do they penetrate all of the body's natural defenses, and find their way inside HEALTHY cells inside someone else's body, and then how exactly do they adapt to the new host cell, with completely foreign DNA/RNA and somehow manage to replicate?

Influenza and Covid-19 are shed in the upper respiratory tract of infected individuals and transmitted as droplets. The sneeze or the cough expels them from one person and propels them either directly into the airways of another person or onto other surfaces. The droplet is then picked up by touch and if you touch your face, mouth, eyes etc can then infect you.
Again, is there ANY proof of this means of transmission?

The "Spanish flu" which was neither Spanish, nor originated in Spain, nor was a flu in the way that term is used today, killed tens of millions. And as was previously shared with you, attempts to infect healthy people with it using every textbook means of transmission, including everything described above, FAILED.

If you wear a mask it may reduce the risk of contamination in this way.
Will it? Is there any proof of that? Again, if you'll research that subject in depth, you find the answer to that question is a resounding "no".

And more importantly, wearing masks, particularly for prolonged periods of time, has been proven to be unhealthy.

HIV or Hep B is transmitted through blood and other body fluids (not saliva). If you use a condom when having sex or gloves to handle body fluids etc, it reduces the risk of contamination.
Does it? Or is that yet another medical myth, which people regurgitate without researching?

HIV=AIDS? Fact or Fraud?

Deadly Deception Lecture – Dr. Robert Willner

From: http://whale.to/c/willner_deadly_deception.html

The History of the AIDS Epidemic
excerpt from Deadly Deception 1994


HIV does not cause AIDS.... The point that everyone is missing is that all of those original papers Gallo wrote on HIV have been found fraudulent.... The HIV hypothesis was based on those papers.Peter Duesberg
How the Lie Began

In 1980, Dr. Robert Gallo, a retrovirologist with the National Cancer Institute, discovered the first human retrovirus (HTLV-I). A retrovirus is distinguished from an ordinary virus by virtue of the fact that its RNA is converted to DNA by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Its replication and survival is totally dependent on the viability of the host cell. If the host cell dies, the virus is finished. Dr. Gallo knew this basic fact; however, he would soon purposely ignore this fact in order to serve his own needs by claiming that the virus was very "mysterious". Somehow it would mysteriously survive while mysteriously slaughtering T-cells by the millions (this has never been observed). He had contended in the past, but failed to prove, that the very same retrovirus (HTLV-I) caused a specific type of leukemia which was occuring in Japan. The power of position, that of being a top government official and scientist, has allowed the erroneous label of "leukemia virus" to remain intact even though it was rejected by the scientific community.

In 1981, it was proposed that an acquired immune deficiency was the basis for a new syndrome of diseases (AIDS) that appeared to be surfacing amongst promiscuous male homosexuals and intravenous drug users. Dr. David Durack, of Duke University, a recognized expert on infectious diseases and the immune system, though admitting the prevalence of drug use (particular "poppers" or amyl nitrites) and repeated multiple infections, ignored these well-known causes of immune deficiency and announced that this "truly new syndrome" must be due to "some new factor". Continuously this group of scientists has resorted to theory, not fact, as to how the AIDS virus supposedly accomplishes its dirty deeds. The words, "it is thought", are constantly used in casual conversations or in the non-scientific articles and popular magazines and books. In the scientific journals or at lectures the theory is presented as established fact although there are no facts involved. It is portrayed as an established truth and therefore is accepted as such by most scientists, including physicians. The so-called HIV virus is still referred to as a "new" virus in spite of the indisputable evidence to the contrary. Incorrectly, the virus has been characterized as "attacking" or "infiltrating" the immune system, when in reality this is impossible because it is not alive and does not invade. Retroviruses are engulfed by the cells and incorporated into the cell's life processes.

In 1983, Dr. Gallo embarked on a mission to convince his fellow scientists, in the absence of any scientific experimental proof whatsoever, that another virus he had discovered caused AIDS. At a widely publicized press conference held in Washington, D.C. on April 23, 1984, Dr. Gallo announced that he had discovered the cause of AIDS. He claimed the unearthing of a new retrovirus which he had named HTLV-III, thus inferring that it was a member of the family of retroviruses he had previously discovered. His claim was bolstered by Margaret Heckler, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, who was under great pressure to come up with some answer to the looming "epidemic". Heckler announced, "Today we add another miracle to the long honor roll of American medicine and science." She also promised that we would have a vaccine within two years, undoubtedly as a result of Dr. Gallo's grandiose urgings. That very day, Dr. Gallo filed a U.S. patent for an HIV test kit which was destined to make him very wealthy. Dr. Gallo, unquestionably very knowledgeable in retrovirology, chose to set aside the facts and became the quintessential intellectual whore. The benefits to Dr. Gallo are money and power; but the costs to humanity are suffering and countless unnecessary deaths. In contrast, street prostitutes are honest – you know what you're getting and you know the risks – and, by the way, AIDS is not one of them.

Margaret Heckler very quickly awarded the lucrative contract for AZT to Burroughs-Wellcome Pharmaceutical Company before the first scientific paper ever appeared in any U.S. journal. AZT was a drug in search of a disease. It had been sitting on the shelves of the National Institutes of Health since the 1960's. It was an experimental drug that had failed as a cancer remedy and had been declared too toxic to use. Retrovirology had gained importance because of Nixon's "War on Cancer" and the belief that a retrovirus might be the cause of cancer in humans. This approach seemed logical at the time, because retroviruses typically prompted cells to multiply – a characteristic of the cancer process. This is directly opposite to the cell destruction that normally occurs in viral infections. Not only did that war fail, AZT failed, and retrovirologists came up empty-handed after twenty years of intense and arduous research. Alas, a whole group of scientists without a reason d'etre! As you would expect, in 1986, The International Committee of Retrovirologists named HIV the cause of AIDS. By giving credence to the hypothesis in the absence of proof, they became party to the conspiracy. It is just what one would expect when frustrated unsuccessful foxes are left to guard the hen house.

Adding to Dr. Gallo's blatant disregard for all established scientific requirements for validation of his claims, it was eventually discovered that HTLV-III was a retrovirus that had been sent to Dr. Gallo more than a year before by Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. On several occasions, Montagnier had sent samples of the virus he had isolated in the blood of some AIDS patients for Gallo's evaluation. A scandal erupted and a battle ensued over the credit for the discovery and the rights to the patents. It took the intervention of the French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac and U.S. President Ronald Reagan in order to reach an agreement that resulted in the sharing of the proceeds and the credit for the discovery (recently challenged again by the French after Gallo admitted he may have made a mistake). It is truly characteristic of scoundrels to quarrel over the spoils of fraud.

It is important to point out from the beginning that the acronymn AIDS represents the official and scientific designation of the "disease", ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME, which is discussed, examined and critiqued in this book. The inevitable conclusions which a growing number of many prominent scientists have reached, and, which I am sure, you will also, is that AIDS fits neither the definition of a disease, nor of a syndrome. It is merely the lumping together of an ever-increasing number of diseases and symptoms, 25 at the last count (depending on the source), in order to fraudulently create the impression that an epidemic exists.
Keep in mind that Gallo and his cohorts have been getting away with the most elementary and unscientific ploy one could imagine. They have avoided performing scientific controlled studies that would be universally accepted as proof. Such studies would unmask their fraud. They have instead relied on fear, intimidation, sensationalism, greed, ambition, envy and the need for recognition. In this way they have coerced and stupefied an army of followers into believing what, in the past, would have been laughed at, or dismissed as coincidence and/or "anecdotal". HIV has been made the scapegoat for incompetence, and a gateway to the lifestyle of the rich, famous and powerful, for unscrupulous, immoral and incompetent scoundrels. The blitzkrieg of misinformation has obliterated from consideration even the most elementary knowledge, logic and evidence in research and disease.

We have known for more than half a century that we co-exist with many bacteria and viruses. We are well aware that potentially deadly organisms reside within us at all times, waiting only for the balance of health to be tipped in favor of "disease". Streptococcus, tuberculosis, and Pneumocystis carinii, the most common "components" of AIDS, are but a fraction of the infectious organisms that the majority of us live with constantly. Pneumocystis carinii are present in the lungs of virtually every individual on the surface of our planet. Yet, precious few of us ever get the disease they cause: pneumocystis pneumonia. This is just one of the most obvious examples of the basic and pervasive flaws in the guiding premises of "modern" medicine.

Consider, for the moment, the following questions:

When the great flu of 1919 took the lives of millions of people in the United States, Why didn't the entire population succumb?

When the great bubonic plague destroyed one-third of the population of Europe, Why didn't the other two-thirds die also?

Why didn't everyone die?

The answer:

When an epidemic destroys its susceptible population, it ceases to exist. In other words, it is the inability of the individual's immune system that determines the degree to which an individual "falls ill" or whether or not he becomes ill at all. As Pasteur is purported to have exclaimed on his deathbed, "It is not the organism; it is the terrain!" If this were not true, then everyone, in the examples cited above, would have gotten the plague or the flu and all would have died. In fact, the first disease on earth would have been the last! The deceivers of infamy have succeeded in creating a chain of events that have destroyed logic and common sense, and in their place, established the following "Commandments" for science, government, the press and the public:

The Ten Commandments of Fraud
  1. Coincidence is proof of cause and effect.
  2. Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence.
  3. One example proves the rule.
  4. One guess supported by another guess creates a fact.
  5. Saying it is so, makes it so.
  6. Don't confuse the issue with facts.
  7. Proof is unncessary and should be avoided.
  8. Lie, lie, lie, and they'll believe it.
  9. Silence, ignore and suppress the truth.
  10. Replace reason with dogma, fraud and blindfolded fear.
The repeated use of these commandments by the conspirators prompted T. C. Fry to comment in his book, The Great AIDS Hoax, "...the presence of what they call HIV in the disease [AIDS] is no more proof of cause than the presence of flies in garbage proves that the flies are the cause of garbage." There could be an exception however, if you consider that the "AIDS Gang": Robert Gallo, Anthony Fauci, William Haseltine, Max Essex, James Curran, Flossie Wong-Staal, Dani Bolognesi, Margaret Fischl, Margaret Heckler, et al., are the flies; then indeed, the garbage was created by them!

Other viruses are transmitted via the faecal-oral root. Someone gets particles of poo on their hands - even tiny invisible ones. They then shake your hand and you put your hand in your mouth and hey, presto...you’re infected. Washing your hands after using the toilet should help prevent this.
Sanitary conditions are important, and the lack thereof can make the body sick, just as a lack of nutrition can do. But repeating the lie that tiny invisible viruses are outside invaders waiting to destroy otherwise healthy cells doesn't make it true. It only helps perpetuate lies, and through those lies FEAR.

That is transmission. It does not require the virus to have locomotion. I think that might be a fundamental flaw in your understanding.
And yet you have in no way offered any evidence nor even a rational explanation for how the virus makes its way past all of the body's natural defense mechanisms (skin, mucus membranes, macrophages, bacteria, fungus, etc.). That is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
 

Maes17

Superstar
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
6,521
Anyway, masks don't protect the eyes which C-19 likes to attach itself to. I had conjunctivitis (itchy red eyes) a few weeks ago for the first time in my life, accompanied by sniffly nose, headache, shivering spells and tiredness, so I presume it was a mild attack of C-19..


You probably did. You’re a survivor.

I have itchy red eyes due to lack of sleep. Went in to set up for my new detail gig today with bloodshot eyes. I told the boss “if I can start tomorrow please let me do so, I didn’t sleep well” lol


Or maybe I have the rona
 

Hon33

Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
806
Thank-you for admitting that.


Is there? Or does it seem that way after a lifetime of programming to accept the assumptions of allopathic medicine?


If a virus isn't alive, but is instead simply a small chain of DNA/RNA manufactured within its host cell to address a specific toxic situation IN THAT CELL, which is then wrapped up in a protein wrapper/trash bag and ejected from the cell when the job is done, how does it find its way into a cell in someone else's body please? And has anyone ever witnessed that happening?

If you research that, you'll find the answer is no.


And what exactly does "transmitted" mean to you please? Even if it is assumed they manage to make it from one person to another, how do they penetrate all of the body's natural defenses, and find their way inside HEALTHY cells inside someone else's body, and then how exactly do they adapt to the new host cell, with completely foreign DNA/RNA and somehow manage to replicate?


Again, is there ANY proof of this means of transmission?

The "Spanish flu" which was neither Spanish, nor originated in Spain, nor was a flu in the way that term is used today, killed tens of millions. And as was previously shared with you, attempts to infect healthy people with it using every textbook means of transmission, including everything described above, FAILED.


Will it? Is there any proof of that? Again, if you'll research that subject in depth, you find the answer to that question is a resounding "no".

And more importantly, wearing masks, particularly for prolonged periods of time, has been proven to be unhealthy.


Does it? Or is that yet another medical myth, which people regurgitate without researching?

HIV=AIDS? Fact or Fraud?

Deadly Deception Lecture – Dr. Robert Willner

From: http://whale.to/c/willner_deadly_deception.html

The History of the AIDS Epidemic
excerpt from Deadly Deception 1994



How the Lie Began

In 1980, Dr. Robert Gallo, a retrovirologist with the National Cancer Institute, discovered the first human retrovirus (HTLV-I). A retrovirus is distinguished from an ordinary virus by virtue of the fact that its RNA is converted to DNA by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Its replication and survival is totally dependent on the viability of the host cell. If the host cell dies, the virus is finished. Dr. Gallo knew this basic fact; however, he would soon purposely ignore this fact in order to serve his own needs by claiming that the virus was very "mysterious". Somehow it would mysteriously survive while mysteriously slaughtering T-cells by the millions (this has never been observed). He had contended in the past, but failed to prove, that the very same retrovirus (HTLV-I) caused a specific type of leukemia which was occuring in Japan. The power of position, that of being a top government official and scientist, has allowed the erroneous label of "leukemia virus" to remain intact even though it was rejected by the scientific community.

In 1981, it was proposed that an acquired immune deficiency was the basis for a new syndrome of diseases (AIDS) that appeared to be surfacing amongst promiscuous male homosexuals and intravenous drug users. Dr. David Durack, of Duke University, a recognized expert on infectious diseases and the immune system, though admitting the prevalence of drug use (particular "poppers" or amyl nitrites) and repeated multiple infections, ignored these well-known causes of immune deficiency and announced that this "truly new syndrome" must be due to "some new factor". Continuously this group of scientists has resorted to theory, not fact, as to how the AIDS virus supposedly accomplishes its dirty deeds. The words, "it is thought", are constantly used in casual conversations or in the non-scientific articles and popular magazines and books. In the scientific journals or at lectures the theory is presented as established fact although there are no facts involved. It is portrayed as an established truth and therefore is accepted as such by most scientists, including physicians. The so-called HIV virus is still referred to as a "new" virus in spite of the indisputable evidence to the contrary. Incorrectly, the virus has been characterized as "attacking" or "infiltrating" the immune system, when in reality this is impossible because it is not alive and does not invade. Retroviruses are engulfed by the cells and incorporated into the cell's life processes.

In 1983, Dr. Gallo embarked on a mission to convince his fellow scientists, in the absence of any scientific experimental proof whatsoever, that another virus he had discovered caused AIDS. At a widely publicized press conference held in Washington, D.C. on April 23, 1984, Dr. Gallo announced that he had discovered the cause of AIDS. He claimed the unearthing of a new retrovirus which he had named HTLV-III, thus inferring that it was a member of the family of retroviruses he had previously discovered. His claim was bolstered by Margaret Heckler, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, who was under great pressure to come up with some answer to the looming "epidemic". Heckler announced, "Today we add another miracle to the long honor roll of American medicine and science." She also promised that we would have a vaccine within two years, undoubtedly as a result of Dr. Gallo's grandiose urgings. That very day, Dr. Gallo filed a U.S. patent for an HIV test kit which was destined to make him very wealthy. Dr. Gallo, unquestionably very knowledgeable in retrovirology, chose to set aside the facts and became the quintessential intellectual whore. The benefits to Dr. Gallo are money and power; but the costs to humanity are suffering and countless unnecessary deaths. In contrast, street prostitutes are honest – you know what you're getting and you know the risks – and, by the way, AIDS is not one of them.

Margaret Heckler very quickly awarded the lucrative contract for AZT to Burroughs-Wellcome Pharmaceutical Company before the first scientific paper ever appeared in any U.S. journal. AZT was a drug in search of a disease. It had been sitting on the shelves of the National Institutes of Health since the 1960's. It was an experimental drug that had failed as a cancer remedy and had been declared too toxic to use. Retrovirology had gained importance because of Nixon's "War on Cancer" and the belief that a retrovirus might be the cause of cancer in humans. This approach seemed logical at the time, because retroviruses typically prompted cells to multiply – a characteristic of the cancer process. This is directly opposite to the cell destruction that normally occurs in viral infections. Not only did that war fail, AZT failed, and retrovirologists came up empty-handed after twenty years of intense and arduous research. Alas, a whole group of scientists without a reason d'etre! As you would expect, in 1986, The International Committee of Retrovirologists named HIV the cause of AIDS. By giving credence to the hypothesis in the absence of proof, they became party to the conspiracy. It is just what one would expect when frustrated unsuccessful foxes are left to guard the hen house.

Adding to Dr. Gallo's blatant disregard for all established scientific requirements for validation of his claims, it was eventually discovered that HTLV-III was a retrovirus that had been sent to Dr. Gallo more than a year before by Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. On several occasions, Montagnier had sent samples of the virus he had isolated in the blood of some AIDS patients for Gallo's evaluation. A scandal erupted and a battle ensued over the credit for the discovery and the rights to the patents. It took the intervention of the French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac and U.S. President Ronald Reagan in order to reach an agreement that resulted in the sharing of the proceeds and the credit for the discovery (recently challenged again by the French after Gallo admitted he may have made a mistake). It is truly characteristic of scoundrels to quarrel over the spoils of fraud.



Keep in mind that Gallo and his cohorts have been getting away with the most elementary and unscientific ploy one could imagine. They have avoided performing scientific controlled studies that would be universally accepted as proof. Such studies would unmask their fraud. They have instead relied on fear, intimidation, sensationalism, greed, ambition, envy and the need for recognition. In this way they have coerced and stupefied an army of followers into believing what, in the past, would have been laughed at, or dismissed as coincidence and/or "anecdotal". HIV has been made the scapegoat for incompetence, and a gateway to the lifestyle of the rich, famous and powerful, for unscrupulous, immoral and incompetent scoundrels. The blitzkrieg of misinformation has obliterated from consideration even the most elementary knowledge, logic and evidence in research and disease.

We have known for more than half a century that we co-exist with many bacteria and viruses. We are well aware that potentially deadly organisms reside within us at all times, waiting only for the balance of health to be tipped in favor of "disease". Streptococcus, tuberculosis, and Pneumocystis carinii, the most common "components" of AIDS, are but a fraction of the infectious organisms that the majority of us live with constantly. Pneumocystis carinii are present in the lungs of virtually every individual on the surface of our planet. Yet, precious few of us ever get the disease they cause: pneumocystis pneumonia. This is just one of the most obvious examples of the basic and pervasive flaws in the guiding premises of "modern" medicine.

Consider, for the moment, the following questions:

When the great flu of 1919 took the lives of millions of people in the United States, Why didn't the entire population succumb?

When the great bubonic plague destroyed one-third of the population of Europe, Why didn't the other two-thirds die also?

Why didn't everyone die?

The answer:

When an epidemic destroys its susceptible population, it ceases to exist. In other words, it is the inability of the individual's immune system that determines the degree to which an individual "falls ill" or whether or not he becomes ill at all. As Pasteur is purported to have exclaimed on his deathbed, "It is not the organism; it is the terrain!" If this were not true, then everyone, in the examples cited above, would have gotten the plague or the flu and all would have died. In fact, the first disease on earth would have been the last! The deceivers of infamy have succeeded in creating a chain of events that have destroyed logic and common sense, and in their place, established the following "Commandments" for science, government, the press and the public:

The Ten Commandments of Fraud
  1. Coincidence is proof of cause and effect.
  2. Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence.
  3. One example proves the rule.
  4. One guess supported by another guess creates a fact.
  5. Saying it is so, makes it so.
  6. Don't confuse the issue with facts.
  7. Proof is unncessary and should be avoided.
  8. Lie, lie, lie, and they'll believe it.
  9. Silence, ignore and suppress the truth.
  10. Replace reason with dogma, fraud and blindfolded fear.
The repeated use of these commandments by the conspirators prompted T. C. Fry to comment in his book, The Great AIDS Hoax, "...the presence of what they call HIV in the disease [AIDS] is no more proof of cause than the presence of flies in garbage proves that the flies are the cause of garbage." There could be an exception however, if you consider that the "AIDS Gang": Robert Gallo, Anthony Fauci, William Haseltine, Max Essex, James Curran, Flossie Wong-Staal, Dani Bolognesi, Margaret Fischl, Margaret Heckler, et al., are the flies; then indeed, the garbage was created by them!


Sanitary conditions are important, and the lack thereof can make the body sick, just as a lack of nutrition can do. But repeating the lie that tiny invisible viruses are outside invaders waiting to destroy otherwise healthy cells doesn't make it true. It only helps perpetuate lies, and through those lies FEAR.


And yet you have in no way offered any evidence nor even a rational explanation for how the virus makes its way past all of the body's natural defense mechanisms (skin, mucus membranes, macrophages, bacteria, fungus, etc.). That is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
I haven’t been programmed. I am a nurse, my grandfather was a microbiologist and I have a good grasp of basic biology. Not only did my grandfather work as a microbiologist in a top teaching hospital, but he lectured in the attached university as well - it has always been respected for its research.He knew how viruses worked - not just because someone told him so - but because he observed them every day of his working life.
If I had £1 for the number of times he discussed viruses and bacteria over Sunday lunch, I would be very rich. He lived and breathed microbiology until the day he died.

Simply - because my grasp is basic - viruses enter a host cell. They replicate there and then the virus is shed - in Covid-19 for example, this takes place in the upper respiratory tract and nose. When an infected coughs, sneezes etc, the viruses is propelled out of the body directly into the airways of another person or onto other surfaces where they can live for sometime. If you touch those surfaces, you can pick the virus cells up and then when you touch your nose, mouth, eyes etc you become infected where the whole process is repeated.

I am not sure what you mean when you ask how they penetrate the body’s natural defences and enter host cells. I mean do you want an explanation? Are you actually asking this? Different viruses have different ways if entering the body. Once they are in the body they use a variety of methods to enter the host cells Where they replicate and shed to repeat the process. That’s a very basic summary because viruses all behave differently. Each virus recognises the type of cell it needs to target because they are protein specific.
Some viruses can spread directly from cell to cell.
You ask how viruses can penetrate natural defences. Well that’s pretty simple. For example if the skin or mucous membranes are not in tact, viruses such as HIV or Hep C/D can enter the blood stream and target T cells. I’m not sure if you fully appreciate how viruses work generally though. Covid-19 for example doesn’t need to penetrate the body’s natural defences. They are delivered directly into the mucus membranes of the nose and throat and target epithelial cells there.
Macrophages aren’t a natural defence, per se. They react to the presence of viruses in certain areas of the body and then set about destroying them. Their role is more to limit the virus rather than eliminate it completely. How successfully they do that depends on how quickly they act versus how quickly the virus replicates itself. In some instances the activation of macrophages can help to disseminate the virus more widely rather than limiting it. To the best of my knowledge, bacteria and fungi aren’t successful yet at killing viruses - there is some work being done however using fungi in anti-virals.
Now, I see where you might say that we cannot be 100% sure of modes of transmission. That’s fine we don’t actually have to be. if we can identify a type of virus and we know it’s symptoms, the organ systems affected by it etc then we can identify likely modes/routes of transmission. Since time began infections have been documented and we have always understood the potential for spread. We might not be able to identify the exact mechanism but it would be foolish to ignore the fact it exists.
Is there proof that using a condom during sex reduces the risk of transmission of HIV. I rather think there is. But hey, if you don’t believe it...In any case, which research would you be willing to accept as evidence? I mean, no matter what I show you, you’ll probably say it’s not true.
As for the masks, I have admitted several times the evidence is not entirely conclusive. However, I would be interested very much in any evidence that suggests that in terms of breathing, wearing masks can be problematic. Nothing I have read supports that for healthy individuals.
You are right that nutrition and sanitation are also important for health. However ask yourself why sanitation is so important? Why does poor sanitation cause disease? Poor sanitation in itself does not make the body ill.

I don’t need to offer you evidence or rational explanations. I have a basic understanding of viruses and even that is enough for me to understand that they exist. The enormity of a conspiracy which would require all scientists, medical professionals, biomedical professionals and many, many more to be complicit in thIs kind of deception, defies all logic. It would stretch further back than time itself.
Yes, there is the potential for manipulation of viruses. Of course, there is. However, the ability to identify whether viruses are naturally occurring or manufactured reduces that risk. Of course, I forgot, no one is ever going to te the truth about that.
 

Maes17

Superstar
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
6,521
I haven’t been programmed. I am a nurse, my grandfather was a microbiologist and I have a good grasp of basic biology. Not only did my grandfather work as a microbiologist in a top teaching hospital, but he lectured in the attached university as well - it has always been respected for its research.He knew how viruses worked - not just because someone told him so - but because he observed them every day of his working life.
If I had £1 for the number of times he discussed viruses and bacteria over Sunday lunch, I would be very rich. He lived and breathed microbiology until the day he died.

Simply - because my grasp is basic - viruses enter a host cell. They replicate there and then the virus is shed - in Covid-19 for example, this takes place in the upper respiratory tract and nose. When an infected coughs, sneezes etc, the viruses is propelled out of the body directly into the airways of another person or onto other surfaces where they can live for sometime. If you touch those surfaces, you can pick the virus cells up and then when you touch your nose, mouth, eyes etc you become infected where the whole process is repeated.

I am not sure what you mean when you ask how they penetrate the body’s natural defences and enter host cells. I mean do you want an explanation? Are you actually asking this? Different viruses have different ways if entering the body. Once they are in the body they use a variety of methods to enter the host cells Where they replicate and shed to repeat the process. That’s a very basic summary because viruses all behave differently. Each virus recognises the type of cell it needs to target because they are protein specific.
Some viruses can spread directly from cell to cell.
You ask how viruses can penetrate natural defences. Well that’s pretty simple. For example if the skin or mucous membranes are not in tact, viruses such as HIV or Hep C/D can enter the blood stream and target T cells. I’m not sure if you fully appreciate how viruses work generally though. Covid-19 for example doesn’t need to penetrate the body’s natural defences. They are delivered directly into the mucus membranes of the nose and throat and target epithelial cells there.
Macrophages aren’t a natural defence, per se. They react to the presence of viruses in certain areas of the body and then set about destroying them. Their role is more to limit the virus rather than eliminate it completely. How successfully they do that depends on how quickly they act versus how quickly the virus replicates itself. In some instances the activation of macrophages can help to disseminate the virus more widely rather than limiting it. To the best of my knowledge, bacteria and fungi aren’t successful yet at killing viruses - there is some work being done however using fungi in anti-virals.
Now, I see where you might say that we cannot be 100% sure of modes of transmission. That’s fine we don’t actually have to be. if we can identify a type of virus and we know it’s symptoms, the organ systems affected by it etc then we can identify likely modes/routes of transmission. Since time began infections have been documented and we have always understood the potential for spread. We might not be able to identify the exact mechanism but it would be foolish to ignore the fact it exists.
Is there proof that using a condom during sex reduces the risk of transmission of HIV. I rather think there is. But hey, if you don’t believe it...In any case, which research would you be willing to accept as evidence? I mean, no matter what I show you, you’ll probably say it’s not true.
As for the masks, I have admitted several times the evidence is not entirely conclusive. However, I would be interested very much in any evidence that suggests that in terms of breathing, wearing masks can be problematic. Nothing I have read supports that for healthy individuals.
You are right that nutrition and sanitation are also important for health. However ask yourself why sanitation is so important? Why does poor sanitation cause disease? Poor sanitation in itself does not make the body ill.

I don’t need to offer you evidence or rational explanations. I have a basic understanding of viruses and even that is enough for me to understand that they exist. The enormity of a conspiracy which would require all scientists, medical professionals, biomedical professionals and many, many more to be complicit in thIs kind of deception, defies all logic. It would stretch further back than time itself.
Yes, there is the potential for manipulation of viruses. Of course, there is. However, the ability to identify whether viruses are naturally occurring or manufactured reduces that risk. Of course, I forgot, no one is ever going to te the truth about that.
If you’re a nurse, no need to explain yourself.
Just worry about what you can control physically.

When you come onto a conspiracy forum. You have to remember posters here are questioning this stuff. Questioning science etc. So even if you may very well be right.

I wouldn’t stress it too much.
Who knows, maybe the next medical breakthrough is hovering in front of you on this forum. Approach with an open mind but also stand firm in your beliefs
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,725
1. MASKS DON’T WORK

A. Masks Don’t Work: A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy


There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum , or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

This paper by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Associatio, reviews medical literature, giving key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:


Source -

jeremie-mercier.commasks-dont-work-denis-rancourt.pdf
392.79 KB



B. Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review

It is a stark reminder that scientific knowledge is constantly changing as new discoveries contradict established beliefs . For at least three decades a face mask has been deemed an essential component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by dental personnel.

In 2014, the nursing profession was implored to “stop using practice interventions that are based on tradition ” but instead adopt protocols that are based on critical evaluations of the available evidence.

No matter how well a mask conforms to the shape of a person’s face, it is not designed to create an air-tight seal around the face. Masks will always fit fairly loosely with considerable gaps along the cheeks, around the bridge of the nose and along the bottom edge of the mask below the chin. These gaps do not provide adequate protection as they permit the passage of air and aerosols when the wearer inhales.

It should be no surprise that a study of eight brands of face masks found that they did not filter out 20-100% of particles varying in size from 0.1 to 4.0 microns.

“There is no specific requirement to prove that the existing masks are effective and there is no standard test or set of data required supporting the assertion of equivalence. Nor does the FDA conduct or sponsor testing of surgical masks.”


Source -

Oral Health Group – 19 Oct 16

Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review - Oral Health Group
For at least three decades face masks has been deemed an essential component of the personal protective equipment worn by dental personnel.



:yellow_circle:
2. HEALTH AUTHORITIES DO NOT ROUTINELY RECOMMEND THE USE OF FACE MASKS BY WELL PERSONS

A. Public Health England Advice


Questions from PHE website:

Should people wear face masks to protect themselves from infection? Face masks play a very important role in clinical settings, such as hospitals but there’s very little evidence of widespread benefit from their use outside of these clinical settings. Facemasks must be worn correctly, changed frequently, removed properly and disposed of safely in order to be effective.

Should I wear a face covering? Face coverings offer minimal benefit to the wearer, but may help you protect others and reduce the spread of the disease if you are suffering from coronavirus but not showing any symptoms. Consider wearing a face covering if you have to use public transport to get to work, or are visiting a busy enclosed space where you can’t social distance such as a crowded shop.


B. The Center for Disease Control does not routinely recommend the use of face mask by well persons.

So … not only did the CDC know that there was limited effectiveness of N95 masks in stopping the H1N1 flu, but quarantines (of ONLY the sick, since quarantining the healthy is nonsensical) were mildly effective and lead to economic problems.

The CDC does not routinely recommend the use of face masks by well persons. It might recommend them for ill persons as a source of control measures during SEVERE, or very severe pandemics.

:pushpin:
MUST READ: The below article addresses more than face mask like quarantines and advanced planning.

Thinking Error Free – 7 May 20 2

Just some thoughts on SARS-CoV-2, what’s happening now (May 2020), why, and... 2
This is just a short, preliminary analysis of some of the CoVID data that is contrary to some of what is being said that; and for me, it is creating some alarming concerns about the truth (red flag…)


C. Coronavirus: Who should wear a face mask or face covering?

This article covers “new” WHO recommendations:

Coronavirus: Who should wear a face mask or face covering?

D. Remember the Director of Public Health Gibraltar, Sohail Bhatti early advice?


He said face masks are effective for 15 minutes and often taken off improperly. About wearing a face mask shopping, he said, “What a great way to declare to everyone that you might be Covid positive and creating fear and avoidance around you. I don’t think that works particularly well.”

WHO says no evidence wearing a mask would prevent infection in a healthy person - Dr Bhatti says



WHO says no evidence wearing a mask would prevent infection in a healthy person...
The advice CHANGED to stay in line with other health organizations; and Public Health Gibraltar recommends the same precautions as the PHE, wearing masks on public transport and when social distancing cannot be observed, as mentioned.

Gibraltar takes strict approach to coronavirus precautions, but nothing is risk free

The Gibraltar Ministry of Propaganda got in line with the global narrative; and Bhatti backtracked on his advice:

The Gibraltar Chronicle published this article, which cited one study.

Widespread face mask use could shrink ‘R’ and stop second Covid-19 wave – study 1

see also:

Govt issues guidance on face coverings in enclosed public spaces

Also notice that that face masks will give a false perception that one is protected, when these claims of protection are false and misleading.

AND, Bhatti was correct when he first said face masks do keep the FEAR level up – was that the global agenda? To keep FEAR alive?

:orange_circle:
3. FACE MASKS DO NOT PROTECT AGAINST CORONAVIRUS, AS PER MANUFACTURER’S LABEL


This product is an ear loop mask. This product is not a respirator and will not provide any protection against Covid19 or other viruses or contaminates.

Understand the difference between surgical mask and N95 Respirator:

A surgical mask does NOT provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection

Source -

cdc.govUnderstandDifferenceInfographic-508.pdf
226.97 KB



Masks are loose fitting and may not provide full protection from breathing in airborne pathogens, such as viruses.

Face masks (non-surgical masks) may not provide protection from fluids or may not filter particles, needed to protect against pathogens, such as viruses. They are not for surgical use and are not considered personal protective equipment .

Surgical masks are fluid-resistant, disposable, and loose-fitting devices that create a physical barrier between the mouth and nose of the wearer and the immediate environment. They are for use in surgical settings and do not provide full protection from inhalation of airborne pathogens, such as viruses.


Source -

U.S. Food and Drug Administration – 11 May 2020

Face Masks and Surgical Masks for COVID-19: Manufacturing, Purchasing
Answers to frequently asked questions about face masks and surgical masks, including manufacturing, purchasing, importing, donating masks during the COVID-19.



PROTECTIVE FACE MASK (FFP3/N95) Precautions and Contraindications

FFP3:N95 manufacturers precautions
FFP3:N95 manufacturers precautions1039×529 76.5 KB



See: http://n95instructions.com/

BY THE WAY: Face masks are not recommended for children younger than 5 years old (some say 2 years); and some say masks are not designed for children.

AND they are not recommended for those who have difficulty breathing.

:purple_circle:
4. LIMITS OXYGEN INTAKE

Some say that face masks limits oxygen intake, and that it isn’t wise to constantly breath what you are exhaling.



Why you should NOT wear a mask
If face mask limit oxygen intake – then why limit it? The medical industry is prescribing oxygen to those severely affected. Their efforts included gets a supply of oxygen tanks for hospitals.

:brown_circle:
5. THERE ARE DIVIDED OPINIONS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS

Concerns include people not wearing them correctly and people constantly touching their faces and adjusting the masks.

One medical expert told MailOnline that masks ‘cannot’ protect against the virus and that wearing them may even make it worse. Meanwhile Public Health England has warned that there is ‘very little evidence’ that masks are effective ‘outside of clinical settings’ such as hospitals.

The way you wear a mask is crucially importantly, academics say, because unless it is tight to the nose and mouth contaminated sneezes and coughs will get through - or linger on the surface.

He added that masks may make the spread of the virus more likely if they become damp .


Source -

Mail Online – 27 Feb 20

Coronavirus face masks selling out..which one SHOULD you buy?
More than 81,000 cases of coronavirus have been recorded across the world, with the death toll nearing 2,800, with more people in the UK now choosing to cover their mouth and nose in public.



After doing your own research, form your own opinion and act accordingly.
 
Last edited:

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,725
:red_circle:
6. THEY ARE TREATED WITH HARMFUL CHEMICALS

Some individuals are allergic to materials and chemicals used to make face masks; and can have severe health reactions.

China, which supplies much of the medical goods, use harmful chemicals to treat them. It’s not just medical goods, but also fabrics. Investigate the use of Formaldehyde and ethylene oxide in fabric and materials.

Face masks laced with chemicals like Formaldehyde that can cause allergic reactions.

Read: Surgical mask contact dermatitis and epidemiology of contact dermatitis in healthcare workers

Although contact dermatitis in healthcare workers is common, there are very few case reports about surgical mask dermatitis. Contact dermatitis due to N95 masks during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic has been documented in a few studies. The article further explores dibromodicyanobutane as a known cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).

The manufacturer of the mask denied the use of any of the agents. But we found positive on commercial allergen patch testing, dibromodicyanobutane preservative in the adhesive used to attach the polyester foam strip to the mask textile was considered the most likely cause of the patient’s contact dermatitis.

The most common relevant general offending allergens also affecting healthcare workers are thiuram and carbamates (rubber accelerators and additives), thiomersal (vaccine preservative), benzalkonium chloride (preservative), formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde (disinfectants), quaternium 15 (formaldehyde-releasing http://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/contact-allergy-to-preservatives/preservative) and fragrances used in pharmaceutical products. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are used widely in many products in our environment, both generally and in healthcare. This makes it difficult sometimes to establish whether proven allergies are work-related. Disposable gowns and masks, used as personal protective equipment, have been described as potential formaldehyde exposures in healthcare settings.

It has been attributed to free formaldehyde, which was confirmed to be present in certain types of N95 mask.

The analysis of the N95 mask used by the latter patient
confirmed the presence of free formaldehyde in his mask. This was unexpected, since it was not displayed on the manufacturer’s list of ingredients.

Source -

pdfs.semanticscholar.org91a4e8d722cddaf983650edf82b59c365b67.pdf
738.43 KB



Formaldehyde in your fabrics

For years the textile industry has been using finishes on fabric that prevents wrinkling – usually a formaldehyde resin.

According to the American Contact Dermatitis Society, rayon, blended cotton, corduroy, wrinkle-resistant 100% cotton, and any synthetic blended polymer are likely to have been treated with formaldehyde resins. The types of resins used include urea-formaldehyde, melamine-formaldehyde and phenol-formaldehyde. Manufacturers often “hide” the word “formaldehyde” under daunting chemical names.

Formaldehyde is another one of those chemicals that just isn’t good for humans. Long known as the Embalmer’s Friend for its uses in funeral homes and high school biology labs, formaldehyde effects depend upon the intensity and length of the exposure and the sensitivity of the individual to the chemical.

Besides being associated with watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes and throat, nausea, difficulty in breathing, coughing, some pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), asthma attacks, chest tightness, headaches, and general fatigue, as well as the rashes and other illnesses such as reported by the TSA officers, formaldehyde is associated with more severe health issues.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified formaldehyde as a human carcinogen.


Source -

O ECOTEXTILES – 4 Jan 11

Formaldehyde in your fabrics
In January 2009, new blue uniforms were issued to Transportation Security Administration officers at hundreds of airports nationwide. [1] The new uniforms – besides giving officers a snazzy new loo…



According to the precautions of the PROTECTIVE FACE MASK (FFP3/N95) above, the product has been sterilized with ethylene oxide .

What is ethylene oxide?

Although too dangerous for direct household use and generally unfamiliar to consumers, ethylene oxide is used for making many consumer products as well as non-consumer chemicals and intermediates.

As a toxic gas that leaves residue on items it contacts including food and spices, ethylene oxide is a surface disinfectant that is widely used in hospitals and the medical equipment industry to replace steam in the sterilization of heat-sensitive tools and equipment, such as disposable plastic syringes. It is so flammable and extremely explosive that it is used as a main component of thermobaric weapons (aerosol bomb).


According to the National Cancer Institute, lymphoma and leukemia are the cancers most frequently reported to be associated with occupational exposure to ethylene oxide. Stomach and breast cancers may also be associated with ethylene oxide exposure. At room temperature, ethylene oxide is a flammable colorless gas with a sweet odor. It is used primarily to produce other chemicals, including antifreeze. In smaller amounts, ethylene oxide is used as a pesticide and a sterilizing agent. The ability of ethylene oxide to damage DNA makes it an effective sterilizing agent but also accounts for its cancer-causing activity.

:green_circle:
7. DISPOSABLE FACE MASKS ARE NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY

Creating more trash isn’t the answer, especially when their effectiveness cannot be guaranteed.

Gibraltar is already experiencing the effects of people trashing them.



Nautilus Project tweet
Nautilus Project tweet403×619 210 KB



Most people do not recognize that Lucifer/Satan is the Destroyer. He works to destroy the earth and ALL LIFE on the earth. And with his Synagogue, the market-system was created to make disposable products so that people constantly buy new products and trash the earth. Devices are upgraded in this system so that people constantly buy new devices. If it were about
sustainability, you wouldn’t need to buy a new printer just because ink cartridges for your current one are no longer produced.

:red_circle:
8. THE FAKES ARE OUT THERE – all in the name of supporting the market-beast system.

China manufactures fake, cheap products.

A. Counterfeit Masks Reaching Frontline Health Workers in US

An Associated Press investigation has found those masks were counterfeits — as are millions of medical masks, gloves, gowns and other supplies being used in hospitals across the country, putting lives at risk.

Read: Counterfeit Masks Reaching Frontline Health Workers in US

B. MASK SCANDAL Dangerous counterfeit coronavirus masks sent to front-line healthcare workers ‘from Chinese firm approved by US’

FAKE N95 masks from China were shipped to American doctors on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic, despite warnings the masks were counterfeit.

The masks inside were stamped as if approved by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health signifying they had been certified by the U.S. government as safe for workers in health care settings.


The Sun – 13 May 20

Dangerous counterfeit coronavirus masks sent to front-line healthcare workers...
FAKE N95 masks from China were shipped to American doctors on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic, despite warnings the masks were counterfeit. A shipment of the masks, which are secured by t…



C. Chinese company charged with sending defective face masks to the US

A Chinese manufacturing company has been charged with shipping more than 140,000 defective face masks, marketed as “KN95,” to the U.S. in the middle of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

NaturalNews.com – 19 Jun 20

Chinese company charged with sending defective face masks to the US
A Chinese manufacturing company has been charged with shipping more than 140,000 defective face masks, marketed as “KN95,” to the U.S. in the middle of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. According to federal prosecutors, the Hong Kong-based...



D. How to spot fake N95, NIOSH, or KN95 respirator mask from China

For example, the FDA doesn’t approve N95 respirators, so if it says it’s approved that should be a red flag.

Medium – 18 Jun 20
How to spot a fake KN95 mask from China.
Hello. This is Dr. Jay Park, an emergency medicine physician in NYC and a board member of GEM. Over the past 3 weeks, I’ve been working…

Reading time: 10 min read



E. Counterfeit Respirators / Misrepresentation of NIOSH-Approval

Counterfeit respirators are products that are falsely marketed and sold as being NIOSH-approved and may not be capable of providing appropriate respiratory protection to workers.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/usernotices/counterfeitResp.html

SIDENOTE:

The fake mask debacle doesn’t even address the bad Covid19 tests sent from China.


National Review – 26 Mar 20

China Supplied Faulty Coronavirus Test Kits to Spain, Czech Republic |...
The majority of rapid test coronavirus test kits supplied by China to Spain and the Czech Republic are faulty, local news outlets reported.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-01/faulty-virus-tests-cloud-china-s-european-outreach-over-covid-19

As the coronavirus landed in Italy and began to sweep across the continent, European leaders turned to China for testing kits to quickly identify infection hot spots.

Some are regretting it.
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,725
:orange_circle:
9. COVID19 TESTS ARE SUSPECTED TO ACTUALLY INFECT PEOPLE WITH A VIRUS

Could Contaminated COVID-19 Tests Help Spread the Virus?


thenewamerican.com

Could Contaminated COVID-19 Tests Help Spread the Virus?
A new report shows that some of the COVID-19 tests themselves are contaminated with coronavirus and could be spreading the disease. by C. Mitchell Shaw

This begs the question if it’s BIOLOGICAL WARFARE , especially because manufacturers have denied using chemicals; and they do not list all ingredients used, as pointed out above.

Create a virus, sell contaminated, or treated test kits to unsuspecting enemies in the West under the guise of “helping” whilst playing the market-system game.

:purple_circle:
10. DO NOT WEAR A FACE MASK AS PROOF YOU ARE NOT FALLING FOR THE PSYOP, MEANT TO INSTILL FEAR WORLDWIDE.
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
i go to a supermarket for lunch every day. im the only one (well, coworkers dont wear masks either) in there with no mask (and have been for weeks now).
one checkout lady asked me, "do you have a mask?"
i said, "i dont need one." (i had my medical exemption paper printed out and in my pocket if push came to shove with the managers). she looked over at someone else, and she switched places with another, younger cashier.
thats been the extent of my mask obstacles. im actually hoping someone says something so i can tell them what i think.

i think the managers dont want to create a fuss in there. i think theyre trying to stay very apolitical (corona, BLM, etc.), which is exactly how any company should operate.
 

Hon33

Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
806
i go to a supermarket for lunch every day. im the only one (well, coworkers dont wear masks either) in there with no mask (and have been for weeks now).
one checkout lady asked me, "do you have a mask?"
i said, "i dont need one." (i had my medical exemption paper printed out and in my pocket if push came to shove with the managers). she looked over at someone else, and she switched places with another, younger cashier.
thats been the extent of my mask obstacles. im actually hoping someone says something so i can tell them what i think.

i think the managers dont want to create a fuss in there. i think theyre trying to stay very apolitical (corona, BLM, etc.), which is exactly how any company should operate.
Was she wearing a mask.
My daughter returned to her part-time retail job last week - I am in Northern Ireland. They are provided with masks but they don’t have to wear them.
The main focus is on hand washing and distancing.
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,725
Was she wearing a mask.
My daughter returned to her part-time retail job last week - I am in Northern Ireland. They are provided with masks but they don’t have to wear them.
The main focus is on hand washing and distancing.
What part of N. Ireland please? Beautiful area.
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
Was she wearing a mask.
My daughter returned to her part-time retail job last week - I am in Northern Ireland. They are provided with masks but they don’t have to wear them.
no, she wasnt wearing a mask.
i like your daughters store policy: wear them if you want. anyone is free to self-quarantine if theyre scared.
 

Hon33

Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
806
no, she wasnt wearing a mask.
i like your daughters store policy: wear them if you want. anyone is free to self-quarantine if theyre scared.
Several employees for a variety of reasons, think the risk of returning to work is to great for them at the moment. The store, for now have respected that and they continue to be furloughed. How long that will continue in the future is unclear.
Isolation for “at risk” groups will be lifted at the beginning of August and those people will just be subject to the same social distancing rules as everyone else after that - if transmission rates remain low. I imagine furlough may be phased out at that point and employees will be faced to make a choice, as long as their companies can maintain social distancing guidance.
My husband has been told not to expect to return to work until after Christmas. Their building cannot accommodate all of its employees under social distancing rules. He isn’t on furlough though. He is working from home and will continue to do so.
 

Surley

Established
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
183
Th
Science is based not on belief. But in fact, through testing multiple times and coming to a conclusion based on the results of testing. There is no faith involved. Just cold hard fact.
There are BIG Corporate Companies behind those scientists that are paying them to reach conclusions that further their agenda and pad their pockets. This particular"virus" even has the most respected scientist in the field of virology coming forward to debunk this nonsense. I realize their are people with compromised immune systems who the powers that be are enjoying keeping in a constant state of panic. But the reality is You should fear the people who are saying they are trying to keep you safe. THEY ARE LYING TO YOU!They are trying to destroy YOU! Do a little research and remember ALL major media are OWNED by the people who are trying to destroy you
 

Devine

Star
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
3,501
I thought I remembered it and I found it! I posted this about beyonce wearing masks in 2018:


Jun 13, 2018




the face masks beyonce has been rocking are SO cute and aren't they just super empowering to women? i think so!!












Reply

Report Edit Delete








[IMG alt="Devin"]https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/data/avatars/m/0/211.jpg?1491016696[/IMG]


Devin
Star



Joined Mar 20, 2017 Messages 3,022




Jun 13, 2018




1528931400949.png














Reply

Report Edit Delete



  • Like
Reactions: williejonesjr







[IMG alt="Devin"]https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/data/avatars/m/0/211.jpg?1491016696[/IMG]


Devin
Star



Joined Mar 20, 2017 Messages 3,022




Jun 13, 2018






1528931641020.png








then I remembered this from real housewives last year it looked even longer than this pic shows:
1593067233743.jpeg
 

Devine

Star
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
3,501
then i started remembering hip hop rocking a lot of masks few years ago went looking found these
Rhianna
1593067482685.jpeg
1593067524124.jpeg
1593067551592.jpeg
Billy somebody IDK gross
2018
 

Devine

Star
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
3,501
quote from fashion industry article:


Some students have recognized the emergence of this new fashion trend. “Especially in the last few years, this is the first time face masks have really been a trend,” Caroline Person, a freshman fashion merchandising major, said.


Ross saw the trend begin two years ago in Paris. “I started to see them from some Paris-based makers at Premiere Classe, the accessories show in Paris in 2018. Attendees were already wearing whimsical ones with cat whiskers, funny faces, flames, metal studs. Now they are all over the internet,” Ross said.


Cassandra Cerbone, a freshman fashion merchandising major, saw the trend arise and initially didn’t see a point to it, but she has since changed her mind.


“Around two months before the COVID outbreak, I saw people wear masks as a trend, they would match them with their outfits. But now, it is a safety measure that people are taking to protect themselves from the virus,” she said.

 
Top