Comments by "Z P" (@zachman5150) on "BBC News" channel.

  1. The interviewer got smoked, and was exposed as an activist propagandist, shill.
    2
  2. For what it's worth, I don't get flu shots either and I don't get the flu. SARS-covid2, influenza, bird flu, etc... has not been cured and are still with us... We didn't mask up or have lockdowns when they came out either, and this is nothing more than another variant. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling-- is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever, in any of their emotionally charged, unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested For some sense of proportion: An updated study revealed that 45% of all US 'Covid' deaths occurred in nursing homes, where mask mandates were in affect (how'd that happen, if masks work? rhetorical); and over 11k of them due to governor Cuomovirus and the rest who followed suit-- creating that debacle.  Up to 90% false positives takes that number WAY down. Also-- those who had covid listed as their cause of death, but died in motorcycle and car crashes, and via gun shot wounds etc. along with a host of other cases of misdiagnosed conditions, accounting for the total drop in flu deaths etc. make lending any credibility to the numbers unjustified, as they are unreliable at BEST. ZERO integrity in that data Here you are-- Education, for Fun & for FREE:  Feel free to make your argument with the Medical Specialists who've been listed below. Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND...https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. re: Bacterial pneumonia: https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-masks-causing-rise-in-bacterial-pneumonia/ And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns so NOPE-- you're just wrong.  I recall reading that Denmark's data re: death rates and such, suggesting your narrative is questionable-- at BEST. A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/ B R E A T H E
    1