One of many studies finding the same result pre-2020. First ones I remember coming across when researching then were in the 1960's. And earlier, Kellogg's Spanish Flu masking studies, too. No difference. Just theater. Nevertheless they were donned by hospital staff as "placebo masks" for frightened patients and accompanying families scared of catching something in a facility full of sick people. Placebo. As in to trick the mind into thinking they're protective. Never deemed suitable for community practice before 2020. But the same justification was behind the mandates. Public told they were backed by "science." Just not what *type* of science they meant. Not natural, medical science. But social, behavioral science. BF Skinner science.
Masks and distancing mandates all were behavioral science (BS) based. In community settings rather than hospitals they were no longer placebo to calm, rather they were prescribed as fear-amplifying NPI devices to "cure" people of their "optimism bias" beliefs they'd be fine. Complete BS. Hiding in the ambiguity of the word, "science." The pushback against unscientific masking mandates failed to challenge the "type" of science. Allowing authorities to use the linguistic deception conflating pseudoscience, Skinner science for actual science.
And for purposes of historical context, while studies going back to the 1960's show that masking even in hospital operating theaters is ineffective the public mind was primed to believe they were effective using media and entertainment programming. Like M.A.S.H. The Korean War medical sitcom where much emphasis was placed on masking as protective. Psychological priming a false belief into an adopted truth. Add in shows like E.R. Quincy Adams, Doogie Howard, General Hospital, all of the dramatic presentations of masking in hospitals as necessary for health safety. Propaganda in service to a promoted lie intended to become adopted as truth. The masks of obedience and "fear amplification" have been planned for a long, long time.
Well they were also pushed by Governments back in 1918/1919 during another fake pandemic. But to me the pushers of the pandemic narrative over the last 4/5 years were caught out on masks early on as many of them said that they were ineffective (Fauci in fact has a paper dated around 2008 on this) but quickly changed when the State psychologists advocated them for crowd control reasons.
True. But 80-90% of the population *believes* they provide some protection. However much is disputable among them. And are scientifically illiterate or lack curiosity to examine. How effective was showing the real studies to our friends and relatives who wore them in peak masking or even today?
The pushers have been discredited over and over, their old studies, their hypocrisy, their public admissions. Yet a large percentage of the public, even a majority I dare say, still believes they have enough efficacy and reason behind them they'll wear masks again tomorrow with enough fear porn and mandates for them. Probably 70% would comply. With all that's known. Sad but true. We know. But most are psychologically malleable. And conflict-averse.
My wider family hated the masks more than the jabs unfortunately (although I suspect they tried to avoid both). These days if you’re wearing a mask and you’re under 60 then you’re left wing. How many people wear the things if they don’t have to? 1%? I figure that tells you how popular a government would be if they tried to mandate them again.
They NEVER would've worn them in 2019. And fiercely defended their right not to. They went along with them in 2020. Whether or not they thought they worked. They are obedient. And are conflict averse. And will obey the rule of law. Even laws they don't agree with. Popular government or not. Rule of law and all.
After enduring it for as long as they did and seeing them go away, albeit belatedly, most will endure masking again under the same type of fear-mongering campaign. While they wanted mask mandates to go away very few were willing to break the law or violate a store's policy mandating them. NOTHING has changed from that assessment. Our non-compliant numbers may go up a few percentage points compared with four years ago. But the majority will grudgingly obey. Especially if the penalties for non-compliance are increased. They won't try to hurt us "gentle like before, but bad":
And this adversary isn't static, it won't pull out the same playbook. They study us, they probe us, they learn from mistakes, where the disobedient were able to slip through before. And are developing plans to snare more of us and gain more compliance. Stores restricting access to protect from theft or for as in the UK and Europe where Aldi requires QR code to enter a store past a controlled gate will easily be modified to facial scans for mask compliance. No shirts, no shoes, no service. Entry denied.
Richard, I appreciate your insights, but I believe you misunderestimate the nature of man under stress, fear and duress. They will regress to form. Unless and until they affirm their determination to resist, no matter what the price to their convenience, comfort and sustenance. Nothing has substantively changed in the public mind and human nature as to awareness of the threat we face to change my mind. Most still believe authorities just panicked and mistakes were simply made. I don't. And I don't think you do, either.
No I don’t. There’s a clear pivot to masks maybe sometime around April or May 2020. As those in pandemic marketing who pivoted to them were saying, almost to a man and woman, that they wern’t effective a few weeks beforehand then it was clearly a command from on high which they were all willing to accede to. Maybe it’s these shits we need to concentrate on if there’s a next time.
We have general agreement. Except for that obedience thing. I believe people will do what they know is wrong because they are law-abiding and generally don't want conflict. Yes, these little shits need more pushback next time. There will be a next, when, not if.
I remember a community in Oklahoma that made the news in April/May 2020 that rose up against their little shit mayor who imposed mask mandates. The community went along with it for about a week or two, but knew it was BS and were done with the mandates. Every time they saw the little shit mayor out in public they harassed him, taunted him, were generally unkind and insulted him mercilessly. He succumbed to the pushback and rescinded his mandate order. Complaining to the press that he was, "just trying to help, people didn't need to be so mean about it to him."
More of that. Less obedience. Until I see that small town Oklahoma instinct in my fellow man I see no meaningful difference ahead for the next time. That is sure to come.
I'd be more concerned about someone in the viewing area of the operating theater dropping a piece of candy in my flayed open body (like Kramer did in a Seinfeld episode) than of a surgeon not wearing a big face diaper. With the powerful antibiotics available (and that are used for any surgery) and other things like clean water, soap, and showers, the chances of someone getting an infection of any kind from a surgeon not wearing a mask is almost non-existent.
Sometime during the scamdemic, I remember reading that the purpose of masking in surgery was to prevent surgeons from dribbling into your cut-open body.
I suppose it was meant to be reassuring, but when you thought about it, there did seem to be the suggestion there were too many old and decrepit surgeons still plying their trade, as evidenced by the number of surgical instruments left behind in the bodies of the operated-on.
And we might just leave it there because we don't want to think to hard about the distinction between dribbling and drooling and whether the explainers got the distinction right.
Excuse Bilbo. Bilbo is having a meltdown.
There is little evidence that suck ZOG cock in NZ will improve your life, but Smeagle keeps saying it wlll
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/adl-grades-us-campuses-efforts-to-combat-antisemitism-says-many-schools-failing/
One of many studies finding the same result pre-2020. First ones I remember coming across when researching then were in the 1960's. And earlier, Kellogg's Spanish Flu masking studies, too. No difference. Just theater. Nevertheless they were donned by hospital staff as "placebo masks" for frightened patients and accompanying families scared of catching something in a facility full of sick people. Placebo. As in to trick the mind into thinking they're protective. Never deemed suitable for community practice before 2020. But the same justification was behind the mandates. Public told they were backed by "science." Just not what *type* of science they meant. Not natural, medical science. But social, behavioral science. BF Skinner science.
Masks and distancing mandates all were behavioral science (BS) based. In community settings rather than hospitals they were no longer placebo to calm, rather they were prescribed as fear-amplifying NPI devices to "cure" people of their "optimism bias" beliefs they'd be fine. Complete BS. Hiding in the ambiguity of the word, "science." The pushback against unscientific masking mandates failed to challenge the "type" of science. Allowing authorities to use the linguistic deception conflating pseudoscience, Skinner science for actual science.
And for purposes of historical context, while studies going back to the 1960's show that masking even in hospital operating theaters is ineffective the public mind was primed to believe they were effective using media and entertainment programming. Like M.A.S.H. The Korean War medical sitcom where much emphasis was placed on masking as protective. Psychological priming a false belief into an adopted truth. Add in shows like E.R. Quincy Adams, Doogie Howard, General Hospital, all of the dramatic presentations of masking in hospitals as necessary for health safety. Propaganda in service to a promoted lie intended to become adopted as truth. The masks of obedience and "fear amplification" have been planned for a long, long time.
Well they were also pushed by Governments back in 1918/1919 during another fake pandemic. But to me the pushers of the pandemic narrative over the last 4/5 years were caught out on masks early on as many of them said that they were ineffective (Fauci in fact has a paper dated around 2008 on this) but quickly changed when the State psychologists advocated them for crowd control reasons.
True. But 80-90% of the population *believes* they provide some protection. However much is disputable among them. And are scientifically illiterate or lack curiosity to examine. How effective was showing the real studies to our friends and relatives who wore them in peak masking or even today?
The pushers have been discredited over and over, their old studies, their hypocrisy, their public admissions. Yet a large percentage of the public, even a majority I dare say, still believes they have enough efficacy and reason behind them they'll wear masks again tomorrow with enough fear porn and mandates for them. Probably 70% would comply. With all that's known. Sad but true. We know. But most are psychologically malleable. And conflict-averse.
My wider family hated the masks more than the jabs unfortunately (although I suspect they tried to avoid both). These days if you’re wearing a mask and you’re under 60 then you’re left wing. How many people wear the things if they don’t have to? 1%? I figure that tells you how popular a government would be if they tried to mandate them again.
Here’s an advert I did 2 years ago.
https://plebeianresistance.substack.com/p/masks-withdrawn-from-sale
They NEVER would've worn them in 2019. And fiercely defended their right not to. They went along with them in 2020. Whether or not they thought they worked. They are obedient. And are conflict averse. And will obey the rule of law. Even laws they don't agree with. Popular government or not. Rule of law and all.
After enduring it for as long as they did and seeing them go away, albeit belatedly, most will endure masking again under the same type of fear-mongering campaign. While they wanted mask mandates to go away very few were willing to break the law or violate a store's policy mandating them. NOTHING has changed from that assessment. Our non-compliant numbers may go up a few percentage points compared with four years ago. But the majority will grudgingly obey. Especially if the penalties for non-compliance are increased. They won't try to hurt us "gentle like before, but bad":
Unforgiven Ned's Whipping
https://youtu.be/biSf_yepCBI
And this adversary isn't static, it won't pull out the same playbook. They study us, they probe us, they learn from mistakes, where the disobedient were able to slip through before. And are developing plans to snare more of us and gain more compliance. Stores restricting access to protect from theft or for as in the UK and Europe where Aldi requires QR code to enter a store past a controlled gate will easily be modified to facial scans for mask compliance. No shirts, no shoes, no service. Entry denied.
Richard, I appreciate your insights, but I believe you misunderestimate the nature of man under stress, fear and duress. They will regress to form. Unless and until they affirm their determination to resist, no matter what the price to their convenience, comfort and sustenance. Nothing has substantively changed in the public mind and human nature as to awareness of the threat we face to change my mind. Most still believe authorities just panicked and mistakes were simply made. I don't. And I don't think you do, either.
No I don’t. There’s a clear pivot to masks maybe sometime around April or May 2020. As those in pandemic marketing who pivoted to them were saying, almost to a man and woman, that they wern’t effective a few weeks beforehand then it was clearly a command from on high which they were all willing to accede to. Maybe it’s these shits we need to concentrate on if there’s a next time.
We have general agreement. Except for that obedience thing. I believe people will do what they know is wrong because they are law-abiding and generally don't want conflict. Yes, these little shits need more pushback next time. There will be a next, when, not if.
I remember a community in Oklahoma that made the news in April/May 2020 that rose up against their little shit mayor who imposed mask mandates. The community went along with it for about a week or two, but knew it was BS and were done with the mandates. Every time they saw the little shit mayor out in public they harassed him, taunted him, were generally unkind and insulted him mercilessly. He succumbed to the pushback and rescinded his mandate order. Complaining to the press that he was, "just trying to help, people didn't need to be so mean about it to him."
More of that. Less obedience. Until I see that small town Oklahoma instinct in my fellow man I see no meaningful difference ahead for the next time. That is sure to come.
I'm shocked.
Bretty is a hypocrite!
I am almost beyond words
I'd be more concerned about someone in the viewing area of the operating theater dropping a piece of candy in my flayed open body (like Kramer did in a Seinfeld episode) than of a surgeon not wearing a big face diaper. With the powerful antibiotics available (and that are used for any surgery) and other things like clean water, soap, and showers, the chances of someone getting an infection of any kind from a surgeon not wearing a mask is almost non-existent.
Glad that he has "evidence", to show that operated ons do better for being breathed on.
Might be the breath of life.
Edit: He's probably right as wearing a mask will fog their spectacles and they might operate on the wrong body part because no clarity of vision.
(No title)
Sometime during the scamdemic, I remember reading that the purpose of masking in surgery was to prevent surgeons from dribbling into your cut-open body.
I suppose it was meant to be reassuring, but when you thought about it, there did seem to be the suggestion there were too many old and decrepit surgeons still plying their trade, as evidenced by the number of surgical instruments left behind in the bodies of the operated-on.
And we might just leave it there because we don't want to think to hard about the distinction between dribbling and drooling and whether the explainers got the distinction right.
General nose, mouth, eye oozings.
Also maybe for the cutters it cuts out some of the rotting flesh smell.
And who wants their wounds full of halitosis.
( You win with your drooling notion.)
LOL
Just close your eyes and swallow, you might like it;
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/adl-grades-us-campuses-efforts-to-combat-antisemitism-says-many-schools-failing/