FORESHADOWING THE RETURN OF THE MASK: Brett Sutton's Attempt to Falsify the Benefits Of Useless Face Coverings
PANDEMIC WRITINGS, Melbourne, Australia (2020-2022): piece originally published April 25, 2021
On April the 14th, various mainstream outlets published a story proclaiming that, 'leading epidemiologists' conducted a study concluding ‘that strict mandatory mask laws were the single biggest factor in stemming Melbourne’s disastrous COVID-19 outbreak in 2020.'1
According to this spurious study, new data has convinced scientists from Monash and James Cook Universities that Victoria's 'swift action on making masks mandatory helped prevent Australia’s worst outbreak from spreading to catastrophic levels.'
Purportedly, the modelling found 'face coverings were estimated to have reduced transmission and infection risk in the state by between 31 and 46 per cent,' and that four months of mandatory masking 'saved thousands.'
None of this is true. It is all despicable propaganda with absolutely no basis in objective reality — and they know it!
These "study conclusions" are merely wishful-thinking deceit, propped up by calculated pseudo-science that is purposely designed to be smeared into the receptive minds of the wilfully ignorant.
Tellingly, this utterly bogus 'pre-print study has not yet been peer-reviewed' (and will never be)2 and features a contribution from Victoria's Chief Health Officer himself, the groomed-for-TV charlatan: Brett Sutton.
However, despite not having been peer-reviewed (it was most likely never intended to be) — the study has been promoted erroneously by the mainstream media to effectively program the false understanding that it is "science" and "official."
Sutton's direct involvement is revealing.
It is apparent from the outset, that like the Coate Hotel Quarantine Inquiry that squandered six-million to establish that those directly funding the inquiry (the obvious culprits; the Andrews’ Labor Government) were simply not involved as they 'could not remember’ — this is another attempt at manufacturing alternative facts.
The Coate Inquiry was a predetermined farce to absolve the Andrews' Government by a ludicrous 'claim of amnesia,' and this new Victorian mask "study" is yet another paid-for-in-advance-with-results-guaranteed work of brazen fiction.
It is fundamentally anti-science.
There have been numerous peer-reviewed studies analysing the efficacy of face coverings as a means of inhibiting the transmission of viral infection: all concluded that they have zero benefit and cause extensive harm.
Indeed, Stanford University published a peer-reviewed study on the National Center of Biological Information (NCBI) Government website that has been ignored by all mainstream media and ruthlessly suppressed by Big Tech: 'Facemasks in the C.OVID-19 era: A health hypothesis'
The Stanford study concluded, unequivocally, that like fourteen previous peer-reviewed studies: "The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks."
Each of these reputable studies have conflicted with the "official narrative" and are counter to the aims of the emerging Vaccine Empire and the numerous Petty Tyrants that oversee and enforce their respective realms — and have consequently been banished and derided into obscurity.
However, they are the truth.
The Victorian Government has no respect for the truth, only contempt for us, and are sworn devotees of the promised Vaccine Empire and all that is required to build its walls and pave its roads.
When the government allocates the funding that pays for the desired results, the results will never vary or deviate from what is required to bolster the "official narrative" and to reinforce the rightness of the government's prior (and future) actions and response.3
It should be transparent why such a timely "study" was government funded and circulated by the Australian press: to potentially justify the re-imposing of such measures when strategically required.
And they certainly hope to do so:
The study 'found face coverings, which were mandatory in Victoria, were "critical" and should be the cornerstone of any future public health response.'
Perhaps, they have already revealed their future hand...
This new Victorian mask study is a lie.
It was overseen and contributed to by a Chief Health liar, composed by "scientists" who are lying to themselves while lining their lab coat pockets — all to ensure the perpetuation of one key component of the Grand Pandemic Lie: the necessary and omnipresent 'mask prop' that makes "sick" liars of all who partake.
Let us bring truth to the lie.
No more filthy, ineffective and suffocating masks.
POSTSCRIPT: Incidentally, Brett Sutton’s spurious pre-print study was eventually published, and Victorians were eventually forced to mask-up again. However, the paper was later heavily criticised (October 21, 2021): ‘It’s crap’: Victorian study claiming mandatory masks stopped second wave shredded by experts:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/its-crap-victorian-study-claiming-mandatory-masks-stopped-second-wave-shredded-by-experts/news-story/
“To me it’s very clear this has not had a close peer review, partly because of the serious and substantive issues, but [also] it just clearly hasn’t been proofread,” he said.
“When I look at this particular piece of research, it is very, very low quality. I was staggered to see this was published by a major journal.”
Another researcher, an eminent Australian clinician and scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity, was equally scathing.
“I agree, it’s crap,” he said.
“It’s extremely lightweight. I think it’s a totally feeble article. It doesn’t have a rigorous methodology and it is weak in its scientific inference. I’ve been around a long time – I teach how you do clear thinking, I teach how you do reproducible science. I’m a bit of a stickler for these things.”
_________________________________
Incidentally, Brett Sutton’s spurious pre-print study was eventually published, and Victorians were forced to eventually mask-up again. However, the paper was later heavily criticised (October 21, 2021): ‘It’s crap’: Victorian study claiming mandatory masks stopped second wave shredded by experts:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/its-crap-victorian-study-claiming-mandatory-masks-stopped-second-wave-shredded-by-experts/news-story/
“To me it’s very clear this has not had a close peer review, partly because of the serious and substantive issues, but [also] it just clearly hasn’t been proofread,” he said.
“When I look at this particular piece of research, it is very, very low quality. I was staggered to see this was published by a major journal.”
Another researcher, an eminent Australian clinician and scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity, was equally scathing.
“I agree, it’s crap,” he said.
“It’s extremely lightweight. I think it’s a totally feeble article. It doesn’t have a rigorous methodology and it is weak in its scientific inference. I’ve been around a long time – I teach how you do clear thinking, I teach how you do reproducible science. I’m a bit of a stickler for these things.”
https://www.sott.net/article/451582-Stanford-study-quietly-published-at-NIH-gov-proves-face-masks-are-absolutely-worthless-against-Covid?
From the Stanford University study:
"According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks' thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask"
From the Stanford University study:
"Physiological effects of wearing facemasks
Wearing a facemask mechanically restricts breathing by increasing the resistance of air movement during both inhalation and exhalation process [12], [13]. Although, intermittent (several times a week) and repetitive (10-15 breaths for 2-4 sets) increase in respiration resistance may be adaptive for strengthening respiratory muscles [33], [34], prolonged and continues effect of wearing facemask is maladaptive and could be detrimental for health [11], [12], [13]. In normal conditions at the sea level, air contains 20.93% O2 and 0.03% CO2, providing partial pressures of 100 mmHg and 40 mmHg for these gases in the arterial blood, respectively. These gas concentrations significantly altered when breathing occurs through facemask. A trapped air remaining between the mouth, nose and the facemask is rebreathed repeatedly in and out of the body, containing low O2 and high CO2 concentrations, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia [35], [36], [11], [12], [13]. Severe hypoxemia may also provoke cardiopulmonary and neurological complications and is considered an important clinical sign in cardiopulmonary medicine [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Low oxygen content in the arterial blood can cause myocardial ischemia, serious arrhythmias, right or left ventricular dysfunction, dizziness, hypotension, syncope and pulmonary hypertension [43]. Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as a result of using facemasks can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Table 1 summarizes the physiological, psychological effects of wearing facemask and their potential long-term consequences for health. "