Dr. Dan Wilson, Covid-19 Mask Science |490|

The COVID - 19 plandemic helped us get rid of tRump & showed how utterly selfish & sheepish his GOP lackeys were to herd up behind him & chatter on about there's no plague, it's a hoax. It really wouldn't have been so bad if people had used common sense to look at the swiftly increasing infection rate & let it creep into their feverish brains that tRump is a colossal liar & crapping on the danger serves his purposes well. Yes, all the widespread mandates for social distancing, masking, & so on were simple things that the elites decided they could use to try to show their non-existent concern & back-pedal away from a seriously miscalculated campaign to make a killing on a plandemic.
As well as the draconian & highly effective way that the Philippine government stopped travel between cities & villages & islands, the local authorities threw anyone w/ a fever into a group facility for 2 weeks. The testing they used didn't bother w/ swabbing, just an electronic system from, you guessed it, China. Is it any wonder that anyone that was tested came up positive? Later, local figures mandated face shields (made in China) & masks to get on public transport, go into banks, grocery stores, etc.
 
Not finished the episode yet, but thoroughly enjoying it.
A couple of things popped in my head.
1. There's no evidence that seat belts will stop all accident deaths. However, we know it does save lives. Masks are the same thing. We're talking about what percentage right now. These things take a long long time to do longitudinal studies. 10 years.
2. I've heard the complaint over and over again as to why the masks have suddenly been used when not used before. I refer people to the word "novel" in Novel Coronavirus. The global health community had (and still isn't sure) as to how infectious it is. Knowing that's the case, doesn't it make sense to be as safe as possible? In other words, recommend as many practical solutions as possible.
3. Practical solutions would include mask-wearing, social distancing, and keeping as clean as possible.
4. Whatever happened to the flu? I'll tell you, it seems that masks have done such a good job preventing COVID that it has unintentionally diminished any flu outbreaks as well.
5. I live in Nova Scotia. We have prided ourselves on the few outbreaks. That's because the people have worked very carefully to make sure that we work together to follow the recommended health protocols. Places in Canada doing worse are those that don't do that. Result? We've been mostly open because of it.

Do we need more research? Always. Regardless, it strikes me as we're doing the best with what we do know.

Finally, from a spiritual perspective. Wouldn't a good NO-cebo be that if we told people that masks and social distancing would help, that we could measure clearly that it does simply from the way we would perceive our safety.
J

Once this forum had a "dislike" feature, as I recall. I never used it. Yet, were it active now, I would have used it for the first time.

For the verdical evidence that masks don't work, SWPRS summary of mask evidence is a good place to start:

https://swprs.org/covid-masks-review/

As for the spiritual aspect... Here are two-part text that summarises it quite neatly:

https://chingizid.livejournal.com/2341773.html

https://chingizid.livejournal.com/2342126.html

These two texts are in Russian, but I think it is possible to use Google Translate (or some similar program) to obtain a readable English version.
 
Listen to this interview where the Presenter proves Science does not support mask efficacy...

This is the thread we're on. We're actually talking about this show, I thought.
And I don't think the Presented proved that science does not support mask efficacy.
At best, it was proven that both sides are just as intractable about their positions.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it's probably too early to tell. Science requires LONG studies on these things.
Took us 10 years to verify how dangerous vaping is.
J
 
Listening back again........did I just hear Dr Dan claim it was a cultural thing, rather than a science thing that face masks are now worn?

I did listen carefully. If you go back and listen, Alex was the one who was trying to claim it was strictly a cultural thing. Dr. Dan said he did not believe it to be simply that.
What neither actually spoke about is that EVERYTHING is a cultural thing. Wearing masks is cultural (science or not). Not wearing masks is cultural (science or not). This is the function of culture. You can't escape it. You're either involved in mainstream, counter-culture etc...
It's the same thing as politics. Deciding not to be political, is in definition a political statement.

What the real question is- is it STRICTLY a cultural thing? And the answer from Dr. Dan was decidedly not. He went on to reinforce the laboratory studies that demonstrate the significant drop in infections by wearing them... which... by the way... Alex, intending or not, agreed to.
He said it was a "no brainer" that everyone knows that stopping the expulsions of droplets would lessen the spread of disease.

So, the only question was by how much. And that in and of itself again, requires years of study and repeatable experiments. Not something done effectively in less than a year.

Which brings me back to the original comment. What is the smartest thing to do then when we don't know for sure?
Err on the side of safety.
J
 
I did listen carefully. If you go back and listen, Alex was the one who was trying to claim it was strictly a cultural thing. Dr. Dan said he did not believe it to be simply that.
What neither actually spoke about is that EVERYTHING is a cultural thing. Wearing masks is cultural (science or not). Not wearing masks is cultural (science or not). This is the function of culture. You can't escape it. You're either involved in mainstream, counter-culture etc...
It's the same thing as politics. Deciding not to be political, is in definition a political statement.

What the real question is- is it STRICTLY a cultural thing? And the answer from Dr. Dan was decidedly not. He went on to reinforce the laboratory studies that demonstrate the significant drop in infections by wearing them... which... by the way... Alex, intending or not, agreed to.
He said it was a "no brainer" that everyone knows that stopping the expulsions of droplets would lessen the spread of disease.

So, the only question was by how much. And that in and of itself again, requires years of study and repeatable experiments. Not something done effectively in less than a year.

Which brings me back to the original comment. What is the smartest thing to do then when we don't know for sure?
Err on the side of safety.
J



No, I just listened to it again there.

Alex clearly says that because of all the evidence and studies available at the time of the superbowl, basically NOT showing the effectiveness (and therefore no reason to mandate) of masks, that it was a science (the state of the science ala CDC) decision to not recommend masks.

Dr Dan then literally said it was his opinion that it is more of a cultural thing, than a science thing. This was in the context of why the discrepancy between back in Feb 2020, and Today 2021 on the Mask Issue.
 
Last edited:
Not finished the episode yet, but thoroughly enjoying it.
A couple of things popped in my head.
1. There's no evidence that seat belts will stop all accident deaths. However, we know it does save lives. Masks are the same thing. We're talking about what percentage right now. These things take a long long time to do longitudinal studies. 10 years.

I think these examples are not quite the same - basically because face masks (or muzzles) could easily make the problem worse by becoming unhygenic, and restricting a peron's airflow.
2. I've heard the complaint over and over again as to why the masks have suddenly been used when not used before. I refer people to the word "novel" in Novel Coronavirus. The global health community had (and still isn't sure) as to how infectious it is. Knowing that's the case, doesn't it make sense to be as safe as possible? In other words, recommend as many practical solutions as possible.
I don't mind it recommending ideas, I do mind these being enforced. The psychological effect of being around people wearing masks is not pleasant.

3. Practical solutions would include mask-wearing, social distancing, and keeping as clean as possible.
4. Whatever happened to the flu? I'll tell you, it seems that masks have done such a good job preventing COVID that it has unintentionally diminished any flu outbreaks as well.
There is reason to believe that those PCR tests threw up a lot of false positives, so I suspect the flu patients in hospital were 'diagnosed' with COVID. Over here we also have a lot of stories about death certificates indicating COVID when the person died of something else. Hospitals get a large bonus payment for dealing with COVID. I see the vanishing of the flu outbreaks as being partly because people have been labelled with COVID when they had flu, and partly because a lot of people are topping up their vitamin D, and the evidence shows that this makes them far more resistant to flu and COVID. Some speculate that the reason flu and (probably) COVID are seasonal is that unless people top up their levels of D, these get very low in winter time because of the lack of sun.
5. I live in Nova Scotia. We have prided ourselves on the few outbreaks. That's because the people have worked very carefully to make sure that we work together to follow the recommended health protocols. Places in Canada doing worse are those that don't do that. Result? We've been mostly open because of it.

Do we need more research? Always. Regardless, it strikes me as we're doing the best with what we do know.
I think we are maximising the profits of big pharma, the hospitals, and the vaccine makers - I mean I know Bill Gates is getting a bit low on cash $80Bn can soon disappear, and then what would he live on - so the vaccines should keep food on his table.
Finally, from a spiritual perspective. Wouldn't a good NO-cebo be that if we told people that masks and social distancing would help, that we could measure clearly that it does simply from the way we would perceive our safety.
J

A lot of researchers are saying that neither masks not social distancing are much use because viruses are so small that the spread far and wide.

The issue to get clear, Jack, is that people have always died in large numbers from infection - even in Western countries. People died of flu, colds, and other unidentified bugs that only make normal people sick for two or three days. This happens when such people are close to death for other reasons, and it is often seen as the kindest way for them to go. Along comes COVID, and they pump away at them for hours with ventilators, so they can give the patient a chance to die from whatever was wrong with them - e.g. terminal cancer - a day or two later! The death statistics are grossly distorted for this reason if for no other.

David
 
Last edited:
I think these examples are not quite the same - basically because face masks (or muzzles) could easily make the problem worse by becoming unhygenic, and restricting a peron's airflow.

I don't mind it recommending ideas, I do mind these being enforced. The psychological effect of being around people wearing masks is not pleasant.


There is reason to believe that those PCR tests threw up a lot of false positives, so I suspect the flu patients in hospital were 'diagnosed' with COVID. Over here we also have a lot of stories about death certificates indicating COVID when the person died of something else. Hospitals get a large bonus payment for dealing with COVID. I see the vanishing of the flu outbreaks as being partly because people have been labelled with COVID when they had flu, and partly because a lot of people are topping up their vitamin D, and the evidence shows that this makes them far more resistant to flu and COVID. Some speculate that the reason flu and (probably) COVID are seasonal is that unless people top up their levels of D, these get very low in winter time because of the lack of sun.

I think we are maximising the profits of big pharma, the hospitals, and the vaccine makers - I mean I know Bill Gates is getting a bit low on cash $80Bn can soon disappear, and then what would he live on - so the vaccines should keep food on his table.


A lot of researchers are saying that neither masks not social distancing are much use because viruses are so small that the spread far and wide.

The issue to get clear, Jack, is that people have always died in large numbers from infection - even in Western countries. People died of flu, colds, and other unidentified bugs that only make normal people sick for two or three days. This happens when such people are close to death for other reasons, and it is often seen as the kindest way for them to go. Along comes COVID, and they pump away at them for hours with ventilators, so they can give the patient a chance to die from whatever was wrong with them - e.g. terminal cancer - a day or two later! The death statistics are grossly distorted for this reason if for no other.

David

Obesity and associated conditions are the real killer here. Always have been. Covid is taking out the elderly in their last expected year of life +/- and fatties who are a little younger, typically fatties who are also uneducated poor minorities in urban centers.

We all have to wear make and suffer economic hardships because we can't fat shame.

And yes misattribution of cause of death is rampant with covid. Test positive - or presumed - and that is what killed.
 
Serious question...why are we supposed to care what a Physicist, and a newly minted Biology Phd have to say about Public Health policy? Clearly neither have expertise on the subject.
 
Last edited:
I'm a Canadian citizen, and this is absolutely 100% untrue. I've never heard of such a thing.

You probably also haven't heard about the woman who was sexually assaulted in a secret covid lockdown center.


Or the homeless people fined for being homeless during the pandemic..

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/after-m...iming-others-would-pose-as-homeless-1.5272986

Or the homeless man who died of exposure after being kicked out of a homeless shelter due to covid.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7583648/coroner-investigating-death-montreal-homeless-man/

And were you aware that Canada has joined the likes of countries like China in arresting people for practicing their religious beliefs.

https://www.freedomforumcanada.com/ontario_s_pastor_henry_hildebrandt_stands_with_alberta_s_pastor
 
Last edited:
oh boy, it's guy in car youtuber. wonder if he has any good stock tips. rebel news? tell me more you lovable agenda free rascals!
 
Last edited:
Serious question...why are we supposed to care what a Physicist, and a newly minted Biology Phd have to say about Public Health policy? Clearly neither have expertise on the subject.
Agreed!

Remember however, that those with most expertise are likely to be the ones with their own axes to grind and/or the most grants from BigPharma.

David
 
Serious question...why are we supposed to care what a Physicist, and a newly minted Biology Phd have to say about Public Health policy? Clearly neither have expertise on the subject.

What Rancourt does is summarising the results of the actual relevant research on the subject - research done not by him but by medical scientists and professionals - and informing general audience about the cumulative results, that are as clear not in favour of violently enforced mass mask-wearing as possible.

His own field of "expertise" is completely irrelevant and insubstantial in any case - what is relevant and substantial is the methodological quality of the studies that he successfully uses to validate and empower his cause and to invalidate and disempower his opponents' one.

The very noition of "expertise" is a deceptive one anyway. Effectively, it is a subjective rhetorical trick that is used to delegitimise an opponent, and subsequently his or her position in the eyes of the public, without engaging with the opponent's objective (counter-)evidence and (counter-)argumentation, no matter how empirically sound and rationally valid they, respectively, are. It is a trick that is systemically performed in a context of public debates in order to obtain and maintain the cultural power - the power over socially predominant notions and concepts, and, thus over thought and understanding of most individuals populating the society.

The value of what is being said is not dependent on who is saying it.
 
Alex, you are fucking brilliant and I enjoyed this vivisection of what these guys pretend to be reality. To me, the Corona Virus "pandemic" has always been a load of bullshit. Furthermore, thanks for pointing out the fact that we were taught, as kids, to cover our mouth and sneeze! Your juxtaposition of that historical fact was perfectly aligned against the mask mandate. This is coming from a guy that is hearing impaired due to what doctors called "the flue."
 
What Rancourt does is summarising the results of the actual relevant research on the subject - research done not by him but by medical scientists and professionals - and informing general audience about the cumulative results...

No he doesn't. He does what everyone who makes a career out of Science Contrarianism does. He starts with a particular agenda, and then cherry-picks and spins a handful of research to make it look like he can inevitably lead people down his garden path. For example, of the 45 studies referenced in this list, only 4 (all of which happen to show a positive effect from masks) make it to Rancourt's list. Plus, even if he didn't do a crappy job of summarizing the research, I said "Public Health policy" which requires a whole other level of expertise.

Now, I don't know what a reasonable summary of the research shows about mask use. But if I wanted to find out, I would find a source which didn't have an agenda to be as contrarian as possible (or a source who was a scientism wannabe). And I would find a source who knew what they were talking about. Rancourt is neither.

The very noition of "expertise" is a deceptive one anyway. Effectively, it is a subjective rhetorical trick that is used to delegitimise an opponent, and subsequently his or her position in the eyes of the public, without engaging with the opponent's objective (counter-)evidence and (counter-)argumentation, no matter how empirically sound and rationally valid they, respectively, are. It is a trick that is systemically performed in a context of public debates in order to obtain and maintain the cultural power - the power over socially predominant notions and concepts, and, thus over thought and understanding of most individuals populating the society.

Who cares? I'm interested in the science, not in all the posturing among know nothings. And in not dying. We've lost a year of life-expectancy, and we have had as many as 624,000 excess deaths in the US, since this started. I am still dumbfounded that people have seriously chosen something as trivial as "masks" as the hill they will die on when it comes to protecting civil liberties.
 
Back
Top