David Icke, Love Not Fear is The Answer |460|

I think wearing a mask, in the environment of today, endangers the community and for multiple reasons.

For one, I believe that wearing a mask does not protect others to the same indirectly proportional degree that the psychological message in wearing the mask harms others. Mask wearing (especially when wearing any old mask) often gives people a false sense of security.

Mask wearing prevents the fuller communication capabilities of being expressed and received which, in turn, diminishes our experience as social beings while we are expressing ourselves as physically embodied human beings.

Mask wearing can be more harmful for the individual wearing the mask than the risk of not wearing one is for others.

Mask wearing tells others that it is OK to be ruled by authorities that have no legal mandate so to do and even if they did, have no moral argument to make others wear one that supersedes the argument of one's sovereign rights.

Mask wearing strengthens the psychology that physical life is more important than the soul and spirit of being.

You forgot to add IMO, which is perfectly acceptable for you. Except when your opinion endangers others and the science says you are absolutely wrong not to wear a mask in public. Just from a statistical viewpoint, don't wear a mask makes you a disease spreader. Wearing a mask protects others from your unknown infection. Its simple physics a cloth will block your infectious spray. That is indisputable. What psychological effects come out of wearing a mask is relative. I wear a mask every day. I hate it but I do it for you even if you don't want me to. I follow the science.
 
Last edited:
If you do not want to contribute meaningfully to a serious discussion, then just butt out of it. I am getting really sick of your snide remarks. Please note that this is written using my moderation colours!

David
I've contributed plenty to the discussion of COVID-19, you just don't like the position I take on the issue. Ironically, the only first-hand, substantive experience with COVID-19 we've seen on these boards comes from Dmitch and his/her report seems to fit the largely mainstream understanding of the pandemic.

Reminds me a bit of how people, I seem to recall yourself included, globbed on to one reseacher, John Ioannidis because his message seemed to fit a particular narrative. The following article points out several concerns with his approach and behavior, much of which aligns with many of the criticisms of mainstream science that are often talked about on Skeptiko:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis-trump-white-house-coronavirus-lockdowns
 
I've contributed plenty to the discussion of COVID-19, you just don't like the position I take on the issue. Ironically, the only first-hand, substantive experience with COVID-19 we've seen on these boards comes from Dmitch and his/her report seems to fit the largely mainstream understanding of the pandemic.

Reminds me a bit of how people, I seem to recall yourself included, globbed on to one reseacher, John Ioannidis because his message seemed to fit a particular narrative. The following article points out several concerns with his approach and behavior, much of which aligns with many of the criticisms of mainstream science that are often talked about on Skeptiko:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis-trump-white-house-coronavirus-lockdowns

Hi Silence
The thing for me is the science is all over the place and largely contradictory with some of the big organisations changing their
opinions and mandates and repeatedly and each time shouting science. However no new science or studies on these matters had been done between them having one opinion and having a contradictory one. Comes across to me like they have no idea really, if you think im not talking straight watch some WHO statements from 6 months ago and watch some of the recent ones, Likewise with your CDC.
 
You forgot to add IMO, which is perfectly acceptable for you. Except when your opinion endangers others and the science says you are absolutely wrong not to wear a mask in public. Just from a statistical viewpoint, don't wear a mask makes you a disease spreader. Wearing a mask protects others from your unknown infection. Its simple physics a cloth will block your infectious spray. That is indisputable. What psychological effects come out of wearing a mask is relative. I wear a mask every day. I hate it but I do it for you even if you don't want me to. I follow the science.

Two things... much of the science I have read says a.) asymptomatic people are not spreaders and b.) wearing a mask increases the risk one harms oneself by limiting the air that contains that which one needs like oxygen, because masks give people a false sense of security so they take other risks they might not otherwise, that masks cause people to touch their face far more (which increases risk if one has touched something that has COVID-19 in an infectious state and that most people do not wash and/or change their masks which increases risk the mask accumulates infectious COVID-19.

So when you consider b.) in light of a.), one can conclude, as I have, that wearing a mask is unwise.

In addition, you seemed to ignore all my other bullet points.

So what we have here is that you made statements that the science I have become aware of either refutes or you ignore the science with regards to masks which, if you didn't, would make the mask issue more in the arena of personal choice (as it should be).

I completely honor your right to your choice. I also honor your right to pick and choose which "science" fits that which you wish to be true. I would be dishonest if I did not state I chose to hold as truthful the science I honor but I will add a fact about that science.

The science I hold highest is the science that comes from sources that a.) practice the science with as little "agenda" beyond simply striving to help the physical health issue posed by COVID-19 as possible and b.) science which I find attacked by every type of entity and organization (especially news and politicians) that also has a proven track record of having an agenda that extends far beyond the well being of the physical health and physical life of a human being that can be directly attributed to COVID-19. An example is the complete lack of focus upon all the other life destroying fallout from the imposition (sometimes illegal imposition) of draconian measures.

Summary - getting the "asymptomatic spread risk" wrong essentially dismantles the entire issue.

A great example is Sweden and their six months long track record versus the UK (for example).

One more bit of science that has fortunately broken through the blockade placed by the "agenda driven media" is that the herd immunity percentage is likely far, far lower than had been stated by the likes of the discredited like Fauci.
 
I've contributed plenty to the discussion of COVID-19, you just don't like the position I take on the issue. Ironically, the only first-hand, substantive experience with COVID-19 we've seen on these boards comes from Dmitch and his/her report seems to fit the largely mainstream understanding of the pandemic.

Reminds me a bit of how people, I seem to recall yourself included, globbed on to one reseacher, John Ioannidis because his message seemed to fit a particular narrative. The following article points out several concerns with his approach and behavior, much of which aligns with many of the criticisms of mainstream science that are often talked about on Skeptiko:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis-trump-white-house-coronavirus-lockdowns

OK - but let me put it this way, the next snide comment like the last one that you put out like the one I objected to, I will ban you to let you cool down. I'm not saying that others don't sometimes do the same, but you really like to use them a lot when you don't have anything constructive to say. Those kind of comments are below the belt and invade people's safe spaces :)

Unless/until I get to read that article, let me point out that Ionnidis is particularly well though of for his studies into the way statistical deductions can be dostorted - deliberately or accidentally. He isn't someone you just casually dismiss.

Ionnidis is far from the only mainstream academic to have objected to various aspects of the way COVID is treated:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/

I also posted a video by a couple of senior medics in Orange County California, who were also criticising the COVID panic.

David
 
Hi Silence
The thing for me is the science is all over the place and largely contradictory with some of the big organisations changing their
opinions and mandates and repeatedly and each time shouting science. However no new science or studies on these matters had been done between them having one opinion and having a contradictory one. Comes across to me like they have no idea really, if you think im not talking straight watch some WHO statements from 6 months ago and watch some of the recent ones, Likewise with your CDC.

Exactly and yet why does so much of the population seem not to see this? Because a.) the corporate controlled media and b.) those in any position where if they spoke honestly about this fact could influence others chose not to primarily because of political bias.

Attempting to change the mind or even open a mind that is politically dug in these days is a pure waste of time.
 
Unless/until I get to read that article, let me point out that Ionnidis is particularly well though of for his studies into the way statistical deductions can be dostorted - deliberately or accidentally. He isn't someone you just casually dismiss.

OK - but let me put it this way, the next snide comment like the last one that you put out like the one I objected to, I will ban you to let you cool down. I'm not saying that others don't sometimes do the same, but you really like to use them a lot when you don't have anything constructive to say. Those kind of comments are below the belt and invade people's safe spaces :)

Ionnidis is far from the only mainstream academic to have objected to various aspects of the way COVID is treated:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/

David

I am glad I have whoever you have had to deal with, David, on ignore, as I can't see their comments. The feature just proved (again) its value! Thanks for having it.

Note that the article you posted of 12 experts points directly to much of the science and opinion I have researched and found on my own and I thank you for posting it as we can see almost everything they suggested as the greater threats have actually (and sadly) been born out by the imposition of the draconian measures in so many states in the US and in nations who have chosen this route.
 
I am glad I have whoever you have had to deal with, David, on ignore, as I can't see their comments. The feature just proved (again) its value! Thanks for having it.
Yes, there was a time before I did moderating, when I just used to 'ignore' anyone I thought wasn't interesting. Now I feel I shouldn't use 'ignore' because I need to be able to see it all!

David
 
Hi Silence
The thing for me is the science is all over the place and largely contradictory with some of the big organisations changing their
opinions and mandates and repeatedly and each time shouting science. However no new science or studies on these matters had been done between them having one opinion and having a contradictory one. Comes across to me like they have no idea really, if you think im not talking straight watch some WHO statements from 6 months ago and watch some of the recent ones, Likewise with your CDC.
I agree with much of this blaise, but the simplest explanation may be the reason: its a novel virus?

We went through this in the COVID megathread and ironically Malf and I were on opposite sides of the debate back then. Malf, much like Ionnidis, was questioning the science/data behind quarantines, lockdowns, etc. It simply wasn't clear what we were dealing with nor if the response measures being discussed would work. I was sympathetic to this line of thinking as it was eminently rational.

My concern lied with the practical question of what course of action should be taken? Sure, waiting for data to inform policy was one choice but it very much felt like the often cited "do nothing" option which IS an action; a choice. Clearly, no nation actually chose this course (that I am aware of) so now we're left with parsing through what's been done and what the motivations were.

I have no doubt that there are actors out there looking to capitalize on the pandemic. Unfortunately, history has taught us that this always happens. But the leap from individual bad actors to a hoax/global power play by the elite seems to be just that: a leap. The evidence for such a thing is circumstantial at best and typically can also support the simplest explanation: we're floundering around, making mistakes, all because we've not faced something like this in 100 years.
 
Two things... much of the science I have read says a.) asymptomatic people are not spreaders and b.) wearing a mask increases the risk one harms oneself by limiting the air that contains that which one needs like oxygen,

Chester Hunter, Your not looking for any truth but what you believe when you got here. I personally experienced silent spreading of the COVID disease by otherwise healthy employees to vulnerable elderly with various chronic illness. There is no other explanation how this COVID death bomb went off in our facility. The whole Global epidemic is being caused mostly by silent spreaders.
Whats that expression "I can explain it to you but I cant understand it for you."

I have read the literature you mentioned, and please look at it again. (By the way post your evidence) Theres evidence asymptomatic persons may spew less virus per breath or measured space then symptomatic persons. That's quite different then your assertion. Here's what science has concluded.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article

Two, theres been plenty of tests done about 02 levels wearing a mask and I've climbed 3 floors of stairs with a mask on and though it feels like i'm 02 deprived, the body compensates. Havent you heard of homeostasis? I can can see where our back and forth is going so please just post what your labeling evidence.
 
I have read the literature you mentioned, and please look at it again. (By the way post your evidence) Theres evidence asymptomatic persons may spew less virus per breath or measured space then symptomatic persons. That's quite different then your assertion. Here's what science has concluded.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article

Dmitch,

Can you help us reconcile that with the links that Alex supplied?
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/david-icke-love-not-fear-is-the-answer-460.4560/post-145557

Two, theres been plenty of tests done about 02 levels wearing a mask and I've climbed 3 floors of stairs with a mask on and though it feels like i'm 02 deprived, the body compensates. Havent you heard of homeostasis? I can can see where our back and forth is going so please just post what your labeling evidence.

Yes but you are presumably fit, and not everyone is. I mean, OK the people that this would impair could probably get a exemption (at least in the UK), but many won't - partly because they have been taught to feel scared of entering a public space without a mask on!

In the UK people have been told that ANY face covering is OK. Would you agree with that, because I would have thought there was a danger that people would be breathing in fibres of various sorts.

David
 
Last edited:
I experience some of what Icke has talked about (and also where his views have evolved) in some cases in a strictly metaphorical sense. Much like I approach mythologies. By doing that, I find and extract some gold. Regardless, when I read The Biggest Secret, early 2003, I became "red pilled" (metaphor). If anyone is familiar with that book, they may recall a focus on the Bush family as an example of the "reptilian hybrid overlords."

I then read Cathy O'Brien's TRANCE Formation of America and... in the spring I was invited into a project in Panama where key "players" in the project had a direct and familial relationship with Bush 43. That interesting "coincidence" was one of many that led me down a "woo-woo" path filled with amazing synchronicities and led me to the brink of death I shared about awhile back on this forum.

I am now a recovering "woo-woo"holic and though I don't do "woo-woo" anymore, I always honor David Icke as the one who kicked the door of the "blue-pill prison" along with Neo and the Matrix movie as my first taste of truth underneath "the movie" I had believed to be reality.
What do you perceive to be the truth underneath the movie? :)
 
Facts vs Fairy Tales
The accepted COVID virus tests processed quickly can show a false negative but rarely show false positive.

The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (FHI) stated that 14 out of 15 COVID-19 tests were false positive. That is ~93% false positives.

Note:
When people realised this and started saying that the tests are close to useless, the so-called "fact-checkers" entered the stage. The "fact-checkers" simply stated that it is not true that 14 out of 15 tests were false positive. The "logic" they used was:
- Less than 3 out of 15 tests are false positive when people that are likely to have COVID-19 are tested.
- 14 out of 15 tests are only false positive when random people are tested.

Sources (in Norwegian):
- FHI: https://archive.is/3LH86
- "Fact-checking": http://archive.is/HqJFP
 
Last edited:

David, Did you scan through his studies? Take another look. They dont read the way Alex claims they read. First, when I looked at Alex's studies I was surprised by how little empirical evidence there is with mask wearing to prevent virus particles from being inhaled or breathed in wearing certain types of masks. Second, Its gets more confusing when we consider the many types of masks used or studied. At best they say the evidence is inconclusive and additional research needs to be done.

Before I dive into it however. Protecting the wearer is not the main rationale for wearing a mask in public. All these studies are about that, protecting the wearer.

Its established that if two people are each wearing a cloth mask the potential for spreading infectious aerosols is greatly diminished. And by the way, Its established that asymptomatic folks can spread the disease, just to be clear.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article

The researchers spend considerable print mentioning the difficulty in conducting the studies themselves which also use different research designs. I did not read through them but skipped to the analysis and conclusions. Most of this research is older and done with less contagious viral strains. My argument is there is a confounding threat to application of these studies with colds and flu viruses to SARS-coV2, which although from the same Corona family is a completely different animal.

I posted the most recent study published in June and updated in July 2020 which actually includes the compilation of 39 different investigations and included +33,000 participants. Some of these studies are older but encompasses a wider range of different design types. This study was also not conclusive, and mentions a wide range of different masks were used. If you just scan down to the results. The researchers painstakingly go through all the threats and bias from these various studies. All the studies were conducted in high risk areas i.e. hospitals. Thats a huge bias when looking at in home use, such as grandma wearing a KN 95 mask with the grandkids visiting. Theres a July update which covers home use of masks I copied and paste here

"The original rapid review included 39 studies of mask use for the prevention of viral illness. No studies in the original review assessed the effect of mask use on prevention of SARS-CoV-2 in the community, and 2 observational studies reporting on mask use in health care settings for SARS-CoV-2 prevention had methodological limitations.

The new study added for this update was a retrospective cohort study of 124 households with an index SARS-CoV-2 case and 355 uninfected household contacts (Supplement Table 1) (2). Households in which masks were used by at least 1 family member (including the index case) before the development of symptoms by the index case were associated with decreased risk for incident infections, after adjustment for other hygiene and infection control practices, physical distance to index case, environmental factors, and presence of diarrhea in the index case (adjusted odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.79]) (Supplement Table 2)."

OK, In retrospect, honestly, if all employees of my facility are wearing different kinds of masks and following other more common protective measures. Then if asymptomatic, they are restricting infectious aerosols into the environment and preventing infection of other employees and more important residents.
I may add, the infectious disease doctor at our facility did not require employees to wear a specific kind of mask. That said if I have an ailing elderly mother in my house. I would take that additional precautions of wearing a mask around her.
 
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (FHI) stated that 14 out of 15 COVID-19 tests were false positive. That is ~93% false positives.

Note:
When people realised this and started saying that the tests are close to useless, the so-called "fact-checkers" entered the stage. The "fact-checkers" simply stated that it is not true that 14 out of 15 tests were false positive. The "logic" they used was:
- Less than 3 out of 15 tests are false positive when people that are likely to have COVID-19 are tested.
- 14 out of 15 tests are only false positive when random people are tested.

Sources (in Norwegian):
- FHI: https://archive.is/3LH86
- "Fact-checking": http://archive.is/HqJFP
I typed in your silly headline and got the study you cite in English! Read it again.
I don't find any such discussion in this pretty well researched study.
By the way, right after I typed that (my regret) I read about too many false positives with some FDA approved COVID tests. However, some others are pretty good. The Norwegian ones look pretty good.

https://www.fhi.no/en/op/novel-coro...-and-follow-up/test-criteria-for-coronavirus/
 
Last edited:
Chester Hunter, Your not looking for any truth but what you believe when you got here. I personally experienced silent spreading of the COVID disease by otherwise healthy employees to vulnerable elderly with various chronic illness. There is no other explanation how this COVID death bomb went off in our facility. The whole Global epidemic is being caused mostly by silent spreaders.
Whats that expression "I can explain it to you but I cant understand it for you."

I have read the literature you mentioned, and please look at it again. (By the way post your evidence) Theres evidence asymptomatic persons may spew less virus per breath or measured space then symptomatic persons. That's quite different then your assertion. Here's what science has concluded.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article

Two, theres been plenty of tests done about 02 levels wearing a mask and I've climbed 3 floors of stairs with a mask on and though it feels like i'm 02 deprived, the body compensates. Havent you heard of homeostasis? I can can see where our back and forth is going so please just post what your labeling evidence.

Why are you asking me to do your homework for you?

The CDC has already been wrong dozens of times and also, is a bit "compromised" so I do not value what they state as "science" compared with dozens of other sources of information.

I am holding a book in my hand which is one source I will offer to you - The Case Against Masks: Ten Reasons why Mask Use Should Be Limited by Dr. Judy A. Mikovits and Kent Heckenlively, JD

Here's the link to "Plandemic: Indoctrination" - https://freedomplatform.tv/plandemic-indoctornation-world-premiere/

Additionally, most of what I have posted about is not what you have addressed so there's no need to go further as my previous several posts state well enough my views and the reasons behind them.

I am firm and won't engage further, enjoy your life while you still have room to live one before "the lockdown police" destroy it.
 
Last edited:
Why are you asking me to do your homework for you?

The CDC has already been wrong dozens of times and also, is a bit "compromised" so I do not value what they state as "science" compared with dozens of other sources of information.

I am holding a book in my hand which is one source I will offer to you - The Case Against Masks: Ten Reasons why Mask Use Should Be Limited by Dr. Judy A. Mikovits and Kent Heckenlively, JD

Most of what I have posted about is not what you have addressed so there's no need to go further as my previous several posts state well enough my views and the reasons behind them.

I am firm and won't engage further, enjoy your life while you still have room to live one before "the lockdown police" destroy it.

Was the question about homework meant for me? I have done mine and was looking forward to your thoughts. :)
 
Back
Top