COVID-19
“I want to apologize for advocating for the use of masks” – Spread of respiratory illnesses not slowed down by mask use
The study examines the effectiveness of masks and of following a hand hygiene program in reducing the likelihood of acquiring respiratory virus infections such as COVID-19.
British Health Researcher Dr. John Campbell shares the disappointing results in this presentation:
From Dr. John Campbell
From the Cochrane Library
What did we do?
We searched for randomised controlled studies that looked at physical measures to stop people acquiring a respiratory virus infection.
We were interested in how many people in the studies caught a respiratory virus infection, and whether the physical measures had any unwanted effects.
What did we find?
We identified 78 relevant studies. They took place in low‐, middle‐, and high‐income countries worldwide: in hospitals, schools, homes, offices, childcare centres, and communities during non‐epidemic influenza periods, the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016, and during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We identified five ongoing, unpublished studies; two of them evaluate masks in COVID‐19. Five trials were funded by government and pharmaceutical companies, and nine trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies.
We assessed the effects of:
· medical or surgical masks;
· N95/P2 respirators (close‐fitting masks that filter the air breathed in, more commonly used by healthcare workers than the general public); and
· hand hygiene (hand‐washing and using hand sanitiser).
We obtained the following results:
Medical or surgical masks
Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.
N95/P2 respirators
Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu‐like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well‐reported; discomfort was mentioned.
Hand hygiene
Following a hand hygiene programme may reduce the number of people who catch a respiratory or flu‐like illness, or have confirmed flu, compared with people not following such a programme (19 studies; 71,210 people), although this effect was not confirmed as statistically significant reduction when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed ILI were analysed separately. Few studies measured unwanted effects; skin irritation in people using hand sanitiser was mentioned.
Dr. John Campbells presentation notes with links:
RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks.
There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers, when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.
Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/…
Evidence published up to October 2022.
Background Influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020.
We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Main results 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs n = 610,872
Bringing the total number of RCTs to 78
Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks
Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness
wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness
Risk ratio (RR) 0.95, (0.84 to 1.09) 9 trials, n = 276,917 participants
Moderate-certainty evidence.
Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 RR 1.01, (CI 0.72 to 1.42)
6 trials, n = 13,919 Moderate-certainty evidence
Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence).
N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks
We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks
We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness
Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness, or respiratory illness.
Confirmed influenza RR 0.70, (0.45 to 1.10) N = 7,779 Very low-certainty evidence
Influenza like illness N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI RR 0.82 N= 8,407 Low-certainty evidence
The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks
Probably makes little or no difference for laboratory-confirmed influenza infection RR 1.10 N = 8,407 Moderate-certainty evidence
Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings.
Harms were poorly measured and reported
Discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies
Very low-certainty evidence
One new RCT Medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators N = 1,009 healthcare workers in four countries, providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Ray McGinnis
During the trial numbers of RCMP officers conceded that the Coutts Three were helpful in their interactions with the law. As well, there didn’t seem to be any truth to the suggestion that Van Huigenbos, Van Herk and Janzen were leaders of the protest.
Twelve jurors have found the Coutts Three guilty of mischief over $5,000 at a courthouse in Lethbridge, Alberta. Marco Van Huigenbois, Alex Van Herk and George Janzen will appear again in court on July 22 for sentencing.
Van Huigenbois, Van Herk and Janzen were each protesting at the Coutts Blockade in 2022. A blockade of Alberta Highway 4 began on January 29, 2022, blocking traffic, on and off, on Alberta Highway 4 near the Coutts-Sweetgrass Canada-USA border crossing. The protests were in support of the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa.
Protests began due to the vaccine mandates for truckers entering Canada, and lockdowns that bankrupted 120,000 small businesses. Government edicts were purportedly for “public health” to stop the spread of the C-19 virus. Yet the CDC’s Dr. Rachel Wallensky admitted on CNN in August 2021 the vaccine did not prevent infection or stop transmission.
By February 2022, a US court forced Pfizer to release its “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports” revealing the company knew by the end of February, 2021, that 1,223 people had a “case outcome” of “fatal” as a result of taking the companies’ vaccine.
On the day of February 14, 2022, the three men spoke to Coutts protesters after a cache of weapons had been displayed by the RCMP. These were in connection with the arrest of the Coutts Four. Van Huigenbos and others persuaded the protesters to leave Coutts, which they did by February 15, 2022.
During the trial numbers of RCMP officers conceded that the Coutts Three were helpful in their interactions with the law. As well, there didn’t seem to be any truth to the suggestion that Van Huigenbos, Van Herk and Janzen were leaders of the protest.
RCMP officer Greg Tulloch testified that there were a number of “factions” within the larger protest group. These factions had strong disagreements about how to proceed with the protest. The Crown contended the Coutts Three were the leaders of the protest.
During his testimony, Tulloch recalled how Van Huigenbos and Janzen assisted him in getting past the “vehicle blockade to enter Coutts at a time during the protest when access to Coutts from the north via the AB-4 highway was blocked.” Tulloch also testified that Janzen and Van Huigenbos helped with handling RCMP negotiations with the protesters. Tulloch gave credit to these two “being able to help move vehicles at times to open lanes on the AB-4 highway to facilitate the flow of traffic in both directions.”
During cross examination by George Janzen’s lawyer, Alan Honner, Tulloch stated that he noticed two of the defendants assisting RCMP with reopening the highway in both directions. Honner said in summary, “[Marco Van Huigenbos and George Janzen] didn’t close the road, they opened it.”
Mark Wielgosz, an RCMP officer for over twenty years, worked as a liaison between law enforcement and protesters at the Coutts blockade. Taking the stand, he concurred that there was sharp disagreement among the Coutts protesters and the path forward with their demonstration. Rebel News video clips “submitted by both the Crown and defence teams captured these disagreements as demonstrators congregated in the Smuggler’s Saloon, a location where many of the protesters met to discuss and debate their demonstration.” Wielgosz made several attempts to name the leaders of the protest in his role as a RCMP liaison with the protesters, but was unsuccessful.”
However, the Crown maintained that the protest unlawfully obstructed people’s access to property on Highway 4.
Canada’s Criminal Code defines mischief as follows in Section 430:
Every one commits mischief who willfully
(a) destroys or damages property;
(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.
Robert Kraychik reported that “RCMP Superintendent Gordon Corbett…cried (no comment on the sincerity of this emoting) while testifying about a female RCMP officer that was startled by the movement of a tractor with a large blade during the Coutts blockade/protest.” This was the climax of the trial. A tractor moving some distance away from an officer in rural Alberta, with blades. The shock of it all.
No evidence was presented in the trial that Van Huigenbos, Van Herk and Janzen destroyed or damaged property. Officers testified they couldn’t identify who the protest leaders were. They testified the defendants assisted with opening traffic lanes, and winding down the protest.
By volunteering to liaise with the RCMP, the Crown depicted the Coutts Three as the protest leaders. Who will choose to volunteer at any future peaceful, non-violent, protest to act as a liaison with the policing authorities? Knowing of the verdict handed down on April 16, 2024, in Lethbridge?
Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. His forthcoming book is Unjustified: The Emergencies Act and the Inquiry that Got It Wrong.
From LifeSiteNews
The Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s newly tabled budget has earmarked an additional $36 million for its Vaccine Injury Support Program, in addition to the $11 million it has already paid out to those hurt by the COVID shots.
The Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recently tabled 2024 budget has earmarked $36 million for those injured by the COVID vaccines – vaccines it still insists are safe.
The 2024 budget, which was put forth earlier this week and is likely to pass with New Democratic Party (NDP) support, intends to add $36 million in funding to the nation’s Vaccine Injury Program (VISP), and will be used, at least in part, to settle the growing number of claims made by COVID jab-injured Canadians.
VISP has already paid $11,236,314 to those injured by COVID injections, with the number of people filing claims to the program growing steadily.
The increased funding comes as only 138 claims have been approved for payout out of a total of 2,233 claims made. Some 1,825 claims have thus far been outright rejected.
Despite the need for a federal program to address those injured by the vaccines once mandated by the Trudeau government, Health Canada still says “It’s safe to receive a COVID-19 vaccine following infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. Vaccination is very important, even if you’ve had COVID-19.”
Regardless of the claims of safety by Canadian authorities, data analyzed from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the United States shows an increase in myocarditis cases following COVID injections.
The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.
The VISP program was introduced in 2020, right before the rollout of the COVID injections, which were fast-tracked onto the Canadian population by health officials and promoted by all levels of government.
According to the VISP website, the purpose of the program is to “ensure that all people in Canada who have experienced a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine, administered in Canada on or after December 8, 2020, have fair and timely access to financial support.”
Officials from Health Canada, as well as all provincial health authorities, are still promoting the COVID injections. This comes despite the fact earlier this year, as LifeSiteNews reported, officials from Health Canada admitted that there is “residual plasmid DNA” in the shots.
In fact, just yesterday LifeSiteNews reported on how a recent announcement from health officials in Alberta recommended yet more COVID shots, even for babies as young as six months old, despite the myriad of reported side effects.
Those injured by the COVID shots have chosen to fight back to try and get fair compensation for their injuries.
Last month, LifeSiteNews reported about a class action lawsuit filed against the Alberta provincial government and the federal government on behalf of Albertans who were “harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines.”
Late last year, LifeSiteNews reported that over 700 vaccine-free Canadians negatively affected by federal COVID jab dictates have banded together to file a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit against the Trudeau government.
Overall, the government’s budget looks to spend some $111.2 billion and projects a deficit of about $40 billion, drawing the ire of many top business leaders who have blasted the many tax increases it contains.
OJ Trial: How It Launched Cable News And Destroyed MLK’s Legacy
Extreme Weather and Climate Change
Japanese study shows disturbing increase in cancer related deaths during the Covid pandemic
Federal budget: You can’t solve a productivity emergency with tax hikes
Trudeau’s use of Emergencies Act has cost taxpayers $73 million thus far
Bill C-282, now in the Senate, risks holding back other economic sectors and further burdening consumers
CDC Quietly Admits to Covid Policy Failures
-
Economy2 days ago
Extreme Weather and Climate Change
-
International2 days agoTelegram founder tells Tucker Carlson that US intel agents tried to spy on user messages
-
Crime1 day agoCanadian receives one-year jail sentence, lifetime firearms ban for setting church on fire
-
National2 days agoCanada’s Governor General slammed for hosting partisan event promoting Trudeau’s ‘hate speech’ bill
-
International1 day agoGerman parliament passes law allowing minors to change their legal gender once a year
-
Business2 days agoNew capital gains hike won’t work as claimed but will harm the economy
-
Opinion1 day agoTransgender ideology has enabled people to ‘identify’ as amputees
-
Alberta18 hours agoCanada’s advantage as the world’s demand for plastic continues to grow