Unfortunately, it was malpractice. After the extensive March issue, more evidence supporting the science AGAINST mask mandates and business restrictions has emerged and continues to grow. Additionally, there is no correlation between virus spread and lockdowns or masks. Other than the Trump vaccine, all government action has been a fraud.
Why does the CDC claim that masks are effective?
This is probably best answered by the old saying, “figures don’t lie but liars do figure.” Only a statistician can claim (with a straight face) that mask wearing is effective. Journalists simply report what the CDC tells them. The CDC study shows that mask wearing is a “significant” deterrent to the spread of Covid. “Significant” is a statistical term and does not necessarily mean that it’s consequential, meaningful, or important to people’s everyday lives. That same CDC study shows that the efficacy rate is at most, only 1.8 percent. The efficacy of lockdowns are also in this same range. Only a statistician can claim (with a straight face) that 1.8 percent is significant. In terms of daily living, it is not. It is simply intellectually dishonest to make that claim. Consider the health concerns and risks of wearing masks and the catastrophic results of lockdowns.
By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle. In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments. Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.
“The growth in reported case incidence (and mortality) was, overall, virtually indistinguishable in counties with and without mask mandates.”
“While many facts were unknown when the disease first took hold in the United States, a great deal of the evidence was quite clear by May.”
“As the public health emergency abates, Congress, the media, and the American public should heavily scrutinize the agency’s procedures and practices.”
“Unfortunately, throughout the pandemic, scientific facts have meant little. While many facts were unknown when the disease first took hold in the United States, a great deal of the evidence was quite clear by May.” “Government officials and the American people depend on legitimate scientific study, and they have shown extraordinary deference to the CDC throughout the past year. This deference rests on the presumption that the agency’s recommendations to shutter businesses, close schools, restrict public worship, and enforce mask mandates have a solid basis in science.”
“That confidence, in many instances, appears to have been misplaced. As the public health emergency abates, Congress, the media, and the American public should heavily scrutinize the agency’s procedures and practices.”
“If the reporting of these deaths followed the CDC guidebook from 2003, the number of Covid deaths would have been 9,684. However, utilizing this new reporting and classification method that exclusively applied to Covid-19, the number of deaths is 161,392.”
“The government’s ‘near complete’ lack of guidance and research on treatment options — ‘apart from vaccines’ — is ‘unconscionable,’ said University of Wisconsin critical care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory.”
According to Baruch Vainshelboim, “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.”
“In fact, it is not unreasonable at this time to conclude that surgical and cloth masks, used as they currently are, have absolutely no impact on controlling the transmission of Covid-19 virus, and current evidence implies that face masks can be actually harmful.”
“Our view is that masks as they are worn now, and the masks that are in use, offer zero protection. They can be viewed as ineffective while others consider them as being better than nothing but without evidence to support that view.”
“In sum, when we look at the science, there is emerging and troubling evidence of harms from mask use in the absence of any benefits.”
All legitimate policy scholars today should be reexamining the policies that have severely harmed America’s children and families, while failing to save the elderly. Numerous studies, including one from Stanford University’s infectious disease scientists and epidemiologists Benavid, Oh, Bhattacharya, and Ioannides have shown that the mitigating impact of the extraordinary measures used in almost every state was small at best—and usually harmful. President Biden himself openly admitted the lack of efficacy of these measures in his January 22 speech to the nation: “There is nothing we can do,” he said, “to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.”
Besides their limited value in containing the virus, lockdown policies have been extraordinarily harmful. The harms to children of suspending in-person schooling are dramatic, including poor learning, school dropouts, social isolation, and suicidal ideation, most of which are far worse for lower income groups. A recent study confirms that up to 78 percent of cancers were never detected due to missed screening over a three-month period. If one extrapolates to the entire country, 750,000 to over a million new cancer cases over a nine-month period will have gone undetected. That health disaster adds to missed critical surgeries, delayed presentations of pediatric illnesses, heart attack and stroke patients too afraid to go to the hospital, and others—all well documented.
Beyond hospital care, the CDC reported four-fold increases in depression, three-fold increases in anxiety symptoms, and a doubling of suicidal ideation, particularly among young adults after the first few months of lockdowns, echoing American Medical Association reports of drug overdoses and suicides. Domestic and child abuse have been skyrocketing due to the isolation and loss of jobs. Given that many schools have been closed, hundreds of thousands of abuse cases have gone unreported, since schools are commonly where abuse is noticed. Finally, the unemployment shock from lockdowns, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study, will generate a three percent increase in the mortality rate and a 0.5 percent drop in life expectancy over the next 15 years, disproportionately affecting African-Americans and women. That translates into what the study refers to as a “staggering” 890,000 additional U.S. deaths.
And sadly, just as in Galileo’s time, the root of our problem lies in “the experts” and vested academic interests. At many universities—which are supposed to be America’s centers for critical thinking—those with views contrary to those of “the experts” currently in power find themselves intimidated. Many have become afraid to speak up.
Regarding universal masks, 38 states have implemented mask mandates, most of them since at least the summer, with almost all the rest having mandates in their major cities. Widespread, general population mask usage has shown little empirical utility in terms of preventing cases, even though citing or describing evidence against their utility has been censored. Denmark also performed a randomized controlled study that showed that widespread mask usage had only minimal impact.
Those who say it is unethical, even dangerous, to question broad population mask mandates must also explain why many top infectious disease scientists and public health organizations question the efficacy of general population masking. Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, for instance, wrote that “despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.” Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta says there is no need for masks unless one is elderly or high risk. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya has said that “mask mandates are not supported by the scientific data. . . . There is no scientific evidence that mask mandates work to slow the spread of the disease.”
Throughout this pandemic, the WHO’s “Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19” has included the following statement: “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
Dr. Atlas concluded as follows:
With social media acting as the arbiter of allowable discussion, and with continued censorship and cancellation of those with views challenging the “accepted narrative,” the United States is on the verge of losing its cherished freedoms. It is not at all clear whether our democratic republic will survive—but it is clear it will not survive unless more people begin to step up in defense of freedom of thought and speech.
“Perhaps Fauci’s most notable flip-flop has been on the efficacy of masks, saying in March  that there was “no reason” to wear a mask. By April , he joined the chorus of doctors and health agencies encouraging the use of face masks.”
He also downplayed asymptomatic transmission on Jan. 28, saying what “people need to realize” is that in “all the history” of respiratory-borne viruses, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. By August, Fauci did a complete 180, saying asymptomatic cases were a driving factor in the community spread of COVID-19 despite a WHO admission that more evidence was needed to make this determination. In late August, researchers from Southern Medical University in Guangzhou concluded that “asymptomatic cases were least likely to infect their close contacts.”
Over the summer, Fauci dismissed hydroxychloroquine as a treatment after Trump touted the drug, saying research showed that it was not “effective.” Trump was subsequently met with condemnation from the press and others. In November, however, a peer-reviewed study, which will be published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, found that there were 84% fewer hospitalizations with patients who were given a drug cocktail containing hydroxychloroquine.
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. 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. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.
Although I’ve made no attempt to verify or refute the claims in this article, it makes for a very interesting read:
18 Reasons I Won’t Be Getting a Covid Vaccine CENSORED: It’s interesting to note that the Facebook Nazis screwed up again by claiming the author said things that he didn’t say. For example, the Facebook Nazis state that the author’s information is false because “The CDC Did NOT Admit That Only 6% Of Deaths In COVID Toll Were From COVID-19.” Well, the author never said that. He said, according to the CDC, “only 6% of the deaths being attributed to covid are instances where covid seems to be the only issue at hand.” This is what the CDC reported. Only 6% of Covid deaths are exclusively from Covid. And now the CDC is saying, “For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate.” Therefore, I deem the Facebook Nazi so-called “fact-checkers” as wrong again. This also reminds me of when the Facebook Nazi so-called “fact checkers” falsely flagged this vaping video as smoke.
The September and October 2020 editions of The Becker Report explains much of the detail. The 25 counties that I know of where PCAs have been filed or delivered per ORC 2935.09(D) are: Adams, Allen, Ashtabula, Belmont. Brown, Butler, Clermont, Franklin, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, Highland, Lake, Licking, Lorain, Marion, Miami, Montgomery, Pickaway, Richland, Summit, Union, Warren, Washington, and Wood Counties. Only 63 more to go! The purpose of these is to seek out a judge or prosecutor willing to perform his clear legal duty as described in ORC 2935.10(A) and either issue an arrest warrant or launch an investigation into the charges outlined in the PCA against Governor DeWine.
“…John Becker, an ‘archconservative’ former state lawmaker from the Cincinnati area…” as described by Cleveland.com (February 2021). “[State Rep. John Becker,] one of Ohio’s most conservative lawmakers…” proclaimed Cleveland.com (October 2020). “Clermont County State Rep. John Becker, one of the most conservative members of the Ohio House…” according to Cleveland.com (August 2019). Becker wins “Sponsor of Liberty” award by the Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio (October 2018). “Becker has a legitimate claim as the state’s most conservative legislator,” according to The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer (September 2017). “Rep. John Becker, suburban Cincinnati Republican… [holds] the unofficial title as the General Assembly’s most conservative lawmaker,” proclaimed the Columbus Dispatch (September 2015). Becker wins prestigious William Wilberforce Leadership Award (April 2015). “GOP Ohio House freshman Becker is no shrinking violet,” headlined the Columbus Dispatch (December 2014). “Becker…is arguably the most conservative member of the Ohio House,” said The Cincinnati Enquirer (January 2014). Ranked as a top tier “most archconservative” by the Columbus Dispatch (September 2013).
Did this newsletter get sent to you by someone other than me? If so, please let me know at John@BeckerGOP.com and I will add you to my distribution list. That will ensure that you get it in a timelier manner. You may also forward this to your friends. Let me know if you would like to unsubscribe. This issue and back issues are available at: www.BeckerGOP.com.
Disclaimer Nothing in this newsletter constitutes legal advice. I am not an attorney and do not play one on TV. This newsletter is not sanctioned by the GOP, ORP, or any organization, or affiliation. Much of it is simply my opinion. I am fully and solely responsible for my opinion. Although I strive for accuracy, this is not “The Gospel according to John.” Additionally, I don’t necessarily try to be “fair and balanced.” After all, I didn’t get into politics to be a news reporter. My agenda is to influence public policy consistent with Southern Ohio conservative values. For more information on my motivations or how to get involved, see: What is a Central Committee?