A couple of weeks ago, I was invited to speak in Birmingham UK, along with about 6 other speakers, at a “Freedom Gathering” . I was happy to accept, although when I got there, I was asked to speak about 20 mins before I expected to be on, so had less time to collect my thoughts… I also ended up speaking for a little longer than I expected.
I learned earlier today that the event was covered by the UK’s “Metro” news website (I don’t know if it went into print). A lady called Sam Goody recorded some of the event.
No one from the “Metro” came and spoke to me and my name is not mentioned in the article. However, because of what you see below:
(Yes, folks, it’s me…) I decided to write to the editor:
Dear Deborah Arthurs,
I decided to send you some brief comments on the above article by Tom Williams. It is not clear to me whether Mr Williams was present at the gathering in Birmingham.
The photograph and video segment used in this article is of myself, but no one spoke to me about the article above. Not even my name Is mentioned – there is merely a caption under the photo of me which reads “Birmingham’s infection rate has doubled in the past week (Picture: Twitter/ @Chezzy8080).” And, of course, that’s not trying to associate me with the meaningless number of “infections” is it? And the article doesn’t even explain the condition of these “321 cases” – are they sick? Are they dying? That information, as in all other mainstream outlets, is omitted… (This sort of thing was pointed out by more than one speaker at the gathering.)
It has become quite clear to me over the years what the strategy/approach of media outlets like your is. You give the basic details accurately, choose the odd quote, but then make it difficult for any interested readers to find further information for themselves. I’ve watched this approach being used for at least the last 13 years. So anyway, please read my free report and send me any corrections or comments – I’d love to hear from an experienced author/editor like yourself!
I have written to a couple of other editors/journalists – neither of whom responded. Feel free to study the rest of the website too! I would be surprised if you did anything other than ignore all the available evidence – to the detriment of your future and those of your relatives and friends – and the future of your readers.
Oh, and here’s a video by a Doctor, posted fairly recently:
It tallies with many scientific studies (see below). But would you ever do a feature about that…? Since when has journalism been about the truth…?
Andrew Johnson, BSc
22 Mear Drive
From Arthur Firstenberg, Update on August 11, 2020)
Instead of acknowledging the harm from radio waves, society is tearing its fabric apart by instituting measures that are protecting no one and are instead sickening and killing people. I will mention just one of those measures here: facial masks.
As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”
I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.
- Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
- Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
- Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaekcame to the same conclusion in 2002.
- In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
- A review by Skinner and Suttonin 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.“
- Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”
- Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
- Bahlidid a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.“
- Surgeons at the Karolinska Institutein Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
- Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
- Lipp and Edwardsreviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
- Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
- Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
- Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”
Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes — two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.
Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.
“We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,” writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.
Just wanted to send this quick list of mask studies in case you’re interested. Most of them come to the same conclusions, there’s no evidence masks work. I include 2 links to show how “they” are censoring things as we speak: