HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

ljones67 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:38 am Just watched an interesting video from Ivor Cummins interviewing the author of a book called "State of Fear". UK Column have mentioned the Government departments mentioned in the book many times and the tactics they've used.

Thanks for posting that.

It's interesting what she had to say about masks. About how they were introduced for psychological reasons and how they have stayed for psychological reasons.

All of which puts the legislation on wearing masks on very shakey ground. Because it's largely based on a lie / distortion of the truth.
Any legislation in England that's based on Parliament having been misled is illegal.

Different scientists have different opinions on the efficacy of mask wearing. The government is entitled to take a view

savvypaul wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:14 pm Different scientists have different opinions on the efficacy of mask wearing. The government is entitled to take a view

In medical matters there are ways of conducting research that lead to relatively objective results.

The Government is not legally entitled to base legislation on subjective viewpoints when there is sufficient objective evidence that contradicts their subjective views.

According to that video on the "A State of Fear" book, there is sufficient medical research evidence that facemasks make negligible difference to Covid spreading rates.

What's more likely, that the A State of Fear book - that the author claims has been fact checked twice - is spouting a load of bullshit?
Or that the UK Government introduced and has maintained face covering legislation for psychological reasons?

Any scientist, doctor, professor or nurse that has a different view to the Government's narrative and tries to speak out (or even just questions it) will get attacked by the media and no doubt lose their job. People who try to question the jab, lockdowns and testing etc on youtube will get a ban. I'm getting my second jab next week as I feel I have no choice. When you hear a 30 year old colleague say she can't wait to get the jab so she can go on a plane again, something isn't right! It's an experimental drug which is still on trial. Nobody knows what the long term effect will be.

I mentioned UK Column previously. I watch their live shows every Monday, Wednesday & Friday at 1pm. They were on youtube for years but have recently been shut down like others yet all they show is government data, especially the 'yellow card' system at the moment. They showed an FOI request of burials and cremations for the last 5 years from a number of areas and there was hardly any difference.

This Monday's show featured the march in London last weekend where hundreds of thousands of people turned out. However the only reporting in the mainstream media was of some sort of attempt to go into a shopping centre. Oddly, as UK Column pointed out, the wording in all the six different news reports was almost exactly the same. It also featured some disturbing tactics by the Australian Police.

You can still watch their shows on odysee or from their website. Today's show was especially good as it featured Delores Cahill talking about variants and 'the jab':

https://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/ ... -june-2021

Here's Sam Bailey's latest video as well on how a doctor who spoke out in New Zealand was treated:

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Vacci ... y-Comp-2:c

And Elvis is alive. I saw him the other day.

CN211276 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:28 pm And Elvis is alive. I saw him the other day.

These youtube videos I've been posting in this thread, showing over-zealous police:
giving fines to auditing youtubers who were at work for breaking a covid lockdown
giving a delivery driver who was providing a chemist shop with the service of delivering goods a fine for not wearing a mask
detaining and arresting a shopper with a medical condition for not wearing a mask in a supermarket

did they happen? Or are they the product of a fertile imagination of some conspiracy theorists?

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:13 pm

CN211276 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:28 pm And Elvis is alive. I saw him the other day.

These youtube videos I've been posting in this thread, showing over-zealous police:
giving fines to auditing youtubers who were at work for breaking a covid lockdown
giving a delivery driver who was providing a chemist shop with the service of delivering goods a fine for not wearing a mask
detaining and arresting a shopper with a medical condition for not wearing a mask in a supermarket

did they happen? Or are they the product of a fertile imagination of some conspiracy theorists?

Missing the wood for the trees.

CN211276 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:09 pm

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:13 pm

CN211276 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:28 pm And Elvis is alive. I saw him the other day.

These youtube videos I've been posting in this thread, showing over-zealous police:
giving fines to auditing youtubers who were at work for breaking a covid lockdown
giving a delivery driver who was providing a chemist shop with the service of delivering goods a fine for not wearing a mask
detaining and arresting a shopper with a medical condition for not wearing a mask in a supermarket

did they happen? Or are they the product of a fertile imagination of some conspiracy theorists?

Missing the wood for the trees.

Avoiding the question.

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:43 pm

savvypaul wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:14 pm Different scientists have different opinions on the efficacy of mask wearing. The government is entitled to take a view

In medical matters there are ways of conducting research that lead to relatively objective results.

The Government is not legally entitled to base legislation on subjective viewpoints when there is sufficient objective evidence that contradicts their subjective views.

According to that video on the "A State of Fear" book, there is sufficient medical research evidence that facemasks make negligible difference to Covid spreading rates.

What's more likely, that the A State of Fear book - that the author claims has been fact checked twice - is spouting a load of bullshit?
Or that the UK Government introduced and has maintained face covering legislation for psychological reasons?

There are several strongly evidenced case studies showing that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol. Does that mean that the government is not legally entitled to ban the use of cannabis for recreational purposes?

Am I inclined to believe the government or a guy that has written a book? I'm inclined to believe that there's a fair bit more to it than either side would like me to think

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:40 pm

ljones67 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:38 am Just watched an interesting video from Ivor Cummins interviewing the author of a book called "State of Fear". UK Column have mentioned the Government departments mentioned in the book many times and the tactics they've used.

Thanks for posting that.

It's interesting what she had to say about masks. About how they were introduced for psychological reasons and how they have stayed for psychological reasons.

All of which puts the legislation on wearing masks on very shakey ground. Because it's largely based on a lie / distortion of the truth.
Any legislation in England that's based on Parliament having been misled is illegal.

If it’s the Danmask-19 study, it actually found something different to what many social media commentators have ascribed to it. The BMJ explains “The trial is inconclusive rather than negative, and it points to a likely benefit of mask wearing to the wearer—it did not examine the wider potential benefit of reduced spread of infection to others—and this even in a population where mask wearing isn’t mandatory and prevalence of infection is low.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

Entirely possible that the legislation has a psychological function as well. As perhaps do many other pieces of legislation.