I've edited this a bit and sent it to my own MSP. @writetothem.com
Dear (MSP)
The continuing threat posed by mask wearing should concern those of us who live in Scotland. The deputy chief medical officer Professor Graham Ellis recently echoed the words of First Minister John Swinney by stating to a group of care home relatives that, “masks would be built into the culture in future”.
Unbeknown to most, masks are an ongoing issue in care homes, a situation that will almost certainly get worse as winter approaches along with the normal rise in respiratory infections. Masks are ineffective in preventing the the spread of respiratory infections and harms are associated with both wearing masks for lengthy periods and for those with dementia and other cognitive and sensory impairments who rely on facial expression to communicate.
In the midst of the high volume of gold standard evidence refuting claims of mask efficacy, a soon to be updated ARHAI document specifically refers to a European directive that clearly states, ‘Surgical masks do not provide protection against airborne (aerosol) particles and are not classified as respiratory protective devices.’
The SG clearly has a problem on their hands when the guidance they’re given conflicts with the literature of those providing it. But it seems they’ve found a way to get round this ‘problem’. As much of the evidence on the absence of mask efficacy is based on how respiratory infections are transmitted, predominantly via aerosols, the answer it seems is to change the transmission descriptors, thereby changing the understanding of how masks work.
This is explained as follows in the NHS Scotland National Infection and Prevention Control Manual which is also under review:
“The pandemic highlighted the way in which respiratory transmission (droplet and airborne transmission) is currently described may not reflect what is happening in real life. We need to look at whether there is a better way to describe transmission and whether this would lead to any improvements in infection prevention and control practices.
Why would Public Health Scotland go to all the trouble of changing decades of established knowledge and evidence if it wasn’t to perpetuate the illogical obsession with covering our faces?
Good effort Rob but at this stage they simply do not care what the proper science or real world data clearly shows. The conspiracy theorists are in government and public 'health.'
I know, but (like you, I know) I would feel morally bereft if I stopped fighting superstition and ignorance at the highest levels - . drip drip drip on stone.
Great work Rob and I feel exactly as you do. Somebody somewhere will read it and make a difference. I guess I have to believe that or give up which I’ll never do.
I had thought that masks were alien to British culture. I didn't expect them to be taken up.
It seems I was wrong, unless there are only a few true Brits remaining.
A health worker I know still wears a mask on the open street. I did tell him they incubate infection.
_
I recall when the idea of masking up was first floated.
It was a small column on the front page of the Telegraph (if memory serves, on the right) where a dozen or so doctors had got together to suggest that masks might be useful,
EVEN THOUGH they knew already that the science suggested masks did not work.
Yes, they wrote that.
Doctors wanting to be seen to be doing something.
Non nocere be blowed.
_
Perhaps they were put up to it as part of agenda 21.
It's insanity. Remmber the FACTS campaign in Scotland? (aka fiction) and those that speak out with ACTUAL facts are the anti-science conspiracy theorists? NO the inverse is true.
Bleach is a generic term for various chemicals but they are essentially toxic so will just add to the poisons people have to breathe. C19 is the 'flu rebranded and the 'flu is toxic poisoning. Staff and residents alike will be affected.
I've edited this a bit and sent it to my own MSP. @writetothem.com
Dear (MSP)
The continuing threat posed by mask wearing should concern those of us who live in Scotland. The deputy chief medical officer Professor Graham Ellis recently echoed the words of First Minister John Swinney by stating to a group of care home relatives that, “masks would be built into the culture in future”.
Unbeknown to most, masks are an ongoing issue in care homes, a situation that will almost certainly get worse as winter approaches along with the normal rise in respiratory infections. Masks are ineffective in preventing the the spread of respiratory infections and harms are associated with both wearing masks for lengthy periods and for those with dementia and other cognitive and sensory impairments who rely on facial expression to communicate.
In the midst of the high volume of gold standard evidence refuting claims of mask efficacy, a soon to be updated ARHAI document specifically refers to a European directive that clearly states, ‘Surgical masks do not provide protection against airborne (aerosol) particles and are not classified as respiratory protective devices.’
The SG clearly has a problem on their hands when the guidance they’re given conflicts with the literature of those providing it. But it seems they’ve found a way to get round this ‘problem’. As much of the evidence on the absence of mask efficacy is based on how respiratory infections are transmitted, predominantly via aerosols, the answer it seems is to change the transmission descriptors, thereby changing the understanding of how masks work.
This is explained as follows in the NHS Scotland National Infection and Prevention Control Manual which is also under review:
“The pandemic highlighted the way in which respiratory transmission (droplet and airborne transmission) is currently described may not reflect what is happening in real life. We need to look at whether there is a better way to describe transmission and whether this would lead to any improvements in infection prevention and control practices.
Why would Public Health Scotland go to all the trouble of changing decades of established knowledge and evidence if it wasn’t to perpetuate the illogical obsession with covering our faces?
Yours sincerely,
Good effort Rob but at this stage they simply do not care what the proper science or real world data clearly shows. The conspiracy theorists are in government and public 'health.'
I know, but (like you, I know) I would feel morally bereft if I stopped fighting superstition and ignorance at the highest levels - . drip drip drip on stone.
Great work Rob and I feel exactly as you do. Somebody somewhere will read it and make a difference. I guess I have to believe that or give up which I’ll never do.
Yes, i didn't want to sound like it's pointless far from it and tbh there is far more support out these within the NHS than we often realise.
I had thought that masks were alien to British culture. I didn't expect them to be taken up.
It seems I was wrong, unless there are only a few true Brits remaining.
A health worker I know still wears a mask on the open street. I did tell him they incubate infection.
_
I recall when the idea of masking up was first floated.
It was a small column on the front page of the Telegraph (if memory serves, on the right) where a dozen or so doctors had got together to suggest that masks might be useful,
EVEN THOUGH they knew already that the science suggested masks did not work.
Yes, they wrote that.
Doctors wanting to be seen to be doing something.
Non nocere be blowed.
_
Perhaps they were put up to it as part of agenda 21.
As most doctors do precious little of real use, being seen to do something boosts their ego.
It's insanity. Remmber the FACTS campaign in Scotland? (aka fiction) and those that speak out with ACTUAL facts are the anti-science conspiracy theorists? NO the inverse is true.
This raises an important question: why? What is the motive behind a small group of unelected and elected officials insisting we mask up?
Exactly my question and it’s deeply disturbing when you see this happening in plain sight.
Control, poisoning and fraud.
This is all so predictable.
I clean in a care home and we are now using bleach for routine cleaning Oct to Feb.
I think this will make little to no difference to potential C19 or Respiratory infections.
I’m old enough to remember ‘chest hospitals’ usually old TB sanatoria. Did all this ridiculous debate take place back then?
Bleach! 😩 And you’re right it won’t make any difference at all. More yuk down the drain to further contaminate our water.
I'm not sure. Whatever happened to TB anyway? Did the vaccine actually help at all, or was it mainly better nutrition and cleaner air (as I suspect).
Vaccines can't help despite what we are told by those who profit by them.
Bleach is a generic term for various chemicals but they are essentially toxic so will just add to the poisons people have to breathe. C19 is the 'flu rebranded and the 'flu is toxic poisoning. Staff and residents alike will be affected.