Story at-a-glance

• Not a single randomized controlled trial with verified outcome has been able to detect a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask, when it comes to preventing infectious viral illness
• If there were any significant advantage to wearing a mask to reduce infection risk to either the wearer or others in the vicinity, then it would have been detected in at least one of these trials, yet there's no sign of such a benefit
• There is no evidence that masks are of any utility for preventing infection by either stopping the aerosol particles from coming out, or from going in. You're not helping the people around you by wearing a mask, and you're not helping yourself avoid the disease by wearing a mask
• Infectious viral respiratory diseases primarily spread via very fine aerosol particles that are in suspension in the air. Any mask that allows you to breathe therefore allows for transmission of aerosolized viruses
• All-cause mortality data are not affected by reporting bias. A detailed study of the current data of all-cause mortality shows the all-cause mortality this past winter was no different, statistically, from previous decades. COVID-19 is not a killer disease, and this pandemic has not brought anything out of the ordinary in terms of death toll

Intro

Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., a former full professor of physics, is a researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association in Canada. He's held that volunteer position since 2014, which has given him the opportunity to dig into scientific issues that impact civil rights. He also did postdoctoral work in chemistry.

Here, we discuss the controversial topic of face masks. Should you wear one? When and where? Does it protect you or not? There's a wide range of opinions on this even within the natural health community.

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, I endorsed the use of face masks based on the experience of some of the Eastern European countries. The rationale of it seemed to make sense at the time. Since then, however, I've started to question their use.

In the name of Covid, the State has already thrust itself into every corner of our existence.

It has come between husbands and wives at the ends of their lives. It has forbidden the old to embrace their grandchildren.

It has denied us funerals and weddings, locked the churches, silenced the ancient monastic music of cathedral choirs and prevented the free worship of God for the first time in 800 years, and banned us (unless we are Left-wing) from holding or attending public meetings.

It has ordered us to stay at home, scolded or fined us for sunbathing, going on country rambles or even entering our front gardens.

Facebook's so-called "fact checkers" have struck again, claiming that my report on the science that proves that wearing facemasks, especially in non-medical settings does almost nothing to prevent the spread of a virus, is false... citing that it was based on old information.

Now, I'm reporting on a new study created in conjunction with the World Health Organization and published by the CDC from less than 60 days ago that once again proves that there is no evidence that wearing face masks in public prevents the spread of flu-like viruses. I'm also going to show you why the Facebook fact-checking system cannot be trusted.

Link to the CDC published study. This study was conducted in preparation for the development of guidelines by the World Health Organization on the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza in nonmedical settings. This study was supported by the World Health Organization.

On this episode of Objective:Health, we talk more about the latest corona-craziness. President Trump announced a plan to have a Covid-19 vaccine available by the end of 2020. Dubbed 'Operation Warp Speed', the details of the plan seem to come straight out of the film Idiocracy.

Heading the operation, for instance, is GlaxoSmithKline vaccine chairman Moncef Slaoui, a man who oversaw the Pandemrix vaccine for swine flu in 2009 which resulted in over a thousand recipients getting brain damage. And remember that GSK has the distinction of paying the largest fine ever paid by a pharmaceutical company at $3 billion back in 2012 for covering up the deadly side effects of the diabetes drug Avandia.

Combine this with the fact that fastest ever vaccine development currently is four years, and the development of a coronavirus vaccine, while attempted many times, has never been successful (often with disasterous results) and you can see why an estimated one third of Americans are not willng to take the Covid-19 vaccine if and when it becomes available. These people are insane, and anyone willing to put their lives, and those of their families, in their hands are either ignorant or equally insane themselves.

Join us on this episode of Objective:Health as we look into the crazy details of Operation Warp(ed) Speed.


And check us out on Brighteon!

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth

♥And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here.

Running Time: 00:31:14

Download: MP3 — 28.6 MB

The alleged gunmen who killed the son of Esther Salas, the judge recently assigned to the Epstein-Deutsche Bank case, worked for a company of corporate spies and mercenaries with ties to intelligence and also to Deutsche Bank.
The news of the shooting of the husband and son of Esther Salas, the judge recently assigned to oversee the Jeffrey Epstein - Deutsche Bank case, caused shock and confusion while also bringing renewed scrutiny to the Epstein scandal just a week after Epstein's main co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, was denied bail in a separate case.

The case Salas is set to oversee is a class action lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank investors who allege that Deutsche Bank "failed to properly monitor customers that the Bank itself deemed to be high risk, including, among others, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein." The case came after the New York state Department of Financial Services had settled with Deutsche Bank over the bank's failure to cut ties with Epstein-linked accounts, resulting in Deutsche Bank paying a $150 million fine. Deutsche Bank, unlike other financial institutions, failed to close all of its accounts linked to Epstein until less than a month prior to his arrest last year, even though the bank had identified him as "high risk" years before.

Beyond the tragedy of Sunday's shooting, which claimed the life of Salas' only child, the quick discovery of the death of the main suspect, Roy Den Hollander, of a "self-inflicted" gunshot to the head before he could be arrested or questioned by authorities has led to speculation that there is more to the official narrative of the crime than meets the eye.

So, how are you enjoying the "New Normal" so far? Is it paranoid and totalitarian enough for you? If not ... well, hold on, because it's just getting started. There is plenty more totalitarianism and paranoia still to come.

I know, it feels like forever already, but, in fact, it has only been a few months since GloboCap started rolling out the new official narrative. We're still in the early stages of it. The phase we're in now is kind of like where we were back in February of 2002, a few months after the 9/11 attacks, when everyone was still in shock, the Patriot Act was just a few months old, and the Department of Homeland Security hadn't even been created yet.

You remember how it was back then, when GloboCap was introducing the official "War on Terror" narrative, don't you?

OK, maybe you do and maybe you don't. Maybe you're too young to remember, or you were caught up in the excitement of the moment and weren't paying attention to the details. But some of us remember it clearly. We remember watching (and futilely protesting) as GloboCap prepared to invade, destabilize, and restructure the entire Middle East, as countries throughout the global capitalist empire implemented "emergency security measures" (which, 18 years later, are still in effect), as the corporate media bombarded us with official propaganda, jacked up The Fear, and otherwise prepared us for the previous "New Normal" ... some of us remember all that clearly.

Personally, I remember listening to a liberal academic on NPR calmly speculating that, just hypothetically, at some point in the not-too-distant future, we might need to sacrifice our principles a bit, and torture some people, to "keep America safe." I recounted this to other Americans at the time, among my many other concerns about where the post-9/11 mass hysteria was heading. Most of them told me I was just being paranoid, or that they didn't really care, because we needed to do whatever was "necessary" to protect Americans, and, in any event, "the terrorists deserved it." Shortly thereafter, I started making plans to get the hell out of the country.

Imagine a large grizzly bear is terrorizing your neighborhood. You have a powerful bear gun and potent bear spray that will make the bear go away or allow you to eliminate it if it attacks you. But your government tells you not to use those tools. Instead, they insist you camouflage yourself, hunker down, and hope the bear doesn't get you.

That about sums up Covid-19 in America. We have powerful methods for getting rid of the virus if one gets a bad infection, but instead we're told to wear masks and stay six feet apart. Oh, and no large gatherings, either - unless you're protesting.

Let me first briefly discuss reliable tools for getting rid of a Covid infection, and then we'll examine the efficacy of masks.

Read more here.

Having spent the past month traveling around the United States — from major cities to the countryside — the scale of the 'movement' which erupted in late May after the death of George Floyd is almost incomprehensible. According to the New York Times, which relays their finding with obvious excitement, the 'movement' (its precise contours seldom defined) "may be the largest" in U.S. history.

That is certainly plausible. In which case, it would presumably be important to document how ordinary Americans, especially those most directly affected, perceive the "movement" in question.

Scan almost any of the popular media coverage over the past six weeks and you'll find that journalists have been steadfast in their depiction of "protesters" as unassailably "peaceful." While the vast majority of those who attended a state-backed demonstration or some other event spurred by the 'movement' are unlikely to have committed any acts of physical destruction, the term "peaceful protest" doesn't seem to quite capture the impact of a society-wide upheaval that included, as a key component, mass riots — the magnitude of which have not been seen in the U.S. since at least the 1960s.

From large metro areas like Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul, to small and mid-sized cities like Fort Wayne, Indiana and Green Bay, Wisconsin, the number of boarded up, damaged or destroyed buildings I have personally observed — commercial, civic, and residential — is staggering. Keeping exact count is impossible. One might think that a major media organisation such as the New York Times would use some of their galactic journalistic resources to tally up the wreckage for posterity. But roughly six weeks later, and such a tally is still nowhere to be found.

From time to time we are struck with something we may deem "beautiful". We see a work of art, a landscape, or a face that speaks to an almost ephemeral ideal which demands our attention, acknowledgement and contemplation. But why does this occur? What is it that we, as individuals, are perceiving as beautiful? And what exactly is beauty anyway? In exploring this largely taken for granted dimension to human experience we ask: What place should it hold in our lives, and what value do we hold for it - and it for us?

This week on MindMatters we explore and expand on some common conceptions of things beautiful - from the mundane to the sublime. And we see how noticing and arranging things to be beautiful can be an invocation of our greatest ideals and values. In a time and place where we are surrounded by ugliness, the gifts and astonishment that may be found in beauty may be one more key in connecting to the highest part of the Universe, and to ourselves.


Running Time: 01:04:28

Download: MP3 — 59 MB

Diving deeper into the swamp that is the future of food from last week, this week we look into the issue of food being used as a weapon for control over the population. Corporate agriculture, real and manipulated food shortages, inflation, chemical food systems, genetic modification, fake foods - all of these and more are used as a means of ultimately controlling the populace.

Is there an escape? Can we still have a say in what we eat in a future food system dominated by a handful of corporations who control and track all food from the seed stage to the final sale? Will we still be able to grow food for ourselves and our families and wider communities? Will food freedom be a thing of the past?

Join us on this episode of Objective:Health as we look into the scary future of the human food system.


And check us out on Brighteon!

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth

♥And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here.

Running Time: 00:33:46

Download: MP3 — 30.9 MB