Please share this Webinar with every Business Owner/Director/Manager/Etc….In fact…share it with every Canadian!
Business are Essential…Vital to a thriving economy. According to the Constitution, “every” Canadian has the 100% guaranteed right to work and provide for their family!
Sign the Declaration notifying your Premier and Health Officer that you will no longer comply with Orders that are unlawful, inconsistent, irrational, and in violation of our “guaranteed” Constitutional rights. https://action4canada.com/small-busin…
Disclaimer: This information is not intended to be used as legal or health advice. We encourage you to do your own research.
For the past year, governments and policymakers around the world have attempted to deal with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic through a variety of methods. These include implementing controversial lockdowns and stay-at-home orders. The degree to which these measures have helped to slow the spread of COVID-19 is still debated, but experts agree that the mental, physical, and financial wellbeing of individuals has been impacted.
There has been an alarming rise in the rates of domestic violence, suicide, drug overdose, and substance abuse over the past year, with strong ties to lockdowns, unemployment, and stress.
A great compilation of different studies that is kept up to date on the subject has been gathered by the Swiss Policy Research. So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source)
A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. (Source)
A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no significant evidence supporting the effectiveness of non-medical and medical face masks in the community. Furthermore, the European CDC advises against the use of FFP2/N95 respirators by the general public. (Source)
A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)
A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. (Source)
A May 2020 cross-country study by the University of East Anglia (preprint) found that a mask requirement was of no benefit and could even increase the risk of infection. (Source)
An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). (Source)
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that cloth face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. (Source)
A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)
An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. (Source)
More evidence such as the “development of cases after mask mandates” and a comparison with the studies claiming face masks are effective can be found on the full report below
In January 2021, the World Health Organization issued a statement confirming that issues exist with the RT-PCR test and the possibility of false positives. In fact below are some serious problems to take into account:
There can be large-scale test kit contamination, as both the US and the UK (and several African countries) discovered during the early phase of the pandemic.
There can be testing site or lab contamination, which has led to countless false positive results, school closures, nursing home quarantines, canceled sports events, and more.
The PCR test can react to other coronaviruses. According to lab examinations, this happens in about 1% to 3% of casesif only one target gene is tested, as is the case in many (but not all) labs and as the WHO itself has recommended to avoid ambiguous positive/negative test results.
The PCR test can detect non-infectious virus fragments weeks after an active infection, or from an infection of a contact person, as the US CDC confirmed.
The PCR test can detect viable virus in quantities too small to be infectious.
Dr. Roger Hodkinson has brought this issue early on back on November 13th, 2020. Unfortunately he has been demonized by media and so called “fact checkers”. Some of them going as far as denying that he even said what you can clearly hear on this video.
He has the expertise and the credentials to talk about the topic and that is exactly why he had to be silenced. When he went public he had everything to lose, yet he went against the narrative. Just ask yourself one simple question, why would the CEO of a company that profits from selling RT-PCR tests is calling everyone to stop testing? Personally I would trust more someone that has everything to lose than someone that has a clear conflict of interest by being paid to perpetuate the narrative.
On 08 December 2020 a disabled woman assisted by Kester Disability Rights has been paid £7,000 in compensation by a service provider who refused her access to a service because she was unable to wear a face mask.
The pay-out was achieved through negotiation as there was no dispute that access had been denied, or that the Claimant had a disability exemption. The only thing to be agreed was the amount of compensation, not whether it was due or not.
Refusing access to people unable to wear face coverings due to disability is direct discrimination – no different to denying access to a black or gay person for example.
Disabled people are now routinely harassed in public for not wearing face coverings – frequently given the impression that confidential medical information must be publicly disclosed to justify exemption. The fact that shops and hospitality businesses routinely display “no mask no entry” signs shows how deeply disablist attitudes are embedded in society. If premises displayed “no blacks” or “no gays” notices there would be outrage.
Fortunately the official Government position does not endorse any of this as nobody exempt from wearing a mask is expected to go around justifying themselves. Saying “I’m exempt” is enough. If the response to that can be proved to be discriminatory then compensation is due. Any such interaction, altercation and blatant discrimination should be video recorded for evidence, as the Kester case proves there is remedy in law for those who are offended against