Mask ineffective? Speech by Nick Hudson. Censorship of our post

 1. Stanford Study: Facemasks are Ineffective to Block Transmission of COVID-19 and Actually Can Cause Health Deterioration and Premature Death

A recent Stanford study (link in title text) released by the NCBI, which is under the National Institutes of Health, showed that masks do nothing to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and their use can even be harmful.

Here is a table summarising some physiological and psychological effects of wearing a facemask:

2. The ugly truth about the Covid-19 lockdowns – Nick Hudson, co-founder of PANDABelow video link is Mr Hudson’s presentation at the inaugural BizNews Investment Conference in March 2021 as keynote speaker

Above title link is a summary of points made in the speech.

see Video 

3. Censorship at LinkedIn of our earlier post

People asking the questions get silenced in this age of overarching big tech domination of our media lives. It happened to our LinkedIn post on 20 April:

It is a sad day for any ‘open platforms’ where:

– exchange of ideas is trumped by spreading of propaganda;

– presenting alternative facts and views is a sin of ‘misinformation’;

– providing links that permit balanced assessment of risks is to be put down,

all behind opaque ‘policies’ which nevertheless encourages endless politically correct content (some much worse) go unchecked. This censorship is all the more dubious when: 1) the situation is fast changing and new knowledge constantly emerging; 2) health of countless people is impacted and they needed balanced arguments to make their potentially life changing decisions; 3) so much of civil liberties, constitutions, international conventions have been set aside in the name of administrative expediency, not to mention livelihoods and ways of life. Open debate of issues is the only guarantee we have against causing harm to these essential elements of billions of people’s lives.

If you need to assess what the original offending post contained, here is our web page link containing the same – do let us know just which bit of the post is unethical or otherwise inappropriate in the spirit of frank, civilised, and open debate?

Sometimes the more one tries to hide, the more people would want to look – that’s why true conspiracy theorists have no market – because on viewing the facts, the public will simply stop reading; this is why these ‘theorists’ are hardly ever censored. But why do contents querying the lockdown get special treatment – we leave our readers to ask the obvious follow on question…

en_GBEnglish
Scroll to Top