Facts regarding the imposition of a mask obligation and other Corona matters

This letter from the Israel Ministry of Health dated Nov 2021 discloses:

“In your application, you requested the opinion and documents submitted to the Director General of the Ministry of Health regarding the imposition of the obligation to wear masks as of 2020.

“There is no well-founded scientific proof that the mask reduced morbidity…

“…there is no strong scientific basis for the new policy. It seems that a mask gives protection but the numbers are average and do not constitute scientific proof of effectiveness…

“…There is doubt about the effectiveness of using a mask to prevent infection…

“…Giving an explanation as to why the recommendation was made and that the public be aware that there is no evidence that it prevents infection…

“…People with heart and lung impairments should consult their family doctor so that he does not develop difficulty breathing…

“…It is important to make sure that wearing masks will not cause harm and also be aware that the harm may outweigh the benefit. There is also the importance of the psychological aspect that gives people a false sense of security.”

*****

Well let’s talk facts eh?  None of these are in dispute, by the way.

• Coronaviruses circulate in humans all the time.  Four of them, to be specific.  Two are in the same family as *****-19; they are beta coronaviruses, as is *****.  One of them, OC43, is believed to have caused a pandemic — in the 1890s.  Why doesn’t it now?  Because it circulates all the time and most kids wind up getting it very young, since the circulation pattern suggests roughly a four year rotation.  That’s right — by the time you’re eight you’ve lived through two rotations through the population of this, and the other three, circulating Coronaviruses.
• These four almost never produce any serious problems for children.  Neither does *****.  On the data thus far, and we knew this before the first shot went into the first arm in December of 2020, if all 60 million kids under 18 got *****-19 about 500 of them would die.  That’s the data.  Likewise, the other 4 common coronaviruses almost never produce serious outcomes.  They do produce colds and flus — as does *****-19 in kids.
• All four of these, when someone is infected, produce durable protection against serious and fatal outcomes in the future.  The exception is the odd person who is old and has damaged immunity, and their former protection becomes worthless.  Yes, occasionally an old person gets killed by OC43 as their prior immunity becomes worthless.  Are you noting a pattern here yet or do you already suck at logic? 
• There is no evidence that once infected by *****-19 and you survive the infection you are at material risk of a second bad infection.  There is a small, but non-zero risk, you can get it again, and my presumption is that if it follows the pattern of other coronaviruses, which tend to run in 3-4 year cycles, you will get it again in a few years.  But despite this the odds are well under 1 in 1,000 that said second infection will be serious or worse and with each re-challenge your immunity will become broader and deeper, just as occurs with the other four.  There are at this point multiple sets of data with confirmed infection counts well over 1,000 in each data set with no critical or fatal outcomes in any of them and several have had zero reinfections of any sort.  In other words there is no evidence that the pattern for the other four coronaviruses that circulate among humans is not what we will see here.  Gee, are we detecting a pattern yet or do you really suck at logic?
• There has never been a successful and safe ******* against coronaviruses in man or beast.  None.  Ever.  All have either (1) proved to be short-lived protection, (2) backfired spectacularly and enhanced infection on re-challenge including every animal under test dying on re-challenge, (3) produced a really nasty side effect profile that over time is more dangerous than the disease — or some ugly combination of all three.  There are no exceptions.  A particular example is a chicken coronavirus where vaccination lasts just long enough for a broiler to reach size and be slaughtered — a bit less than two months.  Laying hens must be continually re-inoculated to maintain protection.  Attempts to vaccinate cats have killed every cat under test.  May I note that felines are one of the animal families that can get and transmit *****-19?  Again, perhaps this is the exception but if it is it will be the first success following an extensive set of failures reaching back decades, many of which produced serious and fatal outcomes.  Again: Are you detecting a pattern here yet on the waning of immunity from jabs given the history of prior attempts?
• There is no evidence that deleting the “N” protein from the in-use US *******s in fact eliminates the risk of enhanced disease.  That’s the hypothesis underlying the decision to do that but there was no evidence for it in actual human testing, which simply was not done in advance and six months — or in fact a year or two — is too short to find out.  Indeed most of the mutation in a coronavirus takes place in the “S” protein which is the part we’re using.  This would be reasonably expected to produce evasion over time through natural forces.  We did it anyway.
• We knew prior to release of these *******s for general use and their “mandates” that the majority of the antibodies produced were not neutralizing; they were binding.  A binding antibody can enhance infection.  Given that we had decades of history with the non-durability of neutralizing antibodies with attempts to vaccinate against coronaviruses what is the reasonable expectation for what will happen if that occurs this time but binding antibodies are still present?  Proof?  No; there was no proof.  But what evidence existed that this approach was safe?  NONE!  Indeed, the evidence, such as it was, all ran the other way although it certainly was not conclusive.  We did it anyway. 
• Prior to general release (September of 2020) there was published a paper characterizing pathogenic potential for the spike protein alone, absent the rest of the virus.  That paper demonstrated the potential for direct injury, specifically to the endothelium (the layer of cells that is the inner lining of your blood vessels!)  This was a theoretical paper and it set off a bevvy of other studies.  One of them, appearing to confirm that hypothesis, was published in pre-print in December 2020 before the shots went into arms.  It was subsequently peer-reviewed and passed upon during that process, being published on a formal basis early this year.  We jabbed people anyway despite, at that point, having in-vitro (lab) evidence that the spike protein we were causing to be produced in the human body was inherently and separately dangerous without the rest of the virus being present.  This paper, standing alone, was enough to call into question the safety of these jabs even if there was no virus at all!  We proceeded anyway.

So no, it is not guessing to take all of these facts, none of which are in dispute, and conclude that:

• There is no reason to believe we can successfully, on a long-term basis, vaccinate against a coronavirus since we never have before in either man or beast.
  
  
• There is no reason to believe attempting to vaccinate against coronaviruses is safe because in many other instances it was proved to be not, and in some it resulted in fatality of many or all the animals under test upon rechallenge.  One specific instance of wildly-enhanced disease occurred in cats, which is a species that we know can become infected by this virus.
• There is no reason to believe that deliberately inducing the presence of binding antibodies in a person to this virus, which we knew the *******s did before the EUAs were issued, would be safe on a durable basis.  In fact we had every reason to believe that would be unsafe simply based on what that sort of antibody does on a biological basis.  You would in fact be crazily homicidal to deliberately infuse only binding antibodies to this or any other virus into a person.
• There was plenty of reason to believe the spike protein, alone, was dangerous even without the rest of the virus and this was known prior to mass-distribution of the jabs.  While getting infected certainly could lead to trouble in this regard infection is not certain where vaccination, once you do it, is.  Further, the dosing for the *******s is set to produce much higher levels of spike protein (and thus antibodies) in the body than does natural infection, so any such risk from the spike would logically be expected to be higher from vaccination than natural infection. 
• As regards children there is not now and never has been an argument for giving them a *****-19 *******.  They do not require or benefit from any protection that it might afford on a statistical basis and since we know there are dangers, many of which we have no way to quantify and will not be able to do so for ten or more years it is a rank violation of logic and the Hippocratic Oath, never mind gross negligence and malpractice, to administer or permit to be administered same to kids.

So no, if this turns out to be an utterly insane and disastrous choice to so-state doing this was stupid in advance, as I and some others have done, was not a “wild guess.”

It was an educated process of deduction that led me, and many others, to the conclusion that it was stupid to proceed and particularly stupid to do so in someone who had previously had *****-19 since whatever risk was inherent in getting the spike in one’s body they had already taken said risk, was at extraordinarily low risk of a subsequent infection, if it occurred, being more than a nuisance and thus such a person had no reason to take such a “*******.”

In addition it was and is criminally insane to advocate for or give these shots to healthy young people, especially those under 18, because statistically-speaking they are at no risk of serious or fatal outcome from the disease itself in the first place and thus whatever unbounded, unknown harms may accrue are being forced upon them by others without any rational expectation of benefit to the young person injected.

Now we may well prove the serious nature and expectation of prospective harms are wrong in the fullness of time.  I am increasingly skeptical that will prove to be the case, but it still might, on balance, prove to be the right choice for certain adults, especially those with serious morbid conditions who have not previously had the disease prior to being jabbed.

But on the manifest weight of the evidence it most-certainly was not a “guess.”  It was a well-educated and well-read process of deduction based upon facts reaching back decades.