News

Why Are Failed Mandates And Lockdowns Still Being Enforced?

February 26, 2022

552

Researchers revealed lockdowns had little effect on Covid death rates. The Brownstone Institute gathered together more than 400 studies showing lockdowns, restrictions, and closures failed to live up to what was promised. A team of 12 researchers from John Hopkins School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, the University of Oxford, and other institutions outlined key reasons why Covid jab mandates have been harmful and counterproductive. Covid-19 injection mandates could lead to opposition, entrenchment, cognitive dissonance, scapegoating, and distrust. If you don’t agree with restrictions and mandates in your community, now is the time to act in noncompliance and peaceful protest.

Scientists from around the world have scrutinized very carefully into the unprecedented lockdowns and genocide jab mandates that characterized the Covid-19 scamdemic response. Over and over again, these results confirm that these totalitarian schemes did not work and may have caused more harm than good. Corrupt health authorities and academics continue to support and defend the Draconian measures. It is quite difficult for them to admit wrongdoing, especially of this magnitude. People around the world are starting to awaken out of their cognitive comas. Jeffrey Tucker, founder and president of the Brownstone Institute stated, “these interventions turned a manageable pandemic into a catastrophe.”

There are hundreds of studies to show lockdowns did not work. Communist public health officials that restrict movement, ban international travel, close schools, shut down small businesses (let evil empires like Walmart remain open), commonly known as lockdowns, were implemented in virtually every country around the world during the plandemic. This debacle began in China, then Italy and consequently spread like crazy. In 2020, simulated computer analysis con-ducted by Imperial College of London suggested that lockdowns would reduce mortality by up to 90%. That turned out to be the “Great Lie.” Many scientists worldwide did not accept this theory. In a literature review and analysis of the effects of lockdowns on Covid-19 mortality, researchers from John Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise, Lund University, and the Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, re-

vealed lockdowns had little to no effect on Covid death rates.

The meta-analysis includes 24 studies separated into three groups – lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place order (SIPO) studies, and specific non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) studies. The researchers found: “An analysis of each of these groups three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on Covid-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced Covid-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing Covid-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on Covid-19 mortality.”

The Brownstone Institute actually compiled more than 400 studies showing that lockdowns, restrictions, and closures failed miserably. A study by Dr. Gilbert Berdine, an associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences, used data on daily mortality rates for Covid to track the course of the scamdemic in Sweden, New York, Illinois, and Texas. Each country or state used different responses to the plandemic. He claimed that lockdowns may turn out to be “the greatest policy error of this generation.” They failed to meaningfully reduce Covid-19 mortality and took a massive toll on all of public health. Berdine also noted that the lockdowns “have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-funded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy issue.”

Why are fake fact checkers trying to defend the lockdowns? When John Hopkins meta-analysis received some media attention, bringing the dismal results of lockdowns mainstream, “fact checkers” were unleashed to invalidate the study. One of these organizations was the Science Media Centre (SMC), which is present in the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Their reported mission was to provide “high quality scientific information” to journalists. Their so-called goal is to provide accurate and evidence-based information about science to the Fake News media, particularly on controversial and headline news stories. But SMC is not an independent news agency as it claims to be. It is funded by globalist’s players with worldwide agendas. Naturally, some of the contributing companies are Big Pharma cartels, including Wellcome Trust, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Astra-Zeneca, and CropLife International. Seth Flaxman, an associate professor in the department of computer science at the University of Oxford responded to the SMC piece: “Ordering people to stay home (the correct definition of a lockdown) decreases disease transmission. None of this is controversial among scientists. A study purporting to prove the opposite is almost certain to be fundamentally flawed.” Flaxman’s work is continually cited in defense of lockdowns, even though he has no background in medicine. Tucker from the Brownstone Institute in response said: “See how this rhetoric works? If you question his claim, you are not a scientist; you are denying the science! ….To say that this is not controversial is ridiculous, since such policies had never been before attempted on this scale.” Flaxman seems to be inventing dogma from his own intuition.” How long are we to stay home, Mr. Flaxman? It appears his modeling plan to stay home is ignoring reality.

Injection mandates are harmful and counter-productive. The rapid emergence of widespread Covid jab mandates, “vaccine passports,” and restrictions based on injection status is also un-precedented and led to controversy on ethical, scientific, and political grounds. The team of 12 researchers from John Hopkins, Harvard, and other institutions talked about how “vaccine” policies have elements that are punitive, discriminatory, and coercive, which include conditioning access to health, work, travel, and social life depending on “vaccination” status. The preprint paper discussed four realms that were explored with potential unintended consequences of Covid jab mandates as follows:

Behavioral psychology – Jab mandates could lead to opposition, entrenchment, cognitive dissonance, stigma and scapegoating, con-

spiracy theories, and distrust.

Political and legal – Jab mandates could cause erosion of civil liberties, polarization, and disunity in global health governance.
Socio-economics – Jab mandates could cause disparity, inequality, reduced health system capacity, and exclusion from work and social life.
Integrity of science and public health – Consequences of jab mandates include erosion of informed consent, trust in public health policy, and trust in regulatory oversight.

The authors also discussed the splitting of society in two between those who have taken the genocide jabs against those who have not, while restricting access to work and education based on “vaccination” status. This is a violation of human rights that is promoting social polarization and adversely affecting health and well-being. The authors noted: “The adoption of new ‘vaccination’ status policies has provoked a multi-layer global and local backlash, resistance and polarization that threaten to escalate if current policies continue. It is important to emphasize that these policies are not viewed as ‘incentives’ or ‘nudges’ by substantial proportions of populations, especially in marginalized, underserved, or low Covid-19 risk groups. Denying individuals education, livelihoods, medical care, or social life unless they get ‘vaccinated’ does not appear to coincide with constitutional and bioethical principles, especially in liberal democracies. The main principle that human rights frameworks were designed to ensure that rights are respected and promoted even during public health emergencies.” Covid-19 jab policies should be reevaluated because the negative consequences may outweigh the benefits. New strategies are needed for a more sustainable approach for protecting the population at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 mortality and the health and wellbeing of the public.

Back in 2006, public health officials went through a list of mitigation actions that could be utilized in the event of a pandemic influenza, along with their potential repercussions. Lockdowns were not recommended. They explained: “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.” In the case of quarantines, the researchers stated there is no need for quarantining either groups or individuals. Quarantining raises imposing problems. The disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of “unvaccinated,” can be considerable and detrimental. Closing of schools beyond 10 to 14 days was also not recommended unless other social venues, such as restaurants and churches, were also closed. Plus, such widespread closures would have serious adverse social and economic effects. Similarly, they advised that “canceling or postponing large meetings would not be likely to have any significant effect on the development of the epidemic.” A decade and a half later governments all over the world tried lockdowns anyway. With increasing recognition that lockdowns were useless and Covid jabs don’t work as advertised, people are rebelling around the globe. The genocide jabs were supposed to bring us back to the way it was back in 2019, with no masks, no lockdowns, and freedom for everyone. Lockdowns, two years later, are in full force.

One final note with the mask mandates that is very important. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko recently discussed masks as being completely ineffective. A typical mask can only block from entering a particle size of 0.3 microns to 0.4 microns in size. A micron is one-millionth of a meter. Most viruses (including SARS-CoV-2) are 0.1 micron in size. How can a face diaper stop a particle that small, but we continue to put them on our children? In children, masks cause more harm than good, such as decreased oxygen saturation, the inability to see smiles on fellow students and teachers, and increased exposure to pathogens. These pathogens can be molds, bacteria, other viruses, and fungi. May Yahweh bless all and be well.

Report by: Ed J. Janicki