To those paying attention to the full breadth of scientific data, the coronavirus lockdown should be over. Any hint of repeating it for a ‘second wave’ should be off the table... Regarding the coronavirus lockdown response, Dr. Atlas admitted the lockdown response was more harmful than the virus, suggesting “history will record as a failure of policy.” These are not just his feelings. Several key metrics have and continue to sound alarm bells.
Sweden is one of the few countries where draconian pandemic responses have not been widely implemented. Throughout the pandemic, most of the country’s businesses have remained open, and people have to a large degree been allowed to go about their lives as usual, albeit with the general recommendation to social distance whenever possible.
According to an August 10, 2020, article in The Times, the epidemiologist in charge of Sweden’s coronavirus pandemic response, Dr. Anders Tegnell, “has dismissed the scientific evidence for mask-wearing as ‘astonishingly weak’ and suggested that making face coverings mandatory could backfire.”
Prof Joseph Audie and I have been corresponding about the ongoing COVID episode for some months, and he has previously written for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, where I am a researcher.
Joseph Audie, PhD (biophysics), MS (biomedical engineering), BS (bioengineering) is a professor of chemistry. He has performed original drug design and discovery research and has published in scientific journals. Joseph is adept at finding errors in scientific papers in the medical field.
The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.
The LCO’s project is the most comprehensive analysis of Ontario’s defamation law framework to date. The project is examining the underlying purpose and function of defamation law and how defamation law should be updated to account for “internet speech,” including social media, blogs, internet platforms and digital media.