Thursday, May 20, 2021

Medical Censorship:


Why Did Facebook Censor Two Renowned Oxford Professors Sharing Information About Face Masks?



When the then Executive Editor of the British Medical Journal, Dr Kamran Abbas published an article last November explaining that “science is being suppressed for political and financial gain” and that the pandemic has revealed how the “medical-political complex can be manipulated”, he was right.

During this pandemic the censorship of doctors, scientists, journalists and their opinions and research has been unprecedented.

Multiple governments along with their Big Tech ‘partners’ have been deleting social media accounts and censoring any information and evidence that seems to contradict their own ‘point of view’ and is often labelling it as “fake news”, regardless of how credible or evidence based it might be.

It’s been a big problem in our modern society, and perhaps something that most mainstream media and television watchers are completely unaware of as the nuance can’t be understood from those platforms.

We’re seeing how much power government and a Big Tech corporations have over the thoughts and perception of the masses.


I recently published an article diving deep into why Twitter censored Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an eminent infectious disease professor and vaccine expert at Harvard University, after he shared his opinion on vaccines.

Now, Dr. Carl Heneghan can be added to that list. Dr. Heneghan is a professor of evidence based medicine and director of their Centre for Evidence-Based medicine. He’s also a practicing GP, so he has a unique perspective of the pandemic from both sides of the coin, academics and a first hand look inside hospitals.

He, among hundreds of experts in his field, have been quite critical of lockdown measures, mask mandates, and the idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated before we go back to normal.

His perspectives have been clear since the very beginning of the pandemic.

Despite what many people may think, lockdowns have caused a tremendous amount of damage already, and may have killed more people than COVID.

However, you can’t express this within the mainstream or else you’ll be ostracized and labelled “anti-lockdown.”

That’s not science. Science is about discussion, critique and curiosity, not censorship and ridicule.

Last November, Facebook labelled an article about the efficacy of masks in The Spectator as “fake news.” It was written by Dr. Heneghan along with Dr. Tom Jefferson, who’s also from Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

The article centred around a study from Denmark pertaining to the effectiveness of mask wearing to stop COVID spread. It was a “randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence” Heneghan wrote in his Spectator article.


The study found that there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by COVID-19.

1.8 per cent of those wearing masks caught COVID, compared to 2.1 per cent of the control group.

As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is not statistically significant.


Heneghan wrote in his article:

“When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the Dankmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses.

“Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare works and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not.”









The mask has slipped off, and every day brings news of more reversals of previous guidance that was preached by major media as above scrutiny or question because it was claimed to be "science," no matter how inconsistent or ridiculous it seemed.


From the beginning of the COVID pandemic, it was obvious that official medical guidance and public health policy was being driven by political considerations. In early 2020, when major media began reporting on the novel coronavirus in China and the possibility of its coming to the U.S., health experts minimized the danger to Americans and urged the public not to worry. As late as March, Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health appeared on CBS' "60 Minutes" telling Americans, "There's no reason to be walking around in masks. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better … but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is." [Emphasis added.] Within days, though, Fauci and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention led the full-blown panic being driven by Democrats and their allies in major media. Officials claimed computer models (of mysterious origin and using unknown methodology) showed that millions of Americans would soon be dead from COVID and that we must shut down the U.S. economy, cancel medical procedures nationwide to free up medical resources, keep Americans confined to their homes, shut schools, make everyone wear masks and prohibit people from being physically near each other.










Yesterday, he blatantly contradicted what he told Senator Rand Paul under oath in testimony last March: yes, wearing a mask indoors after being vaccinated is just theatre (“I didn’t want to look like I was giving mixed signals, but being a fully vaccinated person, the chances of my getting infected in an indoor setting is extremely low.”):

The big problem is that two months ago, Dr. Fauci testified the exact opposite under oath to Dr. Rand Paul (a doctor who actually treats people medically):








As the COVID-19 pandemic reached U.S. shores and began to spread across the country, it became very obvious to seasoned political observers that deep state powers that be who operate in the shadows and were vehemently opposed to Donald Trump becoming president, saw an opportunity to get rid of him.

They began viewing the pandemic as a political opportunity to saddle a very effective president — effective at bleeding power from the deep state and ceding it back to the people via their representatives — with a “deadly” virus that would wind up killing fantastical numbers of Americans.

As of this writing, there have been some 33.6 million cases of COVID-19 and nearly 600,000 deaths, but these figures don’t add up and they never did.

By comparison, for instance, there are anywhere from 40 million to 65 million cases of influenza each year, though that highly contagious virus kills a fraction of that many people — only about 30,000 or so a year.

What’s more, this year we really didn’t have a “flu season,” and we are told that’s because of our masking efforts.

Really? Because that makes no sense; if masks worked for influenza, why didn’t they do a better job of stopping the novel coronavirus?


There’s more. COVID-19, we know, has an extremely high recovery rate. Something close to 99.5 to 99.7 percent of people who have contracted the virus recovered from it. So, how it is possible to have far fewer COVID-19 infections than an average flu season but a far higher death rate from a virus from which humans are highly recoverable?

Simple: It all depends on how coronavirus (and flu, and other) deaths are counted. And that’s where the deep state comes in.

Dr. Thomas T. Siler, MD, writing at the American Thinker, notes it’s time to “demand a recount” of COVID-19 deaths:

America counts COVID-19 deaths differently from other countries. According to Dr. Deborah Birx, speaking at the start of the pandemic, “if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.”

However, we must acknowledge that there is a difference between dying from COVID-19 and dying with COVID-19. This is a familiar uncertainty for doctors during the winter flu season.



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)