Another month slipped by without me making a post. I think about it all the time and usually scroll through my Hive feed once a day to check out the posts and vote, but creating a post has been challenging.
I think there is just so much trickery going in the world right now and I can't find the time to gather my thoughts into a real comprehensible post because of it. It feels like everything has to be explained down to the tiniest detail to not sound crazy to people these days. It's all seemingly unrelated topics but also tied together behind the scenes and I'd have to write a few thousand words just to get started explaining my thoughts and how it's all connected. I'm sure some can relate.
So instead, here's a quick painting I did in ArtRage on the iPad a while back I never got around to posting.
The painting is from a picture of my brother and I out for a paddle on a recent camping trip with 
On second thought, tomorrow is the first mandatory mask day in Nova Scotia so I guess I'll write a little about that now that I started into this post.
Just some thoughts shooting out my fingertips at 70-80 WPM, so don't take it personal if you don't agree and my bad if it doesn't make sense.
I think this mask decree is complete bullshit and while I was out today getting dog food and some other supplies at the hardware store, I noticed a lot of the people are thinking the same thing. Does this make me selfish because I don't think these masks work and don't want to be forced into something I don't believe in? Maybe, but forcing me at gunpoint to wear something that doesn't work so you can feel better about yourself is also pretty selfish, in my opinion. It's like forcing someone into a religion that's clearly a cult.
There is plenty of evidence that they don't work, which is why many public health officials stated this at the start of the year. Nobody was wearing a mask because there was no evidence to support it.
Now they've changed their story and claim there's evidence they do work.
I wonder what specific evidence they're referring to? And in a time so rampide with fake news, and other trigger words like race, left/right wing, conspiracy theory, or whatever, it's good to supply some real sources. Especially for justifying violence to be inflicted on innocent healthy people.
Nova Scotia government (NSG) does daily live streams on Facebook and answers questions posted by people. Correction - only approved media get to ask their pre-screened questions live. The peasant people get to ask via chat and have them answered by a mysterious Facebook author claiming to be the government.
Someone asked why they waited for 3 weeks with no cases to force these masks. NSG replied that there's now evidence and they're doing it to condition people for something that hasn't happened yet.
With no new cases in 3 weeks, there is no reason to be doing this now. Remember at the start of the year when they said "Stay the Blazes Home" so we could slow the spread and reduce the strain on the hospitals? Well that happened months ago and we're still panicking for nothing now.
So I asked them if they could provide proof of the evidence, although with a few more words. I also threw in a quote from the WHO in June saying there was no scientific evidence and that might be why I didn't get a reply. I gave them some good ways to let us know but I would be happy with any follow up info I could look at.
I don't know if that comes off negative, but I made it as polite as I could muster. Given that the threat of violence if you don't comply is imminent, I'd say it's very nicely worded. And I know they're also saying it's not really being enforced (yet), but I've seen this decree coming way longer than they've been fully talking about it and the pressure is certainly going to be applied once this gets going for a week or so. There will be enforcement coming in this frog boil. It's pretty obvious.
Anyway, they didn't answer me and I didn't really expect they would. It is funny how they answered the post above mine and posted below my comment, and took the time to link to a complete written and infographic description on how to make different masks. A response like that would have been great for some real information like I requested instead of information on ways to fold a cloth into a muzzle for the prole who can't even figure that out for themself.
In my view, just hearing someone say there is evidence without being able to see it is hearsay. And when it comes from any politician, it's wiser to suspect a lie until proven it's not. That should be common sense well before wearing a mask. I've seen them make this comment a few times and without knowing what they are actually referring to when they say there is evidence is not sufficient to me.
Are they referring to the few recent systematic studies on past data that recently came out and are filled with holes for seemingly political gain? If you want that broken down, 3 Speak has hours of breaking it all down and going through all kinds of studies, for and against masks.
Are they based on Randomized Controlled Trials?
Are they based on a CBC article claiming evidence that source a WHO document that actually says there's none?
Or is it based off a Facebook or Twitter post?
I have no idea and their website doesn't list any sources of information to back up their claims, so what is it?
Not replying was expected and to me implies that they don't want anyone questioning them to actually look into their "evidence" because they probably know it's got holes in it. The best-case scenario for them, it's probably the systematic reviews and observational studies that recently came out because it's not RCT studies. Those all say masks don't work with studies going back to the 80's and 90's stating there's no evidence. No need to look at those though. Only look at new studies that come out just before we start pushing this nonsense.
But if it is observational, that links into something else in my head.
Does anyone else remember the WHO's technical lead saying that they are observing that asymptomatic people don't spread this disease? Asymptomatic people passing this on were "Very Rare" was here words.
The mainstream didn't really report on this immediately, that I saw. What they did do, to my surprise (sarcasm), was jump all over the fact that the WHO technical lead was told to backpedal on that statement. All the mainstream media made sure you knew it was not backed by scientific evidence and was only observational at this time. Do a quick Google search and tell me which side has more articles. They conveniently left out that the fact she said there were numberus reports from different countries doing "very detailed contact tracing" who were giving this information. They also started pushing heavy on the word "Pre-symptomatic" which wasn't the argument before this video. Her backpedal said "small limited studies" while here original statement was sourced from a number of different countries providing detailed data that were not yet in studies.
Neither time did they actually mention a probable percentage or percentage range of how many people could be asymptomatically spreading anything. Just from looking at both her statements, it seems to me that she was genuine in saying the spread is "very rare" considering those words were used multiple times so definitely a pre-meditated phrase. The backpedal sounded more political and limited in the response and if it was based on studies, what ones is she talking about.
So if asymptomatic people don't spread and it's only pre-symptomatic we're worried about except in "very rare" cases; and the masks we're all being forced to wear based on shady or no evidence is if we don't know we're pre-symptomatic; then to avoid the risks associated with wearing a mask for the possibility of a few days span over months and months before symptoms set in, why hasn't contact tracing been better established first?
NSG claims to be following the WHO's guidelines, of which contact tracing is much more important than mask wearing, so why hasn't that been established yet. I know they do it, but why hasn't that improved first and why no talk about it. To help, the technology is already installed on every Apple and Android phone without anyone's permission, so why not start using it?
If I had to pick between the two, I'd much rather be forced to install an app than wear a useless mask - but I'd rather do neither because I'm not sick and supposed to live in a free country.
And that leads me into something else in my head.
Since we have no new cases for 3 weeks, it should be easy to start ramping up contact tracing abilities right now since no one is being swamped with new cases. Take the time to start promoting an app to use. Make silly little infographics just like the ones you make about making cloth muzzles and "social distancing". Make a decision on what app to use and get the word out.
This is basically a regroup time but everybody is focused on these masks like they're the only thing that can save a fat old person's life. It is sort of a regroup strategy to force this on people, but it's the wrong strategy and it's all based on flimsy statements.
And that links to something else in my head.
Maybe we're supposed to be sicker than we are and these masks need to be established to bring in the next phase. I mean, the states appear very into it with their inflated numbers so they must be right on que for the next phase. We usually lag a bit to the states anyway.
I mean, we got rid of gold backed currency a few years after the US. The craziest one though, is a few years after the son of a president becomes president, the son of a prime minister becomes prime minister. What are the odds of that really for these neighbouring countries?
And that links to something else.
Why did Bill Gates meet with only Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau just before the election? Then a few weeks later Trudeau is PM. Now Trudeau is in full support of Gates even before he has rolled out his vaccine. Could be or not be related but I remember that happening and there's a good chance Gates and Governments have been working behind the scenes for years and years.This while our leaders are getting caught acting unethical and corrupt.
And into something else.
Why does a potential remedy with minimal side effects that's cheap and been around for 65 years get slammed by the media as fake based on retracted studies, but a vaccine with 80% side effects still gets championed by them with no studies.
It obvious trickery and it's all connected in my head. Just shy of 2000 words later and I barely even scratched the surface of my though process, like I said.
But I'll leave it here. Hope you like the painting.