William Kaplan, was appointed as an arbitrator to decide a dispute between the Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) and the and the Ontario Nurse’s Association (ONA). The collective bargaining agreement allowed the nurses working in the association hospitals to refuse influenza (flu) vaccination. The HOA imposed a new policy whereby if a nurse refused the influenza vaccine she would have to wear a mask while in the hospital. It was called a vaccine or mask policy (VOM). The ONA brought a complaint that the policy was coercive and thus in violation of the collective bargaining agreement.
The arbitrator conducted 21 hearings spanning three years. He presided over testimony from many expert witnesses, reviewed many volumes of scientific studies, meta-analyses, commentaries, and expert commentaries. The arbitrator found that the VOM was not coercive, but nonetheless struck it down because he determined that it was unreasonable.
In 2018 Kaplan rendered his opinion and determined that the scientific studies and expert testimony established that masks are ineffective in preventing nurses from spreading the flu to others. He further determined that masks are ineffective in protecting nurses from getting the flu. The arbitrator ruled that “[t]here is no persuasive evidence establishing a conclusive relationship between the use of surgical and procedural masks and protection against influenza transmission.” The arbitrator cited one particular scientific study, which concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face-masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” The arbitrator cited the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which stated categorically: “No studies have definitively shown that mask use by either infectious patients or health-care personnel prevents influenza transmission.”
Regarding the asymptomatic tor pre-symptomatic transmission of the flu, the arbitrator stated that “[a]t best, the evidence indicates that asymptomatic transmission is not a significant factor in nosocomial influenza.” The arbiter cited to a credible expert witness who testified that “[t]he evidence that pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic infections contribute substantially to influenza transmission remains scant.”
Often, the flu virus in the vaccine is mismatched with the environmental flu virus and thus the flu vaccine is useless in preventing flu infection. Assuming that the flu virus matches the environmental strain, the arbitrator found that the scientific studies found little or no benefit to the nurses or the patients from nurses obtaining a flu shot. There was insufficient evidence that unvaccinated nurses transmitted the flu. Indeed, in one study where a hospital achieved a 97% influenza vaccination rate, there was no reduction in sick leave, which suggested no reduction in influenza. Another study concluded: “we cannot say for certain whether there was a change due to influenza vaccination.”
It was notable that four of the studies cited by the OHA that supported the thesis that vaccinations prevent the spread of influenza were demonstrated to lack any scientific validity. Indeed, one expert witness, who favored the influenza vaccine, cast serious doubt on the validity of any of those reports. The reports had “impossible results from methodologically flawed studies.” For example, one of the reports came to the astounding conclusion that for every 8 health care workers that were vaccinated, one patient’s life would be saved. One expert called that conclusion “preposterous;” he was able to refute that claim and prove that it was completely unsupported by the study. Even some of the OHA’s own expert witnesses had to admit that the conclusion of that study was merely a “catchy phrase” that was unsupported by any scientific evidence. The Arbitrator found that some of the experts and studies that were put forth to support the proposition in favor of vaccines or wearing masks lacked any real credibility when scrutinized.
In conclusion, the arbitrator found that the flu vaccine is of little or no help in stopping the spread of the flu and wearing a mask is of no help at all in stopping the spread of the flu. Thus, it is unreasonable for a hospital to require its nurses who have not been vaccinated against the flu to wear a face mask in the hospital.
The World Health Organization (WHO) admits that “[a]t present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
The Annals of Internal Medicine published a study conducted by eleven (11) medical doctors and three (3) PhDs in April 2020 (later retracted under pressure in June 2020) which concluded that “[n]either surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.”
How then can the world’s governments mandate the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus when all studies have shown that masks are ineffective in protecting the wearer or protecting those who come in contact with the wearer from viruses?
For further information about this issue to read Dr. Russell Blaylock Says That Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy
Assuming that the flu and COVID-19 are both viruses and are spread (as alleged) in the same way, the response to both should be the same. That is particularly the case when one realizes that if COVID-19 is an infectious virus, it is no more dangerous than the ordinary flu.
But the theories that the flu and COVID-19 are both viruses are only just that, theories. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence that what scientists call viruses are actually exosomes that are generated by the body as an immune response. Exosomes are not actually contagious at all and they are not detrimental to health.
It would seem also that the proposed COVID-19 vaccine will be no more effective than has been the influenza vaccine. Indeed, the planned COVID-19 vaccine could be deadly dangerous.
13 thoughts on “Neither Vaccines Nor Masks Stop the Spread of Influenza”
Good grief! You cannot catch a virus
See here- https://www.thebernician.net/the-deception-of-virology-vaccines-why-coronavirus-is-not-contagious-2/
That is a good point. Thank you for that important information. I discuss exosome theory at the bottom of my post at https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/08/08/there-is-a-cure-for-covid-19-but-they-are-hiding-it-from-you/
But the problem is as you stated here in your article is that “In light of the fact that the flu and COVID-19 are both viruses and spread in the same way, the response to both should be the same, particularly when one realizes that COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the ordinary flu.”
You are saying both Covid19 and the Flu (which are both viruses) are contagious and spread the same way.No, they don’t! You cannot catch Covid19 ,nor can you catch a flu. So if you understand the “Exosomes theory” properly, then you should know that a virus originates from your own body because of toxicity of the bodies cells, in which the body uses it’s own natural viruses as a defense to create a “Soap” to cleanse the body of toxicity, hence why we get a Flu. Viruses are not a living thing, therefore YOU CANNOT CATCH A VIRUS. The only way to “catch a virus” (besides from your bodies defense) is INJECTION, hence the plan to get everyone vaccinated, which WILL have the virus in it.
Agree 100%. Viruses lack the properties of living things: They have no energy metabolism, they do not grow, they produce no waste products, and they do not respond to stimuli. They also don’t reproduce independently.
There is unimaginable wealth for the pharmakeia business attached to lab created viruses.
You are correct. Thank you for pointing that out. I have edited the post to include the exosome theory. It now says:
“Assuming that the flu and COVID-19 are both viruses and are spread (as alleged) in the same way, the response to both should be the same. That is particularly the case when one realizes that if COVID-19 is an infectious virus, it is no more dangerous than the ordinary flu.
“But the theories that the flu and COVID-19 are both viruses are only just that, theories. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence that what scientists call viruses are actually exosomes that are generated by the body as an immune response. Exosomes are not actually contagious at all and they are not detrimental to health.”
Indeed, I have created a separate post about the exosome theory at https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/08/29/what-science-calls-viruses-may-really-be-exosomes/
hydroxychloroquine is for the prevention of malaria
Immunosuppressive drug and Anti-parasite
It can treat and prevent malaria. It can also treat lupus and arthritis.
Why would it be a good idea to take this drug for a “virus” that you cant contract, and most likey does not exist. There is a cure for Covid-19 alright, and its called decernmemt. Covid 19 is a hoax.
Good point. You will notice that I stated that the doctors were addressing “the flu-like illness that has been described as COVID-19.” I do not ascribe to the theory that what is called COVID-19 is a contagious virus. The point of my post on HCQ was to reveal that there is yet another reason that there is no need for a vaccine. Why vaccinate for an illness that already has a cure? And that is why the scientific community is concealing HCQ as a treatment for the flu-like illness that has been described as COVID-19. They want to vaccinate the world.
That is quite aside from the false science behind vaccinations which I have addressed in my other posts on the subject. I have created a separate post regarding the exosome theory at: https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/08/29/what-science-calls-viruses-may-really-be-exosomes/