by Lew Rockwell, Lew Rockwell:
This Just In… Face Masks Reduce COVID-19 Infection Rate By An Insignificant 3/10ths Of One-Percent; But Who Is Going To Change Policy At Retail Stores?
According to Catherine Austin Fitts, who once held a position at the Department of Housing & Urban Development, the big banks are behind the GREAT RESET that is being foisted upon the American public. The Central Bankers approved a plan in August of 2019 approved a plan called “The Going Direct Reset,” just prior to the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak.
The bankers are intentionally taking down the economy to force the public to beg for a reset, and culling the population of senior Americans in nursing homes that account for most of the COVID-19 associated deaths.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
This is because the bankers and life insurance companies along with the federal government cannot meet their social contract with Americans to provide healthcare and Social Security checks to a growing population of retirees.
Fitts: “Beginning in fiscal 1998 fantastic tranches of money began disappearing from the American government.” It is now impossible for taxes to continue to meet all of the federal government’s obligations.
Fitts says: “We now have a war between the people who print money and the people who know how to earn money.”
In Fitts’ mind, the war is between JP Morgan & Associates with their digital money scheme vs. the American Constitutional, free enterprise/freedom of religion system.
Blackrock, the largest investment house that is now doing contract work for the US Treasury Department, says it advocates for a financial reset “to avoid the disruptions to income streams as a result of the contrived coronavirus pandemic.” But opposite is occurring. Laid-off restaurant employees are being paid more than the current rate of pay NOT TO WORK! There will be no restaurants for waiters to return to.
The bankers are the behind-the-scenes agents to force America out of paper money and coins and into digital money that will be issued directly to Americans in the form of universal basic income from the US Treasury Department and will in turn control purchases and therefore everyone’s lives. Examples: refuse vaccination and your digital money account will be closed; donate to church and it will be denied because church is a racist, white-dominated, terrorist organization.
American retailers as front men
The bankers use American retailers as the front men. Notice how the idea paper money harbors the COVID-19 coronavirus was spread via retailers who refused to accept legal tender and asked for the help of Americans because of an allege shortage of coins, which is really a way to turn in all the coinage before digital currency is forced on America. Then we got the requirement to wear face masks to enter retail stores.
Science isn’t going to get retailers to cease its face mask requirements. Regardless of the science, which is overwhelmingly negative for face masks, American medicine has a difficulty adhering to the science and objecting to face masks. Here is the most recent study.
Face masks: the latest science
A group of 3030 participants who spent more than 3 hours/day outside their home were given a box of 50 surgical face masks and were assigned to wear them for 60 days with COVID-19 testing by antibody, PCR or hospital diagnosis at 30 days. The study was conducted in a community where face masks were uncommonly worn. Only 7% of participants did not wear face masks as directed.
The results of the test were as follows:
- 42 of 3030 participants habitually wearing face masks were infected, 1.8% (1.8 in 100).
- 53 of 2009 control participants who did not wear face masks were infected, 2.1% (2.1 in 100).
- Difference: 3/10ths of one percent (3 people in 1000)
Source: Annals Internal Medicine March 2021
In the face mask group, 9 participants (0.5%) were found to develop any of 11 other respiratory viral infections compared to 11 (0.6%) in the no-face-mask group. Again, this was not statistically significant nor meaningful clinically.
The results of the study were not considered to be applicable to the formation of public health measures because it was not known how many participants were actually exposed to the virus at home during the study. However, the observed infection rate was similar to that reported in other large studies.