If Morality Is Being Argued By Bullies Rather Than Scientific Debate Being Had By Peers, You Know Something Is Wrong
Reason #13 that Face Masks Hurt Kids
Dear Reader,
The wearing of a face mask to protect against a respiratory virus is an act of grand deceit. It is a behavior that defies research on the topic. Wearing a face mask, as this article (one of many) points to — is unsafe to do and is ineffective.
Until the narrative around mandatory masking has changed, each day by 6am Eastern, I will both post here and send out a science-based reason why no one should wear a face mask.
I ask that you help me circulate these pieces to those around you who you believe could most benefit from them. It is important not to remain silent on this topic. These are important discussions to be having with friends, family members, business owners, healthcare practitioners, public servants, and others in the community.
-Allan
No two people find agreement on all topics. Consequently, a back and forth conversation between two people with different views is a normal part of life in civil society.
“What should we have for dinner?”
“Who shot, J.R. Ewing?”
“What happened to the nose of the sphinx?”
These are just a few of the many questions that will forever get people with strongly held beliefs ready for a debate.
While debating such topics may provide some entertainment, it is important to keep in mind how important some topics are for determining the quality of life for large swaths of the population.
Debates in the field of medicine have very real consequences.
Because such topics have consequences, we are told it is acceptable
to censor debate that one finds disagreeable. It is considered noble, moral in fact, to silence an opinion deemed “dangerous,” “misinformed,”
or “wrong.”
In a free society, there is an easy way to destroy ideas that are dangerous, misinformed, or wrong — do the hard work of proving them wrong.
That is what this book is.
That is what many books throughout history have been.
Only those who are unable, or unwilling, to prove their ideas right are eager to censor. Never will a truth teller who believes in a free society be found engaging in censorship.
No matter the excuse given for censorship, it is harmful to a society. It curtails freedom.
Certain behaviors — among them theft, murder, slavery, rape, censorship — are not acceptable, regardless of the explanation.
Free and open debate must be had in every field and unceasingly. Seldom is anything actually “settled,” seldom is there actually “consensus.” Such terms are inherently deceitful. To make such claims, one would need to obtain a list of all scientists (no such list could ever possibly exist) and to poll them all on a topic (a poll that would not possibly be answered).
To be unwilling to have a debate is the height of arrogance. In academic settings, seldom is anyone able to win a debate, but unwilling to have a debate. Unwillingness to debate almost always stems from an inability to prove a point.
Therefore, the months since the Ides of March 2020 have been filled with censorship. People unable to win a debate did their best to silence
all debate and labelled their opponents “dangerous,” “misinformed,”
or “wrong.”
Such behavior effectively proves how wrong the views they possess are. It is bullying behavior. Bullies do not bully because it is just. Bullies bully because they are too insecure to win at a fair match.
American society was bullied for a time. Free people were silenced. That period is rapidly coming to end and it is looking increasingly likely, as this book goes to press, that there are bullies from 2020 and 2021 who will be relieved from duty and will see the inside of a jail cell.
No less would be demanded by the tree of liberty.
Every single time someone avoids debate, you should ask yourself “What are they so insecure about?”
Every single time someone seeks to censor another, you should
ask yourself, no matter what excuse they give “What are they so
insecure about?”
The answer is almost always: YOU.
They do not want to silence the speaker as much as they want to cover YOUR ears.
They do not want to end conversation as much as they want to stop you from hearing the conversation.
Because once you hear the “wrong” conversation, once you get the “wrong” ideas in your head, they know they will not be able to get them out of your head.
The more you hear the conversations, the more likely it is that their hold over you, their false authority over you, disintergrates.
The only way that they can control you is by keeping you ignorant.
Censorship has nothing to do with Julian Assange, Donald Trump, or Robert Kennedy. Censorship has everything to do with you.
They need you to never read the things you are reading in this book. They need you never to share these ideas with others. They need you to never act on them.
Because if you do, their days are numbered.
I turn on the television and I hear the most ridiculous ideas, as if I live in clown world. I speak to normal people who refuse to wear a mask and not a one believes the ideas on the television. I even talk to abnormal, obediently masked people and if they will let their guard down for a bit, it becomes clear that they do not believe it either.
But they are scared. Terrified. So full of fear about what it means for the narrative to be wrong.
So they hold firm, certain that one day it all crumbles, doubling down, tripling down, hoping today is not the day. Praying to their dark lord to give them one more day.
The day of reckoning is coming.
You are mighty. There are too many cracks. The truth is flooding out every which way. The narrative cannot be maintained.
It is coming.
Every day it becomes more and more clear.
Every day since very early 2020, it has become more and more clear.
This was their last stand and they are getting so much mileage out of it. But, do not think that it is done.
There is so much fight ahead, and they know if they give up it may not be so pretty for them this time around.
Every time I see someone try to censor another person, all of this goes through my head in the moment between me seeing the weak attempt and me laughing a laugh of victory over such a fear filled, miserable person seeking to silence a free man in a free land.
How good that laugh feels.
Jenin Younes recounts for the American Institute for Economic Research a most exciting tale of censorship and deceit watched by many over the course of 2020:
“The speed with which mask-wearing among the general public transitioned from unheard of to a moral necessity struck me as suspicious. After all, if the science was as airtight as those around me claimed, surely masks would have been recommended by January or February, not to mention during prior infectious disease outbreaks such as the 2009 swine flu. It seemed unlikely that the scientific proof became incontrovertible sometime between late February and late March, particularly in the absence of any new evidence surfacing during that time period.1
“Perhaps none of this is particularly surprising in this hyper-political era. What is shocking is the scientific community’s participation in subverting evidence that does not comport with the consensus. A prime example is the Institute of Health Metrics Evaluation’s (“IHME”) rather astounding claim,2 published in the journal Nature-Medicine and echoed3 in countless articles4 afterward, that the lives of 130,000 people could be saved with a nationwide mask mandate.”
When that “science” was demonstrably debunked, no retraction occurred, instead the lie was allowed to be repeated over and again with little protest from its original editors. Younes continues with a story of outlandish and public intellectual dishonesty from figures who present themselves as upright scholars.
“As my colleague Phil Magness pointed out5 in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, the IHME model was predicated upon faulty data: it assumed that 49% of Americans were wearing masks based on a survey conducted between April and June, while claiming that statistic represented the number of Americans wearing masks as of September 21. In fact, by the summer, around 80% of Americans were regularly wearing them. (Ironically, had Dr. Fauci and the Surgeon General not bungled the message in March, mask use probably would have reached much higher rates much earlier on).
“This called into question the accuracy of the 130,000 figure, since many more people habitually used masks than the study presumed.
“Although Magness contacted Nature-Medicine to point out the problem, after stalling for nearly two weeks, the journal declined to address it. Needless to say, the damage had been done: newspapers such as The New York Times undoubtedly would fail to correct the error and any retractions certainly would be placed far from the front page, where the initial article touting the IHME figure appeared. Thus, as expected, the unfounded claim that 130,000 lives could be saved with a nationwide mask-mandate continues to be repeated, including by president-elect6 Joe Biden7 and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins.
“That the science behind mask-wearing is questionable at best is further exemplified by a letter8 to the editor written in response to Magness’s article. Dr. Christopher Murray acknowledged that rates of mask-wearing have steadily increased, but then concluded that masks should be used because they are ‘our first line of defense against the pandemic’ and current IHME modeling indicates that ‘if 95% of US residents were to wear masks when leaving home, we could prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans’ because ‘masks work,’ and ‘much deeper pain is ahead if we refuse to wear them.’
“None of this accounts for the failure of either Nature-Medicine or the IHME modelers to recognize and correct the error. Moreover, neither the IHME modelers nor Dr. Murray provide any evidence that masks work. They assume masks are extremely effective at preventing spread of the coronavirus, and then claim that the model is correct for that reason. This sort of circular reasoning is all-too typical of those who so vociferously insist that masks are effective without going to the trouble of substantiating that contention — or differentiating what is likely a modest benefit from mask-wearing in specific indoor locations and around high-risk individuals from the media-driven tendency to depict masks as a silver bullet for stopping the virus in all circumstances.”
Younes aptly sums up this demonstration of scientism as the opposite of science. Younes concludes:
“This is not science: it is politics, and those within the profession who have refused to examine their confirmation biases, or manipulated the evidence to score political points, are utterly unqualified for the job.”
This insightful commentary from Younes quite appropriately begs the question “If they are unqualified for their jobs, then why do they have those jobs?” Many must be removed from positions of trust and punished for their behavior since the Ides of March 2020. I would like to encourage you, dear reader, to take it a step beyond that, however.
These are not jobs in the traditional sense. These are not people hired to perform a task. It goes beyond that. They are hired to manipulate public opinion from their roles in positions of public trust. They are marketers disguised as scientists, salesmen disguised as doctors, politicians disguised as researchers. They are acting outside of the bounds of ethical behavior and are tasked with lying to the public, perpetrating a great fraud with every sentence that come from their mouths. Yes, some people should lose their jobs.
This points to a larger problem, however. A massive managerial class presides over society. It is so large as to be stultifying. Everywhere one turns, there is that managerial class making life more difficult. It goes beyond party lines. Within the United States, the American uniparty favors the expansion of the managerial class. Internationally, the party of Davos favors the expansion of the managerial class.
The managerial class has lost its sense of duty to the people that class once claimed to serve. They are not able to be called public servants any longer, except in the most deceitful applications of that term. It is not a few hundred or a few thousand deceitful people in positions of trust who must be removed, it is an entire way of viewing society that must be done away with.
A very top heavy managerial class exists to make work for themselves, create purpose for themselves, and to expand authority for themselves all the while doing so with no overarching moral or ethical guidance and at great cost to all other people walking the earth. They even make life more miserable for themselves as individuals, with the exception of a very small few within the managerial class who are well insulated from the inconveniences of life.
We have finally reached the height of bureaucracy long warned of by modern thinkers, a system in which no one is accountable and in which no one is empowered to stop missteps of the system. It merely perpetuates itself unchecked. Younes is right. Such people are unqualified for their jobs. More importantly, the system of bureaucratic rule by a managerial class is unfit for the tasks we have assigned it. “Firing” means to keep the job, but to switch the person in the job. A more precise term developed by members of the managerial class is more befitting in this scenario — “lay off” — because it refers to getting rid of both the person and the job.
Evidenced by the atrocities from the Ides of March 2020 to the present, it is not so much that individual people need to be fired, but that a whole industry needs to be laid off. Our managerial class, our technocratic class, our bureaucratic class have to go. They were once a minor annoyance but have now become a hazard to life and liberty, perhaps a hazard to life and liberty worse than any that humanity has ever known.
Younes, J. The Strangely Unscientific Masking of America. American Institute for Economic Research. 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.aier.org/article/the-strangely-unscientific-masking-of-america/
IHME COVID-19 Forecasting Team. Modeling COVID-19 scenarios for the United States. Nat Med 27, 94–105 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1132-9
Collins, F. Dr. Face Coverings Could Save 130,000 American Lives from COVID-19 by March. NIH Director's Blog. 2020. Retrieved from: ps://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/11/03/face-coverings-could-save-130000-american-lives-by-march/
Mandavilli, A. The Price for Not Wearing Masks: Perhaps 130,000 Lives. The New York Times. 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/health/covid-deaths.html
Magness, P.W. Case for Mask Mandate Rests on Bad Data. WSJ Opinion. Retrieved from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/case-for-mask-mandate-rests-on-bad-data-11605113310?mod=article_inline
As of the time of this writing, the November 3, 2020 election remains a contested election with illegitimate results rooted in the same lack of reliance in reason and evidence. Just as scientism, rather than science, brought us the Covid-19 catastrophe and the anti-scientific fallout, scientism, rather than science, has brought us November 3, 2020, and the anti-scientific fallout. In both scenarios, a rigorous intimacy with the numbers has been ignored in favor of a narrative. The results of such behavior in a free society have been catastrophic.
Acyn @Acyn. President-elect reacts to Scott Atlas. Twitter. 2020. Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1328438607770599425
WSJ Opinion. Masks Aren’t Perfect but Help in Proper Use. Retrieved from: Masks Aren’t Perfect but Help in Proper Use.
The bestselling book "Face Masks In One Lesson" by Allan Stevo describes how to never wear a face mask again. The follow-up to the book, "Face Masks Hurt Kids," describes why to never wear a face mask again. We must defeat the awful, narrative around the mandates.
Examples of how face masks hurt kids will be posted to the Lockdown Land Substack each morning by 6am Eastern until the narrative around this ineffective and harmful medical intervention has shifted. Face masks are, in fact, not just harmful to children. Face masks are harmful to everyone. Thank you so much for helping me circulate this research.
This is strong writing and my favorite piece I've read from you. It exposes solid thinking. Today's marketplace is so sensationalized that there is a deficit of well thought out pieces with good argumentation. Everybody wants to jump the tracks and play in the buttercups.