Peer-Reviewed Study ‘Did Not Find Evidence’ Lockdowns Were Effective In Stopping ‘Covid’ Spread – it’s very difficult for lockdowns to stop the spread of something that doesn’t exist except through the illusion of manipulated figures and if you want it to disappear then stop getting tested with a test not testing for the ‘virus’ because you can’t test for something that doesn’t exist and with the PCR test even if it did
Liberals may be able to argue with Fox News or even Republican politicians. But what happens when a peer reviewed study comes out of one of their coveted and prestigious universities in California potentially showing that their collective reaction to Covid may have been completely worthless and, as a result, may have done exceptionally more harm than good?
Along those lines, it seems like a good idea to point out that a new peer reviewed study out of Stanford is questioning the effectiveness of lockdowns and stay-at-home orders (which it calls NPIs, or non-pharmaceutical interventions) to combat Covid-19. The study’s lead author is an associate professor in the Department of Medicine at Stanford.
“The study did not find evidence to support that NPIs were effective in preventing the spread,” according to Outkick, who published the report.
The study, co-authored by Dr. Eran Bendavid, Professor John P.A. Ioannidis, Christopher Oh, and Jay Bhattacharya, studied the effects of NPIs in 10 different countries, including England, France, Germany and Italy.
And, when all was said and done, it concluded that: “In summary, we fail to find strong evidence supporting a role for more restrictive NPIs in the control of COVID in early 2020.”
*** This article has been archived for your research. The original version from David Icke can be found here ***