Oxford Professor Uses Data To Show Masks Don’t Work Against COVID-19

From the very first mandate to be instituted following the announcement of COVID-19, there has been a lively debate as to the safety advantages of wearing a mask. Although lockdowns are an entirely different topic, Americans continue to be torn over wearing a mask in public. Even with the Biden administration and Dr. Anthony Fauci promoting businesses enforcing mask mandates, there have been several experts and doctors suggesting that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19 like the Democrats think. And while big tech silences anyone speaking out as “misinformation”, University of Oxford Professor Jim Naismith recently spoke on the subject and admitted, using data, that masks are pointless.

Not his own personal opinion, Naismith used the data that was collected from England and Scotland to prove the importance of masks. Back in July, England decided to do away with their mask mandate while Scotland continued to enforce the mandate. But now, after months of research, the data shows that the mask “has made no meaningful difference” when it comes to infection rates.

Although Scotland believed it would help stop the spread of COVID-19 to keep the mask mandate, the graph, which is shown above, proves that their infection rates were similar and in some cases higher than England.

Writing about the findings, Naismith, who is also the Director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, noted, “The ONS survey results on prevalence shows that the Scottish and English approach to masking, although formally different since July, has made no meaningful difference to Delta.” The Professor added, “In both countries very high levels of prevalence have continued for months. Thus the new changes announced are unlikely to have much of an impact if Omicron does indeed spread rapidly.”

The findings presented by Naismith are also shared with the UK government SAGE adviser Dr. Colin Axon, who classified masks to be nothing more than “comfort blankets”.

Meanwhile, in Sweden… pic.twitter.com/AXbAeCz5jy

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 11, 2021

“The small sizes are not easily understood but an imperfect analogy would be to imagine marbles fired at builders’ scaffolding, some might hit a pole and rebound, but obviously most will fly through.”

Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a “vaccine.” According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it’s intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.