• The people believe their Government is telling the truth because most people believe it [Argumentum ad populum] and so 77% of Irish people are eager, active and willing participants in their own social, commercial and economic suicide.
• Another related example [of Argumentum ad populum in action] is the fact that most Irish people believe that current or increased levels of covid restrictions are justified based upon PCR tests run at 45 cycles by the HSE that have a proven false positive rate of 97%. (you can read about that here:
• The Fraudulent advocation of PCR testing as the “Gold-Standard” for testing of Covid-19 and the Fraudulent discrediting of Lateral Flow Tests as inaccurate: FULLY REFERENCED HARD-EVIDENCE: – truth-watch.today)

2: Argumentum ad hominem Definition, refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.

Ad-Hominem attacks within the context of Covid-19 are ubiquitous:

Homework for the reader: consider the definition of argumentum ad hominem and see how it is used in this Daily Mail Article

A Typical Irish Example: rather than debate and counter the arguments of persons (even those with preeminent medical qualifications) that present hard scientific evidence that wearing masks is ineffective in curbing the spread of infectious disease, Government and mainstream media attack their character instead and insinuate that they are crazy by labelling them with pejorative appellations such as “Anti-Masker conspiracy theorist” – a classic ad hominem attack.

Government and mainstream media will not debate or even present the evidence that these people provide so Truth-Watch.Today will present it here to enable the Irish public to see the Ad Hominem trap that Government and MSM have set for them first hand:

American Frontline Doctors (labelled as “anti-maskers”) quote the Medical Literature on face masks (something Dail Eireann refuse to do) right  here

TWT adds some supplemental facts to boot:

What is written in bold text below might as well have been written about the Irish people:

“The New England Journal of Medicine, April 1, 2020 www.NEJM.org It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19”.

And from the Federally funded CDC:

“Masks do not prevent virus respiratory illness. Size matters! Viruses are 50x smaller than bacteria and 1000x smaller than a hair size of bacteria = 5 micrometer (5 μm) size of particles in wood smoke (wildfire): 0.4-0.7 micrometers (0.5 μm) size of virus = 0.1 micrometer (Influenza and SARS-CoV-2) (0.1 μm) comparison: human hair is 100 micrometers (100 μm) (one million micrometers = one meter)

CDC: “Cloth masks do not catch small harmful particles in smoke.”

Source data for the above from American Frontline Doctors: https://archive.vn/gkTB2

And to put things in further perspective we have this next paragraph:

Virus particles are orders of magnitude smaller than smoke particles but masks do not protect from smoke:“Cloth masks will not protect you from wildfire smoke. Cloth masks that are used to slow the spread of COVID-19 by blocking respiratory droplets offer little protection against wildfire smoke. They do not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health”

and

Danish Study proves ineffectiveness of facemasks but Governments around the world are suggesting you wear two of three of them.

3: Argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument.

The Irish Government present the NPHET as the only authority worth consulting on the merits or otherwise of Covid-19 restrictions but never debates professional advice to the contrary from people [whose qualifications far exceed the of members of NPHET] that organised the Great Barrington Declaration. At the time of writing this medical declaration has garnered over 50,000 signatures of medical & public health scientists and Doctors. Are you curious enough dear reader to look at the qualifications against each signature for yourself? The list shows that these are 50,000 people with unassailable qualifications. But the Irish people won’t hear anything from them via government or MSM because the argument in favour of Covid-19 restrictions comes from NPHET whom the Government and Mainstream media have set upon a higher level of authority than the moral and professional integrity of the Barrington Declaration signees. If the Irish public had the chance to weigh the professional advice of these 50,000 against the advice of NPHET there wouldn’t be any mask wearing, social distancing or lockdown.

Consider this: There is no historical precedent for a medical declaration to garner as many supporting signatures of qualified medical professionals as the Great Barrington Declaration and the people that signed to support it jeopardize their very careers in doing so. The reader should meditate upon that truth and its implications….

bold text