Category Archives: Censorship

Children’s Health Defense: U.S. Government Illegally Pressured Facebook to Censor CHD Website, Social Media Content, Lawsuit Alleges

By Children’s Health Defense

Children’s Health Defense has made significant progress in the case against Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg since the last court filing, and looks forward to its next court date, May 5.

In August 2020, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit against Facebook, Mark Zuckerbergand two of Facebook’s “fact checkers.” The lawsuit asserts claims of illegal censorship in violation of the First Amendment, illegal “taking” in violation of the Fifth Amendment and corporate fraud in violation of federal law — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and Lanham Acts.

On Nov.13, 2020, CHD filed a 150-page first amended complaint in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, detailing factual allegations regarding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CDC Foundation and World Health Organization’s (WHO) extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg.

CHD has made significant progress in the case against Facebook and Zuckerberg since the last court filing — including filing a second amended complaint on Dec.15, 2020, which contained considerable factual amplification of the allegations set forth in our initial filings.

As set forth in the second amended complaint, CHD believes children are being exposed to health and life-threatening injuries by the multi-billion-dollar vaccine industry and that 5G technology, promoted by behemoth internet interests, poses similarly severe risks.

To alert the public to these serious potential dangers, CHD posts links to articles in reputable scientific journals, and publishes opinions expressed by doctors, scientists and others, including CHD Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. This material is constitutionally protected speech on matters of serious public concern.

As alleged in our second amended complaint, since early 2019, Facebook and Zuckerberg have engaged in a deliberate, systematic effort to degrade and destroy CHD by fraudulently branding our Facebook content as false, directing users to competitors’ sites and preventing Facebook users from donating to CHD.

The complaint specifically identifies 15 instances of defendants falsely labeling CHD content as inaccurate.

The complaint also sets out in detail the reason behind the defendants’ animus against CHD: CHD is a nonprofit organization dedicated to warning the public about the potential risks of certain vaccines and technologies in which the defendants have immense financial interests and investments.

The complaint also outlines how federal actors and agencies encouraged and pressured defendants to engage in their censorship scheme against CHD and jointly participated in that scheme.

The resulting threat to free speech is especially serious because government agents have in essence “deputized” Facebook to do what the government itself is constitutionally forbidden to do.

As the latest complaint details, the defendants were pressured by a prominent Congressman to suppress so-called vaccine “misinformation” — incredibly defined to include content that “casts doubt on the safety or efficacy of vaccines.”

The complaint also alleges that in censoring CHD, the defendants acted with the joint participation of the CDC — a federal agency — and its proxy, the World Health Organization, with which Facebook partnered to create its “fact-checking” protocol.

As a consequence, and as CHD has consistently argued, Facebook and Zuckerberg were not acting merely as private parties, but were functioning as government actors — and thus are subject to the First Amendment’s strictures against government censorship.

As anticipated in this hard-fought litigation, on Dec. 21, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Facebook apparently seeks special dispensation, not available to other parties, to dismiss CHD’s allegations of government joint action and of Facebook’s responsibility for its “fact-checks” because Facebook claims that it isn’t working with the government or with these same “fact-checkers.”

Facebook also claims that its “fact-checks” aren’t statements of fact at all, but merely protected “opinions,” and that Facebook is merely labelling CHD’s content as “potentially” misleading.

CHD is confident the district court will see through these arguments and that ultimately CHD’s rights will be vindicated. Toward this end, CHD vigorously opposed defendants’ motions to dismiss, filing detailed opposition briefs on Feb. 5. These briefs carefully and thoroughly elaborate the legal basis for CHD’s claims and explain why we should be permitted to proceed through the discovery process and on to trial, rather than be dismissed.

On March 8, CHD filed a motion to supplement the second amended complaint, asserting new and additional allegations based on very recent efforts by Facebook to injure and retaliate against CHD.

In CHD’s motion to supplement, CHD asserts that since the filing of the second amended complaint, Facebook and Zuckerberg have engaged in further acts of censorship and retaliation against CHD, and in further acts of joint participation with the federal government to suppress CHD’s constitutionally protected speech.

Among the specific acts that CHD has moved to include as supplemental allegations in the action are:

(1) On Feb. 10, Facebook terminated the Instagram account of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD’s founder and chairman, which at that time had more than 800,000 followers.

(2) In late February, federal actors and Facebook itself publicized significant encouragement to censor vaccine-related information. These statements represent a clear acknowledgement by companies such as Facebook and government sources that federal officials are directly engaged with Silicon Valley in censoring social media users.

(3) On March 5, Facebook published a “warning label” on a third-party user’s Facebook account, which included the message: “Unfollow Children’s Health Defense.” The warning label also implies that CHD is promulgating false and harmful information on its Facebook page; encourages users to visit the WHO’s COVID page for accurate information; and allows users to stop seeing posts from CHD by clicking on an accompanying icon. CHD’s briefs in support of its motion to supplement were filed on March 8 and March 29.

Oral arguments on defendants’ motion to dismiss and CHD’s motion to supplement the second amended complaint are scheduled to be heard by the Court (the Honorable Susan Illston) on May 5.

In what may be an encouraging sign, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in a recent concurrence to the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in another case, indicated a receptivity to the kind of First Amendment argument that CHD is making in the action against Facebook, alleging that when private companies censor based on government pressure, they may be considered state actors.

Referring to digital platforms such as Facebook and others, Justice Thomas remarked on the “unprecedented … concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties.” As a result, he noted, “[w]e will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated privately owned infrastructure such as private platforms.”

After analyzing the possibility that legislative or regulatory action might be taken to limit the platforms’ ability to exclude speakers or engage in viewpoint censorship, Justice Thomas noted that, even in the absence of such legislation, the First Amendment is relevant and “some speech doctrines might still apply in limited circumstances, as this Court has recognized in the past.”

In words that appear to be germane to our First Amendment arguments opposing Facebook’s motion to dismiss, Justice Thomas remarked that “although a private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment, it is if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.”

Examples of the kind of government conduct that could render a private entity subject to the First Amendment could include threats made by the government. As Justice Thomas explains:

“The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital platform if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats.”

Justice Thomas acknowledged in his concurrence, however, that “[w]hat threats would cause a private choice by a digital platform to be ‘deemed … that of the state’ remains unclear,” and the question was not directly presented in the case in which he issued his concurrence.

To what extent Judge Illston may prove receptive to these ideas reflected in CHD’s pleadings and briefs remains to be seen. Stay tuned.

Court Hears CHD’s Arguments Against Facebook, Zuckerberg and ‘Fact Checkers’

Lawyers for Children’s Health Defense await the ruling of Judge Susan Illston after defending CHD’s lawsuit alleging government-sponsored censorship, false disparagement and wire fraud.

By Children’s Health Defense

Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California Wednesday heard arguments for and against the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) lawsuit, which claims that Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and three fact-checking operations censor truthful public health posts and engage in racketeering activities against CHD. 

According to CHD’s complaint, Facebook has insidious conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry and its captive health agencies, and has economic stakes in vaccines, telecom and 5G.

Facebook currently censors CHD’s page, targeting factual information about vaccines, 5G and public health agencies. Facebook-owned Instagram deplatformed CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Feb. 10 without notice or explanation.

This is an important First Amendment case that tests the boundaries of government authority to openly censor unwanted critique of its narrative, attorneys Roger Teich and Jed Rubenfeld argued before the court. Attorneys Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Mary Holland, CHD president, also are lawyers on the legal briefs.

CHD is a nonprofit watchdog group that roots out corruption in federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and exposes wrongdoings in the pharmaceutical and telecom industries.

CHD has been a frequent critic of WiFi and 5G Network safety and of certain vaccine policies that place profits ahead of public health. CHD has fiercely criticized agency corruption at the WHO, CDC and FCC.

Facebook has publicly stated it is assisting efforts of the White House, the CDC and the WHO to censor unwanted speech about vaccines. While earlier court decisions have upheld Facebook’s right to censor user pages, CHD argues that the social media giant’s open collaboration with government makes it a proxy for government censorship, violating the First Amendment.

The government’s role in Facebook’s censorship goes deeper than its close coordination with the CDC and WHO — it began at the suggestion of powerful Democratic Congressman and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who in March 2019, asked Facebook to suppress and purge internet content critical of government vaccine policies.

Facebook, Schiff and many other government officials use the term “misinformation” as a euphemism for any statement, whether truthful or not, that contradicts official government pronouncements.

The WHO issued a press release commending Facebook for coordinating its ongoing censorship campaign with public health officials. That same day, Facebook published a “warning label” on CHD’s page, implying that CHD’s content is inaccurate and directing CHD followers to turn to the CDC for “reliable, up-to-date information.”

CHD’s lawsuit also challenges Facebook use of so-called “independent fact-checkers,” which, in truth, are neither independent nor fact-based, to create oppositional content on CHD’s page, superimposed over CHD’s original content, about matters of heated scientific controversy.

To further silence CHD’s dissent against government policies and the pharmaceutical industry, Facebook deactivated CHD’s donate button and uses a variety of deceptive technologies, including shadow banning, to minimize CHD’s reach and visibility.

In short, the lawsuit contends Facebook and the government collude to silence CHD and its followers. Such tactics violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the American public the free flow of information in the marketplace of ideas.

The First Amendment forbids the government from censoring private speech — particularly speech that criticizes government policies or officials. As Justice Holmes famously said, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

The ongoing COVID crisis makes the need for open and fierce public debate on health issues in our democracy more critical than ever.

Mark Zuckerberg publicly claims social media platforms shouldn’t be “the arbiters of truth.” Yet his acts to suppress critique of government officials and policies belie those pronouncements.

The court will decide whether Facebook’s new government-directed business model of false and misleading “warning labels,” deceptive “fact-checks” and disabling a nonprofit’s donate button passes muster under the First and Fifth Amendments, the Lanham Act and the federal racketeering statute. Those statutes protect CHD against online wire fraud and knowingly false statements disparaging to the organization, while the Constitution protects CHD against government censorship — even through third parties — and from uncompensated taking of its property interests.

“Mainstream media and social media giants are imposing a totalitarian censorship to prevent public health advocates, like myself, from voicing concerns and from engaging in civil informed debate in the public square,” said Kennedy.

Kennedy added:

“They are punishing, shaming, vilifying, gaslighting and abolishing individuals who report their own vaccine injuries. Anyone can see that this is a formula for catastrophe and a coup d’état against the First Amendment, the foundation stone of American democracy.”

CHD awaits Judge Illston’s ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Dr. Mercola deletes all articles about Vitamin D, zinc and covid after being personally threatened

By Ethan Huff (via Natural News)

For the past year, Dr. Joseph Mercola has been teaching his followers how to naturally support their immune systems with vitamin D, zinc and other natural remedies that have been medically proven to optimize wellbeing. He has received so much backlash from the establishment, however, that Dr. Mercola has now decided to delete all associated articles about these protocols for his own protection.

In an announcement, Dr. Mercola explained that one of the last straws was when a Bill Gates-funded “doctor” called on terrorists to personally attack Dr. Mercola for countering the pro-vaccine agenda of Gates and other medical fascists who have raked in obscene profits over the past year pushing masks, jabs and small business closures.

Peter Hotez, president of the Gates-linked Sabin Vaccine Institute, recently put out a report called “Meeting the Challenge of Vaccine Hesitancy” that contains a call-to-action for “cyberwarfare experts” to wage war on people like Dr. Mercola who are teaching people to protect their health naturally and cheaply through nature, rather than unnaturally and expensively through Big Pharma.

“Accurate, targeted counter-messaging from the global health community is important but insufficient, as is public pressure on social-media companies,” Hotez laments in the piece.

“The United Nations and the highest levels of government must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States.”

Hotez’s remark about Russia just goes to show that the vaccine-loving left is still obsessed with the ongoing Russiagate conspiracy theory, which was debunked more than four years ago as manufactured fake news stemming from two-time failed presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton.

Hotez goes on to call for the establishment of a “high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the U.N. secretary-general” that would be used to “assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures.”

Such experts should be well-versed in how to tackle “complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril,” Hotez writes.

“It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counteroffensive.”

Cyberterrorists target Dr. Mercola’s website, threatening to destroy him

Such hysterical fearmongering and radical extremism are nothing new for the medical deep state. What is new is calling on bomb diffusers and counter-terrorists to take up the fight against freedom-loving Americans who object to permanently altering their DNA with the experimental gene therapy injections that they are calling Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) vaccines.

Consequently, Dr. Mercola has already been deplatformed from all the major social media networks. His website was also targeted by left-wing cyberterrorists who launched numerous attacks in an effort to silence him and run his operation straight into the ground.

Despite all this, Dr. Mercola has refused to succumb to these governmental and pharmaceutical thugs and is willing to defend himself in court, if necessary. What he says he cannot endure any longer is the growing threat to both himself and his family, which he says he has “limited ability to defend” against.

“If you can imagine what billionaires and their front groups are capable of, I can assure you they have been creative in deploying their assets to have this content removed,” he writes.

“It is with a heavy heart that I purge my website of valuable information … They’ve moved past censorship. Just what do you call people who advocate counteroffensive attacks by terrorism and cyberwarfare experts? You’d think we could have a debate and be protected under free speech but, no, we’re not allowed. These lunatics are dangerously unhinged.”

Take the time to read Dr. Mercola’s full statement at this link (you will need to enter an email address to access the article).

Sources for this article include:

NaturalNews.com

Articles.Mercola.com

Twitter Isn’t Censoring Accounts to Keep Users ‘Safe’, It Is Using Its Power to Spoon-feed the World Establishment Narratives

By Eva Bartlett (via RT Op-Ed)

It’s one thing to have policies against violence, abuse, and harassment. But in “protecting” users, Twitter is hell-bent on censoring voices that rock the boat, even when all they have tweeted is a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Last week, Simon Goddek, who has a PhD in biotechnology and researches system dynamics, tweeted a link to a scientific study titled, “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?”

Some time later, his account was frozen and he received a notice from Twitter that it would remain frozen until he deleted the offending tweet, and for the 12 hours following that.

In his Telegram group, he wrote:

I was put into Twitter jail for citing a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Cancel science is real.

What’s especially concerning is that I didn’t make any personal comment on the paper’s content. I only said that regarding that paper, masks CAN lead to massive health damages. It’s the conclusion of a scientific piece of work that has been peer-reviewed by at least 2 experts in the field.

According to Twitter, Goddek violated their policy on, “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to Covid-19.”

The article in question wasn’t even as risqué as others and merely addressed undesirable side effects of mask wearing. How is that “misinformation”?

I spoke with Goddek to learn more about what happened. Turns out, it’s not the first time.

The first time I got censored because I cited a scientific, peer-reviewed paper on masks. I was just citing their work, and I got put into Twitter jail. In that tweet, I was saying, ‘Look, it seems masks don’t work.’ So, I also said my opinion.

This time, I found another study on masks, which says there are adverse effects if you wear masks. So, I was citing the paper without putting my own opinion, and they censored me again, made me delete it and put me into Twitter jail again.

On April 17, Naomi Wolf tweeted she had been locked out of Twitter for the fourth time for sharing a Stanford study, “proving the lack of efficacy of masks.” That study was also peer-reviewed.

This isn’t merely a case of Twitter deciding that Goddek and Wolf were not in the position to be discussing the efficacy or dangers of masks. Twitter is censoring pretty much anything about Covid that doesn’t match the narrative promoted by the WHO, CDC, and other such bodies.Zombie Seizures: The Hacking of Twitter

Even a well-known epidemiologist has faced Twitter’s wrath. An article in the American Institute for Economic Research noted:

Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff and co-creator of the Great Barrington Declaration, one of the most cited epidemiologists and infectious -disease experts in the world has been censored by Twitter. His tweet on how not everyone needs a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was not taken down. He had a warning slapped on it and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post.

That article also emphasized:

“Dr. Kulldorff serves on the Covid-19 vaccine safety subgroup that the CDC, NIH, and FDA rely upon for technical expertise on this very subject.”

On April 10, a group called Drs4CovidEthics tweeted:

Not a month on Twitter & we were locked out of our account, forced to delete our pinned tweet. We must self-censor or be banned says Twitter (paraphrasing) We mustn’t contradict official sources. But our letters contradict official sources. With good reason. Which we can’t tweet.

What do they know better than Twitter censors? They’re merely “doctors & scientists from 25+ countries, including heads of ICU, world leading immunologists, experts in public health, drug safety, respiratory illness, GPs, researchers in vaccines, pharmacology, virology, biochemistry…”

I searched for more examples of extreme Twitter censorship and found further censorship of vaccine related information, and one person’s hypothesis on why vaccine talk is so particularly taboo: “$157 billion buys a lot of Facebook and Twitter bans.”

The popular independent website Off Guardian recently was locked out of Twitter for sharing one of its own articles on Covid vaccines, they told me.

In fact, Twitter has been censoring Off Guardian for at least a year. When users try to open a tweet to an Off Guardian article, they are met with a warning that the link could be potentially spammy or unsafe.

The warning continues with a large blue button advising to return to the previous page, and a teeny tiny “continue” on to the article option. Same thing for the independent Canadian website Global Research.

Last year, I tried to tweet an article written by respected journalist F. William Engdahl for New Eastern Outlook (NEO). Twitter wouldn’t allow me to even tweet it, instead giving me an error message about the link being “potentially harmful.”

And it’s not only matters of Covid. Just now, I tried to tweet another NEO article, not related to Covid, and was again met with the same message.

A Twitter account focusing on the propaganda around Xinjiang had his account suspended.

And when the New York Post wrote exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails, Twitter locked the Post’s account.

Which makes it all the more clear this isn’t about “facts” or “safety” but blatant censorship.

Whether or not you agree with a point or comment being made by one of the people censored by Twitter, we should be allowed to access their perspective, research for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. We don’t need Twitter to hold our hands and spoon-feed us establishment narratives.

Twitter’s “rules” page reads:

Twitter’s purpose is to serve the public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

If you believe that, as the saying goes, I have a bridge to sell you.

Twitter Censors Peer Reviewed Mask Study

By Dr. Joseph Mercola (via Mercola)

Prashant Bhushan, an advocate-on-record for the Supreme Court of India, put a post on Twitter that recommended reading a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that masks are ineffective and can cause substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects.

Twitter removed the tweet, citing a violation of Twitter rules.

The study suggests that by mechanically restricting breathing, wearing a face mask may lead to a low level of oxygen in the blood (hypoxemia) along with excessive carbon dioxide in your bloodstream (hypercapnia), which in turn may lead to numerous long-term health effects

YouTube also removed a video that featured a scientific roundtable on COVID, because a Harvard professor warned that children should not wear face masks

A legal cause has been launched in the U.K., calling for schools to stop requiring children to wear masks in school, due to their harm to psychological health and development

In Weilheim, Germany, a district court concluded that the mask requirement in schools is unconstitutional and void, immediately removing the order on school premises

*

March 26, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) tweeted a post against the use of masks for the general public: “If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask. When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly.”1

About one year later, Twitter is now censoring tweets that call facemasks for COVID-19 into question, citing a violation of Twitter rules.2 In the span of less than one year, how did we go from public health officials advising against masks to them now being considered infallible and not up for debate?

“Given that masking of healthy populations for long periods of time is a new policy, it is astounding that the media and scientific journals decided within a matter of months that the efficacy of the practice could not be questioned or studied, nor its adverse effects discussed,” Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director for the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) noted.3

The latest to be silenced was Prashant Bhushan, an advocate-on-record for the Supreme Court of India, a respected human rights attorney with 2.1 million Twitter followers.

Prior to its censoring, his tweet recommended reading a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Medical Hypotheses,4 which demonstrates that masks not only are ineffective for blocking the transmission of infectious disease but also that they can cause substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects.5

It’s alarming to say, but as noted by The COVID Blog, “Twenty-something Twitter employees with Starbucks lattes are now the authorities in law and science versus respected, long-time attorneys who have fought corruption their entire lives.”6

What Does the Censored Mask Study Say?

The study, written by Baruch Vainshelboim with Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, summarizes scientific evidence on wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era. Four hypotheses are given, with ample scientific support to back them up:7

  1. The practice of wearing facemasks has compromised safety and efficacy profile
  2. Both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to reduce human-to-human transmission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19
  3. Wearing facemasks has adverse physiological and psychological effects
  4. Long-term consequences of wearing facemasks on health are detrimental

“Interestingly, 99% of the detected cases with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or have mild condition, which contradicts with the virus name (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2),” Vainshelboim notes, pointing out that the initial infection fatality rate of 2.9% was an overestimation based on limited COVID-19 tests that inflated the rate.

“This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, ‘the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza,’ having a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%,” he added.8 As for the efficacy of face masks, SARS-CoV-2, which is about 1,000 times smaller than face masks’ thread diameter, can easily pass through a mask.

A meta-analysis of 39 studies also found “possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness” in community settings.9

Physiological and Psychological Effects of Masks

By mechanically restricting breathing, wearing a face mask may lead to a low level of oxygen in the blood (hypoxemia) along with excessive carbon dioxide in your bloodstream (hypercapnia).

In turn, Vainshelboim wrote, “Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as result of using face mask can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions.” In addition, wearing a face mask could lead to the following physiological effects:10

  • Hypoxemia
  • Hypercapnia
  • Shortness of breath
  • Increase lactate concentration
  • Decline in pH levels
  • Acidosis
  • Toxicity
  • Inflammation
  • Self-contamination
  • Increase in stress hormones level (adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol)
  • Increased muscle tension
  • Immunosuppression

Psychological effects were also noted, which include:11

  • Activation of “fight or flight” stress response
  • Chronic stress condition
  • Fear
  • Mood disturbances
  • Insomnia
  • Fatigue
  • Compromised cognitive performance

Long-term health consequences are also likely, including:12

  • Increased predisposition for viral and infection illnesses
  • Headaches
  • Anxiety
  • Depression
  • High blood pressure
  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Cancer
  • Diabetes
  • Alzheimer’s disease
  • Exacerbation of existing conditions and diseases
  • Accelerated aging process
  • Health deterioration
  • Premature mortality

Breathing through mask materials, and rebreathing the same air, also poses a high likelihood of self-contamination that could have the end result of suppressing the immune system. Vainshelboim explained:13

“In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germs components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly rebreathed back into the body, causing self-contamination.

Breathing through facemasks also increases temperature and humidity in the space between the mouth and the mask, resulting in a release of toxic particles from the mask’s materials.

A systematic literature review estimated that aerosol contamination levels of facemasks include 13 to 202,549 different viruses.14Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression.”

Are Masks Just Virtue Signaling?

In May 2020, a group of doctors and researchers wrote in a perspective piece published in the New England Journal of Medicine that masks offer little protection outside of health care facilities, except to calm people’s nerves:15

“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” they wrote, and went on to describe masks as playing a “symbolic role” as “talismans” to increase the perception of safety, even though “such reactions may not be strictly logical.” “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,” they add.

Since then, masks have indeed taken on a symbolic role, one that presents an outward visible sign that you’re obeying COVID protocols and are acting as a “moral” COVID citizen. AIER pointed out that this mask orthodoxy is part of what’s driving the rampant censorship online, including by YouTube.

“YouTube has taken it upon itself to censor the opinions of esteemed scientists that depart from the orthodoxy on masks. This is not surprising given that masks have become dogma – a visible symbol of compliance and fealty to the medical/political agenda that elevates the coronavirus above all else,” Tucker wrote.16

Calls for Children to Stop Wearing Masks

YouTube removed an AIER video that featured a scientific roundtable on COVID. In the video, Harvard professor Martin Kulldorff commented,

“Children should not wear face masks. They don’t need it for their own protection and they don’t need it for protecting other people either.”17

According to YouTube, the video was removed because “it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”18

Kulldorff isn’t the only one who’s calling for children to not be masked. Lucy Johnston, health and social affairs editor with the Sunday Express, asked on Twitter, “Why did Govt not trial use of masks in schools to assess benefits vs risks? Two legal cases now show masks causing both mental & physical harm.”19

One such case was launched in the U.K., with two expert reports speaking out against the use of masks for children. The first, a psychology report,20 states that masks are likely to be causing psychological harm to children and interfering with development.21

“The extent of psychological harm to young people is unknown,” the report states, “due to the unique nature of the ‘social experiment’ currently underway in schools, and in wider society.”22 The second report focused on health, safety and well-being. “Figures illustrate that the risk of death from this disease for this age group is negligible,” the report states, continuing:23

“Hence the introduction of compulsory face covering measures for extended periods of each day in the school, which have potential for a range of long-term health, safety and other harms of as yet unknown quantum, is disproportionate. To introduce these without detailed, thorough and meticulous risk assessment, is potentially reckless.

… The precautionary principle applies especially to children who have little power to oppose decisions made by the adults who hold authority over them and responsibility for them. Those same children will carry the health burden of any errors or omissions for the rest of their lives. 

The face covering measure imposed on these secondary schoolchildren are intended to reduce the risk of them contracting an infectious disease Sars-CoV-2, but the risk to this age group of death or serious illness from contracting the same pathogen is almost nil. Most don’t have any symptoms at all or experience a sniffle, a cold or mild influenza like illness.”

German Town Deems School Mask Requirement Unconstitutional

In Weilheim, Germany, a district court concluded that the mask requirement in schools is unconstitutional and void, immediately removing the order on school premises.24 The ruling was made after experts, including psychology professor Christof Kuhbandner, suggested masks pose a significant risk to children’s mental and physical well-being, and could interfere with development by disrupting nonverbal communication.

“Mask mouth,” which increases tooth decay, bad breath and gingivitis, was also cited, as was the ineffectiveness of face masks, with experts stating there is no evidence that face masks reduce the risk of infection from SARS-CoV-2 “at all or even significantly.” Increasingly, people are standing up to the fact that little is known about the long- and short-term risks of masking healthy people.

March 30, 2021, Spain’s central Health Ministry announced a new law, published in the Official State Gazette (BOE),25 that would remove the social distancing component, making masks mandatory in all public spaces, even if no one else is around — including when sunbathing at the beach or swimming in the ocean.26

A number of regional governments immediately suggested that they would defy the initial orders, while the tourism industry also criticized the move,27 forcing the health ministry to reconsider, and showing that standing up for what you believe in continues to make a difference.

Circling back to the featured Medical Hypotheses paper, Vainshelboim is doing just that, even though taking a position against masks today “involves serious professional risk.”

As Tucker wrote, “The paper appears in the midst of an ongoing effort … to normalize and universalize mask wearing, even as many states are repealing their mask mandates with public support. The evidence that doing so has had any effect on the trajectory of the virus is scant at best.”28

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 Twitter March 26, 2020

2, 5, 6 The Covid Blog April 12 2021

3, 16, 17, 18, 28 AIER April 15, 2021

4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 Med Hypotheses. 2021 Jan; 146: 110411

9 Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 24 : M20-3213

14 Risk Anal. 2014 Aug; 34(8): 1423–1434

15 N Engl J Med 2020; 382:e63 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372

19 Twitter, Lucy Johnston April 11, 2021

20, 22 Psychology Report in respect of Civil Proceedings April 9, 2021

21 Express April 11, 2021

23 Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report in respect of Civil Proceedings April 9, 2021

24 Tichys Einblick April 13, 2021

25 BOE March 30, 2021

26, 27 EL PAÍS March 30, 2021