Coronavirus

The Harm Caused by Masks
A new study suggests that the excess carbon dioxide breathed in by mask-wearers can have major health consequences.

Evidence continues to mount that mask mandates were perhaps the worst public-health intervention in modern American history. While concluding that wearing masks “probably makes little or no difference” in preventing the spread of viruses, a recent Cochrane review also emphasized that “more attention should be paid to describing and quantifying the harms” that may come from wearing masks. A new study from Germany does just that, and it suggests that the excess carbon dioxide breathed in by mask-wearers may have substantial ill-effects on their health—and, in the case of pregnant women, their unborn children’s.

Mask-wearers breathe in greater amounts of air that should have been expelled from their bodies and released out into the open. “ significant rise in carbon dioxide occurring while wearing a mask is scientifically proven in many studies,” write the German authors. “Fresh air has around 0.04% CO2,” they observe, while chronic exposure at CO2 levels of 0.3 percent is “toxic.” How much CO2 do mask-wearers breathe in? The authors write that “masks bear a possible chronic exposure to low level carbon dioxide of 1.41–3.2% CO2 of the inhaled air in reliable human experiments.”

In other words, while eight times the normal level of carbon dioxide is toxic, research suggests that mask-wearers (specifically those who wear masks for more than 5 minutes at a time) are breathing in 35 to 80 times normal levels.

The German study, a scoping review of existing research, aimed “to investigate the toxicological effects of face masks in terms of CO2 rebreathing on developing life, specifically for pregnant women, children, and adolescents.” The latter two groups, of course, have been among those most frequently subjected to mask mandates in schools, despite Covid’s low levels of risk for them and the evidence that masks don’t work.

What can breathing too much carbon dioxide do to you? The authors write that “at levels between 0.05% and 0.5% CO2,” one might experience an “increased heart rate, increased blood pressure and overall increased circulation with the symptoms of headache, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, dizziness, rhinitis, and dry cough.” Rates above 0.5 percent can lead to “reduced cognitive performance, impaired decision-making and reduced speed of cognitive solutions.” Beyond 1 percent, “the harmful effects include respiratory acidosis, metabolic stress, increased blood flow and decreased exercise tolerance.” Again, mask-wearers are likely breathing in CO2 levels between 1.4 percent and 3.2 percent—well above any of these thresholds. What’s more, “Testes metabolism and cell respiration have been shown to be inhibited increasingly by rising levels of CO2.”

So, high blood pressure, reduced thinking ability, respiratory problems, and reproductive concerns are among the many possible results of effectively poisoning oneself by breathing in too much carbon dioxide.

The authors write that “it is clear that carbon dioxide rebreathing, especially when using N95 masks, is above the 0.8% CO2 limit set by the US Navy to reduce the risk of stillbirths and birth defects on submarines with female personnel who may be pregnant.” In other words, mandates have forced pregnant women to wear masks resulting in levels of CO2 inhalation that would be prohibited if they were serving on a Navy submarine.

Indeed, according to the authors, there exists “circumstantial evidence that popular mask use may be related to current observations of a significant rise of 28% to 33% in stillbirths worldwide and a reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance of two full standard deviations in scores in children born during the pandemic.” They cite recent data from Australia, which “shows that lockdown restrictions and other measures (including masks that have been mandatory in Australia), in the absence of high rates of COVID-19 disease, were associated with a significant increase in stillborn births.” Meantime, “no increased risk of stillbirths was observed in Sweden,” which famously defied the public-health cabal and went its own way in setting Covid policies.

As for countries where mask-wearing has long been common, the authors write, “Even before the pandemic, in Asia the stillbirth rates have been significantly higher” than in Europe, Asia, or North Africa.

“It has to be pointed out that this data on the toxicity of carbon dioxide on reproduction has been known for 60 years,” the authors observe. For this reason, they write, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has CO2 threshold limits of 3 percent for 15 minutes and 0.5 percent for eight hours in workplace ambient air. Yet the CDC has been perhaps the primary pusher of masks in the United States.

Nor is increased CO2 intake the only health danger that results from wearing masks. The study focused only on CO2, but the authors note that “other noxious agents in the masks contribute to toxicological long-term effects like the inhalation of synthetic microfibers, carcinogenic compounds and volatile organic compounds.” They add that “the increased carbon dioxide content of the breathing air behind the mask may also lead to a displacement of oxygen.” Masks are also uncomfortable and unhygienic, and they profoundly compromise human social interaction.

In light of all this, it seems indefensible to mandate—or even to advise—the wearing of masks, especially among the young. The authors write, “Keeping in mind the weak antiviral mask efficacy, the general trend of forcing mask mandates even for the vulnerable subgroups is not based on sound scientific evidence and not in line with the obligation in particular to protect born or unborn children from potential harmful influences.”

Public-health officials—and the executive-branch leaders who credulously listened to them—ignored centuries of Western norms, the best medical evidence, and common sense, deciding that their own novel and evidence-free course was the one that all of society should be forced to follow. We should never again indulge such an obvious and destructive misstep.

www.city-journal.org/article/the-harm-caused-by-masks

www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(23)01324-5.pdf

FDA Detects Serious Safety Signal for COVID-19 Vaccination Among Children

Children of certain ages who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine face an elevated risk of heart inflammation, according to a new federally funded study.

Vaccinated children aged 12 to 17 face a heightened risk of myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, and a related condition called pericarditis, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) researchers found.

The number of myocarditis and pericarditis events in that age group met the threshold for a safety signal, the researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association on May 22.

The elevated risk was present within seven days of vaccination, according to the data.

Researchers identified 89 cases among 12- to 15-year-olds and 64 cases among 16- and 17-year-olds after reviewing records from commercial databases run by CVS Health, HealthCore, and Optum.

The claims were made between Dec. 11, 2020, when Pfizer’s vaccine was cleared by the FDA, and mid-2022.

Researchers looked at data to determine whether any of the 20 health problems were experienced at higher rates by the vaccinated. The problems included myocarditis or pericarditis, Bell’s palsy, appendicitis, and stroke.

Only myocarditis or pericarditis met the criteria for a safety signal, which may be related to vaccination.

U.S. officials have already concluded that the conditions are caused by the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, although the vaccines didn’t carry a warning for months after authorization. One possible mechanism is excessive immune responses triggered by lipid nanoparticles. Novavax’s vaccine, authorized in 2022, can also cause the heart conditions, authorities say.

More on Study
Researchers looked at health plan members who received a Pfizer vaccination, excluding those who lost their insurance during a certain window of time, which was 365 days for most outcomes.

Researchers then examined the number of each outcome in a different window of time, referred to as a risk window, which varied from a single day to as long as 42 days after vaccination.

The study then took the rates of problems from each database and compared them with expected rates, which are based on pre-pandemic numbers.

Out of 3 million children who received at least one vaccine dose, 153 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were identified in the 12- to 17-year-old age group. More cases were identified among children aged 5 to 11, but not enough to trigger a signal.

A medical record review of the 37 cases for which records were obtainable confirmed 27 cases as true myocarditis or pericarditis.

None of the other 19 outcomes examined met the signal criteria, according to researchers.

“These results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population,” the researchers said.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist, disagreed.

“My concern is that these data represent a gross under-reporting of the frequency and severity of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis,” McCullough, who has called for the withdrawal of the Pfizer vaccine, told The Epoch Times via email.

Since the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged in mid-2021 concerns that the vaccines might cause heart inflammation, “there have been [more than] 200 papers in the peer-reviewed literature and over 100 fatal documented cases largely among young men, peak ages 18–24 years, some with autopsy proven COVID-19 vaccine heart inflammation resulting in death,” according to McCullough.

That includes five people who suddenly died in Germany and six people who perished in the Nordic countries.

Steven Anderson, the FDA official listed as the study’s corresponding author, didn’t respond to a request for comment. His co-authors included researchers with Acumen, Optum, HealthCore, CVS, and IQVIA, with multiple members reporting connections with Pfizer. The time period included when the old Pfizer vaccine, which is no longer available in the United States, was used.

‘Pretty Ludicrous’

Norman Fenton, emeritus professor of risk at the Queen Mary University of London, said the researchers’ safety claim doesn’t hold up in light of the facts that the study shows a signal for myocarditis and pericarditis and that children are unlikely to benefit from the COVID-19 vaccines.

“The conclusion that ‘these results provide additional evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are safe in children’ is pretty ludicrous,” Fenton told The Epoch Times in an email.

The researchers also failed to take into account what’s known as the healthy vaccine bias; previous research has found that people who decide to get vaccinated tend to be healthier than those who don’t.

“They are comparing a highly select group of child and adolescent insured vaccine recipients to a historical baseline population consisting of everyone in the relevant age group who were insured,” Hebrew University lecturer Josh Guetzkow said.

Experts also said the risk windows appeared short, as post-vaccination conditions can sometimes crop up months afterward, and noted that the signal criteria were structured so that some outcomes would need to happen at more than double the rate among the vaccinated to meet them.

The shortest risk window was just one day, for anaphylaxis, or severe allergic shock. Some others were just one week. The rest were 28 days or 42 days.

In their protocol (pdf) for conducting the research, FDA officials said they chose risk windows based on pre-pandemic studies, including one from 2007.

www.theepochtimes.com/fda-detects-serious-safety-signal-for-covid-19-vaccination-among-kids_5288229.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=digitalsub

Every gov't official who pushed, or worse mandated the vax on those who never needed it must be held accountable.

The pages of this thread are fertile with people who suffer a shortage of brain power and went on for pages with it originated in a wet market.

To be fair, Party media crushed anyone who strayed from the assigned/forced belief.

healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-evidence-covid19-vaccination-actor-jamie-foxx-paralyzed-blind-brain-blood-clot/

CLAIM
“Jamie Foxx Left ‘Paralyzed and Blind’ From ‘Blood Clot in His Brain’ After Receiving COVID-19 Vaccine”
VERDICT

DETAILS
Inadequate support: There’s no evidence that actor Jamie Foxx was left paralyzed and blind after taking a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The claim is solely based on unsubstantiated allegations from gossip columnist A.J. Benza.

...

More recently, claims that Foxx was “left ‘paralyzed and blind’ from ‘blood clot in his brain’” due to a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine have spread online, after gossip columnist A.J. Benza made this allegation on the podcast “Ask Dr. Drew” on 30 May 2023, citing an unnamed source. Benza also further claimed that Foxx had been forced to get the COVID-19 vaccine for a film he was working in.

The claim was later picked up by entertainment outlet OK! Magazine and numerous social media users, including COVID-19 vaccine skeptic and cardiologist Aseem Malhotra who tweeted the claim and deleted it shortly afterwards.

However, there’s currently no evidence that Foxx is now paralyzed or blind, or that COVID-19 vaccination were related to his hospitalization. On 9 May 2023, Corinne Foxx posted a video on Instagram showing her and her father in an advertisement for Intel laptops, although it’s unknown when the video was made.

On 12 May 2023, Corinne Foxx wrote in an Instagram story that her father had been “out of the hospital for weeks, recuperating. In fact, he was playing pickleball yesterday!”, as shown by reports from Vanity Fair and The Guardian. To date, Foxx’s family haven’t mentioned COVID-19 vaccines as being related to his medical condition. On 15 May 2023, Fox News announced that Foxx and his daughter would be hosting an upcoming game show “We Are Family”, scheduled to debut in 2024.

"Gossip columnist"