Alliance for Human Research Protection |
October 26. 2020 |
This post addresses the evidence about the validity of requirements to wear MASKS as a protection against an airborne virus.
1, The lack of supporting science is documented. For example, 5 studies by the National Institutes of Health, from 2004-2020 all found verifiable adverse health effects from wearing a face mask; these include scientifically verified reduction in blood oxygen level:
Cloth Mask Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
2, German Neurologist Warns Against Wearing Facemasks: ‘Oxygen Deprivation Causes Permanent Neurological Damage’ Henna Maria VIA Linda Goudsmit Sott.net October 6, 2020
A transcript of highlights from Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson’s recent video message was translated from German into English by Claudia Stauber.
Original video by Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD is a Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist with a PhD in Pharmacology, with special interest in neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuroregeneration and neuroplasticity. Dr. Griesz-Brisson is the founder and Medical Director of the London Neurology & Pain Clinic. Here is what she has to say about facemasks and their effects on our brains:
“The reinhalation of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation. There are nerve cells for example in the hippocampus that can’t be longer than 3 minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive.
The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, issues in concentration, slowing down of reaction time – reactions of the cognitive system.
However, when you have chronic oxygen deprivation, all of those symptoms disappear, because you get used to it. But your efficiency will remain impaired and the under-supply of oxygen in your brain continues to progress.
We know that neurodegenerative diseases take years to decades to develop. If today you forget your phone number, the breakdown in your brain would have already started 20 or 30 years ago.
While you’re thinking that you have gotten used to wearing your mask and rebreathing your own exhaled air, the degenerative processes in your brain are getting amplified as your oxygen deprivation continues.
The second problem is that the nerve cells in your brain are unable to divide themselves normally. So in case our governments will generously allow as to get rid of the masks and go back to breathing oxygen freely again in a few months, the lost nerve cells will no longer be regenerated. What is gone is gone.
I do not wear a mask, I need my brain to think. I want to have a clear head when I deal with my patients, and not be in a carbon dioxide-induced anaesthesia. There is no unfounded medical exemption from face masks because oxygen deprivation is dangerous for every single brain. It must be the free decision of every human being whether they want to wear a mask that is absolutely ineffective to protect themselves from a virus.
For children and adolescents, masks are an absolute no-no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system and they need a constant interaction with the microbiome of the Earth. Their brain is also incredibly active, as it is has so much to learn. The child’s brain, or the youth’s brain, is thirsting for oxygen. The more metabolically active the organ is, the more oxygen it requires. In children and adolescents every organ is metabolically active. To deprive a child’s or an adolescent’s brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal. Oxygen deficiency inhibits the development of the brain, and the damage that has taken place as a result CANNOT be reversed.
“The child needs the brain to learn, and the brain needs oxygen to function. We don’t need a clinical study for that”
. This is simple, indisputable physiology. Consciously and purposely induced oxygen deficiency is an absolutely deliberate health hazard, and an absolute medical contraindication.
An absolute medical contraindication in medicine means that this drug, this therapy, this method or measure should not be used, and is not allowed to be used. To coerce an entire population to use an absolute medical contraindication by force, there must be definite and serious reasons for this, and the reasons must be presented to competent interdisciplinary and independent bodies to be verified and authorised.
When, in ten years, dementia is going to increase exponentially, and the younger generations couldn’t reach their God-given potential, it won’t help to say “we didn’t need the masks”.
How can a veterinarian, a software distributor, a businessman, an electrical car manufacturer and a physicist decide on matters regarding the health of the entire population? Please, dear colleagues, we all have to wake up.
I know how damaging oxygen deprivation is for the brain, cardiologists know how damaging it is for the heart, pulmonologists know how damaging it is for the lungs. Oxygen deprivation damages every single organ.
Where are our health departments, our health insurance, our medical associations? It would have been their duty to be vehemently against the lockdown and to stop it and stop it from the very beginning.
Why do the medical boards issue punishments to doctors who give people exemptions? Does the person or the doctor seriously have to prove that oxygen deprivation harms people? What kind of medicine are our doctors and medical associations representing?
Who is responsible for this crime? The ones who want to enforce it? The ones who let it happen and play along, or the ones who don’t prevent it?
- It’s not about masks, it’s not about viruses, it’s certainly not about your health.
- It is about much much more. I am not participating. I am not afraid. You can notice, they are already taking our air to breathe.
- The imperative of the hour is personal responsibility. We are responsible for what we think, not the media. We are responsible for what we do, not our superiors.
- We are responsible for our health, not the World Health Organisation.
- And we are responsible for what happens in our country, not the government.”
- For weeks, the media and researchers around the world have been waiting with increasing impatience for the publication of a large Danish study on the effect – or lack thereof – of wearing a mask in a public space during the corona pandemic.
Danish media reported that researchers who conducted this unique, large scale Danish study are having great difficulty in getting their research results published in a scientific medical journal. The media article in Danish [Translation of uncertain origin:]
One of the participating study professors acknowledged that the yet to be publicized research results could be perceived as ‘controversial’.
The study was initiated at the end of April, with a grant of DKK 5m [£600,000] from the Salling Foundations [owner of the Salling Group, Denmark’s largest retailer]. It involved as many as 6,000 Danes, half of whom had to wear face masks in public over a long period of time. The other half were selected as the control group. A large proportion of the test participants were employees of the Salling Group’s supermarkets: Bilka, Føtex and Netto.
One of the researchers who was involved in the study said that the completed research results had been rejected by at least three of the world’s leading medical journals.
These include the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of theAmerican Medical Association (JAMA).
“They all said no,” says the Chief Physician in the Research Department at North Zealand Hospital, Professor Christian Torp-Pedersen. “We cannot start discussing what they are dissatisfied with, because in that case we must also explain what the study showed – and we do not want to discuss that until it is published,” explains Christian Torp-Pedersen.
The study and its size are unique, and the purpose was to clarify the extent to which the use of face masks in public spaces provides – or fails to provide — protection against coronavirus infections. One of the co-authors, Henrik Ullum, tweeted yesterday they are “very unhappy”.
4. A short article, Masks: the Question People Should be Asking, by Dr, Niall McCrae and Kevin Corbett, was published on the blog for the Journal of Advanced Nursing. The authors note that during the current coronavirus epidemic, it has suddenly become a social norm to wear a face covering. How did this dramatic transformation arise – is it motivated by science, collective spirit or mere compliance?
5. In an article in Global Research, (posted below) Dr. William Willers, professor emeritus of biology, University of Wisconsin, Dr. Willers sheds light on how science and the scientific journal literature have become so politicized, so controlled, and so in the thrall of profiteering interests, that the result is not merely a betrayal of the public alone, but also a betrayal of science itself. He notes that never before have the words “science” and “expert” been bandied about so carelessly and with so little justification.
The mask had become a powerful tool for behavior modification and social control on grand scale. And to what end?
Dr. Willers highlights the significant, pervasive financial ties of the editors of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the NEJM Group to vaccine stakeholders. Both, Dr. Eric Rubin, the Editor-in-Chief, and Lindsey Baden, the Deputy Editor of the NE J M, who co-authored a blatant, politically-driven editorial, dated October 8, 2020.
The authors: an adjunct professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health, is the Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM, and is the Deputy Editor, who has received grants from the Wellcome Trust ( GSK), the Ragon Institute, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and NIH/NIAID (the latter headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, mainstream media’s highest profile health expert). The reason for the grants, in every case, is “vaccine development”. NEJM Group is a division of the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) that authorizes the same lockdown-related “mask up!” model deriving from the industry-funded World Health Organization (WHO).
The WHO declarations are adopted by state public health agencies such as the CDC, the Massachusetts Medical Society, and its equivalents in states around the world. Government officials rely on the WHO, CDC and state public health officials, who are designated “health experts”, whose draconian edicts inflict devastating restrictive on the populations. Those restrictions are enforced by police.
What Are the Pharmaceutical Industry’s Connections to Schools of Public Health? By Prof. Bill Willers, Global Research, October 20, 2020
Dr. Eric Rubin, an adjunct professor at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, has been Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) since 2019. On October 8, 2020, an editorial in the Journal, “Dying in a Leadership Vacuum”, excoriated the Trump Administration for having mishandled the Covid19 Pandemic, with editors concluding that such leadership should be thrown out of office. Coming shortly before the Presidential election makes the editors de facto campaigners for a Biden Presidency, which is unseemly for a scientific journal, as objectivity and freedom from political involvement is expected for such a designation.
Below editorial text is a link to “Disclosure forms provided by the authors”. Scroll to Section 3 and “Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work”, and see that author and NEJM Deputy Editor Lindsey Baden has received grants from the Wellcome Trust, the Ragon Institute, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and NIH/NIAID (the latter headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, mainstream media’s highest profile health expert). The reason for the grants, in every case, is “vaccine development”.
There is also a link to the NEJM Group that takes one to a site filled with the slick photographic imagery characteristic of medical insurance brochures and the TV ads of the pharmaceutical industry: handsome models, setup scenes, the too-perfect age/gender/race balance, dramatized happy people. Rather than a mission statement, the Group has a “Learn about NEJM Group” page.
The NEJM Group is a division of the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) that authorizes the same lockdown-related “mask up!” model deriving from the industry-funded World Health Organization (WHO) — nearly half a billion $$ from the Gates Foundation plus the vaccine alliance GAVI — its declarations descending to the likes of the MMS, the CDC and their equivalents in states around the world, thence to political figures who rely on officially designated “health experts”, and finally to policing powers that inflict the rules on populations.
This highly organized arrangement advances unabated, thanks to a firmly controlled media insuring that the many countering voices of expert opinion are carefully excised from public awareness (see here, here, here, here, here, here and beyond). It is perhaps material that the MMS Executive Vice President was 24 years Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel with the Tufts Health Plan, as well has having trained at the Executive Leadership Program of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Scan AHIP’s list of member organizations for an indication of the industrial interests — insurance and pharmaceutical — its leaders would be likely to serve.
The NEJM connection to Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health prompts association with Johns Hopkin’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, named after billionaire donor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg certainly invests strategically, as does businessman and fellow billionaire Bill Gates, leading WHO funder-cum-self appointed global health authority and a key figure at the World Economic Forum (WEF). Bloomberg School was one of the three hosts of Event201, the pandemic exercise that presaged the actual Covid19 Pandemic by 20 weeks. That the other two hosts of the Event201 simulation were the Gates Foundation and the WEF begs questions regarding the relationships and common interests of the three. So why aren’t journalists reporting on the many connecting threads?
Here in Wisconsin, public masking has been made mandatory by the Governor. Two health experts on whom he would rely recently proclaimed during televised interviews that public masking is effective in controlling Covid19. The state’s Chief Medical Officer stated that studies in many countries had yielded “hard evidence that risk of transmission goes down dramatically when people wear masks.” A Dean of the UW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health declared that research studies had demonstrated that “universal mask” has been able to “cut in half” the number of predicted Covid19 infections, and that public masking should be accepted as “the new social norm.” Both experts have not only medical degrees, but also academic degrees in public health, one from the Bloomberg School, and the other from the Minnesota School of Public Health.
Understand this: There is actually no science at all to support mandated masking. Requests to both Wisconsin health experts for citations to scientific studies establishing the effectiveness of public masking were answered with opinion pieces rather than controlled trials that would justify invoking “Science!” Between May and July of 2020, the decades and dozens of studies establishing the ineffectiveness of public masking to curb viral transmission were abruptly rendered invalid. Suddenly, all over the world, the word from governmentally authorized health experts was “mask up” to save lives, because “We have the science.” It was, and remains, a patently false claim. The Director of the CDC in September, 2020 told a U.S. Senate committee “We have clear scientific evidence they [masks] work, and they are our best defense.”, and he knew that was false even as he spoke.
If public health is not a valid reason for masks, one is led to conclude that the power of the mask to isolate individuals, and to divide society into warring camps, was perceived early in the Covid19 Pandemic as so potent that enforcement was made a key component in lockdown strategy. The mask had become a powerful tool for behavior modification and social control on grand scale. And to what end?
Both public masking and mass vaccination are advanced within the context of governmental mandate. Reactions to mandated masking demonstrate to governments how best to overcome resistance when the time comes to require vaccination. Already, judgement that enforcement of such a requirement is both legal and moral is being established in the public mind. Meanwhile, massive infusions of money flow to schools of public health from such as the Gates Foundation, which focuses on vaccination of the entire world’s population (e.g., here, here, here), and from the pharmaceutical industry (here, here, here) as it prepares for a future of trillions of dollars in profits.
And while the schools of public health collude with industry in vaccine manufacture and testing, and oppose “vaccine skepticism”, they evidence no willingness to confront valid concerns about potential dangers of vaccines in the face of industry’s disturbing freedom from accountability, and the unexplained connections of the government-industry program known as Operation Warp Speed with elements of the military and U.S. Intelligence. Nor do they deal with the issue of non-immunity-related tracking information that may be inserted during vaccination.
Never before have the words “science” and “expert” been bandied about so carelessly and with so little justification.
Never before has one seen such a careful selection of certain, unanimous “health experts” to showcase for the public, while at the same time there has been a scrupulous censoring of dissenters.
Science so politicized, so controlled, and so in the thrall of profiteering interests, is not merely a betrayal of the public alone, but also of science itself.
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.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof. Bill Willers, Global Research, 202