Health Experts Admit Outdoor Mask Wearing Is Ridiculous

After a year of questionable advice on masking, ranging from head-scratching and mildly amusing to outright laughable — such as Spain mandating use of face masks while swimming in the ocean — health experts who counter the prevailing narrative on universal masking are finally getting some airtime in the mainstream media. In an April 22, 2021, article in The New York Times,1 Tara Parker-Pope cites several doctors and virologists who advise against universal mask wearing outdoors. Health Experts Weigh in on Outdoor Mask Wearing Among them is Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech and an expert on viral transmission mechanics, who notes that brief outdoor encounters, such as walking past someone on a sidewalk or hiking trail, present a "very low risk" for transmission. "Viral particles quickly disperse in outdoor air, and the risk of inhaling aerosolized virus from a jogger or passers-by is negligible," Marr told Parker-Pope.2"Even if a person coughs or sneezes outside as you walk by, the odds of you getting a large enough dose of virus to become infected remain low." Similarly, Dr. Muge Cevic, a clinical lecturer of infectious disease and medical virology at the University of St. Andrews School of Medicine in Scotland, is quoted saying:3 "I think it's a bit too much to ask people to put the mask on when they go out for a walk or jogging or cycling. We're in a different stage of the pandemic. I think outdoor masks should not have been mandated at all. It's not where the infection and transmission occurs." Parker-Pope also quotes Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, an infectious diseases physician and medical director of the special pathogens unit at Boston Medical Center:4 "Let me go for my run, maskless … Given how conservative I have been on my opinions all year, this should tell you how low [the] risk is, in general, for outdoors transmission for contact over short periods …" Vaccinated or Not, Masks Don't Work Of course, most all of the doctors quoted in The New York Times article make the claim that vaccination lowers your risk of COVID-19, thus you can be more lenient when around other vaccinated individuals. I've written many articles explaining why this narrative is nonsensical and just flat out wrong. In a nutshell, it makes no sense because all COVID-19 "vaccines" are designed to do is reduce your symptoms if or when you get infected. They are not designed to prevent infection, they do not give you immunity against SARS-CoV-2, and they do not prevent transmission, so you can still spread the virus to others if you get infected. All of this means you present the same "risk" to others whether you're vaccinated or not. And, to be clear, if you have no symptoms of respiratory infection, the health risk you pose to others is virtually nonexistent.5 You simply cannot spread an infection you do not have. The minuscule bits of viral RNA that the PCR test can pick up if run through too many augmentation cycles — thereby rendering a false positive result — are not infectious. You need a whole, and live, virus for that. CDC Grants Special Permission to Fully Vaccinated Despite science being rather clear on these points, at the end of April 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eased its outdoor mask guidelines for vaccinated-only. If you've gotten all of the required doses of the COVID-19 "vaccine," you no longer need to wear a mask outdoors when in small groups or when exercising. Masks are still recommended when in crowded outdoor venues, though, such as sports stadiums. According to another New York Times article:6 "President Biden hailed it as a landmark moment in the pandemic, wearing a mask as he approached the lectern on a warm spring day on the White House grounds — and pointedly keeping it off as he walked back into the White House when he was done. 'Go get the shot. It's never been easier,' Mr. Biden said. 'And once you're fully vaccinated, you can go without a mask when you're outside and away from big crowds.'" Researchers Set the Record Straight Breaking with The New York Times' typical propaganda, Parker-Pope actually goes on to cite research7 published in February 2021 in the Environmental Research journal: "To understand just how low the risk of outdoor transmission is, researchers in Italy used mathematical models to calculate the amount of time it would take for a person to become infected outdoors in Milan. They imagined a grim scenario in which 10% of the population was infected with the coronavirus. Their calculations showed that if a person avoided crowds, it would take, on average, 31.5 days of continuous outdoor exposure to inhale a dose of virus sufficient to transmit infection. 'The results are that this risk is negligible in outdoor air if crowds and direct contact among people are avoided,' said

Health Experts Admit Outdoor Mask Wearing Is Ridiculous

After a year of questionable advice on masking, ranging from head-scratching and mildly amusing to outright laughable — such as Spain mandating use of face masks while swimming in the ocean — health experts who counter the prevailing narrative on universal masking are finally getting some airtime in the mainstream media.

In an April 22, 2021, article in The New York Times,1 Tara Parker-Pope cites several doctors and virologists who advise against universal mask wearing outdoors.

Health Experts Weigh in on Outdoor Mask Wearing

Among them is Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech and an expert on viral transmission mechanics, who notes that brief outdoor encounters, such as walking past someone on a sidewalk or hiking trail, present a "very low risk" for transmission.

"Viral particles quickly disperse in outdoor air, and the risk of inhaling aerosolized virus from a jogger or passers-by is negligible," Marr told Parker-Pope.2"Even if a person coughs or sneezes outside as you walk by, the odds of you getting a large enough dose of virus to become infected remain low."

Similarly, Dr. Muge Cevic, a clinical lecturer of infectious disease and medical virology at the University of St. Andrews School of Medicine in Scotland, is quoted saying:3

"I think it's a bit too much to ask people to put the mask on when they go out for a walk or jogging or cycling. We're in a different stage of the pandemic. I think outdoor masks should not have been mandated at all. It's not where the infection and transmission occurs."

Parker-Pope also quotes Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, an infectious diseases physician and medical director of the special pathogens unit at Boston Medical Center:4

"Let me go for my run, maskless … Given how conservative I have been on my opinions all year, this should tell you how low [the] risk is, in general, for outdoors transmission for contact over short periods …"

Vaccinated or Not, Masks Don't Work

Of course, most all of the doctors quoted in The New York Times article make the claim that vaccination lowers your risk of COVID-19, thus you can be more lenient when around other vaccinated individuals. I've written many articles explaining why this narrative is nonsensical and just flat out wrong.

In a nutshell, it makes no sense because all COVID-19 "vaccines" are designed to do is reduce your symptoms if or when you get infected. They are not designed to prevent infection, they do not give you immunity against SARS-CoV-2, and they do not prevent transmission, so you can still spread the virus to others if you get infected.

All of this means you present the same "risk" to others whether you're vaccinated or not. And, to be clear, if you have no symptoms of respiratory infection, the health risk you pose to others is virtually nonexistent.5 You simply cannot spread an infection you do not have.

The minuscule bits of viral RNA that the PCR test can pick up if run through too many augmentation cycles — thereby rendering a false positive result — are not infectious. You need a whole, and live, virus for that.

CDC Grants Special Permission to Fully Vaccinated

Despite science being rather clear on these points, at the end of April 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eased its outdoor mask guidelines for vaccinated-only.

If you've gotten all of the required doses of the COVID-19 "vaccine," you no longer need to wear a mask outdoors when in small groups or when exercising. Masks are still recommended when in crowded outdoor venues, though, such as sports stadiums. According to another New York Times article:6

"President Biden hailed it as a landmark moment in the pandemic, wearing a mask as he approached the lectern on a warm spring day on the White House grounds — and pointedly keeping it off as he walked back into the White House when he was done. 'Go get the shot. It's never been easier,' Mr. Biden said. 'And once you're fully vaccinated, you can go without a mask when you're outside and away from big crowds.'"

Researchers Set the Record Straight

Breaking with The New York Times' typical propaganda, Parker-Pope actually goes on to cite research7 published in February 2021 in the Environmental Research journal:

"To understand just how low the risk of outdoor transmission is, researchers in Italy used mathematical models to calculate the amount of time it would take for a person to become infected outdoors in Milan.

They imagined a grim scenario in which 10% of the population was infected with the coronavirus. Their calculations showed that if a person avoided crowds, it would take, on average, 31.5 days of continuous outdoor exposure to inhale a dose of virus sufficient to transmit infection.

'The results are that this risk is negligible in outdoor air if crowds and direct contact among people are avoided,' said Daniele Contini, senior author of the study and an aerosol scientist at the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate in Lecce, Italy.

Even as more-infectious virus variants circulate, the physics of viral transmission outdoors haven't changed, and the risk of getting infected outdoors is still low, say virus experts."

Other research8 has shown your odds of transmitting COVID-19 are 18.7 times greater indoors than in an open-air environment. Several investigations looking at SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in air have also come up empty, including air samplings done in various locations in Wuhan,9,10 China, Venice in northern Italy, and Lecce in southern Italy.11 

The Problems We Ignore When Mandating Masks

Aside from all the research demonstrating that mask wearing is an ineffective and largely pointless strategy against respiratory viruses — which I've detailed in several articles, including "More Evidence Masks Don't Work to Prevent COVID-19," "Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good" and "Landmark Study Finds Masks Are Ineffective" — there's the issue of potential adverse effects.

This part of the equation has been roundly ignored since the very beginning, even though there are both environmental drawbacks to universal mask use and individual health hazards, including the following:12

Wearing a face mask increases breathing resistance, and since it makes both inhaling and exhaling more difficult, individuals with pre-existing medical conditions may be at risk of a medical emergency if wearing a face mask.

This includes those with shortness of breath, lung disease, panic attacks, breathing difficulties, chest pain on exertion, cardiovascular disease, fainting spells, claustrophobia, chronic bronchitis, heart problems, asthma, allergies, diabetes, seizures, high blood pressure and those with pacemakers. The impact of wearing a face mask during pregnancy is also wholly unknown.

Face masks can reduce oxygen intake, leading to potentially hazardous oxygen deficiency (hypoxia).

They also cause rapid accumulation of harmful carbon dioxide, which can have significant cognitive and physical impacts. Germany's first registry13,14 recording the effects mask wearing has on children, has identified 24 physical, psychological and behavioral health issues associated with wearing masks. Recorded symptoms include:

"… irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%)."

Of the 25,930 children included in the registry, 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play. Hundreds more experienced "accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness."

Wearing a face mask increases your body temperature and physical stress, which could result in an elevated temperature reading that is not related to infection.

All face masks can cause bacterial and fungal infections in the user as warm, moist air accumulates inside the mask. This is the perfect breeding ground for pathogens. This is why disposable medical masks were designed for short-duration, specific-task use only, after which they are supposed to be discarded.

Medical doctors have warned that bacterial pneumonia, facial rashes, fungal infections on the face,15 "mask mouth" (symptoms of which include bad breath, tooth decay and gum inflammation) and candida mouth infections16 are all on the rise.

A study17,18 published in the February 2021 issue of the journal Cancer Discovery also found that the presence of microbes in your lungs can worsen lung cancer pathogenesis and can contribute to advanced stage lung cancer. The same types of bacteria, primarily Veillonella, Prevotella, and Streptococcus bacteria, can also be cultivated through prolonged mask wearing.19

With extended use, medical masks will begin to break down and release chemicals that are then inhaled. Tiny microfibers are also released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study20 being published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials.

Mask mandates also represent another erosion of freedom, and normalizes the false notion that people are sick unless proven healthy, and that it's acceptable to be forced to cover your face just to go about your daily life, even when you're outdoors.

The public narrative is building prejudice against people who refuse to wear masks or get an experimental vaccine, such that some are now fearful of people who aren't masked or those who choose not to get vaccinated. With societal norms rapidly changing, and an increasingly authoritative environment emerging, it raises the question of whether or not the public will continue to blindly obey, no matter the consequences.

The Only Type of Mask That Is Safe and Effective

To provide any benefit whatsoever, users must be fitted with the right type and size of respirator, and must undergo fit testing by a trained professional. However, N95 respirators, even when fitted properly, will not protect against viral exposures but can adequately protect against larger particles.

Surgical masks, which do not seal to your face, do not filter out anything. They are designed to prevent bacteria from the mouth, nose and face from entering the patient during surgical procedures, and researchers have warned that contaminated surgical masks actually pose an infection risk.21 After just two hours, a significant increase in bacterial load on the mask was observed.

Nonmedical cloth masks are not only ineffective, but also particularly dangerous as they're not engineered for effective purging of exhaled carbon dioxide, making them wholly unsuitable for use.

The only type of mask that is actually safe and effective to wear is the gas mask kind of respirator you'd use to protect yourself against painting fumes, organic vapors, smoke and dust. These respirators are built to filter the air you breathe in, and to get rid of the carbon dioxide and humidity from the air you breathe out, thereby ensuring there's no dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide or reduction in oxygen inside the mask.

Where Are the Data Supporting Mask Mandates?

While there are a lot of data and science showing that masks are ineffective against viral transmission and that mandates do nothing to protect public health, government spokespeople simply continue spouting the propaganda narrative that mask wearing saves lives. "Listen to the experts; follow the science," they say. Yet they have yet to produce a single credible piece of scientific support for universal mask wearing.

Where are the data showing that masks work? Where are the data showing it lowers infection and hospitalization rates? Where is the evidence that mask mandates have had any positive influence at all on the COVID-19 pandemic during these past 14 months? We ought to have a mountain of data to support it by now.

I suspect the reason we don't have massive studies filled with global data showing that mask mandates were a breakthrough success is because they either had no impact, or made matters worse. Case in point: "Texas, Mississippi See Lowest COVID Cases in Almost a Year 1 Month After Lifting Mask Mandate," Newsweek reported in an April 6, 2021, article.22

Yes, ironically, despite fears that lifting mask mandates would result in hospitals overflowing with COVID-19 cases, the opposite actually happened. Both Texas and Mississippi are now, four weeks later, reporting their lowest case and COVID-related mortality numbers since May 2020. 

North Dakota Aims to Secure Freedom From Mask Mandates

A special ray of hope shines in North Dakota, where the House of Representatives has approved a bill (H.B.1323) that would actually ban schools, businesses and local governments from making face masks a requirement for service. The bill, which passed 50 to 44 at the end of February 2021, is now being reviewed by the Senate.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jeff Hoverson, characterized the state's mask mandate, imposed in November 2020, as "diabolical silliness."23 He told the Prairie Public Press he'd received "a lot of emails" from constituents opposed to mask mandates, adding:24

"They do not want North Dakota to get sucked into what is becoming obvious. The mask is a part of a larger apparatus of a movement of unelected, wealthy bureaucrats, who are robbing our freedoms and perpetuating lies." 

Yes. That about sums it up.

Source : Mercola More   

What's Your Reaction?

like
0
dislike
0
love
0
funny
0
angry
0
sad
0
wow
0

Next Article

Why I'm Being Censored by Spotify

In April 2021, Spotify removed my Take Control of Your Health podcast, citing their rules about “prohibited content.”1 The takedown notification stated my podcast was in violation of their content policies, which include a prohibition of infringing content, illegal content and hate content, none of which apply, but the entire channel was taken down anyway, without recourse. It’s ironic that, in May 2020, Joe Rogan signed an exclusivity contract with Spotify for his Joe Rogan Experience Podcast, which caused shares of Spotify to jump more than 10%.2 Rogan received $100 million for the deal; however, he said the move away from YouTube was intentional to fight back against their censorship — and particularly YouTube's decision to block differing opinions on COVID-19, as he wanted to interview a variety of doctors and experts about it. Spotify is now doing the same thing. My interviews about coronavirus with Brian Hoyer and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., for instance, were removed in 2020, so it’s clearly not a platform for free expression, nor is it living up to Rogan's expectation of nonbias. Spotify is, in fact, slowly eating away at Rogan’s valuable library that they paid heftily for; as of April 13, 2021, 42 episodes had been quietly removed.3 In the current climate, if you are not compliant about blindly promoting mandatory vaccinations and their safety, you will be silenced. Again, Spotify removed my entire channel, including such “infringing, illegal and hate” related topics as the health benefits of gratitude and benefits of magnesium. Past Arbitration With Spotify Was Useless In the past, my team challenged Spotify in arbitration after they removed a couple of my episodes, including one on the topic of electromagnetic fields (EMFs). They made specific statements about why certain content could be removed, and the episodes did not fall under any of those categories. The judge at arbitration, however, said Spotify’s terms of service allowed them to remove anything, for any reason, so there was nothing we could do. We may have been one of the only ones in history to have challenged Spotify on arbitration, as they’ve since updated their terms of service and changed arbitration so that it must take place in New York. They’ve changed all their policy on this and have continued to blatantly censor content with no explanation other than a vague “violation” of their terms of service. This really has more to do with external forces than anything related to the content itself. Digital dictatorship is escalating, and people are increasingly being conditioned to think it’s not only necessary for “misinformation” to be removed but that it’s the obligation of these essential information carriers to do so. Spotify, a Swedish audio streaming and media services provider, and others like it are essentially monopolies, acting as carriers of information; everything is essentially imported, but it’s not a given that you’ll have access to it all. Instead, these companies can go after any type of information. Whether it’s in written or spoken form like a podcast, it won’t matter if it’s considered to be noncompliant — something that’s important to consider in terms of how this will play out for the freedom of speech. Where Is the ACLU Today? In 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a nonprofit founded in 1920 to act as the nation’s guardian of liberty,4 was adamant that social media giants like Facebook shouldn’t censor speech, even if it’s considered offensive.5 At the time, Facebook had announced a policy to remove misinformation that contributes to violence, but refused to censor all offensive speech. Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, wrote: “Given Facebook’s nearly unparalleled status as a forum for political speech and debate, it should not take down anything but unlawful speech, like incitement to violence. Otherwise, in attempting to apply more amorphous concepts not already defined in law, Facebook will often get it wrong. Given the enormous amount of speech uploaded every day to Facebook’s platform, attempting to filter out “bad” speech is a nearly impossible task. The use of algorithms and other artificial intelligence to try to deal with the volume is only likely to exacerbate the problem. … If Facebook gives itself broader censorship powers, it will inevitably take down important speech and silence already marginalized voices … Facebook has shown us that it does a bad job of moderating “hateful” or “offensive” posts, even when its intentions are good. Facebook will do no better at serving as the arbiter of truth versus misinformation, and we should remain wary of its power to deprioritize certain posts or to moderate content in other ways that fall short of censorship … When it comes to gatekeepers of the modern-day public square, we should hope for commitment to free speech principles.” ACLU has also been ver

Why I'm Being Censored by Spotify

In April 2021, Spotify removed my Take Control of Your Health podcast, citing their rules about “prohibited content.”1 The takedown notification stated my podcast was in violation of their content policies, which include a prohibition of infringing content, illegal content and hate content, none of which apply, but the entire channel was taken down anyway, without recourse.

It’s ironic that, in May 2020, Joe Rogan signed an exclusivity contract with Spotify for his Joe Rogan Experience Podcast, which caused shares of Spotify to jump more than 10%.2 Rogan received $100 million for the deal; however, he said the move away from YouTube was intentional to fight back against their censorship — and particularly YouTube's decision to block differing opinions on COVID-19, as he wanted to interview a variety of doctors and experts about it.

Spotify is now doing the same thing. My interviews about coronavirus with Brian Hoyer and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., for instance, were removed in 2020, so it’s clearly not a platform for free expression, nor is it living up to Rogan's expectation of nonbias. Spotify is, in fact, slowly eating away at Rogan’s valuable library that they paid heftily for; as of April 13, 2021, 42 episodes had been quietly removed.3

In the current climate, if you are not compliant about blindly promoting mandatory vaccinations and their safety, you will be silenced. Again, Spotify removed my entire channel, including such “infringing, illegal and hate” related topics as the health benefits of gratitude and benefits of magnesium.

Past Arbitration With Spotify Was Useless

In the past, my team challenged Spotify in arbitration after they removed a couple of my episodes, including one on the topic of electromagnetic fields (EMFs). They made specific statements about why certain content could be removed, and the episodes did not fall under any of those categories.

The judge at arbitration, however, said Spotify’s terms of service allowed them to remove anything, for any reason, so there was nothing we could do. We may have been one of the only ones in history to have challenged Spotify on arbitration, as they’ve since updated their terms of service and changed arbitration so that it must take place in New York.

They’ve changed all their policy on this and have continued to blatantly censor content with no explanation other than a vague “violation” of their terms of service. This really has more to do with external forces than anything related to the content itself.

Digital dictatorship is escalating, and people are increasingly being conditioned to think it’s not only necessary for “misinformation” to be removed but that it’s the obligation of these essential information carriers to do so.

Spotify, a Swedish audio streaming and media services provider, and others like it are essentially monopolies, acting as carriers of information; everything is essentially imported, but it’s not a given that you’ll have access to it all. Instead, these companies can go after any type of information.

Whether it’s in written or spoken form like a podcast, it won’t matter if it’s considered to be noncompliant — something that’s important to consider in terms of how this will play out for the freedom of speech.

Where Is the ACLU Today?

In 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a nonprofit founded in 1920 to act as the nation’s guardian of liberty,4 was adamant that social media giants like Facebook shouldn’t censor speech, even if it’s considered offensive.5

At the time, Facebook had announced a policy to remove misinformation that contributes to violence, but refused to censor all offensive speech. Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, wrote:

“Given Facebook’s nearly unparalleled status as a forum for political speech and debate, it should not take down anything but unlawful speech, like incitement to violence. Otherwise, in attempting to apply more amorphous concepts not already defined in law, Facebook will often get it wrong.

Given the enormous amount of speech uploaded every day to Facebook’s platform, attempting to filter out “bad” speech is a nearly impossible task. The use of algorithms and other artificial intelligence to try to deal with the volume is only likely to exacerbate the problem.

… If Facebook gives itself broader censorship powers, it will inevitably take down important speech and silence already marginalized voices … Facebook has shown us that it does a bad job of moderating “hateful” or “offensive” posts, even when its intentions are good.

Facebook will do no better at serving as the arbiter of truth versus misinformation, and we should remain wary of its power to deprioritize certain posts or to moderate content in other ways that fall short of censorship … When it comes to gatekeepers of the modern-day public square, we should hope for commitment to free speech principles.”

ACLU has also been very clear in the past that protecting the freedom of speech means protecting all forms of speech, even when it’s offensive to you. “That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone,” ACLU states.6

In 1997, ACLU also argued, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, that the internet is a free-speech zone.7 Traditionally, freedom of speech has been a very progressive issue in terms of civil rights, but today, it seems, ACLU has nothing to say. ACLU’s silence as “noncompliant” voices are removed, one after another, from social media and other online spaces has been deafening.

Now it seems it’s becoming a game that freedom of speech only deserves to be protected when it fits their own ideology, but censorship is great when it doesn’t.

It’s Not About Vitamin D; It’s About Big Pharma and Vaccines

In the summer of 2020, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) — a consumer advocacy group partnered with Bill Gates’ agrichemical PR group, the Cornell Alliance for Science,8 and bankrolled by billionaires with ties to Monsanto, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund and Bloomberg Philanthropies9 — launched a social media campaign to put an end to Mercola.com.

CSPI pressured the FDA to issue me a warning letter to stop writing about nutritional products like vitamin D that can lower your risk of respiratory infections such as COVID-19. But, thanks to the U.S. constitution and the First Amendment, I have every right to speak publicly on matters regarding health, so this is nothing but another attempt to “cancel” me while concealing its own duplicity.

Soon after, two state attorneys general, Letitia James of New York and William Tong of Connecticut, threatened social media companies with legal ramifications if they do not censor a dozen individuals, including yours truly, whom they claimed to be responsible for 65% of “anti-vaccine” content.10

The content that we provide, however, is simply the other side of the story — the one that “official” sources and mainstream media not only refuse to share but social media platforms will ban them for sharing. We provide a counterbalance to the wholly one-sided official narrative.

Australian booksellers, Amazon, Waterstones and Foyles have also been pressured to stop selling “anti-vaccine” and “COVID conspiracy” books, including my latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” or add some sort of warning label to them. Meanwhile, even a seemingly benign tweet stating practical adoption of vitamins C and D in mainstream medicine was listed as an offensive, illegal message and removed:

Vitamins C and D are finally being adopted in the conventional treatment of novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. This fortunate turn of events is likely to save thousands of lives, while keeping health care costs down.

— Dr. Joseph Mercola (@mercola)

I’m not alone, by any means, as censorship of anti-propaganda narratives has ratcheted up to unprecedented levels for many others seeking to uncover the truth. But to be clear, this has nothing to do with vitamin D and vitamin C, and everything to do with vaccines, vaccine passports and making everyone compliant.

It’s one more way of attacking those who are going against the grain — especially if they have a larger platform from which they’re speaking. It’s worth repeating that Event 201 was a coronavirus pandemic exercise held in October 2019 that foreshadowed and “played out” the draconian countermeasures implemented when COVID-19 appeared mere months later.

Curiously enough, a primary focus of that exercise was how to best censor and counteract problematic narratives about the virus, public disagreement with pandemic measures and doubts about vaccine safety.

Who Is the FDA Really Protecting?

CSPI president Dr. Peter Lurie11 — a former FDA associate commissioner12 — has publicly taken credit for the FDA’s action to silence me,13 thereby establishing the potential that CSPI is pulling strings under the new administration through relationships they did not have back in August when they first launched their assault on my free speech.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself does not accept corporate money, it does receive money funneled via a nonprofit foundation — the Reagan-Udall Foundation — which receives money from other nonprofits funded by private interests. The Reagan-Udall Foundation is a nonprofit foundation created by Congress in 2007 to support scientific research that is of interest to the FDA.14

It has received large donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Ellen V. Sigal, Ph.D.,15 who chairs the Reagan-Udall Foundation’s board of directors,16 is also vice president of the Cancer Moonshot program, funded by the Gates Foundation, and she’s on the board of the Parker Institute, which is partnered with Inovio, a Gates-funded company that is currently working on a COVID-19 vaccine.

The vaccine ties run even deeper, including with Sigal’s colleague at the Cancer moonshot Program, who co-invented the HPV vaccine Gardasil, and her son-in-law, New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman, who recently sponsored a bill to make Gardasil mandatory for all school children in New York.

Fight for Free Speech or Lose Everything

Censorship extremism is increasing at a feverish pace. In less than a year, we’ve gone from massively censoring COVID-19 treatment information, the origin of the virus and COVID-19 vaccine information, to censoring election disputes and conservative news networks, to now calling for the censoring of climate information

But remember, speech is the expression of your thoughts. To end free speech is to end the individual, which is the totalitarian end-game. Our top priority must therefore be to defend ALL speech. You simply cannot single out certain speech for elimination. It’s a slippery slope that can only end in one way, and that is in totalitarianism where all freedoms and rights of the individual are taken away.

While there are no easy answers to the situation we now find ourselves in, defending the freedom of speech is part of it, and that includes defending the First Amendment rights of those with whom we disagree. We all need to call on our political representatives to take a firm stand against all censorship.

Freedom of speech would undoubtedly be more easily secured were it not for tech monopolies having the power to eliminate anyone they don’t want to hear from. The good news here is that a decentralized web is in the works, and it’s a major part of the solution.

Source : Mercola More   

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.