If masks worked, they would have issued them to the prisoners and kept them in jail.
If masks worked, they would have issued them to the prisoners and kept them in jail.
It has nothing to do with masks. This is about a corrupt jew trying to seize power for himself, whilst jujuing others.
It has nothing to do with masks. This is about a corrupt jew trying to seize power for himself, whilst jujuing others.
I wish i could find the whole clip. a search didn't do anything.
I wish i could find the whole clip. a search didn't do anything.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?509827-1/dr-fauci-cdc-director-dr-walensky-federal-officials-testify-covid-19-response&vod
If you're NOT vaccinated you should be able to take off your mask. Period. If you bothered to listen to the illegal mandates from Governors and wear one in the first place.
If you're NOT vaccinated you should be able to take off your mask. Period. If you bothered to listen to the illegal mandates from Governors and wear one in the first place.
That's the most obvious part. Look at the Amish population, who do not get vaccinated. Studies show they are consistently healthier and get sick less than vaccinated Americans. The presumption is always this, to wit:
"An emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of ANY OF THE PROVISIONS of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions." --- 16 Am Jur 2D Section 98.
“Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.” -- 16 Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97 Bary v. United States - 273 US 128 “Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary” (You are the Beneficiary of the US Constitution)
Also, “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law” (Demand a Declaratory Judgment) -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
That's the most obvious part. Look at the Amish population, who do not get vaccinated. Studies show they are consistently healthier and get sick less than vaccinated Americans. The presumption is always this, to wit:
***"An emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of ANY OF THE PROVISIONS of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions."*** --- 16 Am Jur 2D Section 98.
*“Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.”* -- 16 Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97 Bary v. United States - 273 US 128 “Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary” (You are the Beneficiary of the US Constitution)
Also, *“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law”* (Demand a Declaratory Judgment) -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
The beliefs of the Amish have served them well.
The beliefs of the Amish have served them well.
Maybe they're on to 'something'. One thing for sure, we need to be united in solidarity like them.
I know my belief is similar [to theirs] in that I belief punching a hole in my skin and injecting a foreign substance into me blood stream violates my conscience and Nature's God. The Amish don't have churches either. No preachers and charlatans. I belief this is the right path. Down to earth stuff in the living room.
Maybe they're on to 'something'. One thing for sure, we need to be united in solidarity like them.
I know my belief is similar [to theirs] in that I belief punching a hole in my skin and injecting a foreign substance into me blood stream violates my conscience and Nature's God. The Amish don't have churches either. No preachers and charlatans. I belief this is the right path. Down to earth stuff in the living room.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/
Abstract
Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.
......."It is not clear however, what the scientific and clinical basis for wearing facemasks as protective strategy, given the fact that facemasks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions [2], [11], [12], [13], [14].
Of note, hyperoxia or oxygen supplementation (breathing air with high partial O2 pressures that above the sea levels) has been well established as therapeutic and curative practice for variety acute and chronic conditions including respiratory complications [11], [15]. It fact, the current standard of care practice for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is breathing 100% oxygen [16], [17], [18]. Although several countries mandated wearing facemask in health care settings and public areas, scientific evidences are lacking supporting their efficacy for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases [2], [14], [19]. Therefore, it has been hypothesized: 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."
"In early publication the WHO stated that “facemasks are not required, as no evidence is available on its usefulness to protect non-sick persons” [14]. In the same publication, the WHO declared that “cloth (e.g. cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance” [14]. Conversely, in later publication the WHO stated that the usage of fabric-made facemasks (Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk) is a general community practice for “preventing the infected wearer transmitting the virus to others and/or to offer protection to the healthy wearer against infection (prevention)” [2]. The same publication further conflicted itself by stating that due to the lower filtration, breathability and overall performance of fabric facemasks, the usage of woven fabric mask such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for infected persons and not for prevention practice in asymptomatic individuals [2]. The Central for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made similar recommendation, stating that only symptomatic persons should consider wearing facemask, while for asymptomatic individuals this practice is not recommended"
Psychological effects of wearing facemasks
Psychologically, wearing facemask fundamentally has negative effects on the wearer and the nearby person. Basic human-to-human connectivity through face expression is compromised and self-identity is somewhat eliminated [47], [48], [49]. These dehumanizing movements partially delete the uniqueness and individuality of person who wearing the facemask as well as the connected person [49]. Social connections and relationships are basic human needs, which innately inherited in all people, whereas reduced human-to-human connections are associated with poor mental and physical health [50], [51]. Despite escalation in technology and globalization that would presumably foster social connections, scientific findings show that people are becoming increasingly more socially isolated, and the prevalence of loneliness is increasing in last few decades [50], [52]. Poor social connections are closely related to isolation and loneliness, considered significant health related risk factors"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/
Abstract
Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.
......."It is not clear however, what the scientific and clinical basis for wearing facemasks as protective strategy, given the fact that facemasks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions [2], [11], [12], [13], [14].
Of note, hyperoxia or oxygen supplementation (breathing air with high partial O2 pressures that above the sea levels) has been well established as therapeutic and curative practice for variety acute and chronic conditions including respiratory complications [11], [15]. It fact, the current standard of care practice for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is breathing 100% oxygen [16], [17], [18]. Although several countries mandated wearing facemask in health care settings and public areas, scientific evidences are lacking supporting their efficacy for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases [2], [14], [19]. Therefore, it has been hypothesized: 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."
"In early publication the WHO stated that “facemasks are not required, as no evidence is available on its usefulness to protect non-sick persons” [14]. In the same publication, the WHO declared that “cloth (e.g. cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance” [14]. Conversely, in later publication the WHO stated that the usage of fabric-made facemasks (Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk) is a general community practice for “preventing the infected wearer transmitting the virus to others and/or to offer protection to the healthy wearer against infection (prevention)” [2]. The same publication further conflicted itself by stating that due to the lower filtration, breathability and overall performance of fabric facemasks, the usage of woven fabric mask such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for infected persons and not for prevention practice in asymptomatic individuals [2]. The Central for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made similar recommendation, stating that only symptomatic persons should consider wearing facemask, while for asymptomatic individuals this practice is not recommended"
Psychological effects of wearing facemasks
Psychologically, wearing facemask fundamentally has negative effects on the wearer and the nearby person. Basic human-to-human connectivity through face expression is compromised and self-identity is somewhat eliminated [47], [48], [49]. These dehumanizing movements partially delete the uniqueness and individuality of person who wearing the facemask as well as the connected person [49]. Social connections and relationships are basic human needs, which innately inherited in all people, whereas reduced human-to-human connections are associated with poor mental and physical health [50], [51]. Despite escalation in technology and globalization that would presumably foster social connections, scientific findings show that people are becoming increasingly more socially isolated, and the prevalence of loneliness is increasing in last few decades [50], [52]. Poor social connections are closely related to isolation and loneliness, considered significant health related risk factors"
Thanks. there may be 'nuggets' of good information here. I'll have to go to the sources provided though. The reason I say 'nuggets' of good information is that the NIH 'conveniently' labels all of the information as a "A health hypothesis". It is used to discredit the studies. Isn't it amazing how that works? A total of 67 sources labeled as a "hypothesis" and POOF! it is already discredited. It's all a hypothesis, dunchuno?
Thanks. there may be 'nuggets' of good information here. I'll have to go to the sources provided though. The reason I say 'nuggets' of good information is that the NIH 'conveniently' labels all of the information as a "A health hypothesis". It is used to discredit the studies. Isn't it amazing how that works? A total of 67 sources labeled as a "hypothesis" and POOF! it is already discredited. It's all a hypothesis, dunchuno?
Great paper. Thanks for digging it out.
Great paper. Thanks for digging it out.
This Fauci is a snake. He previously was opposed to face masks. He insists masks are effective when the predominance of studies say otherwise. Furthermore, face masks has long been recognized as a health hazard. The erasing of pre-2020 OSHA studies and regulations cannot be erased.
Confined Space Standard, 29 CFR 1910.146, since 1993. To wit:
Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of the Respiratory Protection Standard considers any atmosphere with an oxygen level below 19.5 percent to be oxygen-deficient and immediately dangerous to life or health. To ensure that employees have a reliable source of air with an oxygen content of at least 19.5 percent, paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) and (d)(2)(i)(B) of the Respiratory Protection Standard require employers working under oxygen-deficient conditions to provide their employees with a self-contained breathing apparatus or a combination full-face piece pressure-demand supplied-air respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply. In the preamble to the final Respiratory Protection Standard, OSHA discussed extensively its rationale for requiring that employees breathe air consisting of at least 19.5 percent oxygen. The following excerpt, taken from the preamble, explains the basis for this requirement:
Human beings must breathe oxygen . . . to survive, and begin to suffer adverse health effects when the oxygen level of their breathing air drops below [19.5 percent oxygen]. Below 19.5 percent oxygen . . . , air is considered oxygen-deficient. At concentrations of 16 to 19.5 percent, workers engaged in any form of exertion can rapidly become symptomatic as their tissues fail to obtain the oxygen necessary to function properly (Rom, W., Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2nd ed.; Little, Brown; Boston, 1992). Increased breathing rates, accelerated heartbeat, and impaired thinking or coordination occur more quickly in an oxygen-deficient environment. Even a momentary loss of coordination may be devastating to a worker if it occurs while the worker is performing a potentially dangerous activity, such as climbing a ladder. Concentrations of 12 to 16 percent oxygen cause tachypnea (increased breathing rates), tachycardia (accelerated heartbeat), and impaired attention, thinking, and coordination (e.g., Ex. 25-4), even in people who are resting.
At oxygen levels of 10 to 14 percent, faulty judgment, intermittent respiration, and exhaustion can be expected even with minimal exertion(Exs. 25-4 and 150). Breathing air containing 6 to 10 percent oxygen results in nausea, vomiting, lethargic movements, and perhaps unconsciousness. Breathing air containing less than 6 percent oxygen produces convulsions, then apnea (cessation of breathing), followed by cardiac standstill. These symptoms occur immediately. Even if a worker survives the hypoxic insult, organs may show evidence of hypoxic damage, which may be irreversible (Exs. 25-4 and 150; also reported in Rom, W. [see reference in previous paragraph]).
Now watch this video for a classic example of a woman exhibiting the symptoms emboldened above. No one at the board meeting including herself, recognized the medical emergency unfolding before their eyes. She could have lost her life as a result of the lack of oxygen to her heart. In amazement not one individual there capitalized on the situation to give reason why children should never wear face masks. Astonishing!!!
**This Fauci is a snake.** He previously was opposed to face masks. He insists masks are effective when the predominance of studies say otherwise. Furthermore, face masks has long been recognized as a health hazard. The erasing of pre-2020 OSHA studies and regulations cannot be erased.
**Confined Space Standard, 29 CFR 1910.146**, since 1993. To wit:
**Paragraph (d)(2)(iii)** of the Respiratory Protection Standard considers any atmosphere with an oxygen level below 19.5 percent to be oxygen-deficient and immediately dangerous to life or health. To ensure that employees have a reliable source of air with an oxygen content of at least 19.5 percent, **paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) and (d)(2)(i)(B)** of the Respiratory Protection Standard require employers working under oxygen-deficient conditions to provide their employees with a self-contained breathing apparatus or a combination full-face piece pressure-demand supplied-air respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply. In the preamble to the final Respiratory Protection Standard, OSHA discussed extensively its rationale for requiring that employees breathe air consisting of at least 19.5 percent oxygen. The following excerpt, taken from the preamble, explains the basis for this requirement:
Human beings must breathe oxygen . . . to survive, and begin to suffer adverse health effects when the oxygen level of their breathing air drops below [19.5 percent oxygen]. Below 19.5 percent oxygen . . . , air is considered oxygen-deficient. At concentrations of 16 to 19.5 percent, workers engaged in any form of exertion can rapidly become symptomatic as their tissues fail to obtain the oxygen necessary to function properly (Rom, W., Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2nd ed.; Little, Brown; Boston, 1992). **Increased breathing rates, accelerated heartbeat, and impaired thinking or coordination occur more quickly in an oxygen-deficient environment.** Even a momentary loss of coordination may be devastating to a worker if it occurs while the worker is performing a potentially dangerous activity, such as climbing a ladder. Concentrations of 12 to 16 percent oxygen cause tachypnea (increased breathing rates), tachycardia (accelerated heartbeat), and impaired attention, thinking, and coordination (e.g., Ex. 25-4), even in people who are resting.
At oxygen levels of 10 to 14 percent, **faulty judgment, intermittent respiration, and exhaustion can be expected even with minimal exertion**(Exs. 25-4 and 150). Breathing air containing 6 to 10 percent oxygen results in nausea, vomiting, lethargic movements, and perhaps unconsciousness. Breathing air containing less than 6 percent oxygen produces convulsions, then apnea (cessation of breathing), followed by cardiac standstill. These symptoms occur immediately. Even if a worker survives the hypoxic insult, organs may show evidence of hypoxic damage, which may be irreversible (Exs. 25-4 and 150; also reported in Rom, W. [see reference in previous paragraph]).
Now watch this video for a classic example of a woman exhibiting the symptoms emboldened above. No one at the board meeting including herself, recognized the medical emergency unfolding before their eyes. She could have lost her life as a result of the lack of oxygen to her heart. In amazement not one individual there capitalized on the situation to give reason why children should never wear face masks. **Astonishing!!!**
https://redstatenation.com/video-woman-on-the-school-board-arguing-for-mask-mandates-almost-passes-out-as-she-is-gasping-for-air/
(post is archived)