Rattankun Thongbun/Getty Images

Horowitz: What have we gotten from two years of mask-wearing?

It’s truly hard to overstate the damage done to a generation of children by the two-year masking regime. From language and developmental inhibition to social and behavioral anxiety, these Chinese cloths have created a generation of bumbling fools. So, was it worth it?

In a preprint published in the Lancet, Ambarish Chandra of the University of Toronto and Tracy Beth Høeg of the University of California at Davis replicated a CDC study comparing counties with school mandates to those without mandates. However, rather than using the CDC’s artificial and arbitrary number of counties and duration of study, they extended the study using a larger sample of districts and a longer time interval, employing almost six times as much data as the original study. Using this updated method to measure the relationship between mask mandates and per-capita pediatric cases, they found “no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates.”

The study observed over 1,800 counties from July through October 2021, which is presumed to be the largest observational sample ever conducted on the mask issue.

In fact, for most weeks, there was a non-statistically significant higher case rate among the masked counties. What this demonstrates is that with all of the CDC’s observational studies, arbitrary endpoints were clearly manipulated to show results they knew did not reflect reality.

Similarly, a study of fatality rates in 35 European countries during the 2020-2021 winter peak found no positive relationship between reduced mortality rates and mask compliance. If anything, there was a reverse correlation. “While no cause-effect conclusions could be inferred from this observational analysis, the lack of negative correlations between mask usage and COVID-19 cases and deaths suggest that the widespread use of masks at a time when an effective intervention was most needed, i.e., during the strong 2020-2021 autumn-winter peak, was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission,” concluded the author in an April study published in Cureus. “Moreover, the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.”

Several months ago, an observational study published in Medicineby German doctor Zacharias Fögen compared the overall case fatality rate in 81 counties in Kansas without mask mandates compared to the 24 with mandates. He actually found a statistically significant higher fatality rate in the mask counties. “Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ∼50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.”

Dr. Fogen posits as a potential reason for negative efficacy that the mask-wearing can make the virions smaller and cause them to penetrate deeper into the alveoli, where they can cause pneumonia instead of bronchitis. “A rationale for the increased RR (risk ratio) by mandating masks is probably that virions that enter or those coughed out in droplets are retained in the facemask tissue, and after quick evaporation of the droplets,hypercondensed droplets or pure virions (virions not inside a droplet) are re-inhaled from a very short distance during inspiration.”

While negative efficacy is still a hypothesis, there have been documented negative side effects to mask-wearing. A preprint Italian study from earlier in May found that short-term surgical mask usage was associated with an increased inhaled CO2 level greater than 5000ppm in 90% of 10- to 18-year-olds in the sample. “Shortly after wearing surgical masks, the inhaled air CO2 approached the highest acceptable exposure threshold recommended for workers, while concerningly high concentrations were recorded in virtually all individuals when wearing FFP2 masks,” concluded the authors. “The CO2 concentration was significantly higher among minors and the subjects with high respiratory rate.”

Yet here we are, over two years into this saga, and schools are still masking children, while some that stopped are bringing back this barbaric practice. To this day, people with severe mental and physical disabilities are being forced to wear masks when seeking medical attention at health care facilities. Trauma survivors who suffer panic attacks from having their faces covered are forced to choose between panic attacks and loss of medical care.

But children will, by far, be the most harmed by this policy. The language development impediment that will result from the past two years of inhumane mask mandates is incalculable. The head of the U.K.’s Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills found that children suffer from “limited vocabulary,” while some babies “struggled to respond to basic facial expressions,” partly due to interacting with people wearing face masks.

Talk about a cost-benefit analysis!

To this day, only a few states have banned mask mandates from coming back. The New Hampshire governor recently vetoed a bill from the state legislature banning local school boards from implementing such immoral policies upon children. What we really need is a ballot initiative in every state to spell out in the state’s constitution that a person has a fundamental right to refuse to wear a medical device and cannot be discriminated against in the realm of public accommodations for exercising that right. Moreover, there should be criminal penalties for any adult who forcibly masks a child.

If we plan to wait for “the science” to catch up to reality and morality, we will be waiting a long time. It might be obvious to us that masking is cruel and ineffective, but not to the megalomaniacs in power. That power needs to be stripped permanently.

Horowitz: Your mask harms my baby

Even if masks worked, by definition, one who doesn’t wear one could not harm another person. After all, that other individual always has the ability to wear the mask and reap its amazing benefits, if he thinks they exist. On the other hand, it turns out that wearing a mask can actually harm others — the most vulnerable among us.

It was known from day one that children were not at risk from this virus. It was also evident from day one that shutting schools, isolating children, and then only exposing children to humanity through masks would destroy their physical, emotional, and mental health and reverse the language and developmental growth of a generation of children. A new U.K. report chronicles the degree of civilizational arson that was committed against our children, turning an entire generation of children into helpless creatures incapable of talking, learning, and performing basic functions.

“A few providers felt that wearing face masks continued to have a negative impact on children’s communication and language skills,” observed the report from the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (OFSTED). “Children turning 2 years old will have been surrounded by adults wearing masks for their whole lives and have therefore been unable to see lip movements or mouth shapes as regularly. Some providers have reported that delays to children’s speech and language development have led to them not socialising with other children as readily as they would have expected previously.”

While many have already focused on the harm of school closures to children, the shocking devastation to those who were infants and toddlers during the period of social mummification are incalculable and just becoming apparent. The report makes numerous observations regarding the youngest of children, now approximately 3-6 years old:

  • These children have limited vocabulary or lack of confidence to speak.
  • Babies have struggled to respond to basic facial expressions.
  • Children “have started to speak in accents and voices that resemble the material they have watched,” due to excessive screen time to keep them occupied during social isolation.
  • More children need help with basic self-care functions such as blowing their noses, putting on their coats, and tying their shoelaces.
  • More children have trouble telling time.
  • Fewer children are toilet-trained, making more children unready for school by age four.
  • Because of the lockdown, fewer infants and toddlers were walking outside and early childhood day care providers have noticed delays in crawling and walking.

The report notes that the cumulative effect of all these early childhood development problems has created a backlog for specialists in the field. Some communities have seen referrals to speech pathologists rise 22% above pre-lockdown baselines. The U.K. report is based on inspections of 70 nurseries and early child care provider centers between Jan. 17 and Feb. 4, 2022.

At least the U.K. government is coming clean about the devastation a day late, a dollar short. Our government is still covering up the problem, as the CDC is attempting to roll back key language developmental benchmarks for children to accommodate the “new normal.”

One could not possibly have conjured up a more nefarious plot to destroy the future of our children than the confluence of actions taken against them over the past two years. In fact, it’s gotten so bad for children that they might not have enough acumen to even learn about the licentious sexual curriculum these same actors desire to groom them with.

What’s worse than driving older children into depression by denying them normalcy is how little children have been groomed into thinking this sort of lifestyle is normal. In a recent interview, Yuval Harari, an adviser to the World Economic Forum, described that this great reset and new “industrial revolution” will make human beings the product. He stated that they are “learning to produce bodies and minds.” Are these the sort of bodies and minds he is thinking of? Turning us into a bunch of incapable, bungling fools who can’t function and are fully controlled by global governments?

\u201cThe product this time will be humans themselves. We are basically learning to produce bodies and minds. \nThe problem [with the lower classes] is boredom and what to do with them. How will they find some sense of meaning in life when they are basically meaningless, worthless.\u201dpic.twitter.com/4y7HKdRwSu
— Wittgenstein (@Wittgenstein) 1649578551

There is no doubt that this was done by design, because there was no way any sane government official could have thought children were at risk for the virus, and certainly not enough to wreak such destruction upon them. If officials were blind to the facts the first week, they could always have come around a week or two or even a month or two later. Yet they allowed this to go on for one to two years, and in some places like New York City, they are still criminalizing the breathing of toddlers.

A recent study of COVID-positive hospitalizations in the U.K. found that, in one large children’s hospital, only 10% of the few children hospitalized with COVID actually had severe COVID symptoms. 56% of them were incidental infections discovered by mass testing. We have been making this point since May 2020, but it did not stop the politicians from running with false information to prolong the misery of children.

Not only were children never at risk from the virus, but even if they were, there is zero evidence that masks work. The Brownstone Institute posted a list of 150 studies and articles showing masks don’t work to stop the spread of viruses, something our government knew from day one of this pandemic. A recent population-based observational study of 600K schoolchildren 3-11 years old concluded, “Mandates in schools were not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 incidence or transmission, suggesting that this intervention was not effective."

The only trial that was purported to show efficacy was the Bangladeshi study, which turned out to be fraudulent in many ways, and once we got the full data set, it showed no statistically significant difference from the control group.

We were absurdly told that our mask protects the other person while his mask evidently doesn’t protect him. Well, it’s time to tell these people that their mask doesn’t just harm themselves but the most vulnerable among us. It traumatizes a generation of babies and hampers their language development indefinitely. If a lack of science can engender government to criminalize bare breathing, then real science and learned experience should require us to ban masking. Breathing is a human right. Masking is not.

Horowitz: New study shows mask-wearing children at risk for ‘unacceptable’ CO2 levels, cautions against the practice



We've spent over a year debating nonexistent evidence that masks effectively protect against the spread of viruses. However, there has been little debate and few published studies on potential harms of mask-wearing, a reality that has allowed zealous maskers to aggressively push their mandate as harmless, with no downside. Well, now we have a randomized controlled trial published in JAMA that raises serious concerns about this practice.

Researchers from Germany conducted a blinded randomized controlled trial of 45 children wearing masks and measured the baseline carbon dioxide levels during inhalation and exhalation behind various masks as compared to the levels of unmasked children. The results are very concerning:

We measured means (SDs) between 13 120 (384) and 13 910 (374) ppm of carbon dioxide in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece 2 (FFP2) masks, which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6. This was a value reached after 3 minutes of measurement. Children under normal conditions in schools wear such masks for a mean of 270 (interquartile range, 120-390) minutes. The Figure shows that the value of the child with the lowest carbon dioxide level was 3-fold greater than the limit of 0.2 % by volume. The youngest children had the highest values, with one 7-year-old child's carbon dioxide level measured at 25 000 ppm. (Emphasis added.)

Why has nobody in our government bothered to study this before experimenting on children for a virus that doesn't affect them?

The German researchers conclude that there is a concern of mask-wearing causing hypercapnia, and as such, children should not be forced to wear masks: "This leads in turn to impairments attributable to hypercapnia. A recent review concluded that there was ample evidence for adverse effects of wearing such masks. We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks."

While it might seem like the mask mandates are over, they are still largely in place in many workplaces, including an impervious mandate for health care workers who often work 10-hour shifts. The mandate is still in place for 2-year-olds on six-hour flights. The facts that the only RCT studying carbon dioxide effects shows reason for concern, that the only RCT on mask efficacy shows no evidence of meaningful effectiveness, and that children rarely get sick from this virus make the continued mask mandates senseless.

The public health fascists are already attempting to mischaracterize COVID variants in order to reinstitute masking, a trend that has already started in California. CNN had a doctor on the air this week suggesting that masks need to be a part of a new dress code.

Potential carbon dioxide poisoning is but one side effect that needs to be studied. Last month, a group of Alachua County, Florida, parents had their children's masks cultured in a lab and found dangerous pathogens growing on them. Where are the studies on microbiological harms?

The findings of this survey support what we already know to exist in terms of side effects from mask-wearing. A published survey of over 25,000 parents of German schoolchildren found that 68% reported impairments caused by masks. The impairments included: "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%)."

Until now, one could have dismissed this as unscientific hearsay. However, with this degree of carbon dioxide increase from just a few minutes of mask-wearing, it makes sense that so many children would feel lethargy and malaise after an entire school day.

Masks increase the volume of dead space, which facilitates carbon dioxide retention, according Megan Mansell, a hazardous environs PPE expert. "An area covered in the study is dead space increase, where not only is there an accumulation of rejected respiratory emissions, but a pathogenic concentration of rejected bodily waste and pathogen picked up from pulling airborne microbes, in addition to periodontal bacterial contributions, which thrive in low-oxygen, warm, moist areas," warned Mansell, who recently spoke against the mask mandate at an Alachua County School Board meeting.

Many parents likely ignored the concerns about mask-wearing and carbon dioxide poisoning because they didn't see their kids faint or any immediate severe effects. But Mansell, who is a former district education director for children with disabilities and special needs, believes that there are potential long-term impacts every moment a child's breathing is restricted by masks.

"Deoxygenation and hypercapnia can have permanent impacts on human growth and development, and we can anticipate profoundly incapacitating conditions such as cerebral palsy, in addition to far lower birth rates, as stillbirth rates have increased fourfold in mandating regions," asserted the PPE expert and child advocate. "This has an impact on all lives, even the unborn."

The obvious question is why would there be any difference for adults if the implication of this study is that masks increase carbon dioxide levels across the board? The concerns definitely apply to everyone, but Mansell contends the mask mandates are especially dangerous for children. "Child masks are unregulated garbage with no efficacy or safety standards, and no two are alike, so while one child may breathe freely and have no visible signs of distress, another child could have a similar-looking but far more restrictive apparatus on, and no one would be any the wiser."

Ultimately, this comes down to medical consent. We are just beginning to learn about the corners cut in the development of the vaccines and the side effects the public was not warned about. However, when it comes to masks, until now, nobody has bothered to even capture the reported side effects. Have human beings, including children, become the new lab rats for scientific experimentation?