Masks for kids: High Court evidence is that risk was never considered

The statement

“At the High Court hearing today, 30 April 2021, it was revealed to the Court that neither the Tapton School Academy Trust (which runs 4 secondary schools) nor the government had conducted any assessment of the risk of harms from requiring children to wear masks in schools.

At the same time the Court received unchallenged evidence that wearing masks could result in causing pulmonary fibrosis, being “among the worst diseases that can be suffered or witnessed. It kills exceedingly slowly, by ever-thickening matrix formation, a kind of scar tissue, obstructing the alveoli and reducing their air exchange. The illness worsens over time, and suffocates the victim very gradually. Nothing is available to the sufferer from conventional medicine.”     

Also unchallenged was evidence of psychological harm suffered by children because of the pressure upon them to wear masks and the need to conform to the authority of teachers and their peers.

Against this background, the child (whose name and school remain subject to a Court anonymity order) asked the Court for an order stopping the school encouraging mask-wearing by children.

Roger Ter Haar QC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) has reserved his judgment but indicated he expects to provide his decision in writing by next Wednesday 05 May 2021.”

The source

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-masks-in-schools/?fbclid=IwAR34LpFj2fl_YadkzaJa0Y9zLd76_rTs0k_Q6dpQ-43OyCKKI5oiFIsFT1I

My take on it

Tapton Secondary School is located in the UK, so I gather that this action is proceeding in the High Court of England and Wales.

I have my own view as to the wisdom of wearing masks in response to Covid.  Those views have been formed by examining some of the arguments and evidence for and against.

Not everyone who does take that approach, reaches the same conclusion as I have.

And of course not everyone takes that evidence-based approach.

The question is, Should we expect that evidence-based approach from government?

Of course we should.

And should we expect that evidence-based approach of those who are entrusted with the care of our children, and specifically of schools and teachers  – in loco parentis?

Of course we should.

To me it is unsurprising that an institution such as a school should just follow government guidelines unquestioningly.  I witnessed the same attitude early last year when I contacted aged care institutions in Australia in an effort to forestall what I saw coming.  They pointed me to the government.

The government formally holds that trust.  The government is all the more responsible for weighing the evidence for and against any policy; of assessing the impact.  The evidence is that in this case the UK government did not.

That is a breach of trust. 

Masks for kids: High Court evidence is that risk of harm was never considered

The statement

At the High Court hearing today, 30 April 2021, it was revealed to the Court that neither the Tapton School Academy Trust (which runs 4 secondary schools) nor the government had conducted any assessment of the risk of harms from requiring children to wear masks in schools.

At the same time the Court received unchallenged evidence that wearing masks could result in causing pulmonary fibrosis, being “among the worst diseases that can be suffered or witnessed. It kills exceedingly slowly, by ever-thickening matrix formation, a kind of scar tissue, obstructing the alveoli and reducing their air exchange. The illness worsens over time, and suffocates the victim very gradually. Nothing is available to the sufferer from conventional medicine.”     

Also unchallenged was evidence of psychological harm suffered by children because of the pressure upon them to wear masks and the need to conform to the authority of teachers and their peers.

Against this background, the child (whose name and school remain subject to a Court anonymity order) asked the Court for an order stopping the school encouraging mask-wearing by children.

Roger Ter Haar QC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) has reserved his judgment but indicated he expects to provide his decision in writing by next Wednesday 05 May 2021.

The source

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-masks-in-schools/?fbclid=IwAR34LpFj2fl_YadkzaJa0Y9zLd76_rTs0k_Q6dpQ-43OyCKKI5oiFIsFT1I

My take on it

Tapton Secondary School is located in the UK, so I gather that this action is proceeding in the High Court of England and Wales.

I have my own view as to the wisdom of wearing masks in response to Covid.  Those views have been formed by examining some of the arguments and evidence for and against.

Not everyone who does take that approach, reaches the same conclusion as I have.

And of course not everyone takes that evidence-based approach.

The question is, Should we expect that evidence-based approach from government?

Of course we should.

And should we expect that evidence-based approach of those who are entrusted with the care of our children, and specifically schools and teachers  – in loco parentis?

Of course we should.

To me it is unsurprising (if disappointing) that an institution such as a school should just follow government guidelines unquestioningly.  I witnessed the same attitude early last year when I contacted aged care institutions in Australia in an effort to forestall what I saw coming.  They pointed me to the government.

The government formally holds that trust.  The government is all the more responsible for weighing the evidence for and against any policy; for assessing the probable and possible impact.  The evidence is that in this case the UK government did not.

That is a breach of trust. 

Masks? Ineffective, and unsafe.

The statement

“The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemasks as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.”

The source

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

Author Baruch Vainshelboim PhD is an exercise physiologist in the Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. The 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 demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that face masks have absolutely zero chance of preventing the spread of Covid-19.

The study was posted on the National Center for Biotechnological Information government website. The NCBI is a branch of the National Institute for Health. Despite this, any reference to the study’s ‘contra-narrative’ findings appears to attract the censorial wrath of dominant social media platforms. I found it via Telegram and the American Conservative Movement website.

My take on it

The article describes itself accurately, in my view, as a comprehensive summary of relevant scientific evidence; which makes it useful to anyone who is still trying to work out what to believe about masks. (Provided of course that they can find the artricle in the first place!)

The evidence suggests that masks (not only) fail to achieve the intended result, but (also) contribute to a whole range of adverse health outcomes.

Summary? Ineffective, and unsafe.

Masks “without a doubt create oxygen deficiency”

The statement

“The rebreathing 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 the 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 undersupply 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. Conscious 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 – 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 business man, 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, cardiologist knows it for the heart, the pulmonologist knows it 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 give 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.”

The source

Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD.  Dr Griesz-Brisson is a Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist with a PhD in Pharmacology, with special interest in neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuroregeneration and neuroplasticity. She is the founder and director of the London Neurology and Pain Clinic.

https://www.ageofautism.com/2020/10/masks-and-oxygen-deprivation-dr-margarite-griesz-brisson.html (a transcript of the highlights from Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson’s recent extremely pressing video message, that was translated on-air from German into English by Claudia Stauber)


My take on it

Yet again we have a subject matter expert of international renown calling out the wearing of masks as harmful because they deprive us of oxygen, and illogical because they deliver no health benefit.

If these core facts are true (and I believe they are) then those who are responsible for this ‘conscious and purposely induced oxygen deficiency’ have a case to answer.

We also have here an individual who thinks for herself and encourages us to do the same.

Once again we have to choose who to believe.  And there are consequences.