‘Masks Are Dirty, Dangerous, Dehumanizing’

News: US News
by Jules Gomes  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  April 19, 2021   

Gates, Soros-funded 'fact-checkers' rush to discredit cutting-edge study

You are not signed in as a Premium user; you are viewing the free version of this program. Premium users have access to full-length programs with limited commercials and receive a 10% discount in the store! Sign up for only one day for the low cost of $1.99. Click the button below.

STANFORD, California (ChurchMilitant.com) - "Fact-checkers" funded by globalist multi-billionaires have launched a concerted campaign to discredit a scientific study that damns face masks as not just ineffective against COVID-19, but as dirty, dangerous and dehumanizing.  

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene wears a protest mask

On Friday, the "fact-checking" site PolitiFact — hosted by the Bill Gates and George Soros-funded Poynter Institute for Media Studies — attacked the study posted on the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) website as "lacking evidence."

The NCBI is a division of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and, together with the collective research components of NIH, constitutes "the largest biomedical research facility in the world."

The Poynter Institute for Media Studies is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, George Soros' Open Society Foundations, eBay's Omidyar Network, Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, the Park Foundation, Google and the National Endowment for Democracy.

The paper, titled "Facemasks in the COVID-19 Era: A Health Hypothesis," authored by Stanford University cardiologist Dr. Baruch Vainshelboim, and published in the January 2021 edition of the journal Medical Hypotheses, was deleted by Facebook and Twitter after it went viral on the left-wing social media platforms.

"Scientific evidence supporting face masks' efficacy is lacking," but "adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established," Vainshelboim stressed, noting how masks "restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia, and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions."

The scientist also pointed out that there was no scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of masks "for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases."

Encountering people who wear face masks activates innate stress-fear emotion.

Vainshelboim showed how the World Health Organization (WHO) had contradicted itself — initially announcing that "face masks are not required, as no evidence is available on [their] usefulness to protect non-sick persons" and that "cloth (e.g., cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance."

However, the WHO later stated that using fabric masks as a general community practice prevents "the infected wearer transmitting the virus to others" and "offer[s] protection to the healthy wearer against infection."

The WHO, like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), had also stated that fabric masks should only be used by infected persons and not as prevention practice in asymptomatic individuals "due to the lower filtration, breathability and overall performance of fabric face masks."

Vainshelboim cited peer-reviewed studies demonstrating "that cloth masks have significant health and safety issues, including moisture retention, reuse, poor filtration and increased risk for infection."

The researcher also emphasized the "dehumanizing" impact of a mask, opining that face coverings "partially delete the uniqueness and individuality of [the] person who is wearing the facemask, as well as the connected person."

Wearing a mask causes a "hypoxic and hypercapnic state that constantly challenges the normal homeostasis, and activates fight-or-flight stress response," and "encountering people ... wearing face masks activates innate stress-fear emotion," Vainshelboim observed.

Masks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia, and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions.

"The repeatedly or continuously activated stress-fear response causes the body to operate on survival mode, having sustained increase in blood pressure, pro-inflammatory state and immunosuppression," the researcher added.   

The scientific paper noted that the "devastating" long-term health consequences of masks include exacerbating chronic illnesses like hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer's. Moreover, according to the paper, mask-wearing can aggravate anxiety, depression, social isolation and loneliness, thus "increasing the risk for premature mortality."

Mask protestors at a COVID-19 rally

PolitiFact uses the logical fallacy of argument from authority to discredit the article, attacking the scientific credibility of Vainshelboim and the journal Medical Hypotheses.

Even though Vainshelboim's claims are based on numerous peer-reviewed studies cited in his paper, PolitiFact attempts to discredit Medical Hypotheses as "a journal that says its purpose is to publish 'interesting theoretical papers.'"

Medical Hypotheses openly acknowledges it was launched to open "the field to radical hypotheses which would be rejected by most conventional journals." However, it gives assurances that all published papers are "reviewed by the editor and external reviewers to ensure their scientific merit."

Vainshelboim himself is widely published in peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals, including publications of the European Respiratory Society.

Instead of responding with counter articles from other peer-reviewed medical journals, PolitiFact cites other so-called fact-checking sites, namely Lead Stories and USA Today.

While Lead Stories is funded by Facebook and Google (and provides services to Beijing-based ByteDance, the company running TikTok), USA Today's parent company, Gannett Co., has received funding from the Gates Foundation.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes the fact-checkers as journalism's "Gates keepers," noting how, of the "nearly 20,000 charitable grants the Gates Foundation had made through the end of June," more than $250 million went toward journalism.

--- Campaign 31877 ---


Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

We rely on you to support our news reporting. Please donate today.