Masking Children
Results Two Years later

Who will speak out for the children next time?

Director Rochelle Walensky gave testimony to Congress that was jaw-dropping even by the abysmal standards to which we’ve been accustomed throughout the COVID pandemic.

A massive international research collaboration that analyzed several dozen rigorous studies focusing on “physical interventions” against COVID-19 and influenza found that they provide little to no protection against infection or illness rates.

When asked if the CDC will revise its guidance to mandate masks in schools in light of the Cochrane review showing masks do not curb COVID, CDC Director Walensky tells Congress its advice on child masking will never change. “Our masking guidance doesn’t really change with time.”

If that’s not bad enough, Walensky’s statement is, of course, also flatly untrue. After discouraging Americans from obtaining face masks in the initial weeks of COVID, the CDC made an abrupt about-face in April 2020, and face masks soon became mandatory for day-to-day activities, which the CDC at the time had attributed to a change in “science.” Making all this even more horrific is the fact that the United States stands out conspicuously as the only developed nation in which its national public health agency recommends masking children as young as 2 years old.

Wallensky said, no one in the U.S. federal government would have thought to propose an RCT to determine if masks were effective because “there wasn’t equipoise to the question anymore.”

Equipoise: equal distribution of balance, counterpoint

Finally, Walensky tells Rep. Dan Crenshaw that the only reason COVID mRNA vaccines had been added to the routine pediatric immunization schedule for all children over six months old was so that they could be given to uninsured children.

As has been known since early 2020 that COVID poses virtually zero risk to young children. That there have been 2,000 pediatric deaths from COVID is belied by the CDC’s own data—and the vast majority of these children had severe comorbidities.

But moreover, adding COVID mRNA vaccines to the routine immunization schedule has broad implications far beyond simply making them available to uninsured children. Seeing these shots on the routine immunization schedule is certain to make it more likely for individual schools and municipalities to mandate those shots for young children to attend school, while affording legal protection to those that do. Health care providers will also be more likely to lump those shots in with other routine childhood vaccinations, giving them to young children with only minimal disclosure and parental consent. And finally, having COVID mRNA vaccines on the routine immunization schedule may afford certain legal protections to vaccine manufacturers, such as Pfizer and Moderna, for any harm they might cause.

Cochrane Library Study:

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks

We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).

WHAT damage occurred physically and emotionally from this experiment on the children?

WHO will be held responsible?

WHEN will this happen again?

WHERE will you be?

Do you trust Vaccines??

DON’T EVER FORGET!!!