A previous citation of mine, "Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis" has been officially retracted for a few reasons, none of which pertain to the cited studies. It doesn't change the research, some of which which is aggregated above as well. I've had a thought to actually critically evaluating the paper myself, because the references are still valid, and the argumentation is clear. This does appear as though sociopolitical pressure was used to bring the journal to heel. The journal talks about redesigning its "editorial and review workflow" over it. I've listed many data on this site documenting masks (and if you want more, I've got a bunch of unqualified URLs in the source for this page), so it's evident that this move is not coming out of a clear scientific basis. There's another list of resources after the main article content / video embeds here.
On April 20, all following Members of the European Parliament were served with notices of liability, advising that they may be held personally liable for harm and death caused by implementation of a Digital Green Certificate (Vaccine Passport), to be voted upon in the European Parliament on April 28, 2021.
COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease by J. Bart Classen, MD of Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. Quoth he:
The current analysis indicates Pfizer's RNA based COVID-19 vaccine contains many of these RNA sequences that have been shown to have high affinity for TDP-43 or FUS and have the potential to induce chronic degenerative neurological diseases.
Classen is fascinating. He runs the website vaccines.net which performs independent vaccine safety research, and has an extensive list of peer-reviewed publications. The homepage of vaccines.net proclaims boldly: "We are concerned that the current outbreak of COVID-19 is actually a bioweapon attack and may be linked to the US anthrax attack of 2001, which originated from the US army base Fort Detrick."
From the CDC's publication Emerging Infectious Diseases, a metastudy from the University of Hong Kong entitled Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, which is a metastudy surveying RCTs of mask use and other preventative measures. As pertaining to mask use, it concludes:
Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Another day, another scientific article highlighting the antiscientific hypocrisy of the coronavirus extremists in government. Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis This one has an exceptionally pointed conclusion.
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask 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.
Found a great site cutting through miles of coronavirus misinformation with hard facts entitled No Jab For Me.
Here's a wild pre-print titled Evidence for a Connection Between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Telecommunications Including Microwaves and Millimeter Waves. It's just a literature review, and the one author, Beverly Rubik, really likes some rather controversial topics, but the concerns raised are more legitimate than controversial. Dr. Rubik has a Ph. D. in Biophysics from UCa. The other author, Robert R Brown, received his MD from U of Miami. The preview does not render properly in my browser. Clicking "Download preprint" resolves this.
John P.A. Ioannidis of the Stanford Department of Medicine has published a now peer-reviewed paper entitled Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: an overview of systematic evaluations in which he estimates the infection fatality rate of the global coronavirus to be 0.15%. This is 6% of the estimated infection fatality rate of the 1918 "Spanish" flu. Restated and inverted, the Spanish flu was 17 times more deadly! The coronavirus epidemic is half as deadly as malaria by these numbers. The Coronavirus is only slightly more deadly than two notable Asian flu epidemics, one from around '57, and the other (mainly Hong Kong) around '68.
Calgary preacher Artur Pawlowski shooed out the Covid Gestapo from his church yesterday when they rudely interrupted his service. "Come back with a warrant" appears to work. The official video is here. Artur's street ministry can be found at streetchurch.ca, and his church, The Cave of Adullam, has a Facebook page where the video of the event may be previewed. An earlier copy of the video was released here by some Anon mirroring content from the Facebook page. God bless you, brother Artur!
Edward Pentin, a well-known consultant on the Roman Catholic Church, is publishing a 100 signatory open letter titled The Voice of Women in Defense of Unborn Babies and in Opposition to Abortion-tainted Vaccines.
Another anti-mask literature review, this one written by dentists for dentists, then pulled due to obvious political pressure. The retraction can be viewed here, but I archived someone else's PDF copy of the original article.
Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection by Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH -- The American Journal of Medicine is now publishing a protocol for HCQ treatment (as of Jan 1, 2021).
The earliest clearly-defined HCQ treatment protocol I discovered was Dr. Zev Zelenko's. He is heavily censored by media agents. There is an article here aggregating appearances of his work. (archive) Naturally, the promotion of HCQ in this form occurs after election fraud installed Quid Pro Joe in the White house. Newsweek insists on falsely debunking the reality that, yes, the AJM did publish an article recommending HCQ, deceptively interviewing the editor-in-chief to "establish" that it's not the journal recommending the protocol, it's the author of the article being published by the journal recommending it. This is just semantic nonsense intended to cast fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.
The Great Barrington Declaration. "As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies". Signatories include over 10,000 medical and health scientists and nearly 40,000 medical practitioners at the time of writing.
Masks are neither effective nor safe: A summary of the science by Dr. Colleen Huber. A 42-citation-deep exploration of the efficacy of masks, especially in the context of the Holocough.
Facebook post: On one hand, I don't agree with forced mask usage. On the other, masks are useful tools, and mitigate disease risk. On the third hand, public support for mask use is undoing authoritarian policies aimed at forcing people to abandon their anonymity in public spaces. Keep them optional but advised and I'll lend my support, but the second it becomes mandatory, I'll resist. This parallels my position on vaccines, only masks have no potential for introducing an acute concentration of toxins into the bloodstream, so they're strictly lower on the risk spectrum.