Freeing another child from mask-wearing

The latest viral video of a suffocated child provoked new public outrage. I was honored to contribute testimony in this matter, and it looks like we're winning again. Here's how.

A principal pulled a 4-year old boy from school in Mountain View, CA, and called a police officer to remove this four year old child from campus for not wearing a mask.

The Dad:  “They [the school district] are acting as medical enforcement, without medical licensure.  They are weaponizing coercion without giving informed consent for this.  I am livid . . .  I am not sending him to school for mask enforcement . . .  and I exhibited my right to refusal for all medical treatment, because a mask is a medical treatment, and I have asked members of the school board and the school district for their medical license numbers, and they have not to this day been able to provide that to me.  They do not have a right to dictate medical treatment to my children.”

The family’s attorney, Tracy Henderson adds: “They [school district] broke the law.  There was never a legal mandate.”  Just as the CDC had never had the authority to force masks on anyone on an airplane, it’s the same issue with school children.  And educators had been “bullied and coerced into believing there was a mandate . . .”

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6311252757112#sp=show-clips

Fox News reports that after the video was posted online, the school district dropped the mask policy.

First, I nominate this Dad for hero of the COVID era.  He stood up to the school district in exactly the right way, saying essentially: ‘Don’t you dare practice forced medicine on my child.’

However, some behind-the-scenes testimony may have also impacted the school district’s change in policy.

The school district, in an attempt to bolster its masking position, cited one of the more absurd pro-mask studies they could find, specifically the American Academy of Pediatrics study, School masking policies and secondary SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Because I was one of the three researchers who have compiled the largest body of data in the English language on the hazards of mask-wearing, in https://PDMJ.org, Volume 1, I was asked for my medical opinion on this matter. I am a medical expert witness in mask cases in courts throughout the US and abroad.

There are numerous problems with the study cited by the school district.  This American Academy of Pediatrics study begins with a premise that is impossible to verify:

"Districts that were able to perform contract tracing and adjudicate primary and secondary infections were eligible for inclusion."  Later, in the Definitions and Outcomes Measures section, we learn that "Primary infections were those deemed to have been acquired in the community.  Secondary infections were those deemed to have been acquired in the school environment (ie school-associated infections).  In general, classification of primary versus secondary infections was adjudicated by school health staff in collaboration with the local public health department, according to the above definitions.  There was not a category for ‘uncertain’ source of transmission . . . "

The problem with any attempt to separate primary from secondary infections, given the above conditions, is that all sources of infection are uncertain, and especially in populations who have been exposed to COVID and traded it back and forth among contacts over the last two and a half  years.  That is, the legendary 'Typhoid Mary' type Case One of an infection is traceable only for brand new infections in a population.  Now that COVID has been with us, and more prevalent than ever in masked and vaccinated populations, it is impossible to know the source of any individual's infection, or whether that aligns to primary vs secondary source, as defined by this study.  This difficulty of ascertaining source of infection, primary vs secondary, was further exacerbated by the authors'  arbitrary decision to disallow "uncertain source of transmission."

The study's own demographics verify the inherent bias described above.  In Table 1 we see that the students from the strict masking districts outnumbered students from the partial masking districts by 32 to 1.   This was 1,075,982 to 32,967 students.   By districts the ratio was three to one, universally masked to partly masked.  This is even as many school districts throughout the US have abandoned mask mandates for their students.   So the populations bias inherent in the study was betrayed by these numbers.  Also, in Table 1, we see that distancing and / or outdoor eating were highly correlated with universal masking policies.  This confounder is not accounted for by the authors.

Another confounder is seen in Table 1:  Vaccination rates are much higher in universal masking districts than in partial masking districts.  The CDC guidelines had stipulated different thresholds of COVID positivity, a notoriously biased practice which portrayed artificially raised COVID positivity rates among unvaccinated populations.  This dishonest reporting is destructive to such a study as the authors' attempt here.

Also, these researchers sought "districts that were able to perform contact tracing."  Such districts have likely trended toward stricter COVID mandates, because the politically extremist practice of Chinese-style contact tracing is so fundamentally contrary to the movement of free individuals, and contrary to the cultural heritage of liberty in the United States.  Therefore, a potent tyrannical - often imprecisely termed “leftist” - bias was likely inherent, and therefore unavoidable, in the school districts that participated in the study.  A strong association has been seen among populations favoring both contact tracing and masking.  Such sociological bias would preclude any meaningful comparisons and other results from this study.

The authors also neglect to inform readers of their criteria for establishing infectious status.  The commonly accepted, CDC guided testing criteria throughout the US and the world is the PCR test, in which, as noted above, the CDC has used deceptively, advocating a higher cycle threshold for different populations, makes meaningful comparison impossible.  PCR was not designed for use in infectious disease testing, as its inventor, the late Kary Mullis PhD, repeatedly warned.  The main problem with PCR testing is the easily manipulated cycle thresholds that can deliver any results the users want.  This phenomenon of widespread "testing" abuse has been a basic pillar in the promotion of COVID to pandemic status, whereas its true morbidity and mortality impact was approximately that of a typical annual flu.

Finally, the authors admit that "secondary transmission across the entire study cohort was low, with more than 90% of cases identified in school members originating from the community." 

Now apart from this severely flawed study that the school district chose to cite, it is essential to consider the health hazards to children from mask-wearing:

Back in 2020 my co-authors and I warned that particulate inhalation is an immediate and urgent prohibition to mask use in anyone:  https://pdmj.org/papers/masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_part1

Later, very unfortunately, our predictions were proven correct.  The plastics found in mask-wearers' lung tissue by surgeons (on people with lung diseases) turned out to not only be the same type, but also the same proportion, as found in their masks.  I wrote about that here, citing the study that found that:

Mask Microplastics: Have They Arrived to the Lungs?

Damage to children and adults from mask wearing is also microbial:

Warm, moist facemasks incubate bacteria at a highly vulnerable part of the body: the airways.  Here my co-authors, an epidemiologist, a microbiologist and I showed the variety of infectious disease hazards that reckless use of masks promotes:  https://pdmj.org/papers/masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_part2

Children were found to be particularly vulnerable to neurological and brain injury from the re-inhaled bacteria promoted by mask-wearing.  The disease PANDAS is a particular risk from having to conduct one of the body’s most essential functions, respiration, through a personal bacterial incubator.

Possibly the worst of several dangers from mask-wearing is the hypoxia and hypercapnia, an unnatural and damaging chemical imbalance of the air needed by the human airways.  We studied that here:  https://pdmj.org/papers/masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_part3  The problems arising from such suffocation impact multiple bodily organs, including proven injury to the brain, heart, lungs, immune system and even the kidneys.

Children should not be physically punished as a price for their education.  What we know about masks from the pre-COVID era are truths that have not been disproven, and they are:

1) Masks never worked against viral transmission, proven many times over the years

2) Successful species seen throughout the natural world, whether animal, plant or microbial, never obstructed their own respiratory processes, nor thrived with inadvertent obstruction, and

3) For the above reason, masks were historically associated with, and used in conjunction with slavery, along with other physical restraints, including of the limbs, as a physically oppressive tool.

I am so pleased to let you know that Fox News reports that the school district ended up changing their mask policy after this incident.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6311252757112#sp=show-clips

Whether there will be further legal action, based on the previous physical and psychological abuse of this child, as a result of prior mask bullying by the school district, had not yet been determined by the time Fox aired this story.