Microplastics in humans: After blood, scientists find traces in the lungs

Scientists have found microplastics in many tissues in the body, including the lungs.
  • A study in lung tissue obtained from participants after surgery found microplastics in all lung regions, including in the deeper sections.
  • Researchers found 39 microplastics in 11 of the 13 lung tissue samples and 12 different types of microplastics.
  • Additional research is needed to determine the human health effects of microplastics.

Plastics are a common component in many items we use in everyday life. The United States alone generated approximately 36 million tons of plastic in 2018 but only recycled about 9%.

Additionally, plastics take a long time to degrade in landfills—anywhere from 100 to 1000 yearsTrusted Source—raising environmental and health concerns. Plastics can deteriorate into minute particles between 1 micrometer and 5 millimeters, called microplasticsTrusted Source

They are present in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the items we touch, and the food we eat. Microplastics are everywhere, making human exposure inevitable. A new study, published in the Science of the Total Environment, adds to the latest evidence.

Microplastics in human tissues

Plastic particles smaller than 20 micrometersTrusted Source, which are too small to be seen by the naked eye, can cross the cell membrane and accumulate in tissues. Previous research detected microplastics in the human colon, feces, placental tissue, human blood, and most recently, the lungs.

Dr. Fransien van Dijk, a researcher at the University of Groningen, explains in a 2019 Plastic Health Summit presentation, “Clothing textiles release micro and nanofibers to the environment. […] [In] the house where you live, approximately 20 kilograms of dust accumulates [per year], [of which] six kilograms [are] microplastic fibers, and because you spend most of the time indoors, this means that the exposure is pretty high.”

Microplastic exposure has been shown to cause inflammationTrusted Source, cell death, and DNA damage in laboratory animals and cell cultures. There is concern that toxicity to human cells from inhaled microplastic fibers may depend on the type of plastic, level of exposure, particle shape, size, absorbed pollutants, and leaching of additives present in plastics.

A study conducted by researchers from the University of Hull and Hull York Medical School assessed the presence of microplastics in human lung tissue obtained following lung reduction surgery or lung cancer surgery.

Lung reduction surgery removes damaged tissue in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to improve lung function. Researchers used an analysis method called μFTIR spectroscopy to differentiate microplastics from non-microplastics.

μFTIR spectroscopy detected particles down to 3 micrometers in size.

Researchers used tissue samples taken from different lung areas after surgical procedures of 11 study participants at Castle Hill Hospital and Hull University Teaching Hospitals. 2 participants contributed 2 tissue samples from distinct lung areas.

45% of the study participants were female, with an average age of 63 years. Since microplastics are ubiquitous, the researchers used strict control measures to avoid and adjust for contamination.


Read more from original article: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/microplastics-in-humans-after-blood-scientists-find-traces-in-the-lungs

Face Masks Lead to Breathing Dangerous Levels of Carbon Dioxide Even When Sitting Still, Study Finds

By Will Jones  /  13 May 2022 • 07.00

Wearing a face mask results in exposure to dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in inhaled air, even when the mask is worn for just five minutes when sitting still, a study has found.

With surgical masks, the CO2 concentration of inhaled air exceeded the danger zone of 5,000 ppm in 40% of cases. With FFP2 respirators it exceeded it in 99% of cases. The CO2 concentrations were higher for children and for those who breathed more frequently.

The study, a pre-print (not yet peer-reviewed) from a team in Italy, used a technique called capnography to take the measurements of CO2 in inhaled air over the course of five minutes, following a ten minute period of rest, with participants seated, silent and breathing only through the nose. A medic took measurements at minutes three, four and five, with an average of the three measurements being used in the analysis.

The study found the mean CO2 concentration of inhaled air without masks was 458 ppm. While wearing a surgical mask, the mean CO2 was over 10 times higher at 4,965 ppm, exceeding 5,000 ppm in 40.2% of the measurements. While wearing an FFP2 respirator, the average CO2 was nearly double again at 9,396 ppm, with 99.0% of participants showing values higher than 5,000 ppm. Among children under 18, the mean CO2 concentration while wearing a surgical mask was well above the safe limit at 6,439 ppm; for an FFP2 respirator it was nearly double again at 12,847 ppm. The researchers found that breaths per minute only had to increase by three, to 18, for the mean concentration to reach 5,271 ppm in a surgical mask and breach the safe limit.

While the findings are clearly concerning enough, the researchers note that “the experimental conditions, with participants at complete rest and in a constantly ventilated room, were far from those experienced by workers and students during a typical day, normally spent in rooms shared with other people or doing some degree of physical activity”. In such conditions the CO2 concentration of inhaled air is likely to be considerably higher.

While the study did not find a reduction in blood oxygen saturation during the five minutes of observation of a person at rest, the authors note that research on 53 surgeons wearing masks for an extended period found that blood oxygen saturation decreased noticeably. They add that exposure to CO2 in inhaled air at concentrations exceeding 5,000 ppm for long periods is “considered unacceptable for the workers, and is forbidden in several countries, because it frequently causes signs and symptoms such as headache, nausea, drowsiness, rhinitis and reduced cognitive performance”.

The study is a pilot study, and so calls for larger and more detailed studies to confirm the effects it observes and explore them further. The authors remark that should their findings be confirmed (and there is no reason to expect they would not be), mask-wearing should be “reduced as much as possible when the [Covid] risk is low”.

We might add that, given the lack of evidence masks do much if anything to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and the mounting evidence they do harm, they should be jettisoned as a pandemic measure entirely.

The authors note this is the first study to assess properly the CO2 concentration of inhaled air while wearing a face mask. Two earlier studies were small and did not adequately remove water vapour. A third recent one was retracted for, among other concerns, not using a capnograph to distinguish inhaled and exhaled air. The present study addresses these problems. The full results are shown in the tables on the following pages:


Source: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/13/face-masks-lead-to-breathing-dangerous-levels-of-carbon-dioxide-even-when-sitting-still-study-finds/

The Great Facemask Debate –  121 Links and References to Scientific Studies

The Great Facemask Debate – 121 Links and References to Scientific Studies

121 References to Scientific Studies on Facemask Effectiveness

We have provided the following information to assist you in your research so you can make a fully informed decision on the matter of wearing facemask.  We cannot yet find any independent peer-reviewed studies without any conflict of interest to support the idea that wearing a facemask outside a medical or dusty setting will do anyhting to improve your health or the health of others.

We recommend you take the time to educate yourself as much as possible by reading as many of the following links as you can.  This extensive list has been collected over time, some links may no longer be valid.  Please report invalid links so we can correct them.

Masks, False safety and real dangers Part 1

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Masks-false-safety-and-real-dangers-Part-1-Friable-mask-particulate-and-lung-vulnerability.pdf

1. Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers
and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review
A 29 study meta-analysis review that included 11 studies and 18 random control trials of 26,444
participants. This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might
reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32675098/

2. Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment
“We did not observe associaGon between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19
spread in US states.”  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v2

3. 16 Studies: Effectiveness of personal protec4ve measures in reducing pandemic influenza
transmission
This meta-analyses concluded that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protecGve
effect, and face mask use provided a non-significant protecGve effect.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436516300858?via=ihub
4. Study: Experimental investigation of indoor aerosol dispersion and accumula4on in the
context of COVID-19: Effects of masks and ventilation
This study published by the American Institute of Physics found that face masks reduced
indoor aerosols by 12% at most — which is not enough to prevent infections.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0057100
5. Study: Non-pharmaceu4cal Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Non-healthcare SePngs-
Personal Protec4ve and Environmental Measures
The use of face masks, either by infected or non-infected persons, does not have a
significant effect on influenza transmission.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32027586/

6. Study: Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses
“There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask makes li;le or no difference to
the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33215698/

7. Study: An Overview on the Role of Rela4ve Humidity in Airborne Transmission of SARS-
CoV-2 in Indoor Environment
RelaGve Humidity (RH) is an important factor responsible for airborne transmission of SARS-
CoV-2 virus. In dry indoor areas, chances of airborne transmission are higher than humid
areas. Indoor air at 40 to 60 percent RH is the opGmum level for human health. Important
to set minimum RH standard for indoor environments.
https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-20-06-covid-0302

8. 29 Studies: Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infec4ons in
Healthcare Workers
This meta-analysis concluded that evidence of a protecGve effect of masks or respirators
against verified respiratory infecGon was not staGsGcally significant.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

9. Study: “Exercise with face mask; Are we handling a devil’s sword?” – A physiological
hypothesis
There is no evidence to suggest that wearing a mask during exercise offers any benefit from
the droplet transfer from the virus. [This is noteworthy, as the argument is that although
masks can not filter out the SARS-CoV-2 virus, that they may be able to filter out droplets
that carry the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This study seems to say no.]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/

10. Study: A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in
healthcare workers
Penetration of cloth masks by influenza particles was almost 97 percent and medical masks
44 percent — so cloth masks are essentially useless, and “medical grade” masks don’t
provide adequate protection. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results
caution against the use of cloth masks.
[Note: influenza particles are over three times the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (see here),
so it can be inferred that the filter efficiency for the SARS-CoV-2 virus would be worse.]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

11. Study: Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms – a costly and unnecessary ritual?
The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced
ventilation seems to be unnecessary. [An argument from mask proponents is that wearing a
mask protects others from you. This study seems to say no.]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1680906/

12. Study: Face mask against viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims
A large randomized controlled trial with 8000± participants, found that face masks “did not
seem to be effecGve against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against
clinical respiratory infection.”
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240287

13. Study: Simple respiratory protection–evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth
masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles
“Results obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal
protecGon against nanoparGcles, including those in the size ranges of virus-containing
parGcles in exhaled breath.” [SARS-CoV-2 virus is about .1 micron = 100 nm]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20584862/

14. Study: Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human
subject evalua4on with NaCl aerosol represen4ng bacterial and viral par4cle size range
“The study indicates that N95 filtering face piece respirators may not achieve the expected
protecGon level against bacteria and viruses.”

15. Study: Analysis of the Effects of COVID-19 Mask Mandates on Hospital Resource
Consump4on and Mortality at the County Level
There was no reducGon in per-populaGon daily mortality, hospital bed, ICU bed, or
venGlator occupancy of COVID-19-posiGve paGents a;ributable to the implementaGon of a
mask-wearing mandate.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18326870/

16. Study: Modeling of the Transmission of Coronaviruses, etc. in Dental Clinics
The evidence suggests that transmission probability is strongly driven by indoor air quality
— specifically venGlaGon — and the least by respiratory protecGon via mask use.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32614681/

17. 16 Studies: Evidence for Community Cloth Face Masking to Limit the Spread of SARS-
CoV-2: A Critical Review
This review looked at the quality of the studies supporting masking. “Of sixteen meta-
analyses, eight were equivocal or critical as to whether evidence supports a public
recommendaGon of masks, and the remaining supported a public mask intervention on
limited evidence, primarily on the basis of the precautionary principle.”
https://www.cato.org/working-paper/evidence-community-cloth-face-masking-limit-spread-sars-cov-2-critical-review

18. Study: Aerosol penetra4on and leakage characteris4cs of masks used in the health care
industry
“We conclude that the protecGon provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in
environments containing potenGally hazardous sub-micrometer sized aerosols.” [Note: the
SARS-CoV-2 virus is a sub-micrometer sized parGcle.]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8239046/

19. 3 Studies: Disposable surgical face masks for preven4ng surgical wound infec4on in clean
surgery
“We included three trials, involving a total of 2106 parGcipants. There was no staGsGcally
significant difference in infecGon rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of
the trials.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27115326/

20. 2 Studies: Disposable surgical face masks: a systema4c review
“Two randomized controlled trials were included involving a total of 1453 paGents. …in a
large trial there was no difference in infecGon rates between the masked and unmasked
group.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16295987/

21. Study: Face seal leakage of half masks and surgical masks
“The filtraGon efficiency of the filter materials was good, over 95%, for parGcles above 5
micron in diameter but great variaGon existed for smaller parGcles.” Coronavirus is .1±
microns, therefore these masks would not offer good protecGon from that virus.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4014006/

22. Study: Comparison of the Filter Efficiency of Medical Non-woven Fabrics against Three
Different Microbe Aerosols
“The filter efficiencies against influenza virus parGcles were the lowest.”
[Note: influenza parGcles are over three Gmes the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (see here),
so it can be inferred that the filter efficiency for the SARS-CoV-2 virus would be worse.]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29910210/

23. Study: Aerosol penetration through surgical masks
“Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by
health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the sub-micrometer size aerosols
containing pathogens.” [The SARS-CoV-2 virus is sub-micrometer.]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1524265/

24. 6 Studies: Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A
systema4c review and meta-analysis
This meta-analysis was of six Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) involving 9,171
parGcipants. The conclusion: “the use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is
not associated with a lower risk of laboratory- confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95
respirators should not be recommended for the general public.”
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

25. Study: N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preven4ng Influenza Among Health Care
Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial
“2371 parGcipants completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among
outpaGent health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by parGcipants
resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

26. Commentary: Universal Masking in Hospitals in the COVID-19 Era
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine (wri;en by five physicians) came to the
conclusion that face masks offer li;le to no protecGon in everyday life.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

27. Study: Masking lack of evidence with politics
“It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable
uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.”
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

28. 12 Studies: Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review
In this meta-analysis of twelve studies, the authors found li;le data to support the use of
face masks to prevent wearers from becoming infected.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

29. Study: Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among
health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial
Face mask use in healthcare workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in
terms of colds symptoms or geqng colds.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

30. Study: Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommenda4on to Other Public Health Measures
to Prevent SARS- CoV-2 Infec4on in Danish Mask Wearers
The COVID-19 infection results between mask wearers and the control group were not
statistically significant.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/

31. CDC: “CDC is not aware of any randomized controlled trials that show that masks, or
double masks, or cloth face coverings are effective against COVID-19.”
https://twitter.com/tlowdon/status/1387049350111449097

32. Study: Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza
pandemic?
“Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to
prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals.” [Note that droplets are significantly
larger than the SARS-CoV-2 virus.]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/

33. Study: Evaluating the efficacy of cloth face masks in reducing particulate mader exposure
“Our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals
from particles <2.5 micron.” [Coronavirus is .1± micron.]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/

34. Study: Assessment of Proficiency of Mask Donning Among the General Public in
Singapore
The survey was administered to 2499 adults, who were given instrucGons for proper mask
use. Subsequently, only 12.6% passed the Visual Mask Fit (VMF) test. This would indicate
that the compliance of children would be lower yet.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2766070

35. 17 Studies: The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a
systema4c review of the scien4fic evidence
Seventeen studies were reviewed in this meta-analysis. “None of the studies we reviewed
established a conclusive relaGonship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protecGon against
influenza infecGon.”
[Note: influenza parGcles are over three Gmes the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (see here),
so it can be inferred that the filter efficiency for the SARS-CoV-2 virus would be worse.]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

36. Study: Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review
This study used 5462 peer-reviewed arGcles and 41 grey literature records. Conclusion:
“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to criGcal shortages of medical-grade PPE. AlternaGve
forms of facial protecGon offer inferior protecGon.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371574/

37. Study: Particle removal from air by face masks made from Sterilization Wraps:
Effectiveness and Reusability
“We found that 60 GSM face mask had particle capture efficiency of 94% for total particles
greater than 0.3 microns.” [These are be;er quality masks than standard cloth masks, so
cloth masks would provide li;le effectiveness for the .1 micron SARS-CoV-2 virus.]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33052962/

38. Study: Visualizing the effec4veness of face masks in obstruc4ng respiratory jets
A few studies have considered the filtraGon efficiency of homemade masks made with
different types of fabric; however, there is no broad consensus regarding their effecGveness
in minimizing disease transmission.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0016018

 

A Further 83 Compelling References

We have provided the following information to assist you in your research.

1 T Jacobson, J Kler, et al. Direct human health risks of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Nat Sustain. 201 (8). 691-701. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1

2 D Sin, S Man, et al. Arterial carbon dioxide tension on admission as a marker of in-hospital mortality in community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Med. Feb 1 2005. 118 (2). 145-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.10.014 https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(04)00680-1/fulltext

3 P Murtagh, V Giubergia, et al. Lower respiratory infections by adenovirus in children. Clinical features and ris factors for bronchiolitis obliterans and mortality. Ped Pulm. 44. 450-456. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.20984 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32008-x#ref-CR10

4 N Nin, A Muriel et al. Severe hypercapnia and outcome of mechanically ventilated patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Int Care Med 43. 200-208. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5630225/

5 K Moser, E Shibel, et al. Acute respiratory failure in obstructive lung disease. JAMA. Aug 13 1973. 225. 705-7

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/349944

6 B Chandrasekaran, S Fernandes. Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword? – A physiological hypothesis. Nov 2020. 144 (110002). doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110002 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7306735/#b0135

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/

7 M Joyner, D Casey. Regulation of increased blood flow (hyperemia) to muscles during exercise: a hierarchy of competing physiological needs. Physiol Rev. Apr 2015. 95 (2). 549-601. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00035.2013. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25834232/

8 Carbon Dioxide Health Hazard Information Sheet. Food Safety Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture

https://fsis-dev.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf

9 Z Zhaoshi. Potential risks when some special people wear masks. No. 1 Dept of Neurology, The Third Hospital Jilin University. Apr 18 2020. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764955

11 Occupational Chemical Database: Carbon Dioxide. US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/chemicaldata/chemResult.html?RecNo=183

12 Carbon Dioxide Health Hazard Information Sheet. Food Safety Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture.

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bf97edac-77be-4442-aea4-9d2615f376e0/Carbon- Dioxide.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

13 Acid-base physiology, 4.4 Respiratory acidosis-Metabolic effects.

https://www.anaesthesiamcq.com/AcidBaseBook/ab4_4.php

14 J Williams, J Krah, et al. The physiological burden of prolonged PPE use on healthcare workers during long shifts. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Jun 10 2020. https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science- blog/2020/06/10/ppe-burden/  (link is now invalid)

15 R Roberge, A Coca, et al. Physiological impact of the N95 filtering facepiece respirator on healthcare workers. Respir Care. May 2010. 55 (5). 569-577. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20420727/

16 M Shigemura, e Lecuona et al. Effects of hypercapnia on the lung. J Physiol. Jan3 2017. 595 (8).

https://doi.org/10.1113/JP273781

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/JP273781

17 C Vohwinkel, E Lecuona et al. Elevated CO(2) levels cause mitochondrial dysfunction and impair cell proliferation. J Biol Chem. Oct 28 2011. 286 (43). 37067-76. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.290056. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21903582/

18 C Kempeneers, C Seaton, et al. Ciliary functional analysis: beating a path towards standardization. Pediatr Pulmonol. Oct 2019. 54 (10). 1627-1638.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.24439

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31313529/

19 E Laserna, O Sibila, et al. Hypocapnia and hypercapnia are predictors for ICU admission and mortality in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Chest. Nove 2012. 142 (5): 1193-1199. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-0576

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22677348/

20 A Lardner. The effects of extracellular pH on immune function. J Leukoc Biol. Apr 2001. 69 (4). 522-30

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11310837/

21 C Lang, P Dong, et al. Effect of CO2 on LPS-induced cytokine responses in rats alveolar macrophages. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. Jul 2005. 289 (1). L96-L103. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00394.2004 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15778246/

22 S Casalino-Matsuda, N Wang, et al. Hypercapnia alters expression of immune response, nucleosome assembly and lipid metabolism genes in differentiated human bronchial epithelial cells. Sep 10 2018. Sci Rep. 13508. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32008-x

23 D O’Croinin, et al. Sustained hypercapnic acidosis during pulmonary infection increases bacterial load and worsens lung injury. Crit Care Med. 36. 2128-2135. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31817d1b59 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18552698/

24 B Borovoy, C Huber, Maria Crisler. Masks, false safety and real dangers, Part 2: Microbial challenges from masks. Oct 2020. https://PDMJ.org

25 D Morens, J Taubenberger, et al. Predominant role of bacterial pneumonia as a cause of death in pandemic influenza: implications for pandemic influenza preparedness. J Inf Dis. Octo 1 2008. 198 (7). 962-970. https://doi.org/10.1086/591708. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/198/7/962/2192118

26 J Williams, J Cichowitz, et al. The physiological burden of prolonged PPE use on healthcare workers during long shifts. US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Science Blog. Jun 10 2020.

https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2020/06/10/ppe-burden/

27 D Harmening. Clinical Hematology and Fundamentals of Hemostasis, 4 th ed. Davis Company. 2002. 349. 28 L Costanzo. Physiology. W B Saunders Company. 1998. 286-287.

29 A Yartsev. Pharmacology of carbon dioxide. Deranged Physiology.

https://derangedphysiology.com/main/cicm- primary-exam/required-reading/respiratory-system/Chapter%20311/pharmacology-carbon-dioxide

30 A Voulgaris, O Marrone, et al. Chronic kidney disease in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. A narrative review. Sleep Med Rev. 2019. 10 (47). 74-89. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31376590/

31 Medicine Libre Texts. 6.4: Metabolic effects. Aug 13 2020.

https://med.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Anatomy_and_Physiology/Book%3A_Acid- base_Physiology_(Brandis)/06%3A_Respiratory_Acidosis/6.04%3A_Metabolic_Effects

32 C Smith, J Whitelaw, et al. Carbon dioxide rebreathing in respiratory protective devices: influence of speech and wor rate in full-face masks. Ergonomics. 2013. 56 (5): 781-790. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23514282/

33 D Stevens, B Jackson, et al. The impact of obstructive sleep apnoea on balance, gait and falls risk: a narrative review of the literature. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. Feb 2020. 10glaa014. Online ahead of print. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32039438/

34 E Lim, R Seet, etal. Headaches and the N-95 face-mask amongst healthcare providers. Acta Neurol Scand Mar 2006. 113 (3). 199-202. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00560.x https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16441251/

35 N Fabregas, J Fernández-Candil. Hypercapnia. Dec 2016. In book Complications in Neuroanesthesia. 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804075-1.00020-1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128040751000201?via%3Dihub

36 J Sayers, R Smith, et al. Effects of carbon dioxide on mental performance. J Appl Physiol. Jul 1985. 63 (1). 25- 30. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1987.63.1.25 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3114218/

37 U Satish, M Mendell, et al. Is CO2 an indoor pollutant? Direct effects of low-to-moderate CO2 concentrations on human decision-making performance. Environ Health Perspect. Dec 2012. 120 (12). 1671-1677. https://dx.doi.org/10.1289%2Fehp.1104789

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548274/

38 Y Yang, C Sun, et al. The effect of moderately increased CO2 concentration on perception of coherent motion. Aviat Space Environ Med. Mar 1997. 68 (3). 187-191.   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9056025/

39 K Azuma, N Kagi, et al. Effects of low-level inhalation exposure to carbon dioxide in indoor environments: A short review on human health and psychomotor performance. Environ Int. Dec 2018. 121 (Pt1). 51-56. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.059    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30172928/

40 A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia 2008. 19. 121-126.    http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf

41 T Kao, K Huang, et al. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Formos Med Assoc. Aug 2004. 103 (8). 624-628. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/

42 Bureau of Labor Statistics. News Release. USDL-11-1247. National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2010. Preliminary Results. Aug 25 2011.   https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5019350129886890079&hl=en&as_sdt=805&sciodt=0,3

43 D Spelce, R McKay, et al. Respiratory protection for oxygen deficient atmospheres. J Int Soc Respir Prot. 2016. 33 (2).    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7183576/

44 K Fedor. Noninvasive respiratory support in infants and children. Respiratory Care. Jun 2017. Vol 62 (6). 699- 717. doi: 10.4187/respcare.05244 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28546373/

45 J Weinstein, J Smith. Pediatric BIPAP. J Emer Med Svcs. Sep 19 2019.

46 US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Confined or enclosed spaces and other dangerous atmospheres >> Oxygen deficient or oxygen enriched atmospheres.

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/shipyard/shiprepair/confinedspace/oxygendeficient.html

47 Z Zhaoshi. Potential risks when some special people wear masks. No. 1 Dept of Neurology, The Third Hospital of Jilin University. Apr 18 2020.    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764955

48 C Luther. OSHA oxygen concentration standards. Sep 15 2020.     https://work.chron.com/osha-oxygen- concentration-standards-15047.html

49 D Spelce, R McKay, et al. Respiratory protection for oxygen deficient atmospheres. J Int Soc Respir Prot. 2016. 33 (2).     https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7183576/

50 J Henry. Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. 19th ed. WB Saunders Co. © 1996. P. 86.

51 T Carbonell, R Rama. Respiratory hypoxia and oxidative stress in the brain.Is the endogenous erythropoietin an antioxidant? Current Chem Biol. 2009. 3 (3).    https://doi.org/10.2174/2212796810903030238 https://www.eurekaselect.com/93407/article/respiratory-hypoxia-and-oxidative-stress-brain-endogenous- erythropoietin-antioxidant

52 K Blomgren, H Hagberg. Free radicals, mitochondria and hypoxia-ischemia in the developing brain. Free radic Biol Med. Feb 1 2006. 40 (3). 388-397.    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16443153/

53 G Padhy, A Gangwar, et al. Plasma kallikrein-bradykinin pathway promotes circulatory nitric oxide metabolite availability during hypoxia. Nitric Oxide. Vol 55-56. May-June 2016. 36-44.     https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1089860316300155

54 J Greenwod. Mechanisms of blood-brain barrier breakdown. Neuroradiology. 1991. 33 (2): 95-100. doi: 10.1007/BF00588242.     https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2046916/

55 M Griesz-Brisson. Interview. Technocracy News.

https://www.technocracy.news/german-neurologist-on-face-masks-oxygen-deprivation-causes-permanent-neurological-damage/

56 C St. Croix, B Morgan, et al. Fatiguing inspiratory muscle work causes reflex sympathetic activation in humans. J Physiol. Dec 1 2000. 529 Pt 2 (Pt 2). 493-504. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.00493.x. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11101657/

57 V Melnikov, V Divert, et al. Baseline values of cardiovascular and respiratory parameters predict response to acute hypoxia in young healthy men. Physiol Res. 2017. 66 (3). 467-479.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28248531/

58 J Crawford, T Isbell, et al. Hypoxia, red blood cells, and nitrite regulate NO-dependent hypoxic vasodilation. Blood. Jan 15 2006. 107 (2). 566-574. https://dx.doi.org/10.1182%2Fblood-2005-07-2668 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1895612/

59 J Henry. Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. 19th ed. WB Saunders Co. © 1996. P. 599.

60 MedGen. Erythroid hyperplasia.    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/medgen/4536#rdis_1634824

61 D Harmening. Clinical Hematology and Fundamentals of Hemostasis., 4 th ed. Davis Company. 2002. 348-349.

62 E Cummins, D Crean. Hypoxia and inflammatory bowel disease. Microbes and Infection. 19 (3). March 2017. 210-221.     https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1286457916301319?via%3Dihub

63 N Zeitouni, S Chotikatum, et al. The impact of hypoxia on intestinal epithelial cell functions: consequences for invasion by bacterial pathogens. Mol Cell Ped. 2016. 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40348-016-0041-y https://molcellped.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40348-016-0041-y

64 W Zhu. Should, and how can, exercise be done during a coronavirus outbreak? An interview with Dr. Jeffrey A Woods. J Sport Health Sci. Mar 2020. 9 (2). 105-107. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.01.005. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32099717/

65 M Hogan, R Cox, et al. Lactate accumulation during incremental exercise with varied inspired oxygen fractions. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. Oct 1983. 55 (4). 1134-1140. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1983.55.4.1134 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6629944/

66 O Warburg. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. Feb 24 1956. 123 (3191). DOI:10.1126/science.123.3191.309.     https://science.sciencemag.org/content/123/3191/309

67 O Warburg. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. Feb 24 1956. 123 (3191).

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1750066?seq=1

68 A Chambers, S Matosevic. Immunometabolic dysfunction of natural killer cells mediated by the hypoxia-CD73 axis in solid tumors. Front Mol Biosci. 2019. 6 (60). Jul 24 2019. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffmolb.2019.00060 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6668567/

69 G Crittenden. Is your mask giving you lung cancer? Oct 21 2020.

https://neverb4.net/is-your-mask-giving-you-lung-cancer/

70 M Chua, W Cheng, et al. Face masks in the new COVID-19 normal: materials, testing and perspectives. Research (Wash DC) Aug 7 2020. https://dx.doi.org/10.34133%2F2020%2F7286735 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7429109/

71 Solvay. Material for Covid-19 PPE and medical equipment: N-95 masks.

https://www.solvay.com/en/chemical-categories/specialty-polymers/healthcare/medical-equipment-emergency-production/n95-masks

72 M Chua, W Cheng, et al. Face masks in the new COVID-19 normal: materials, testing and perspectives. Research (Wash DC) Aug 7 2020. https://dx.doi.org/10.34133%2F2020%2F7286735

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7429109/

73 P Pierozan, F Jemeren, et al. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) exposure promotes proliferation, migration and invasion potential in human breast epithelial cells. Arch Toxicol. 2018. (92 (5). 1729-1739. Mar 3 2018. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00204-018-2181-4

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5962621/

74 K Steenland, T Fletcher, et al. Epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Environ Health Perspect. Aug 2010. 118 (8): 1100-1108. https://dx.doi.org/10.1289%2Fehp.0901827 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920088/

75 D Lukashev, B Klebanov. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha and its activation- inducible short isoform I.1 negatively regulate functions of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. J Immun. Oct 15 2006. 177 (8). 4962 – 4965. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.177.8.4962
https://www.jimmunol.org/content/177/8/4962

76 A Sant, A McMichael. Revealing the role of CD-4+ T cells in viral immunity. J Exp Med. Jul 30 2012. 209 (8).

https://dx.doi.org/10.1084%2Fjem.20121517

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3420330/

77 B Borovoy, C Huber, Maria Crisler. Masks, false safety and real dangers, Part 2: Microbial challenges from masks. Oct 2020.      https://PDMJ.org

78 J Lan, Z Song, et al. Research letter: Skin damage among health care workers managing coronavirus disease- 2019. Mar 9 2020. J Am Acad Dermatol. 82 (5). 1215-1216.

https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(20)30392-3/pdf

79 US Food and Drug Administration. Definition of a medical device. Section 201(h).

https://www.fda.gov/media/131268/download

80 US Food and Drug Administration. Medical device overview.

https://www.fda.gov/industry/regulated-products/medical-device- overview#What%20is%20a%20medical%20device

81 Us Food and Drug Administration. “Who can write a prescription for a medical device?”

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/home-use-devices/frequently-asked-questions-about-home-use-devices#5

82 E Sinkule, J Powell, et al. Evaluation of N95 respirator use with a surgical mask cover: effects on breathing resistance and inhaled carbon dioxide. [Table 4] Ann Occup Hygiene. Oct 29 2012. 57 (3). 384-398.

https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mes068

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/57/3/384/230992

83 Z Zhaoshi. Potential risks when some special people wear masks. No. 1 Dept of Neurology, The Third Hospital of Jilin University. Apr 18 2020.     https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764955

51 Child Death Reports from the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after Injection/Vaccination as Part of the Ongoing SARS-CoV2/COVID19 Clinical Trials

51 Child Death Reports from the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after Injection/Vaccination as Part of the Ongoing SARS-CoV2/COVID19 Clinical Trials

HELP RAISE AWARENESS SHARE WITH SCHOOLS, GP’S, MP’S, PARENTS ETC

1. 5 months old boy, 1 day after Pfizer, exposure via breast milk: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1166062
2. 17 year old girl, 8 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1199455
3. 16 year old girl, 9 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1225942
4. 15 year old boy, 1 day after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1242573
5. 17 year old boy, 8 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1243487
6. 17 year old boy, 4 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1307657
7. 15 year old boy, 23 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1382906
8. 16 year old boy, 4 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1386841
9. 17 year old girl, 15 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1388042
10. 13 year old boy, 1 day after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1406840
11. 16 year old girl, 21 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1420630
12. 17 year old girl, 6 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1420762
13. 13 year old boy, 17 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1431289
14. 16 year old boy, 27 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1466009
15. 16 year old boy, 6 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1475434
16. 16 year old boy, 4 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1498080
17. 13 year old girl, 26 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1505250
18. 13 year old girl, days until death after Pfizer injection not noted https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1655100
19. 17 year old boy, 94 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1689212
20. 16 year old girl, 9 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1694568
21. 11 year old girl, days until death after Pfizer injection not noted https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1696757
22. 16 year old boy, 23 days after Pfizer injection https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1734141
23. 16 year old girl, 1 day after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1757635
24. 15 year old boy, 6 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1764974
25. 12 year old girl, 22 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1784945
26. 13 year old female, 15 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1815096
27. 17 year old girl, 33 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1815295
28. 16 year old girl, days until death after Pfizer injection not noted https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1823671
29. 17 year old girl, 36 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1828901
30. 16 year old girl, 9 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1854668
31. 16 year old girl, 2 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1865389
32. 5 year old girl, 4 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1890705
33. 16 year old boy, 8 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1576798

Continued : Links to Remaining individual VAERS records of the 51 children who have died following a Pfizer Injection (data to 17th December 2021):

Page 2 of 2

HELP RAISE AWARENESS SHARE WITH SCHOOLS, GP’S, MP’S, PARENTS ETC

34. 15 year old girl, onset on day of Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1592684
35. 13 year old boy, 2 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1633205
36. 15 year old boy, 4 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1668800
37. 17 year old girl, days until death after Pfizer injection not noted https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1688720
38. 14 year old boy, 38 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1690103
39. 16 year old boy, 6 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1702154
40. 1 year old girl, 2 days after Pfizer injection (age incorrect): https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=958443
41. Foetal death (usually not included as a death), 7 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1720648
42. 16 year old girl, days until death not noted: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1732657
43. 17 year old boy, 9 days after Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1737907
44. 15 year old boy, on day of Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1845034
45. 13 year old boy, on day of Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1862946
46. 12 year old boy, on day of Pfizer injection: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1865979
47. 17 year old girl, on day of Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1912785
48. 13 year old girl, 31 days after Pfizer injection:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1913198
49. 14 year old girl, on day of Pfizer injection
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1953855
50. 17 year old boy, 3 days after Pfizer injection
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1953856
51. 17 year old boy, 7 days after Pfizer injection
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1953860

51 Child Death Reports from the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after Injection/Vaccination as Part of the Ongoing SARS-CoV2/COVID19 Clinical Trials

Before Your Child is Injected – Please Read This Statement from Dr Robert Malone

Before you even consider vaccinating your child (which is irreversible and may be permanently damaging) it is your duty of care as a parent, to find out why 15,000 physicians and medical scientists around the world signed a declaration publicly declaring that healthy children should NOT be vaccinated for COVID-19.   On behalf of these MDs and PhDs, Dr. Robert Malone, who has devoted his career to vaccine development, provides parents a clear statement outlining the scientific facts behind this decision.

Full Statement from Dr. Robert Malone

My name is Robert Malone, and I am speaking to you as a parent, grandparent, physician and scientist. I don’t usually read from a prepared speech, but this is so important that I wanted to make sure that I get every single word and scientific fact correct.

I stand by this statement with a career dedicated to vaccine research and development. I’m vaccinated for COVID and I’m generally pro-vaccination. I have devoted my entire career to developing safe and effective ways to prevent and treat infectious diseases.

After this, I will be posting the text of this statement so you can share it with your friends and family.

Before you inject your child – a decision that is irreversible – I wanted to let you know the scientific facts about this genetic vaccine, which is based on the mRNA vaccine technology I created:

There are three issues parents need to understand:

The first is that a viral gene will be injected into your children’s cells. This gene forces your child’s body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including

  • Their brain and nervous system
  • Their heart and blood vessels, including blood clots
  • Their reproductive system, and
  • This vaccine can trigger fundamental changes to their immune system

The most alarming point about this is that once these damages have occurred, they are irreparable

  • You can’t fix the lesions within their brain
  • You can’t repair heart tissue scarring
  • You can’t repair a genetically reset immune system, and
  • This vaccine can cause reproductive damage that could affect future generations of your family

The second thing you need to know about is the fact that this novel technology has not been adequately tested.

  • We need at least 5 years of testing/research before we can really understand the risks
  • Harms and risks from new medicines often become revealed many years later

Ask yourself if you want your own child to be part of the most radical medical experiment in human history

One final point: the reason they’re giving you to vaccinate your child is a lie.

  • Your children represent no danger to their parents or grandparents
  • It’s actually the opposite. Their immunity, after getting COVID, is critical to save your family if not the world from this disease

In summary: there is no benefit for your children or your family to be vaccinating your children against the small risks of the virus, given the known health risks of the vaccine that as a parent, you and your children may have to live with for the rest of their lives.

The risk/benefit analysis isn’t even close.

As a parent and grandparent, my recommendation to you is to resist and fight to protect your children.

Read the supporting evidence here

Dangerous Pathogens Found on 6 Childrens Face Coverings Including Lab Reports

Dangerous Pathogens Found on 6 Childrens Face Coverings Including Lab Reports

In June 2021, a group of parents in Gainesville, Florida, sent 6 of their childrens’ worn face masks and face coverings to a laboratory at the University of Florida, requesting an analysis of contaminants.  The face masks and face coverings had been worn by their children for a day at school and were either brand new, or freshly laundered for the beginning of the school day.

The resulting report found that five of the face coverings were contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi, including three with dangerous pathogens.

Half of the masks were contaminated with one or more strains of pneumonia-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with one or more strains of meningitis-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens. In addition, less dangerous pathogens were identified, including pathogens that can cause fever, ulcers, acne, yeast infections, strep throat, periodontal disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and more.

Read full story here

The detailed laboratory reports can be found here


Disclaimer: Testing was conducted at the request of the parents. There is no doubt that there is harm and more research needs to be done in a controlled scientific study.