The Highwire with Del Bigtree - NEW MASK STUDY SUPPORTING THEIR USE DEEPLY FLAWED

Episode Date: September 13, 2023

NEW MASK STUDY SUPPORTING THEIR USE DEEPLY FLAWEDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

The science in America was something we reported on last week. So we started to see patterns in the headlines, concerning patterns, showing that masks were coming back at universities, at hospitals, other places as well. And there was this drumbeat of this similar fear we saw on the headlines in 2020. And we said, uh-oh, it's time to really look into this. And there was even a fact check after the show because so many people were looking at this. They had to go out of their way to say, hey, don't worry about it. nothing's coming back.

We're fact checking this. It's a fact. We're not doing this again. The lockdowns aren't going to happen. You know, this happened a lot of places. And by the way, folks, I mean, don't go back to sleep. Don't trust. If I have to say it, clearly already this far in the show, you should say, I don't know if I can trust my government.

That's right. You're allowed to not trust your government. That's why it's the United States of America. If you lose the ability to not trust your government, you know you're in real trouble. And they're literally, people are literally, organizations are literally still doing studies to see if the lockdowns work, if the restrictions work,

masking work. And one of those organizations is the Royal Society. The Royal Society is the oldest continually existing scientific academy in the world. It was started in 1660. And they just put out, think about this, in the middle of all of these headlines over the last couple of weeks, they drop this review. COVID-19 examining the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

This is out August 2023. What do they mean by non-pharmaceutical interventions? Well, that's masking. that social distancing measures, including school workplace closures, closing bars, closing sporting events, basically lockdowns, upgrades and ventilation. So that's all packaged in this one thing. And this is what they say. Again, this comes out right in lockstep with the headlines. In summary, evidence about the effectiveness of NPI's applied to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 show unequivocally that, when implemented in packages that combine a number of NPI's with complementary effects, these can provide powerful, effective, and prolonged reductions in viral transgressions. But then they admit this, understanding all these other health and social and economic impacts of MPIs is, of course, extremely important and is a key question for inquiries being conducted around the world. However, this report focuses specifically on the impacts of MPIs on SARS-CoB2 transmission while acknowledging the need for similar analysis of all the other consequences of the implementation of MPIs.

And if you can see how ridiculous this is, the Science Media Center took a stab at it before we did. And they said this. expert reaction to this Royal Society report. And they write, in that context, it looks rather ironic that this report and the evidence reviews that accompany it choose explicitly to leave consideration of adverse events largely out of the picture, particularly social and economic effects. They mention page 25 that the consideration of all the health, social, and economic impacts is a key question for inquiries being conducted around the world. But will those inquiries, most of which have strong political aspects, get to the bottom of that question? Well, we're going to get to the bottom of the Royal Society because as we've reported on the show for a long time now,

there's a lot of studies showing that the masks are at best, highly questionable. The Cochrane Collaboration Report had 78 studies showing really not much difference in stopping flu-like symptoms or flu like influenza or COVID. But let's look at the Royal Society donor list. Let's start there. Companies, it says, well, there we go right at the top. Astrosenica. Whoops, they make vaccines. Right.

Funding by the people that made it for you. Okay. Google Europe, I tend to remember Google Europe and Google as a company in general, helping censoring the medical conversation online. That's interesting. Well, let's look at what the Royal Society has brought on for honorary fellows. These are very important people that work with the Royal Society. Number one, you may recognize this gentleman, Tedros Gabriasis.

He runs the WHO. Another person, we have Edward Holmes, Professor Edward Holmes. You remember him from this statement in April of 2020 from the University of Sydney, statement from Professor Edward Holmes on the SARS-CoB-2 virus. He says there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 in humans, originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China. And of course, Professor Eddie Holmes was one of the many virologists that was in the email chains that we've reported on from the unredacted emails at the beginning of the COVID response,

trying to figure out how are we going to kind of hide these anomalies? because it looks like this thing may have came from a lab. And he even writes that in the email here, putting the paper together, which was originally the origins paper of COVID. He says it's fundamental science and completely neutral as written, did not mention other anomalies as this will make us look like loons. As it stands, it's excellent in science.

So left out a lot of stuff, kind of cherry-pick the data. Let's keep going here. Another honorary fellow from the Royal Society, Sarah Gilbert. She actually was the creator of the Astrozenegener. vaccine. This is the BBC article, the woman who designed the Oxford vaccine, that's AstraZeneca vaccine. You remember this vaccine from 2021 when major European nations suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in concert because of some of the issues it was causing. So AstraZeneca's funding the Royal Society and has the designer of the vaccine as, you know,

on the, on the, was it? Honorary fellow. Honorary fellow. Okay. Yes. And, you know, Speaking of AstraZeneca, there's even more in the headlines just recently. This vaccine is not doing well. Astrozenica facing two London lawsuits over COVID-19 vaccines as Reuters. But then this guy, Sir Patrick Valence, he actually played a part in this actual study about MPIs. He's credited in the study. You may remember him from this headline, Sir Patrick Valence to step down as number 10's chief scientific officer after playing a key role in COVID lockdown. So this is the world's...

Literally from the people that locked you down comes a study saying that we did it exactly right. Trust us. It was unequivocally really great. Amazing. We've looked at, let's talk about masks for a second because they're still in the headlines. And we've looked at a lot of the science showing do they work, do they not work? But how about the actual mask itself? A Korean researchers just looked at this.

This study's been really going around. They measured measuring the quantity of harmful, volatile, organic compounds inhaled, through masks. So they say, if hazardous compounds are released from these masks, the human body's at risk. For example, dimethylformamide and dimethylacetamide, which are organic solvents using the production of masks and have been detected in KF masks in South Korea, cause reproductive toxicity, liver toxicity, and cancer in the human body. That's just one of these volatile organic compounds. But we go to the chart here that they show in this study, and they tested a lot of different masks. So you can see on the left side the samples, they letter them A, B, C, D, E. And masks A and B are

the disposable mask. Essentially what everyone was wearing. You take them out of a little cheap plastic package, put them on your face, use them once, one-use masks. And the rest of those, CD&E, those are cotton masks, polyester masks. Those are a little different. And so we look at the testing results. And we see this graph here. On the left, this is total volatile organic compounds. You can see A and B, especially A2, B1, B3. You're looking at over 2,600, 4,800 in one sample. Now, keep in mind, at around 3,000, the German Federal Environmental Agency has flagged those to be health concerns after 3,000. So two of those masks go, let's blow past that. Yeah. The other two in the 2000s are approaching it. So this is, this is. And the thing we were

living in these things, right? I mean, people just literally, literally, literally. living in them, in their cars, everywhere they went. It's unbelievable to think you're just sucking these fumes down. And it said, obviously, the cotton masks were a little better. But, you know, for those people that are watching the show that either have to mask or still want a mask, it does say, in full disclosure in this study, if you open the package of the mask and you let it sit for 30 minutes, it reduces those volatile organic compounds by 67%. So that is a technique if you're really not looking at inhaling these potentially toxic compounds for an entire day or your child.

You leave that mask out after you open it. See, even the pro maskers get a takeaway here on the high wire. We cover everybody. We've got everybody covered. We're all inclusive. Yeah. We're all inclusive.