Facemasks and Rising Crime in the US

download-2

Unintended Consequences: Facemasks and Rising Crime in the US
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
Global Research, July 13, 2020
Region: USA

Unintended Consequences: Facemasks and Rising Crime in the US

The recommended use of facemasks has been a controversial issue in the US and other countries around the world in whether they keep you safe or not. Scientific evidence suggests that facemasks are useless against viruses as Dr. Russell Blaylock who published an important article in early May ‘Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy’ on what facemasks can do to your health:

Researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia

Another point that Dr. Blaylock made is the following:

It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask. Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance. Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung

What Dr. Blaylock found is absolutely disturbing. With that said, there is another major problem that does not have anything to do with health, unless of course you get shot or stabbed, is an increase in crime across the U.S. mainland which is becoming more out of control due to the use of facemasks which makes it that much more easier to commit a crime and get away with it. A report that was published in Newsweek magazine last May sheds light on what police officials are concerned about when it came to wearing facemasks in public ‘Increase in Criminal Use of Coronavirus Face Masks to Blend in While Committing Crimes, Police Warn’ about the rise of crime since facemasks were recommended by the CDC and other health agencies including the NIH and the WHO, “an increase in the use of surgical masks amid the novel coronavirus health crisis is proving to be a unique challenge for law enforcement nationwide.” That is now what police departments across the US are now facing.
Fashion Fetishism, Surgical Masks and Coronavirus

The CDC and the WHO had recommended the use of facemasks to limit and prevent others from getting the coronavirus has not only made breathing harder for those who comply, it has made “life difficult for police tasked with identifying and apprehending crooks” warning that “criminals are taking advantage of the situation to blend in with the public.” And indeed they have, “Police say investigations involving the cheap and now-common item have spiked in recent weeks, popping up in armed robberies across the country.” The CDC has advised the public to wear facemasks if social distancing cannot to achieved “especially in grocery stores and pharmacies.” Newsweek mentioned Richard Bell, A police chief from Frackville, Pennsylvania who “told the Associated Press that he is aware of seven robberies in his own region in which every suspect was masked” and described “the virus outbreak as being a “perfect opportunity” for criminals.” FBI Special Agent Lisa MacNamara also weighed in on the facemask issue said that “In the past if you did a search warrant and you found surgical masks, that would be highly indicative of something [suspicious]. Now everybody has masks or latex gloves.” In a side note, I happen to find people who wear latex gloves or dish washing gloves (which I saw a couple of people wearing in NYC), goggles and visors along with their surgical facemasks, hilarious, I guess it gives people a false sense of security. MacNamara indicated that “several such crimes and reported a surge in the wearing of latex gloves has also resulted in fewer fingerprints left at crime scenes.” The New York Times began reporting such crimes as early as March ‘Coronavirus Bandits? 2 Armed Men in Surgical Masks Rob Racetrack’described what happened at the Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens, N.Y.:

Three workers at the Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens were transporting hundreds of thousands in dollars in cash on Saturday night when they were accosted by two gunmen, the police said. The thieves made off with more than $200,000, aided in part by surgical masks they wore to conceal their identities

The NY Times also reported what happened in Chicago and in Atlanta, Georgia:

In January in Chicago, a local television news truck recorded a group of teenagers wearing surgical masks as they fled a smash-and-grab robbery of a Gucci store on Magnificent Mile. And last month, Georgia authorities said they were looking for a man who wore a surgical mask during robberies of six banks in the suburbs north of Atlanta

The use of facemasks led by the CDC and the World Health Organization has not only created a hazard for your personal health, it has made supermarkets, stores and average people more susceptible to violent crimes. With the US economy in freefall collapse with high-unemployment rates and poverty levels increasing by the day along with many businesses both small and large going bankrupt will contribute to an increase in crime not seen since the 1970′s. There is also the problem with billionaire backed movements such as Black Lives Matter who are making demands that the police should be defunded is a call for disaster especially in Democrat-run states where obtaining legal fire arms can be difficult for most businesses and law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, so at the end of the day, facemasks make it easier for criminals to win.

People who live in towns and cities across the US should thank the “experts” who lie about almost everything when it comes to Covid-19 like Dr. Anthony Fauci when they start to see a rise in violent crime including armed robberies and murder which will be far more dangerous than Covid-19 except of course if you are elderly and got serious underlying health issues.

The rise in crime is the product of decisions made by corrupt governmental officials who are bankrolled by major pharmaceutical corporations, bankers and billionaires who have specific interests to control and at the same time, profit from the people throughout the world with a tyrannical medical system in place. However, there is another angle we can look at. With an already militarized police state and a growing medical tyranny on the way with the potential to face a crime wave will force people to beg the government to protect them from the same criminals they opened the door to while the government continues to take away their freedoms. Either way, it seems that the US government and the criminals are winning and the citizens are losing the battle for the basic freedoms they once had.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCN
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Timothy Alexander Guzman, Global Research, 2020

They Don’t Know What They’re Doing: The Vaccine Paradigm’s Shaky Assumptions

07-16-20-Dr-Peter-Aaby-Featured-Image-800x417

JULY 16, 2020
They Don’t Know What They’re Doing: The Vaccine Paradigm’s Shaky Assumptions

They Don’t Know What They’re Doing: The Vaccine Paradigm’s Shaky Assumptions


By the Children’s Health Defense Team

As the endlessly reassuring pronouncements about high-risk Covid-19 vaccines indicate, vaccine scientists are nothing if not confident. Underlying their overweening confidence is a paradigm that has remained essentially unchanged since vaccination’s inception, notwithstanding seismic changes in vaccine technology and vaccine schedules. This paradigm narrowly evaluates a given vaccine’s effects against the target illness but pays little (if any) heed to vaccinated individuals’ overall health or to overall mortality. Adherents of the prevailing paradigm also display a surprising lack of curiosity about whether vaccines have different impacts on boys versus girls or whether the sequence and combination in which vaccines are given matter.

Individuals who teach the scientific method have pointed out that a scientific paradigm represents a “lens” that can be “recognized by the set of assumptions that an observer might not realize he or she is making, but which imply many automatic expectations and simultaneously prevent the observer from seeing the issue in any other fashion.” The authors of a July 2020 commentary in Lancet Infectious Diseases (titled “Vaccinology: time to change the paradigm?”) make this very point, arguing that decades of vaccine research not only have failed to address important inconsistencies but also contradict many of the assumptions that drive global vaccine policies and programs. As one of the authors (Danish scientist Peter Aaby) stated in 2019, “most of you think that we know what all our vaccines are doing—we don’t.”

… they report that 17 different studies examining all-cause mortality in DTP-vaccinated children found higher mortality in girls than boys, whereas in the pre-vaccination era in west Africa, there was no excess mortality in girls at all.
“Non-specific effects” and excess mortality
Aaby and coauthors are staunch advocates of vaccination. However, over the course of 40-plus years of health surveillance in west Africa, they have gathered enough observations and data to be persuaded that vaccines have “non-specific effects” on the immune system—in other words, effects “other than the intended effect of reducing disease from the specific vaccination.” In their Lancet commentary, they outline six principles to explain these effects.

Some non-specific effects, in the Aaby group’s view, are beneficial. The researchers believe, for example, that live virus vaccines can “enhance resistance towards unrelated infections” (Principle 1) and—in the presence of existing maternal or prior vaccine-induced immunity—may enhance other beneficial non-specific effects (Principle 5). On the other hand, some researchers (Aaby and also others) are willing to cop to the fact that certain non-specific effects are plainly deleterious. In 2017, Australian researchers who looked into non-specific (“heterologous”) effects described undesirable outcomes ranging from decreased resistance to infection to “altered susceptibility to allergy, autoimmunity, and malignancy.” These are bad enough, but what the Australians emphasized most strongly—citing the Aaby group’s large body of research—were alarming sex differentials in deaths from all causes, particularly with reference to diphtheria, tetanus and whole-cell pertussis (DTP) vaccines. In the Lancet commentary, Aaby and coauthors encapsulate this observation as Principle 2, stating that “non-live vaccines enhance susceptibility towards unrelated infections for females.” More powerfully, they report that 17 different studies examining all-cause mortality in DTP-vaccinated children found higher mortality in girls than boys, whereas in the pre-vaccination era in west Africa, there was no excess mortality in girls at all.

According to Aaby and colleagues, girls also have fared worse—in terms of non-specific effects and excess all-cause mortality—with a number of other vaccines, including the inactivated polio (IPV), hepatitis B (HepB) and H1N1 influenza vaccines as well as a widely used pentavalent vaccine that contains DTP, HepB and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) components. In addition, Phase 3 trials in Africa of GlaxoSmithKline’s experimental malaria vaccine in 2015 were associated with two times higher all-cause mortality in girls and a higher risk of fatal malaria in girls. Commenting on this latter finding and the fact that GSK’s malaria vaccine was “the first recombinant viral nanoparticle vaccine to show heterologous effects,” the Australian researchers warned in 2017 “that engineered vaccines, and not just pathogen-derived vaccines, may need to be carefully evaluated for non-specific as well as specific effects before wide-scale implementation.” They further noted the lack of any research assessing whether pentavalent vaccines “have similar heterologous effects to the component vaccines contained in them.”

… the DTP vaccine—heavily promoted by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and its leading donor, Bill Gates—is killing more children than the diseases that the vaccine targets.
Which vaccines, when?
The analyses carried out by Aaby and colleagues have not focused solely on excess female mortality but also on vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparisons. Ten studies that examined all-cause mortality in DTP-vaccinated versus DTP-unvaccinated African children showed higher mortality (an average of two times higher across the 10 studies) for the vaccinated group. The disturbing take-home message of this meticulous body of research is that the DTP vaccine—heavily promoted by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and its leading donor, Bill Gates—is killing more children than the diseases that the vaccine targets.

Why this is the case has to do with the Aaby group’s somewhat broadly worded Principle 3 (“the most recent vaccination has the strongest non-specific effects”) and Principle 4 (“combinations of live and non-live vaccines given together have variable [non-specific effects]”). The researchers explain:

[I]n all studies exploring [sequence and combination], the incidence of all-cause mortality increases if the DTP vaccine is administered after the measles vaccine compared with inverse order. Likewise, administering the measles vaccine and DTP vaccine together is associated with higher incidence of all-cause mortality than only receiving the measles vaccine. [. . . ] In the USA, receiving live vaccines together with non-live vaccines was associated with higher risk of hospital admission for non-targeted infections than having a live vaccine only. [emphases added]

With Principle 6 (“vaccines might interact with other interventions affecting the immune system”), Aaby and coauthors also consider the interaction between vaccines and other health interventions. They note a study showing that whereas vitamin A supplementation benefited children who had not been vaccinated, “[i]n children who had been vaccinated, supplementation with vitamin A was associated with a tendency for increased mortality in girls.”

Dangerous—or scientific?
To evolve with integrity, science requires “paying attention to anomalous, strange or unwelcome observations.” This is exactly what the Aaby group has done, but for most vaccinologists—content to leave their assumptions untouched—the Danish researchers’ findings about non-specific effects and excess mortality are probably “unwelcome” indeed. A writer for the American Council on Science and Health (which claims that it has been “promoting science and debunking junk since 1978”) admits as much, describing the Lancet article as a “dangerous paper” and worrying about its potential to serve as “ammunition” for anti-vaxxers and “those who have nefarious purposes”—individuals who might willingly “hijack” the findings to “claim that vaccines and the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule aren’t safe.” In reality, the Aaby group’s findings about vaccination and mortality—and their remarkable consistency—can stand on their own two feet, no hijacking required. As Covid-19 vaccines continue to hurtle toward a rushed rollout, the true dangers come from allowing rigid, complacent and dishonest vaccine scientists to keep pretending that their flawed vaccine paradigm is safe.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy