Visits: 51
So what are my sources Part 2. I received an e-mail from a person who doesn’t post here, and wont. But they wanted proof of at least one statement I MADE IN PART 1. So what better proof than John Hopkins Doctors and Scientists giving us a break down of how the agency the fauch works for researched COVID and Masks for children.
Authorities in many places took the cue to impose mandates in schools and elsewhere, on the theory that masks can’t do any harm.
That isn’t true. Some children are fine wearing a mask, but others struggle. Those who have myopia can have difficulty seeing because the mask fogs their glasses. (This has long been a problem for medical students in the operating room.)
Masks can cause severe acne and other skin problems. The discomfort of a mask distracts some children from learning. By increasing airway resistance during exhalation, masks can lead to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the blood. And masks can be vectors for pathogens if they become moist or are used for too long. And the fauch calls himself a medical expert. look at what the NIH SPENT ON COVID RESEARCH AND MASKS FOR CHILDREN.
From John Hopkins
Of the $42 Billion 2020 NIH annual budget, 5.7% was spent on
COVID–19 research
● Public health research was underfunded at 0.4% of the 2020 NIH
budget
● Only 1.8% of the 2020 NIH budget was spent on COVID–19 clinical
research
● Average COVID–19 NIH funding cycle was 5 months
● Aging was funded 2.2 times more than COVID–19 research
● By May 1, 2020, 3 months into the pandemic, the NIH spent 0.05%
annual budget on COVID–19 research
● Of the 1419 grants funded by the NIH:
• NO grants on kids and masks specifically
• 58 studies on social determinants of health
• 57 grants on substance abuse
• 107 grants on developing COVID–19 medications
• 43 of the 107 medication grants repurposed existing drugs
So explain to me how the fauch can even comment on masks when his own organization did no studies, no science.
Nuff Said.
221
