Do you prefer direct links to content? Check out our brand new sister site at Uncanceled.news.
Prashant Bhushan, an advocate-on-record for the Supreme Court of India, was punished by Twitter for tweeting about a peer-reviewed study showing that face masks are ineffective and harmful.
Article by Ethan Huff from Natural News.
Twitter pulled the tweet citing a violation of its “community standards.” The linked study warns that wearing a face mask restricts breathing, lowers blood oxygen levels (hypoxemia), and increases blood carbon dioxide levels (hypercapnia). Wearing a face mask persistently can lead to long-term health effects, it further explains.
Joining in on the fun, YouTube also pulled a video featuring a scientific roundtable on the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19). In that “offensive” video, a professor from Harvard University explained that children in particular should not wear a face mask because of the risks involved.
The paper that Twitter does not want people to know about goes into further specifics about how wearing a mask causes serious adverse physiological and psychological effects. This is why a district court in Weilheim, Germany, ruled a school mask requirement to be unconstitutional and thus void.
A lawsuit has also been filed in the United Kingdom calling on schools all across the country to stop requiring children to wear a face mask at school. The suit cites prolific damage to children’s psychological development as a consequence of having to wear a mask.
Remember in March 2020 when the World Health Organization told people not to wear a mask?
One wonders why Twitter and YouTube have not censored and removed posts and videos from the World Health Organization (WHO), seeing as how this globalist entity told everyone back on March 26, 2020, not to wear a mask unless they were sick.
“If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask,” was the WHO’s official position back then. “When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly.”
The WHO was an “anti-masker” entity, in other words. Only after Anthony Fauci declared masks to be lifesaving medicine and the WHO quietly changed its position on masks did Big Tech suddenly become the internet police to weed out all objections to masks – even from scientists.
We are constantly being told that we need to “believe science” and “trust science,” but in this case Twitter and YouTube are denying science by preventing it from being shared on their platforms.
“Given that masking of healthy populations for long periods of time is a new policy, it is astounding that the media and scientific journals decided within a matter of months that the efficacy of the practice could not be questioned or studied, nor its adverse effects discussed,” says Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director for the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER).
Bhushan, by the way, is a well-respected human rights attorney in India with more than 2.1 million Twitter followers. One would think his clout would at least warrant Twitter users the opportunity to take a look at what he has to say, even if the Twitter “gods” disagree with it.
As The COVID Blog rightly stated, “Twenty-something Twitter employees with Starbucks lattes are now the authorities in law and science versus respected, long-time attorneys who have fought corruption their entire lives.”
“In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germs components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask,” says Baruch Vainshelboim from the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System and Stanford University.
“These toxic components are repeatedly rebreathed back into the body, causing self-contamination.”
More related news about Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) mask deception can be found at Pandemic.news.
Sources for this article include:
All ORIGINAL content on this site is © 2021 NOQ Report. All REPUBLISHED content has received direct or implied permission for reproduction.
With that said, our content may be reproduced and distributed as long as it has a link to the original source and the author is credited prominently. We don’t mind you using our content as long as you help out by giving us credit with a prominent link. If you feel like giving us a tip for the content, we will not object!
JD Rucker – EIC