Wow! What a load of Covid propaganda!
By Sally Beck | The Conservative Woman | July 5, 2021
WOW! What a Year! That’s a sentiment none of us would disagree with. Except that this is the title of a primary school musical production promoting Covid vaccines and face masks to children aged four to 11.
The Key Stage II musical, performed by the leavers of year 6, has been condemned as ‘unethical’ by some parents. They have complained to Leicestershire-based Edgy Productions, who charge schools £39 for a script.
Two songs in the production, which is about living in times of Covid, prompted the most outrage. One is A Shot In The Arm, the chorus of which cheerily tells children: ‘We’ll all roll up our sleeves and send it on its way . . . Because with just a little prick, we won’t get sick, And that will be an end to it!’ The other is Put That Mask On, with the chorus: ‘Put that mask on your face, Give each other some space, Wash your hands every chance you get. We’ll beat this yet! Ha! No sweat!’
Sorrel Scott, a physiotherapist from south-west London, said in a letter to Dr David Lewis, the director of Edgy Productions: ‘My immediate reaction to reading these lyrics was horror. The UK Government have not made the decision to vaccinate children currently and so it is hard to understand why your musical is trying to normalise and push vaccines for children when there is no medium or long term safety data, and these vaccines are still very much in experimental stages (none of the vaccines finish their experimental stage until 2023).
‘To promote vaccinations for young children who are unable to understand the real harms that may affect them in the short and long term is unethical.
‘To promote face masks for young children goes against current Government guidelines and it is important to note that there are very real harms that can come from wearing face masks, especially in children. These harms include headaches from a build-up of CO2, respiratory and heart problems, microbial contamination, and psychological harms. It has also been noted that facemasks offer little or no protection from tiny virus particles.
‘Have we come to a point where we want to promote mask wearing in small children who are not at risk of the virus and do not pass it on? Have you given a second thought to what effect these songs could have on young children by pushing these messages?’
The musical is not the only way in which children are being bombarded with vaccine propaganda for a jab many experts say they don’t need.
The Stephen Hawking Foundation has produced a slide presentation for schools called Are Vaccines Safe? Slide 11 shows horrific pictures of a child locked in spasm suffering ‘painful muscle contractions of tetanus’, a boy covered in smallpox pustules and a child post-polio in callipers. In almost all cases, Covid is mild or unnoticed in healthy under-18s, so these scare stories are totally irrelevant.
Former headteacher Nigel Utton, education co-ordinator for the World Freedom Alliance, one of a number of organisations fighting for medical freedom, wrote an open letter in May debunking the presentation slide by slide.
He said: ‘Scientists, doctors, lawyers, teachers and citizens are alarmed at the way schools are being used as a vehicle for taking away parental responsibility for the well-being of their children.
‘By allowing this propaganda in your school, you would be acting in loco parentis and you would therefore be morally responsible for any ill effects that the vaccine has on the children in your care. Children have already died in the vaccine studies and others have had life-threatening side effects.’
Adding weight to the campaign to prevent under-18s being vaccinated, Professor Robert Dingwall penned an eight-part heartfelt Twitter post last Wednesday. Professor Dingwall is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination (JCVI) who advise the government on vaccination.
His post said: ‘Teenagers are at intrinsically low risk from Covid. Vaccines must be exceptionally safe to beat this. Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine.
‘Covid is now a long way from being an important cause of mortality.
‘A reminder: medicine cannot deliver immortality and it is profoundly damaging to society to imply that it can, if only we try hard enough.
‘As Rene Dubos [French-American microbiologist and Pulitzer Prize winning author of So Human An Animal] noted 60 years ago, humans, viruses and bacteria form an ecosystem which has evolved over millennia.
‘Surely we have enough experience of the unintended consequences of humans reshaping other ecosystems to suit their own ends not to rush into reshaping this one without really understanding what it would mean for human lives and immune systems.’
Edgy say that ‘hundreds’ of schools across the country are busy rehearsing Wow! What a Year!
Director Dr Lewis defended the production. He said: ‘It celebrates heroes: nurses, doctors, shop assistants, teachers, delivery drivers, parents who home-schooled their children, (and the children who were home-schooled), those who struggled financially but still managed to feed their families, those who missed closeness to their loved ones, and those that led by example to show resilience in the face of adversity. This is the message that children are presented with.’
He said that if teachers do not like any of the songs, they may remove them: ‘If the teachers don’t like the content or don’t deem it appropriate, their children will not perform it.’
He added: ‘Any accusations that this musical is propaganda for a vaccine or mask agenda, have come exclusively from individuals who have not read the entire script or heard the songs in context. We encourage them to do so.’
Peter Cansell, spokesman for the National Association for Primary Education, said: ‘We would be unwise to offer an opinion as it is straying into requiring medical knowledge rather than educational understanding, but we feel that you have done the right thing in contacting the producers/publishers in this instance.’
Congressman Ken Buck challenges Zuckerberg on COVID censorship and more
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim the Net | July 4, 2021
In a letter to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, GOP Rep. Ken Buck, from Colorado, criticized Facebook’s content moderation policies. Buck pointed out, among other things, how Facebook’s content moderation practices are biased against some opinions.
“During the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Facebook removed more than 7 million posts that purportedly spread misinformation about the virus, and your company placed contextual notes on more than 98 million posts it deemed as potentially misleading,” Buck wrote. “Monitoring posts across Facebook and Instagram for misinformation about COVID has been an undoubtedly herculean task, but Facebook has vigorously taken on this challenge.”
Buck said that the platform censored content on the origins of the pandemic and the Hunter Biden story for “the supposed interest of public informational safety.”
“Your company is only able to selectively moderate content based on the political agenda of your company and its employees because Facebook possesses monopoly power over the market,” Buck wrote. He warned that “stifling ideas can backfire if it leads people to believe there’s a ‘real story’ that is being suppressed.’”
In both cases (the Hunter Biden story and the origins of the pandemic), “Facebook has had the embarrassing position of having to defend its censorship of legitimate content.” In recent months, more evidence has emerged that supports the lab leak theory. Additionally, “the unconditional erasure of reports that were damaging to the-candidate Joe Biden regarding his son, Hunter Biden, has since proved to be unfounded.”
Buck continued to point out that Facebook has been keen on censoring legal content, but has failed to remove “illegal and sexually abusive content.”
“The company appears to have an astonishing lack of concern about illegal and sexually abusive content that is rampantly permitted on your company’s platforms,” Buck wrote to Zuckerberg.
“Facebook has established a rigorous system for policing speech that is Constitutionally protected, yet your company’s failure to effectively screen illegal and exploitative content represents a misalignment of values that is deeply disconcerting.”
Buck’s letter also highlights Zuckerberg’s recent testimony in Congress about reforms to Section 230, expressing disapproval of Zuckerberg’s recommendation of what the Congressman described as “counterproductive actions.”
“Recently, you testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. In this hearing, you advocated for vaguely defined Section 230 reforms, saying that the law should ‘condition immunity for the larger platforms on having a generally effective system in place to moderate clearly illegal types of content,’” Buck wrote.
“Simply because a company has established a system to review potentially illegal content does not create any standard for ensuring such content is systematically removed from the platform,” he explained. “I agree with you that no system is perfect, but if Congress were to adopt your recommendation, it would codify the status quo and fail to address the issues that are pervasive across Facebook.”
The letter concluded with a plea to Zuckerberg: “I urge you to take necessary steps to ensure your platform is an open platform for the free and open exchange of ideas and an unwelcoming place for illegal and exploitative content.”


YouTube censors video of Nobel Prize winner Dr. Satoshi Ōmura discussing ivermectin

By Tom Parker | Reclaim the Net | July 2, 2021
Before the coronavirus pandemic, ivermectin was described as a “wonder” drug by the medical community. And in 2015, Dr. Satoshi Ōmura and Dr. William C. Campbell were awarded half the Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work that led to the development of ivermectin.
“The importance of Ivermectin for improving the health and wellbeing of millions of individuals with River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, primarily in the poorest regions of the world, is immeasurable,” the Nobel Assembly stated in its press release for the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
But after the pandemic began, the tech giants have gone all out to purge content that recommends ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
And today, these Big Tech policies against ivermectin resulted in one of Ōmura’s speeches where he discussed ivermectin being struck down for “violating YouTube’s community guidelines.”

“When the fascists at YouTube censor the Noble Prize winner Dr. Satoshi Omura, a man whose discoveries have saved a hundred million + from blindness, the world has entered a very, very dark place,” Australian Member of Parliament Craig Kelly tweeted. “I cannot express in words how angry & sad this makes me & fearful for the future.”
Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care, an alliance of physicians and scholars that has committed to “research and develop lifesaving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness,” also spoke out against the censorship and warned that “brilliant scientists and lifesaving science are systematically being gagged.”
Ōmura joins the ranks of many other senators, lawmakers, medical journals, biologists, and YouTubers who have been censored by Big Tech for discussing ivermectin.
Judge dismisses Children’s Health Defense lawsuit against Facebook censorship
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | July 1, 2021
A Northern District of California court has dismissed a complaint claiming that the First Amendment had been violated when Facebook started censoring the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) page.
The complaint was brought against Facebook, its CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and three third-party fact-checkers that the giant outsources to.
CHD, an activist group chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., asked to proceed with the case that alleges government-sponsored censorship, therefore making the First Amendment relevant even if Facebook is a privately-owned company. The complaint also cited false disparagement and wire fraud.
The issues that are the subject of censorship concern vaccines and public health agencies, and the plaintiff focused its argument on how the First Amendment was being challenged here by “the authorities openly censoring unwanted critique of its narrative.”
The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California, after hearing both sides’ arguments on Wednesday, decided to accept.
We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.
Where it concerns the First Amendment, the ruling states that the allegations failed to show that “Zuckerberg personally” was involved in censoring CHD – clearly, the court does not believe in the “command responsibility” of a CEO.
Next, the US federal government is exonerated, as the judge established that it did not form a “joint enterprise” with the social media company for the purpose of censoring the page.
“Emails between Zuckerberg and Dr. Fauci about a COVID information ‘hub’ on Facebook do not relate to any actions taken regarding CHD’s Facebook page,” the ruling stated.
And Judge Illston didn’t understand some members of Congress speaking publicly about the need for companies like Facebook to censor “misinformation,” including about vaccines, to constitute government coercion – and says she found no evidence that Facebook was pressured specifically into censoring CHD.
Regarding the filing’s count addressing wire fraud, the judge threw the case out saying that CHD had no valid argument either under the Lanham Act or RICO.
CHD sought to link Facebook’s censorship with more than a political or ideological matter, but one of monetary value, effectively accusing the giant of collusion for monetary gains with government’s health agencies, vaccine manufacturers, and the telecommunications industry.
Specifically, CHD has been strongly critical of the WHO, CDC and FCC, accusing them of corruption.
Did We Put Kids in Plastic Boxes With No Evidence?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | July 1, 2021
Despite a lack of evidence that plastic shields would reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission and documentation that children are at a much lower risk for COVID than adults, officials recommended masks and plastic boxes to separate and socially distance children.1
Not long after China announced the novel coronavirus, researchers began collecting data. Within months many scientists realized that COVID-19 does not affect children at the same rate that it affects adults. There have been many theories as to why this is the case.2 For one thing, children do not have the same types of comorbidities that increase the risk for adults and older adults. Their immune systems are also different.
Experts postulated that another difference was the expression of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) 2 receptor that is necessary for the virus to infect cells. Some suggested that other viruses common to the mucosa and airways in young children may limit the growth of the virus, which reduced the rate of severe illness.
Available data3 in the early months from the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed a cohort of 44,672 confirmed cases of COVID-19 indicated 2.1% of patients were aged zero to 19 years. As more data were collected throughout 2020, researchers continued to report that children have a much lower risk of severe disease and mortality from COVID-19 than do adults.4
According to the CDC,5 since children are hospitalized significantly less often than adults, it suggests that children may have less severe illness. They also attribute the lack of transmission in children to school closures in the spring and early summer of 2020, keeping children at home. And yet, children were still exposed to adults in their home who were symptomatic for the viral illness.
The lack of severe symptoms in children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is in stark contrast to the history of significant symptoms with other respiratory viruses in children.6
No Evidence Portable School Desk Shields Are Effective
In this 44-second clip, a masked President Biden is visiting a school where the children are all wearing masks behind plastic shields. It’s a disturbing sight that the mainstream media appears to take in stride as they try to convince you that this is the way we should live.
Mid-March 2021, the CDC released new guidelines, which reduced the social distance in schools to 3 feet and removed the recommendations for barriers between school desks. Greta Massetti leads the CDC’s community interventions task force and said about the plastic shields, “We don’t have a lot of evidence of their effectiveness” in preventing transmission.7
The new recommendations triggered a variety of responses in teachers and parents, some of whom are not comfortable sending their children to school where they may be allowed within 3 feet of another child or teacher.8
If you haven’t seen the plastic boxes being purchased in bulk by school systems for students at each of their desks, try imagining a three-sided transparent plexiglass shield that measures about 22 inches high9 and surrounds the front and two sides of the student’s desk.
Some school systems are excited by the prospect of adding another layer of distance between people. One school in Hawaii recently purchased 460 shields for students and teachers. Principal James Denight said, “Our focus is the health and safety of students and staff. We’re going to keep them in their bubble.”10
Mainstream media outlets covering the story are calling face masks and plastic shields “the new normal.”11 In one school in Ohio, students and staff spend the day wearing a mask and carry a foldable plastic shield they set up on their desks.
Unfortunately, the vast fortune the school systems and retail businesses are spending on plastic is not supported by scientific evidence. In the early months, health authorities told the public that the virus was spread by large droplets. Yet, scientists and researchers like Joseph Allen from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, protested, saying the virus could travel farther, making plastic shields ineffective.12
Nearly one year after the novel coronavirus began infecting people, the World Health Organization and the U.S. CDC finally accepted what researchers had been arguing — the virus can spread through the air.13 A recently released study14 by the CDC of COVID-19 transmission in elementary schools in Georgia demonstrated that plastic barriers on desks or tables were not effective.
Building scientist Marwa Zaatari spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg about plastic desk shields, saying they create15 “a false sense of security. Especially when we use it in offices or in schools specifically, plexiglass does not help. If you have plexiglass, you’re still breathing the same shared air of another person.”
Air Flow Restriction May Raise Risk of Transmission
One study published in the journal Science16 has suggested desk shields used in multiple school systems across the U.S. “are associated with lower risk reductions (or even risk increases).”
A preprint paper17 released from Japan investigated the effect plastic shields would have in areas with poor ventilation. They found the plexiglass blocked the air flow and may increase the risk for infection. The CDC study concluded that the results:18
“… highlighted the importance of masking and ventilation for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in elementary schools and revealed important opportunities for increasing their use among schools.”
Yet, the published data do not support their statement supporting masking. It’s important to note that the incidence of COVID-19 in the schools evaluated was extremely low. Among students and staff members, there were only 3.08 COVID-19 cases per 500 enrolled students during the study period.
The analysis of the numbers showed the incidence of COVID was 37% lower in schools where teachers and staff used masks and 39% lower where ventilation was improved, as compared to schools that did not use these strategies. However, in absolute numbers, a 37% reduction is only about one case in the school — hardly a supportive statistic for requiring schoolchildren to wear masks all day long.
Especially interesting is that the statistic was for teachers and staff and not for students. When the researchers looked at masking students they found, “The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional.”19
The data suggest that masks are not as effective as government health experts would like you to believe, even though viral experts have been outspoken about the dangers of wearing face masks. Virus expert Judy Mikovits is one of those who have posted on social media. According to Weblyf.com, Mikovits wrote:20
“Do you not know how unhealthy it is to keep inhaling your carbon dioxide and restricting proper oxygen flow? … The body requires AMPLE amounts of oxygen for optimal immune health. Proper oxygenation of your cells and blood is ESSENTIAL for the body to function as it needs to in order to fight off any illness. Masks will hamper oxygen intake.”
Mikovits is joined by Dr. Jenny Harries, England’s deputy chief medical officer. According to News-Medical.Net, she warned the public against wearing face masks “as the virus can get trapped in the material and cause infection when the wearer breathes in.”21 Nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock also believes face masks may cause serious harm:22
“Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask.
This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications … By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”
Where Will All the Plastic Go?
Interestingly, the sale of plexiglass has roughly tripled since the beginning of 2020, rising to roughly $750 million in the U.S.23 Sales were fueled by offices, restaurants and retail stores that scrambled to put up plastic shields after being told it would reduce the spread of the virus.
Tufts Medical Center epidemiologist Shira Doron supports the use of plastic shields but acknowledges “there’s no research” to support plexiglass barriers against coronavirus spread. She spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg, saying: “We don’t know a lot.” However, she believes that it comes down to, “If it might help, and it makes sense, and it doesn’t hurt, then do it.”24
Unfortunately, it doesn’t make sense and, ultimately, it may trigger mental health issues for children and adds to the growing plastic problem. Zaatari and Allen believe that plastic shields may make sense in certain settings, such as in front of cashiers if it doesn’t impede airflow. However, money would have been better spent on improving ventilation and air filtration in the school systems.
Craig Saunders, president of the International Association of Plastics Distribution, spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg about the future of those plexiglass shields when they are no longer used. He said, “It’s 100% recyclable thermoplastic. [It] just comes down to the logistics.”25
Yet, the logistics of recycling plastic are not a societal strong suit as has been demonstrated in the past 30 years. This begs the question of whether the additional plastic garbage from discarded plexiglass shields will join the trillions of pieces of plastic that litter the oceans and beaches.26
The planet is also facing a new plastic crisis brought on by discarded face masks. Each month there’s an estimated 129 billion face masks being used,27 most of which are disposable, made from plastic microfibers. Before wearing a mask became a daily habit, more than 300 million tons of plastic were already produced globally each year.
Most of it has ended up as waste, which led researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University to warn that masks could quickly become “the next plastic problem.”28 Bottled water containers have been a leading source of environmental plastic pollution, but will likely be outpaced by disposable masks.
While about 25% of plastic bottles are recycled, “there is no official guidance on mask recycle, making it more likely to be disposed of as solid waste,”29 the researchers stated. “With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat.”30
No matter what the ultimate goal was in pushing the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears that ensuring the safety of the Earth on which we live was not a priority. It is essential we protect the ecosystem, and thereby our food supply.
Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Ineffective and Harmful
The evidence that masks do not work to prevent the spread of viruses has been demonstrated using influenza and COVID-19. The first COVID-19 specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial was published in November 2020,31 and it confirmed previous, conflicting32 findings showing that:
- Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may increase your risk by 23%
- The vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection-free
Despite scientific evidence, the CDC has relied on anecdotal stories about hair stylists and retrospective reports to prop up their recommendation for universal mask-wearing to prevent the spread of infection.33 In addition to this, their own data34,35,36 also show 70.6% of patients with confirmed COVID-19 reported always wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness and 14.4% wore it often.
This means a total of 85% of people who had confirmed cases of COVID-19 either “often” or “always” wore a face mask. For a discussion of more science-based evidence about face masks, see “Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good.”
Denight’s focus on keeping children “in their bubble” is not far from what’s happening across the world. Data from a study37 using Germany’s first registry recorded the experiences of children wearing masks. It shows there are physical, behavioral and psychological harms38 being perpetrated on children in the name of science.
Data from 25,930 children found the average child was wearing a mask 270 minutes each day and parents, doctors and others reported 24 health issues associated with that mask wearing. These problems:39
“… included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”
Added to these concerning symptoms, they also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.40 Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”41
Push Back Against Tyranny
Measurements of anxiety or depressive disorder have also jumped dramatically for adults. Data from the CDC42 show the percentage of adults reporting symptoms of anxiety disorder and/or depressive disorder was 11% in the first quarter of 2019 but jumped dramatically to 41.1%43 across the U.S. by January 2021.
This jump in anxiety and depression in adults is significant for children since there is a positive relationship between a child’s behavioral problems and mental health with maternal mental health44 and parental mental health.45
This means that independent of their own stress and psychological harm from mask-wearing, lockdowns and plastic shields, children also respond negatively to the rising rate of anxiety and depression exhibited by adults. Thus, the impact on a child’s mental health is the result of both their own stress and that of their parents.
March 20, 2021, marked the 1-year anniversary of the first COVID-19 lockdown. On that day, people in more than 40 countries took to the streets to peacefully demonstrate against the lies and tyrannical measures being taken by governmental agencies and experts in the name of a viral pandemic.
Chances are you didn’t hear about this global rallying cry for freedom since the mainstream media have near-universally censored any news of it. However, this information is vital to understanding how your freedoms are being stripped and what you can do to protect your rights.
Our children and our children’s children are depending on us to ensure they have the freedom and the right to make decisions for themselves about their health, wellness and finances. Read more at “Global Pushback Against Tyranny Has Begun.”
Sources and References
- 1 New Hampshire, Department of Health and Human Services, June 4, 2021
- 2 Acta Pediatrica, 2020; doi.org/10.1111/apa.15271
- 3 Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, 2020;53(3)
- 4 The Lancet, 2021; doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00066-3
- 5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, December 30, 2020
- 6 Archives of Disease in Childhood, 2021;106:429
- 7, 8 ABC News, March 19, 2021
- 9 School Outlet, Portable School Desk Sneeze Shield
- 10 Hawaii Tribune Herald, August 5, 2020
- 11 Oxford Observer, March 12, 2021
- 12, 23, 24, 25 Bloomberg, June 8, 2021
- 13 Bloomberg, May 16, 2021
- 14, 18, 19 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2021;70(21)
- 15 Bloomberg, June 8, 2021 para 6
- 16 Science, June 4, 2021
- 17 medRxiv, 2021; doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.22.21257321
- 20 Weblyf.com April 26, 2020
- 21 News-Medical.Net March 15, 2020
- 22 Technocracy May 11, 2020
- 26 Condor Ferries, Shocking Ocean Plastic Statistics
- 27 Frontiers in Environmental Science and Engineering, 2021;15(6) para 1
- 28, 29, 30 Frontiers in Environmental Science and Engineering, 2021;15(6)
- 31 Annals of Internal Medicine November 18, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-6817
- 32 Spectator November 19, 2020
- 33 CDC.gov Human Studies of Masking and SARS-CoV-2 Transmission
- 34 CDC.gov MMWR September 11, 2020; 69(36)
- 35 CDC MMWR September 11, 2020; 69(38): 1380
- 36 Breitbart October 14, 2020
- 37, 39 Research Square, 2021; doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-124394/v2
- 38, 40, 41 Montana Daily Gazette, January 25, 2021
- 42 National Center for Health Statistics
- 43 Statista March 16, 2021
- 44 Pars Journal of Medical Sciences, 2012;10(1)
- 45 JAMA Pediatrics, 2004;158(8)
