I am strongly opposed to sections 4 & 5 of S250 and H3716.
Of the $2 Trillion Taxpayer dollars from the American Rescue Plan, Massachusetts will receive 1.8 BILLION PLUS additional funding to pay for testing.
This money, however, comes with strings attached.
In order to qualify for funding, school districts MUST post a plan that includes information about “the extent to which the school system intends to address CDC Guidance” on…
- UNIVERSAL and correct wearing of masks
- physical distancing
- improved ventilation
- contact tracing in combination with isolation and quarantine
- efforts to improve vaccinations to educators, other staff, and students
It’s time to stop blindly following CDC guidelines. We need to start questioning the CDC which is NOT a government agency but a private entity and CDC members hold patents on over 50 vaccines.
While The CDC consistently publishes the disclaimer: they have no financial interests with the manufacturers of commercial products & services…The CDC accepts millions, through the CDC Foundation, from corporations directly impacted by the agency’s public health programs. This is massive conflict of interest. We need to set higher standards for Massachusetts than the CDC guidelines, we need to look at ALL the science not just the industry-funded science.
Pool testing is seriously flawed in both concept and practice. Testing should not be done in the schools, period. Health decisions need to remain between doctors and patients. If my child is sick, they will stay home and if necessary, I will take them to the doctor as I always have.
If you listen to non-industry-funded doctors and scientists you will learn quickly masks can cause much more harm than good. This bill must be amended to make clear that PPE will be Voluntary for all teachers, students, and staff without COERCION, SEGREGATION or DISCRIMINATION.
The coercion is already happening. If you don’t want the COVID vaccine for any reason – A vaccine, which the FDA just added a warning label to about heart inflammation especially in young people, you’ll have to mask and test. There is NO valid reason since the vaccine, according to the manufacturer, does not stop someone from getting or spreading covid, it only lessens the symptoms. If you don’t want to mask and test you won’t be able to attend or you’ll be segregated. This is already happening in schools and workplaces across the country and it has to stop.
Please do not allow the federal government’s offer of billions of dollars to cloud your judgment as you make these very important decisions that will affect the lives of all Massachusetts residents.
Let’s spend some of this money educating people how to have a healthy immune system by eating healthy foods and getting enough sleep and let’s invest in more physical education programs. That would be money well spent towards a healthy Massachusetts.
Let’s slow down and do ALL the research before we do something foolish, dangerous, and costly. Please strike sections 4 & 5 so there is for time for a thorough review of the policies, all the science, and more input from the community.
Please review all the links and attached documents.
DANGER OF MASK WEARING
1. “This leads in turn to impairments attributable to hypercapnia. A recent review6 concluded that there was ample evidence for adverse effects of wearing such masks. We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks.”
2. The widespread use of cloth masks by healthcare workers may actually put them at increased risk of respiratory illness and viral infections and their global use should be discouraged, according to a UNSW study. The widespread use of cloth masks by healthcare workers may actually put them at increased risk of respiratory illness and viral infections and their global use should be discouraged, according to a UNSW study.
3. Mask with graphene are doing permanent lung damage!
The Quebec health department issued a ban on masks, sold widely around the world, which contain a material called graphene. Studies have shown these nano-materials can cause cellular lung damage, perhaps the most important organ to have healthy to do well against a bout of COVID. The brand withdrawn in Canada is from China, but the material they are made from is ubiquitous, and used by many different makers.
In a 2016 paper “Toxicology of Graphene-Based Nanomaterials,” researchers found:
“…studies indicate that the toxicity of graphene is dependent on the complex interplay of several physiochemical properties such as shape, size, oxidative state, functional groups, dispersion state, synthesis methods, route and dose of administration, and exposure times (emphasis added.)”
In a 2013 Brown University reported in the article “Jagged graphene can slice into cell membranes”:
“Researchers from Brown University have shown how tiny graphene microsheets — ultra-thin materials with a number of commercial applications — could be big trouble for human cells”
In that study, the researchers said:
“Schinwald et al. reported that graphene nanoplatelets induced granuloma formation and lung inflammation following pharyngeal aspiration in mice. .. Schinwald et al. provide evidence that graphene nanoplatelets are not readily cleared from the lungs and induce release of proinflammatory mediators from macrophages.”
In “Dose, time, and morphology dependent cytotoxicity,” the authors described the effects of exposures measured in days, not months or years:
“Vallabani et. al. investigated the toxicity of graphene oxide using normal human lung cells (BEAS-2B) after 24 and 48 hours of exposure at concentrations between 10–100 µg/ml.”
4. In this study, researchers found that people have 3x the risk of developing a respiratory illness if they wear a mask. In the first randomized clinical trial on the effects of cloth masks, scientists reported that “the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection” https://bit.ly/MasksInceaseRiskofCOVID
5. Denis G. Rancourt PhD April 2020 _Masks Don’t Work_ A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy. See attached PDF.
Concerns About the Use of PCR Tests in Healthy People
Public health decision-makers who are encouraging policies that basically force healthy people to get tested are calling positive test results in symptom-free persons “cases” and claiming they are infectious. The public is being misled. Here is a summary of the facts:
- A positive COVID-19 PCR test result does not mean a person is sick, or infectious, with a pandemic virus.
- This is because PCR tests detect a nucleic acid sequence. That is all. A PCR test cannot distinguish between dead-virus bits and “live” viruses capable of infection.
- “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”[]
- “Issues” with PCR tests are numerous. A partial list:
- “There can be large-scale test kit contamination[], as both the US and the UK (and several African countries) discovered during the early phase of the pandemic.
- “There can be testing site or lab contamination, which has led to countless false positive results[], school closures, nursing home quarantines, canceled sports events, and more.
- “The PCR test can react to other coronaviruses. According to lab examinations, this happens in about 1% to 3% of cases[] if only one target gene is tested, as is the case in many (but not all) labs and as the WHO itself has recommended[] to avoid ambiguous positive/negative test results.
- “The PCR test can detect non-infectious virus fragments weeks after an active infection, or from an infection of a contact person, as the US CDC confirmed[].
- “The PCR test can detect viable virus in quantities too small to be infectious”[]
In January 2021, the WHO fully confirmed the above analysis: “WHO guidance ‘Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2’ states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases.” Source: WHO Information Notice for IVD Users, updated 20 January 2021 – [ ]
(Above from: Swiss Policy Research, “The Trouble With PCR Tests“)
- PCR positive results are very unreliable when prevalence is low.
This is well documented in the peer-reviewed, published literature and has been the direct experience of many infectious disease research and laboratory professionals.
“The high false discovery rate that results, when prevalence is low, from false positive rates typical of RT-PCR assays of RNA viruses raises questions about the usefulness of mass testing; and indicates that across a broad range of likely prevalences, positive test results are more likely to be wrong than are negative results, contrary to public health advice about SARS-CoV-2 testing… There are myriad clinical and case management implications. Failure to appreciate the potential frequency of false positives and the consequent unreliability of positive test results across a range of scenarios could unnecessarily remove critical workers from service, expose uninfected individuals to greater risk of infection, delay or impede appropriate medical treatment, lead to inappropriate treatment, degrade patient care, waste personal protective equipment, waste human resources in unnecessary contact tracing, hinder the development of clinical improvements, and weaken clinical trials. Measures to raise awareness of false positives, reduce their frequency, and mitigate their effects should be considered.”[]
 Cohen, Andrew & Kessel, Bruce (2020). False positives in reverse transcription PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2. Link to pre-print article at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf