Covid: No evidence shielding helped – Swansea uni study

April 22, 2023
Woman looking out of window
The study says further research is needed to fully evaluate the success of shielding

There is no evidence that shielding benefited vulnerable people during the Covid pandemic, according to a study.

Swansea University compared 117,000 people shielding in Wales with the rest of the population of three million.

The study found deaths and healthcare usage were higher among shielding people than the general population.

The Welsh government said shielding was introduced on medical and scientific advice and it will continue to review evidence from the pandemic.

The study also found the Covid rate was higher among those shielding – 5.9% compared to 5.7%.

The researchers said the data raised questions about whether the policy worked.

(See link for article)
Important excerpt:

“It was sort of made up at the time and implemented.”

Truer words were never spoken.

Study found here:


German Mask Study: Masks Do Not Prevent Viral Infections But Carry Harm

  • Humans are normally exposed to .04% CO2.  Mask wearers are exposed to 1.41-3.2% CO2, demonstrating toxicity.
  • A thorough review of current studies on mask efficacy shows there has never been solid data to show makes prevent viral transmission.
  • The medical community has long since known about the dangers of prolonged CO2 exposure

Study here:

Possible toxicity of chronic carbon dioxide exposure associated with face mask use, particularly in pregnant women, children and adolescents – A scoping review

Kai Kisielinski a,* , Susanne Wagner b , Oliver Hirsch c , Bernd Klosterhalfen d , Andreas Prescher e a Independent Researcher, Surgeon, Private Practice, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany b Non Clinical Expert, Veterinarian, Wagner MSL Management, 15831 Mahlow, Germany c Department of Psychology, FOM University of Applied Sciences, 57078 Siegen, Germany d Institute of Pathology, Dueren Hospital, 52351 Dueren, Germany e Institute of Molecular and Cellular Anatomy (MOCA), 52074 Aachen, Germany


Introduction: During the SARS-CoV-2-pandemic, face masks have become one of the most important ubiquitous factors affecting human breathing. It increases the resistance and dead space volume leading to a re-breathing of CO2. So far, this phenomenon and possible implications on early life has not been evaluated in depth.

Method: As part of a scoping review, literature was systematically reviewed regarding CO2 exposure and facemask use.

Results: Fresh air has around 0.04% CO2, while wearing masks more than 5 min bears a possible chronic exposure to carbon dioxide of 1.41% to 3.2% of the inhaled air. Although the buildup is usually within the short-term exposure limits, long-term exceedances and consequences must be considered due to experimental data. US Navy toxicity experts set the exposure limits for submarines carrying a female crew to 0.8% CO2 based on animal studies which indicated an increased risk for stillbirths. Additionally, mammals who were chronically exposed to 0.3% CO2 the experimental data demonstrate a teratogenicity with irreversible neuron damage in the offspring, reduced spatial learning caused by brainstem neuron apoptosis and reduced circulating levels of the insulin-like growth factor-1. With significant impact on three readout parameters (morphological, functional, marker) this chronic 0.3% CO2 exposure has to be defined as being toxic. Additional data exists on the exposure of chronic 0.3% CO2 in adolescent mammals causing neuron destruction, which includes less activity, increased anxiety and impaired learning and memory. There is also data indicating testicular toxicity in adolescents at CO2 inhalation concentrations above 0.5%.

Discussion: There is a possible negative impact risk by imposing extended mask mandates especially for vulnerable subgroups. Circumstantial evidence exists that extended mask use may be related to current observations of stillbirths and to reduced verbal motor and overall cognitive performance in children born during the pandemic. A need exists to reconsider mask mandates.



Yet, people continue to wear the face-diapers, and corrupt public health ‘authorities’ continue to insist, despite all reason, logic, and science, that they somehow work:

  • When questioned over the known harm masks have caused children and adults, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky doubled down on the mantra that masks prevent transmission, despite a meta-analysis on 78 studies by Cochrane that determined masks probably make little to no difference in the outcome of influenza-like illnesses like COVID.The analysis also reported: “Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported.”  
    • Go here for a “must read” article on how despite the good scholarship of the mask review, Cochrane has become nothing more than a “political junk science rag.” Within the article is a rare interview with Tom Jefferson, one of the study authors, who doesn’t trust the media (gee I wonder why?).  Jefferson states: “Governments completely failed to do the right thing and demand better evidence.”  I highly recommend reading the transcript as Jefferson highlights the shenanigans within science journals that will do virtually anything nowadays to publish the “right answer,” i.e. accepted answer for the accepted narrative.
    • In this important video, Dr. Prasad reads a statement from CDC director Rochelle Walensky and then states the following:

      She’s just making things up.  She’s good at making things up. She made up the fact that there’s credible data that we should mask kids between 2 and 5 even though UNICEF and the WHO said not to do that. She made that up.  She makes up lots of things, because she doesn’t actually use science to guide decision making, she just likes to make things up.” ~ Dr. Vinay Prasad  

  • While health “authorities” try and cover their backsides and excuse their incompetence and/or evil intent by stating they had to do something other than wait around for “the science,” a Cochrane study author states it best:

“…it’s a complete subversion of the ‘precautionary principle’ which states that you should do nothing unless you have reasonable evidence that benefits outweigh the harms.”  ~ Tom Jefferson, Cochrane epidemiologist

But here we still are……

For more:

%d bloggers like this: