One of Europe’s Leading Neurologists Claims Masks Are Dangerous & Explains Why
The Facts: One of Europes leading neurologists, Dr. Margareta Griesz-Brisson, MD, PhD, recently gave an interview sharing her opinion that masks are dangerous and should not be mandated. Her interview was removed from YouTube.
Reflect On: How are so many renowned doctors and scientists sharing information that, according to many fact-checkers, is completely false? Her opinion is shared by many but again, according to many fact checkers, is completely false.
What Happened: Dr. Margareta Griesz-Brisson, MD, PhD, is one of Europes leading neurologists who is currently based in London, UK. She is currently the Medical Director of The London Neurology & Pain Clinic and also serves as a medico-legal experts in the UK, Norway, Germany, Switzerland and the United States. She specializes in neurology, neuro-regeneration, neuroplasticity, neurotoxicology, environmental medicine and pain management.
She is one of thousands of doctors and scientists from around the world who have strongly disagreed with the measures taken by the World Health Organization at multiple governments to combat COVID-19.
Is this false news? No, she actually gave an interview explaining why she believes masks are dangerous. What may be false is the claim that masks are dangerous, as multiple internet-fact checkers will likely claim is untrue, and already have. That said you should, as a viewer, be allowed to hear multiple sides of expert opinion and make choices for yourself.
In a recent interview, she states the following:
I am following the events in Germany with growing concern, in Germany and worldwide, corona turned out to be a moderate flu and the measures are an absolute disaster on every level…Our health is greatly in our own hands, through good food, good water, a lot of movement, sociability, joy, friends love and lots and lots of fresh air…We can strengthen our immune system. Have you noticed something, exactly those things our governments have forbidden us….The much loved mouth and nose cover…the re-breathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding with carbon dioxide. But we know that the human brain is so sensitive to oxygen deprivation that our nerve cells for instance in the hippocampus who can’t be longer than 3 minutes without oxygen, they can’t survive. The acute warning symptoms air headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, concentration, slow down in concentration time…But chronic deprivation, all those symptoms disappear because people get used to it, but your efficiency will remain impaired. And oxygen undersupply in your brain continues to progress. We know that neurodegenerative diseases need years to decades. So if today you forget your phone number, the break-down in your brain already started 20 or 30 years ago.
While you’re thinking you have to get used to your mask and your own exhaled air, the degenerative processes in your brain are getting amplified through the oxygen deprivation…The second problem of the brain is the nerve cells are not really dividing themselves, so in case our government generously lets us go without masks…the lost nerve cells will no longer be regenerated, what is gone is gone. This is extremely important for fearful people who actually think that they are protecting themselves from the virus. The virus has approximately size of 0.0 micrometers, the pores of the regular masks have a size of 80 to 500 micrometers and are getting bigger though each washing. The common masks does not at all protect you from the virus. I do not wear a mask, I need my brain to think, I want to have a clear head…and not in a carbon dioxide anesthesia….Oxygen deprivation is dangerous for every single brain…
For children, masks are an absolute no no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system…Their brain is also insanely active and has so much to learn…The youth brain is thirsting for oxygen…In children…every organ is metabolically active, to deprive a child’s brain of oxygen, or even just to restrict this is absolutely criminal…The damage because of it cannot be reversed…We don’t need a clinical study for that, it is simple simple indisputable physiology…Conscious and purposefully induced oxygen deficiency is a deliberate…health hazard and an absolute medical contraindication….This therapy, this method, this measure should not be used, should not be allowed to be used. To use an absolute medical contraindication…by force…there must be definitely and serious reasons and they must be presented to competent in-disciplinary independent bodies to authorize this…
It’s no secret that scientists and doctors who express and explain why they believe masks aren’t effective, and lockdown measures are doing more harm than good, as well as the idea that COVID is not dangerous, are being subjected to massive amounts of censorship. The interview with Dr. Margareta Griesz-Brisson has been removed from YouTube, for example. This level of censorship is something we’ve never really seen before.
There are many who oppose what’s happening, more than 500 doctors and scientists in Germany, for example, have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19 restrictions. They oppose the measures that have been taken by governments.
Is She Correct About Masks?
Claims that the virus is too small for the masks to be effective have been heavily challenged by internet fact-checkers. For example, here’s an article published by USA Today explaining why masks are efficient enough to block COVID-19. It explains why that despite the size of the COVID particle, masks are still effective. Here’s another one from a Taiwan fact-checking organization. CDC director Robert Redfield recently stated that wearing a mask might be “more guaranteed” to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine.
On the other hand, a paper published a couple of months ago in the New England Journal of Medicine by, Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D states:
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
There are also a number of studies suddenly emerging claiming that wearing a mask can supposedly help stop the transmission of Covid-19. That’s important to note. For example, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that wearing a wet washcloth greatly reduces exposure to speech droplets in the air. Another study in ACS Nano observed that well-fitted face masks made of common materials, such as cotton, can filter out between 80 and 99% of droplets, depending on droplet size. Finally, Jeremy Howard, a research scientist at the University of San Francisco, and other scientists have compiled a list of research publications supporting the use of face coverings for reducing disease transmission.
It’s not hard to see why people are so confused.
Below is a quote from a very interesting paper published in 2016, titled “The Surgical Mask Is A Bad Fit For Risk Reduction.”
As represented by our cinema and other media, Western society expects too much of masks. In the public’s mind, the still-legitimate use of masks for source control has gone off-label; masks are thought to prevent infection. From here, another problem arises: because surgical masks are thought to protect against infection in the community setting, people wearing masks for legitimate purposes (those who have a cough in a hospital, say) form part of the larger misperception and act to reinforce it. Even this proper use of surgical masks is incorporated into a larger improper use in the era of pandemic fear, especially in Asia, where such fear is high. The widespread misconception about the use of surgical masks — that wearing a mask protects against the transmission of virus — is a problem of the kind theorized by German sociologist Ulrich Beck.
The birth of the mask came from the realization that surgical wounds need protection from the droplets released in the breath of surgeons. The technology was applied outside the operating room in an effort to control the spread of infectious epidemics. In the 1919 influenza pandemic, masks were available and were dispensed to populations, but they had no impact on the epidemic curve. At the time, it was unknown that the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can theoretically penetrate the surgical mask barrier. As recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, “face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.” A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus…
A study published in 2015 found that cloth masks can increase healthcare workers risk of infection. It also called into question the efficacy of medical masks. You can read more about that and access it here.
The physiological effects of breathing elevated inhaled CO2 may include changes in visual performance, modified exercise endurance, headaches and dyspnea. The psychological effects include decreased reasoning and alertness, increased irritability, severe dyspnea, headache, dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss. (source)
Is She Correct That It’s “Flu Like?”
Many scientists and doctors in North America are also expressing the same sentiments. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.
A group of Canadian doctors in the province of Ontario have come together and written an open letter to Ontario premier Doug Ford. The letter is signed by 20 doctors and professors of medicine from faculties at the University of Toronto, McMaster University and the University of Ottawa and from hospitals such as Sick Kids. The letter was sent to ford on September 27th, and it argues against a return to lockdown measures as a way to tackle rising COVID-19 cases. You can read more about that here.
A report published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus.
The examples above are a few out of many.
The CDC also released new infection/fatality estimates that also has many people and experts calling into question the severity of the virus, this was well after John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old. It turns out he was right.
On the other hand, According to the fact-checker Health Feedback, Scientists have observed that some survivors suffer from damage to various organs, including the lungs and heart, as well as the nervous system. Such damage could lead to chronic health problems, as this news article in Science reported, although it is currently unclear exactly how long such damage persists and how often it occurs. However, the long-term health effects of COVID-19 can be so severe that physicians and researchers are preparing to provide rehabilitation services to patients to facilitate their return to a functional life[2,3].
Finally, even a small IFR can translate into a large number of deaths if the virus spreads among a large group of people. Indeed, in spite of COVID-19’s relatively small IFR, the U.S. has recorded more than 200,000 COVID-19 deaths at the time of this review’s publication while there have been more than 1 million COVID-19 deaths worldwide, according to the Coronavirus Resource Center by Johns Hopkins University.
You can read their full post here.
We have to ask ourselves, why are so many experts in the field being completely censored, and why we are being told there is a clear consensus when there is in no way a consensus. Why is there so much information being shared that completely contradicts the narrative of our federal health regulatory agencies and organizations like the WHO? Why are we being made to believe that there is no solution for this except for a vaccine? Why is it so hard to find out what’s going on these days, and why is there so much conflicting information out there?
Does the politicization of science play a role? Can we continue to rely and obey the advice given to us by public health authorities, or should independent bodies be given as much attention regardless of their view? Why is certain information emphasized and the contradicting information from credible sources silenced? What’s going on here? Is our perception of major global events heavily influenced and controlled for ulterior motives?
As we write this, we are prepared for the possibility that a fact checker will shut this article down for it’s balanced journalism, that is to say, it’s giving you an unbiased look at both sides of the story. Something that apparently is lost from journalism in both the mainstream and alternative these days.