CDC Director Says Children Must Continue to Wear Masks, Doesn’t Care What It Does to Their Brains

Some people think the jig is up and that the CDC is going to let people go back to normal. Those people are stupid or delusional. As I’ve said six trillion times, governments do not give people back freedoms they’ve already surrendered unless people force them to, and no one in America is willing to fight for anything.

Sultry Jewish CDC Director Rochelle Walensky recently said that vaxxed people can remove their masks, but this was just a way to get more people to agree to take the deadly vaxx.

There has been no surrender of total social control, as evidenced by the fact that this very sexy Jew woman is still demanding that children wear masks.

She is saying this for literally no reason other than social control. No one believes it serves any purpose.

Yahoo! News:

Young children should continue to wear face masks, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky said in congressional testimony on Wednesday, citing studies she says demonstrate that grade-school-age children can contract and spread the coronavirus.

“There’s still transmissions associated with young children,” Walensky said. “They have been vectors of transmission for older people.” (People who act as vectors spread a disease without necessarily becoming sick.)

A number of scientists point to research, however, that contradicts Walensky’s assertions. “What Rochelle Walensky said this morning is incorrect,” Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, told Yahoo News. “Children are not vectors.”

Just as Walensky was testifying on Capitol Hill before the House Appropriations Committee (she was there to explain her agency’s proposed budget, but faced many pandemic-related questions), Gandhi co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that described the risk of a child contracting the coronavirus from an infected person as .00007 percent. Outdoors, Gandhi and her co-authors found, the risk was a thousand times less than that, which is to say effectively nonexistent.

“We have sacrificed children on the altar of our fear,” Dr. Gandhi told Yahoo News. She described sending the article she’d co-written to the parents of her children’s friends, only to receive no response. The implication, Dr. Gandhi figured, was that those parents wanted their kids — and hers — to stay masked.

She said while the risk of the coronavirus to children has been exaggerated, their resilience in the face of Zoom school and other pandemic-related depredations has been overstated.

In response to a query from Yahoo News about how Walensky had come to her conclusion about child-related coronavirus risks, a CDC spokesman sent the agency’s guidance on school-based transmission. That guidance links to several studies that show most children do not become infected with the coronavirus. For example, one study cited by the CDC found that “more than 90 percent” of childhood coronavirus cases in China in early 2020 were “asymptomatic, mild, or moderate.” Another, conducted in April 2020, found that of 149,082 coronavirus cases in the United States for which information on age was available, only 1.7 percent were children. “Three deaths were reported among the pediatric cases,” that study found.

“This document definitely does not support Dr. Walensky’s statement she made in Congress,” says Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford epidemiologist, who reviewed the guidance forwarded by the CDC at the request of Yahoo News. “I remain mystified by her statement.”

It was an exchange with Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler that focused partly on an op-ed by Bhattacharya in the Wall Street Journal that prompted Walensky’s defense of children wearing face masks.

The op-ed noted that the World Health Organization “recommends against masking children 5 and under and only tepidly recommends masking children between 6 and 11.” Bhattacharya also wrote that the “evidence is overwhelming that masking can harm children’s developmental progress.”

For the record, though there have been a few Indians who have been putting out good information on this virus hoax, Monica Gandhi is not one of them. She is actually horrible.

All she is doing is saying the most basic, obvious thing: this child mask agenda is totally insane and it is hurting children.

(On the other hand, Bhattacharya is much better, but not really that great.)

Restricting their breathing could actually stunt physical growth, and they could actually end up dumber because of their brains not developing correctly. Restricting oxygen to the brain is no joke.

You know as an adult that you get exhausted wearing the mask, simply because your body is not getting the oxygen it needs to function correctly.

That is on top of the totally immeasurable psychological effects, which are going to manifest as a generation of paranoid, alienated, neurotic freaks, who have no sense of grounding or belonging.

When you can’t see people’s mouths, you live in a world of monsters. The basic function of the brain is to recognize human faces, and when you block that during the development of children, they’re not going to have the framework for recognizing emotions on people’s faces, or how to express emotion on their own, and just basically be incapable of understanding social interaction. Kids who have grown up in this will feel better alone, and they will not want to give up their masks.

Destroying children for the purpose of trying to protect people in their 70s and 80s from dying of the flu really is the single most boomer thing ever.

Everything about the baby boomer generation has been defined by theirs being the very first generation in the history of Western civilization that put their own personal happiness before the wellbeing of their children.

This is most obvious in the boomer divorce rate.

Boomers came up with the idea: “it’s not worth it to stay together for the kids.” This idea was then promoted by Judeo-Christian divorce justifiers.

But of course, what possible reason could you have for staying together, other than for the kids? The kids were the reason you got married in the first place.

Boomers then went on to brag about how they were squandering the inheritance of their children. They actually went around with bumper stickers saying “spending my kids’ inheritance” and thought it was funny.

They also had trailer hitches for their vacation trucks that said this.

It was on the back of Winnebagos.

There was even a book called this.

They really thought this was funny. Can you imagine that line of thinking? Their parents left them fortunes and they laugh as they say they will not do the same for their own children.

Boomers also sent all of the jobs out of the United States and then called millennials lazy for not being able to get a good job when all the jobs were already gone to China.

They also sent millennials to die and get their legs blown off in wars for Jews because they were told that if they could kill enough Arabs that Jesus would return and suck them up into outer space so they would never have to die.

So, that is the mindset of someone who is willing to completely destroy a generation of children out of fear of the flu. The boomers have been driving this entire lunacy.

Of course, some younger white women are on board with it, just because they are obsessed with rules and authority and using it to hurt other people. But a lot of millennial white women are like “yo I’m trying to get drunk and f–ked, let’s get this party going, eyyyyy! Virus hoax!”

So in terms of blame and the Tranny Watch rogues’ gallery, boomers get more blame than women.

There is something truly and remarkably sick about the basic concept of hurting or destroying children for the sake of the old. It evokes imagery of vampirism.


Have you seen this video that Joe Biden posted of Walensky talking about the vaxx and fertility?

What is going on with that music in the background? Is that some kind of hypnotism?

What is the purpose of that music?