Featured Image


(LifeSiteNews) — The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has once again come out in favor of the forced masking of young children, claiming that there is “no evidence” that the inability of children to see faces slows language development.

“If caregivers are wearing masks, does that harm kids’ language development? No. There is no evidence of this,” the AAP tweeted in a thread on August 26. “And we know even visually impaired children develop speech and language at the same rate as their peers.”

But the AAP’s own research as well as that of others undermines this claim.

For example, the AAP scrubbed a brochure from its website that explained the importance of babies seeing faces.

University of California-San Francisco epidemiologist Vinay Prasad has also warned about how masking harms children, citing the AAP’s own research.

“Early childhood is a crucial period when humans develop cultural, language, and social skills, including the ability to detect emotion on other people’s faces,” Prasad wrote. “Social interactions with friends, parents, and caregivers are integral to fostering children’s growth and well-being.”

In an essay, he cited information from the AAP that discusses the importance of play and talking for early childhood development.

“Learning activities” cited by the AAP article include “Use your face and voice.”

“Infants love to look at you and hear your voice. In fact, faces, with all their expressions, usually are more interesting than toys,” the document states. “Spend time talking, singing, and laughing. Play games of touching, stroking, and peek-a-boo.”

“Make faces, sounds, and movements that your baby can copy. Then you can copy the things that your baby does. This is how infants learn to communicate,” the article also suggests.

There is evidence from other research that masking delays speech development and evidence that facial cues help people learn language. It is fair to assume that if facial cues help someone learn how to talk, then covering up the face makes it more difficult for someone to learn how to talk.

Yale University’s David Lewkowicz reviewed a series of studies he and others conducted on language development and concluded that “the research to date demonstrates that the visible articulations that babies normally see when others are talking play a key role in their acquisition of communication skills.”

He highlighted this research in a recent essay in Scientific American. For example, one study he published in 2012 “found that infants shifted their attention from the eyes to the mouth between 4 and 8 mo of age regardless of language and then began a shift back to the eyes at 12 mo in response to native but not nonnative speech.”

A 2015 study conducted by Lewkowicz and others concluded that “bilingual infants exploit the greater perceptual salience of redundant audiovisual speech cues at an earlier age and for a longer time than monolingual infants.” Put simply, babies who learn two languages rely on hearing and seeing for language development more than their peers who learn only one language.

Prior to the outbreak of COVID and mask mandates, it was commonsense to encourage children to see faces to learn how to talk.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Stop Tedros' WHO Pandemic Treaty
  Show Petition Text
101107 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 125000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

The WHO Pandemic Treaty looks set to be one of the biggest power-grabs in living memory, with unelected globalists seeking the power to declare pandemics, and then control your country's response. 

But it's not too late to do something about it. 

SIGN and SHARE this special petition telling Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus that the WHO will never usurp your nation's sovereignty.

The past two years have been rife with infringements on personal liberties and civil rights by national governments, but now the World Health Organization is seeking to appropriate those same abusive powers to itself at a global level. 

194 member states representing 99% of the world's population are expected to sign pandemic treaties with the WHO that would allow Tedros, or any future Director General, to dictate exactly how your nation would respond to a new disease outbreak which they consider a pandemic.

This attack on national sovereignty will come as no surprise to those who for years have listened to elites like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates discussing their vision for the centralization of power into globalist organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the WHO and the rest of the United Nations. 

SIGN this petition against the WHO's Pandemic Treaty, before it's too late.

Ludicrously, 20 world leaders calling for the treaty, including Tedros, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron, compared the post-Covid world to the post-WWII period, saying similar co-operation is now needed to "dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and co-operation - namely peace, prosperity, health and security."

Australian PM Scott Morrison is the latest leader to express support for a “pandemic treaty”.

The stated intention of the WHO is to “kickstart a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

The wheels are already in motion, with the Biden administration officially proposing the initial steps towards handing global pandemic control to the WHO. 

Biden's representatives have submitted amendments to the WHO's International Health Regulations (IHR), which would give the Director General the right to declare health emergencies in any nation, even when disputed by the country in question.

These amendments, which would be legally binding under international law, will be voted on by the World Health Assembly (the governing body of the WHO) at a special convention running from May 22-28 and set the stage for a fully-fledged pandemic treaty to be passed. 

SIGN and SHARE the petition telling the WHO that you won't accept any pandemic treaty

The ball has been rolling since the last World Health Assembly meeting in December, where the United States launched negotiations "on a new international health instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response," a U.S. statement read. 

"This momentous step represents our collective responsibility to work together to advance health security and to make the global health system stronger and more responsive. 

"We look forward to broad and deep negotiations using a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach that will strengthen the international legal framework for public health/pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response and enable us to address issues of equity, accountability, and multisectoral collaboration evident in the COVID-19 pandemic. 

"We know it will take all of us working together across governments, private sector, philanthropy, academia, and civil society to make rapid progress towards a long-term solution for these complex problems," the U.S. statement added.

SIGN the petition today to show the WHO that you won't accept this attack on national sovereignty.

These are precarious times in which freedom and self-determination must be defended from those who would ride rough-shod over your civil rights. 

We do not want to go back to global lockdowns, vaccine mandates and propoganda.

Sign the petition - speak up now!

For More Information:

Biden hands over American sovereignty with proposed WHO treaty - LifeSiteNews

Pandemic Treaty is a backdoor to global governance - LifeSiteNews

Dr. Robert Malone on the WHO's power-grab - LifeSiteNews

**Photo: YouTube Screenshot**

  Hide Petition Text

“Your child learns to pronounce words by watching you speak, but she may become better at forming them by seeing her own mouth move as she talks,” a speech language pathologist said for a 2009 article in Parents magazine about how to get toddlers to talk.

A 2017 document called “Face to Face” from Toronto’s public health department made similar points.

“Being face to face” helps the child “[e]stablish and maintain eye contact, an important part of communication,” the document states. It also helps them “[l]earn to focus on the same thing as you” and “[s]ee how you say different sounds and words.”

Children can also have emotional problems if they cannot see faces. “From infancy, caregiver-child interactions serve as a driving force in developing pragmatic abilities,” University of Colorado pediatrician Dr. Deborah Mood wrote in Pediatrics, the journal of the AAP.

She wrote that parents need to understand how “newborn infants can communicate through behaviors some parents may not be used to thinking of as communication (eg, eye contact, facial expressions, reaching, vocalizations that are not yet words).”

“Once caregivers learn how to recognize these behaviors as an infant’s invitation to engage, they can increase their own efforts to reciprocate and respond to enhance their connection with the infant,” according to the 2020 paper.

LifeSiteNews emailed AAP media reps Lisa Black and Tom McPheron on Wednesday morning with the sources cited above and asked if they challenged the validity of any of the research or could comment on them. No response was received.

See LifeSite’s extensive resources on masks


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.