Taking Back Our Stolen History
Face Masks
Face Masks

Face Masks

Not a single randomized controlled trial with verified outcome has been able to detect a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask, when it comes to preventing infectious viral illness. As OSHA has stated, neither cloth masks nor surgical masks are designed to protect wearers from airborne pathogens, particularly respiratory viruses. In addition, there are more than 30 studies showing that face mask are useless against COVID-19. They only serve the great reset agenda by turning people into faceless entities, gagging us, promoting a fake pandemic, psychologically disorient, show servitude to the state, cause division, function as a self-policing device (virtue signal), restrict breathing, raise risk of stillbirths, testicular dysfunction and cognitive decline due to build-up of carbon dioxide, and weaken your respiratory system naturally increasing the number of “Covid cases.”

If there were any significant advantage to wearing a mask to reduce infection risk to either the wearer or others in the vicinity, then it would have been detected in at least one of these trials, yet there’s no sign of such a benefit. There is no evidence that masks are of any utility for preventing infection by either stopping the aerosol particles from coming out, or from going in. You’re not helping the people around you by wearing a mask, and you’re not helping yourself avoid the disease by wearing a mask.

Official Narrative

At the start of 2020, the official narrative about face masks was they were useful protection against air pollution, but had no impact on virus transmission. This was in line with the scientific literature and echoed by numerous public pronouncements from “experts” such as Anthony Fauci. WHO policy until 2020 did not recommend the general public wear masks of any kind, until a bout of “political lobbying” in Spring 2020.

A sudden shift in the longstanding guidance occurred in March 2020 occurred due to “political lobbying” by unnamed forces.[1] Studies appeared claiming that face mask use could reduce the spread of Covid-19 by 75%.[2][3][4][5][6] In November 2021 Rochelle Walensky, CDC director, made the unreferenced claim that “Masks can help reduce your chance of #COVID19 infection by more than 80%.” [7] The corporate media have promoted the idea that children love wearing masks for hours at school.[8]

1918 Flu Pandemic

Masks were a source of contention in the US during the 1918 Flu pandemic too. There were mask mandates and an Anti-Mask League formed by doctors to defend the right to not be forced to wear one. Even back in 1918, public health leaders who studied the problem thought that the mask laws and mask use by the public were minimally effective.

This is from a study published in 1919 by the California State Department of Health. The above graph showed very little difference in death rates between Stockton, which mandated the wearing of masks in public, and Boston, which did not. So, early on, authorities were rightly skeptical of the effectiveness of masks. Today, we have far more evidence of their ineffectiveness, even with the far better masks made today versus the cheese cloth masks they wore in 1918-19.

The Surgeon General of the US Navy in a 1919 report:

“No evidence was presented which would justify compelling persons at large to wear masks during an epidemic. The mask is designed only to afford protection against a direct spray from the mouth of the carrier of pathogenic microorganisms … Masks of improper design, made of wide-mesh gauze, which rest against the mouth and nose, become wet with saliva, soiled with the fingers, and are changed infrequently, may lead to infection rather than prevent it, especially when worn by persons who have not even a rudimentary knowledge of the modes of transmission of the causative agents of communicable diseases.” – “Epidemiological and Statistical Data, US Navy, 1918,” Reprinted from the Annual Report of the Surgeon General, US Navy, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919) 434.

Mask wearing was blueprinted in the Rockefeller Foundation’s Lockstep scenario in order to achieve “a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.” That’s exactly what they’re getting:

Aldous Huxley’s dystopian Brave New World predicts a totalitarian society where people love their servitude. As Del Bigtree points out in his video (bottom of article), it is shocking to see so many loving their tyrannous new normal of wearing masks and policing those they don’t, happily social distancing and quarantining themselves under the guise of safety from a novel (fictitious) coronavirus. Well informed citizens can be expected not to wear masks, so mandating them becomes a means to identify and promote their scapegoating of “COVID dissidents”.

Like the concept of lockdown and other parts of the COVID-19 psychological operation, the idea of forcing everyone to wear a face cover originates in the military/prison complex. A 2008 picture from 2008 in Belfast, as Amnesty International marked the 6th anniversary of US detentions at Guantanamo Bay with protests as part of its campaign to have the US run prison closed, shows dozens of Amnesty activists dressed as Guantanamo inmates and guards in the protest wearing their masks of submission.

The truth is masks have become the new wedge issue, the latest phase of the culture war. Mask opponents tend to see mask wearers as “fraidy cats” or virtue-signaling “sheeple” who willfully ignore basic science. Mask supporters, on the other hand, often see people who refuse to wear masks as selfish Trumpkins … who willfully ignore basic science. There’s not a lot of middle ground to be found and there’s no easy way to sit this one out. We all have to go outside, so at some we all are required to don the mask or not.

Mask wearing allows feel happy to be part of the crowd who are striving to “fight” COVID, especially where mask wearing rates are high. They refuse to hear evidence about the ineffectiveness of masks in part because they don’t want to admit that they were tricked (as with other false flag attacks). Society has used fearmongering to normalize face masks, at the expense of human interaction.

Mask wearing is an important ritual to psychologically unite isolated and fearful citizens into a crowd. Mask wearers, by instantly recognizing other mask wearers, draw psychological comfort, just as they are programmed to feel aggression to and fear of dissidents.

Health

As Swiss Policy Research pointed out “for decades, studies have shown that face masks don’t work[28] against respiratory virus epidemics. But with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and increasing political pressure, suddenly studies appeared claiming the opposite. In reality, these studies were a mixture of confounded observational data, unrealistic modelling and lab results, and outright fraud. The most influential fraudulent study certainly was the WHO-mandated meta-study published in The Lancet[29].”

Top medical doctor, Britain’s Dr. Vernon Coleman,  is Britain’s best-selling medical author for several decades and has repeatedly warned how dangerous mask wearing really is – it can even be deadly to some. He tells us:

“Masks cause hypoxia and hypercapnia – and affect the wearer’s attention and cognitive processes. They make an accident more likely. Anyone driving while wearing a mask should be arrested. Insurance companies should refuse to pay out on claims if a driver was wearing a mask.”

Hypercapnia

Hypercapnia frequently occurs due to hypoventilation secondary to limited airway pressure and/or tidal volume. So dangerous is hypoventilation it literally is a matter of life and death to many. Anyone familiar with sleep apnea knows this related condition is well-researched and may be informative in guiding our understanding about impeded breathing, such as from prolonged COVID19 mask wearing.

Dr Coleman, who has built a sterling reputation since the 1980’s as a prominent whistleblower on medical malfeasance, warns:

“Over a dozen scientific papers show clearly that masks are ineffective in preventing the movement of infective organisms. They also reduce oxygen levels and expose wearers to increased levels of carbon dioxide.” [2]

Hypercapnia is the term doctors use to refers to abnormally high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the blood. As CO2 accumulates in the blood, you’ll see symptoms like difficulty thinking clearly, headaches, and sleepiness. More severe or longer lasting cases of hypercapnia may cause symptoms like dizziness, excessively fast breathing and heart rates, increase in blood pressure, twitching of the muscles, and skin flushing.

Hypoxia

Now keep in mind that when CO2 in the blood is up, as in hypercapnia, then oxygen (O2) must be down. A decrease or less than the normal amount of oxygen in the blood is known as hypoxemia. And if there isn’t enough oxygen in the blood, then there won’t be enough oxygen getting to the organs of the body, which is a condition termed hypoxia.

Hypoxia is, of course, a very serious condition for the body since every organ in the body needs oxygen in order to function. It doesn’t take very long for symptoms to occur as the organs of the body begin to suffer from the lack of necessary oxygen.

See: doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.01.025. Epub 2008 Mar 10.

Chronic hypoxia-hypercapnia influences cognitive function: a possible new model of cognitive dysfunction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

“… cognitive impairment is strongly related to combination of chronic hypoxia and hypercapnia, and chronic hypoxia-hypercapnia-induced animal models may mimic the cognitive dysfunction of COPD. “

PubMed (unethically) recently retracted a study titled Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

Both hypoxia and hypercapnia are known dangerous medical conditions, but if you have avidly followed the FAKE NEWS peddled by the mainstream media you will never have heard of such risks from masking up.

Real world studies conducted during the pandemic are signaling a warning that prolonged mask wearing causes a shortage of oxygen to the brain and unhealthy blockage of excretion of carbon dioxide waste from the body.

While it is proven that in severe cases death may result, the more insidious danger is the unseen, long term effects on our brains. Just spare a thought for the harm being inflicted on children ordered to wear these soiled rags all day in schools.

To clarify the dangers on a strictly objective scientific footing we looked to American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (Volume 186, Issue 12) and looked at The Effect of Hypoxia–Hypercapnia on Neuropsychological Function in Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome which detailed actual impacts of low oxygen (Hypoxia) on human subjects.

The study especially addressed the impacts of low oxygen on subjects who already have poor health due to respiratory impairment (Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome).

A total of 27 patients were included for evaluation of psychiatric morbidities. The study found that:

“Given that the remaining half cohort consists largely of patients with a poor oxygenation index, the majority of the 27 patients should have a less optimal oxygenation index. As it turned out, up to 26 of the 27 additional patients presented with long-lasting psychiatric symptoms. In a way, this phenomenon implies that patients with a poor oxygenation index would end up with long-term psychiatric morbidities, verifying the authors’ inference that hypoxemia predicts long-term neuropsychological impairment among ARDS.”

In effect, this confirmed that anyone who already has compromised respiratory health will be most likely to suffer brain injury from regular mask wearing.

What about the impacts on learning and memory? We looked at ‘Effect of chronic hypoxia and hypercapnia on learning and memory function in mice and the expression of NT and CGRP in brain’. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of hypoxia and hypercapnia on learning and memory function of mice.

Airway blockage, such as impedance from prolonged mask wearing may lead to Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a frequently occurring disease of the respiratory system, with high morbidity and mortality rates. The authors affirming that the most important cause of COPD is hypoxia (low O2) and hypercapnia (elevated CO2). This was previously established by Liu CY, Parikh M, Bluemke DA et al. (2017) Pulmonary artery stiffness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and emphysema: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) COPD Study. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 13(1): 1–2.

Disturbingly, the laboratory test results from mice were damning. It showed:

“Our study found that chronic hypoxia and hypercapnia impaired memory function, increased the quantity of brain tissue lipid oxidation products MDA and DNA oxidation products 8-OHdG, decreased SOD activity, destroyed the stability of hippocampal structure, and reduced the number of Nissl bodies and increased apoptotic cells in mice. These indicated that hypoxia and hypercapnia enhanced oxidative stress response, destroyed tissue structure, and increased neuronal apoptosis, thus affecting its neurological function and learning and memory ability.”

Brain cell damage shown under the microscope (above)

Pointedly, the authors observed that:

“Chronic hypoxia is usually accompanied by hypercapnia, so we speculate that hypoxia and hypercapnia may cooperate in this process and aggravate the damage caused by hypoxia alone.”

Thus, both these ailments, when triggered from mask wearing, may be inexplicably linked doubling the adverse impacts on brain function.

A study released in May 2021, entitled “Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online,”  analyzed the reaction from skeptics and anti-maskers towards the pandemic from March to September 2020, during much of the initial phases of the breakout and then its expansion. The researchers revealed that despite current narratives that anti-maskers are simply scientifically illiterate, they actually have a very good grasp of science and data analysis. In the Facebook groups they studied, the researchers saw a serious emphasis on originally produced content, with people wanting to make sure that they were “guided solely by the data.” Many participants made their own graphs, and instructed others on how to access raw data.

Anti-maskers found themselves not on the side of ignoring science and data, but striving to push for “more scientific rigour” in their approach to the pandemic. The researchers argued that “users in these communities are deeply invested in forms of critique and knowledge production that they recognize as markers of scientific expertise,” and added that “if anything, anti-mask science has extended the traditional tools of data analysis by taking up the theoretical mantle of recent critical studies of visualization.”

In fact, the study notes, the interpretation of data and science from anti-maskers shows that they are “more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naïve realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.” To simply “trust the science” as the meme espouses is to ignore the fact that “data visualizations are not a neutral window onto an observer-independent reality,” and that “during a pandemic, they are an arena of political struggle.”

Anti-maskers “seek liberation from what they see as an increasingly authoritarian state that weaponizes science to exacerbate persistent and asymmetric power relations.” They come from a similar background of resentment against this elite, and then add “a particular emphasis on the usurpation of scientific knowledge by a paternalistic, condescending elite that expects intellectual subservience rather than critical thinking from the lay public.”

Anti-maskers, unlike their political opponents, “believe that science is a process, and not an institution,” the researchers noted. “They espouse a vision of science that is radically egalitarian and individualist,” they argue. “This study forces us to see that coronavirus skeptics champion science as a personal practice that prizes rationality and autonomy: for them, it is not a body of knowledge certified by an institution of experts.”2

It’s clear from the data that despite the impression of Americans as selfish rebel cowboys who won’t wear a mask to protect others, Americans are wearing masks far more than many people in European countries. Polls show Americans are wearing masks at record levels, though a political divide remains: 98 percent of Democrats report wearing masks in public compared to 66 percent of Republicans and 85 percent of Independents. (These numbers, no doubt, are to some extent the product of mask requirements in cities and states.) Whether one is pro-mask or anti-mask, the fact of the matter is that face coverings have become politicized to an unhealthy degree, which stands to only further pollute the science.

Assuming the germ theory accepted by the medical industry is correct instead of the terrain theory proposed by most natural healers, infectious viral respiratory diseases primarily spread via very fine aerosol particles that are in suspension in the air. Any mask that allows you to breathe therefore allows for transmission of aerosolized viruses. All-cause mortality data are not affected by reporting bias. A detailed study of the current data of all-cause mortality shows the all-cause mortality this past winter was no different, statistically, from previous decades. COVID-19 is not a killer disease, and this pandemic has not brought anything out of the ordinary in terms of death toll.

Unfortunately, the mainstream propaganda and government orders in many states reverted back toward mask wearing just about everywhere. You’re not allowed into stores; you cannot fly or take a cab, Uber or Lyft without one; you must wear one everywhere you go, even outdoors, and if you don’t you’re vilified, sometimes aggressively attacked. It has no basis and only induces fear, anxiety, and potential sickness for perfectly healthy people. Hmmm, just what the globalists want! How convenient.

In the summer of 2020, numerous corporate media outlets exploited false reports that French “mask opponents” had killed a bus driver in Bayonne[47][48] to depict opponents as violent fanatics. In reality, the attackers were petty criminals who rode without a ticket; the incident had nothing to do with masks[49]. No media outlet is known to have published a correction.

In June 2020, the German Dr. Ronny Weikl recorded a video in which the medical profession was asked not to look away, but to issue an exemption certificate if there were health problems when wearing a mask. As a result, many patients, including many children, came to Weikl’s practice week after week, some of whom had huge complaints in connection with wearing masks, and therefore asked for a certificate of exemption. Around 1,000 exemption certificates were given by mid-December. On December 16th, 2020, the police completely unexpectedly carried out a search of his practice and home on suspicion of “issuing incorrect health certificates”. 10 police officers from a special task force searched the practice and his home for several hours, confiscating numerous documents, in particular IT equipment. In autumn 2021, the public prosecutor’s investigations were completed and charges were brought against Weikl. He was forced to set up a strong but costly legal team to defend himself against these allegations and to prove his innocence. He also suffered a massive defamation campaign by [[corporate media]. If he is found guilty, the judgment will be used as a precedent for many other doctors who also were raided because of giving too many mask certificates and who are accused of similar things.

Compliance is not enough. Popular actor Laurence Fox, interviewed on New Culture Forum, said that despite wearing a mask in shops and on public transport, he is still being criticized. You shouldn’t complain, he is told. Instead, you should feel happy. A mask shows that you care, purportedly, and that you are a good person – unlike those ignoramuses and conspiracy theorists who recklessly and selfishly endanger others. As Fox perceives, the coronavirus pandemic is being used to display moral superiority.

Masks have become a fault line in the culture war. Laws and the threat of fines force the majority of people to comply, but there is a thinly veiled contrast between those who want to wear them and those who dislike this excessive response to a mostly mild upper respiratory tract infection. The divide is heavily influenced by social class and ideology.

The mask advocates get their way, because they are the establishment, supported by the legions of graduates of campus puritanism. In this regime of Cultural Maskism, the ordinary folk are cast as germ-spreaders. And so sophisticates must mask themselves from the contagious plebs, who must themselves be muzzled – not only to control the virus that they carry, but also to silence their opposition to an unprecedented loss of liberty.

An underreported, recently-published CDC study adds to the pile of evidence that cloth masks or other forms of mandated face coverings only contribute negatives to our COVID-19 problem. The study also displays — despite the constant accusations of widespread misbehavior from public health officials — that Americans are adhering to mask wearing, but mask wearing is not doing us any good.

The CDC study, which surveyed symptomatic COVID-19 patients, has found that 70.6% of respondents reported “always” wearing a mask, while an additional 14.4% say they “often” wear a mask. That means a whopping 85% of infected COVID-19 patients reported habitual mask wearing. Only 3.9% of those infected said they “never” wear a face covering.

Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., a former full professor of physics and researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association in Canada, did a thorough study of the scientific literature on masks, concentrating on evidence showing masks can reduce infection risk, especially viral respiratory diseases.

“What I found when I looked at all the randomized controlled trials with verified outcome, meaning you actually measure whether or not the person was infected … NONE of these well-designed studies that are intended to remove observational bias … found there was a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask.

Likewise, there was no detectable difference between respirators and surgical masks. That to me was a clear sign that the science was telling us they could not detect a positive utility of masks in this application.

We’re talking many really [high-]quality trials. What this means — and this is very important — is that if there was any significant advantage to wearing a mask to reduce this [infection] risk, then you would have detected that in at least one of these trials, [yet] there’s no sign of it.

That to me is a firm scientific conclusion: There is no evidence that masks are of any utility either preventing the aerosol particles from coming out or from going in. You’re not helping the people around you by wearing a mask, and you’re not helping yourself preventing the disease by wearing a mask.

This science is unambiguous in that such a positive effect cannot be detected. So, that was the first thing I publicized. I wrote a large review1,2 of the scientific literature about that.

But then I asked myself, as a physicist and as a scientist, why would that be? Why would masks not work at all? And so, I looked into the biology and physics of how these diseases are transmitted.”

Rancourt did a detailed study of the current data of all-cause mortality (which removes all bias from the equation), showing that the all-cause mortality for the 2020 winter was no different, statistically, from previous decades. In other words, COVID-19 is not a killer disease, and this pandemic has not brought anything out of the ordinary in terms of death toll. He published this data in the paper ,“All-Cause Mortality During COVID-19: No Plague and a Likely Signature of Mass Homicide by Government Response.”

Many firmly believe wearing a mask in public will protect themselves and/or others, and one of the reasons for this is because they appear to work in some circumstances, such as operating rooms. If they don’t work, why do surgical staff and many health care workers use them on a regular basis? As explained by Rancourt, the reason surgical masks are worn in the operating room is to prevent spittle from accidentally falling into an open wound, which could lead to infection. Surgical masks have been shown to be important in that respect.

Preventing microbes and bacteria from falling into an open wound is very different from preventing the spread of viral particles, however. Not only are viruses much smaller than bacteria and many other microbes found in saliva, they are, again, airborne. They’re aerosolized and part of the fluid air. Therefore, if air can penetrate the mask, these aerosol particles can also get through.

Now, one view is that, even though a mask may not protect the wearer against contracting an infection, it will still protect others that the mask-wearer comes into contact with. But that’s not what the science shows. The measured outcome in most rigorous studies on this is the infection rate. Did anyone involved get infected?

Comparisons are made between health care workers wearing masks, respirators or nothing at all. While this does not allow you to discern who is being protected — the mask wearer or others — the studies show mask wearing does neither.

Since everyone is in close proximity to each other, and no differences in infection rates are found regardless of what type of mask is worn, or none at all, it tells us that mask wearing protects no one from viral infections.

“It makes no difference if everybody in your team is wearing a mask; it makes no difference if one is and others aren’t,” Rancourt says. “Wearing a mask or being in an environment where masks are being worn or not worn, there’s no difference in terms of your risk of being infected by the viral respiratory disease.

There’s no reduction, period. There are no exceptions. All the studies that have been tabulated, looked at, published, I was not able to find any exceptions, if you constrain yourself to verified outcomes.”

What’s more, the results are the same for both N95 respirators and surgical masks. Respirators offer no protective advantage when it comes to viral infections.

“In one of the randomized control trials, a big one that compared masks and N95 respirators among health care workers, the only statistically significant outcome they discovered and reported on was that the health care workers who wore the N95 respirators were much more likely to suffer from headaches,” Rancourt says.

“Now, if you’ve got a bunch of health care workers, which you’re forcing to get headaches, how good is the healthcare going to be?”

NOQ Report uncovered another censored study:1

Did you hear about the peer-reviewed study done by Stanford University that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that face masks have absolutely zero chance of preventing the spread of Covid-19? No? It was posted on the the National Center for Biotechnological Information government website. The NCBI is a branch of the National Institute for Health, so one would think such a study would be widely reported by mainstream media and embraced by the “science-loving” folks in Big Tech.

Instead, a DuckDuckGo search reveals it was picked up by ZERO mainstream media outlets and Big Tech tyrants will suspend people who post it, as political strategist Steve Cortes learned the hard way when he posted a Tweet that went against the face mask narrative. The Tweet itself featured a quote and a link that prompted Twitter to suspend his account, potentially indefinitely.

The NCBI study begins with the following abstract:

Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.

The study concludes (emphasis added):

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

Here is the table for physiological and psychological effects of wearing a facemask:

Read the Full Study HERE

Studies have conclusively proven masks do not prevent viral infections. A meta-analysis of 65 studies revealed that face masks cause physical harm and induce mask-induced exhaustion syndrome (MIES). The researchers summarize their study as follows:

“The aim was to find, test, evaluate and compile scientifically proven related side effects of wearing masks. For a quantitative evaluation, 44 mostly experimental studies were referenced, and for a substantive evaluation, 65 publications were found. The literature revealed relevant adverse effects of masks in numerous disciplines.

In this paper, we refer to the psychological and physical deterioration as well as multiple symptoms described because of their consistent, recurrent and uniform presentation from different disciplines as a Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES).

We objectified evaluation evidenced changes in respiratory physiology of mask wearers with significant correlation of O2 drop and fatigue (p < 0.05), a clustered co-occurrence of respiratory impairment and O2 drop (67%), N95 mask and CO2 rise (82%), N95 mask and O2 drop (72%), N95 mask and headache (60%), respiratory impairment and temperature rise (88%), but also temperature rise and moisture (100%) under the masks.

Extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields.”

The researchers provided the following important context for their work: 

“The potential drastic and undesirable effects found in multidisciplinary areas illustrate the general scope of global decisions on masks in general public in the light of combating the pandemic. According to the literature found, there are clear, scientifically recorded adverse effects for the mask wearer, both on a psychological and on a social and physical level. 

Neither higher level institutions such as the WHO or the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) nor national ones, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, GA, USA (CDC) or the German RKI, substantiate with sound scientific data a positive effect of masks in the public (in terms of a reduced rate of spread of COVID-19 in the population) [2,4,5]

Contrary to the scientifically established standard of evidence-based medicine, national and international health authorities have issued their theoretical assessments on the masks in public places, even though the compulsory wearing of masks gives a deceptive feeling of safety [5,112,143].”

The authors provided the following summary of the problem with the widely disseminated narrative that masks are a priori “safe and effective.”

“From an infection epidemiological point of view, masks in everyday use offer the risk of self-contamination by the wearer from both inside and outside, including via contaminated hands [5,16,88]. In addition, masks are soaked by exhaled air, which potentially accumulates infectious agents from the nasopharynx and also from the ambient air on the outside and inside of the mask.

In particular, serious infection-causing bacteria and fungi should be mentioned here [86,88,89], but also viruses [87]. The unusual increase in the detection of rhinoviruses in the sentinel studies of the German RKI from 2020 [90] could be an indication of this phenomenon. Clarification through further investigations would therefore be desirable.

Masks, when used by the general public, are considered by scientists to pose a risk of infection because the standardized hygiene rules of hospitals cannot be followed by the general public [5]. On top of that, mask wearers (surgical, N95, fabric masks) exhale relatively smaller particles (size 0.3 to 0.5 μm) than mask-less people and the louder speech under masks further amplifies this increased fine aerosol production by the mask wearer (nebulizer effect) [98].

The history of modern times shows that already in the influenza pandemics of 1918-1919, 1957-58, 1968, 2002, in SARS 2004-2005 as well as with the influenza in 2009, masks in everyday use could not achieve the hoped-for success in the fight against viral infection scenarios [67,144]. The experiences led to scientific studies describing as early as 2009 that masks do not show any significant effect with regard to viruses in an everyday scenario [129,145].

Even later, scientists and institutions rated the masks as unsuitable to protect the user safely from viral respiratory infections [137,146,147]. Even in hospital use, surgical masks lack strong evidence of protection against viruses [67]. Originally born out of the useful knowledge of protecting wounds from surgeons’ breath and predominantly bacterial droplet contamination [144,148,149], the mask has been visibly misused with largely incorrect popular everyday use, particularly in Asia in recent years [150].

Significantly, the sociologist Beck described the mask as a cosmetic of risk as early as 1992 [151]. Unfortunately, the mask is inherent in a vicious circle: strictly speaking, it only protects symbolically and at the same time represents the fear of infection. This phenomenon is reinforced by the collective fear mongering, which is constantly nurtured by main stream media [137].

Nowadays, the mask represents a kind of psychological support for the general population during the virus pandemic, promising them additional anxiety-reduced freedom of movement. The recommendation to use masks in the sense of “source control” not out of self-protection but out of “altruism” [152] is also very popular with the regulators as well as the population of many countries.

The WHO’s recommendation of the mask in the current pandemic is not only a purely infectiological approach, but is also clear on the possible advantages for healthy people in the general public. In particular, a reduced potential stigmatization of mask wearers, the feeling of a contribution made to preventing the spread of the virus, as well as the reminder to adhere to other measures are mentioned [2].

Morever, the researchers pointed out that there are recurring patterns of related health issues associated with mask wearing, leading them to coin the term mask-induced exhaustion syndrome (MIES), which encompasses the following pathophysioloical changes and subjective complaints:

The researchers point out that the effects described above have been observed in studies of healthy people, implying that sick people will have even more pronounced effects from wearing masks. Also, they pointed out that these effects observed in previous studies involved exposure times significantly lower than what is presently expected to be the case in the general public under current pandemic regulations and ordinances.

The study goes into great depth on the harms of mask wearing and adds to a growing body of underreported, if not outright censored and suppressed, biomedical literature that has accumulated that refutes the widely disseminated narrative that masks are both safe and effective, and that their recommendations for use by agencies like the CDC are evidence-based, which clearly they are not. Learn more by visiting the GreenMedInfo.com database Face Masks (Lack of Safety and Ineffectiveness Research).1

Why, is another question. One commonsense explanation put forth by Rancourt is that masks don’t work for this application for the simple fact that they allow airflow.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that the most prominent vector of transmission is these fine aerosol particles. Those fine aerosol particles will follow the fluid air. In a surgical mask, there is no way you’re blocking the fluid air. When you breathe wearing a surgical mask, the lowest impedance of airflow is through the sides and tops and bottoms of the mask.

In other words, very little of the airflow is going to be through the actual mask. The mask is only designed and intended to stop your spitballs from coming out and hitting someone … If the flow of air is through the sides, whatever molecules or small particles are carried in the air, are going to flow that way as well, and that’s how you get infected.

If you’re not stopping [the viral particles] coming in, you’re not stopping them from coming out either. They follow the flow, period. That’s the way it is. So that’s why there’s an equivalence between ‘It doesn’t protect you and it doesn’t protect anyone else either.’”

Ironically, some masks are even designed with out-vents, to facilitate breathing, which completely negate the claim that mask-wearers are protecting others.

(from NoMoreFakeNews) Mask wearers of the world, take them off—you have nothing to lose but your insanity…

Journal of the American Medical Association, April 17, 2020, “Masks and Coronavirus Disease”: “Unless you are sick, a health care worker, or caring for someone who has COVID-19, medical masks (including surgical face masks and N95s) are not recommended.”

At Children’s Health Defense, JB Handley has written an excellent article, “LOCKDOWN LUNACY: The Thinking Person’s Guide.” Here are two highlights from his section on masks:

“May 29, the World Health Organization announced that masks should only be worn by healthy people if they are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19:”

“’If you do not have any respiratory symptoms such as fever, cough or runny nose, you do not need to wear a mask,’ Dr. April Baller, a public health specialist for the WHO, says in a video on the world health body’s website posted in March. ‘Masks should only be used by healthcare workers, caretakers or by people who are sick with symptoms of fever and cough’.”

“…I often see this study from 2015 in the BMJ cited: ‘A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers’, and it bears repeating, since MOST of the masks I see people wearing in the community right now are cloth masks. Not only are these masks 100% ineffective at reducing the spread of COVID-19, but they can actually harm you. As the researchers explain:”

“’This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and 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…’”

Of course, when people are conspiracy whackos wearing their masks, they don’t respond well to facts, even when those facts come from the very organizations they believe in with religious fervor.

Here is something else from the Washington State Nurses Association: “Reprocessing masks using toxic chemicals is not a solution”:

“Nurses are reporting that respirators and face masks at WSNA repre-sented Providence facilities are being collected for reprocessing using ethylene oxide to decontaminate. The EPA has concluded that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic to humans and that exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of lymphoid cancer and, for females, breast cancer.”

“WSNA sent a cease and desist demand to Providence facilities where our members work, demanding an immediate halt to the reusing of any face masks, including N 95 and other respirators, that have been decontaminated by the ethylene oxide cleaning process. In addition, WSNA is preparing complaints to be filed with the Washington State Department of Occupational Safety and Health, highlighting this workplace hazard.”

“WSNA believes that the reuse of face masks or respirators cleaned with ethylene oxide violates the employer’s legal duty to ensure that nurses and other health care workers are afforded a safe and healthful working environment. While hospitals have long used ethylene oxide to clean certain surgical equipment, it should not be used to decontami-nate face masks or respirators, through which nurses and other health care workers must breathe for many hours at a time.”

“…The CDC warns that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic and teratogenic, and that ‘inhalation of ethylene oxide has been linked to neurologic dysfunction and may cause other harmful effects to the wearer’.”

“Prolonged exposure to ethylene oxide can hurt eyes and LUNGS, harm the brain and nervous system, and potentially cause lymphomas, leukemia, and breast cancer. This extremely hazardous toxic chemical poses a severe risk to human health.” [CAPS are mine.]

Is the use of toxic ethylene oxide to treat masks widespread? According to the Chicago Tribune, way back in March, Medline Industries was reprocessing 100,000 medical masks a day. They applied to the FDA for permission to use ethylene oxide. But wasn’t the horse already out of the barn? Weren’t they already using the chemical? I’ve queried Medline to find out whether the FDA has approved their application.

And finally, I have a lone report about a person from the region of Piedmont, Italy, who checked out his medical mask, which he’d received in the mail from the Department of Civil Protection. He discovered it contained zinc pyrithione.

If true, this is ominous. Consulting a simple safety data sheet on the chemical, from Cayman Chemical, I found a succinct statement: “Toxic if inhaled.”

But of course, medical masks must be worn. The lockdown authorities tell us so. They know. They must know because, well, they’re on television. Keep breathing through that mask. It’s “safe and effective.”

German scientists have discovered dangerous chemical substances in some of the masks on sale and used by the general public. The masks are mandatory in many countries to prevent the alleged infection and spread of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) Virus. They are also concerned that the continued use of these devices creates serious health problems for users, as they unknowingly breathe in carcinogens, allergens, and tiny synthetic microfibers deposited in their lungs, according to the alternative media Ecotextile on April 1. 

Face masks being made and sold to the public do not meet the same standards as masks used by medical staff. One of the specialists warning about these risks is Professor Michael Braungart, director of the Hamburg Environmental Institute and co-founder of the world-renowned Cradle to Cradle environmental standard. “What we are breathing through our mouth and nose is actually hazardous waste,” Braungart argues. Braungart detected carcinogenic chemicals such as aniline, formaldehyde, and optical brighteners heavily restricted in consumer goods by European and U.S. authorities. Other scientists found heavy contamination of hazardous fluorocarbons, formaldehyde, and other potentially carcinogenic substances in surgical masks.

“I can only say 100 per cent that I have similar concerns to Prof. Braungart,” noted leading chemist, CEO, and co-founder of Modern Testing Services Augsburg (Germany), Dr. Dieter Sedlak. China is the leading country in the world to produce masks, and 85 percent come from factories linked to the CCP, which have raised concerns about certain deficiencies in the processes and the opacity of the supply chains, reports the Daily Mail. The very use of the masks is controversial. Italian journalist Cesare Sacchetti argues that the pandemic is a hoax and illustrates the false protection attributed to the masks’ constant use by contrasting it with the decrease in Texas infections when the masks are no longer used. 

“The covidiots claim that if everyone wears a mask, the fake pandemic would be over now. It’s quite the contrary. Since Texas lifted mask mandates, Covid cases dropped.” He adds, “The “solution” of the system is the problem. The covidiots are those who are keeping alive the fake pandemic.”1

Patricia Neuenschwander, M.S.N., R.N., C.P.N.P.-P.C., an emergency room nurse with over two decades of experience, the science doesn’t support healthy people wearing masks. When Neuenschwander found out that her grandchild’s Montessori preschool was going to require even toddlers to wear masks, she did a deep dive into the research to better educate herself and her grandchild’s school about mask-wearing. The info below is an abbreviated verion of the FULL ARTICLE HERE

An important study using science to evaluate cloth mask use to prevent infection was conducted in March 2011. It is a large, prospective, randomized clinical trial; and the first randomized clinical trial ever conducted of cloth masks. The international team of researchers concluded:

This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and 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. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.”

More recently, researchers from University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health reviewed the scientific literature. While not an exhaustive review of masks and respirators as source control and personal protection equipment (PPE), this review was made in an effort to locate and review the most relevant studies of laboratory and real-world performance to inform our recommendations. The review, which has 52 citations, concludes:

“We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because… There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission”

A 2020 study in Seoul, South Korea looked at the effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking COVID-19 in a controlled comparison of four patients. The COVID-infected patients were put in negative pressure isolated rooms. The scientists compared disposable surgical masks (3 layers) with reusable cotton masks.

Patients were instructed to cough 5 times while wearing no mask, surgical mask, or cotton mask. Interestingly, all swabs from the outer masks—including surgical masks—were positive for COVID-19. Inner masks were also found to be contaminated. That means the mask did not effectively filter out the COVID virus since it is too small. The authors assert:

Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered {COVID-19} during coughs by infected patients.” Conclusion: “both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”

“There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit,” Dr. Mike Ryan, an epidemiologist who specializes in infectious diseases and public health and who is the executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing. “In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly” (source).

The CDC has claimed for decades that the influenza virus is transmitted person to person, but we have never been told to wear a mask to stop the spread of that virus. As a matter of fact, the CDC specifically says masks don’t work; and they do not recommend wearing a mask, to prevent transmission of the flu!

No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza viruses” (source).

Asymptomatic infections do not exist, as documented most recently by a major survey of ten million people from Wuhan of all places. A person who has no symptoms is healthy.  This means that no-one need be fearful of people without symptoms or force them to wear masks, and no-one must be frightened that a positive test means that the person who has tested positive is infected.  Horror pictures of hospitals with beds in the corridors are again doing the rounds – such scenes occur every year during a completely normal influenza outbreak: such pictures are used solely in order to spread panic.  There is still no excess mortality in Germany – it is perfectly normal for more people to die in winter.

Masks make children fearful 

I have not been able to locate any published research on the psychological or emotional effects of having healthy children wear masks daily for hours at a time. I can only make an educated assumption based on over two decades of working as a healthcare professional that forcing children to wear masks will cause fear, anxiety, and negative feedback from caregivers. Mask wearing will affect children differently based on their developmental level. You cannot explain to a two-year-old why they are being forced to cover their nose and mouth.

Covering the mouth and nose for hours is not only uncomfortable for children (and adults), it also limits the airflow and the flow of oxygen coming in. It causes children, as with adults, to breath their own carbon dioxide, which we know is harmful. In addition, it provides a dark, warm, moist environment that potentially increases the risk of infection.

A first-of-its-kind study, involving over 25,000 children, revealed that masks are harming schoolchildren in many physical and psychological ways and have a negative effect on their behavior, focus and interest in learning. These negative effects are censored from social media, under-reported by the media, and ignored by government officials. Of the 25,930 children studied, the database includes at least 17,854 health complaints submitted by parents. These health issues and impairments were observed in approximately 68 percent of masked schoolchildren who were forced to wear a face covering for an average of four and a half hours per day.

The registry, established on October 20th, 2020, asked 363 doctors to inform parents and teachers that they can report the health impacts they are witnessing from prolonged mask use of children. The health issues were exhaustive and included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%) impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).” Nearly a third of the children sleep worse than normal, and quarter of the children had developed new fears. Hundreds of children were less cheerful, less playful and most were unusually irritable.

Even more concerning, (29.7%) had shortness of breath, (26.4%) experienced dizziness, and hundreds of children suffered from feelings of weakness, a feeling of disease, accelerated respiration, tightness in the chest, and short-term impairment of consciousness. Universal mask wearing is destroying the health of children, making their immune system more susceptible to disease. (Related: The CDC is developing a nationwide “medical police state” program to track vaccine compliance; may lead to “medical kidnapping” of children.)

Masks are not only emotionally damaging to children but can cause cancer. There’s even a warning on the box:

Face masks worn by the public are not regulated, and some fall short of standards of medical PPE. Certain types of masks which are readily available to the public during the coronavirus pandemic were found to cause dangerous levels of exposure to chemicals if worn for long enough. Analysis from the Hamburg Environmental Institute, which was obtained by Ecotextile News, revealed a plethora of face masks contained levels of formaldehyde and fluorocarbons.1

When in contact with human skin for long enough, the chemicals can lead to a burning nose and throat, coughing, wheezing and even nausea. The tests conducted by Professor Michael Braungart showed that certain masks containing levels of formaldehyde can lead to break-outs in hives. Formaldehyde can be used as an industrial fungicide, germicide, and disinfectant. Prof Braungart said:

What we are breathing through our mouth and nose is actually hazardous waste. We found formaldehyde and even aniline and noticed that unknown artificial fragrances were being applied to cover any unpleasant chemical smells from the mask. In the case of the blue-coloured surgical masks, we found cobalt – which can be used as a blue dye. All in all, we have a chemical cocktail in front of our nose and mouth that has never been tested for either toxicity or any long-term effects on health.

Dr Dieter Sedlak, co-founder of Modern Testing Services in Ausburg, ran similar tests and found equally shocking results. In his research, Dr Sedlak found levels of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) on face masks. PFCs are a toxic product which are “used to make fluoropolymer coatings and products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water,” the CDC said. Dr Sedlak said he was shocked by the results of his work. He is quoted by Ecotextile News as saying:

Honestly, I had not expected PFCs would be found in a surgical mask, but we have special routine methods in our labs to detect these chemicals easily and can immediately identify them. This is a big issue. It seems this had been deliberately applied as a fluid repellent – it would work to repel the virus in an aerosol droplet format – but PFC on your face, on your nose, on the mucus membranes, or on the eyes is not good.

Around the world, fathers and mothers are losing their parental rights as asinine medical interventions are mandated on their children in the school setting. Children are being psychologically raped, as adults force them to believe that their breath is a constant source of disease transmission, that they have a moral duty to ensure that their diseased breath never infects another person. Children are being trained to fear one another, to fear the world around them, and to quiver in obedience to authority and medical fraud. Will these institutions be held liable for the physical, psychological and behavioral harm they continue to impose on children?

Teachers and counselors, who are required by law to report child abuse, are now actively participating in the abuse of children and bullying parents to comply. Every day, authorities turn a blind eye to the psychological harm they impose on children with mandatory masking of each child’s mouth and nose. What else can be forced onto children under the guise of keeping everyone “safe?”

Masking of schoolchildren is a medical experiment. Mask manufacturers have not conducted independent studies for long term use of their products on adolescents. Therefore, parents are not given informed consent so they can make a choice that is best for their child. In most cases, the schools are dictating what parents must do to their child’s body, setting unlawful precedent that tramples on the medical privacy rights of the family while perpetuating institutional abuse of children that is liability-free.

“There are no manufacturer-independent studies on the use of masks for children and adolescents that are certified as medical products for occupational safety in professional applications,” the study authors stated. “In addition, due to the unknown materials used, there are no findings on the potential protective effects or side effects of the often home-made ‘everyday masks’ worn by the majority of children. In view of the ongoing measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, and in particular the varying obligations for children and adolescents to wear masks in school over a longer period of time, there is an urgent need for research.”

Face masks have impeded on children’s development and make it difficult for people with disabilities to communicate. According to ABC news affiliate WPBF, Jaclyn Theek, a clinic director and speech-language pathologist at the Speech and Learning Institute in North Palm Beach, stated that she had seen a 364 percent uptick in the total count of referrals for children with speech delays in 2021, implying that mask-wearing may very well be fueling unprecedented harm to healthy childhood development.

Children are not at statistical risk from Covid-19.

The survival rate of healthy children is on the order of 99.99995 percent (the infection survival rate overall is at least 99.995%). Covid deaths are one percent of annual deaths for those under age 18.

“Seen in this context, the CDC has taken an especially aggressive stance, recommending that all kids 2 and older should be masked in school,” the article notes.

“The agency has argued for this policy amid an atmosphere of persistent backlash and skepticism, but on September 26, its director, Rochelle Walensky, marched out a stunning new statistic: Speaking as a guest on CBS’s Face the Nation, she cited a study published two days earlier, which looked at data from about 1,000 public schools in Arizona. The ones that didn’t have mask mandates, she said, were 3.5 times as likely to experience COVID outbreaks as the ones that did.”

Of course, this is patently false, an article in The Atlantic usefully explains why:

But the Arizona study at the center of the CDC’s back-to-school blitz turns out to have been profoundly misleading. “You can’t learn anything about the effects of school mask mandates from this study,” Jonathan Ketcham, a public-health economist at Arizona State University, told me. His view echoed the assessment of eight other experts who reviewed the research, and with whom I spoke for this article.

Masks may well help prevent the spread of COVID, some of these experts told me, and there may well be contexts in which they should be required in schools. But the data being touted by the CDC—which showed a dramatic more-than-tripling of risk for unmasked students—ought to be excluded from this debate. The Arizona study’s lead authors stand by their work, and so does the CDC. But the critics were forthright in their harsh assessments.

Noah Haber, an interdisciplinary scientist and a co-author of a systematic review of COVID-19 mitigation policies, called the research “so unreliable that it probably should not have been entered into the public discourse.”

This is not the only study cited by Walensky in support of masking students, but it’s among the most important, having been deployed repeatedly to justify a policy affecting millions of children—and having been widely covered in the press. The agency’s decision to trumpet the study’s dubious findings, and subsequent lack of transparency, raise questions about its commitment to science-guided policy.

The article goes on to show that not only is the study “misleading,” it is based on outright lies. Read on:

The Arizona study, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, looked at school-associated outbreaks in Maricopa and Pima Counties, comparing rates across schools with and without mask mandates for students and staff. “The school year starts very early in Arizona, in mid-July, so we had the advantage of being able to get an early look at data,” one of the lead authors, J. Mac McCullough, told The New York Times.

The early look revealed that just 16 outbreaks had occurred among the 210 schools that had a mask mandate in place from the start of classes, versus 113 among the 480 schools that had no mandates at all. According to McCullough and his colleagues, this amounted to a 3.5-fold increase in incidence of outbreaks for the no-mandate schools.

Yet the study’s methodology and data set appear to have significant flaws. The trouble begins with the opening lines of the paper, where the authors say they evaluated the association between school mask policies and school-associated COVID-19 outbreaks “during July 15–August 31, 2021.” After reviewing school calendars and speaking with several school administrators in Maricopa and Pima Counties, I found that only a small proportion of the schools in the study were open at any point during July.

Some didn’t begin class until August 10; others were open from July 19 or July 21. That means students in the latter group of schools had twice as much time—six weeks instead of three weeks—in which to develop a COVID outbreak.

“Ketcham said that a comparison of median start dates is insufficient,” the article notes. “If schools with mask mandates had fewer school days during the study,” Ketcham told the author, “that alone could explain the difference in outbreaks.”

The Atlantic article goes on to cite a Bangladesh study, but doesn’t note that it has also been shredded by scientific experts.

Republican Ohio State Rep. Nino Vitale released a video showing a live experiment with students who placed an oxygen-reading device into their face masks to check if the levels were safe. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) “considers any atmosphere with an oxygen level below 19.5 percent to be oxygen-deficient and immediately dangerous to life or health.”1

Fear is driving this recommendation for healthy people to wear masks, not science.

Are mask-wearers being initiated into a cult by the Luciferian social engineers?

As a nurse for over 25 years and holding a Master’s Degree in Science, I cannot in good conscience allow my grandchild to be subjected to an intervention that may cause physical, emotional, and psychological harm without being provided significant evidence that the benefits of such intervention outweigh the risks.

Should we be encouraging healthy people to wear masks? The answer is unequivocally no.

Rancourt says:

 “The World Health Organization in its June 5 memo,4 where they reversed their position and decided that it was a good idea to recommend mask use in the general population, in that document, they actually say you have to consider the potential harms, and they list what they consider are all the potential harms.

They missed a lot. But one of the top ones is you’re concentrating the pathogen laden material onto this material near your face, nose, eyes and so on. And you’re touching the mask all the time, you’re touching yourself, you’re touching others.

It’s not a controlled clinical environment, so there’s potential for transmission in that way. You might wear the mask more than once, you might store it at home and then wear it again. You might do all kinds of things …

What I find extraordinary is that they also have a list of what they call potential advantages. And when I compare the two lists, the potential dangers far outweigh the potential advantages. So, you have to ask yourself, what the heck are you doing?

How can you make these two columns and compare the advantages and disadvantages and have one clearly outweigh the other and then conclude that therefore we recommend masks? This is just nonsense. It’s irrational. So, my association added our list5 of things that they weren’t even considering.

We went into the civil liberties aspect of it as well, because I think this is very important. One of the fundamental aspects of a free and democratic society is that the individual is entitled to evaluate the personal risk to themselves when they act in the world.”

As noted by Rancourt, risk evaluation is a very personal thing. It involves your personality, your judgment, your knowledge, your experience and your culture. It’s a very personal thing that you’re entitled to do for yourself. If the state is forcing you to accept their evaluation of risk, then this fundamental precept is violated. What’s worse, they’re currently forcing you to accept an evaluation of risk that cannot be scientifically justified.

Henning Bundgaard, chief physician at Denmark’s Rigshospitale, according to Bloomberg News said:

“All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions based on new studies.”

Dutch Medical Care Minister Tamara van Ark said:

“From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a national obligation.”

As of August 4, 2020, the Danes had suffered only 616 COVID-19 deaths, less than a third of average flu and pneumonia deaths, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University.

Coen Berends, spokesman for the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, echoing statements similar to the US Surgeon General from early March, said :

“Face masks in public places are not necessary, based on all the current evidence. There is no benefit and there may even be negative impact.”

Mask Mandates Are Indicative of Rising Totalitarianism

The problem with mask mandates is that public health officials are not merely recommending a precaution that may or may not be effective. They are using force to make people submit to a state order that could ultimately make individuals or entire populations sicker, according to world-leading public health officials. That is not just a violation of the Effectiveness Principle. It’s a violation of a basic personal freedom.

In its letter6 to the WHO, the Ontario Civil Liberties Association also addressed the issue of mask mandates as an instrument of totalitarianism.

“In our letter, we put it this way. There’s a recent scientific study7 that came out in 2019. The first author is the executive director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association that I do research for, and he’s a physicist also. He wrote an article with another physicist.

They looked at the conditions under which a society will gradually degrade towards a more totalitarian state. What they found was that there were two major control parameters that characterize the society that will tell you if that is likely to happen or not.

One of those control parameters is authoritarianism in the society. What they mean by that is, how successful can an individual be to refuse something, like to refuse to wear a mask if they protest? What is the chance that they’ll succeed if they refuse? That would be related to the degree of authoritarianism.

The other important parameter is the degree of violence in the society. How violent is the repression if you disobey? So how big is the fine? Can you go to jail? How much punishment will you be subjected to if you disobey a particular rule, for example, wearing of a mask?

Those two parameters, they were able to establish what we call a phase diagram of societies … And what they found is that in present society, if you would estimate the average value of those two parameters for United States or Canada, we’re in a state right now where the society is very gradually evolving towards totalitarianism.

The way to slow that and prevent it is for people to object and to scale it back. As soon as you agree with an irrational order, an irrational command that is not science-based, then you are doing nothing to bring back society towards the free and democratic society that we should have. You are allowing this slow march towards totalitarianism. That’s how I would explain the importance of objecting to this.”

Mask Mandates Allow Government to Shirk Responsibility

Rancourt also points out that when government and health institutions convince people that masks are the solution, they are effectively removing their duty of care toward you, because they’re saying all you need to do is wear a mask. This allows them to avoid the responsibility of actually preventing transmission in the primary centers of transmission, such as hospitals, nursing homes and elsewhere.8

“We don’t have to manage the air in such a way that immune-vulnerable in this establishment will not be at risk of dying and so on. They remove their duty of care responsibilities by saying, ‘Well, we’re just not going to allow visitors, and we’re going to force everyone to wear masks.’

You need to look at, scientifically, what is happening here. Why are people at risk? What is immune-vulnerability due to? What can you do about it? And then you have to do something about it if you’re serious about your duty of care towards these people. So it has that side effect of letting them get away with not taking care of the people that they’re responsible for.”

In the UK, it seems that a group of remote and unnamed scientists, outside of the formal SAGE infrastructure, effectively imposed masks on British citizens.

Covid Hypocrites

Various leaders or leading groups have seen fit to exempt themselves from mask wearing, generally just de facto. This underlines their superior status. On 18 August 2021, the UK Parliament was recalled due to the situation in Afghanistan; particularly the Afghanistan/2021 withdraw. The BBC noted that most Conservative Party MPs did not wear face masks despite it being under government public health guidelines.

In stunning display of power structures, the governing class openly ignores mask use themselves, while requiring the serving staff around them to wear them. For example at the G7 summit in Cornwall in June 2021, the leaders, including the elderly Queen Elizabeth, practiced “social distancing” and masking in briefly public, while not doing so in private.[22]

In a September 2021 gala event, a maskless Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who likes to present an image of being progressive, wore a designer dress embossed with “tax the rich”, while the serving staff around her had to wear masks.[23] In October 2021, Conservative MPs are still not wearing masks. Opposition MPs are calling on them to set an example.[24]

Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and many other politicians (mostly democrats) who push the unscientific medical tyranny have frequently been caught not wearing masks when not in front of a camera.

In August 2021, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held a speech for wealthy Democratic donors in Napa, California, being filmed sitting maskless virtually on top of one another. The “delightful event” was held just five days after the Democratic county government of Los Angeles imposed a countywide mask requirement for “major outdoor events.”[18][19] See image below:

In August 2021, former President President Obama celebrated his 60th birthday party at his $12 million weekend estate on Martha’s Vineyard. Over 400 of his closest maskless friends spent hours in indoor tents dancing, chatting in close circles, and yelling in each other’s ears over the live music. New York Times reporter Annie Karni defended the masklessness: It “is really being overblown. They’re following all the safety requirements. People are going to sporting events that are bigger than this. This is going to be safe. This is a sophisticated, vaccinated crowd and this is just about optics. It’s not about safety.”[20] See image below:

Also health officials are only wearing them for show. When Canadian Paul Wynnyk, chair of Alberta’s COVID-19 vaccine task force, tried to put on a mask at a press conference, this was the result.[21]

Below, Pennsylvania Democrat Governor and Democrat House Representative Wendy Ullman are caught on a hot mic joking that they would put their masks on only for the camera as political theater.

Calls for Peaceful Civil Disobedience Grow

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association has issued a press release9 calling for peaceful civil disobedience against mandatory masking. The U.S. nonprofit Stand for Health Freedom is also calling for civil disobedience, and has a widget you can use to contact your government representatives to let them know wearing a mask must be a personal choice.

“In the memo that was put out, we explain how best to perform that civil disobedience. We explain that you should be calm and confident and not get into arguments and not try to convince the authorities.

Just express your disobedience regarding this rule. And then we explain that they may want to trespass you, they may want to give you a fine, that you can anticipate fighting that fine in court. We go through the steps so that people can visualize how to do this.

We explain that some of their core shoppers or core citizens will be angry and aggressive, and to not get into a fight and not to get into a war of words. Do not try to convince them. Just stick to that you are not going to comply. Be very calm. This kind of civil disobedience has been successful at various times in North American history.

There are risks involved, but it’s often worth it to the individual to have that civil disobedience because there are many individuals that don’t know what to do that are very angry because they’re being forced to wear masks and they see it as absurd and a constraint. So, we try to give them a view of a venue on how to resist this …

We also recommend when people are practicing this kind of civil disobedience that they not be isolated, that they try to form a grassroots group of support and that they don’t do it alone. Try to bring at least one person, one supporter, with them. Record the interaction with the authorities and report back on social media and to their groups with details of what happened and so on.

We hope to create kind of a smoother messaging that a lot of people, or at least some people, do not believe this mask story and do not believe that they are at risk and are willing to practice civil disobedience to make that point.”

Rob Pue writes:

Wearing masks is dehumanizing and degrading.  They turn us from being unique individuals, made in the image of God to a herd of dumb animals — or robots.  Mask requirements immediately steal our freedom of expression and freedom of choice. Combined with “social distancing,” they rob us of one-on-one interaction with others.  This WEARS  on people mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually.  There have been more suicides in response to this “planned-demic” than deaths from the virus itself.

Environmental Effects

The “single-use” masks could take up to 450 years to biodegrade. Researchers at Swansea University found significant amounts of toxins (lead, copper, and antimony) within the silicon-based and plastic fibers of common disposable face masks after exposure to water, making them warn of a “substantial environmental impact” from used masks. The study did not look into potential impacts of these particles being inhaled by users during normal breathing over many years.

SOURCES:

See also:

Here are more videos to prove wearing masks is not smart:

Related Articles: