Unmasking the Facts

 

Mark Mallett is a former award-winning journalist with CTV News Edmonton (CFRN TV) and resides in Canada. The following article is regularly updated to reflect new science.


 

THERE perhaps is no issue more contentious than the mandatory mask laws spreading across the world. Aside from sharp disagreements on their effectiveness, the issue is dividing not only the general public but churches. Some priests have forbidden parishioners to enter the sanctuary without masks while others have even called the police on their flock.[1]October 27th, 2020; lifesitenews.com Some regions have required that face coverings be enforced in one’s own home [2]lifesitenews.com while some countries have mandated that individuals wear masks while driving alone in your car.[3]Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, looptt.com Dr. Anthony Fauci, heading up the U.S. COVID-19 response, goes even further saying that, aside from a facial mask, “If you have goggles or an eye shield, you should use it”[4]abcnews.go.com or even wear two.[5]webmd.com, January 26th, 2021 And Democrat Joe Biden stated, “masks save lives — period,”[6]usnews.com and that when he becomes President, his first action will be to force mask-wearing across the board claiming, “These masks make a gigantic difference.”[7]brietbart.com And that he did. Some Brazilian scientists alleged that actually refusing to wear a facial covering is a sign of a “serious personality disorder.”[8]the-sun.com And Eric Toner, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, flatly stated that mask-wearing and social distancing will be with us for “several years”[9]cnet.com as did a Spanish virologist.[10]marketwatch.com

Given the extraordinary imposition this is, under pain of fines or jail;[11]texastribune.org given that new strains of the coronavirus are emerging in Denmark[12]November 5th, 2020, theguardian.com and the U.K.[13]December 15th, 2020; ctvnews.casparking fears of a “new pandemic”; given that none of this is going away soon… the question of the hour that should be relevant to politicians and bishops alike is whether enforced mask policy is actually sound science. This article is a followup to Unmasking the Planone of the most widely shared writings on this website on the spiritual consequences of masking. The following is a resource for you and your families, based on scientific studies and data, about the physical consequences…

 

ASSUMPTIONS vs SCIENCE

“How could masks not work?” That’s the basic assumption behind most people who dutifully don their designer bandanas as they venture into the public. “It’s covering my mouth and nose so it must be doing something. Therefore, it’s the loving, charitable thing to do, right?”

In getting to the bottom of that question, one of the challenges today is getting past the media’s censorship monster. As I carefully explained in The Pandemic of Control, there is clearly a narrative being fed to the public that is strictly guarded and that even many accredited scientists and medical doctors are not allowed to challenge. The level of censorship is truly remarkable, unlike anything we’ve seen in the Western world until now. Recent news broke that a top medical journal has allowed authors to secretly alter data sets in their papers without publishing notices of correction, hence obscuring the weaponized origins [14]The evidence, according to scientists, continues to mount that COVID-19 was possibly manipulated in a laboratory before it was accidentally or intentionally released into the populace. While some scientists in the UK assert that COVID-19 came from natural origins alone,(nature.com) a paper from South China’s University of Technology claims ‘the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.'(Feb. 16th, 2020; dailymail.co.uk) In early February 2020, Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the U.S. “Biological Weapons Act”, gave a detailed statement admitting that the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive Biological Warfare Weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knows about it.(cf. zerohedge.com) An Israeli biological warfare analyst said much the same.(Jan. 26th, 2020; washingtontimes.com) Dr. Peter Chumakov of the Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology and Russian Academy of Sciences claims that “while the Wuhan scientists’ goal in creating the coronavirus was not malicious—instead, they were trying to study the pathogenicity of the virus… They did absolutely crazy things… For example, inserts in the genome, which gave the virus the ability to infect human cells.”(zerohedge.com) Professor Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Prize winner for Medicine and the man who discovered the HIV virus in 1983, claims that SARS-CoV-2 is a manipulated virus that was accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.(cf. mercola.com) A new documentary, quoting several scientists, points toward COVID-19 as an engineered virus.(mercola.com) A team of Australian scientists has produced new evidence the novel coronavirus shows signs “of human intervention.”(lifesitenews.comwashingtontimes.com) Former head of the British intelligence agency M16, Sir Richard Dearlove, said he believes the COVID-19 virus was created in a lab and spread accidentally.(jpost.com) A joint British-Norwegian study alleges that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is a “chimera” constructed in a Chinese lab.(Taiwannews.com) Professor Giuseppe Tritto, an internationally known expert in biotechnology and nanotechnology and president of the World Academy of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies (WABT) says that “It was genetically engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 (high-containment) lab in a program supervised by the Chinese military.”(lifesitnews.com) Respected Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who fled Hong Kong after exposing Bejing’s knowledge of the coronavirus well before reports of it emerged, stated that “the meat market in Wuhan is a smokescreen and this virus is not from nature… It comes from the lab in Wuhan.”(dailymail.co.uk) And Dr. Steven Quay, M.D., PhD., published a paper in January 2021: “A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory-derived”, cf. prnewswire.com and zenodo.org for the paper of COVID-19.[15]“Top Medical Journal Caught in Massive Cover-Up”, November 5th, 2020; mercola.com There truly is a massive Pandemic of Control breaking out.

So, here’s what your favorite news network is probably not reporting.

Up until COVID-19 was declared a “pandemic,” the science did not support mask-wearing, even though social media lit up with black and white photos from the 1918 influenza pandemic of people wearing masks, as if this were proof that they worked. On the contrary, W.H. Kellogg, M.D., infectious diseases expert and then-executive officer of the California State Board of Health, made this observation in 1920 on the failure of masking to contain the rampant influenza spread:

The masks, contrary to expectation, were worn cheerfully and universally, and also, contrary to expectation of what should follow under such circumstances, no effect on the epidemic curve was to be seen. Something was plainly wrong with our hypotheses. —W Kellogg. “An experimental study of the efficacy of gauze face masks.” Am J Pub Health,1920.  34-42. 

 

THE DATA UP TO DATE

Fast forward one hundred years, and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) own literature echoes the same:

Meta-analyses in systematic literature reviews have reported that the use of N95 respirators compared with the use of medical masks is not associated with any statistically significant lower risk of the clinical respiratory illness outcomes or laboratory-confirmed influenza or viral infections… The use of cloth masks (referred to as fabric masks in this document) as an alternative to medical masks is not considered appropriate for protection of health workers based on limited available evidence… At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. — “Guidance on the use of masks for the general public”, June 5th, 2020; who.int

Epidemiologist Dr. Andrew Bostom of Brown University likewise confirms that limited experimental observations…

…provide no rational, evidence-based justification for daily, prolonged mask usage by the general public to prevent infection with COVID-19. Moreover, a subsequent pooled (so-called “meta-”) analysis of ten controlled trials assessing extended, real-world, non-health-care-setting mask usage revealed that masking did not reduce the rate of laboratory-proven infections with the respiratory virus influenza. —July 11th, 2012; medium.com

Indeed, the very latest CDC statistics reveal that, of the symptomatic adults with COVID-19, 70.6% always wore a mask and still got sick, compared to 7.8% for those who rarely or never wore a mask. [16]“Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults ≥18 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities”, United States, July 2020; cdc.gov It’s obviously noteworthy that with mask-wearing being enforced and increasing in countries, cases are still rising—which doesn’t make a good case for masks. Again, there are evidence-based reasons as to why, and the quality of the science is crucial here. Meta-analyses, random controlled trials (RCT’s), and systematically reviewed studies are of the highest level.[17]cf. meehanmd.com So again, that RCT published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020—the CDC’s own journal—states:

Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza… In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks… — “Emerging Infectious Diseases”, Abstract; pps. 97-972, Vol. 26, no. 5; cdc.gov

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) also released similar study findings[18]Cowling BJ, Zhou Y, Ip DKM, Leung GM, Aiello AE. “Face masks to prevent influenza transmission: a systematic review”, Epidemiol Infect, 2010,138:449–56/Bin-Reza F, Lopez VC, Nicoll A, Chamberland ME. “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence“, Influenza Other Respi Viruses, 2012,6:257–67 after the 2009 influenza outbreak.

The key findings include: Masks worn by ill individuals may protect uninfected individuals from virus transmission, but little evidence exists that mask use by well individuals avoids infection… — “Public health measures: Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness: Planning Guidance for the Health Sector”, December 18, 2018, 2.3.2, canada.ca

A study of 15 randomized trials[19]Tom JeffersonMark JonesLubna A Al AnsariGhada BawazeerElaine BellerJustin ClarkJohn ConlyChris Del MarElisabeth DooleyEliana FerroniPaul GlasziouTammy HoffmanSarah ThorningMieke Van Driel; April 7th, 2020; medrxiv.org concluded in April 2020 that,

Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers. —”Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses”, April 7th, 2020; medrxiv.org

A 2019 study published in the JAMA journal of 2862 participants showed that both N95 respirators and surgical masks “resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza… ”[20]“N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel”, September3rd, 2019; jamanetwork.com 

In a study of the “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, six random controlled trials with 9171 participants were examined. The authors concluded:

The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff [for] those [who] are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients. —Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, March 13th, 2020; onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Again, there is simply a mountain of studies on whether masks can significantly reduce respiratory-type viruses. The answer is a resounding “no”. In a study on the “Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, the conclusion:

Facemask use provided a non-significant protective effect. —September 2017, sciencedirect.com

In a randomized controlled trial in Japan, the authors found that “Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds,” which can be caused by coronaviruses.[21]February 12th, 2009; pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In Influenza Journal, a systematic review of 17 eligible studies drew the conclusion that:

None of the studies we reviewed established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄respirator use and protection against influenza infection. —October 2011, onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Dr. Lisa M. Brosseau, ScD is a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases. Dr. Margaret Sietsema, PhD, is also an expert on respiratory protection and an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. After reviewing available studies, they concluded:

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… —April 1st, 2020; cidrap.umn.edu

One study claiming to show “Decrease in Hospitalizations for COVID-19 after Mask Mandates in 1083 U.S. Counties” was withdrawn by its authors. The revised Abstract states:

The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because there are increased rates of SARS- CoV-2 cases in the areas that we originally analyzed in this study. —November 4th, 2020; medrxiv.org

The WHO published the study, “Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-to-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”.[22]thelancet.com The title sounded promising as an authoritative meta-analysis. However, Swiss Policy Research asserted in September that “the WHO-commissioned meta-study on the effectiveness of facemasks and social distancing, published in The Lancet, is seriously flawed and should be retracted.”[23]swprs.org Among five serious flaws in the study, “seven studies are unpublished and non-peer-reviewed observational studies”, only four of 29 studies were about the SARS-CoV-2 virus (that leads to the disease COVID-19), which has very different transmission characteristics; the studies focused almost exclusively on transmission by severely ill hospitalized patients and not by community transmission; and “The authors of the Lancet meta-study acknowledge that the certainty of the evidence regarding facemasks is “low” as all of the studies are observational and none is a randomized controlled trial (RCT).” Dr. James Meehan, who is a former editor of the medical journal, Ocular Immunology and Inflammation and who has read thousands of peer-reviewed studies in his career, says of the WHO’s study:

This systemic review/meta-analysis was entirely comprised of low-level observational studies. No high-level randomized controlled trials were included. No matter how much the authors attempt to deceive or embellish the study’s relevance with its “dressed up” title, the fact remains, this study still amounts to nothing more than a steaming pile of weak evidence…. The flaws, errors, and mistakes in this analysis of 29 observational studies should lead to its retraction from the Lancet. The flaws are buried in the data tables, therefore, it is missed by those that do little more than read titles and conclusions. Which is exactly why studies like this should be subjected to thorough and independent peer-review before publication. — “An Evidence Based Scientific Analysis of Why Masks are Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful”, November 20, 2020; meehanmd.com

A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine stated: “It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.”[24]July 23rd, 2020; cebm.net

A July 2020 cross-study by the University of East Anglia concluded in a non-peer-reviewed pre-print that, “stay at home orders, closure of all non-businesses and requiring the wearing of face masks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact,”[25]medrxiv.org and “The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher-risk situations.”[26]medrxiv.org; April 6th, 2020

This echoes another pre-print study that included 15 randomized trials investigating the effect of masks in healthcare workers and the general population and of quarantine. “Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness… or influenza… for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers…. There was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators….”[27]“Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 – Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis”; April 7th, 2020, medrxiv.org

A Cochrane study by Jefferson et al. published in November 2020 concluded there is no high-quality evidence in favour of facemasks:

Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness… —”Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?”, cochrane.org

The European Center of Disease Control stated that while there may be a “small or moderate protective effect” with medical masks, it admits that…

…there are still significant uncertainties about the size of this effect. Evidence for the effectiveness of non-medical face masks, face shields/visors and respirators in the community is scarce and of very low certainty. —”Using face masks in the community: first update”, February 21st, 2021; ecdc.europa.eu

Reporting on a nosocomial hospital outbreak in Finland, Hetemäki et al. observed that “among vaccinated health care workers… secondary transmission occurred from those with symptomatic infections despite use of personal protective equipment …[including] universal masking”[28]May 2021, eurosurveillance.org 

On November 10th, 2020, the CDC released a new brief on masking that cited several studies. It is notable that in most of the studies that claimed some benefit in mask-wearing, they occurred at the same time that social distancing and lockdowns, as well as hand hygiene protocols, were put into place. Several of the authors noted that these were not factored into their studies, and simply lumped all methods together.  

The decrease in […] infections could be confounded by other interventions inside and outside of the health care system, such as restrictions on elective procedures, social distancing measures, and increased masking in public spaces, which are limitations of this study. Despite these local and statewide measures, the case number continued to increase in Massachusetts throughout the study period… —July 14th, 2020, “Association Between Universal Masking in a Health Care System and SARS-CoV-2 Positivity Among Health Care Workers”, Xiaowen Wang, MD et al., jamanetwork.com

Most of the cited CDC’s studies focused on comparing material efficacy as opposed to real-world results. Nonetheless, the studies often unwittingly prove the results of the aforementioned studies that found no significant benefits from facial coverings. For example, one such study found that “surgical and handmade masks, and face shields, generate significant leakage jets that may present major hazards.”[29]“Face Coverings, Aerosol Dispersion and Mitigation of Virus Transmission Risk”, Cornell University, May 19th, 2020; arxiv.org Another noted that “many of these mask designs have not been tested in practice… such as neck gaiters or bandanas, which offer very little protection.”[30]“Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech”, Sept. 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Along the same lines, another CDC-cited study warned that “there are insufficient data on cloth-based coverings, which are being used by a vast majority of the general public… Loosely folded face masks and bandana-style coverings provide minimal stopping-capability for the smallest aerosolized respiratory droplets.”[31]“Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets”, June 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov However, some government officials, such as Dr. Theresa Tam heading Canada’s pandemic response, have actually recommended non-medical cloth-based coverings thereby contradicting the CDC’s sources.[32]ctvnews.ca Other studies showed an increased reduction of aerosols through multi-layers of cloth, however that presented another problem: “fabric and fabric combinations were more difficult to breathe through than N95 masks”,[33]“Ability of fabric face mask materials to filter ultra-fine particles at coughing velocity”, Sept. 22nd, 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32963071 which as you’ll read shortly, can cause other serious health issues. 

Yet, another of the CDC’s cited studies revealed that “medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when completely sealed.”[34]“Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2”, Oct. 21st, 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33087517 And these droplets can remain suspended in the air for minutes to weeks.[35]“The airborne lifetime of small speech droplets and their potential importance in SARS-CoV-2 transmission”, June 2nd, 2020, pnas.org/content/117/22/11875 

Another perspective on the inefficacy of masks came from an expert on mask fitting and usage. In an open letter to “Physicians and the Public of Alberta”, Chris Schaefer wrote that “filter respirator masks, especially N95, surgical and non-medical masks, provide negligible COVID-19 protection for the following reasons”:

  1. Viruses in the fluid envelopes that surround them can be very small, so small in fact that you would need an electron microscope to see them. N95 masks filter 95% of particles with a diameter of 0.3 microns or larger. COVID-19 particles are .08 – .12 microns.
  2. Viruses don’t just enter us through our mouth and nose, but can also enter through our eyes and even the pores of our skin. The only effective barrier one can wear to protect against virus exposure would be a fully encapsulated hazmat suit with cuffs by ankles taped to boots and cuffs by wrists taped to gloves, while receiving breathing air from a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). This barrier is standard gear to protect against a biohazard (viruses) and would have to be worn in a possible virus hazard environment 24/7 and you wouldn’t be able to remove any part of it even to have a sip of water, eat or use the washroom while in the virus environment. If you did, you would become exposed and would negate all the prior precautions you had taken.
  3. Not only are N95, surgical and non-medical masks useless as protection from COVID-19, but in addition, they also create very real risks and possible serious threats to a wearer’s health for the following reasons. — “Mask expert warns Dr. Deena Hinshaw mask use will not protect against COVID-19”, June 2029; todayville.com

Again, I’ll address those threats in a few moments, which are increasingly serious.

As mentioned earlier, one study that purported to show the benefits of mask-wearing in several American states had to be withdrawn on November 4th, 2020, as cases were increasing in these same areas after the study was published. How many of the studies cited in this new brief by the CDC will end up having to revise their studies as “positive tests” continue to rise nearly everywhere now, even while mask-wearing has become the norm, if not mandatory?[36]medrxiv.org (Note: this article will not go into length into the now proven and serious controversy that PCR tests for COVID-19 are deeply flawed. This is huge and potentially affects many of the studies cited here. The medical journal BMJ published an article on December 18th, 2020 that addressed this serious crisis, which is falsely inflating the seriousness of this epidemic with catastrophic consequences. See: “Covid-19: Mass testing is inaccurate and gives false sense of security, minister admits”; bmj.com . See also this article in The Lancet, and the FDA’s warning of PCR “false-positives” here.)

A major and comprehensive Danish study was published on November 18th, 2020 in the Annals of Internal Medicine which involved 4862 who completed the study. It found that between those who wore masks and those who didn’t, “the difference observed was not statistically significant” in those who became infected with SARS-CoV-2.

In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation. — “Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers”, Henning Bundgaard, DMSc et. al., November 18th, 2020; acpjournals.org

But according to Steve Kirsch, MSc, he claims this isn’t the full picture. 

The Danish mask study showed that masks had a negative affect, and they couldn’t get any journal to publish the paper until they changed the result… they changed the abstract so it would say, well, we couldn’t determine that masks work… they made it a neutral thing. And once they did that, they were able to get their paper published. —Health Ranger, interview, brighteon.com, 15:50

 

ASYMPTOMATIC TRANSMISSION?

On Fox News, CDC data was cited that 85% of those who tested positive for coronavirus in July 2020 “reported wearing a mask always or often.” The CDC responded:

CDC guidance on masks has clearly stated that wearing a mask is intended to protect other people in case the mask wearer is infected. At no time has CDC guidance suggested that masks were intended to protect the wearers. —October, 2020; Tucker Carlson, youtube.com

Here is a clear admission that those who wear masks are not protected from the coronavirus. There are two underlying reasons why masking against respiratory viruses has been ineffective. As you’ll read in a moment, one has to do with the physics of the virus. The second has to do with masking healthy people in the first place.

Early on in the pandemic, the World Health Organization’s spokeswoman stated:

From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual. —Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, World Health Organization (WHO), from Following the Science?, 2:53 mark

Indeed, Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory of Pfizer stated that the theory that those who have no symptoms pose a viral threat, is pure invention. 

Asymptomatic transmission: the concept a perfectly well person can represent a respiratory virus threat to another person; that was invented about a year ago, never been mentioned before in the industry… it’s not possible to have a body full of respiratory virus to the point that you’re an infectious source and for you not to have symptoms… It’s not true that people without symptoms are a strong respiratory virus threat. —April 11th, 2021, interview on The Last American Vagabond

One of the world’s most renowned immunologists agrees:

…it was the crowning of stupidity to claim that someone could have COVID-19 without any symptoms at all or even to pass the disease along without showing any symptoms whatsoever. —Professor Beda M. Stadler, PhD, former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern in Switzerland; Weltwoche (World Week) on June 8th, 2020; cf. worldhealth.net

Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA, is probably the foremost expert in the world today on the pandemic response and the most cited doctor in the National Library of Medicine. He stated recently:

The virus is not spread asymptomatically. Only sick people give it to other people. —September 20th, 2021; interview, Gab TV, 6:32

This is confirmed in a massive study of nearly 10 million people published on November 20th, 2020 in the prestigious Nature Communications journal that perhaps gives the strongest evidence yet that mask-wearing by the healthy (ie. asymptomatic) and lockdowns is unnecessary. It found that…

All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases… were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases… Virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and repositive cases, indicating no “viable virus” in positive cases detected in this study. — “Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China”, Shiyi Cao, Yong Gan et. al, nature.com

Further recent studies confirm that asymptomatic transmission is simply rare if ever.[37]“A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose etc…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing a facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people.” (Leung N.H.L., Chu D.K.W., Shiu E.Y.C., Chan K.H., McDevitt J.J., Hau B.J.P. “Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks.” Nat Med. 2020;26:676–680. [PubMed] [] [Ref list])

This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase.(Gao M., Yang L., Chen X., Deng Y., Yang S., Xu H. “A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers”. Respir Med. 2020;169 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [] [Ref list]).

A JAMA Network Open study observed that asymptomatic transmission is not a primary driver of infection within households. (December 14th, 2020; jamanetwork.com)

And in April 2021, the CDC published a study that concluded: “We observed no transmission from asymptomatic case-patients and highest SAR through presymptomatic exposure.” (“Analysis of Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic Transmission in SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak, Germany, 2020”, cdc.gov) Hence it follows that masking the healthy, social distancing, and locking down entire healthy populations rather than focused health protocols and quarantining the sick, have little basis in science. (I address these other protocols in detail in the documentary Following the Science?)

As they said in 2020, “At no time has CDC guidance suggested that masks were intended to protect the wearers.” 

 

A MATTER OF PHYSICS 

Confirming this long-standing science on the futility of masks against such viruses, Dr. Colin Axon stated in July of 2021 exactly why masks are no more than ‘comfort blankets’ and do little to reduce the spread of Covid particles: 

The small sizes are not easily understood but an imperfect analogy would be to imagine marbles fired at builders’ scaffolding, some might hit a pole and rebound, but obviously most will fly through… A Covid viral particle is around 100 nanometres, material gaps in blue surgical masks are up to 1,000 times that size, cloth mask gaps can be 500,000 times the size… Not everyone carrying Covid is coughing, but they are still breathing, those aerosols escape masks and will render the mask ineffective. —SAGE adviser for the UK Government, July 17th, 2021; The Telegraph

As Dr. Brosseau and Dr. Sietsema published over a year before:

A cloth mask or face covering does very little to prevent the emission or inhalation of small particles. As discussed in an earlier CIDRAP commentary and more recently by Morawska and Milton (2020) in an open letter to WHO signed by 239 scientists, inhalation of small infectious particles is not only biologically plausible, but the epidemiology supports it as an important mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. —April 1st, 2020; cidrap.umn.edu

Again, says Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, PhD, it’s a matter of size:

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle. — “Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy”, June 11th, 2020; rcreader.com. Read a critical review of this paper by Todd McGreevy that supports Dr. Rancourt’s conclusions: “Still No Conclusive Evidence Justifying Mandatory Masks”

The coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) can range in diameter from 0.06 to 0.14 microns. Medical N95 masks—which are considered the most effective—can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns, so their openings are too large. Surgical masks, homemade masks, T-shirts and bandanas are even more porous.[38]“More Evidence Masks Don’t Work to Prevent COVID-19”, Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 11th, 2020; mercola.com Hence, it is no surprise that researchers from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and California Baptist University published a study on December 15th, 2020 confirming this. They cite the common myth that the general public has assumed:

“It is natural to think that wearing a mask, no matter new or old, should always be better than nothing,” said author Jinxiang Xi. “Our results show that this belief is only true for particles larger than 5 micrometers [ie. microns], but not for fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers [microns].” They found that wearing a mask “significantly slows down” airflow, reducing a mask’s efficacy and making a person more susceptible to inhaling aerosols into the nose — where SARS-CoV-2 likes to lurk.New York PostDecember 16th, 2020; study: aip.scitation.org

They also noted that wearing a used mask is even worse than not wearing one. 

Second, most controlled studies have focused on influenza viruses that have revealed masks to be ineffective in stopping airborne flu particles. Thus, it’s totally illogical to assume that masks can stop SARS-CoV-2, which is roughly half the size of a flu virus. As stated by The National Academies of Sciences in its “Rapid Expert Consultation on the Effectiveness of Fabric Masks for the COVID-19 Pandemic” report:

The evidence from… laboratory filtration studies suggest that… fabric masks may reduce the transmission of larger respiratory droplets. There is little evidence regarding the transmission of small aerosolized particulates of the size potentially exhaled by asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. —April 8, 2020, nap.edu

And thus, even one of President Joe Biden’s health advisors admits:

We know today that many of the face cloth coverings that people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out, either you’re breathing out or breathing in. —Dr. Michael Thomas Osterholm, August 2nd, 2021; CNN interview, :41, rumble.com

On October 20th, 2021, Florida Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, confirmed the above science and that masking for children, in particular, is not supported by the scientific data:

Ironically, a year and a half earlier, the U.S. Surgeon General said virtually the same thing:

What the World Health Organization and the CDC have reaffirmed in the last few days is that they do not recommend the general public wear masks… They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus… If you have a mask and it makes you feel better, then by all means wear it, but know that the more you touch your face the more you put yourself at risk and know that right now the data isn’t quite there to say that there is a net benefit to the individual of wearing a mask. —Surgeon General Jerome Adams, March 31st, 2020; foxnews.com

A website called “Unmask Your Child” was created by doctors and professionals to highlight the science — and absurdity — of masking children.

 

CURRENT CONFIRMATION 

Thus, it is no surprise to see recent research and studies fail to give evidence that universal masking is effective. Harvard and Berkley alumni, Yinon Weiss, published the following graphs showing how mask-wearing has not impacted the rise or fall of “cases” in several countries. 

Note the arrows when masks were mandated… showing that cases were already dropping,
or that mask mandates failed to stop the rise in cases, thereby
confirming what dozens of studies
have concluded regarding mask effectiveness
in the general public.
To view the graphs more closely with brief commentary, go to Yinon’s Twitter feed here.

Researchers at RationalGround.com, a clearinghouse of COVID-19 data trends run by a grassroots group of data analysts, computer scientists, and actuaries, analyzed all 50 U.S. States, separating those that had mask mandates and those that did not. Their conclusions line up with Weiss’s data showing that mask mandates have had no beneficial effect:

When comparing states with mandates vs. those without, or periods of times within a state with a mandate vs. without, there is absolutely no evidence the mask mandate worked to slow the spread one iota… We can turn the numbers upside down and inside out, but no matter how we examine them, there is no evidence of masks correlating with reduced spread. If anything, the opposite is true. —Justin Hart, “Comprehensive analysis of 50 states shows greater spread with mask mandates”, December 21st, 2020; theblaze.com

A working paper released by the National Bureau of Economic Research concurred, finding that for all the countries and U.S. States studied, once the region experienced 25 cumulative COVID-19 deaths, the growth rates of daily COVID-19 deaths fell from initially high levels to close to zero within 20 to 30 days.

This occurred regardless of what type of nonpharmaceutical interventions, including mask mandates, travel restrictions, stay-at-home orders, quarantines and lockdowns, were put in place.mercola.com; study: August 2020, nber.org

Using data culled from YouGov.com and the Covid Tracking Project from March 20, 2020, to March 3, 2021, economist Brian Westbury created the following chart. It shows that while mask usage reached about 80% by midsummer last year, and has remained consistent since then, the number of daily positive cases rose and fell precipitously as epidemics typically do — showing masks to have been irrelevant in stopping the spread of the virus.[39]March 7th, 2021, wnd.com 

Indeed, a new meta-analyses of 65 studies on masking published in March 2021 concluded that there is no evidence for viral protection and that “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 mainstream media.”[40]greenmedinfo.com; mdpi.com 

This is echoed by a significant research paper of the International Research Journal of Public Health regarding masking to stop the spread of COVID-19 in all 50 of the United States. It concluded:

We did not observe association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states. — August 2021, “Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment”, Damian D. Guerra, Daniel J. Guerra, escipub.com

Dr. Andrew Bostom noted that, despite 96% mask compliance “every time they go out” – the highest in the U.S. during the fall of 2020 – Rhode Island still had an enormous Autumn COVID-19 infection spike.[41]andrewbostom.org

In September 2021, a pre-print of a new randomized controlled study from Bangladesh was claimed by the media to definitely end the mask debate. But several researchers have quickly pointed out the highly subjective reporting and questionable controls of the study, including paying off villages to wear masks, self-reporting, and a lack of data on where waves of COVID had already started or were passing, etc., leading one critic to call the whole methodology “junk” and a “dismal day for science.”[42]cf. Bangladesh Mask Study: Do Not Believe the Hype Data analyst Steve Kirsch, MSc, states:

[It] was hailed by experts as proving, yes, once and for all we have proven definitevely that masks work. Well, that’s only if you didn’t read the study… If you understand how the randomization was done, it was not individuals who were randomized, but it was a randomized — whether a particular town — it’s called “cluster randomization.” And so these studies prove in fact that, if anything, that the masks are completely useless. —Health Ranger interview, brighteon.com, 12:50

On November 8th, 2021, Cato Institute published a critical review of the studies on cloth masking.

The available clinical evidence of facemask efficacy is of low quality and the best available clinical evidence has mostly failed to show efficacy, with fourteen of sixteen identified randomized controlled trials comparing face masks to no mask controls failing to find statistically significant benefit in the intent-to-treat populations. — “Evidence for Community Cloth Face Masking to Limit the Spread of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review”, cato.org 

“The biggest takeaway,” said Dr. Jonathan Darrow, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and one of the researchers, “is that more than 100 years of attempts to prove that masks are beneficial has produced a large volume of mostly low-quality evidence that has generally failed to demonstrate their value in most settings.”[43]November 15th, 2021; theepochtimes.com

In May of 2022, a preprint study in The Lancet revealed what we’ve already known for years: masks don’t work against a microscopic COVID virus particle:

…incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates. — “Revisiting Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements—United States, July 1—October 20 2021”, May 25th, 2022; papers.ssrn.com

 

MASKS: ARE THEY SPREADING THE VIRUS?

The University of East Anglia study stated that…

…the wide spread use of face masks or coverings in the community do not provide any benefit. Indeed, there is even a suggestion that they may actually increase risk… —July 17th, 2020; medrxiv.org

Former U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams warned:

On an individual level, there was a study in 2015 looking at medical students and medical students wearing surgical masks touch their face on average 23 times. We know a major way that you can get respiratory diseases like coronavirus is by touching a surface and then touching your face so wearing a mask improperly can actually increase your risk of getting disease. —Surgeon General Jerome Adams, March 31st, 2020; foxnews.com

Oddly, there is little discussion about the fact that masks do not cover the eyes — an entry for the coronavirus. A study in July 2020 stated:

…the unprotected eye remains a vulnerable path of infection. This pathway may be further compromised by irritation from mask use… This risk is particularly worrisome during the current pandemic due to a well-documented probability of the novel coronavirus spreading through contact with the eye. —”Characteristics of Ocular Findings of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hubei Province, China”, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

See also “Role of the Eye in Transmitting the Coronavirus”.[44]ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 

Duke scientists tested a variety of masks and found that cloth masks, “…seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets, which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case. Considering that smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive.”[45]September 2nd, 2020, science.org

Dr. Bostom points out that the authors of the meta-analyses earlier cited “further concluded with a caution that using face masks improperly might ‘increase the risk for (viral) transmission.”[46]medium.com It does not take a scientist to know why. Spend five minutes in your local box store watching everyone from shoppers to cashiers adjusting their masks, pulling them off, putting them back on, touching merchandise, surfaces, keypads, etc. and, clearly, this is a failing experiment. As CBC News reported:

A face mask is meant to limit the spread of COVID-19. But if it slips below your nose, hovers around your chin, or you touch the outside with your hands, medical experts say that might be riskier than not wearing one at all. cbc.ca

If not used properly, masks may lead to a greater risk of pandemic influenza transmission because of contamination… — “Public health measures: Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness: Planning Guidance for the Health Sector”, December 18, 2018, 3.5.1.5, canada.ca

Indeed, the “Danish researchers recently conducted a randomized trial in an effort to prove the usefulness of face masks against COVID-19 infection but ended up proving the opposite.”[47]mercola.com The study[48]thieme-connect.com concluded:

…tens of millions of contaminations can occur each day as people use the masks inappropriately, touch their faces and neglect to wash their hands. For this reason, universal mask wearing may actually do more harm than good. This is clearly important information that should be disseminated to the general public, yet medical journals are shunning the paper, probably because it doesn’t align with their narrative that supports universal mask recommendations. —November 2nd, 2020; Dr. Joseph Mercola, mercola.com

Watch this brief video clip of a nurse demonstrating how easily touching your mask can spread a virus. It starts at 8:23 for about a minute and a half:

In fact, a South Korean study found that there was “greater contamination on the outer than the inner mask surfaces” — precisely where everyone is adjusting them.[49]“Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS–CoV-2: A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients”, July 7th, 2020; acpjournals.org As detailed in WHO’s guidance memo,[50]“Guidance on the use of masks for the general public”, June 5th, 202o; who.int at the very least, you need to make sure your medical mask is:

  • Changed when wet, soiled or damaged;
  • Untouched. Do not adjust or displace it from your face for any reason. “If this happens, the mask should be safely removed and replaced; and hand hygiene performed”;
  • Discarded and changed after caring for any patient on contact/droplet precautions for other pathogens;
  • Staff who do not work in clinical areas do not need to use a medical mask during routine activities (e.g., administrative staff).”

Dr. Joseph Mercola therefore asks,

…if administrative hospital staff do not need to wear masks, why would healthy individuals need to wear them when walking around, especially in open-air areas? Broward county, Florida, has gone so far as to issue an emergency order mandating masks to be worn inside your own residence. But why, if administrative hospital staff aren’t even advised to wear them at work? — “WHO Admits: No Direct Evidence Masks Prevent Viral Infection”, August 3rd, 2020; mercola.com

On August 2020, a thorough review by Dr. Ines Kappstein, a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene, examined the studies and basis for a mask mandate, encouraged by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) primarily for “altruism.” She concluded:

There is no scientifically sound evidence from the specialist literature cited in the article by the RKI, nor from the “current” studies mentioned there, that masks that are worn by the normal population in public spaces (shops, public transport), regardless of which type… could reduce the transmission of pathogens in respiratory infections, such as influenza or COVID-19 in particular, in order to achieve “a sustainable reduction in the rate of spread of COVID-19 in the population and a falling number of new cases to achieve ”, as it says in the RKI article. —Thieme E-Journals; thieme-connect.com

In fact, the RKI article states that…

…it is important to ensure that the MNB [mouth and nose covering] — especially when putting it on and taking it off — is  not touched in order to prevent contamination through the hands. In general, a longer period of wear is associated with an increased risk of contamination.Thieme E-Journals; thieme-connect.com

The reason also comes down to the very physics of masks and their capabilities, or lack thereof, as mentioned earlier. Surgical masks used in healthcare settings, such as during surgery, are meant to prevent bacterial or viral infections by blocking respiratory droplets[51]Cowling BJ, Zhou Y, Ip DK, Leung GM, Aiello AE, “Face masks to prevent influenza transmission: a systematic review”, Epidemiol Infect, 2010; 138:449-56 although even this is disputed by several studies.[52]cf. meehanmd.com for a discussion of several studies on masking during surgery The PHAC study states:

Face masks (i.e., disposable surgical, medical or dental procedure masks) provide a physical barrier that may help prevent the transmission of influenza viruses from an ill person to a well person by blocking large-particle respiratory droplets propelled by coughing or sneezing. —Ibid; 3.5.1.5 Use of Masks, canada.ca

So while it is true that surgical masks or highly dense cloth masks may reduce the transmission of respiratory droplets, they are completely ineffective in stopping the spread of aerosolized particles that the infected exhale. Hence, the CDC’s own journal states:

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids. There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. — “Emerging Infectious Diseases”, Vol. 26, no. 5, May 2020; cdc.gov

This is confirmed by the authors of a study in The New England Journal of Medicine:

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic… —”Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era”, Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.[53]From the Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute (M.K.), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (M.K., C.A.M., J.S., M.P.), Harvard Medical School (M.K., C.A.M., E.S.S.), and the Infection Control Unit and Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital (E.S.S.) — all in Boston.; May 21, 2020; nejm.org

Another peer-reviewed study published on December 7th, 202o, also concluded that masks not only show no reductions in infections, but may actually contribute to higher incidences of COVID-19:

Mask “mandates” in 2020 have resulted in no reductions in incidence of COVID-19, as detected by positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests among nations or US states. Increased rates or insignificant change in incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections, as detected by PCR tests, have followed mask mandates throughout the world and in US states. Masks are therefore a possible risk factor for infection with SARS-CoV-2 and higher incidence of COVID-19 disease. —“Masks, false safety and real dangers”, Colleen Huber, NMD; Primary Doctor Medical Journal

In March 2021, the CDC published a new study on the effectiveness of mask mandates. The study examined the association between state-issued mask mandates and changes in COVID-19 case and death growth rates after they were lifted. After 1-20 days, the rate of infection was reported to decrease by only 0.5%. After 80-100 days, that figure only increased to 1.8%. This is hardly the “game-changer” study the media are widely reporting it to be.[54]“Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1–December 31, 2020”, March 12th, 2021; cdc.gov

For the collective science simply does not support any significant reduction of these viruses through facial coverings, much less non-standardized masks made out of a variety of cloths. Which is why Coen Berends, spokesman for the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in Holland, states, “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.”[55]August 1st, 2020; dailymail.co.uk Henning Bundgaard, chief physician at Denmark’s Rigshospitalet, worries that facials masks are giving the public a “false sense of security.”[56]July 26th, 2020; bloombergquint.com 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.”[57]August 3rd, 2020; the-sun.com In the U.S., experts from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy defended their report that there is “limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission” through wearing facial masks or coverings.[58]April 1st, 2020; cidrap.umn.edu And Dr. Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s top infectious disease expert, stated:

The studies so far have not shown a dramatic effect, countries such as France and others, which have obligatory mask-wearing in place, have still experienced a big spread of the disease. —October 19th, 2020; newstatemen.com

What makes all of these facts that much more painful is that disposable masks are now posing an environmental disaster:

…researchers find 129 billion face masks are being thrown out each month around the globe. That works out to three million masks in the trash every minute… “With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat and prevent it from becoming the next plastic problem.” — “Preventing masks from becoming the next plastic problem”, link.springer.com; cited at studyfinds.org, March 11th, 2021

The worldwide estimate is that disposable masks or face shields are discarded at a rate of 3.4 million per day. The presence of a diversity of plastics, toxic and cancerous compounds like perfluorocarbon, aniline, phthalate, formaldehyde, bisfenol A as well as heavy metals, biocides (zinc oxide, graphene oxide) and nanoparticles are found. An increasing number of environmental experts worry about the long-term effects. Most (85%) of the masks used worldwide are made in China where no environmental qualification is needed. — “Why Mask Mandates Should be Repealed Immediately”, Carla Peeters November 15th, 2021; brownstone.org

A University of Louisville study released in May 2022 found that mask mandates and greater compliance resulting from them “did not predict lower growth rates when community spread was low (minima) or high (maxima).” The study, which used CDC data across several seasons, found that mask usage and mandates “are not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 spread among US states.”[59]cf. More Bad News for the Mask Cult

Ambarish Chandra of University of Toronto and Dr. Tracy Hoeg of University of California published a Lancet study titled, “Revisiting Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements—United States, July 1—October 20 2021.” Their results: “… no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates.”  

‘And finally, emerging evidence of what many of us suspected all along, the possibility that masks could actually be actively harming people. February 2022 saw the release of a medical journal report comparing Covid-19 fatality rates across Kansas counties during the height of the pandemic in 2020. Titled, “The Foegen Effect: A Mechanism by Which Facemasks Contribute to the COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate,” the observational study – published February 2022 in Medicine by German doctor Zacharias Fögen – analyzed “whether mandatory mask use influenced the case fatality rate in Kansas.” 

‘The paper’s stated most important finding: “… contrary to the accepted thought that fewer people are dying because infection rates are reduced by masks, this was not the case … Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ~50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.”

‘The study theorized that the so-called “Foegen effect,” whereby hypercondensed droplets caught by masks are re-inhaled and introduced deeper into the respiratory tract, could be responsible for the increased Covid mortality rate.

And it doesn’t stop there. Another peer-reviewed study, released in April 2022, compared mask usage across Europe during the pandemic and found no negative correlations between mask usage and Covid-19 cases and deaths. It also admitted to have found a “moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe” which “suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.”'[60]“More Bad News for the Mask Cult” by Scott Morefield, June 16, 2022

 

POTENTIAL HARM

Once again, here is the World Health Organization in its June 5th, 2020 interim “Guidance on the use of masks for the general public”:

Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider… —pg. 6, apps.who.int

This was repeated for a third time on December 1st, 2020:

At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. — “Mask Use in the Context of COVID-19”, apps.who.int

Before we answer the obvious question emerging as to “why” governments are therefore not only recommending masks but forcing the public to wear them, it’s crucial to note the actual harm wearing masks can cause. Dr. Denis Rancourt, Ph.D. is a researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association in Canada. They have written a letter to the WHO laying out several logical arguments against their demands that face masks be worn in the general public. Among their concerns,

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. —July 19th, 2020; mercola.com; see study “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta‐analysis”, March 13th, 2020; wiley.com

A recent meta-analysis of 65 peer-reviewed scientific articles[61]ncbi.nlm.nih.gov concluded a serious danger for developing MIES Mask Induced Exhaustion Syndrome. Symptoms vary from low O2, high CO2, dizziness, exhausted breathing and heartbeat, toxicity, inflammation, increased levels of stress hormone, anxiety, anger, headache, slow thinking and drowsiness.[62]brownstone.org 

“In August 2008,” notes Dr. Carla Peeters, PhD, “the NIH published a paper that during the flu pandemic in 1918 most people died due to bacterial pneumonia. Scientists debate that wearing masks lengthened the duration of the pandemic. During the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic bacterial co-infection has been observed as well. Nowadays young adults with pneumonia caused by Staphylococcus aureus, which seldom occurred before, can land in ICU’s. Another remarkable phenomenon recently observed in hospitals is the enormous increase in up to 25% of Covid patients co-infected with black fungus.”[63]brownstone.org 

A study involving 158 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.[64]“Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19”, Jonathan J.Y. Ong et al.; published in Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, March 30th, 2020 Nationally recognized U.S. board-certified neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, warns that face masks can create other serious health risks to the wearer as well.

Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention… Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications…  — “Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy”, May 11th, 2020; technocracy.news

He adds that, for those wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours by an infected person, they will be constantly re-breathing the virus, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages.

We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.

Chief medical officer of health in New Brunswick, Canada, Dr. Jennifer Russell, agrees, warning that “people should wear masks for a short period of time.”[65]cbc.ca But other provincial health officials are calling for the populace to make mask wearing a “habit” while Canada’s chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, actually recommends that Canadians wear a “non-medical mask or facial covering”.[66]ctvnews.ca However, a 2015 study published in the BMJ military medical journal warns: 

Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. —BMJ Journals, “A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers”, C Raina MacIntyre et al. bmjopen.bmj.com

The study also found that healthcare workers wearing cloth masks were found to have 13 times the risk of influenza-like illness than those wearing medical masks. As for habitually wearing masks, healthcare workers wearing cloth masks had significantly higher rates of influenza-like illness after four weeks of continuous on-the-job use, when compared to controls.[67]BMJ Journals, “A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers”, C Raina MacIntyre et al. bmjopen.bmj.com

Tam revised her recommendations recently advising that people use paper towels or baby wipes to add a third layer to their masks.[68]November 5th, 2020, globalnews.ca Dr. Anna Banerji, an infectious disease expert with the University of Toronto, says most two-layer cotton masks can be easily transformed into a three-layer filtered mask by ripping out the seams and adding a filtered material.[69]Ibid., globalnews.ca However, MacIntyre et al.’s study concluded: “Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention. These effects may be associated with cloth masks.”[70]C Raina MacIntyre et al. bmjopen.bmj.com

Moreover, tearing apart one’s mask and adding non-medical propylene materials such as the above or “craft” fabric, could be dangerous. Researchers have found that “Loose particulate was seen on each type of mask”, which can be breathed into the deep tissue of the lungs.

If widespread masking continues, then the potential for inhaling mask fibers and environmental and biological debris continues on a daily basis for hundreds of millions of people. This should be alarming for physicians and epidemiologists knowledgeable in occupational hazards. —September 2020, researchgate.net

Surgical masks are made of polypropylene and are a known asthma trigger.[71]saswh.ca Professor Michael Braungart, director at the Hamburg Environmental Institute, conducted tests on masks that had caused people to break out in rashes. They discovered the carcinogen formaldehyde as well as aniline and other chemicals. 

What we are breathing through our mouth and nose is actually hazardous waste… 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. —April 1st, 2021; dailymail.co.uk

Dr Dieter Sedlak, managing director and co-founder of Modern Testing Services in Augsburg, also detected hazardous fluorocarbons (PFCs), which are heavily restricted. 

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… on your face, on your nose, on the mucus membranes, or on the eyes is not good.Ibid.

Dentists are also warning of “mask mouth” since wearing a mask increases dryness of the mouth and a buildup of bad bacteria.

We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before. About 50% of our patients are being impacted by this, [so] we decided to name it ‘mask mouth’. —Dr. Rob Ramondi, August 5th, 2020; newyorkpost.com

Typically, a good quality fitting mask will be tight around your nose. So, as a result, what people are doing is they’re breathing through their mouth. And when you’re breathing through your mouth it will dry out your mouth… A dry mouth can lead to oral-health issues. The bacteria in your mouth will have a more fertile breeding ground, you’ll be more likely to have tooth decay, you’ll smell bad breath, those sorts of things. —Dentist, Justin Russo, ABC11.com

A study in September 2021 found increased risks of bacterial infection (including Streptococcus) after only 4 hours of wearing a cloth or surgical mask.[72]“Cotton and Surgical Face Masks in Community Settings: Bacterial Contamination and Face Mask Hygiene”, September 3rd, 2021; frontiersin.org

I have also learned that teachers are reporting increased eye infections among children wearing masks. In a press conference, Dr. James Meehan, MD testifies:

I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections. Reports coming from my colleagues, all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise. Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly… in a non-sterile fashion… They’re becoming contaminated. They’re pulling them off of their car seat, off the rearview mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they’re reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time. New research is showing that cloth masks may be increasing the aerosolization of the SARS-COV-2 virus into the environment causing an increased transmission of the disease. —August 18th, 2020; activistpost.com

Mask users are now reporting a condition coined as “Maskne”, the breakout of acne. “(There’s) so much more irritation from the mask, whether it’s causing friction, moisture, the heat,” Dr. Sarah Cannon of Cannon Dermatology told a CBS News affiliate. “We’re seeing a lot of new cases of patients coming in with new-onset acne who have never had acne before.”[73]baltimore.cbslocal.com

In fact, the University of Witten/Herdecke in Germany established a registry to examine adverse effects of mask-wearing. The study of 25,930 students (as of Oct 26th, 2020) found the average wearing time of a mask was 270 minutes per day. Impairments caused by wearing the mask were reported by 68% of the parents. These 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%).[74]“Corona children studies “Co-Ki”: First results of a Germany-wide registry on mouth and nose covering (mask) in children”, January 5th, 2021; researchsquare.com

However, as if totally ignoring these detrimental effects and previous studies with just one mask, the CDC is actually promoting double-masking now. One doctor went so far as to promote four layers.[75]January 28th, 2021; newspunch.com In a February 10th, 2021 report, they go so far as to promote wearing panty-hose over top of one’s mask:

…tucking a medical procedure mask or placing a sleeve made of sheer nylon hosiery material around the neck and pulling it up over either a cloth or medical procedure mask also significantly improved the wearer’s protection by fitting the mask more tightly to the wearer’s face and reducing edge gaps. —”Maximizing Fit for Cloth and Medical Procedure Masks to Improve Performance and Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Exposure, 2021″, cdc.gov

The report admits, however, that “double masking might impede breathing or obstruct peripheral vision for some wearers.”[76]cdc.gov And that’s serious. German neurologist Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD warns that chronic oxygen deprivation through mask-wearing, especially for the young, amplify “the degenerative processes in your brain.” Thus, she says, “For children and adolescents, masks are an absolute no-no.”[77]Sept. 26th, 2020; youtube.com; cf. sott.net

All this ignores the hidden emotional and psychological dangers caused by the stress of such heavy-handed mandates as mask-wearing. Rancourt notes that the prolonged stress of these measures can actually make one more susceptible to disease.

Psychological stress is proven to be a factor that can measurably depress the immune system and induce diseases, including: immune response dysfunction, depression, cardiovascular disease and cancer. —Letter to Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO, June 21st, 2020; ocla.ca

Indeed, a decision from a Weimar, Germany court read:

The compulsion imposed on school children to wear masks and to keep their distance from each other and from third persons harms the children physically, psychologically, educationally, and in their psychosocial development, without being counterbalanced by more than at best marginal benefit to the children themselves or to third persons. Schools do not play a significant role in the “pandemic” event… There is no evidence that facemasks of various types can reduce the risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 at all, or even appreciably. This statement is true for people of all ages, including children and adolescents, as well as asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic individuals. —April 14th, 20201; 2020news.de; English: jdfor2024.com 

And here’s where all of this takes a bizarre turn. Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the lead members of the Trump administration’s White House Coronavirus Task Force, stated on 60 Minutes in March of 2020:

Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks. There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask may make people feel a little bit better, and it might even stop a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. —March 8th, 2020; cbsnews.com

Not long after, Fauci did a complete turnabout. In an interview with Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, Fauci claimed that it was “evolving” science that changed his mind (though he cited no evidence). Astonishingly, he goes on to tell Zuckerberg that there is no indication whatsoever that wearing a mask “has any deleterious effects” and that he wears a mask when he’s outside “all the time”, even while running.[78]July 17th, 2020; NBC News, youtube.com 

In fact, shortly after recommending people wear two masks, Dr. Fauci did yet another turnabout noting that there was “no data to indicate that is going to make a difference.”[79]https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1356194462775570434 Even the “fact-checkers” are having difficulty keeping up with the seemingly random and nonsensical flip-flops.[80]newsweek.com On March 5th, 2021, Reuters published the results of Japanese researchers who confirmed the fallacious assumptions behind double-masking:

Japanese supercomputer simulations showed that wearing two masks gave limited benefit in blocking viral spread compared with one properly fitted mask.news.trust.org

The Reuters article then falsely concludes that the “scientific consensus has grown that the virus is spread through the air and masks are effective in controlling contagion,” which as you’ve just read, is the opposite of what the science says. 

Another rising concern is whether masks could trigger lung disease like cancer due to adverse effects on the lung microbiome.[81]March 8th, 2021; greenmedinfo.com

This is directly relevant to the question of home-made cloth face masks. There is a potential for bacterial pathogens to grow in moist mucus soaked within the material, this could adversely alter the upper respiratory tract flora. Inhalation of bacteria and viruses directly into the lung in patients incubating Covid 19 could then risk synergistic interaction and a rapid deterioration in the patient’s condition. — “Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis”, James A. Morris, consultant pathologist (retired), Education Centre, Royal Lancaster Infirmary; April 9th, 2020; bmj.com

An excellent summary of not only the failure of masks to prevent COVID-19 but also the physiological harms they cause is “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis.” The article, published in November 2020, can be found on the US National Library of Medicine and National Institute of Health website. [82]ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/ Indeed, a new meta-analyses of 65 studies in March 2021 found “potential drastic and undesirable effects” such as “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 study referred 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).”[83]greenmedinfo.com; mdpi.com 

Given the overwhelming science above and below in this article, it is no surprise that Dr. Jim Meehan published an op-ed stating:

Since the beginning of the pandemic, I’ve read hundreds of studies on the science of medical masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthy people should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by the highest level of scientific evidence. —March 10th, 2021, csnnews.com

Read: Masks are Harmful: 17 Ways That Masks Can Cause Harm by Dr. James Meehan, MD. 

In December of 2021, a German consumer organization found that FFP2 masks, very similar to N95 masks in the U.S., are harmful for children after carrying out testing on 15 different models that were labelled fit for children, and the breathing criteria for adults was not even met. 

…all FFP2 mask models that were tested were unsuitable for children and offered too much breathing resistance and not enough breathing comfort. — “Viel Luft nach oben”, December 10th, 2021, test.de; cf. lifesitenews.com

In January of 2022, The Epoch Times published “More Than 150 Comparative Studies and Articles on Mask Ineffectiveness and Harms”[84]theepochtimes.com — a comprehensive, if not starling indictment of mandatory masking.

Finally, watch the World Health Organization’s stunning about-face on masks without any scientific basis. 

 

WHY MANDATED MASKS THEN?

Since the highest quality science almost unanimously fails to support the effectiveness of a healthy general population wearing face masks, and that they may actually be spreading the virus more rapidly as such, why are governments desperate to impose these laws while threatening fines or prison for those not in compliance? One answer comes from Deborah Cohen of the BBC who reported that the shift toward supporting masks was based on political pressure — not science.

We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny. We said some people think we should not wait for RCTs before putting policies in place. —Twitter post, July 12th, 2020; cf. meehanmd.com; cf. swprs.org; hear Cohen’s report: 22:59 in Following the Science?

In his paper “Face masks, lies, damn lies, and public health officials: ‘A growing body of evidence'”, Dr. Rancourt addresses the politics head-on:

A vile new mantra is on the lips of every public health official and politician in the global campaign to force universal masking on the general public: “there is a growing body of evidence”. This propagandistic phrase is a vector designed to achieve five main goals:

– Give the false impression that a balance of evidence now proves that masks reduce the transmission of COVID-19

– Falsely assimilate commentary made in scientific venues with “evidence”

– Hide the fact that a decade’s worth of policy-grade evidence proves the opposite: that masks are ineffective with viral respiratory diseases

– Hide the fact that there is now direct observational proof that cloth masks do not prevent exhalation of clouds of suspended aerosol particles; above, below and through the masks

– Deter attention away from the considerable known harms and risks due to face masks, applied to entire populations the said harms and risks include that a cloth mask becomes a culture medium for a large variety of bacterial pathogens, and a collector of viral pathogens…

In short, I argue: op-eds are not “evidence”, irrelevance does not help, and more bias does not remove bias. Their mantra of “a growing body of evidence” is a self-serving contrivance that impedes good science and threatens public safety. I prove that there is no policy-grade evidence to support forced masking on the general population, and that all the latest-decade’s policy-grade evidence points to the opposite: NOT recommending forced masking of the general population. Therefore, the politicians and health authorities are acting without legitimacy and recklessly. —August 2020, researchgate.net

Thus, is it all simply theatre? The authors of the New England Journal of Medicine study concluded:

…masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask… Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19. —May 21, 2020; nejm.org

Of course, barring people from Mass, threatening healthy people with fines, forcing uncomfortable masks that make breathing, talking, and hearing more difficult, arguably increases anxiety. In fact, facemasks are a veritable billboard of fear. 

Perhaps the World Health Organization’s June 2020 report[85]June 5th, 2020; who.int gives us a bit clearer picture of the “benefits” of wearing masks that actually have little to do with personal health:

  • Reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing masks to prevent infecting others or of people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical settings;
  • Making people feel they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus;
  • Reminding people to be compliant with other measures.

In other words, it’s an opportunity for virtue-signalling and psychological game-play — indeed, theatre. But the WHO does not stop there. They also cite…

  • Potential social and economic benefits:

Encouraging the public to create their own fabric masks may promote individual enterprise and community integration… The production of non-medical masks may offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities. Fabric masks can also be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general. —June 5th, 2020; who.int

Yes, while governments continue to wipe out the small business sector by unprecedented lockdowns, at least “Jimmy the Mask Maker” can thrive.

This is utterly bizarre and contradictory. People should not be threatened with 180 days in prison for choosing not to virtue-signal and actually protect their health based on sound science.

 

THE PUSHBACK

If that’s you, you’re not alone. America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLD), a “diverse, exceedingly well-credentialed” growing group of doctors have characterized mask-wearing as “completely irrelevant to blocking the… virus.”[86]October 29th, 2020, lifesitenews.com They’ve taken their message to the steps of the White House with videos that have gone viral—and, of course, that have been promptly censored. Their message is to counter “the massive disinformation campaign regarding the pandemic.”[87]americasfrontlinedoctors.com

And then there is The Great Barrington Declaration, which was spearheaded by doctors from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford University. They warn that current pandemic policies targeting the healthy are having “damaging physical and mental health impacts” and recommend letting the healthy “live their lives normally to build up immunity through natural infection,” while improving safeguards for the elderly and others at greater risk of death from COVID-19.[88]October 8th, 2020, washingtontimes.com The Declaration has been signed now by over 41,000 scientists and doctors from around the globe. Of course, they too are being attacked by both governments and armchair critics for what amounts to common sense and sound science, given that the CDC reports a recovery rate of 99.5% for everyone beneath the age of 69.[89]September 10th, 2020; cdc.gov As a meme circulating on the internet said, “It’s now ‘conspiracy theory’ to believe the immune system is capable of doing the job it was designed to do.”

In their letter to the WHO, the Ontario Civil Liberties Association warned that countries such as Canada are quickly sliding into totalitarianism through the extreme measures that are pounding the public into submission and destroying local economies.

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. —Letter to Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO, June 21st, 2020; ocla.ca

Hence, organizations such as the U.S. nonprofit Stand for Health Freedom are urging citizens to practice peaceful civil disobedience to protect their “health” and “liberty.”

 

THE GREAT RESET

It would be wrong not to bring this article around to the “big picture.” Clearly, as social media censors the facts, as the mainstream media controls the narrative, as billion dollar pharmaceutical companies prepare for mandatory vaccines, as the economic sector is being destroyed… there is more here than meets the eye.

In February and March we were told not to wear masks. What changed? The science didn’t change. The politics did. This is about compliance. It’s not about science… —Dr. James Meehan, August 18th, 2020; press conference, activistpost.com

There could be no better proof of this than my own province of Saskatchewan, Canada. Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, only 25 people have died as of this writing, and just one in the past few months—hardly a pandemic. Because we are entering a colder season, people are staying indoors and getting less Vitamin D while testing is increasing; it is no surprise then that cases are now rising. But excess deaths are not. [90]Note: In December 2020, the death toll rose to above 90 — with statistically only nine of those directly from COVID-19 [StatsCan stated that 10% of COVID-19 deaths in the country are from the virus alone]; the rest had comorbidities but tested positive at time of death.  And yet, tomorrow, the province is set to make masks mandatory under penalty. It’s as if the science no longer matters; leaders are now promoting a practice that science clearly shows may be doing more harm than good. 

The public is indeed being forced into submission while curiously, with one, sudden common voice, global leaders are now telling us why: it is to completely “reset” the entire global system—the Great Reset” they’re calling it. As I explained in that article and The Pandemic of Control, the ultimate goal is global Communism. To enter this Reset, compliance by not just individuals but entire nations is compulsory and will likely include a vaccination, a Digital ID, and the surrender of private property in order to “reset” ballooning global debt. Everything I’ve just stated is directly from the United Nations’ websites and their affiliates. In that light, the flagrant disregard for science can only be understood at this point as “propaganda”, as Dr. Mark Crispin Miller, Ph.D explains in “Masking Ourselves to Death.”[91]September 5th, 2020, markcrispinmiller.com; read research paper here

But don’t worry. The Great Reset is for the common good. Just like mandatory masks.

 

RELATED READING

See also: “47 studies confirm ineffectiveness of masks for COVID and 32 more confirm their negative health effects”

Why Talk About Science?

The Religion of Scientism

Science Will Not Save Us

Taking Back God’s Creation

On how Thieves or Good Samaritan Oil can fight viruses: The Real Witchcraft

 

Your support and prayers are why
you are reading this today.
 Bless you and thank you. 

To journey with Mark in The Now Word,
click on the banner below to subscribe.
Your email will not be shared with anyone.

 
My writings are being translated into French! (Merci Philippe B.!)
Pour lire mes écrits en français, cliquez sur le drapeau:

 
 

Footnotes

Footnotes
1 October 27th, 2020; lifesitenews.com
2 lifesitenews.com
3 Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, looptt.com
4 abcnews.go.com
5 webmd.com, January 26th, 2021
6 usnews.com
7 brietbart.com
8 the-sun.com
9 cnet.com
10 marketwatch.com
11 texastribune.org
12 November 5th, 2020, theguardian.com
13 December 15th, 2020; ctvnews.ca
14 The evidence, according to scientists, continues to mount that COVID-19 was possibly manipulated in a laboratory before it was accidentally or intentionally released into the populace. While some scientists in the UK assert that COVID-19 came from natural origins alone,(nature.com) a paper from South China’s University of Technology claims ‘the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.'(Feb. 16th, 2020; dailymail.co.uk) In early February 2020, Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the U.S. “Biological Weapons Act”, gave a detailed statement admitting that the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive Biological Warfare Weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knows about it.(cf. zerohedge.com) An Israeli biological warfare analyst said much the same.(Jan. 26th, 2020; washingtontimes.com) Dr. Peter Chumakov of the Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology and Russian Academy of Sciences claims that “while the Wuhan scientists’ goal in creating the coronavirus was not malicious—instead, they were trying to study the pathogenicity of the virus… They did absolutely crazy things… For example, inserts in the genome, which gave the virus the ability to infect human cells.”(zerohedge.com) Professor Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Prize winner for Medicine and the man who discovered the HIV virus in 1983, claims that SARS-CoV-2 is a manipulated virus that was accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.(cf. mercola.com) A new documentary, quoting several scientists, points toward COVID-19 as an engineered virus.(mercola.com) A team of Australian scientists has produced new evidence the novel coronavirus shows signs “of human intervention.”(lifesitenews.comwashingtontimes.com) Former head of the British intelligence agency M16, Sir Richard Dearlove, said he believes the COVID-19 virus was created in a lab and spread accidentally.(jpost.com) A joint British-Norwegian study alleges that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is a “chimera” constructed in a Chinese lab.(Taiwannews.com) Professor Giuseppe Tritto, an internationally known expert in biotechnology and nanotechnology and president of the World Academy of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies (WABT) says that “It was genetically engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 (high-containment) lab in a program supervised by the Chinese military.”(lifesitnews.com) Respected Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who fled Hong Kong after exposing Bejing’s knowledge of the coronavirus well before reports of it emerged, stated that “the meat market in Wuhan is a smokescreen and this virus is not from nature… It comes from the lab in Wuhan.”(dailymail.co.uk) And Dr. Steven Quay, M.D., PhD., published a paper in January 2021: “A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory-derived”, cf. prnewswire.com and zenodo.org for the paper
15 “Top Medical Journal Caught in Massive Cover-Up”, November 5th, 2020; mercola.com
16 “Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults ≥18 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities”, United States, July 2020; cdc.gov
17 cf. meehanmd.com
18 Cowling BJ, Zhou Y, Ip DKM, Leung GM, Aiello AE. “Face masks to prevent influenza transmission: a systematic review”, Epidemiol Infect, 2010,138:449–56/Bin-Reza F, Lopez VC, Nicoll A, Chamberland ME. “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence“, Influenza Other Respi Viruses, 2012,6:257–67
19 Tom JeffersonMark JonesLubna A Al AnsariGhada BawazeerElaine BellerJustin ClarkJohn ConlyChris Del MarElisabeth DooleyEliana FerroniPaul GlasziouTammy HoffmanSarah ThorningMieke Van Driel; April 7th, 2020; medrxiv.org
20 “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel”, September3rd, 2019; jamanetwork.com
21 February 12th, 2009; pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
22 thelancet.com
23 swprs.org
24 July 23rd, 2020; cebm.net
25 medrxiv.org
26 medrxiv.org; April 6th, 2020
27 “Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 – Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis”; April 7th, 2020, medrxiv.org
28 May 2021, eurosurveillance.org
29 “Face Coverings, Aerosol Dispersion and Mitigation of Virus Transmission Risk”, Cornell University, May 19th, 2020; arxiv.org
30 “Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech”, Sept. 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
31 “Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets”, June 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
32 ctvnews.ca
33 “Ability of fabric face mask materials to filter ultra-fine particles at coughing velocity”, Sept. 22nd, 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32963071
34 “Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2”, Oct. 21st, 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33087517
35 “The airborne lifetime of small speech droplets and their potential importance in SARS-CoV-2 transmission”, June 2nd, 2020, pnas.org/content/117/22/11875
36 medrxiv.org
37 “A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose etc…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing a facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people.” (Leung N.H.L., Chu D.K.W., Shiu E.Y.C., Chan K.H., McDevitt J.J., Hau B.J.P. “Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks.” Nat Med. 2020;26:676–680. [PubMed] [] [Ref list])

This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase.(Gao M., Yang L., Chen X., Deng Y., Yang S., Xu H. “A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers”. Respir Med. 2020;169 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [] [Ref list]).

A JAMA Network Open study observed that asymptomatic transmission is not a primary driver of infection within households. (December 14th, 2020; jamanetwork.com)

And in April 2021, the CDC published a study that concluded: “We observed no transmission from asymptomatic case-patients and highest SAR through presymptomatic exposure.” (“Analysis of Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic Transmission in SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak, Germany, 2020”, cdc.gov) Hence it follows that masking the healthy, social distancing, and locking down entire healthy populations rather than focused health protocols and quarantining the sick, have little basis in science. (I address these other protocols in detail in the documentary Following the Science?)

38 “More Evidence Masks Don’t Work to Prevent COVID-19”, Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 11th, 2020; mercola.com
39 March 7th, 2021, wnd.com
40 greenmedinfo.com; mdpi.com
41 andrewbostom.org
42 cf. Bangladesh Mask Study: Do Not Believe the Hype
43 November 15th, 2021; theepochtimes.com
44 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
45 September 2nd, 2020, science.org
46 medium.com
47 mercola.com
48 thieme-connect.com
49 “Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS–CoV-2: A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients”, July 7th, 2020; acpjournals.org
50 “Guidance on the use of masks for the general public”, June 5th, 202o; who.int
51 Cowling BJ, Zhou Y, Ip DK, Leung GM, Aiello AE, “Face masks to prevent influenza transmission: a systematic review”, Epidemiol Infect, 2010; 138:449-56
52 cf. meehanmd.com for a discussion of several studies on masking during surgery
53 From the Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute (M.K.), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (M.K., C.A.M., J.S., M.P.), Harvard Medical School (M.K., C.A.M., E.S.S.), and the Infection Control Unit and Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital (E.S.S.) — all in Boston.
54 “Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1–December 31, 2020”, March 12th, 2021; cdc.gov
55 August 1st, 2020; dailymail.co.uk
56 July 26th, 2020; bloombergquint.com
57 August 3rd, 2020; the-sun.com
58 April 1st, 2020; cidrap.umn.edu
59 cf. More Bad News for the Mask Cult
60 “More Bad News for the Mask Cult” by Scott Morefield, June 16, 2022
61 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
62 brownstone.org
63 brownstone.org
64 “Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19”, Jonathan J.Y. Ong et al.; published in Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, March 30th, 2020
65 cbc.ca
66 ctvnews.ca
67 BMJ Journals, “A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers”, C Raina MacIntyre et al. bmjopen.bmj.com
68 November 5th, 2020, globalnews.ca
69 Ibid., globalnews.ca
70 C Raina MacIntyre et al. bmjopen.bmj.com
71 saswh.ca
72 “Cotton and Surgical Face Masks in Community Settings: Bacterial Contamination and Face Mask Hygiene”, September 3rd, 2021; frontiersin.org
73 baltimore.cbslocal.com
74 “Corona children studies “Co-Ki”: First results of a Germany-wide registry on mouth and nose covering (mask) in children”, January 5th, 2021; researchsquare.com
75 January 28th, 2021; newspunch.com
76 cdc.gov
77 Sept. 26th, 2020; youtube.com; cf. sott.net
78 July 17th, 2020; NBC News, youtube.com
79 https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1356194462775570434
80 newsweek.com
81 March 8th, 2021; greenmedinfo.com
82 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/
83 greenmedinfo.com; mdpi.com
84 theepochtimes.com
85 June 5th, 2020; who.int
86 October 29th, 2020, lifesitenews.com
87 americasfrontlinedoctors.com
88 October 8th, 2020, washingtontimes.com
89 September 10th, 2020; cdc.gov
90 Note: In December 2020, the death toll rose to above 90 — with statistically only nine of those directly from COVID-19 [StatsCan stated that 10% of COVID-19 deaths in the country are from the virus alone]; the rest had comorbidities but tested positive at time of death.
91 September 5th, 2020, markcrispinmiller.com; read research paper here
Posted in HOME, THE GREAT TRIALS and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .