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.October 27th, 2020; lifesitenews.com Some regions have required that face coverings be enforced in one’s own home lifesitenews.com while some countries have mandated that individuals wear masks while driving alone in your car.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”abcnews.go.com or even wear two.webmd.com, January 26th, 2021 And Democrat Joe Biden stated, “masks save lives — period,”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.”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.”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”cnet.com as did a Spanish virologist.marketwatch.com
Given the extraordinary imposition this is, under pain of fines or jail;texastribune.org given that new strains of the coronavirus are emerging in DenmarkNovember 5th, 2020, theguardian.com and the U.K.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 Plan — one 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 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.com; washingtontimes.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 smoke screen 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.“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.
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. “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. A policy review paper 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 findingsCowling 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, , , , , , , , , , , , , 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;
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.”“N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel”, September3rd, 2019; jamanetwork.com
One study claiming to show “Decrease in Hospitalizations for COVID-19 after Mask Mandates in 1083 U.S. Counties” was just 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
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.” 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). The WHO itself admitted that its updated facemask policy guidelines were based not on new evidence but on “political lobbying” [verified by BBC correspondent Deborah Cohen.]”September 9th, 2020; swprs.org
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.”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,”medrxiv.org and “The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19.”medrxiv.org; April 6th, 2020
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.”“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.”“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.”“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 recommend non-medical cloth-based coverings thereby contradicting the CDC’s sources.ctvnews.ca Other studies showed 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”,“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.”“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 as long as fourteen minutes.“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”:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. Since neither the size of the virus nor the physics of masks have changed, the only thing that has changed is social distancing, hand hygiene, lockdowns, that have only postponed the spread of the virus. 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?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
This was followed by a new massive study of nearly 10 million people published on November 20th, 2020 in the prestigious Nature Communications journal 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
Regarding the effectiveness of mask mandates, 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.March 7th, 2021, wnd.com
As a sidenote, since March 2020, over 30 studies have concluded that lockdowns have provided little or no efficacy in the prevention of spreading SARS-CoV-2…climatedepot.com but that’s another story.
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
That has not stopped some governments pushing ahead non-scientifically based protocols that actually may be spreading the virus more rapidly.
Dr. Bostom points out that the authors of the meta-analyses he cites “further concluded with a caution that using face masks improperly might ‘increase the risk for (viral) transmission.”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, 188.8.131.52, 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.”mercola.com The studythieme-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.“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,“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. Surgical masks used in healthcare settings, such as during surgery, are meant to prevent bacterial or viral infections by blocking respiratory droplets.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 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; 184.108.40.206 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. Here’s why, and it’s not rocket science. 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.“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 Post, December 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
Hence, the CDC’s own journal adds:
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.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.“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.”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.”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.”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.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
Once again, here is the World Health Organization in its June 5th, 2020 interm “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
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 study involving 158 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.“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.”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”.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.BMJ Journals, “A cluster randomised 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.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.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.”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.saswh.ca Professor Michael Braungart, director at the Hamburg Environmental Institute, conducted tests on masks which 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
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.”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%).“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.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.”cdc.gov And that’s serious. German neurologist 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.”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
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.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.”https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1356194462775570434 Even the “fact-checkers” are having difficulty keeping up with the seemingly random and nonsensical flip-flops.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.
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
Finally, 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. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/
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
WHY MANDATED MASKS THEN?
Since the 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? 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.
Perhaps the World Health Organization’s June 2020 reportJune 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 nonclinical 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-signaling and psychological game-play. 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.
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.”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.”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.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.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 deaths are not. 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.
But don’t worry. The Great Reset is for the common good. Just like mandatory masks.
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.
|↑1||October 27th, 2020; lifesitenews.com|
|↑3||Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, looptt.com|
|↑5||webmd.com, January 26th, 2021|
|↑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.com; washingtontimes.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 smoke screen 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||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|
|↑18||, , , , , , , , , , , , ,|
|↑19||“N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel”, September3rd, 2019; jamanetwork.com|
|↑20||September 9th, 2020; swprs.org|
|↑21||July 23rd, 2020; cebm.net|
|↑23||medrxiv.org; April 6th, 2020|
|↑24||“Face Coverings, Aerosol Dispersion and Mitigation of Virus Transmission Risk”, Cornell University, May 19th, 2020; arxiv.org|
|↑25||“Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech”, Sept. 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov|
|↑26||“Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets”, June 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov|
|↑28||“Ability of fabric face mask materials to filter ultra-fine particles at coughing velocity”, Sept. 22nd, 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32963071|
|↑29||“Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2”, Oct. 21st, 2020, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33087517|
|↑30||“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|
|↑32||March 7th, 2021, wnd.com|
|↑37||“Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS–CoV-2: A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients”, July 7th, 2020; acpjournals.org|
|↑38||“Guidance on the use of masks for the general public”, June 5th, 202o; who.int|
|↑39||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|
|↑40||“More Evidence Masks Don’t Work to Prevent COVID-19”, Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 11th, 2020; mercola.com|
|↑41||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.|
|↑42||“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|
|↑43||August 1st, 2020; dailymail.co.uk|
|↑44||July 26th, 2020; bloombergquint.com|
|↑45||August 3rd, 2020; the-sun.com|
|↑46||April 1st, 2020; cidrap.umn.edu|
|↑47||“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|
|↑50||BMJ Journals, “A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers”, C Raina MacIntyre et al. bmjopen.bmj.com|
|↑51||November 5th, 2020, globalnews.ca|
|↑53||C Raina MacIntyre et al. bmjopen.bmj.com|
|↑56||“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|
|↑57||January 28th, 2021; newspunch.com|
|↑59||Sept. 26th, 2020; youtube.com; cf. sott.net|
|↑60||July 17th, 2020; NBC News, youtube.com|
|↑63||March 8th, 2021; greenmedinfo.com|
|↑65||June 5th, 2020; who.int|
|↑66||October 29th, 2020, lifesitenews.com|
|↑68||October 8th, 2020, washingtontimes.com|
|↑69||September 10th, 2020; cdc.gov|
|↑70||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.|