mask science {part 3}

Cloth masks: 26 -- S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection – evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798. https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744 Original article – cloth masks were found to have low efficiency for blocking particles of 0.3 microns and smaller. Aerosol penetration through the various cloth masks examined in the is study were between 74 and 90%. Likewise, the filtration efficiency of fabric materials was 3% to 33%.   27 -- C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4) https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long Randomised controlled trial – healthcare workers wearing cloth masks were found to have 13 times the risk of influenza-like illness than those wearing medical masks.   28 -- W Kellogg. An experimental study of the efficacy of gauze face masks. Am J Pub Health. 1920. 34-42. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.10.1.34 Original article – 1920 – analysis of cloth mask use during the 1918 pandemic examines the failure of masks to impede or stop flu transmission at that time. Concluded that the number of layers of fabric required to prevent pathogen penetration would have required a suffocating number of layers, and could not be used for that reason, as well as the problem of leakage vents around the edges of cloth masks.   29 -- Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Beezhold DH, et al. A comparison of performance metrics for cloth face masks as source control devices for simulated cough and exhalation aerosols. Preprint. medRxiv. 2021;2021.02.16.21251850. Published 2021 Feb 19. doi:10.1101/2021.02.16.21251850 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7899465/     Masks against Covid-19: 29 -- M Klompas, C Morris, et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Eng J Med. 2020; 382 e63. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372 Editorial 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 20 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space therefore is minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”   SAFETY OF MASKS During walking or other exercise 30 -- E Person, C Lemercier et al. Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance. Rev Mal Respir. 2018 Mar; 35(3):264-268. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/ Randomised controlled trial – surgical mask wearers had significantly increased dyspnea after a 6 minute walk than non-mask wearers.   31 -- B Chandrasekaran, S Fernandes. Exercise with facemask; are we handling a devil’s sword – a physiological hypothesis. Med Hypothese. 2020 Jun 22. 144:110002. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/ Physiological Hypothesis – concern about possible burden of facemasks during physical activity on pulmonary, circulatory and immune systems, due to oxygen reduction and air trapping reducing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. As a result of hypercapnia, there may be a cardiac overload, renal overload and a shift to metabolic acidosis.   Risks of N95 respirators: 32 -- P Shuang Ye Tong, A Sugam Kale, et al. Respiratory consequences of N95-type mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers – A controlled clinical study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015 Nov 16; 4:48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/ Controlled clinical trial – Pregnant healthcare workers were found to have a loss in volume of oxygen consumption by 13.8% compared to controls when wearing N95 respirators. 17.7% less carbon dioxide was inhaled.   33 -- T Kao, K Huang, et al. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Formos Med Assoc. 2004 Aug; 103(8):624-628. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/ Original article – patients with end stage renal disease were studied during use of N95 respirators. Their partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) decreased significantly compared to controls and increased respiratory adverse effects. 19% of the patients developed various degrees of hypoxemia while wearing the masks.   34 -- F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods. 2018 Oct; 260:98-106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810/ Original article – healthcare workers’ N95 respirators were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor influenza virus.   35 -- A Rule, O Apau, et al. Healthcare personnel exposure in an emergency department during influenza season. PLoS One. 2018 Aug 31; 13(8): e0203223. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30169507/ Original article – 25% of healthcare workers’ facepiece respirators were found to contain influenza in an emergency department during the 2015 flu season.   Risk of surgical masks: 36 -- F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods. 2018 Oct; 260:98-106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810/ Original article – healthcare workers’ surgical masks were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbour for influenza virus.   37 -- A Chughtai, S Stelzer-Braid, et al. Contamination by respiratory viruses on our surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers. BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 3; 19(1): 491. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/ Original clinical study – various respiratory pathogens were found on the outer surface of used medical masks, which could result in self-contamination. The risk was found to be higher with the longer duration of mask use.   38 -- L Zhiqing, C Yongyun, et al. J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jun 27; 14:57-62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30035033/ Original article – surgical masks were found to be a repository of bacterial contamination. The source of the bacterial was determined to be the body surface of the surgeons, rather than the operating room environment. Given that surgeons are gowned from head to food for surgery, this finding should be especially concerning for the general public who wear masks. Without the protective outfits of surgeons, the general public have even more exposed body surface to serve as a source for bacteria to collect on their masks.   Risks of cloth masks: 39 -- C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4) https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577 Randomized controlled trial – 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 (medical masks)   40 -- A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008; 19: 121-126. http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf Longitudinal and observational study – increased rate of infection in mask-wearers may be due to a weakening of immune function during mask use. Surgeons were found to have lower oxygen saturation after surgeries even as short as 30 minutes.   41 -- D Lukashev, B Klebanov, et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha and its activation[1]inducible short isoform negatively regulate functions of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. J Immunol. 2006 Oct 15; 177(8) 4962-4965. https://www.jimmunol.org/content/177/8/4962 Animal study – low oxygen induces hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1).   42 -- A Sant, A McMichael. Revealing the role of CD4+ T-cells in viral immunity. J Exper Med. 2012 Jun 30; 209(8):1391-1395. https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/3420330 Review – low oxygen and induction of HIF-1 down regulates CD4+ T-cells. CD4+ T-cells are necessary for viral immunity.   Maskne: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijd.15425 https://www.brighteon.com/34ca1629-556b-4d8b-909e-efa43600e277 A few more studies (some repeats) via Dr. Tenpenny: https://vaxxter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Masks-Final.pdf   mask science {part 1} mask science {part 2}

mask science {part 2}

N95 masks: 12 -- N95 masks explained. https://www.honeywell.com/us/en/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained Honeywell manufactures N95 respirators. They are made with 0.3 micron filter. They are named N95 because 95% of particles having a diameter of 0.3 microns are filtered by the mask forward to the wearer by use of an electrostatic mechanism. Coronaviruses are approximately 0.125 microns in diameter. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32342926/   13 -- V Offeddu, C Yung, et al. Effectiveness of masks and respirators against infections in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Inf Dis. 65(11), 2017 Dec 1; 1934-1942. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 Meta-analysis – found that N95 respirators did not provide superior protection to facemasks against viral infections or influenza-like infections.   14 -- C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo Randomised clinical trial – this study did find superior protection by N95 respirators when they were properly fitted (fit-tested) compared to surgical masksLegal paperwork: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/da49e84a-a861-4967-b23a-368fb303c14c/downloads/Mask%20Free%20Documents%20.pdf?ver=1620666816153   15 -- M Walker. Study casts doubt on N95 masks for the public. MedPage Today. 2020 May 20. https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/86601 Original study found that 624 our to 714 people wearing N95 masks left visible gaps when putting on their own masks. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2766070     Surgical masks: 16 -- C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aRsu9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo Randomized clinical trial – study found that surgical masks offered no protection at all against influenza.   17 -- N Shimasaki, A Okaue, et al. Comparison of the filter efficiency of medical nonwoven fabrics against three different microbe aerosols. Biocontrol Sci. 2018; 23(2). 61-69. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en Original article – surgical masks had about 85% penetration ratio of aerosolized inactivated influenza particles and about 90% of Staphylococcus aureus bacterial although the S. aureus particles were about 6x the diameter of influenza particles.   18 -- T Tunevall. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study. World J Surg. 1991 May; 15: 383-387. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01658736 Original article – use of masks in surgery were found to slightly INCREASE incidence of infection over not masking in a study of 3088 surgeries. The surgeons’ masks were found to give no protective effect to the patients.   19 -- N Orr. Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre? Ann Royal Coll Surg Eng 1981: 63: 390-392. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf Original article – no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks.   20 -- N Mitchell, S Hunt. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms – a costly and unnecessary ritual? J Hosp Infection. 18(3); 1991 Jul 1. 239-242. https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf Original article – no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks.   21 -- C DaZhou, P Sivathondan, et al. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery. JR Soc Med. 2015 Jun; 108(6): 223-228. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/ Systematic review – “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either the patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”   22 -- L Brosseau, M Sietsema. Commentary: Masks for all for Covid-19 not based on sound data. U Minn Ctr Inf Dis Res Pol. 2020 Apr 1. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based Medical masks have a wide range of filtration efficiency, with most showing a 30% to 50% efficiency.   23 -- N Leung, D Chu, et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks Nature Research. 2020 Mar 7. 26,676-680 (2020). https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-16836/v1 Original article – both experimental and control groups, masked and unmasked respectively, were found to “not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols.” The study “did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus” as found in exhaled breath.   24 -- S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection – evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798. https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744 Original article – study of aerosol penetration showed that two of the five surgical masks studied had 51% to 89% penetration of polydisperse aerosols.   25 -- S Bae, M Kim, et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Int Med. 2020 Apr 6. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342 Original article – observed subjects while coughing, “neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.” More viral particles were found on the outside than on the inside of masks tested.   mask science {part 1} mask science {part 3)

mask science {part 1}

Mask-free paperwork to hand managers of public accommodation: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/da49e84a-a861-4967-b23a-368fb303c14c/downloads/Mask%20Free%20Documents%20.pdf?ver=1620666816153 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/stanford-study-results-facemasks-ineffective-block-transmission-covid-19-actually-can-cause-health-deterioration-premature-death/ Wearing a mask is hazardous to your health: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqRL1GXu5DE   Effectiveness of masks at preventing           transmission of respiratory pathogens: 1 -- T Jefferson, M Jones, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2 Meta-analysis – face masks were found to have no detectable effect against transmission of viral  infections. “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.”   2 -- J Xiao, E Shiu, et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings – personal protective and environmental measures. Centers for Disease Control. 26(5); 2020 May. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article Meta-analysis – evidence from randomised controlled trials of face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.   3 -- J Brainard, N Jones, et al. Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID19: A rapid systematic review. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 1. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1.full.pdf Systematic review: masks had no effect specifically against Covid-19, although facemask use seemed linked to 3 in 31 of studies “very slightly reduced” odds of developing influenza-like illness.”   4 -- L Radonovich M Simberkoff, et al. N95 respirators vs medical masks for preventing influenza among health care personnel: a randomized clinic trial. JAMA. 2019 Sep 3. 322(9): 824-833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214 Randomized clinical trial – 2019 – 2862 participants showed that both N95 respirators and surgical masks “resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza.”   5 -- J Smith, C MacDougall. CMAJ. 2016 May 17. 188(8); 567-574. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 Meta-analysis – both randomized controlled trials and observational studies of N95 respirators and surgical masks used by healthcare workers did not show benefit against transmission of acute respiratory infections. Acute respiratory transmission “may have occurred via contamination of provided respiratory protective equipment during storage and reuse of masks and respirators throughout the workday.”   6 -- F bin-Reza, V Lopez, et al. The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. 2012 Jul; 6(4): 257-267. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/ Meta-analysis – 17 studies regarding masks and effect on transmission of influenza found that “none of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza action.” However, authors speculated that effectiveness of masks may be linked to early, consistent and correct usage.   7 -- J Jacobs, S Ohde, et al. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Infect Control. 2009 Jun; 37(5): 417-419. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/ Randomised controlled trial – face mask use was found to not be protective against the common cold, compared to controls without face masks among healthcare workers. Airflow around masks: 8 -- M Viola, B Peterson, et al. Face coverings, aerosol dispersion and mitigation of virus transmission risk. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720 https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.10720.pdf Original article – asks assumed to be effective in obstructing forward travel of viral particles. Those positioned next to or behind a mask wearer received farther transmission of virus-laden fluid particles from masked individuals than from unmasked individuals by means of “several leakage jets, including intense backward and downwards jets that may present major hazards,” and a “potentially dangerous leakage jet of up to several metres.” All masks were thought to reduce forward airflow by 90% or more over wearing no mask. However Schlieren imaging showed that both surgical masks and cloth masks had farther brow jets (unfiltered upward airflow past eyebrows) than not wearing any mask at all, 182mm and 203mm respectively vs none discernible with no mask. Backward unfiltered airflow was found to be strong with all masks compared to not masking.   9 S Grinshpun, H Haruta, et al. Performance of an N95 filtering facepiece particular respirator and a surgical mask during human breathing: two pathways for particle penetration. J Occup Env Hygiene. 2009; 6(10):593-603. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15459620903120086 Original article – both N95 and surgical masks, it was found that expelled particles from 0.03 to 1 micron were deflected around the edge of each mask, and that there was measurable penetration of particles through the filter of each mask.   Penetration through masks: 10 -- H Jung, J Kim, et al. Comparison of filtration efficiency and pressure drop in anti-yellow sand masks, quarantine masks, medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2013 Jun. 14:991-1002. https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf Original study – study of 44 mask brands found mean 35.6% penetration (+34.7%). Most medical masks had over 20% penetration while “general masks and handkerchiefs had no protective function in terms of the aerosol filtration efficiency.” Findings – “medical masks, general masks and handkerchiefs were found to provide little protection against respiratory aerosols.”   11 -- C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4) https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long Randomised control trial – penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.   mask science {part 2} mask science {part 3}

Proof that Masks Do More Harm than Good

Truths about Masks that Politicians and the BBC Probably Forgot to Mention 1) Face masks have been proven to do harm but not proven to do good. Forcing citizens to wear them is a form of oppression. Support for mask wearing comes from individuals promoting face masks for political rather than health reasons. There is now considerable support for masks to be worn out of doors and even in the home. There is absolutely no scientific reason for this. 2) Over a dozen scientific papers show clearly that masks are ineffective in preventing the movement of infective organisms. They also reduce oxygen levels and expose wearers to increased levels of carbon dioxide. 3) Nine medical authors from Australia and Vietnam studied cloth face masks and concluded that cloth masks should not be recommended for health care workers. 4) Wearing a mask for long periods could cause pulmonary fibrosis. Loose fibres are seen on all types of masks and may be inhaled causing serious lung damage. 5) Researchers in France proved that wearing a surgical mask causes breathlessness. 6) Masks should be changed every couple of hours and old masks should be disposed of safely. If cloth masks are worn, they should be washed at high temperatures twice a day. Disposable masks should be discarded after one use. (Masks thrown down in the street are a serious health hazard.) 7) Evidence proving the danger and ineffectiveness of masks has been banned, blocked or deleted. Discussion and debate about the value of face masks is suppressed. 8) In September 2020, 70 Belgian doctors claimed that mandatory face masks in schools are a major threat to child development. 9) A leading German virologist claims that face masks are a wonderful breeding ground for bacteria and fungi. 10) Dentists in New York have reported that mask wearing causes gum disease and dental cavities. The dentists say that face coverings lead to mouth dryness and an increase in the build-up of bacteria. 11) Exemption certificates/cards can be obtained online for those who are unable to wear a mask. 12) Some face masks may have pores five thousand times larger than virus particles. 13) Masks should never be touched once in place. If a mask is touched it must be replaced immediately. 14) No one should wear a mask while exercising. There have been several reports of masked children dying while exercising. There is evidence showing that mask wearing reduces blood oxygen levels even when the wearer is standing still. Individuals who exercise are likely to sweat. Masks then become damp more quickly and the damp promotes the growth of microorganisms. 15) There is a risk that viruses may accumulate in the fabric of a mask – thereby increasing the amount of the virus being inhaled. 16) Putting a mask on a baby or unconscious patient is dangerous. The mask may result in the wearer choking on vomit. 17) Some of the carbon dioxide exhaled with each breath is trapped behind the mask. 18) One study of health workers wearing masks showed that a third developed headaches requiring painkillers. Another study showed that 81% developed headaches – and their work was affected. 19) A mask can reduce blood oxygenation by up to 20% – leading to a possible loss of consciousness. At least one road crash has been blamed on a driver wearing a mask. Police reported that the driver of a single car crash in New Jersey is believed to have passed out behind the wheel after wearing a mask for too long. 20) Over a dozen studies failed to show that wearing a mask provides protection against infection. 21) Masks are being used as a conditioning tool to make us more compliant. 22) A study of 53 surgeons showed that there were statistically significant falls in blood oxygen levels after masks had been worn for a few hours. It is important to remember that surgeons who wear masks (and not all do) work while standing, rather than walking, and they work in a controlled, air conditioned environment. They do not touch their masks and they change them regularly. 23) The fact that the rules about mask wearing vary from place to place proves that there is no `science’ behind the advice to wear masks. So, for example, why should the coronavirus spread from person to person in a shop but not in an office? 24) There were no mask requirements in Sweden, and the mortality rate there remained below a bad flu season. The average age of Swedish citizens who died of covid-19 was well over 80 years. 25) A meta-analysis of controlled trials of face masks published in May 2020 by the Centers for Disease Control in the US, concluded that masks `did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory confirmed influenza, either when worn by infected persons or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility’. 26) A meta- analysis published in May 2016 concluded that masks did not have any useful effect but that reuse of contaminated masks did transmit infection. 27) In 2019, a paper involving 2,862 volunteers and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that both surgical masks and N95 respirators `resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza’. 28) In 2011, a meta-analysis of 17 separate studies showed that none of the research showed masks to be useful in preventing influenza infection. 29) In 2009, a paper published in the Journal of Occupational Environmental Hygiene concluded that particles passed through masks and that expelled particles were deflected around the edges of masks. 30) Research published in 2005 concluded that there was more transmission of virus laden particles from masked individuals than from unmasked individuals because of `leakage’ jets of air. Backward unfiltered air flow was found to be stronger with mask wearers (suggesting that standing behind someone wearing a mask could be dangerous). 31) A study published in the BMJ in 2015 found that the penetration of cloth masks was almost 97%. 32) N95 masks are made with a 0.3 micron filter. The name comes from the fact that 95% of particles having a diameter of 0.3 microns are filtered by the mask. Unfortunately, coronaviruses are approximately 0.125 microns in diameter. 33) An article entitled `Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre?’, published in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1981 found no difference in wound infection rates with or without surgical masks. A paper published in 1991 showed that the use of masks slightly increased the incidence of infection. 34) It was proved in 1920 that cloth masks do not stop flu transmission. It was concluded then that the number of layers of fabric required to prevent pathogen spread would be suffocating. It was also recognised that there was a problem with leakage around the edges of masks. 35) Mask wearers are encouraged to demonise non-mask wearers (even if they are disabled in some way). This is part of the psychological warfare battle being fought. 36) There have been suggestions from various authorities that mask wearing and social distancing will need to be permanent. It has also been suggested that masks should be worn in the home. 37) Masks collect fungi, bacteria and viruses and because of the moist air exhaled they are an excellent breeding ground. 38) `We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offer little, if any, protection from infection…In many cases the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.’ – New England Journal of Medicine, 2020 39) Research published in June 2020 suggested that the reduction in blood oxygen and the increase in carbon dioxide, resulting from mask wearing, might cause a strain on the heart and kidneys. 40) Mask wearers are more likely to develop infection than non-mask wearers. This may be due to the fact that masks reduce blood oxygen levels and adversely affect natural immunity. It is likely that anyone who wears a face mask for long periods will have a damaged immune system – and be more susceptible to infection. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit immune cells used to fight viral infections. Wearing a mask may make the wearer more likely to develop an infection – and if an infection develops it is likely to be worse. 41) Masks can cause hypercapnia (increased carbon dioxide). Symptoms of hypercapnia include drowsiness, dizziness and fatigue. 42) A mask worn by a child in school was examined in a laboratory. Tests showed 82 bacterial colonies and 4 mould colonies growing on the mask. 43) In May 2020, Dr Fauci, the American covid-19 expert, concluded that masks are little more than symbolic – virtue signaling. 44) Although they have not been tested extensively, visors are probably just as useless as masks but they may be less dangerous to wearers.
Conclusion: Having studied the evidence I believe that mask wearing is likely to do no good but a great deal of harm. The available evidence shows clearly that masks do not work but do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems. Any individual or organisation dismissing the information above as `fake news’ is requested to give their name and address. They will then receive a writ for libel. Please note that I am already in the process of planning two libel actions. -Dr. Vernon Coleman October 2020
If you would like something to show store managers, feel free to order one of these mask exemption cards, while supporting a freedom-loving, family-owned business at the same time!

Masks and Mask Wearing: 100 Facts You Must Know

1.  Surgeons have been using surgical masks since their introduction in 1897. It has for some years been customary for surgeons and nurses to wear surgical masks in the operating theatre and to change masks part of the way through any procedure lasting more than a few hours.  The dangers associated with mask wearing were assessed by five doctors and published in the journal Neurocirugia in 2008. Although it is customary for operating theatres to be fitted with air conditioning systems, the writers of the article, entitled, Preliminary Report on Surgical Mask induced Deoxygenation During Major Surgery, pointed out that it is known that heat and moisture are trapped beneath surgical masks and concluded that ‘it seems reasonable that some of the exhaled carbon dioxide may also be trapped beneath them, inducing a decrease in blood oxygenation’. A total of 53 surgeons, of both sexes, all employed at university hospitals and aged between 24 and 54 years of age were tested. All were non-smokers and none had any chronic lung disease. The test involved pulse oximetry before and after the course of an operation. The study showed that the longer a mask was worn the greater the fall in blood oxygen levels. This may lead to the individual passing out and it may also affect natural immunity – thereby increasing the risk of infection.  The masks used were disposable, sterile, one-way surgical paper masks. To eliminate the effect of dehydration over a several hour surgical operation, the surgeons were allowed after every hour to drink water through a straw. The authors of the paper concluded that, ‘When the values for oxygen saturation of haemoglobin were compared, there were statistically significant differences only between preoperational and post operational values. As the duration of the operation increases, oxygen saturation of haemoglobin decreases significantly.’ 2. This quote is taken from 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 six 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 20 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.’ The reference is:  M.Klompas, C.Morris et al ‘Universal Masking in hospitals in the covid-19 era’ – New England Journal of Medicine 2020 3. It is possible that wearing a mask for hours at a time could cause pulmonary fibrosis. In August 1988, the proceedings of the VIIth International Pneumoconioses Conference included details of three cases of pulmonary fibrosis, thought to be due to exposure to synthetic textile fibres. The first was a woman of 52 who had a dry cough with increasing  difficulty in breathing. Changes were visible on an X-ray. The woman had been working in a textile shop for 15 years where her job was measuring and cutting cloth – mainly synthetic materials. The second patient was a woman of 66 who also had difficulty in breathing. The lungs of this patient also showed X-ray changes. She was also involved in cutting and measuring synthetic fabrics. A third woman, aged 47, had bilateral pulmonary fibrosis. Studies have shown that loose fibres are seen on all types of masks and may be inhaled causing serious lung damage. 4.People who cough and sneeze into their mask increase the risk of a build-up of fungi and bacteria – which can lead to dangerous chest infections. 5. In 2015, the British Medical Journal published a paper entitled, A Cluster Randomized Trial of Cloth Masks Compared with Medical Masks in Healthcare Workers. The paper was written by nine authors from the University of New South Wales, the University of Sydney, the National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology in Vietnam and the Beijing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in China. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital health care workers. The study, which was extensive, concluded that the results caution against the use of cloth masks. ‘This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety,’ concluded the authors. ‘Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.’  And the authors added: ‘…as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for health care workers, particularly in high risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated’. For the remaining 95 facts, click here! Source: Dr. Vernon Coleman

Safe & Effective… Hoax


 
Please read the fine print of this vax and decide for yourself:
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download? fbclid=IwAR1CaTeZDaeXTwZzcJfncaMviDxZ3LAx40thbLQjEWEOILSFFbm80Q6o3Yk






Dr. Roger Hodkinson, Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons committee in Ottawa, CEO of a large private medical laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta and Chairman of a Medical Biotechnology company SELLING THE COVID-19 TEST:

"There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspected public. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus. This is nothing more than a bad flu season. It's politics playing medicine and that's a very dangerous game. There is no action needed...Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence whatsoever they are even effective. It is utterly ridiculous seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people walking around like lemmings obeying without any evidence. Social distancing is also useless... The risk of death under 65 is 1 in 300,000...response is utterly ridiculous."

show me the virus

So, we shut the world down... for what?? I’m jumping all over the place in this post, so bear with me. "Since no quantified virus isolates of the 'virus' are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 'virus' were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen." Aka, the test is looking for RNA, which is presumed to come from the virus that hasn't been proven to exist. Yes, people are getting sick, but from what... if this particular virus hasn't been isolated? The CDC says it isn't available.  Source: https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download (page 39) Think they wouldn't trick us with a virus? Have you researched the Bird Flu in relation to Agent Orange? Try finding Dr. Sherri Tenpenny’s book Fowl for more info. So many questions. I digress. I do that a lot. So how are we hearing about so. many. cases? A positive test result does NOT equal a case. A positive test simply means, at some point, there was a viral infection, but it’s more than likely been removed... due to our beautiful, God-given immune systems. In fact, it’s safe to say that the the inventor of the PCR test, Dr. Kary Mullis, a Nobel peace prize winner, would be outspoken against people like Dr. Fauci, if he were still alive today. We know that he was a thorn in the side of the establishment during the HIV/AIDS debate.
Anyone else tired of all of the ever changing and IGNORED science?? According to the CDC, those who get sick with the Rona: Wear a mask ALWAYS - 70.6% NEVER wear a mask - 3.9%
Peep page 1261 of this study... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf Some have debated the interpretation of this mask study. Personally, I’m tired of talking about it... but I’m constantly reminded of the need for more common sense, to the brink of insanity, when I leave my house. Then there’s the science of “viral-agility” where the virus will go over your head in a restaurant (unless you live in CA), but not in a classroom. It's confusing, I know. If suffering from emphysema, bronchiectasis, or low O2 saturation, you won't do well - and if allergic to the chemicals (Teflon much?) in the mask, you'll find it especially difficult. And then there’s this from the WHO: no lockdowns. I just can’t keep up with their “agenda science." What's up their sleeve?  https://t.co/gv93wd5gc5 So, how does a virus work, you ask?  https://www.thebernician.net/the-deception-of-virology-vaccines-why-coronavirus-is-not-contagious-2/
While the world is distracted with a virus, the real pandemic is the agenda! For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. -2 Timothy 4:3-4
woketxmama

Played or Paid

I research bioweapons... and masks. In my professional career, I've never heard anybody actually believe that any kind of mask, short of an actual level 4 containment suit, made a difference to small particle viruses. In fact, the CDC itself just published an article in May exactly saying that... You cannot contain influenza with these masks, and that's even larger than this virus. I've reviewed all the science... My conclusion, redoing my investigation this time, is that people that are now purporting to scientifically prove masks work are either being paid or being played. This just doesn't work this way. And... the outcome of this is not going to be good. -Dr. Lee Merritt, M.D
  Full video:

just wear the {&$@!} mask

I asked if you noticed a change in people regarding masks. And after reading responses (sorry I couldn’t fit them all), I think it’s safe to say that these ????-????-???????? -????-????-???-&$@!-????-????-???’?-????-??? face coverings are bringing out the worst in people. Seems Cathy O’Brien, survivor of MK Ultra mind control and author of TRANCE Formation of America, had it right. "????? ????????????? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????. ?? ?? ? ??????? ?? ??????... ????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??, ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ????? ?? ?????. ?? ??????????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????, ??? ???????, ?? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?????????? ??????? (?? ???? ???????). ????????, ? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????, ????? ???????? ?????…?????…????.  ???? ?? ???? ???????... ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???????? ??? ?????????." He who controls the minds of the masses, wins (Operation Mockingbird). Remember, God has given His children the spirit of power, love, and a sound mind. Fear is a spirit. And it is not from God. Some have said that Christ followers need to suck it up because it’s the simple act of not wearing a mask that is unkind. However, your messages tell a different story. It seems the majority of hateful words are being hurled by those who’ve been convinced that mask wearing saves lives. The science simply doesn’t support that perspective, but we’ve covered that to exhaustion. “Love is kind. If it’s not, it’s something else.” - Bob Goff Aware of a bigger agenda, ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????  SO many lies. The tactic for confusion is to throw us into chaos so that we beg for order (aka, more gov’t control). Anything to go back to “normal”. As Cathy says, “knowledge is our first line of defense against mind control.” It’s time for the great unmasking... And a return to kindness, chivalry, and compassion towards others. I’m praying for: Eyes to see Ears to hear Humble hearts Kindness restored Hope renewed Christ revealed Souls saved Amen! woketxmama ⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ Source:  @realcathyobrien https://trance-formation.com/the-great-unmasking/