Masks - is using them to stop the COVID virus a matter of science, or of FAITH? Let's hear what THE EXPERTS have to say, first. This one-and-a-half minute excerpt incorporating segments of longer interviews can be found on this page at The HighWire.
A non-expert, apparently... but his demonstration is very compelling!
If you haven't confined your reading and viewing to Mainstream Media only, then you know that there is massive disagreement - from scientists and doctors! - about the usefulness of masks. It seems to be a matter of "My study shows -" versus "But MY study shows this!"
Who is right? You will have to decide for yourself, after spending some time reading, and then applying common sense.
This is a segment of the medical talk show "The HighWire." If you follow this show, you'll be weeks - or months! - ahead of the MSM.
Dr. Simone Gold said months ago, "Look at the studies pre-COVID, before masks became political. What do THOSE STUDIES say?"
There are a LOT of studies, pre-COVID. And OSHA regulations about mask-wearing safety. Where is the voice of OSHA now? Why has OSHA gone silent?
Here are two OSHA professionals, still brave enough to tell the truth.
Health Canada has issued a warning about blue and gray disposable face masks that may contain ASBESTOS-LIKE toxic material.
Several teachers had expressed suspicions about masks that made children feel like they were swallowing cat hairs for some time. Now we know that instead of cat hair, children attracted asbestos equivalent throughout the day.
Masks made in China were mandatory in daycare. Microscopic particles were discovered in the masks, which can cause serious lung damage and long-term health problems when inhaled.
By Dr. Vernon Coleman, a PDF
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.
At no previous time in history have large numbers of people been forced to wear masks. The long-term physical and psychological consequences are unknown though those ordering that masks be worn are no doubt aware of the extraordinary risks and of the way that masks can be used to oppress and subjugate a population.
The evidence clearly shows that mask wearing is likely to do no good but a great deal of harm.
The big lie, which the WHO, governments everywhere and YouTube want to disseminate, is that wearing masks is essential to control covid-19. But the medical and scientific evidence (banned by YouTube and most mass media) shows that masks have little or no useful effect but can increase the risk of infection and can make breathing difficult.
There is little doubt that masks do far more harm than good. Cloth masks are permeable to 97% of viral particles. A study by the University of East Anglia concluded that wearing masks was of no benefit and could increase infection.
Experts in respiratory disease and infection protection from the University of Illinois have explained that face masks have no use in everyday life – neither as self-protection nor to protect other people.
A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded that neither fabric masks nor surgical masks can prevent the spread of covid-19 by coughing.
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine, published in May 2020 concluded that masks offer little or no protection and that the call for masks to be compulsory was an irrational fear reflex.
A German study showed that masks had no effect on infection rates.
Dr Fauci, the American covid-19 supremo, expressed real doubts about masks. On May 28th 2020, he admitted masks are little more than symbolic. See & download the PDF
This pdf starts out with a discussion of wildfire smoke, and how best to defend oneself.
"Cloth masks will not protect you from wildfire smoke.
"Cloth masks that are used to slow the spread of COVID-19 by blocking respiratory droplets offer little protection against wildfire smoke. They do not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health. Although N95 respirators do provide protection from wildfire smoke, they might be in short supply as frontline healthcare workers use them during the pandemic." Go to the pdf
Dr. Eric Nepute rants about a 4-year-old who gets a bacterial infection from his mask
Measuring carbon dioxide levels, which quickly rise into the danger region
The HighWire: From a new study in Germany, masks cause harm to children.
This poor child... one of many, including victims in our local Alaska schools. WHY do we want our children to participate in this kind of charade?
Dr. Denis G Rancourt, PhD, Researchgate.net
When do you think this review might have been published? It was in April 2020 - way back then, when we would have - hopefully - been emerging from our 2-week "flatten the curve" episode.
The author says,
"Masks and respirators do not work. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.
"Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.
"The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history...
"No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW (health care workers) or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public..."
On the right side of this drawing - the FAR right side that appears as a curve - is a raindrop. Far to the left is a virus. Viruses are 0.003 to 0.05 microns in size. Even N95 masks don't stop anything so tiny.
Masks can contain "droplets" - but even droplets aerosolize (making them travel even farther) when ejected through a mask or out the sides.
Try this experiment: place a mask on your face. Light a match, and blow it out. Can you smell the smoke?
Viruses are smaller than smoke. See and download 6-page PDF
This was a study conducted in 4 Vietnamese hospitals, with 1,607 health care workers (HCW).
"Objective The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.
"Setting 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.
"Participants 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.
"Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.
"Main outcome measure Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.
"Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI (influenza-like illness) statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm.
"Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI (influenza-like illness) compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group.
"Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%." Full study
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that mandating mask-wearing is a means to condition people to obey.
This sounds harsh. It sounds conspiratorial. It sounds distrustful of "the experts."
This is why you must do your own research. Realize that when a doctor or scientist raises objections to the reigning narrative, they are risking their reputation and even their medical license. And yet, thousands are speaking out and trying to get their voices heard.
Here is a graph showing what happened in Anchorage, Alaska, after a mask mandate was put in place. In June 2020, a mask mandate was enacted. "Cases" began to rise, and shot up in August.
Of course, "correlation does not equal causation".
The rise in "cases" is most likely caused by the rise in testing, not masks, not failure to wear masks, not social distancing or lack of social distancing.
More tests = more "cases."
But if "cases" had gone down, public health representatives and the Anchorage Assembly would have been patting themselves on the back!
Sep 07, 21 01:46 AM
The word "EMERGENCY" seems to have rendered our law-makers impotent. What legal remedies do we have against medical tyranny?
Sep 06, 21 03:03 PM
We now know that PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” viruses & inactive (noninfectious) viral particles & therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool.
Sep 02, 21 02:13 AM
Vaccines - "Safe & Effective" is a SOUNDBITE, not a scientific observation.