Why Masks Are a Charade

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Driving the irrational and unscientific narrative about mask wearing is the censoring of truthful and factual information by tech platforms. YouTube recently banned a video by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul in which he stated that masks don’t work
  • In a 2020 email obtained via a freedom of information act request, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated, “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material”
  • February 25, 2020, U.K. health authorities published guidance discouraging the use of masks even for health care workers in residential care facilities, as there’s no evidence that they prevent viral spread
  • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have long been regarded as the gold standard in medical research, yet RCTs are now ignored when it comes to mask wearing
  • Of 14 RCTs that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, 11 suggest masks are either useless or counterproductive. The remaining three suggest masks may be useful, but not to a statistically significant degree

For more than 18 months, we’ve dealt with questionable advice on masking, ranging from head-scratching and mildly amusing to outright laughable, and there seems to be no end in sight, despite the lack of scientific underpinning for universal masking.

Driving this insanity is the censoring of truthful and factual information by tech platforms such as YouTube. In the Fox News report above, Tucker Carlson calls out YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki for censoring a video by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, in which he pointed out that most masks cannot and will not protect you from the virus.

“Saying cloth masks work, when they don’t, actually risks lives,” Paul said in his banned video. Contrary to Wojcicki, Paul is an actual medical doctor, yet Wojcicki believes she’s capable of determining what is and is not medical misinformation.

Mask Recommendations Spiraled From Sensible to Irrational

Paul’s statement is far from controversial. In a 2020 email obtained via a freedom of information act request, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated, “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”

In March 2020, Fauci also went on TV stating1,2 that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.”

Ditto for then-Surgeon General Jerome Adams, who February 29, 2020, tweeted: “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus.”3 Adams has since deleted the tweet, but it lives in infamy all over the internet.4,5,6

“The point is there was nothing kooky or inaccurate about Rand Paul’s video about masks,” Carlson says. “It was … provably true, people who know what they’re talking about agree with it, including the people in charge of our COVID response, but it was censored anyway. And the fact that it was censored anyway is a scandal.”

Carlson goes on to point out that censorship always backfires because, eventually, the masses catch on to the fact that they’re being lied to, at which point they stop listening altogether. Heavy-handedness also backfires, and the COVID injection campaign is a perfect example.

Had we just been treated like adults, the vaccination rate would probably have been far higher than it currently is. The irrational push with ostentatious bribes followed by illegal implementation of vaccine mandates simply raised too many suspicions in too many people.

“Obviously, this can’t continue,” Carlson says. “You cannot have a self-governing country in which people aren’t allowed to read what they want. A free press is not an optional feature of a democracy; it’s the center of democracy. That’s obvious. It’s written down in our founding documents.”

How Did Health Authorities Get So Irrational on Masks?

In an August 11, 2021, City-Journal article,7 Jeffrey Anderson reviews the scientific evidence for universal masking, noting that February 25, 2020, U.K. health authorities published guidance discouraging the use of masks even for health care workers in residential care facilities due to the fact that they don’t prevent viral spread.

Although the guidance apparently has been wiped from the internet like Adams’ tweet, Anderson quotes it as saying, “During normal day-to-day activities facemasks do not provide protection from respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19 and do not need to be worn by staff.”

Similarly, March 30, 2020, the executive director for the World Health Organization’s Health Emergency Program stated “there is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit.”8

Such guidance was truthful and logical. Surgical masks are not designed to protect the wearer or others against viral transmission, as the holes in the fabric are far larger than any virus. They’re merely meant to prevent a health care worker from inadvertently infecting a patient’s wound with bacteria-laden saliva or respiratory droplets. As reported by Anderson:9

“Public-health officials’ advice in the early days of Covid-19 was consistent with that understanding. Then, on April 3, 2020, Adams announced that the CDC was changing its guidance and that the general public should hereafter wear masks whenever sufficient social distancing could not be maintained.

Fast-forward 15 months. Rand Paul has been suspended from YouTube for a week for saying, ‘Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work.’

Many cities across the country, following new CDC guidance handed down amid a spike in cases nationally caused by the Delta variant, are once again mandating indoor mask-wearing for everyone, regardless of inoculation status.

The CDC further recommends that all schoolchildren and teachers, even those who have had Covid-19 or have been vaccinated, should wear masks …

How did mask guidance change so profoundly? Did the medical research on the effectiveness of masks change — and in a remarkably short period of time — or just the guidance on wearing them?”

Why Is the CDC Using Inferior Science to Support Masking?

We’re routinely told to follow the science and that public health recommendations are based on just that. But are they really? Where is the evidence showing that masking has any impact on viral transmission?

It’s striking how much the CDC, in marshalling evidence to justify its revised mask guidance, studiously avoids mentioning randomized controlled trials. ~ Jeffrey Anderson

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have long been regarded as the gold standard in medical research, as they allow you to isolate a specific variable and reduce the ability of researchers to produce a preferred outcome. It’s still possible through a variety of tricks, but at least then you can see the bias. Curiously, RCTs are now routinely ignored when it comes to mask wearing. Why is that? Anderson reports:10

“It’s striking how much the CDC, in marshalling evidence to justify its revised mask guidance, studiously avoids mentioning randomized controlled trials …

In a ‘Science Brief’11 highlighting studies that ‘demonstrate that mask wearing reduces new infections’ and serving as the main public justification for its mask guidance, the CDC provides a helpful matrix of 15 studies — none RCTs.

The CDC instead focuses strictly on observational studies completed after Covid-19 began. In general, observational studies are not only of lower quality than RCTs but also are more likely to be politicized, as they can inject the researcher’s judgment more prominently into the inquiry and lend themselves, far more than RCTs, to finding what one wants to find.

A particular favorite of the CDC’s … is an observational (specifically, cohort) study12 focused on two COVID-positive hairstylists at a beauty salon in Missouri.

The two stylists, who were masked, provided services for 139 people, who were mostly masked, for several days after developing Covid-19 symptoms. The 67 customers who subsequently chose to get tested for the coronavirus tested negative, and none of the 72 others reported symptoms.

This study has major limitations. For starters, any number of the 72 untested customers could have had COVID-19 but been asymptomatic, or else had symptoms that they chose not to report to the Greene County Health Department, the entity doing the asking.

The apparent lack of spread of COVID-19 could have been a result of good ventilation, good hand hygiene, minimal coughing by the stylists, or the fact that stylists generally, as the researchers note, ‘cut hair while clients are facing away from them.’

The researchers also observe that ‘viral shedding’ of the coronavirus ‘is at its highest during the 2 to 3 days before symptom onset.’ Yet no customers who saw the stylists when they were at their most contagious were tested for COVID-19 or asked about symptoms.

Most importantly, this study does not have a control group. Nobody has any idea how many people, if any, would have been infected had no masks been worn in the salon.”

RCTs Show Masks Don’t Prevent Viral Transmission

Another piece of evidence leaned on by the CDC is a survey, which is even lower-quality evidence than an observational cohort study.

“Mask supporters often claim that we have no choice but to rely on observational studies instead of RCTs, because RCTs cannot tell us whether masks work or not. But what they really mean is that they don’t like what the RCTs show,” Anderson writes.

Indeed, you’d be hard-pressed to find even a single RCT showing mask wearing has a notable benefit. Anderson goes through 14 RCTs, conducted around the world, that have investigated the effectiveness of masks against respiratory viruses, discussing their findings.

Among them is a French study13 from 2010, which randomly placed sick patients and their household contacts into a mask group or a non-mask group. Adherence to the designated intervention was “good.”

Within one week, 15.8% of household contacts in the no-mask control group and 16.2% in the mask group developed an influenza-like illness. The 0.4% difference between the groups was statistically insignificant. According to the authors: “In various sensitivity analyses, we did not identify any trend in the results suggesting effectiveness of facemasks.”

The CDC’s own data14,15,16 also show 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask “often.” So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had “often” or “always” worn a mask.

Handwashing Beats Masks and Mask-Plus-Handwashing Combo

A 2009 study17 funded by the CDC added hand washing to the mix to see if mask wearing would work better in combination with hand hygiene. One group was instructed on the use of hand hygiene only, a second group used both handwashing and face masks, and a third group did nothing.

While the mask-plus-handwashing group fared statistically better than the control group in one measure, the handwashing-only group beat the control group to a statistically significant degree in two measures.

This suggests handwashing alone was actually the most effective measure. According to the authors, “no additional benefit was observed when facemask [use] was added to hand hygiene by comparison with hand hygiene alone.”

The notion that handwashing alone beats even the combination of handwashing and mask wearing gained support in a 2011 study,18 which discovered that among those who washed their hands and wore face masks, the secondary attack rate of influenza-like illness was double that of the control group, which did nothing.

Multivariate analysis showed the same thing, leading the authors to conclude that relative to the control group, the odds of infection among those wearing masks and washing their hands was “twofold in the opposite direction from the hypothesized protective effect.”

COVID-19 Specific Mask Trial Failed to Prove Benefit

The first and to my knowledge only COVID-19-specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial,19,20 published November 18, 2020, also undermined the official narrative that masking works. Interestingly, it found routine mask wearing may either reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may increase your risk by 23%.

Either way, the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection-free, so SARS-CoV-2 infection isn’t nearly as widespread as we think it is.

The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations.

Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed those who did not adhere to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference either.

Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls. So, essentially, we’re destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result, which we now know means nothing.

Another investigation21 that compared caseloads between states with mask mandates and those without showed states with mask mandates had an average of 27 positive SARS-CoV-2 “cases” per 100,000 people, whereas states with no mask mandates had just 17 cases per 100,000. This too suggests mask mandates have no positive impact to speak of.

More Science

If you’re still on the fence about whether masks are a necessity that must be forced on everyone, including young children, consider reading through some of the available medical literature. In addition to the research reviewed above, here’s a small sampling of what else you’ll find when you start searching for data on face masks as a strategy to prevent viral infection:

•Surgical masks and N95 masks perform about the same — A 2009 study22 published in JAMA compared the effectiveness of surgical masks and N95 respirators to prevent seasonal influenza in a hospital setting; 24% of the nurses in the surgical mask group still got the flu, as did 23% of those who wore N95 respirators.

•“No evidence” masks prevent transmission of flu in hospital setting — In September 2018, the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) won its second of two grievances filed against the Toronto Academic Health Science Network’s (TAHSN) “vaccinate or mask” policy. This information also appears to have been scrubbed from the internet, but it is available in Wayback archives. As reported by the ONA:23

“After reviewing extensive expert evidence submitted … Arbitrator William Kaplan, in his September 6 decision,24 found that St. Michael’s VOM policy is ‘illogical and makes no sense’ …

In 2015, Arbitrator James Hayes struck down the same type of policy in an arbitration that included other Ontario hospitals across the province … Hayes found there was ‘scant evidence’ that forcing nurses to use masks reduced the transmission of influenza to patients …

ONA’s well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was … no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals.

They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask.”

•No significant reduction in flu transmission when used in community setting — A policy review paper25 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020, which reviewed “the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures … in non-health care settings” concluded, based on 10 randomized controlled trials, that there was “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks…”

•“No evidence” that universal masking prevents COVID-19 — A 2020 guidance memo by the World Health Organization pointed out that:26

“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 …

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.”

•Mask or no mask, same difference — A meta-analysis and scientific review27 led by respected researcher Thomas Jefferson, cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration, posted on the prepublication server medRxiv in April 2020, found that, compared to no mask, mask wearing in the general population or among health care workers did not reduce influenza-like illness cases or influenza.

In one study, which looked at quarantined workers, it actually increased the risk of contracting influenza, but lowered the risk of influenza-like illness. They also found there was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators.

Let’s Follow the Actual Science

If we are to follow the science — which is a good idea in general and particularly when it comes to public health mandates — we should not wear masks. As reported by Anderson:28

“In sum, of the 14 RCTs that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis, that masks might be useful.

The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless — whether compared with no masks or because they appear not to add to good hand hygiene alone — or actually counterproductive.

Of the three studies that provided statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis that was not contradicted within the same study, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.”

RACE – Join the Movement Meeting to Protect Kids from Sexualization & CRT July 19

DATE: monday, July 19, 2021
time: 7 pm
location: Novo Café, 20770 Russell Ranch Rd, Ste G Westlake Village, CA

Are you concerned about the new radical sex education curriculums such as “Teen Talk,” and Critical Race Theory?


Parents and Teachers are Fighting Back!

Please come and join like-minded community members to become part of the solution

Please read this article before the meeting. HUGE EYE OPENER about how sex ed curriculum contributes to grooming children for trafficking!!

Another Illustrations of Why We Will Not Allow Children to be Removed from Campus without Parental Consent

Elite California school releases report detailing four decades of sexual misconduct – from Daily Mail full article here

One of California‘s most prestigious private boarding schools, The Thacher School, has released an explosive report documenting four decades of alleged sexual misconduct by teachers and staff, including the rape of a 16-year-old student.

The detailed 91-page report was compiled by an outside law firm following a months-long investigation, and was posted on the school’s official website on Wednesday.

The Thacher School is an exclusive $64,000-a-year boarding school, sprawled on 427 acres in Ojai, California, located some 80 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. Some notable alumni include aviator and filmmaker Howard Hughes and author Thornton Wilder, who wrote the celebrated play Our Town. 

The newly released report lists alleged instances of sexual misconduct by faculty against students spanning 40 years and running the gamut from inappropriate comments and ‘boundary crossing’ behavior, to harassment, groping and rape.

The most serious allegation detailed in the report involves a former English teacher, accused of repeatedly raping a female student in the 1980s, starting when she was just 16 years old. 

The Thacher School, an exclusive boarding school in Ojai, California, has released an explosive report detailing 40 years of allegations of sexual misconduct and rape by staff against students

When the abuse was uncovered by the school, an assistant headmaster who interviewed the victim was said to have asked if she ‘enjoyed’ the sex, a psychologist dissuaded the girl’s family from pressing criminal charges, and the accused teacher resigned, but was invited back to campus for an event decades later.

According to the report, which was put together by the Los Angeles-based law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson in the summer of 2020, The Thacher School learned of suspected sexual misconduct from multiple alleged victims, including through the Instagram account @rpecultureatrthacher, where alumni have been anonymously sharing their accounts of abuse.

In August, Daniel Yih, the Chair of the Board of Trustees, announced the independent probe and encouraged anyone with information to come forward.

Over the next 10 months, the law firm interviewed 120 former students and parents, current and former faculty, staff and board members, some repeatedly, and reviewed 40,000 documents.

The report does not name the alleged victims to preserve their privacy, but it names six accused faculty members, none of whom has been criminally charged so far.

Former Head of School Willard Wyman, who resigned in 1992 and died in 2014, had faced accusations of inappropriate touching and making improper comments

Former Head of School Willard Wyman, who resigned in 1992 and died in 2014, had faced accusations of inappropriate touching and making improper comments 

Many of the incidents detailed in the report took place decades ago and likely fall outside the statute of limitations, but the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office told the Los Angeles Times, which first reported the story, that the agency was in the process of reviewing the allegations.

‘We are going to look into them on a case-by-case basis,’ Sgt Hector Macias told the paper. ‘We are going to continue to work with the school and their law office in order to vet some of this out and see if the victims are willing to cooperate.’

Arguably the most damning section of the report concerns the conduct of a popular English teacher and boys’ lacrosse and baseball coach, who came to teach at Thacher in 1985.

A Thacher alumna, identified in the document only as ‘Student A,’ who attended the elite school in the 1980s, said that she first befriended the teacher during her freshman year, when she felt homesick and ‘lost.

Their relationship took a sexual turn when the teacher allegedly kissed and touched the teenage girl without her consent after she returned from walking his dog. 

Then one night during her sophomore year, the girl, then 16, claimed that the English teacher raped her for the first time.

‘Student A told us that afterwards she was traumatized and bleeding,’ the report states.

In an unsent letter addressed to the then-current Head of School Michael Mulligan, the alumna described the aftermath of that first rape, which took place on the eve of the fall camping trip, writing: ‘I bled for an entire week after the first time I was raped. I was alone in the woods with my classmates with no comfort or support.’

According to the accuser, the teacher proceeded to sexually abuse and rape her multiple times a week throughout the rest of the sophomore year and into her junior year.

‘When I tried to get away from him or showed any interest in a boy my age he would either tell me horrible lies about the person or he would try to publicly humiliate me in front of other students to remind me who was in charge,’ she wrote in her unsent letter.

One of the most damning sections of the report involves an alumna of the elite $64,000-a-year school, who claimed she was repeatedly raped by her English teacher in the 1980s

According to the former student, during her junior year, the teacher grew violent, once throwing her across the room with such force that she lost consciousness, and also introduced her and other students to drugs ‘as a way of having control over us…’

She continued: ‘it was a horrible, scary, hopeless time.’

The girl ultimately confided in her mother about the alleged rapes, and the woman reached out to the school, setting in motion a series of interviews with administrators and officials.

The alumna recounted how during one interview, a dean questioned her about the teacher’s actions and asked if she ‘enjoyed’ specific sex acts.

The law firm’s report stated that the dean denied asking the student if she enjoyed the sex.

In the wake of the scandal, the English teacher resigned in the late 1980s. The lawyers who conducted the independent probe stated that they have found no evidence that anyone at the school ever reported the teacher’s conduct to the police.

An outside psychologist who spoke to the student after the teacher’s resignation reported possible child abuse to the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, which ultimately dropped the case, stating that the ‘complainant refuses to participate.’

The psychologist who counseled the girl later wrote to the then-Head of School Willard Wyman that he and school staff had convinced the girl’s mother that it would be in her daughter’s ‘best interest not to press charges, as it would further isolate her from her peers.

The mother told the authors of the new report that Wyman pressured her not to pursue a criminal case against the teacher and conditioned her daughter’s return to Thacher on an agreement not to file a lawsuit ‘or make a fuss,’ according to the document.

The former student said she was blamed for the popular teacher’s departure, and was retaliated against by his colleagues and her peers, who believed that the relationship was consensual.

The school’s college letter of recommendation for the student included a mention of her ‘unfortunate involvement with a faculty member,’ but praised her for showing ‘resilience’ and ‘sense of responsibility.’

Wyman, who headed the school from 1975 to 1992, was also accused of inappropriate conduct involving offensive comments and touching toward female students and staff. 

According to the report, the head of school allegedly asked to students to wear ‘sexy’ clothes to a dinner party at his house and placed a hand on a teen’s backside. 

Wyman resigned in 1992, and died in 2014. 

Wyman was succeeded by Mulligan, who served as dean of students during the scandal involving the English teacher in the 1980s.

The report details how Mulligan later supported the hiring of a soccer coach at Thacher, even though he was aware that the man previously was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a female player at another boarding school in New England. 

Mulligan told the authors of the report he thought the man was a ‘great coach’ and it was ‘inconceivable’ to him that he would make the same ‘mistake’ at Thacher.

When it later emerged that the coach, who was said to have cultivated a ‘cult-like’ atmosphere with his players and had them address him as ‘Captain, my captain,’ was spending a lot of time alone with a student, Mulligan reportedly directed another teacher to counsel the coach. 

Mulligan told the lawyers compiling the report that he regretted supporting the coach’s hiring, and then not confronting the coach himself.

In a letter addressed to the Thacher community and dated June 12, Mulligan wrote in part: ‘I particularly regret situations where certain decisions I made contributed to this suffering, and I fully accept that criticism.’ 

Yih, the Chair of the Board of Trustees, apologized to the sexual abuse survivors and their families in a  separate letter accompanying the report.   

‘We have learned a great deal about our history over the past several months — much of which has been difficult to confront,’ he wrote. 

The school announced that it would take a series of ‘corrective actions’ to address and prevent sexual misconduct in the future. Those actions include revising policies and procedures; improving training and education; implementing general strategies to reduce the risk of sexual misconduct, and strengthening oversight, among others.   

A group of Florida parents cultured their children’s masks and found dangerous bacteria

Daniel Horowitz June 16, 2021

The idea of children, including preschoolers, walking around with bacteria traps on their breathing orifices all day so shocked the conscience that last summer,

a bunch of internet parodies were produced illustrating such absurdity. Then, within weeks, most local governments mandated this cruel form of child abuse for an entire year without any study of the side effects. Now a group of parents from the Gainesville, Florida, area have shown that such masks are traps for harmful bacteria that potentially make children much sicker than from COVID — the virus for which the masks were required, but failed to mitigate. Fearless with Jason Whitlock

In a press release obtained by TheBlaze and posted at RationalGround.com, six Alachua County, Florida, parents reported the findings of the lab cultures of their children’s masks worn in school. The parents sent the six masks to the University of Florida’s Mass Spectrometry Research and Education Center after they were worn for five to eight hours, most during in-person schooling by children ages 6 through 11. Although many students across the country likely wore dirty masks indefinitely for numerous days, the face masks studied in this analysis were new or freshly laundered before wearing. One of the masks submitted was from an adult who wore it at work as a cosmetologist.

The resulting report found that five masks were contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi, including three with dangerous pathogenic and pneumonia-causing bacteria.

The lab used a method called proteomics to extract proteins from the masks and sequence them. The analysis detected the following 11 alarmingly dangerous pathogens on the masks:

  • Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia)
  • Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis)
  • Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis)
  • Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis)
  • Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, bloodstream infections, meningitis, UTIs — resistant to antibiotics)
  • Escherichia coli (food poisoning)
  • Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)
  • Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)
  • Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires’ disease)
  • Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections — high morbidity rates)
  • Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)

“Half of the masks were contaminated with one or more strains of pneumonia-causing bacteria,” according to the release. “One-third were contaminated with one or more strains of meningitis-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens. In addition, less dangerous pathogens were identified, including pathogens that can cause fever, ulcers, acne, yeast infections, strep throat, periodontal disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and more.”

For a control, the parents submitted a T-shirt worn by one of the children at school and unworn masks. No pathogens were found on the controls.

Obviously, the naysayers will immediately jump on this and criticize it as being a rudimentary study and small sample size. But that is the entire point. Of course, this issue needs further study. But why has this not been done over the course of the entire year by our government or any well-funded institution? How can we mandate such draconian policies without studying the side effects, including the spread of pathogens? Why is this left to helpless parents trying to raise awareness of these concerns? 

It’s not like these concerns are novel. On March 8, 2020, Dr. Fauci told “60 Minutes” that masks can only block large droplets, they give a false sense of security, and they cause people to get more germs on their hands by fiddling with them. Several weeks later, Surgeon General Jerome Adams punctuated this point about the counterproductivity of wearing masks in public. Appearing on “Fox & Friends” on March 31, Adams said that based on a study that shows medical students who wear masks touch their faces 23 times more often, one has to assume that “wearing a mask improperly can actually increase your risk of getting disease.”

A 2014 study of hospital workers wearing surgical masks in a Bangkok hospital found their masks to be saturated with Staphylococcus aureus (found on some of the masks in the Alachua study) and the fungus Aspergillus. Another study of hospital workers in China from 2019 observed that after more than six hours of use, masks worn by medical personnel also contained viruses, including adenovirus, bocavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, and influenza viruses. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to hypothesize that a warm and humid microclimate cultivated by a mask is going to serve as an incubator for all sorts of pathogens. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that pathogen density on masks grows exponentially after two hours of use.

To this day, Fauci and CDC researchers have never answered how those concerns were no longer valid after their political U-turn on masks, given the terrible conditions with which we’ve witnessed the entire country wearing and reusing masks. The same reason why Fauci said last summer they never planned to embark on a randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of masks is likely why they never studied the side effects of masks either. They didn’t want to discover the truth that they themselves originally understood.

These findings are important for two reasons. First, there is a need to ensure that mask mandates are never implemented again. The Boston Globe is already advocating their use for the flu season.

Second, as much as the mask mandate has ended for most consumers, workers in many professions are still required to wear them for hours on end without regard for the hazards they pose. A Florida appeals court has already ruled that the mask mandate in Alachua County is presumptively unconstitutional because it violates bodily autonomy. The risk of masks cultivating and spreading other pathogens is just another reason why something this personal to the body must remain a personal choice.

Bacterial Pneumonia Caused Most Deaths in 1918 Influenza Pandemic by NIH, Fauci

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/bacterial-pneumonia-caused-most-deaths-1918-influenza-pandemic

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

The majority of deaths during the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 were not caused by the influenza virus acting alone, report researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. Instead, most victims succumbed to bacterial pneumonia following influenza virus infection. The pneumonia was caused when bacteria that normally inhabit the nose and throat invaded the lungs along a pathway created when the virus destroyed the cells that line the bronchial tubes and lungs.

A future influenza pandemic may unfold in a similar manner, say the NIAID authors, whose paper in the Oct. 1 issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases is now available online. Therefore, the authors conclude, comprehensive pandemic preparations should include not only efforts to produce new or improved influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs but also provisions to stockpile antibiotics and bacterial vaccines as well.

The work presents complementary lines of evidence from the fields of pathology and history of medicine to support this conclusion. “The weight of evidence we examined from both historical and modern analyses of the 1918 influenza pandemic favors a scenario in which viral damage followed by bacterial pneumonia led to the vast majority of deaths,” says co-author NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. “In essence, the virus landed the first blow while bacteria delivered the knockout punch.”

NIAID co-author and pathologist Jeffery Taubenberger, M.D., Ph.D., examined lung tissue samples from 58 soldiers who died of influenza at various U. S. military bases in 1918 and 1919. The samples, preserved in paraffin blocks, were re-cut and stained to allow microscopic evaluation. Examination revealed a spectrum of tissue damage “ranging from changes characteristic of the primary viral pneumonia and evidence of tissue repair to evidence of severe, acute, secondary bacterial pneumonia,” says Dr. Taubenberger. In most cases, he adds, the predominant disease at the time of death appeared to have been bacterial pneumonia. There also was evidence that the virus destroyed the cells lining the bronchial tubes, including cells with protective hair-like projections, or cilia. This loss made other kinds of cells throughout the entire respiratory tract — including cells deep in the lungs — vulnerable to attack by bacteria that migrated down the newly created pathway from the nose and throat.

In a quest to obtain all scientific publications reporting on the pathology and bacteriology of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, Dr. Taubenberger and NIAID co-author David Morens, M.D., searched bibliography sources for papers in any language. They also reviewed scientific and medical journals published in English, French and German, and located all papers reporting on autopsies conducted on influenza victims. From a pool of more than 2,000 publications that appeared between 1919 and 1929, the researchers identified 118 key autopsy series reports. In total, the autopsy series they reviewed represented 8,398 individual autopsies conducted in 15 countries.

The published reports “clearly and consistently implicated secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory flora in most influenza fatalities,” says Dr. Morens. Pathologists of the time, he adds, were nearly unanimous in the conviction that deaths were not caused directly by the then-unidentified influenza virus, but rather resulted from severe secondary pneumonia caused by various bacteria. Absent the secondary bacterial infections, many patients might have survived, experts at the time believed. Indeed, the availability of antibiotics during the other influenza pandemics of the 20th century, specifically those of 1957 and 1968, was probably a key factor in the lower number of worldwide deaths during those outbreaks, notes Dr. Morens.

The cause and timing of the next influenza pandemic cannot be predicted with certainty, the authors acknowledge, nor can the virulence of the pandemic influenza virus strain. However, it is possible that — as in 1918 — a similar pattern of viral damage followed by bacterial invasion could unfold, say the authors. Preparations for diagnosing, treating and preventing bacterial pneumonia should be among highest priorities in influenza pandemic planning, they write. “We are encouraged by the fact that pandemic planners are already considering and implementing some of these actions,” says Dr. Fauci.

Visit http://www.PandemicFlu.gov for one-stop access to U.S. Government information on avian and pandemic flu.

NIAID conducts and supports research — at NIH, throughout the United States, and worldwide — to study the causes of infectious and immune-mediated diseases, and to develop better means of preventing, diagnosing and treating these illnesses. News releases, fact sheets and other NIAID-related materials are available on the NIAID Web site at http://www.niaid.nih.gov.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®

Reference

DM Morens et al. Predominant role of bacterial pneumonia as a cause of death in pandemic influenza: Implications for pandemic influenza preparedness. The Journal of Infectious Diseases DOI: 10.1086/591708 (2008).

###

Mask Mandates for Children Mostly Harmful: Professor of Medicine

BY ZACHARY STIEBER AND JAN JEKIELEK April 21, 2021 Updated: April 22, 2021

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, at his home in California on April 17, 2021. (Tal Atzmon/The Epoch Times)

Requiring children wear masks does more harm than good, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya told The Epoch Times.

Bhattacharya advised Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis not to make children don face coverings.

Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University. He’s a health economist by training.

“I think about things from a cost-benefit point of view, you have to think about what the costs and benefits are of any policy to set before you make a recommendation,” Bhattacharya said on The Epoch Times’ “American Thought Leaders.”

“In the case of masks, the evidence that children spread the disease even without a mask is that they’re much less efficient spreaders. It’s not like the the flu where children actually are efficient spreaders of the disease. In the case of coronavirus—for reasons we don’t fully understand—children even unmasked are much less likely to spread the disease to adults, than an adult is to spread disease to an adult,” he added.

Studies have found that young children transmit the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus less than older children and adults. Studies have shown children who do wear masks often undermine their effectiveness by touching them and repeatedly taking them on and off. Several studies determined that factors like irritation, difficulty breathing, and low peer acceptability were reported by children who wore masks.

Because children don’t wear masks properly in many cases, the already-limited benefit is lowered even further, Bhattacharya said. On the other hand, there are serious repercussions to child development when they and others around them are wearing masks.

“Children have developmental needs that require them to see other people’s faces. Learning to speak, for instance, requires seeing lips move. For slightly older children, they need to see people, the body, they learn body language, how to interact socially, by watching people. And when you ask them to wear a mask, you sort of cut that out. So you have harms on one side, and very little benefit on the other,” he added.

Epoch Times Photo
A man adjusts a child’s mask in New York City, N.Y., on April 5, 2020. (Cindy Ordt/Getty Images)

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends no masks be required to be worn by children up to 5 years old and that policymakers weigh different facts when mulling whether to impose mask requirements on children between the ages of 6 and 11, such as the intensity of transmission of the CCP virus, which causes the COVID-19 disease, in the area where the child is and the latest data concerning spread from children.

Children should not wear a mask while doing sports or other physical activities, though they should maintain distancing of at least one meter from others, the international agency says, adding that masks can interfere with the learning process in schools and can have a negative impact on activities like physical education and meal times.

Some U.S. governors have mandated children wear masks. In Michigan, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration last week ordered children as young as 2 to don the coverings.

Bhattacharya also responded to how YouTube recently removed a video of a roundtable held by DeSantis, the Florida governor, that featured him and others talking about COVID-19 policies. YouTube has not responded to requests for comment.

“It’s absolutely shocking,” the professor said, adding that engaging in science means weighing different evidence about various matters.

“I think a healthy discussion, if they, if YouTube thinks that that children should wear masks, make that argument. Show us the evidence, show us your reasoning, and we can have a discussion,” he said about the video, which is still available on other sites.

“So they’re not actually trying to protect the public from an ineffective way, what they’re trying to do is they want to warn the public that this is a dangerous idea. Well, if they’re going to do that, they have a moral obligation to actually make arguments. They just censored it. They want to create this aura of you shouldn’t hear this idea, as if it’s some banned book. Rather than arguing why the banned book is bad, they just say it should be banned. They’re the moral inheritors of book burners.”Follow Zachary on Twitter: @zackstieberFollow Zachary on Parler: @zackstieberFollow Jan on Twitter: @JanJekielek

18 Reasons I Won’t Be Getting a Covid Vaccine

by Christian Elliot from deconstructingconventional.com

SUMMARY:

#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY

#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES

#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES

#4: THE “DATA GAPS” SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS

#5: NO ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA FROM THE TRIALS

#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING

#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT

#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH

#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION

#10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED

#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID

#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS

#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE MODERNA VACCINE

#14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH

#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE

#16: CENSORSHIP…AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

#17: THE WORLD’S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST IS SOUNDING THE ALARM…

#18: I ALREADY HAD COVID

Watch opening scene from Exodus Cry Documentary: Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

We want to empower you to begin to understand the problem of trafficking and exploitation.

An easy first step is to watch the opening scene from our documentary, Nefarious: Merchant of Souls.

At Exodus Cry, we know that stories shape our world.


We use the power of film to awaken a passion for human dignity, a vision for the sanctity of life, and the conviction that no human being should be bought, sold, or sexually exploited.

PS. You can watch the entire documentary for free here.

Grand Finale Peaceful Rally RecallGavin Ventura Feb 20, 2021

19 February 2021

SEE YOU TOMORROW!

Celebration Fest starts at Noon, we will have the event of the winter at Ventura Promenade Park with an A-List of Speakers and Live Music. We are already over the number of signatures needed to put the recall on the ballot in June, but we need thousands more to send a clear message to the Governor from the People that we will not tolerate corruption. Bring your friends. Share our flyer! Let’s celebrate our unity, #WeThePeople!

Exciting update: Tony Roman, owner of Basilico’s Pasta e Vino’ Restaurant and the movement MakeRestaurantsGreatAgain.com has joined our lineup!

Hear from Dr. Judy Mikovitz, Dr. Shannae Anderson, Dr. Simone Gold, Joe Collins, Tony Roman & more.

Transhumanist Tech Tyrants ‘Want to Own Us Biologically’

Steve Bannon’s War Room

Gab CEO: Transhumanist Tech Tyrants ‘Want to Own Us Biologically

February 18, 2021 by Elizabeth

Gab CEO Andrew Torba explains what transhumanism is, and why the nihilists in Big Tech are pursuing it.

“These Silicon Valley elites, these oligarchs, this Party of Davos they believe that they are a superior race to the rest of us,” Torba said. “They unironically believe this.”

“These people believe they are supreme to us plebes,” he said, arguing transhumanists in Silicon Valley want to alter biology to be more dominant.

“The first thing that goes away with transhumanism is equality because with transhumanism is they are modifying and liberating human beings from biology,” Torba said.

“Obviously the reason this is very dangerous is, whoever controls the chips controls the minds of the people with the chips,” Gorba said.

“This is not conspiracy theory,” said Stephen K. Bannon. “This is not wing nut talk.”

Bannon explained the idea of technological singularity has been a pursuit of the global elite and the Chinese Communist Party for decades.

“The concept is there is something beyond man,” said Bannon. “And that ‘beyond man’ is some sort of merger or kit connectivity to artificial intelligence, advanced chip design.”

“This is actually going on and it’s talked about ad nauseam,” he said. “At the highest levels.”

Bannon said the concept is laid out in Yuval Noah Harari’s Homo Deus, which examines “what might happen to the world when old myths are coupled with new godlike technologies.”

Torba said the best way to beat back the tech tyrants is “by engaging with other people and speaking freely.”

“Realize you’re not alone,” he said. “Then you become empowered as individuals and see other people want to start doing something about it.”

Urge Congress to strike down D.C. minor consent law allowing 11 yrs olds to get vaccinated behind their parents’ backs

https://standforhealthfreedom.com/action/strike-down-the-dc-minor-consent-law/

Urgent: Click to ask Congress to support SJRes. 7 and HJRes. 25 to strike down D.C. minor consent law allowing 11 year olds to get vaccinated behind their parents’ backs.

Send a pre-drafted, customizable email and tweet to your U.S. Senators and Representative. D.C. is our nation’s capital; if this dangerous bill is implemented there, we will see more like it threatening kids and families in all states.

Our Stand

  • One of the most egregious minor consent bills to ever surface in this country, B23-0171, became D.C. law on December 23, 2020. The measure, which received widespread opposition from advocates nationwide, makes it possible for 11 year olds to be vaccinated behind their parents’ backs. This dangerously misguided law includes provisions to ensure that parents never find out their child got vaccinated by requiring insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal the vaccination(s) from parents. This effectively prevents parents from ever knowing their child’s complete medical history.
  • Medical and legal experts say the D.C. minor consent law is predatory, racist and destructive to children and families everywhere. That’s why we’re asking for your immediate help to overturn it! (Keep reading; helping is easy.)
  • Before the minor consent law goes into effect, it has to undergo a 30-day congressional review period per the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. The act makes it possible for Congress to overturn the law, although this has only been done successfully a handful of times in history. As such, we are urging all U.S. advocates to support a congressional resolution that’s been filed to strike down the D.C. minor consent law. If we don’t stop this bad law in our nation’s capital, it could easily become law in your state!
  • The D.C. minor consent law is a bad law. In addition to putting children in potential physical danger, it breaks multiple federal laws, instructs healthcare providers to engage in criminal misconduct by falsifying medical records, and targets disadvantaged inner-city minorities by paving the way for them to be “groomed” for medical interventions that their parents (and possibly even their own doctors) will never know about. Most of all, it erodes the parent-child relationship by interfering in a family’s personal matters and encouraging kids to keep secrets from their parents. This, experts say, lays the foundation for a relationship filled with fear, paranoia and mistrust. Allowing minor children to consent to vaccination is dangerous because children don’t have the emotional maturity or intellectual capacity to make important medical decisions. Additionally, by removing parents from their child’s healthcare decisions, it forces young pre-teens and teens to make complex choices without the advice or support of those who know and care for them best — their parents. 
  • The pharmaceutical industry and medical lobbying groups are hard at work redefining the parent-child relationship and influencing lawmakers and public officials to give ultimate healthcare decision-making authority to the state. However, there is no justification for the state to eliminate a parent’s legal and moral right to make an informed decision about vaccination on behalf of their minor child, especially when doctors and other vaccine providers have no liability or accountability for what happens to the child after vaccination.
  • The D.C. minor consent law needs to be overturned immediately! We are asking people from all over the country to take action NOW so that this predatory law in our nation’s capitol is abolished and won’t set precedent for other states to follow! Taking action is easy. Simply click below to send a pre-drafted (and customizable) email and tweet to your federal officials urging them to support the congressional resolution to strike down the D.C. minor consent bill! Remember: No one knows children like their parents do, and coming between families will have devastating, long-lasting effects — both physical and psychological.

Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • While the media claims mask mandates are based on science and will “save lives,” science is actually ignored wholesale and recommendations are primarily pushed based on emotional justifications and triggers
  • Recommendations have fluctuated wildly from initially admonishing people to not wear masks, to mandating universal mask wearing by all, including the healthy, to wearing two, three and even four masks, plus goggles and face shields
  • The logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is being ignored. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent
  • The largest COVID-19-specific mask trial to date found masks may either reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or increase it by 23%. Either way, the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free
  • The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rely on an anecdotal story about two hair stylists who interacted with clients while symptomatic. Because everyone wore masks in the salon, and none tested positive after exposure, they claim this is evidence that the masks prevented the spread of infection. Meanwhile, other CDC data reveal 85% of confirmed COVID-19 patients used masks “often” or “always”

In breathless tones, NBC News recently reported1 the existence of a business where mask wearing isn’t enforced. In the Naples, Florida, grocery store, hardly anyone wears a mask. The store’s owner, who the news station claimed “is known for his conservative and often controversial viewpoints,” told a reporter he’s never worn a mask in his life and never will.

The store does have a mask policy posted, but video shows that many customers are fine with not wearing one. There is a mask mandate in Naples, but Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued a ruling that makes enforcement of the rule difficult, NBC said.

The irony of the whole thing is that while the media claims mask mandates are based on science and will “save lives,” this simply isn’t true. Science is actually being ignored wholesale and recommendations are primarily pushed based on emotional justifications and triggers. If science were actually followed, universal mask wearing by healthy people would not — indeed could not — be recommended.

A Timeline of Unscientific Extremes

From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, health experts have been unable to unify around a cohesive message about face masks. In February 2020, Surgeon General Jerome Adams sent out a tweet urging Americans to stop buying masks, saying they are “NOT effective.”2 (He has since deleted that tweet.) Adams also warned that if worn or handled improperly, face masks can increase your risk of infection.3

Similarly, in March 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated4 that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.” Logically, only symptomatic individuals and health care workers were urged to wear them.

Fauci even pointed out that mask wearing has “unintended consequences” as “people keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face,” which may actually increase the risk of contracting and/or spreading the virus.

By June 2020, universal mask mandates became the norm and we were told we had to wear them because there may be asymptomatic super-spreaders among us. Interestingly enough, that same month, the World Health Organization admitted that asymptomatic transmission was “very rare.” If that’s true, then why should healthy, asymptomatic people mask up?

By July 2020, Fauci claimed his initial dismissal of face masks had been in error and that he’d downplayed their importance simply to ensure there would be a sufficient supply for health care workers, who need them most.5

Fast-forward a few weeks, and by the end of July 2020, Fauci went to the next extreme, flouting the recommendation to wear goggles and full face shields in addition to a mask, ostensibly because the mucous membranes of your eyes could potentially serve as entryways for viruses as well.6

This despite the fact that a March 31, 2020, report7 in JAMA Ophthalmology found SARS-CoV-2-positive conjunctival specimens (i.e., specimens taken from the eye) in just 5.2% of confirmed COVID-19 patients (two out of 28).

What’s more, contamination of the eyes is likely primarily the result of touching your eyes with contaminated fingers. If you wear goggles or a face shield, you may actually be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch.

Toward the end of November 2020, the asymptomatic spread narrative was effectively destroyed by the publication of a Chinese study8 involving nearly 9.9 million individuals. It revealed not a single case of COVID-19 could be traced to an asymptomatic individual who had tested positive.

The logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is NOT being taken into account. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent.

Around December 2020, recommendations for double-masking emerged,9 and this trend gained momentum through extensive media coverage as we moved into the first weeks of 2021.10 Undeterred by scientific evidence and logic alike, by the end of January 2021, “experts” started promoting the use of three11,12 or even four13 masks, whether you’re symptomatic or not.

These recommendations quickly sparked a mild backlash, with other experts encouraging the return to common sense, as wearing three or more masks may impair airflow, which can worsen any number of health conditions.

True to form, while promoting the concept of double-masking as recently as January 29, 2021,14 by February 1, Fauci conceded “There is no data that indicates double-masking is effective,” but that “There are many people who feel … if you really want to have an extra little bit of protection, ‘maybe I should put two masks on.'”15 In other words, the suggestion is based on emotion, not actual science.

The Singular Truth Behind Mixed Messaging About Masks

The logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is NOT being taken into account. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent.

Both of these scientific consensuses negate the rationale for universal mask wearing by healthy (asymptomatic) people. The only time mask wearing makes sense is in a hospital setting and if you are actually symptomatic and need to be around others, and even then, you need to be aware that it provides only limited protection.

The reason for this is because the virus is aerosolized and spreads through the air. Aerosolized viruses — especially SARS-CoV-2, which is about half the size of influenza viruses — cannot be blocked by a mask, as explained in my interview with Denis Rancourt, who has conducted a thorough review of the published science on masks and viral transmission.

According to Rancourt, “NONE of these well-designed studies that are intended to remove observational bias found a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask.”

COVID-19 Specific Mask Trial Failed to Prove Benefit

While most mask studies have looked at influenza, the first COVID-19-specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial, published November 18, 2020, confirmed previous findings, showing that:16,17

a.Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may actually increase your risk by 23%

b.The vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free

The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations.

Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.

Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls. So, essentially, we’re destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed in “Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,” means little to nothing.

CDC Relies on Anecdotal Data to Promote Mask Use

If you want additional proof that health authorities are not concerned with following the best available science, look no further than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.18 What do they rely on as the primary piece of “evidence” to back up its mask recommendation?

A wholly anecdotal story about two symptomatic hair stylists who interacted with 139 clients during eight days is all they offer. Sixty-seven of the clients agreed to be interviewed and tested. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

The fact that the stylists and all clients “universally wore masks in the salon” is therefore seen as evidence that the masks prevented the spread of infection. The Danish study reviewed above didn’t even make it onto the CDC’s list of studies.

The CDC’s own data19,20,21 also show 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask “often.” So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had “often” or “always” worn a mask.

This too contradicts the idea that mask wearing will protect against the infection, and is probably a slightly more reliable indicator of effectiveness than the anecdotal hairdresser story.

Another recent investigation22 revealed the same trend, showing that states with mask mandates had an average of 27 positive SARS-CoV-2 “cases” per 100,000 people, whereas states with no mask mandates had just 17 cases per 100,000. I reviewed these and other findings in my December 31, 2020, article, “Mask Mandates Are Absolutely Useless.”

Masks Don’t Protect Against Smoke

The CDC also contradicts its own conclusions that masks protect against viral spread by specifying that wearing a cloth face mask will NOT protect you against wildfire smoke, because “they do not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health.”23 To get any protection from harmful smoke particles, you’d have to use an N95 respirator.

The particulate matter in wildfire smoke can range from 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller in smoke and haze, to 10 micrometers in wind-blown dust.24 SARS-CoV-2, meanwhile, has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.14 micrometers, far tinier than the particulate found in smoke.

SARS-CoV-2 is also about half the size of most viruses, which tend to measure between 0.02 microns to 0.3 microns.25 Meanwhile, virus-laden saliva or respiratory droplets expelled when talking or coughing measure between 5 and 10 micrometers.26

N95 masks can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns,27 so they may prevent a majority of respiratory droplets from escaping, but not aerosolized viruses. Influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2 are small enough to float in the air column, so as long as you can still breathe, they can flow in and out of your respiratory tract.

More Science

If you’re still on the fence about whether masks are a necessity that must be forced on everyone, including young children, I urge you to take the time to actually read through some of the studies that have been published. In addition to the research reviewed above, here’s a sampling of what else you’ll find when you start searching for data on face masks as a strategy to prevent viral infection:

Surgical masks and N95 masks perform about the same — A 2009 study28 published in JAMA compared the effectiveness of surgical masks and N95 respirators to prevent seasonal influenza in a hospital setting; 24% of the nurses in the surgical mask group still got the flu, as did 23% of those who wore N95 respirators.
Cloth masks perform far worse than medical masks — A study29 published in 2015 found health care workers who wore cloth masks had the highest rates of influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections, when compared to those wearing medical masks or controls (who used standard practices that included occasional medical mask wearing).Compared to controls and the medical mask group, those wearing cloth masks had a 72% higher rate of lab-confirmed viral infections. According to the authors:Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks … Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”
“No evidence” masks prevent transmission of flu in hospital setting — In September 2018, the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) won its second of two grievances filed against the Toronto Academic Health Science Network’s (TAHSN) “vaccinate or mask” policy. As reported by the ONA:30“After reviewing extensive expert evidence submitted … Arbitrator William Kaplan, in his September 6 decision,31 found that St. Michael’s VOM policy is ‘illogical and makes no sense’ …In 2015, Arbitrator James Hayes struck down the same type of policy in an arbitration that included other Ontario hospitals across the province … Hayes found there was ‘scant evidence’ that forcing nurses to use masks reduced the transmission of influenza to patients …ONA’s well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was … no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals.They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask.”
No significant reduction in flu transmission when used in community setting — A policy review paper32 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020, which reviewed “the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures … in non-healthcare settings” concluded, based on 10 randomized controlled trials, that there was “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks …”
Risk reduction may be due to chance — In 2019, a review of interventions for flu epidemics published by the World Health Organization concluded the evidence for face masks was slim, and may be due to chance:33“Ten relevant RCTs were identified for this review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of community-based use of face masks …In the pooled analysis, although the point estimates suggested a relative risk reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza of 22% in the face mask group, and a reduction of 8% in the face mask group regardless of whether or not hand hygiene was also enhanced, the evidence was insufficient to exclude chance as an explanation for the reduced risk of transmission.”
“No evidence” that universal masking prevents COVID-19 — A 2020 guidance memo by the World Health Organization pointed out that:34“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 …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.”
Mask or no mask, same difference — A meta-analysis and scientific review35 led by respected researcher Thomas Jefferson, cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration, posted on the prepublication server medRxiv in April 2020, found that, compared to no mask, mask wearing in the general population or among health care workers did not reduce influenza-like illness cases or influenza.In one study, which looked at quarantined workers, it actually increased the risk of contracting influenza, but lowered the risk of influenza-like illness. They also found there was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators.

Statistics Show Mask Use Has No Impact on Infection Rates

Another way to shed light on whether masks work or not is to compare infection rates (read: positive test rates) before and after the implementation of universal mask mandates. In his article,36 “These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID,” bioengineer Yinon Weiss does just that.

He points out that “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.” To see all of the graphs, check out Weiss’ article37 or Twitter thread.38 Here are just a select few to bring home the point:

austria covid-19
germany covid-19
belgium covid-19
italy covid-19
european covid-19

To Pose a Risk, You Need To Be Symptomatic

Studies have repeatedly shown that masks do not significantly reduce transmission of viruses, so it’s safe to assume that a mask will in fact fail in this regard. That leaves two key factors: There must be a contagious person around, and they must be sufficiently close for transmission to occur.

We now know that asymptomatic individuals — even if they test positive using a PCR test — are highly unlikely to be contagious.39 So, really, a key prevention strategy for COVID-19 seems to be to stay home if you have symptoms. As for masking up when you’re healthy, let alone double, triple or quadruple masking, there’s simply no scientific consensus for that strategy.

The Truth About COVID-19

In my newest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” I investigate the origins of this virus and how the elite use it to slowly erode your personal liberty and freedom. I’ll also show how you can protect yourself against this disease and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic overlords.

The Truth About COVID-19

Preorder Now

COVID-19 is just the beginning, but there is still hope. I urge you to take a stand now for future generations.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked

Health Freedom Summit Feb 15-17

30+ of the nation’s true health experts, front-line journalists, and legislators sharing practical strategies to strengthen our health, freedom, and sovereignty. 

By Attending The Health Freedom Summit You Will:

  • Develop a true understanding of the plandemic as renowned doctors and scientists make connections and reveal agendas you won’t hear on the news.
  • Gain activist training to successfully influence your local and online community and defy censorship.  
  • Learn to legally protect yourself from forced vaccinations, mask mandates, and other forms of medical tyranny.
  • Get uncensored updates from names you trust while discovering new and important front-line voices.
  • Enjoy comic relief by America’s favorite red head, JP Sears—because laughter really might be the best medicine.

Absolute Proof

Exposing Election Fraud and the Theft of America by Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Watch the evidence presented here and decide for yourself what you think happened

Public Health Officials Are Destroying Humanity

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • During 2020, Sweden, under the guidance of chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, did not universally lock down, shutter small businesses, close schools or implement mask mandates
  • Seniors and other high-risk individuals were asked to stay home, social distance and mask up, while all others were free to live much as they normally would
  • According to the Imperial College of London model, Sweden would have been looking at a death toll of 80,000 by the end of June 2020 if it didn’t lock down. The true number, by mid-September 2020, after no lockdowns at all, still stood at only 5,880, a vast majority of whom were elderly with comorbidities
  • Swedish data show teachers are among the professions that have the lowest risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19
  • Pandemic lethality has been oversold across the globe, as total mortality for 2020 has not spiked above norms
Continue reading “Public Health Officials Are Destroying Humanity”

Got Faith? Well, You’ll Need More Than That

Alternate text

The Story of a Vietnam War Veteran: The Stockdale Paradox

Alternate text

September 9, 1965, was a life-changing day for James Stockdale. It was the day that his Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was shot out of the sky, forcing him to eject to save his own life. 


The North Vietnamese captured the American admiral that day.  But little did they know then that they would take in a very, very troublesome prisoner. 

They detained Stockdale at the Hỏa Lò Prison, the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” He soon established communications among the American prisoners of war, and a code of rules to organize the prisoners and boost their morale. 

Continue reading “Got Faith? Well, You’ll Need More Than That”

Every Action, Big Or Small, Makes History

Alternate text

Censorship

Dwight D. Eisenhower was an avid reader of history. 

In his memoir, At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends, the former president tells about his childhood days lost in books about Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Persia. He loved the stories about famous warriors, kings, and philosophers—the “peaks and promontories,” as he calls it, of history. 

But writing his memoir in the 1960s, as an older and wiser man, his view of history has changed. He’s come to realize that history isn’t just about the celebrities of each era, but about the actions of millions and millions of everyday people. It’s their actions and decisions that have sustained the forward movement of history throughout the ages. 

Continue reading “Every Action, Big Or Small, Makes History”