With masks, the science isn't settled.

We are told to wear a mask everywhere we turn.

Billboards along the highway. Press conferences. Celebrities. Medical professionals. Letters to the editor. Social media. Young and impressionable children who come home from school filled with videos and content from Scholastic and Google and other sources who have pounded "masks are a must!" into their head.

There's no getting away from it, and we're told that if we don't wear masks, we're selfish, not doing our part, uncaring, part of the problem, responsible for killing people, and ignorant. Some of us are denied entrance to stores, or are the recipients of glares or confrontational remarks from people who, at the beginning of the year, had been fellow friendly community members.  If you don't wear a mask, our state government and leaders have given others permission to view you as something very negative.

We stopped blaming the virus for the outbreak, and turned towards blaming people. 

"Trust the experts!" (Except the experts who don't agree to wearing masks.)

"The science is settled!" (Except it really, really isn't.)

We're saturated in taxpayer-funded propaganda, social media "fact checking" restriction of information, and a daily death count, all so we stay in a perpetual state of fear.

Your mask won't save you, and it won't save your neighbor.

Since March I have been researching, reading, and writing on my website about what's going on in this pandemic. In that time, I have lost significant trust and admiration for segments of leadership and expertise in this country who have led the citizens of our nation and state into a place of fear, distrust, division, and anger. The virus itself remains untouched, but the citizenry are horribly ill with these other things. The unknown of March and April was one thing, but we are now in October and the fiddler is still playing while the nation burns, despite the acquisition of plenty of data and discovery that could put the fire out.

Instead of talking about real health and educating us on viruses and bacteria in a useful way, the health experts allowed a platform have only talked about isolation, avoidance, disinfectants, injections, and barriers such as masks and plexiglass. We've done everything to strip humanity and joy from lives in the name of "health," ignoring the very real role emotional health plays into physical health. We have people washing everything they bring home from the store. We have people who won't touch their mail for three days. We have grandparents who haven't seen their grandkids for seven months. We have people in nursing homes dying from loneliness and people of all ages committing suicide because they gave up hope. We have people flocking to drugs and alcohol to cope. Even as the CDC changes its stance on everything from transmission to surface infection probability, the people have already been programmed to think in a state of fear and pay no notice.

Into that brew of fear and paranoia, the push for masks steps in.

Masks will save you, protect you, free you, and show the world you care. Masks can alleviate your fears. Masks can make it so you can go to the grocery store without terror. Masks can get your kids back in school. Masks will keep you from getting sick. Masks are what good people wear.

That's what we're told.

What a cruel thing to do to people confused and terrified. This emotional coercion should be criminal.

Masks, lockdowns, and the like are the equivalent of busywork at school. They're an attempt for someone to say "at least we're trying to do something!" They are safety theater, and worse, they can have their own real and serious side effects.

Masks aren't proven to work as we're being led to believe, even in healthcare settings. They can cause skin and respiratory infections (ironically). They can become their own disease carrier. For some, they cause claustrophobia and breathing problems. They dehumanize individuals and have a subtle effect on how we behave and connect with each other. They are uncomfortable.

And they do not work.

This isn't saying there is no virus. This isn't saying whether or not you'll get the virus and how your body will respond. Respiratory viruses have always been with us and had this strange way of seeming to never touch some people while causing the death in others.

This is a question of what is going on this year, and the destructive side effects of the policies, mandates, and media coverage for a virus that has about a 99 percent chance of survival. This is about people living in terror, being slammed in their worst moments of confusion and fear and weariness with "your mask will save you."

Is the general public wearing masks in a way that is useful and can even be compared to a medical setting? No.

Are masks proven to always and completely stop viruses even in a medical setting? No.

Do masks reduce your oxygen intake? Yes.

Are there growing reports from people (including medical professionals) in which masks have caused staph infections and impetigo on the faces of those wearing them all day, as well as infections in their respiratory tracts from breathing in what's on a dirty mask? Yes.

Are masks unquestionably proven to stop SARS-COV2 (COVID-19)? No.

Is the science settled and all questions answered, with all medical experts in agreement? Absolutely not.

Masks are a grasping at straws by people made terrified by the media. We think a piece of cloth over our breathing apparatus will save us. We know covering the exhaust on our car is bad for the passengers inside, but we don't think about covering our own exhaust and what it does for us internally. "Surely that's acceptable risk if it'll keep me from getting a virus!" you might think. 

Yet a CDC report found that about 70 percent of people who got COVID-19 were mask wearers. A recent comparison of case rates in places where strict and enforced mask mandates were put in place found zero correlation to affecting what happened with the curve. With or without masks, the virus did what it would do.

Luckily, Wisconsin's July mask mandate is having huge effect.

Below are some links related to masks, reduced oxygen concerns, bacterial contamination of masks, and so forth. They provide information, using scientific studies (some similar but from different sources), experts, and articles, to back up what I've said here. You can see from the sheer number of them that there are legitimate questions surrounding masks, and it's not a made-up political ploy to suggest they don't really work and ought not be mandated in any situation.

The next time someone says there's no real proof that masks should be questioned, that reduced oxygen intake is no big deal, that the bacterial concerns from constant mask wearing aren't legitimate, that the science is settled, and that no experts have questioned the validity of masks, realize those are false statements.




Summary Statements (from here, because it was a good summation):

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) "Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial," American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 - 419. -- N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) "Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review," Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. DOI:10.1017/S0950268809991658 --  None of the studies reviewed showed the benefit of wearing a mask in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012), "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence," Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. -- "There were 17 eligible studies. [...] None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection."

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835 -- "We identified 6 clinical studies ... In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in the associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism."

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) "Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681

No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW 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. Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit. Masks and respirators do not work. Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:
  • Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?
  • Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
  • Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerosolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
  • What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
  • How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?
  • What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?
  • Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?
  • Are there negative psychological consequences of wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification?
  • What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?
  • Do the masks shed fibers or substances that are harmful when inhaled?
Surgical mask stop microns 1.25 micron in size. The size of the virus based on electron micrographs show that the virus varies from 60 to 140 nanometers in diameter (.06 to .14 microns). N95 filters provide filtration down to .3 microns. On this basis alone, they should not be relied on for protection from small virus particles such as those of SARS-CoV-2. This means.....the holes in your mask are larger than the virus and the virus can pass through.


UPDATE Oct 15, 2020: The ND Dept. of Health is all aboard with the CDC...except when they're not. They also did this with the recommendation to stop excessive testing. The CDC literally says what our NDDOH now says it doesn't.  

Remember the video I shared in which Fauci was clear: asymptomatic spread is not a concern.

To try to fudge this and say "we never said it would protect you, but it would protect others in case you were asymptomatic" is garbage. People think the maks protects them, and there's no discussion about if asymptomatic spread is real, what to do about aerosols and eyes/ears -- it's a farce. 


UPDATE October 18, 2020: Alex Berenson, an investigative journalist, has been providing great data and a counter-balance to all of the craziness this year. You can find him over on Twitter, but check this out:

Here's some more on that Danish study on masks. You can read a translation of the original Danish article here.

"The researchers behind a large and unique Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask even have great difficulty in getting their research results published," wrote the Berlingske in the subtitle.

“One of the participating professors in the study admits that the still secret research result can be perceived as ‘controversial’.”

The article reveals that, thus far, the study has been rejected by the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the American Medical Association’s journal JAMA, three of the publications that have been posting much of the research on coronavirus.

The CDC, prior to changing its position on universal mask-wearing, had previously cited 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”

Now, the CDC and other elite institutions would have us believe that coronavirus is somehow different."

UPDATE Nov 27, 2020: Not quite two weeks ago the state put in a mask mandate. Two things of interest. First, this:

Within a few days our stats started looking "better" and Burgum was hinting in press conferences the mandate was working.

However, someone noticed that the daily numbers we see from the ND DOH quietly get adjusted after the fact on the DOH website, often for the better. 

To give our leaders the benefit of the doubt, we would assume that they realize some information/data was incorrect, but they don't blast those corrections out. The negative/bad numbers still stand as the official counts. So the scare still stands while case counts are quietly adjusted downwards.

That leads us to this interesting graph:

There seems to be some hinting already from our leaders that the mask mandate "worked." However, keep in mind the two week issue: if there's a spike or drop right after an action, it can't be attributed to the action since there is about a two week lag time for the virus to show up. 

Also worth noting and remembering, as state leaders start bragging how masks worked is to remember that South Dakota has no state mask mandate. The Dakotas are clearly on a similar trajectory (which makes sense). If our leaders can claim the masks worked, can SD leaders claim letting people decide for themselves also worked? It's the same trajectory for the most part.

The end game is to get you vaccinated with a barely tested new mRNA vaccine that no one knows what kind of long-term side effects there will be since they churned it out in under a year and mRNA vaccines are entirely new unknowns. What they do with masks is a dry run to get people to take the vaccine (two jabs, the first will give you similar symptoms to Covid). If you fell for the masks, you'll fall for what's coming next.


Post a Comment

Comments are heavily moderated for language, topical relevancy, and mindless trolling. If you're anonymous, there's a good chance your comment won't be published no matter what it is. Follow the blog commenting rules found here.