ER Editor: Of course, these claims cannot be verified given the anonymous nature of the source. Yet, it all has a ring of truth. Trump’s revealed he’s using hydroxychloroquine prophylactically (kudos – was he dropping us a hint?), so why would doctors, such as those hired for an American president no less, not be giving the same advice to other notables? Anything else makes little sense.
Note how this person calls COVID-19 a ‘bioweapon’ in ‘unrelenting launches of the COVID-19 bioweapon’ and ‘coronavirus cluster explosions will be detonated’. We only hope that herd immunity may short-circuit his/her predictions. The hypothesis that ‘Covid-19’ is in fact a bioweapon is something we’ve published on at length.
Anonymous D.C. Insider Exposes Ultra-Secret Covid Conspiracy Inside the Beltway
STATE OF THE NATION
Submitted by an Anonymous D.C. Insider
Big Pharma and the WHO have known all along about the HCQ cure for COVID-19.
Everyone at the CDC, NIH and FDA knows that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is the silver bullet for the coronavirus.
They also know that, when combined with azithromycin and zinc, the 3-in-1 protocol provides the magic formula for almost anyone with coronavirus disease.
However, what Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx and Robert Redfield are not telling anyone is that practically every VIP in Washington, D.C. is using HCQ prophylactically.
Everyone knows that Trump has been using it as a preventative as he publicly stated so on multiple occasions. But no one has revealed that virtually everyone inside the Beltway is also using it. That’s why they were all shown so often in groups with no masks and not adhering to the recommended social distancing guidelines during the regular coronavirus briefings. And, they did many of those dog and pony shows right in the middle of the Covid spikes during the first wave.
The real scandal here is that leading politicians, government officials, corporate CEOs and UN administrators all know about the efficacy of HCQ, and yet they have collaborated to deprive the American people of its use. All the while they, themselves, are secretly taking HCQ prophylactically.
When so many countries around the globe have used Hydroxychloroquine with great success, why is the U.S. fiercely resisting it?
Because the world’s most zealous vaccine salesman — Bill Gates — is determined to bring a COVID-19 vaccine to market. Word on the street (K Street) is that Gates is also taking HCQ as a preventive.In fact, he has taken HCQ as a precautionary measure to avoid malaria for many years during his travels to the Third World nations that were subjected to his endless vaccine pitches and vaccination programs.
If Americans knew that India was successfully using HCQ nationwide, how would they react? New Delhi has even made the decision to make HCQ available as a prophylactic, so inexpensive is it.
“India is estimated to produce 70% of the world’s hydroxychloroquine, with Ipca Labs and Zydus Cadila the two largest producers of the drug in the country.
Key government officials, medical authorities and elected representatives throughout the USA are aware of every single fact stated in this exposé. Nevertheless, they are pushing untested remedies and dangerous protocols that have actually killed many COVID-19 patients in all 50 states.
This situation is completely unacceptable. Especially when the leaders of the national coronavirus response are taking HCQ and other effective prophylactics to keep the coronavirus at bay. The same goes for many in the mainstream media; they will never tell anyone either that they’re taking HCQ. Nor will the Sultans of Silicon Valley or Wall Street banksters or Corporate America moguls ever let on to this “ultra-secret conspiracy”. Which is why the Hamptons Concert With Goldman CEO, ‘Chainsmokers’ Faces N.Y. Probe. Goldman Sachs Chairman of the Board David Solomon obviously felt immune to catching Covid even at a concert where he was the star of the show.
But what’s the real scandal here?
The HCQ-Azithromycin-Zinc protocol is being deliberately withheld from the American people so that a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine can be foisted on the country.
And, the proof of such a criminal conspiratorial plot: there will be never-ending seasonal Covid spikes, with each wave being bigger and more intense than the previous one. When those start to ebb, coronavirus cluster explosions will be detonated in the major metro areas, particularly the sanctuary cities.
Then, when the blue states have had enough, the Democrat governors will collude with their Democrat legislatures to mandate an annual Covid vaccination (just like California recently passed draconian legislation requiring yearly compliance with childhood vaccination schedules). The unrelenting launches of the COVID-19 bioweapon in conservative territory will eventually compel the Republican governors to do the same in the red states.
— An Anonymous D.C. Insider
SOTN Editor’s Note: The end result of this phase of OPERATION COVID-19 is the undeclared state of medical martial law. Next will begin the initial stages of the Orwellian takeover scheme COVID-1984, which has been greatly advanced via the staged race riots and growing buzz about an impending race war. However, only if the American people allow them to will these treasonous plans gain any meaningful traction.
The Nordic nations are continuing to hold out against face masks even as most of the world either orders or recommends their use.
Masks are a rare sight in supermarkets, on buses and along the streets in Stockholm, Copenhagen, Oslo, Helsinki and Reykjavik, and most who do wear them are tourists.
According to a recent survey by YouGov, only five to 10 per cent of respondents in the Nordic countries said they used a mask in public settings, a figure that has remained stable since the start of the crisis in March.
At the same time, the corresponding figures have risen to between 70 and 80 per cent for most of the other 20 countries polled, including India and the United States.
This graph from YouGov shows the percentage of people in each country who say they are wearing a face mask in public places. The countries along the bottom are all Scandinavian nations, while the graph also shows how mask usage has dramatically increased in the UK
People walk along a street in Stockholm on Monday with nobody wearing masks, as continues to be normal in the Scandinavian nations
Asked on Tuesday what might change his mind on recommending the use of face masks, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said he was still waiting for ‘some form of proof that they are effective’.
‘I have the impression that if the government doesn’t say clearly ‘we advise you to wear a mask’, nobody will,’ 21-year-old French student Camille Fornaroli said, adding she was shocked to see how rare masks were in Stockholm.
Birgitta Wedel, a 63-year-old pensioner, said she would have preferred if Sweden’s authorities recommended masks, at least on public transport.
But she added that she would keep going without one unless there was a shift in official policy.
‘If they don’t… I will not wear it because nobody else does,’ Wedel said.
Marten Sporrong, a 50-year-old businessman, also said he would follow government recommendations: ‘If they tell us we don’t need masks, we won’t wear them’.
Sweden has received global attention for its softer approach to curbing the spread of the virus which, coupled with a relatively higher death toll, has led to the region’s largest country being shunned by its neighbours.
But when it comes to masks, the Nordic nations look staunchly united.
‘Except for Sweden, there are very few cases in those countries,’ said KK Cheng, an epidemiologist at the University of Birmingham.
‘So I don’t blame them for not doing it, as long as they have reasonable social distancing and contact tracing is done properly,’ Cheng added.
SWEDEN: 80,100 cases, 5,739 deaths
DENMARK: 13,725 cases, 614 deaths
FINLAND: 7,423 cases, 329 deaths
NORWAY: 9,172 cases, 255 deaths
ICELAND: 1,872 cases, 10 deaths
Cheng rejected also rejected Tegnell’s dismissal of face masks, saying: ‘I think it’s wrong, it’s irresponsible and it’s stubborn. If he’s wrong, it costs life. If I’m wrong, what harm does it do?’
Britain is among the countries which has changed its stance on masks, having initially played down their effectiveness before making them compulsory in shops and on public transport.
After the World Health Organization (WHO) changed its guidance, Danish health officials began cautiously recommending using masks in early July – such as when going to the hospital for a test or when you are coming back from a risk area.
‘Face covers don’t make sense in the current situation, where we have a consistently very low level of infection,’ Soren Brostrom, director of the Danish Health Authority, told broadcaster DR on Tuesday.
‘But could it make sense in the long-term, when we bump into each other on public transport and other situations? That is of course something that we will evaluate,’ Brostrom added.
Similarly, in Norway and Finland, although there is ‘no opposition in principle,’ masks are deemed an unnecessary precaution while the spread is low.
‘It may be something that will have to be considered in the near future if the contamination increases,’ Are Stuwitz Berg, a doctor with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, told AFP.
Mika Salminen, director of Health Security at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, told broadcaster YLE the issue would likely resurface ‘when people begin to return from holidays to a greater extent, and of course if the epidemic situation changes radically.’
Two Chinese students collapsed and died within a week of one another while wearing face masks during gym class. While there was no autopsy, one of the boy’s father said he believes the mask his son was required to wear played a role in his death. Though it’s not known whether the masks were responsible, several schools in Tianjin and Shanghai have canceled physical education exams. -GEG
Two Chinese boys dropped dead within a week of one another while wearing face masks during gym class, according to a report.
The students, who were both 14, were each running laps for a physical examination test when they suddenly collapsed on the track, Australian outlet 7News reported.
One of the teens was only minutes into his gym class when he fell backward April 24 at Dancheng Caiyuan Middle School in Henan province, according to the outlet.
“He was wearing a mask while lapping the running track, then he suddenly fell backwards and hit his head on the ground,” his father, who was only identified as Li, told the outlet.
His dad said teachers and students tried to help him, to no avail.
The death certificate listed the cause as sudden cardiac arrest, but no autopsy was performed, the outlet said.
The boy’s father said he believes that the mask his son was required to wear to school played a role in his death.
“I suspect it was because he was wearing a mask,” he said, adding that “it couldn’t have been comfortable wearing a mask while running.”
I walked into my recently resumed Sunday morning dance class to hear one of the teachers, struggling to proclaim through her mask, “Freedom is the opportunity to do what’s right…so let’s do what’s right ladies, and do our part to end this pandemic.”
The phrase“what’s right” echoed in my mind like a haunting.
What if her“right” is different than mine? What if doing her“right” harms me? Does that still make it right? What is“right” anyway? Does it mean kind, good, just, accepted, evidence-based, popular?
In the absence of clear answers to these internal questions, her enthusiastic rallying-cry struck me as the propagation of Stockholm Syndrome, or identification with and defending the parentified aggressor. …
I imagine that this woman is so sensitive to human suffering that she feels lionized to end it in the way that is most available to her and to encourage others to do the same. But is it her responsibility to champion the reduction in human suffering according to her adopted narrative? Or is her only responsibility to take care of herself in the way that makes sense to her? …
Those who design public media and marketing efforts, i.e. expert propagandists like Edward Bernays, know human sensitivities and the concept of social responsibility well. They know that we long to be seen as“good people” in the eyes of authority and also as a competitive advantage over our wrong-doing, pain-causing, problem-making peers.
To be right, to be good, to be loved
For generations, children the world over have been raised in authoritarian households, defined by hierarchical power dynamics, punished for deviant individual expression, and rewarded for sheepish compliance, ultimately disconnected from their own drives, interests, and intuition. As I wrote in my book, Own Your Self:
“At best, we were parented by“fair-weather parents” who were nice and kind or cold and sharp, depending on how our behavior suited them in the moment. At worst, we were abused, manipulated, or abandoned, left to feel like we were worthless or were some sort of an asset to be used. And this was how we learned what love is. … Remember that we are several hundred years into a medical paradigm that is basically an arena for warfare on the body(antibiotics, antidepressants, anti-hypertensives). We don’t care about the why; we just want the symptom to go away….
And this is how we learned to experience obedience and rule–following as a virtue. In our survival-based programming, we abandon ourselves, our needs, and even the investigation of our beliefs in a flight toward“doing the right thing.” …
…That’s also why those who are shaming maskless civilians don’t exactly appear to be concerned for the well-being of those they are shaming, nor even concerned for their own health necessarily, but rather, are pouring from quite empty cups to garner a little hit of power.
Anatomy of a psyop
So if we, for the most part, share the same vulnerability — fear of authority, from which we also seek protection — what happens when, without any socioculturally ritualized passage into adulthood, we transfer that locus of authority from our parents to the government when we come of age?
Government, a word that etymologically means“to control.”
Control comes in many forms, and specifically, the tactic with the highest yield for domination is trauma-based mind control. The instrument of mainstream media, over which there are 6 ruling corporations, exists for the sole purpose of tell-a-vision programming of your conscious and subconscious mind toward behavioral compliance with government agendas. When all mainstream channels are telling you to look over here, you better believe it’s because they don’t want you to look over there, and because the headline-making event will likely set the conditions for the problem→reaction→solution of increased control and capture. This is why, the most important question to ask is, what is their ultimate plan, and how does granting or restricting a particular freedom serve that plan?
Rosie Koire has been a whistleblower for the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals known as Agenda 21, a long-standing globalist effort toward one-world dominance that involves divesting the average citizen of his/her rights to individuality, bodily sovereignty, free commerce, and property ownership under the pretense of the greater good, preserving nature, and fair trade. …
And, because the vast majority of us are still operating with our power center externalized from our being — traumatized and imprinted — and terrified of death, we are easily controlled. …
Psychological operations(or“psyops”),which includethe selective presentation of emotionally-provocative information for behavioral manipulation, have been employed by governments for decades to retain and advance population-based control and financial servitude. Project Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip, and MK-Ultra are but a few of the publicly acknowledged secret programs that included human experimentation that utilize brainwashing techniques to deceive, program, and manipulate behavior. Often, these operations seed our consciousness with divisiveness while overtly appearing to support societal victims. …
For example, I bet you thought that the hard-won woman’s right to vote was a correcting of decades of systemic misogyny. I certainly did. When freedoms are selectively doled out, they are only offered because they serve a greater intention, as Aaron Russo details here, stating that women in the workforce allowed for taxation of the other half of the population and commandeering of the child for early-access conditioning.
You might also be shocked to learn that“manufactured events” or false flags involve crisis actors, fake footage, CGI, and the disseminated media talking points with associated censorship of any dissenting perspectives on these theatrical events passed off as news. Censorship can come from Gates- and Soros-funded fact checkers, but it can also come from your neighbor or a holier-than-thou FB commentor. It is the deputization of the average civilian that is necessary for suppression of those who might question the narrative, and this is how and why mind control is effective. We electively participate, police ourselves, and others in a dynamic evocative of sibling rivalry where one toddler kicks the other while tattling to mommy about how she’s not following the rules.
The story behind the story
Never before in human history have the well been quarantined and everyone in the population of the world recommended to be masked. Never.
What is going on here? …
This confusion, obfuscation, and inconsistency is part of the psychological operation. …
If we are going to enact large-scale medical interventions for the“greater good,” I, for one, would like to see some quality science to support this novel approach to“wellness” and“health.”
So let’s take a look…
But first, a disclaimer, I don’t believe in germ theory because I know that, never in the history of mankind, has a virus been properly identified, purified, or demonstrated to cause an illness, according to conventional medicine’s own postulates.
The history of so many“theories” originates with a fraudulent agent(Pasteur) offered the spotlight by(secret society) elite who wish to leverage certain“scientific” information in order to maintain population-based control, submission, compliance, and dependency on the pharmaceutical industry. What works better than to convince people to be scared, not only of their own bodies and other people’s bodies, but also of invisible demons that can attack you randomly. And there is nothing you can do except hide, and in a worst case scenario, present to the temple of the hospital for salvation. Oh, and you can also repeatedly inject yourself with unstudied chemicals and fetal and animal tissues for“protection.”
The body is far more sophisticated than that, and there is far more innate purpose and psychoemotional meaning in our symptoms than the system would have you believe. In fact, Antoine Béchamp, Pasteur’s contemporary, and one of the original contributors to terrain theory(or lifestyle medicine), presented his findings in pleomorphism demonstrating that intracellular entities(microzymes) transform into and mobilize as tissue-specific bacteria when the body needs help clearing damaged tissue. And what we call viruses may be no more than bodily exosomes(also known as“viral like particles” because they are literally indistinguishable from what conventional medicine calls viruses), designed for detox-based,inter-individual and cross-kingdom communication of nucleic-based information. What we are calling“microbes” are the result and even the support of resolution of disease, not the cause.
there is no new disease in the world, only patented fragments
all available tests for covid-19 are unreliable and scientifically invalidated
associated statistics on incidence and mortality are fraudulent
But, even if we return to the chess board to play the germ theory game, the science of facial covering and even surgical masks(that were never designed for viral-sized fragments but rather for the much larger mycobacterium tuberculosis), speaks for itself. As excerpted from Stand For Health Freedom:
Mandatory Masks Can Cause Considerable Harm and Are Not Proven Effective
(See Link for excerpt)
And to sample from the extensively referenced writing of Dr. Rancourt:
No RCT[randomized controlled trial] study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW[health care workers] or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.
Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public…
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.
So, if, according to establishment organizations, and published science itself, this is not an effective, necessary, or even safe intervention, then why is this happening? It’s happening because we are letting it happen. …
We have been taken hostage and our civil liberties stripped by the globalist agenda of an uncredentialled technocrat who comes from eugenicist stock and has no medical or scientific expertise, dictating international“health” policy while he invests in GMOs, 5G networks, and is the top peddler of vaccines the world over. Houston, we have a problem. Can you see how the dots connect and that this may never have actually been about a virus?
To those people, masks are a part of a ritual, and that ritual serves further control and ultimately biopolitical capture of the human body through:
dehumanization: a mask covers essential facial features, limits freedom of speech, and evokes illness and danger imprints
perpetuation of fear and vigilance: masks remind us that we are still in the“time of the virus” and that we must remain afraid, even as we engage in normative behaviors
submission signaling: obedience is now demonstrated visibly, so that those who are non-compliant are exposed
recruitment of the healthy: while the medical industry has captured most of the world population through toxicant-induced disease, the healthy can be entrapped when they too are recruited for the greater good
It’s time to Own Your Self
The first step to reclaiming your power from a system that does not reflect your values or serve your interests is to take responsibility for your health. With whistleblowers, dissenting physicians, and citizen activists speaking out, it’s clear that there is not a consensus around this unprecedented medical intervention. And wherever there is polarization, there must be choice. There is no place for mandated medicine in a free country. …
It shouldn’t be hard to imagine that, even if you agree with mandated masks as a condition for participation in society, there may come a time when you don’t agree with a bodily mandate. When a certain“safety measure” strikes you as inappropriately invasive. And then what? The precedent for commandeering of choice may already be in place.
While many businesses have signage stating masks are required to adhere to mandates, consumers do have the choice to wear or not wear a mask in the majority of locations. Most county ordinance afford exemptions from mask wearing without required documentation(in accordance with HIPAA/ADA).
The following script may be used to help empower consumers to exercise the choice that is in their health’s best interest.
As you enter a store to respectfully shop and / or seek services, in many cases, employees will not inquire or mention the mask requirement. In the case that you are told masks are mandatory or asked to put one on, here is an example script:
Business: Masks are mandated in our store. Do you have one you can put on?
Individual: I am health exempt from wearing a mask.(Or: I have a medical exemption).
After stating an exemption, in the majority of cases(>95% in our experience), most businesses will be aware of the ramifications of questioning you further and will allow you to proceed.
Business: What is your exemption, can you explain it further?
Individual: The state(or local) mandate exempts individuals that have a medical or behavioral condition or disability. Here is a copy of the exemptions(print a copy of your local exemption list to bring with you).
Business: Can you explain your medical condition further?
At this point if the conversation continues, you can ask to speak to a manager, choose to educate the individual or spend your dollars elsewhere.
As you see fit, you may also choose to share your experience with friends and family or on social media, as well as educate yourself on discrimination rights and practices in public and business settings.
Individual: No, I respectfully will not. It is private information and I am not required to disclose that information.
Masks are being widely recommended as protection against the COVID-19 virus, both to protect the wearer from infection, and to protect others from wearers who do not know that they are infected. Trouble is, most of the scientific evidence and recommendations are against the use of masks by the general public. Despite this they are increasingly mandated. In some places you cannot walk around outside without a mask, in others you cannot go inside a public space without a mask. Workers are often mandated to wear them. And now airline passengers, no matter the length of their flight.
Evidence for the use of Masks
The strongest evidence for the use of masks is a Cochrane Collaboration review. Seven studies from the era of SARS found that mask-wearing was highly effective in case-control studies, although this type of study is subject to bias because the control arm is simply a representative group, unlike in a placebo controlled trial (very difficult with masks). For example, if the cases are sicker than the controls, they may behave differently, including in wearing a mask.
Of the seven papers, five studied only health-care workers, and this article does not question whether health care workers should wear masks. This leaves only two papers. One provided no socio-economic or health data on the case versus control groups, leaving open the possibility that there were significant differences. The last study confirmed this, the cases (who had been diagnosed with ‘probable’ SARS, i.e. without a SARS test) were significantly sicker before SARS than the controls, which makes sense because people who were diagnosed with SARS tended to have pre-existing health conditions, just as is found with COVID-19. Mask wearing and hand washing were more common in controls, resulting in the conclusion that they were protective. But attending farmer’s markets was also ‘protective’. In reality this probably just reflects the better health of the control group. Really sick people may avoid the use of masks because it interferes with their breathing when they already have problems. This possibility was not considered by either paper.
So, in conclusion there are two papers in this review that claimed that wearing masks was protective against SARS, but one admits that the control group was significantly healthier than the case group, and the other paper is silent on this important source of bias.
There are also the hamsters, however. No, Hong Kong University did not find a source of hamster sized surgical masks, but in an unpublished paper, they describe putting a surgical mask over the air flow between a cage of RNA positive hamsters and a cage of RNA negative hamsters, and documenting that a higher proportion of the RNA-negative hamsters became RNA-positive when there was no mask over the airflow. It is not clear why the researchers believe their studies can be extrapolated directly to people. Although newspaper articles claim that the paper has been released, not even the Hong Kong University press release, the institution where the work was performed, provided any details about its location.
More recently a paper in Lancet identified 172 observational studies (not randomized trials) that they claimed supported social distancing or mask wearing. Of the 44 they examined in detail, 35 studied health care workers, 8 studied close contacts (e.g. a household with an ill person, traced contacts of a person with a positive test) and only 3 studied public spaces (one studied all three, hence the numeric discrepancy). Of those 3 papers one studied distance versus infection risk on airplanes, and another was included in the Cochrane study, above. The third paper, as yet not peer-reviewed and published, was focussed on contact tracing, but did note that of two couples discovered to be both positive through contact tracing (out of 404 close contacts of 9 COVID-19 cases), one took a lot of precautions (mask, separate bedroom, separate bathroom) while the other did not, lending no clarity to the mask debate.
A heavily promoted paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ads on Twitter paid for by McMaster University in Canada) claims in the title that “Cloth Masks May Prevent Transmission of COVID-19”. They admit that, “cloth does not stop isolated virions”, but claim that since virus particles are always attached to droplets, that research on transmission of bacteria can be useful. Many of the masks tested in experiments they referenced had 3 to 6 layers of cloth. They also admit that the only randomized trial (discussed below) showed that cloth masks increased influenza-like illnesses in health care workers who wore them for long periods of time. They ignore the Korean research (also discussed below) that concluded that, “Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients”. Finally they conclude their promotion of cotton masks by admitting that, “Whether wearing a mask of any sort in a community context protects oneself or others is unknown”. Maybe this paper should be in a section of its own, “Papers that want masks to work but cannot prove it”.
A very recent review of the literature that was published in the CDC journal, “Emerging Infectious Diseases” did not find evidence that handwashing or masks were protective against influenza. Masks did not help infected people reduce their risk of infecting others, nor reduce the risk of uninfected people contracting influenza.
“In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission…Hand hygiene is a widely used intervention and has been shown to effectively reduce the transmission of gastrointestinal infections and respiratory infections. However, in our systematic review, updating the findings of Wong et al., we did not find evidence of a major effect of hand hygiene on laboratory-confirmed influenza virus transmission…We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility…It is essential to note that the mechanisms of person-to-person transmission in the community have not been fully determined. Controversy remains over the role of transmission through fine-particle aerosols.” Xiao J et al. Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings-Personal Protective and Environmental Measures. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 May 17; 26(5).
A Korean study put masks on COVID-19 infected people and did not reduce the transmission of viral RNA when patients coughed with a mask on.
Adverse consequences of masks are most obvious among health-care workers, where use is more controlled, but members of the general public who voluntarily wear masks for extended periods of time may experience similar problems.
A study in BMJ showed that people who were told to wear cloth masks for extended period of time (for purposes of this study) had higher rates of influenza-like illness than other health care workers but could decide if and when to wear masks, and higher rates than those wearing surgical masks. Even among health care workers, mask wearing could be counter-productive.
“The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI [influenza-like illness] statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm [workers who followed standard practice, which could sometimes include mask wearing]. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.” MacIntyre CR et al. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 22; 5(4): e006577.
A study from Singapore found an increased risk of headaches, indicative of oxygen deprivation, among health care workers. This may or may not apply to the general public who generally wear masks that are less tight fitting (and therefore less effective).
“A total of 158 healthcare workers participated in the study. Majority [126/158 (77.8%)] were aged 21-35 years. Participants included nurses [102/158 (64.6%)], doctors [51/158 (32.3%)], and paramedical staff [5/158 (3.2%)]. Pre-existing primary headache diagnosis was present in about a third [46/158 (29.1%)] of respondents. Those based at the emergency department had higher average daily duration of combined PPE exposure compared to those working in isolation wards [7.0 vs 5.2 hours] or medical ICU [7.0 vs 2.2 hours]. Out of 158 respondents, 128 (81.0%) respondents developed de novo PPE-associated headaches. A pre-existing primary headache diagnosis (OR = 4.20 and combined PPE usage for >4 hours per day (OR 3.91) were independently associated with de novo PPE-associated headaches. Since COVID-19 outbreak, 42/46 (91.3%) of respondents with pre-existing headache diagnosis either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the increased PPE usage had affected the control of their background headaches, which affected their level of work performance.” Ong JJY et al. Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID‐19. Headache. 2020 05; 60(5): 864-877.
Opinions against the use of Masks
WHO has stated that is no benefit to healthy people wearing masks in public, and there is only limited evidence that masks help when in contact with a sick person.
“There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in the households or among contacts of a sick patient, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a preventive measure. However, there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.” Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19. WHO. 2020 Apr 6.
Dr Jenny Harries, a Deputy Chief Medical Officer from the UK, warns that because most members of the public use one mask for an extended period of time, when they take it off at home and put it on a non-sterile surface it becomes contaminated.
“What tends to happen is people will have one mask. They won’t wear it all the time, they will take it off when they get home, they will put it down on a surface they haven’t cleaned. Or they will be out and they haven’t washed their hands, they will have a cup of coffee somewhere, they half hook it off, they wipe something over it. In fact, you can actually trap the virus in the mask and start breathing it in. Because of these behavioural issues, people can adversely put themselves at more risk than less.” Baynes C. Coronavirus: Face masks could increase risk of infection, medical chief warns. The Independent. 2020 Mar 12.
Jake Dunning, head of emerging infections and zoonoses (animal to human transmission of disease) at Public Health England added that,
The University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) does not recommend that the public wears masks, because they do not work, they may reduce other preventive measures, and they risk the supply of masks for healthcare workers.
“We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because: There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers.” Brosseau LM et al. COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data. CIDRAP. 2020 Apr 1.
An experienced ER nurse (RN, MSN) examined the data when her grandchild’s pre-school decided that even toddlers need to wear masks, and her literature review produced a lot of information against mask wearing, and she showed that the seven papers by the CDC in support of mask wearing are irrelevant to the subject.
Evidence is largely against mask-wearing by the general public. It is generally seen as ineffective, may take attention away from other protective measures, will reduce the supply of masks for healthcare workers, and may cause harm when worn for extended periods of time.
Mask wearers of the world, take them off—you have nothing to lose but your insanity…
Journal of the American Medical Association, April 17, 2020, “Masks and Coronavirus Disease”: “Unless you are sick, a health care worker, or caring for someone who has COVID-19, medical masks (including surgical face masks and N95s) are not recommended.”
At Children’s Health Defense, JB Handley has written an excellent article, “LOCKDOWN LUNACY: The Thinking Person’s Guide.” Here are two highlights from his section on masks:
“May 29, the World Health Organization announced that masks should only be worn by healthy people if they are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19:”
“’If you do not have any respiratory symptoms such as fever, cough or runny nose, you do not need to wear a mask,’ Dr. April Baller, a public health specialist for the WHO, says in a video on the world health body’s website posted in March. ‘Masks should only be used by healthcare workers, caretakers or by people who are sick with symptoms of fever and cough’.”
“…I often see this study from 2015 in the BMJ cited: ‘A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers’, and it bears repeating, since MOST of the masks I see people wearing in the community right now are cloth masks. Not only are these masks 100% ineffective at reducing the spread of COVID-19, but they can actually harm you. As the researchers explain:”
“’This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection…’”
Of course, I understand that when people are conspiracy whackos wearing their masks, they don’t respond well to facts, even when those facts come from the very organizations they believe in with religious fervor.
Here is something else from the Washington State Nurses Association: “Reprocessing masks using toxic chemicals is not a solution”:
“Nurses are reporting that respirators and face masks at WSNA repre-sented Providence facilities are being collected for reprocessing using ethylene oxide to decontaminate. The EPA has concluded that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic to humans and that exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of lymphoid cancer and, for females, breast cancer.”
“WSNA sent a cease and desist demand to Providence facilities where our members work, demanding an immediate halt to the reusing of any face masks, including N 95 and other respirators, that have been decontaminated by the ethylene oxide cleaning process. In addition, WSNA is preparing complaints to be filed with the Washington State Department of Occupational Safety and Health, highlighting this workplace hazard.”
“WSNA believes that the reuse of face masks or respirators cleaned with ethylene oxide violates the employer’s legal duty to ensure that nurses and other health care workers are afforded a safe and healthful working environment. While hospitals have long used ethylene oxide to clean certain surgical equipment, it should not be used to decontami-nate face masks or respirators, through which nurses and other health care workers must breathe for many hours at a time.”
“…The CDC warns that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic and teratogenic, and that ‘inhalation of ethylene oxide has been linked to neurologic dysfunction and may cause other harmful effects to the wearer’.”
“Prolonged exposure to ethylene oxide can hurt eyes and LUNGS, harm the brain and nervous system, and potentially cause lymphomas, leukemia, and breast cancer. This extremely hazardous toxic chemical poses a severe risk to human health.” [CAPS are mine.]
Is the use of toxic ethylene oxide to treat masks widespread? According to the Chicago Tribune, way back in March, Medline Industries was reprocessing 100,000 medical masks a day. They applied to the FDA for permission to use ethylene oxide. But wasn’t the horse already out of the barn? Weren’t they already using the chemical? I’ve queried Medline to find out whether the FDA has approved their application.
And finally, I have a lone report about a person from the region of Piedmont, Italy, who checked out his medical mask, which he’d received in the mail from the Department of Civil Protection. He discovered it contained zinc pyrithione.
If true, this is ominous. Consulting a simple safety data sheet on the chemical, from Cayman Chemical, I found a succinct statement: “Toxic if inhaled.”
But of course, medical masks must be worn. The lockdown authorities tell us so. They know. They must know because, well, they’re on television.
Keep breathing through that mask. It’s “safe and effective.”
The Facts:A study published in 2015 found that cloth masks can increase healthcare workers risk of infection. It also called into question the efficacy of medical masks.
Reflect On:If masks may not protect healthcare workers in an acute setting, what are they doing for the public? Are the decisions made by health regulatory agencies always in the best interest of the public?
A lot of places are mandating that people wear a mask. Some grocery stores here in Canada are making it mandatory for people who want to do some shopping, and Los Angeles County recently mandated that all people must wear a mask when going outside. But do these measures really help? We are living in strange times when people like Bill Gates are getting a lot of T.V. time, as he seems to be the world’s leading ‘health’ authority on the new coronavirus, what we should do, and how we’re going to stop it. On the other hand, there are several doctors and leading epidemiologists around the world who have been studying viruses for decades that have been censored from social media platforms for sharing their research and opinions. Their interviews are being taken down, and some have even been flagged as ‘fake.’ Ask yourself, what’s wrong with this picture? Many of them are suggesting that the new coronavirus is not nearly as dangerous as it’s being made out to be. There have been multiple studies that have also suggested this based on the data that researchers have accumulated. Mainstream media is trying really hard to shape our perception with regards to everything that surrounds the new coronavirus, from treatment, lockdowns, to social distancing and much more.
We’ve covered a few examples of these experts giving their opinions with regards to how dangerous this virus actually is, what the solution is, treatments and more. If you’re interested you can refer to the articles linked at the bottom of this one. At the end of the day, a lot of what these doctors, scientists and epidemiologists have been saying since the beginning of this outbreak, up until now, has completely contradicted the narrative of federal health regulatory agencies and the World Health Organization (WHO). In fact, social media and other platforms are banning content that opposes and contradicts the WHO, no matter how much evidence is behind the information, or even if the sources are some of the leading experts in the world.
Should there be a digital authoritarian Orwellian ‘fact checker’ going around the internet telling people what is, and what isn’t? Or should people have the right to examine information, check sources and evidence and ultimately decide for themselves?
So the question is, can we really trust these health authorities to guide us into doing what’s really best for us? Is this really about our health or is something else going on here? Are there powerful people profiting off of this both politically and financially? Was Edward Snowden correct when he said that the new coronavirus fiasco is no different from 9/11, in that it’s simply being used to push more authoritarian measures on the population? Just like they remained after 9/11, will they remain after this coronavirus? Why are there apps tracking people for coronavirus, but not for the pedophiles, murderers and rapists? These are important things to think about.
There is a lot of conflicting information out there and again, if you’re interested in going a little deeper you can refer to the articles listed at the end of this one.
But what about masks? Do they really help? How effective are they? According to Dr. Dan Erickson (former emergency-room physician) and Dr. Artin Massihi (emergency medicine specialist affiliated with multiple hospitals) of Accelerated Urgent Care in California, they’re not helping at all.
When you wear gloves that transfer disease everywhere, those gloves have bacteria all over them. “I’m wearing gloves,” not helping you…Your mask that you’re wearing for days, you touch the outside of it, COVID, and then touch your mouth, this doesn’t make any sense. We wear masks in an acute setting to protect us, we’re not wearing masks (right now). Why is that? Because we understand microbiology, we understand immunology and we want strong immune systems. I don’t want to hide in my home, develop a weak immune system, and then come out and get disease. We’ve both been to the ER through swine flu and through bird flu, did we shut down for those? Were they much less dangerous than COVID? Is the flu less dangerous than COVID? Let’s look at the death rates, no it’s not. They’re similar in prevalence and in death rate. (source)
According to a study published in BMJ Open in 2015,
This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
We have provided the first clinical efficacy data of cloth masks, which suggest HCWs should not use cloth masks as protection against respiratory infection. Cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection than medical masks, and also performed worse than the control arm. The controls were HCWs who observed standard practice, which involved mask use in the majority, albeit with lower compliance than in the intervention arms. The control HCWs also used medical masks more often than cloth masks. When we analysed all mask-wearers including controls, the higher risk of cloth masks was seen for laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection.
According to the study, it was unclear if they help at all, and that they probably need to be worn at all times in acute/dangerous settings within the hospital to be effective at all.
There are also other potential health consequences of wearing not just a cloth mask, but also medical masks. The physiological effects of breathing elevated inhaled CO2 may include changes in visual performance, modified exercise endurance, headaches and dyspnea. The psychological effects include decreased reasoning and alertness, increased irritability, severe dyspnea, headache, dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss. (source)
This study suggests that masks don’t really help, and depending on the material, they can actually make things worse. That being said, there are studies suggesting that medical masks are indeed effective, but the studies are referring to health care workers in acute settings, not the general public.
As represented by our cinema and other media, Western society expects too much of masks. In the public’s mind, the still-legitimate use of masks for source control has gone off-label; masks are thought to prevent infection. From here, another problem arises: because surgical masks are thought to protect against infection in the community setting, people wearing masks for legitimate purposes (those who have a cough in a hospital, say) form part of the larger misperception and act to reinforce it. Even this proper use of surgical masks is incorporated into a larger improper use in the era of pandemic fear, especially in Asia, where such fear is high. The widespread misconception about the use of surgical masks — that wearing a mask protects against the transmission of virus — is a problem of the kind theorized by German sociologist Ulrich Beck.
The birth of the mask came from the realization that surgical wounds need protection from the droplets released in the breath of surgeons. The technology was applied outside the operating room in an effort to control the spread of infectious epidemics. In the 1919 influenza pandemic, masks were available and were dispensed to populations, but they had no impact on the epidemic curve. At the time, it was unknown that the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can theoretically penetrate the surgical mask barrier. As recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, “face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.” A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus…
(Please note, to get the list of additional articles, go to the source listed below.)