Masks are not only useless in preventing the spread of influenza viruses such as COVID-19, but they pose a health risk to their users.
They also present an increasing environmental problem, as discarded masks become the new cigarette butt. Funnily enough, the usually shrill green crowd has had very little to say about this.
The left, of course, wants you to believe there are no problems with masks at all. They want you to believe anyone who says otherwise is a whack-job conspiracy theorist spreading "false claims."
The oligarch-funded disinformation sites posing as fact checkers have been especially active in downplaying the harms of masks.
One rather pathetic attempt by Politifact was titled "Science shows mask-wearing is largely safe for children."
Largely safe, huh?
In support of this dubious assertion, Politifact writer Tom Kertscher claims: "Two studies on children used N95 masks, which are more sophisticated than the masks most school children will use, but even these found no significant impacts on breathing."
Again, note his use of qualifying weasel language (no significant impacts on breathing).
One of the studies he linked to was a small UK project involving 24 kids, published in 2019.
Over a period of three days, they wore three different brands of N95 masks (Vogmask, TuHao and ReSpimask). Contrary to Politifact's claims, the masks were far from problem-free. The main complaint the children had about their facemasks was that their faces got too hot. This study, remember, was conducted in London, UK, not exactly a part of the world known for its sunny, warm climate. Next month in Australia, it will officially be summer, a season where temperatures inevitably rise into the 30°Cs and quite often beyond 40°C. It's going to be a very interesting silly season, as our largely fat and unfit population attempts to plod through such unforgiving temperatures while wearing a face mask that traps their already warm expired air. To demand this of children and the elderly is especially cruel.
During walking and running activities, nine children (38%) removed the Vogmask and TuHao facemasks during the activities, whereas 15 children (63%) removed the ReSpimask. The main reason why the kids removed their facemasks was because they got too hot. Several children also complained that it became hard to breathe so they took their facemask off (Vogmask: n = 3, 17%; TuHao: n = 2, 8%; ReSpimask: n = 7, 29%).
This is what Kertscher and his cohorts at Politifact consider supportive evidence for mask-wearing in children?
The second study, which took place in Singapore, involved children wearing N95 masks while they sat reading and walking on a treadmill.
The researchers found masks produced increases in lab measures of inhaled and end-tidal (exhaled) CO2, but the differences were considered small and within normal limits. However, the test periods ranged for a mere 5-8 minutes and hence provided virtually no insight into the physiological (and psychological) effects of demanding children wear masks for several hours a day, 5 days a week.
And as we'll find out a little later, increases in end-tidal CO2 that are considered within normal limits are not necessarily benign.
True to form, the Politifact article is short on science but heavy on opinions from like-minded mainstream 'experts.' One such 'expert' is Babak Javid, a professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco. We are supposed to be reassured by Javid's comment that "the world has engaged in a massive study — observational, but literally billions of people — on mass mask wearing, and people are not dropping dead left, right and center."
So Javik is acknowledging that we are all part of a massive experiment. Ethical science (and a little thing known as The Declaration of Helsinki) demands that people participate in experiments only with informed consent and of their own volition, not after being subject to an avalanche of coercive mandates and oligarch-funded bullshit.
As for Javik's argument that "people are not dropping dead left, right and center," this is the kind of reasoning you'd expect from some twat in a pub, not from a professor of medicine.
Did I ever mention what a complete farce modern education is?
For the record, no-one is saying people are "dropping dead left, right and center" because of masks (that's what the pseudo-vaccines are for). Javik's comment is your textbook classic red herring designed to draw attention away from the real issue: Namely, that masks confer no benefit but carry very real risks, making their widespread use not just pointless but stupid.
Politifact: Faithfully Pushing the NWO Agenda
Politifact, as I have noted before, is owned by the Poynter Institute, which bills itself as "a nonprofit school for journalists." Poynter’s funders include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, George Soros' Open Society Foundations, Charles Koch (co-owner, chairman, and CEO of Koch Industries) and the very left Omidyar Network (via both its Democracy Fund and Luminate Group). Poynter also receives 'support' from such titans of censorship as Facebook, Google, Microsoft, WhatsApp and the CCP-controlled TikTok.
Another major funder of Poynter is the Lumina Foundation. Jamie Merisotis, Lumina's CEO since 2008, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, another unelected globalist outfit that wields immense political power while posing as a non-profit organization. The CFR's long, long director and membership list reads like a who's who of globalist technocrats. Its chairman is David Rubenstein, billionaire, former government official, lawyer, co-founder and co-executive chairman of The Carlyle Group and president of The Economic Club of Washington, D.C. Its directors and members include the likes of Henry Kissinger (whose multiple claims to notoriety include being mentor of World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab), Laurence "Larry" Fink (chairman/CEO of BlackRock, WEF trustee), Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Stephen J. Adler (Reuters editor-in-chief), Michael R. Bloomberg (founder of the Bloomberg media and financial empire and a Trilateral Commission member), James "Jim" Breyer (also on the boards of Blackstone Group, Harvard Corporation, Walmart, Facebook, WEF), Edgar Bronfman, Jr. (Seagram heir) ... the list goes on and on. And on.
Oligarchy: It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
In addition to the money given to Poynter, PolitiFact itself has received direct funding from the Gates Foundation and the Omidyar Network, run by eBay founder Pierre Morad Omidyar and his wife Pam. Omidyar has donated millions to various Democratic Party candidates and causes, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the Clinton Foundation and even a fledgling anti-trump political action committee called NeverTrump PAC.
PolitiFact's Executive Director, Aaron Sharockman, insisted in 2016 that “We have never received funding from the Omidyar Network, and we have no connection or relationship to the Clinton Foundation other than covering it.”
Has this guy no shame whatsoever?
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: Aaron Sharockman's claim that Politifact has never received funding from the Omidyar Network is an egregious lie.
I think it should be clear by now that Politifact's real agenda has little to do with telling you the truth. I rate Politifact's attempt to downplay the harms of masks in kids as "Mostly Bullshit."
And that's being nice.
Truth Doesn't Matter to Media Matters
Another extreme left 'fact checker' that is trying to downplay the harms of masks is Media Matters. This outfit makes little pretense at impartiality and actually admits its purpose is to debunk "conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." It does not clearly disclose its donors on its website, but using publicly available documents filed with U.S. Government agencies as well as media reports, InfluenceWatch.org quickly uncovered some notable names. InfuenceWatch found Media Matters was formed with $2 million in funding from wealthy progressives funneled through the Tides Foundation with additional funding from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network. In 2010, George Soros gave the group $1 million. Media Matters has also received substantial funding from labor unions, most notably the National Education Association.
Major contributions to Media Matters have also been made by the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund and the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program. InfluenceWatch noted these are donor-advised funds, a philanthropic vehicle that can be used to hide donors’ identities which has, ironically, often been attacked by liberal groups as “dark money.”
Media Matters insiders report the group acted as a propaganda unit for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election cycle, while messages released by WikiLeaks showed Clinton’s 2016 campaign also treated Media Matters as a campaign surrogate while coordinating with the group.
So you can probably guess where Media Matters stands on the issue of mask wearing.
On 7 July 2020, Media Matters published an article titled "YouTube videos falsely claiming that masks are harmful have gotten hundreds of thousands of views."
So have YouTube videos of cats scratching sofas. What's your point, Media Matters?
Media Matters doesn't seem to have one. It simply rattles off a list of videos challenging the safety of masks that have appeared on YouTube and Facebook. It complains all these videos make false claims and whines they are "just a continuation of the YouTube-to-Facebook pipeline that has allowed such dangerous misinformation to go viral."
But nowhere in the article does it explain just why these claims are false, let alone dangerous, with the sole exception of one video that claimed the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced that wearing a mask lowers a person’s oxygen levels. The OHSA in fact claims masks "do not compromise [a wearer's] oxygen levels or cause carbon dioxide buildup," a claim we'll dissect shortly.
Unlike Politifact, Media Matters doesn't even feign an attempt at science - it doesn't mention a single study.
Nor do the misguided sods who take Media Matters seriously. Check out the following comments underneath the Media Matters piece, which will help us segue seamlessly into the real guts of this article.
Yep, who needs science when you've got anonymous Internet trolls like "Truxpin51" to assure you that "thousands of doctors and nurses" have worn masks without issue. And "caliron," who claims he wore masks for 25 years without any problems.
Ah yes, the good ol' "when I was your age, I used to eat nails and wrestle alligators!" crowd. I've met a lot of these types in my life, usually males in middle-age and beyond, who loved to bemoan the softness of younger generations and boast of what studly, muscular, invincible specimens they were in their younger years. My inevitable response was "what happened?" because in every case these folks looked, well, not very impressive at all. Some looked downright awful. Some had serious health issues.
When "caliron" boasts he wore masks without issue for 25 years, then writes "Don't be fooled by the lunatic fringe.WEAR A MASK!" (sic), I can't help but wonder if decades of breathing elevated CO2 levels did indeed affect his/her cognitive function.
As for "Truxpin51" and his/her claim that "thousands of doctors and nurses haven't had problems wearing them for 16 hours straight," well, science definitely has something to say about that.
Never Mind the Fact Fudgers and Trolls, Here's the Science
So what's going on here? Are those of us that experience harms from mask-wearing just hypochondriacal softies, or are the likes of "Truxpin51" and "caliron" simply full of hot air?
Thankfully, we have a little thing called science to help answer that question. And thankfully, this thing called science has not yet been totally corrupted by the corrupt cretins behind the COVID con.
There is a wealth of research showing that healthcare workers, far from finding masks a problem-free item, commonly experience a number of side effects, the most prominent being headache.
In a Moroccan hospital study, for example, 62% of mask-wearing healthcare workers reported headache induced by the use of their PPE during the 'pandemic.' Headaches were experienced more than twice a week for 37.5% of the respondents. Headache onset after wearing masks was reported to be less than 60 minutes in 75% of sufferers. In an attempt to quell the headaches, pain medication was used by 91%.
A Singapore hospital study found 81% respondents developed de novo headaches when wearing a N95 mask. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, 91.3% of respondents with pre-existing headache diagnosis either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that increased mask usage had affected the control of their background headaches, which affected their level of work performance.
The healthcare workers reported an impact on work-related quality of life due to PPE use during the COVID-19 pandemic and 72.7% experienced transient to permanent breathing discomfort. 58% of respondents reported blurred vision due to the use of eye protection and masks. 64.5% reported no or mild reduction of their concentration while performing their work while 67% judged their professional performance mildly reduced by the use of PPE.
In a Turkish study of 380 university health professionals, 6.9% used filtering masks, 73.1% used surgical masks, and 20.0% used both masks in combination. De-novo headache was observed in 116 (30.9%) of participants, with accompanying symptoms such as tachypnea, sleep disturbance and fatigue. 67.5% of those with pre-existing headache had an aggravation in headache after mask use.
So to answer our earlier question: When anonymous Internet trolls get all "when I was your age" and insist that "thousands" of healthcare workers workers wear masks without any problems, we can safely conclude they are full of it. The reality is that thousands of healthcare workers do experience problems as a result of mask use, and in many cases it's affecting their work performance. Not a comforting thought if you're a patient ...
But what is the mechanism behind all this? The fact
checkers fudgers and the party-line 'experts' they quote insist ad nauseum that masks don't raise CO2. Well, only by a little bit, they say.
This is Your Brain on Masks
In an early 2020 study, the effects of N95 masks on blood flow to the brain were examined in 154 frontline workers dealing with the COVID 'pandemic' (mean age 29, 67% women). Migraine after donning N95 masks was reported by 38 (25%) individuals while 123 (80%) developed de-novo headache due to the masks. Similar to what has been reported in numerous other studies.
But the researchers went beyond administering surveys. Using transcranial Doppler ultrasound, they also monitored real-time changes in middle cerebral artery blood flow 5 minutes after donning a mask in each of the participants. And what they found was quiet eye-opening. Donning a N95 mask resulted in a significant increase in mean flow velocity and decrease in pulsatility index.
In English? These changes indicate that within only five minutes of donning a N95 masks, the cerebral arteries were already constricting.
This would go a long way towards explaining the high frequency of reported headaches. Sure enough, compared to those without de novo headaches, the 123 participants who developed de novo headaches showed a statistically significant increase in mean flow velocity, accompanied by a decrease in pulsatility index.
The vasoconstriction, in turn, was a response to increased CO2 levels. Steady state end-tidal CO2 level increased by 3.1 mmHg at 5 minutes. This, it should be noted, is a similar increase in the Singapore study with kids that Politifact wanted us to believe was of no consequence.
So when you hear pseudo-experts proclaiming that masks don't cause huge increases in end-tidal or blood CO2 or large reductions in blood oxygen, well ... they don't need to.
This kiddie-fondling creep suffered a cerebral aneurysm in 1988, and now thinks it's a great idea to wear multiple cerebral artery-constricting masks at a time. Let's Go Brandon!
Shameless Mainstream Liars
I hate to keep picking on Babak Javid, but when he gets together when a bunch of liars like Politifact and pumps out one falsehood after another, well ...
In the Politifact article we discussed earlier, Javid claimed the issue of masks causing a lack of oxygen, or a buildup in carbon dioxide, "has been convincingly debunked."
In reality, it's been shown time and time again to be very real. It's a predictable, consistent effect of mask-wearing. As German researchers recently noted, the scientific data shows "mask wearers as a whole show a striking frequency of typical, measurable, physiological changes associated with masks" - and increases in CO2 and decreases in oxygen are among them.
Before I discuss the evidence for this, I want to point out something important. It might seem like I'm sidetracking, but bear with me, because it further highlights what a bunch of anti-scientific hypocrites our corrupt masters of the looniverse really are.
You've probably all heard of a little something known as the Anthropogenic Climate Change theory. This ridiculous theory posits that, because the temperature has risen by a "probable" (the IPCC's own descriptor, not mine) 1°C over the last 150 years or so, the Earth is at risk of frying like an egg on a hotplate. If the temperature in your room rose by 1°C while you were reading this article, you wouldn't even notice. But we're all supposed to believe that a 1°C rise over the last 150 or so years spells doom for the entire planet.
Yeah, no worries Greta.
The fanciful ACC theory further posits that the cause of this "unprecedented" and "probable" 1°C rise is an increase in atmospheric CO2. The culprit for this rise in CO2, further claim proponents of the ACC theory, is the miniscule proportion of greenhouse gases emanating from human fossil fuel use.
I should note that the biggest proponents of this absurd theory (globalist politicians and billionaires) are also by far the biggest users of fossil fuels, so if they really believed this rot they would change their lavish, fuel-guzzling lifestyles. But they don't and they won't (witness the 400 or so private jets that flew into Glasgow for the recent climate change junket).
Now check this out: For the last few years, the atmospheric CO2 level has been hovering around 410 parts per million (ppm). On 2 November 2021, the most recent measurement at the time of this writing, the atmospheric CO2 level as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii was 413.96 ppm.
If we're to believe Greta and her hypocrite billionaire benefactors, this level is supposedly dangerous and leading to unprecedented global warming. In reality, this level of CO2 is perfectly normal and poses no threat to human health. These CO2 levels, in fact, have been accompanied by both rising crop yields and a record increase in human longevity.
Yet the exact same people who adamantly insist CO2 levels of 410 ppm are a harbinger of impending Armageddon are also adamantly insisting we wear masks - an activity that sends the concentration of CO2 in the air we breathe into the stratosphere!
All this, to battle a largely harmless and asymptomatic flu virus with an infection fatality rate of 0.15%.
Wearing a mask increases the amount of CO2 you breathe by an order of magnitude. And then some. And contrary to what Javid would have us believe, this has been demonstrated convincingly in tightly controlled experiments.
Take for example an experiment published a year ago, conducted in ambient outdoor air in Barcelona. The researchers recruited eight subjects, and tested them using a portable gas analyzer while seated with and without a mask. They then had the subjects attempt 21 push-ups, and analyzed them with the device upon completion.
The device used was a MultiRae gas analyzer from Rae Systems®, one of the highest quality of such devices available. These units are used in situations where accurate measurement of air toxicity is crucial, such as leak detection in aviation, oil and gas, pharmaceutical and shipping/marine industries, in HazMat response, and detection of clandestine drug labs.
So what did they find?
At rest and without a mask, the average CO2 concentration of the air in front of the subjects' snouts was 464 ppm.
After donning the mask, the level of CO2 inside the mask was measured at 14,162 ppm!
No, that's not a typo.
At that level, "mild respiratory stimulation" (i.e. breathing difficulties) will occur for at least some people.
After the short bout of exercise, the average CO2 level inside the mask rose further, to 17,000 ppm. In two of the subjects, a CO2 level of 20,000 ppm (2%) was reached. That level is considered toxic and will cause adverse effects in most people (a level of 40,000 ppm (4.0%) is considered "Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health").
Along with the dramatic rise in CO2, there was also a significant decrease in oxygen saturation, from 97.6% to 92.1%.
All those videos you've seen with people donning masks and then using portable gas analysers to detect skyrocketing CO2 levels are not "false information." They are real life replications of what scientists have already demonstrated.
This was originally going to be a 2-part article, but the abundance of research - and the staggering volume of hypocrisy emanating from the COVID con artists - necessitates a third instalment. In this article, the research I discussed focused mainly on common side effects reported by healthcare workers, whose jobs necessitate they wear wretched masks for several hours a day.
What about in the general population? What happens to people suffering common ailments like anxiety or cardiovascular disease after donning a face nappy?
What happens when you don a mask and then attempt to exercise? If a quick set of push-ups can boost CO2 levels to toxic levels while wearing a mask, what about longer bouts?
And what are masks doing to our psychological health?
I'll address these questions in the next article.
In the meantime, if you want to read up more on the inefficacy of masks, and the hidden agenda behind their mandated use, I'd highly recommend these two articles by fellow inmate of South Australia, Phil Shannon:
The ‘Hidden Curriculum’ of the Facemask Pt I
The ‘Hidden Curriculum’ of the Facemask Pt II
If You Found This Article Helpful, Please Consider Leaving a Tip
This site is self-funded and relies on reader generosity. Researching and writing articles like this takes a lot of time, so any and all tips are greatly appreciated!