UPDATE 31. May 2021: California Cafe Charging Extra $5 for Wearing Masks: ‘Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes’

ICYMI:  BOMBSHELL: Disposable Blue Face Masks Found To Contain Toxic, Asbestos-Like Substance That Destroys Lungs + Study: Chemical That Decreases Fertility And Causes Penises To Shrink, Found In Face Masks + Twenty Reasons Mandatory Face Masks Are Unsafe, Ineffective, and Immoral + Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy

Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid

The diapers most of us are wearing on our face most of the time apparently have no effect at stopping Covid-19. This explains a lot.

Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against CovidBy JD Rucker - 17. April 2021

Did you hear about the peer-reviewed study done by Stanford University that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that face masks have absolutely zero chance of preventing the spread of Covid-19? No?

It was posted on the the National Center for Biological Information government website.

The NCBI is a branch of the National Institute for Health, so one would think such a study would be widely reported by mainstream media and embraced by the “science-loving” folks in Big Tech.

Instead, a DuckDuckGo search reveals it was picked up by ZERO mainstream media outlets and Big Tech tyrants will suspend people who post it, as political strategist Steve Cortes learned the hard way when he posted a Tweet that went against the face mask narrative. The Tweet itself featured a quote and a link that prompted Twitter to suspend his account, potentially indefinitely.

Twitter has suspended @CortesSteve for citing a Stanford NIH study about masks. pic.twitter.com/2y460zkN0Z

— Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) April 17, 2021

He was quoting directly from the NCBI publication of the study. The government website he linked to features a peer-reviewed study by Stanford University’s Baruch Vainshelboim. In it, he cited 67 scholars, doctors, scientists, and other studies to support his conclusions.

The sentence Cortes quoted from the study’s conclusion reads: “The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks.”

Twitter messaged Cortes demanding he delete the Tweet, citing that he broke Twitter rules specifically for, “Violating the policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.”

Vainshelboim drew many conclusions from the vast information he compiled, but arguably the biggest bombshell in it can be found in the “Efficacy of facemasks” section [emphasis added]:

According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask

This study isn’t the only one out there that demonstrates scientifically the inefficacy and dangers associated with constant use of face masks. One would think that considering the source, this type of information would be acceptable to even Big Tech tyrants. After all, they constantly chide us about following the science. Well, here’s the science.

Leaders in Democrat-led states should rejoice at this information since it explains why their Covid case numbers keep going up despite their ongoing lockdowns while Republican-led states are doing better. The real science gives them the answer that Dr. Anthony Fauci fails to grasp.


JD Rucker

JD Rucker

We’re posting the study for posterity; one never knows when the government or their puppetmasters in Silicon Valley will determine it needs to come down:

Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110411  PMCID: PMC7680614  PMID: 33303303


Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.


Facemasks are part of non-pharmaceutical interventions providing some breathing barrier to the mouth and nose that have been utilized for reducing the transmission of respiratory pathogens [1]. Facemasks can be medical and non-medical, where two types of the medical masks primarily used by healthcare workers [1], [2]. The first type is National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 mask, a filtering face-piece respirator, and the second type is a surgical mask [1]. The designed and intended uses of N95 and surgical masks are different in the type of protection they potentially provide. The N95s are typically composed of electret filter media and seal tightly to the face of the wearer, whereas surgical masks are generally loose fitting and may or may not contain electret-filtering media. The N95s are designed to reduce the wearer’s inhalation exposure to infectious and harmful particles from the environment such as during extermination of insects. In contrast, surgical masks are designed to provide a barrier protection against splash, spittle and other body fluids to spray from the wearer (such as surgeon) to the sterile environment (patient during operation) for reducing the risk of contamination [1].

The third type of facemasks are the non-medical cloth or fabric masks. The non-medical facemasks are made from a variety of woven and non-woven materials such as Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk. Although non-medical cloth or fabric facemasks are neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment, some standards have been developed by the French Standardization Association (AFNOR Group) to define a minimum performance for filtration and breathability capacity [2]. The current article reviews the scientific evidences with respect to safety and efficacy of wearing facemasks, describing the physiological and psychological effects and the potential long-term consequences on health.


On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a global public health emergency of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing illness of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) [3]. As of October 1, 2020, worldwide 34,166,633 cases were reported and 1,018,876 have died with virus diagnosis. Interestingly, 99% of the detected cases with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or have mild condition, which contradicts with the virus name (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2) [4]. Although infection fatality rate (number of death cases divided by number of reported cases) initially seems quite high 0.029 (2.9%) [4], this overestimation related to limited number of COVID-19 tests performed which biases towards higher rates. Given the fact that asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times higher than the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate is considerably less than 1% [5]. This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, “the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza” [5], having a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1% [5], [6], [7], [8]. In addition, data from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and general public indicate that the majority of deaths were among older and chronically ill individuals, supporting the possibility that the virus may exacerbates existing conditions but rarely causes death by itself [9], [10]. SARS-CoV-2 primarily affects respiratory system and can cause complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respiratory failure and death [3], [9]. It is not clear however, what the scientific and clinical basis for wearing facemasks as protective strategy, given the fact that facemasks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions [2], [11], [12], [13], [14].

Of note, hyperoxia or oxygen supplementation (breathing air with high partial O2 pressures that above the sea levels) has been well established as therapeutic and curative practice for variety acute and chronic conditions including respiratory complications [11], [15]. It fact, the current standard of care practice for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is breathing 100% oxygen [16], [17], [18]. Although several countries mandated wearing facemask in health care settings and public areas, scientific evidences are lacking supporting their efficacy for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases [2], [14], [19]. Therefore, it has been hypothesized: 1) the practice of wearing facemasks has compromised safety and efficacy profile, 2) Both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to reduce human-to-human transmission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, 3) Wearing facemasks has adverse physiological and psychological effects, 4) Long-term consequences of wearing facemasks on health are detrimental.

Evolution of hypothesis

Breathing Physiology

Breathing is one of the most important physiological functions to sustain life and health. Human body requires a continuous and adequate oxygen (O2) supply to all organs and cells for normal function and survival. Breathing is also an essential process for removing metabolic byproducts [carbon dioxide (CO2)] occurring during cell respiration [12], [13]. It is well established that acute significant deficit in O2 (hypoxemia) and increased levels of CO2 (hypercapnia) even for few minutes can be severely harmful and lethal, while chronic hypoxemia and hypercapnia cause health deterioration, exacerbation of existing conditions, morbidity and ultimately mortality [11], [20], [21], [22]. Emergency medicine demonstrates that 5–6 min of severe hypoxemia during cardiac arrest will cause brain death with extremely poor survival rates [20], [21], [22], [23]. On the other hand, chronic mild or moderate hypoxemia and hypercapnia such as from wearing facemasks resulting in shifting to higher contribution of anaerobic energy metabolism, decrease in pH levels and increase in cells and blood acidity, toxicity, oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, immunosuppression and health deterioration [24], [11], [12], [13].

Efficacy of facemasks

The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25].

Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26]. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people [26]. This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase [27].

A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28]. A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29].

Another meta-analysis of 44 non-RCT studies (n = 25,697 participants) examining the potential risk reduction of facemasks against SARS, middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and COVID-19 transmissions [30]. The meta-analysis included four specific studies on COVID-19 transmission (5,929 participants, primarily health-care workers used N95 masks). Although the overall findings showed reduced risk of virus transmission with facemasks, the analysis had severe limitations to draw conclusions. One of the four COVID-19 studies had zero infected cases in both arms, and was excluded from meta-analytic calculation. Other two COVID-19 studies had unadjusted models, and were also excluded from the overall analysis. The meta-analytic results were based on only one COVID-19, one MERS and 8 SARS studies, resulting in high selection bias of the studies and contamination of the results between different viruses. Based on four COVID-19 studies, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate risk reduction of facemasks for COVID-19 transmission, where the authors reported that the results of meta-analysis have low certainty and are inconclusive [30].

In early publication the WHO stated that “facemasks are not required, as no evidence is available on its usefulness to protect non-sick persons” [14]. In the same publication, the WHO declared that “cloth (e.g. cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance” [14]. Conversely, in later publication the WHO stated that the usage of fabric-made facemasks (Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk) is a general community practice for “preventing the infected wearer transmitting the virus to others and/or to offer protection to the healthy wearer against infection (prevention)” [2]. The same publication further conflicted itself by stating that due to the lower filtration, breathability and overall performance of fabric facemasks, the usage of woven fabric mask such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for infected persons and not for prevention practice in asymptomatic individuals [2]. The Central for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made similar recommendation, stating that only symptomatic persons should consider wearing facemask, while for asymptomatic individuals this practice is not recommended [31]. Consistent with the CDC, clinical scientists from Departments of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology in Australia counsel against facemasks usage for health-care workers, arguing that there is no justification for such practice while normal caring relationship between patients and medical staff could be compromised [32]. Moreover, the WHO repeatedly announced that “at present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19) on the effectiveness face masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection of respiratory viruses, including COVID-19”[2]. Despite these controversies, the potential harms and risks of wearing facemasks were clearly acknowledged. These including self-contamination due to hand practice or non-replaced when the mask is wet, soiled or damaged, development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne and psychological discomfort. Vulnerable populations such as people with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, hearing problems, those living in hot and humid environments, children and patients with respiratory conditions are at significant health risk for complications and harm [2].

Most children in states, where obedience to the medical martial rules is still the norm, have been traumatized. 

Physiological effects of wearing facemasks

Wearing facemask mechanically restricts breathing by increasing the resistance of air movement during both inhalation and exhalation process [12], [13]. Although, intermittent (several times a week) and repetitive (10–15 breaths for 2–4 sets) increase in respiration resistance may be adaptive for strengthening respiratory muscles [33], [34], prolonged and continues effect of wearing facemask is maladaptive and could be detrimental for health [11], [12], [13]. In normal conditions at the sea level, air contains 20.93% O2 and 0.03% CO2, providing partial pressures of 100 mmHg and 40 mmHg for these gases in the arterial blood, respectively. These gas concentrations significantly altered when breathing occurs through facemask. A trapped air remaining between the mouth, nose and the facemask is rebreathed repeatedly in and out of the body, containing low O2 and high CO2 concentrations, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia [35], [36], [11], [12], [13]. Severe hypoxemia may also provoke cardiopulmonary and neurological complications and is considered an important clinical sign in cardiopulmonary medicine [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Low oxygen content in the arterial blood can cause myocardial ischemia, serious arrhythmias, right or left ventricular dysfunction, dizziness, hypotension, syncope and pulmonary hypertension [43]. Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as result of using facemask can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Table 1 summarizes the physiological, psychological effects of wearing facemask and their potential long-term consequences for health.

Table 1. Physiological and Psychological Effects of Wearing Facemask and Their Potential Health Consequences.

Physiological and Psychological Effects of Wearing Facemask and Their Potential Health Consequences

In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germs components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly rebreathed back into the body, causing self-contamination. Breathing through facemasks also increases temperature and humidity in the space between the mouth and the mask, resulting a release of toxic particles from the mask’s materials [1], [2], [19], [26], [35], [36]. A systematic literature review estimated that aerosol contamination levels of facemasks including 13 to 202,549 different viruses [1]. Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression [1], [2], [19], [26], [35], [36].

A study on 39 patients with renal disease found that wearing N95 facemask during hemodialysis significantly reduced arterial partial oxygen pressure (from PaO2 101.7 to 92.7 mm Hg), increased respiratory rate (from 16.8 to 18.8 breaths/min), and increased the occurrence of chest discomfort and respiratory distress [35]. Respiratory Protection Standards from Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labor states that breathing air with O2 concentration below 19.5% is considered oxygen-deficiency, causing physiological and health adverse effects. These include increased breathing frequency, accelerated heartrate and cognitive impairments related to thinking and coordination [36]. A chronic state of mild hypoxia and hypercapnia has been shown as primarily mechanism for developing cognitive dysfunction based on animal studies and studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [44].

The adverse physiological effects were confirmed in a study of 53 surgeons where surgical facemask were used during a major operation. After 60 min of facemask wearing the oxygen saturation dropped by more than 1% and heart rate increased by approximately five beats/min [45]. Another study among 158 health-care workers using protective personal equipment primarily N95 facemasks reported that 81% (128 workers) developed new headaches during their work shifts as these become mandatory due to COVID-19 outbreak. For those who used the N95 facemask greater than 4 h per day, the likelihood for developing a headache during the work shift was approximately four times higher [Odds ratio = 3.91, 95% CI (1.35–11.31) p = 0.012], while 82.2% of the N95 wearers developed the headache already within ≤10 to 50 min [46].

With respect to cloth facemask, a RCT using four weeks follow up compared the effect of cloth facemask to medical masks and to no masks on the incidence of clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections among 1607 participants from 14 hospitals [19]. The results showed that there were no difference between wearing cloth masks, medical masks and no masks for incidence of clinical respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections. However, a large harmful effect with more than 13 times higher risk [Relative Risk = 13.25 95% CI (1.74 to 100.97) was observed for influenza-like illness among those who were wearing cloth masks [19]. The study concluded that cloth masks have significant health and safety issues including moisture retention, reuse, poor filtration and increased risk for infection, providing recommendation against the use of cloth masks [19].

Psychological effects of wearing facemasks

Psychologically, wearing facemask fundamentally has negative effects on the wearer and the nearby person. Basic human-to-human connectivity through face expression is compromised and self-identity is somewhat eliminated [47], [48], [49]. These dehumanizing movements partially delete the uniqueness and individuality of person who wearing the facemask as well as the connected person [49]. Social connections and relationships are basic human needs, which innately inherited in all people, whereas reduced human-to-human connections are associated with poor mental and physical health [50], [51]. Despite escalation in technology and globalization that would presumably foster social connections, scientific findings show that people are becoming increasingly more socially isolated, and the prevalence of loneliness is increasing in last few decades [50], [52]. Poor social connections are closely related to isolation and loneliness, considered significant health related risk factors [50], [51], [52], [53].

A meta-analysis of 91 studies of about 400,000 people showed a 13% increased morality risk among people with low compare to high contact frequency [53]. Another meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies (308,849 participants) found that poor social relationships was associated with 50% increased mortality risk. People who were socially isolated or fell lonely had 45% and 40% increased mortality risk, respectively. These findings were consistent across ages, sex, initial health status, cause of death and follow-up periods [52]. Importantly, the increased risk for mortality was found comparable to smoking and exceeding well-established risk factors such as obesity and physical inactivity [52]. An umbrella review of 40 systematic reviews including 10 meta-analyses demonstrated that compromised social relationships were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, depression, anxiety suicide, cancer and overall physical illness [51].

As described earlier, wearing facemasks causing hypoxic and hypercapnic state that constantly challenges the normal homeostasis, and activates “fight or flight” stress response, an important survival mechanism in the human body [11], [12], [13]. The acute stress response includes activation of nervous, endocrine, cardiovascular, and the immune systems [47], [54], [55], [56]. These include activation of the limbic part of the brain, release stress hormones (adrenalin, neuro-adrenalin and cortisol), changes in blood flow distribution (vasodilation of peripheral blood vessels and vasoconstriction of visceral blood vessels) and activation of the immune system response (secretion of macrophages and natural killer cells) [47], [48]. Encountering people who wearing facemasks activates innate stress-fear emotion, which is fundamental to all humans in danger or life threating situations, such as death or unknown, unpredictable outcome. While acute stress response (seconds to minutes) is adaptive reaction to challenges and part of the survival mechanism, chronic and prolonged state of stress-fear is maladaptive and has detrimental effects on physical and mental health. The repeatedly or continuously activated stress-fear response causes the body to operate on survival mode, having sustain increase in blood pressure, pro-inflammatory state and immunosuppression [47], [48].

Long-Term health consequences of wearing facemasks

Long-term practice of wearing facemasks has strong potential for devastating health consequences. Prolonged hypoxic-hypercapnic state compromises normal physiological and psychological balance, deteriorating health and promotes the developing and progression of existing chronic diseases [23], [38], [39], [43], [47], [48], [57], [11], [12], [13]. For instance, ischemic heart disease caused by hypoxic damage to the myocardium is the most common form of cardiovascular disease and is a number one cause of death worldwide (44% of all non-communicable diseases) with 17.9 million deaths occurred in 2016 [57]. Hypoxia also playing an important role in cancer burden [58]. Cellular hypoxia has strong mechanistic feature in promoting cancer initiation, progression, metastasis, predicting clinical outcomes and usually presents a poorer survival in patients with cancer. Most solid tumors present some degree of hypoxia, which is independent predictor of more aggressive disease, resistance to cancer therapies and poorer clinical outcomes [59], [60]. Worth note, cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with an estimate of more than 18 million new diagnosed cases and 9.6 million cancer-related deaths occurred in 2018 [61].

With respect to mental health, global estimates showing that COVID-19 will cause a catastrophe due to collateral psychological damage such as quarantine, lockdowns, unemployment, economic collapse, social isolation, violence and suicides [62], [63], [64]. Chronic stress along with hypoxic and hypercapnic conditions knocks the body out of balance, and can cause headaches, fatigue, stomach issues, muscle tension, mood disturbances, insomnia and accelerated aging [47], [48], [65], [66], [67]. This state suppressing the immune system to protect the body from viruses and bacteria, decreasing cognitive function, promoting the developing and exacerbating the major health issues including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer disease, rising anxiety and depression states, causes social isolation and loneliness and increasing the risk for prematurely mortality [47], [48], [51], [56], [66].


The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemasks as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Baruch Vainshelboim: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.


[1] E.M. Fisher, J.D. Noti, W.G. Lindsley, F.M. Blachere, R.E. Shaffer
Validation and application of models to predict facemask influenza contamination in healthcare settings
Risk Anal, 34 (2014), pp. 1423-1434

[2] World Health Organization. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19. Geneva, Switzerland; 2020.

[3] C. Sohrabi, Z. Alsafi, N. O’Neill, M. Khan, A. Kerwan, A. Al-Jabir, et al.
World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19)
Int J Surg, 76 (2020), pp. 71-76

[4] Worldometer. COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC. 2020.

[5] A.S. Fauci, H.C. Lane, R.R. Redfield
Covid-19 – Navigating the Uncharted
N Engl J Med, 382 (2020), pp. 1268-1269

[6] S.S. Shrestha, D.L. Swerdlow, R.H. Borse, V.S. Prabhu, L. Finelli, C.Y. Atkins, et al.
Estimating the burden of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in the United States (April 2009-April 2010)
Clin Infect Dis, 52 (Suppl 1) (2011), pp. S75-S82

[7] W.W. Thompson, E. Weintraub, P. Dhankhar, P.Y. Cheng, L. Brammer, M.I. Meltzer, et al.
Estimates of US influenza-associated deaths made using four different methods
Influenza Other Respir Viruses, 3 (2009), pp. 37-49

[8] Centers for Disease, C., Prevention. Estimates of deaths associated with seasonal influenza — United States, 1976-2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010,59:1057-62.

[9] S. Richardson, J.S. Hirsch, M. Narasimhan, J.M. Crawford, T. McGinn, K.W. Davidson, et al.
Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area
JAMA (2020)

[10] J.P.A. Ioannidis, C. Axfors, D.G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis
Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters
Environ Res, 188 (2020)

[11] American College of Sports Medicine
ACSM’s Resource Manual for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Priscription
(Sixth ed.), Lippincott Wiliams & Wilkins, Baltimore (2010)

[12] P.A. Farrell, M.J. Joyner, V.J. Caiozzo
ACSM’s Advanced Exercise Physiology
(second edition), Lippncott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore (2012)

[13] W.L. Kenney, J.H. Wilmore, D.L. Costill
Physiology of sport and exercise
(5th ed.), Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL (2012)

[14] World Health Organization. Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in health care settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Geneva, Switzerland; 2020.

[15] B. Sperlich, C. Zinner, A. Hauser, H.C. Holmberg, J. Wegrzyk
The Impact of Hyperoxia on Human Performance and Recovery
Sports Med, 47 (2017), pp. 429-438

[16] W.J. Wiersinga, A. Rhodes, A.C. Cheng, S.J. Peacock, H.C. Prescott
Pathophysiology, Transmission, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review
JAMA (2020)

[17] N. Zhu, D. Zhang, W. Wang, X. Li, B. Yang, J. Song, et al.
A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019
N Engl J Med, 382 (2020), pp. 727-733

[18] J.T. Poston, B.K. Patel, A.M. Davis
Management of Critically Ill Adults With COVID-19
JAMA (2020)

[19] C.R. MacIntyre, H. Seale, T.C. Dung, N.T. Hien, P.T. Nga, A.A. Chughtai, et al.
A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
BMJ open, 5 (2015)

[20] K.D. Patil, H.R. Halperin, L.B. Becker
Cardiac arrest: resuscitation and reperfusion
Circ Res, 116 (2015), pp. 2041-2049

[21] M.F. Hazinski, J.P. Nolan, J.E. Billi, B.W. Bottiger, L. Bossaert, A.R. de Caen, et al.
Part 1: Executive summary: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations
Circulation, 122 (2010), pp. S250-S275

[22] M.E. Kleinman, Z.D. Goldberger, T. Rea, R.A. Swor, B.J. Bobrow, E.E. Brennan, et al.
American Heart Association Focused Update on Adult Basic Life Support and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care
Circulation, 137 (2018), pp. e7-e13

[23] K.G. Lurie, E.C. Nemergut, D. Yannopoulos, M. Sweeney
The Physiology of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Anesth Analg, 122 (2016), pp. 767-783

[24] B. Chandrasekaran, S. Fernandes
“Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword?” – A physiological hypothesis
Med Hypotheses, 144 (2020)

[25] A. Konda, A. Prakash, G.A. Moss, M. Schmoldt, G.D. Grant, S. Guha
Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks
ACS Nano, 14 (2020), pp. 6339-6347

[26] N.H.L. Leung, D.K.W. Chu, E.Y.C. Shiu, K.H. Chan, J.J. McDevitt, B.J.P. Hau, et al.
Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks
Nat Med, 26 (2020), pp. 676-680

[27] M. Gao, L. Yang, X. Chen, Y. Deng, S. Yang, H. Xu, et al.
A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers
Respir Med, 169 (2020)

[28] J.D. Smith, C.C. MacDougall, J. Johnstone, R.A. Copes, B. Schwartz, G.E. Garber
Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
CMAJ, 188 (2016), pp. 567-574

[29] R. Chou, T. Dana, R. Jungbauer, C. Weeks, M.S. McDonagh
Masks for Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2, in Health Care and Community Settings: A Living Rapid Review
Ann Intern Med (2020)

[30] D.K. Chu, E.A. Akl, S. Duda, K. Solo, S. Yaacoub, H.J. Schunemann, et al.
Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Lancet, 395 (2020), pp. 1973-1987

[31] Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies for Communities with Local COVID-19 Transmission. Atlanta, Georgia; 2020.

[32] D. Isaacs, P. Britton, A. Howard-Jones, A. Kesson, A. Khatami, B. Marais, et al.
Do facemasks protect against COVID-19?
J Paediatr Child Health, 56 (2020), pp. 976-977

[33] P. Laveneziana, A. Albuquerque, A. Aliverti, T. Babb, E. Barreiro, M. Dres, et al.
ERS statement on respiratory muscle testing at rest and during exercise
Eur Respir J, 53 (2019)

[34] American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory, S
ATS/ERS Statement on respiratory muscle testing
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166 (2002), pp. 518-624

[35] T.W. Kao, K.C. Huang, Y.L. Huang, T.J. Tsai, B.S. Hsieh, M.S. Wu
The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease
J Formos Med Assoc, 103 (2004), pp. 624-628

[36] United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134; 2007.

[37] ATS/ACCP Statement on cardiopulmonary exercise testing
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 167 (2003), pp. 211-277

[38] American College of Sports Medicine
ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription
(9th ed.), Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Health, Philadelphia (2014)

[39] G.J. Balady, R. Arena, K. Sietsema, J. Myers, L. Coke, G.F. Fletcher, et al.
Clinician’s Guide to cardiopulmonary exercise testing in adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association
Circulation, 122 (2010), pp. 191-225

[40] A.M. Ferrazza, D. Martolini, G. Valli, P. Palange
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in the functional and prognostic evaluation of patients with pulmonary diseases
Respiration, 77 (2009), pp. 3-17

[41] G.F. Fletcher, P.A. Ades, P. Kligfield, R. Arena, G.J. Balady, V.A. Bittner, et al.
Exercise standards for testing and training: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association
Circulation, 128 (2013), pp. 873-934

[42] M. Guazzi, V. Adams, V. Conraads, M. Halle, A. Mezzani, L. Vanhees, et al.
EACPR/AHA Scientific Statement. Clinical recommendations for cardiopulmonary exercise testing data assessment in specific patient populations
Circulation, 126 (2012), pp. 2261-2274

[43] R. Naeije, C. Dedobbeleer
Pulmonary hypertension and the right ventricle in hypoxia
Exp Physiol, 98 (2013), pp. 1247-1256

[44] G.Q. Zheng, Y. Wang, X.T. Wang
Chronic hypoxia-hypercapnia influences cognitive function: a possible new model of cognitive dysfunction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Med Hypotheses, 71 (2008), pp. 111-113

[45] A. Beder, U. Buyukkocak, H. Sabuncuoglu, Z.A. Keskil, S. Keskil
Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery
Neurocirugia (Astur), 19 (2008), pp. 121-126

[46] J.J.Y. Ong, C. Bharatendu, Y. Goh, J.Z.Y. Tang, K.W.X. Sooi, Y.L. Tan, et al.
Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19
Headache, 60 (2020), pp. 864-877

[47] N. Schneiderman, G. Ironson, S.D. Siegel
Stress and health: psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants
Annu Rev Clin Psychol, 1 (2005), pp. 607-628

[48] P.A. Thoits
Stress and health: major findings and policy implications
J Health Soc Behav, 51 (Suppl) (2010), pp. S41-S53

[49] N. Haslam
Dehumanization: an integrative review
Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 10 (2006), pp. 252-264

[50] S. Cohen
Social relationships and health
Am Psychol, 59 (2004), pp. 676-684

[51] N. Leigh-Hunt, D. Bagguley, K. Bash, V. Turner, S. Turnbull, N. Valtorta, et al.
An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness
Public Health, 152 (2017), pp. 157-171

[52] J. Holt-Lunstad, T.B. Smith, J.B. Layton
Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review
PLoS Med, 7 (2010)

[53] E. Shor, D.J. Roelfs
Social contact frequency and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis and meta-regression
Soc Sci Med, 128 (2015), pp. 76-86

[54] B.S. McEwen
Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators
N Engl J Med, 338 (1998), pp. 171-179

[55] B.S. McEwen
Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: central role of the brain
Physiol Rev, 87 (2007), pp. 873-904

[56] G.S. Everly, J.M. Lating
A Clinical Guide to the Treatment of the Human Stress Response
(4th ed.), NY Springer Nature, New York (2019)

[57] World Health Organization. World health statistics 2018: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals Geneva, Switzerland; 2018.

[58] World Health Organization. World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon; 2014.

[59] J.M. Wiggins, A.B. Opoku-Acheampong, D.R. Baumfalk, D.W. Siemann, B.J. Behnke
Exercise and the Tumor Microenvironment: Potential Therapeutic Implications
Exerc Sport Sci Rev, 46 (2018), pp. 56-64

[60] K.A. Ashcraft, A.B. Warner, L.W. Jones, M.W. Dewhirst
Exercise as Adjunct Therapy in Cancer
Semin Radiat Oncol, 29 (2019), pp. 16-24

[61] F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R.L. Siegel, L.A. Torre, A. Jemal
Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries
CA Cancer J Clin (2018)

[62] S.K. Brooks, R.K. Webster, L.E. Smith, L. Woodland, S. Wessely, N. Greenberg, et al.
The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence
Lancet, 395 (2020), pp. 912-920

[63] S. Galea, R.M. Merchant, N. Lurie
The Mental Health Consequences of COVID-19 and Physical Distancing: The Need for Prevention and Early Intervention
JAMA Intern Med, 180 (2020), pp. 817-818

[64] D. Izaguirre-Torres, R. Siche
Covid-19 disease will cause a global catastrophe in terms of mental health: A hypothesis
Med Hypotheses, 143 (2020)

[65] B.M. Kudielka, S. Wust
Human models in acute and chronic stress: assessing determinants of individual hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis activity and reactivity
Stress, 13 (2010), pp. 1-14

[66] J.N. Morey, I.A. Boggero, A.B. Scott, S.C. Segerstrom
Current Directions in Stress and Human Immune Function
Curr Opin Psychol, 5 (2015), pp. 13-17

[67] R.M. Sapolsky, L.M. Romero, A.U. Munck
How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions
Endocr Rev, 21 (2000), pp. 55-89

Big Tech doesn’t want you to follow the science. They simply want you to follow the narrative. As Steve Cortes learned, no highly credible source is above the ugly censorship rules set by Silicon Valley tyrants.

Image by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay







The Elites mingle 'Mask-Less & No Social Distance' while the Working Peasants must Obey Covid "Rules"!



California Cafe Charging Extra $5 for Wearing Masks: ‘Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes’

By Sean Adl-Tabatabai News - 31. May 2021

California cafe charging leftists an extra 5 dollars if they wear a mask

A brave cafe owner in California is charging ‘woke’ leftists who insist on wearing masks an extra $5 for doing so.

On Sunday, Fiddleheads Cafe in Mendocino put up a sign highlighting the fee for customers who want to continue wearing a face diaper while ordering.

In March, the cafe announced a 50 percent discount for people who threw their masks in the trash, according to owner Chris Castleman.

“I don’t think $5 to charity is too much to ask from mask wearing customers who claim to care so much about the community they live in,” he told NBC in an email.

Breitbart.com reports: The proceeds will be given to Project Sanctuary, a domestic abuse organization, for two weeks before another nonprofit is put into the rotation, according to Castleman.

“It’s about time that the proponents of these ineffective government measures start paying for the collateral damage they have collectively caused,” the owner continued.

The eatery also reportedly planned to charge an additional $5 for those “caught bragging” about receiving the vaccine, some of the posted signs read.

According to NBC Bay Area, Castleman said a few people paid the $5 fee while others were shocked and angered.

“Customers either love it or hate it,” he told the outlet in an email:

There are people who refuse to pay it; I guess a $5 donation to charity is too much for them. Others have gladly paid it knowing that it goes to a good cause. I don’t force anyone to pay, I give them the freedom of choice, which seems to be a foreign concept in these parts of the country.

In June, Castleman temporarily closed the business once Mendocino County officials warned masks were not optional at restaurants during the coronavirus pandemic.

He abided by the temporary mandates regarding curbside service, but requiring masks for servers and other employees, he argued, was over the top.

“I don’t believe in mask-wearing,” Castleman explained. “Our customer base has been strongly aligned with our beliefs, but I think some are really angry at our cafe.”

“It’s their choice,” he noted. “They can choose what business they support. They can go to any other business in my county, state.”


Sean Adl-Tabatabai

Sean Adl-Tabatabai - Editor-in-chief at News Punch



BOMBSHELL: Disposable Blue Face Masks Found To Contain Toxic, Asbestos-Like Substance That Destroys Lungs

By Ethan Huff - 30. March 2021

Health Canada has issued a warning about blue and gray disposable face masks, which contain an asbestos-like substance associated with “early pulmonary toxicity.”

bombshell disposable blue face masks found to contain toxic, asbestos like substance that destroys lungs

Image: StornowayGazette.co.uk

The SNN200642 masks, which are made in China and sold and distributed by a Quebec-based company called Métallifer, had been part of Canada’s public school reopening plan.

Students were told that they needed to wear them in the classroom to prevent the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

Health Canada, however, discovered during a preliminary risk assessment that the masks contain microscopic graphene particles that, when inhaled, could cause severe lung damage.

“Graphene is a strong, very thin material that is used in fabrication, but it can be harmful to lungs when inhaled and can cause long-term health problems,” reported CBC News.

For a while now, some daycare educators had expressed suspicion about the masks, which were causing children to feel as though they were swallowing cat hair while wearing them. We now know that instead of cat hair, children were inhaling the equivalent of asbestos all day long.

“If you have this type of mask in stock, we ask that you stop distributing them and keep them in a safe place now,” the provincial government wrote in a directive, which was sent to the education, families, and higher education ministries of Canada.


Face Masks Are Neither Safe Nor Effective

As it turns out, the SNN200642 masks that were being used all across Canada in school classrooms had never been tested for safety or effectiveness.

Patrick Baillargeon, who heads up purchasing for Quebec’s laboratory supplies, says that because of this, the masks never should have been used.

The risks associated with inhaling graphene particles is unacceptable, he added, and Canadians – and everyone else, for that matter – should immediately stop using the masks.

“We therefore ask all our customers to check if they have any in their possession,” Baillargeon wrote in a notice, further revealing that at the time of their acquisition and distribution, the blue and gray disposable face masks were not in compliance with government regulations.

Schools and other facilities adopted them due to fears surrounding the Wuhan virus, but this rushed, reactionary response is now causing other problems in the form of lung damage.

“We are now verifying whether any of these particular masks remain in our schools and centres,” reads a letter sent by the Lester B. Pearson school board to the parents of all exposed children.

“Any unused masks will be returned to our storage depot while we await further directives from the government.”

Back in December, the Quebec government had distributed these toxic masks to more than 15,000 daycare centers throughout the province. None of the masks met safety standards and were later ordered to no longer be used.

Another similar style of disposable mask, known as MC9501, was likewise pulled from distribution throughout Canada after it was determined to be unsafe.

As many as 31.1 million toxic masks from this line were distributed before the government realized that they are unfit for use.

“Shouldn’t all this stuff be tested BEFORE it even leaves the factory?” asked one CBC News commenter, expressing outrage over the government’s act now, think later approach to Wuhan flu mitigation.

Others called for heads to roll over the fiasco, as well as an immediate end to all face mask use as the coverings are both useless and harmful no matter what materials were used in their production.

“To force a child to wear a toxic face mask is child abuse,” one wrote. “I hope lawsuits will follow.”

Read also:

Netherlands Refuses To Mandate Face Masks & Sweden Says They Are ‘Pointless’


Study: Chemical That Decreases Fertility And Causes Penises To Shrink, Found In Face Masks

Phthalates has been linked to genital shrinkage, decreased fertility rates, and less masculine behavior in young boys.

By Gabriel Keane - 28. March 2021

study chemical that decreases fertility and causes penises to shrink, found in face masks

Dr. Shanna Swan, a professor of Environmental Medicine & Public Health at Mount Sinai Health System, has warned in a new book that phthalates, a chemical commonly used in the manufacturing of plastics, can shrink penises and decrease male fertility.

A study listed in the National Center for Biotechnology Information, which operates under the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, found that the microplastics used in the manufacturing of Covid face masks contain a number of toxic chemicals, including the penis-shrinking phthalates.


Dr. Swans’s book “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race” warns that humanity is facing an “existential crisis” in fertility rates as a direct result of the chemical phthalates, and most men may be infertile by 2045.

As Sky News reported, Dr. Swan found that “male human babies who had been exposed to the phthalates in the womb had a shorter anogenital distance – something that correlated with penile volume.” Dr. Swan’s research also discovered that rats exposed to phthalates were born with shrunken genitals.

Other sources have also documented the link between phthalates and decreased male fertility. WebMD reported in 2009 on a study by Swan that found young boys whose mothers were exposed to high levels of phthalates were more likely to exhibit non-masculine behavior and less likely to “play with trucks and other male-typical toys or to play fight.”

A doctor who reviewed Swan’s study for WebMD found “exposure to the chemicals can cause a wide range of male reproductive harm, including undescended testicles, birth defects of the genitals, and infertility later in life.”

Even the CDC, which claims the effects of phthalates on human health are “unknown,” admits “Some types of phthalates have affected the reproductive system of laboratory animals.”


A 2020 study by chemical environmental engineering researcher Tadele Assefa Aragaw titled “Surgical face masks as a potential source for microplastic pollution in the COVID-19 scenario” lists several of the harmful side effects of Covid mask pollution in great detail.

The study is listed in the PubMed.gov archive, which is managed by the National Library of Medicine’s (NLM) National Center for Biotechnology Information. The NLM is an institute within the National Institutes of Health.

Microplastics contained within face masks are noted within the report to have an “enormous effect on the aquatic biota, and the entire environment,” as well as being a source of “chronic health problems to humans.”

Perhaps most damningly, the study goes on to note that microplastics “contain toxic chemicals as an additive like phthalate, organotin, nonylphenol, polybrominated biphenyl ether, and triclosan.”

“Those toxic chemicals can be released during the degradation processes (either chemically or biologically) of plastic polymers in the open environment,” the report notes.

The link between phthalates’ effect on male fertility and its potential existence within face masks has not been clearly explained by U.S. health officials or members of the pro-mask Biden administration.

As National File reported earlier this week, Covid face mask pollution has already taken a staggering toll on the environment, with an estimated 1.56 billion masks – “amounting to between 4,680 and 6,240 metric tonnes of plastic pollution” according to ecological experts – entering the world’s oceans in 2020.


Potentially toxic masks distributed in schools and daycares in Quebec

Grey and blue SNN200642 masks should no longer be used, warn Quebec and Ottawa

Grey and blue SNN200642 masks are being recalled by the provincial government. (Radio-Canada)

One model of mask distributed to Quebec schools and daycares may be dangerous for the lungs as they could contain a potentially toxic material, according to a directive sent out by the provincial government on Friday.

Radio-Canada has obtained documents showing Health Canada warned of the potential for "early pulmonary toxicity" from the SNN200642 masks which are made in China and sold and distributed by Métallifer, a Quebec-based manufacturer.

"If you have this type of mask in stock, we ask that you stop distributing them and keep them in a safe place now," the provincial government says in the directive that was sent by three ministries: education, families and higher education.

Some daycare educators had been suspicious of these grey and blue masks for a while because they felt like they were swallowing cat hair while wearing them, Radio-Canada has learned.

Health Canada conducted a preliminary risk assessment which revealed a potential for early lung damage associated with inhalation of microscopic graphene particles. Graphene is a strong, very thin material that is used in fabrication, but it can be harmful to lungs when inhaled and can cause long-term health problems.

Patrick Baillargeon, who is charge of purchasing Quebec's laboratory supplies, warns in a letter that Health Canada has not received any data to support the safety and efficacy of face masks containing graphene particles and therefore considers the risks associated with these medical devices unacceptable.

Radio-Canada has learned these masks were also distributed to Revenu Québec in recent months.

"We therefore ask all our customers to check if they have any in their possession," writes Baillargeon.

At the time of acquisition and distribution, the masks did comply with all the regulations in force, he says.

In a letter sent to parents, the Lester B. Pearson school board confirmed having received shipments of the SNN200642 and distributed them within the school earlier in the year. 

"We are now verifying whether any of these particular masks remain in our schools and centres. Any unused masks will be returned to our storage depot while we await further directives from the government," the letter stated.

"Please note, our understanding is that this recall does not apply to recent shipments we have received and does not affect the pediatric (child-sized) masks being distributed to our elementary schools."

In a statement, the English Montreal School Board said the potentially dangerous masks were never distributed to its schools or centres.

The Ministry of Families says the T1001 and HSC-HB-DMM models, delivered since December 2020, are compliant and can be used.

This is not the first time masks distributed to daycares have been recalled.

Back in December, the Quebec government revealed that masks it had been distributing for months to more than 15,000 daycares across the province did not meet safety standards, and daycare staff were ordered to stop using them.  

Between May and November, the ministry distributed 31.1 million MC9501 masks throughout the network to protect staff from COVID-19, but they were determined to be unfit for use.


Twenty Reasons Mandatory Face Masks Are Unsafe, Ineffective, and Immoral

By John C. A. Manley - 26. January 2021

Nine Potential and Proven Dangers to Muzzling Yourself

1. Cavities: New York dentists are reporting that half their patients are suffering decaying teeth, receding gum lines and seriously sour breath from wearing masks. “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before,” Dr. Rob Ramondi told FOX News.

2. Facial Deformities: Masking children triggers mouth breathing which as been shown to cause “long, narrow faces, narrow mouths, high palatal vaults, dental malocclusion, gummy smiles, and many other unattractive facial features,” according to the Journal of General Dentistry.

3. Acne Vulgaris: Moisture and germs collecting in the mask cause “facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis… or worsening acne” (according to Public Health Ontario) which stresses the immune system, can lead to permanent scarring and has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts (according to the Journal of Dermatologic Clinics). Children also develop impetigo, a bacterial infection that produces red sores and can lead to kidney damage (according to the Mayo Clinic).

4. Increased Risk of COVID-19: “Mask use by the general public could be associated with a theoretical elevated risk of COVID-19 through… self-contamination,” states Public Health Ontario in Wearing Masks in Public and COVID-19. “By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain,” theorizes nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD (in an article at The Centre for Research on Globalization). Buy New $51.00 (as of 04:50 EST - Details)

5. Bacterial Pneumonia: At an Oklahoma Press Conference, Dr. James Meehan, MD testified: “Reports coming from my colleagues all over the world are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise” as a result of moisture collecting in face masks.

6. Immune Suppressing: Masks are often worn by criminals trying to hide their identity while perpetuating an offence (theft, violence, rape, murder, etc.). They produce subconscious anxiety and fear. Fear and anxiety activate the fight-or-flight nervous system which down-regulates the immune system, as shown in a study by the American Psychological Association.

7. Germophobia: Masks create an irrational fear of germs and a false sense of protection from disease, leading to antisocial (or even hostile) behaviour towards those not wearing a mask. (See the paper in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders titled “COVID-19, obsessive-compulsive disorder and invisible life forms that threaten the self”).

Medical Doctor Warns that “Bacterial Pneumonias Are on the Rise” from Mask Wearing

8. Toxic: Many (if not most) masks and face coverings (including cloth) are made with toxic and carcinogenic chemicals including fire retardant, fibreglass, lead, NFE, phthalates, polyfluorinated chemicals and formaldehyde that will outgas and be inhaled by the wearer. (See “5 main hazardous chemicals in clothing from China named” by Fashion United).

9. Psychologically Harmful: “I believe the real threat right now is what we’re doing to sabotage the mental, emotional and physical health of… our children, whose development is dependent on social interactions, physical contact and facial expressions,” writes Dr. Joseph Mercola of Mercola.com. “Between mask wearing and social distancing, I fear the impact on children in particular may be long-term, if not permanent.”

Six Proofs Masks Do Not Reduce Infections

1. Insubstantial: A CDC-funded review on masking in May 2020 came to the conclusion: “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza… None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group.” If masks can’t stop the regular flu, how can they stop SAR-CoV-2?

2. Unreasonable: “Evidence that masking as a source [of] control results in any material reduction in transmission was scant, anecdotal, and, in the overall, lacking… [and mandatory masking] is the exact opposite of being reasonable,” ruled a hospital arbitrator in a dispute between The Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Toronto Academic Health Science Network.

3. Ineffective: “Oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections,” write Belgian medical doctors in an open letter published in The American Institute of Stress, September 24, 2020.

4. Unsanitary: “It has never been shown that wearing surgical face masks decreases postoperative wound infections,” writes Göran Tunevall, M.D. in the World Journal of Surgery. “On the contrary, a 50% decrease [in bacterial infection] has been reported after omitting face masks.”

5. No Protection: “There were 17 eligible studies.… None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection,” concludes a research review in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses.

6. Unproven: Dutch Minister for Medical Care, Tamara van Ark, asserted that “from a medical perspective there is no proven effectiveness of masks” after a review by the National Institute for Health on July 29, 2020 (according to Reuters).

Five Ways Forced Masking is Immoral

1. Reckless: “By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle,” writes Denis Rancourt, PhD in his 2020 paper Masks Don’t Work. Buy New $39.99 (as of 04:50 EST - Details)

2. Manipulative: Dr. Andreas Voss, member of the World Health Organization expert team and head of microbiology at a Dutch hospital in Nijmegen, on July 24, 2020, told I Am Expat that masks were made mandatory “not because of scientific evidence, but because of political pressure and public opinion.”

3. Fear-Mongering: “In fact, there is no study to even suggest that it makes any sense for healthy individuals to wear masks in public,” write Drs. Karina Reiss, Phd and Dr. Sucharit Bakdi, MD in Corona, False Alarm? “One might suspect that the only political reason for enforcing the measure is to foster fear in the population.”

4. Totalitarian: “If you look at the history of totalitarian regimes… they all do the same thing, which is they try to crush culture, and crush any evidence of self-expression…” explains Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in an interview regarding face masks. “And what is the ultimate vector for self-expression? It’s your facial expressions…. [Yet] we’ve all been told to put on the burqa and be obedient.”

5. Virtue-Signalling: “Masks are utterly useless,” testified Dr. Roger Hodkinson, a pathologist, certified with the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, at a city council meeting. “…masks are simply virtue-signalling… It’s utterly ridiculous seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people — I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense — walking around like lemmings, obeying without any knowledge base, to put the mask on their face.”

You can download, print and distribute a two-page printable handout of this article here.

Special thanks to artist Allen Forest for use of his Masked Mona Lisa cartoon.

Reprinted with permission from Global Research.


Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy


Dr. Russell Blaylock warns that not only do face masks fail to protect the healthy from getting sick, but they also create serious health risks to the wearer. The bottom line is that if you are not sick, you should not wear a face mask.

Image credit: engin akyurt on Unsplash

As businesses reopen, many are requiring shoppers and employees to wear a face mask. Costco, for instance, will not allow shoppers into the store without wearing a face mask. Many employers are requiring all employees to wear a face mask while at work. In some jurisdictions, all citizens must wear a face mask if they are outside of their own home.  ⁃ TN Editor

With the advent of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a number of medical practices that have little or no scientific support as regards reducing the spread of this infection. One of these measures is the wearing of facial masks, either a surgical-type mask, bandana or N95 respirator mask. When this pandemic began and we knew little about the virus itself or its epidemiologic behavior, it was assumed that it would behave, in terms of spread among communities, like other respiratory viruses. Little has presented itself after intense study of this virus and its behavior to change this perception.

This is somewhat of an unusual virus in that for the vast majority of people infected by the virus, one experiences either no illness (asymptomatic) or very little sickness. Only a very small number of people are at risk of a potentially serious outcome from the infection—mainly those with underlying serious medical conditions in conjunction with advanced age and frailty, those with immune compromising conditions and nursing home patients near the end of their lives. There is growing evidence that the treatment protocol issued to treating doctors by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mainly intubation and use of a ventilator (respirator), may have contributed significantly to the high death rate in these select individuals.

By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.

Russell Blaylock, MD

As for the scientific support for the use of face mask, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, “ None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”1   Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission. And, as you have seen, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission.

It is also instructive to know that until recently, the CDC did not recommend wearing a face mask or covering of any kind, unless a person was known to be infected, that is, until recently. Non-infected people need not wear a mask. When a person has TB we have them wear a mask, not the entire community of non-infected. The recommendations by the CDC and the WHO are not based on any studies of this virus and have never been used to contain any other virus pandemic or epidemic in history.

Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications.

There is a difference between the N95 respirator mask and the surgical mask (cloth or paper mask) in terms of side effects. The N95 mask, which filters out 95% of particles with a median diameter >0.3 µm, because it impairs respiratory exchange (breathing) to a greater degree than a soft mask, and is more often associated with headaches. In one such study, researchers surveyed 212 healthcare workers (47 males and 165 females) asking about presence of headaches with N95 mask use, duration of the headaches, type of headaches and if the person had preexisting headaches.2

How is Coronavirus Getting Into the Brain?

Vaccine Reaction

They found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia). It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.3   Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance.

Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung.

While most agree that the N95 mask can cause significant hypoxia and hypercapnia, another study of surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In this study, researchers examined the blood oxygen levels in 53 surgeons using an oximeter. They measured blood oxygenation before surgery as well as at the end of surgeries.The researchers found that the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels (pa02) significantly. The longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the fall in blood oxygen levels.

The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. . This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.5,6,7

People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.8,9  Repeated episodes of hypoxia has been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.10

There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.

It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain.11,12 In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.13

It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk group also survive, from an infectious disease and epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a return next winter. During this time, we need to protect the at-risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in general, care for them.

One should not attack and insult those who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest that is the wise choice to make.


  1. bin-Reza F et al. The use of mask and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence. Resp Viruses 2012;6(4):257-67.
  2. Zhu JH et al. Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study. J Lung Pulm Resp Res 2014:4:97-100.
  3. Ong JJY et al. Headaches associated with personal protective equipment- A cross-sectional study among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19. Headache 2020;60(5):864-877.
  4. Bader A et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126.
  5. Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Th1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376.
  6. Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84.
  7. Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the pre-metastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355.
  8. Blaylock RL. Immunoexcitatory mechanisms in glioma proliferation, invasion and occasional metastasis. Surg Neurol Inter 2013;4:15.
  9. Aggarwal BB. Nucler factor-kappaB: The enemy within. Cancer Cell 2004;6:203-208.
  10. Savransky V et al. Chronic intermittent hypoxia induces atherosclerosis. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2007;175:1290-1297.
  11. Baig AM et al. Evidence of the COVID-19 virus targeting the CNS: Tissue distribution, host-virus interaction, and proposed neurotropic mechanisms. ACS Chem Neurosci 2020;11:7:995-998.
  12. Wu Y et al. Nervous system involvement after infection with COVID-19 and other coronaviruses. Brain Behavior, and Immunity, In press.
  13. Perlman S et al. Spread of a neurotropic murine coronavirus into the CNS via the trigeminal and olfactory nerves. Virology 1989;170:556-560.



Dr. Russell Blaylock, author of The Blaylock Wellness Report newsletter, is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine and completed his internship and neurological residency at the Medical University of South Carolina. For 26 years, practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional research. Dr. Blaylock has authored four books, Excitotoxins: The Taste That KillsHealth and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your LifeNatural Strategies for Cancer Patients, and his most recent work, Cellular and Molecular Biology of Autism Spectrum Disorders.