Hospitals Are Violating Federal Law by Mandating Masks for Patients and Staff

Masks are medical devices. 1 Hospitals throughout the country are mandating the masks because of an FDA’s emergency use authorization (EUA). Signs typically posted throughout the hospitals make it evident that the mask requirement is to prevent the spread of COVID-19 during the declared emergency.  The Inova Hospital System in Northern Virginia is typical. Its website states:

• In keeping with CDC guidelines, all Inova team members and visitors are required to wear masks at all times while in Inova facilities, regardless of whether they are vaccinated. (emphasis added)

The hospital mask requirement is for the purpose of following the FDA EUA mask guidance. While the FDA authorized masks under its emergency powers, such EUA masks are not FDA-approved medical devices. 2

The trend of hospitals mandating the use of an EUA medical device violates federal law. All EUA medical devices, including masks, come with the inherent legal right to refuse (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III)).

The FDA’s blanket EUA mask letter clearly states that manufacturers cannot advertise masks as being safe or effective at diagnosing or preventing COVID-19. 3 Indeed, the EUA authorizing letter from the FDA states that such mask manufacturers’ “advertising and promotional materials, relating to the use of the product shall clearly and conspicuously state that [t]he product has not been FDA cleared or approved.” 4

21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A) provides that an EUA product can be used only when “[a]ppropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Hospitals have violated federal law by:

1) not informing staff and patients of the known and potential benefits and risks of wearing a mask,

2) not informing staff and patients that they have the option to accept or refuse to wear a mask,

3) not informing staff and patients of the consequences, in any, of not wearing a mask,

4) not informing staff and patients of available alternatives to wearing a mask, and

5) not informing staff and patients of the benefits and risks of the alternatives.

As I will prove below, masks are ineffective and unsafe. For your convenience, I have numbered the paragraphs and provided endnotes containing the authority for the averments so you can check them.

FACE MASKS ARE INEFFECTIVE

1.         A mask requirement is based on the premise that wearing a face mask is safe and effective. Upon examination of the science, we find that supporting data for wearing masks is not only lacking, but the weight of the scientific evidence is that wearing a mask is unsafe and ineffective.

2.         A landmark randomized study that included a control group found that face masks are ineffective in preventing the spread of COVID-19. 5

3.         Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, writng for The Spectator, summarized the study: “In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not wear masks when it came to being infected by COVID-19. 1.8 percent of those wearing masks caught COVID, compared to 2.1 percent of the control Group.” 6

4.         The randomized and controlled Denmark study contradicts the less scientific observational studies done in the Far East that alleged some benefit to wearing masks to prevent COVID-19. Observational studies have inherent deficiencies that often cause the observers to reach faulty conclusions. Heneghan and Jefferson point out that “observational studies are prone to recall bias: in the heat of a pandemic, not very many people will recall if and when they used masks and at what distance they kept from others. The lack of random allocation of masks can also ‘confound’ the results and might not account for seasonal effects.” 7 A randomized controlled study, like the Denmark mask study, removes the inherent unreliability that attends observational studies.

5.         William Kaplan, was appointed as an arbitrator to decide a dispute between the Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) and the Ontario Nurse’s Association (ONA). The collective bargaining agreement allowed the nurses working in the association hospitals to refuse influenza (flu) vaccination. The HOA imposed a new policy whereby if a nurse refused the influenza vaccine she would have to wear a mask while in the hospital. It was called a vaccine or mask policy (VOM). The ONA brought a complaint that the policy was coercive and, thus, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. 8

6.         The arbitrator in St. Michael’s Hospital conducted 21 hearings spanning three years. He presided over testimony from many expert witnesses, reviewed many volumes of scientific studies, meta-analyses, commentaries, and expert commentaries. The arbitrator found that the VOM was not coercive, but he nonetheless struck it down because he determined that it was unreasonable.

7.         In 2018 Kaplan rendered his opinion and determined that the scientific studies and expert testimony established that masks are ineffective in preventing nurses from spreading the flu to others. He further determined that masks are ineffective in protecting nurses from getting the flu. The arbitrator ruled that “[t]here is no persuasive evidence establishing a conclusive relationship between the use of surgical and procedural masks and protection against influenza transmission.” The arbitrator cited one particular scientific study, which concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face-masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” The arbitrator cited the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which stated categorically: “No studies have definitively shown that mask use by either infectious patients or health-care personnel prevents influenza transmission.”

8.         Regarding the asymptomatic tor pre-symptomatic transmission of the flu, the arbitrator stated that “[a]t best, the evidence indicates that asymptomatic transmission is not a significant factor in nosocomial influenza.” The arbitrator cited to a credible expert witness who testified that “[t]he evidence that pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic infections contribute substantially to influenza transmission remains scant.”

9.         On April 1, 2020, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article that concluded that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.” The article went on to state that “[t]he chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal.” 9 The article was authored by:

 

Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H.,

Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H.,

Julia Sinclair, M.B.A.,

Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N.,

and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.

 

Author Affiliations: From the Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute (M.K.), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (M.K., C.A.M., J.S., M.P.), Harvard Medical School (M.K., C.A.M., E.S.S.), and the Infection Control Unit and Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital (E.S.S.) — all in Boston.

10.       In a bizarre twist, the New England Journal of Medicine posted the following notice in a ribbon above the study:

 

Editor’s Note: This article was published on April 1, 2020, at NEJM.org. In a letter to the editor on June 3, 2020, the authors of this article state “We strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.”

11.       That strange statement contradicts the conclusion drawn from their study that “[t]he chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” Their study with attributed authority says wearing a mask is ineffective, but later without citing any reason or authority, they make what seems to be a political statement saying to wear those ineffective masks anyway. That nonsense statement that contradicted the results of the study was obviously the result of institutional pressure.

12.       Denis G. Rancourt, Ph.D., researched the effectiveness of wearing a mask and concluded that masks and respirators do not work in preventing influenza-like illnesses. Dr. Rancourt concluded:

 

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

 

***

 

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors. 10

13.       The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published a study showing that of the patients who tested positive for COVID-19, 85% (70.6% + 14.4% = 85%) of them either always wore a mask or often wore a mask. Thus, the study indicates that masks are largely ineffective in preventing the contraction of COVID-19. 11 Another interesting outcome of the study is that 88.7% of non-COVID-19 participants either always wore a mask or often wore a mask. They nonetheless were symptomatic with flu-like illnesses. There seems to be a high correlation between wearing a mask and becoming ill from disease. 12

14.       Dr. Russell Blaylock is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer. Dr. Blaylock states that “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.’ 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.” 13

15.       Dr. Brosseau is a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases and professor (retired), University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Sietsema is also an expert on respiratory protection and an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The recommendation of the two doctors is based on a review of available literature and informed by professional expertise and consultation. These two eminent experts concluded: “Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE [Personal Protective Equipment].” 14

16.       The researchers further determined that “[t]here is no evidence that surgical masks worn by healthcare workers are effective at limiting the emission of small particles or in preventing contamination of wounds during surgery.” 15

17.       That in and of itself is an astounding finding since we are so accustomed to doctors wearing masks during surgery to prevent them from contaminating their patients. The two researchers determined that “[c]linical trials in the surgery theater have found no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks. Despite these findings, it has been difficult for surgeons to give up a long-standing practice.” 16

18.       Checking the studies themselves bears out their conclusion. One research study conducted by Th. Goran Tunivall, M.D., spanned 115 weeks and involved 3,088 patients. There were 1,537 operations performed with face masks, resulting in 73 (4.7%) wound infections. But among the 1,551 operations performed without face masks, there were only 55 (3.5%) infections. Dr. Tunivall deemed the difference not to be statistically significant and confirmed the data from all other studies that face masks do not decrease postoperative infections. Indeed, Dr. Tunivall stated that “[i]t has never been shown that wearing surgical face masks decreases postoperative wound infections.” 17

19.       “The AAPS [American Association of Physicians and Surgeons], a national association of doctors founded in 1943, accurately delineates the physics and dynamics of face masks. Any government official that mandates the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is acting in complete defiance of proven scientific facts.” 18

20.       The reason for requiring face masks is that the alleged threat of asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19. Asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is a theory that has never been proven. Indeed, it is a theory that an authoritative scientific study has refuted. A research study conducted between May 14 and June 1, 2020, involving almost 10 million residents of Wuhan, China, found zero transmission of COVID-19 from asymptomatic carriers of the disease. The report revealed that “[a]ll city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated.” The researchers identified 300 asymptomatic positive cases. The researchers then closely contact traced the asymptomatic persons who tested positive for COVID-19. They found that “[t]here were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases.” 19

21.       The ineffectiveness of masks is known among infectious disease experts. For example, In March 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), told CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jonathan LaPook that there’s no reason people in the U.S. should wear a mask. Fauci stated that “right now in the United States people should not be walking around with masks … there is no reason to be walking around in a mask.” 20 Indeed, his statement is as true now as when he said it in March 2020. Dr. Fauci’s advice has been confirmed as accurate by Dr. Juday Mikovits and Dr. Rahid Buttar. 21 The advice not to wear a mask is advice that is also verified by infectious disease experts Drs. Dan Erickson and Atin Massihi. 22 The World Health Organization (WHO) has also stated that “[t]he only people who should be wearing masks are healthy people who are taking care of someone who is sick or sick people who are coughing or sneezing when they are in public.” 23

22.       Former HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell asked Anthony Fauci in an email, “I am traveling to [redacted]. Folks are suggesting I take a mask for the airport. Is this something I should do?” On February 5, 2020, Anthony Fauci responded in pertinent part:

 

Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location.

 

Safe travels,

Best regards,

Tony 24

23.       On February 29, 2020, the U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams firmly tweeted, “Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!” The Surgeon General explained in the tweet that masks “are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus.” 25 (Emphasis in original)

24.       The Washington Post reported that the U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams said on “Fox & Friends” on Monday morning. “There are things people can do to stay safe. There are things they shouldn’t be doing. One of the things they shouldn’t be doing, the general public, is going out and buying masks. It actually does not help, and it has not been proven to be effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus amongst the general public.” 26

25.       The U.S. Surgeon General explains that the surgical masks worn in hospitals serve one function only, and “that is mostly intended to protect the patient or outside world from the wearer’s respiratory emissions. It is not considered to provide respiratory protection for the wearer.” 27

26.       There is another kind of mask that is intended to partially protect a worker. An N-95 mask falls in that category. The Washington Post further reported that Surgeon General Adams said that as a health-care worker, he has to get “fit tested” when wearing protective masks, and those who do not wear the masks properly tend to fidget with them or touch their faces — which “actually can increase the spread of coronavirus.” 28

27.       That is correct. The U.S. Surgeon General said that the surgical masks that are commonly worn by the public can actually increase the spread of coronovirus.

28.       On March 31, 2020, Fox News reported the Surgeon General saying:

 

“What the World Health Organization [WHO] and the CDC [The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] have reaffirmed in the last few days is that they do not recommend the general public wear masks.”

 

He then explained the reasons why.

 

“On an individual level, there was a study in 2015 looking at medical students and medical students wearing surgical masks touch their face on average 23 times,” Adams explained. “We know a major way that you can get respiratory diseases like coronavirus is by touching a surface and then touching your face so wearing a mask improperly can actually increase your risk of getting disease.” 29

29.       Both Dr. Fauci and Surgeon General Adams later equivocated on their original no-mask opinions. But their reason for flip-flopping was based on a now discredited theory that asymptomatic people can infect other people with coronavirus. President Donald Trump recognized the strange flip-flop of Dr. Fauci and the U.S. Surgeon General about wearing face masks; the president also recognized the danger of wearing face masks. During a July 19, 2020, interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, President Trump stated: “Hey, Dr. Fauci said ‘don’t wear a mask.’ Our surgeon general, a terrific guy, said ‘don’t wear a mask.’ Everybody was saying ‘don’t wear a mask.’ All of a sudden everybody’s got to wear a mask. And as you know masks cause problems too.” 30

30.       On April 3, 2020, the U.S. Surgeon General changed course and stated that masks are recommended to prevent the spread of COVID-19. But he explained that the mask is not a protective device. He did not back off on his reason for initially stating that masks are unnecessary and ineffective. He reiterated that a mask does not prevent a  person from being infected, the mask only prevents a person who has COVID-19 from spreading it to another person. A mask does not protect a healthy person. A mask only prevents a person wearing the mask who is a carrier of COVID-19 from spreading the disease to another person. 31 He changed course because the CDC theorized that a person who does not have symptoms COVID-19 could nonetheless spread the disease to another. The theory that asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 could spread the disease has now been proven false. 32

FACE MASKS ARE UNSAFE

31.       Nationally-renowned board-certified neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock states that “[w]hile most agree that the N95 mask can cause significant hypoxia [reduction in blood oxygenation] and hypercapnia [elevation of CO2 in the blood], 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.” 33

32.       Dr. Blaylock points out that “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.” 34

33.       Dr. Blaylock warns:

 

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. 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. 35

34.       Dr. Blaylock specifically cites cancer as a risk of wearing a mask. Indeed, this has been known since Nobel Laureate Otto Warburg’s discovery in 1931, and subsequent studies have confirmed that a reduction in oxygen level in the body increases the risk of cancer.

35.       In a research study by Dr. Blaylock that was published by the National Institute of Health (NIH), Dr. Blaylock states that “[i]t is now known that angiogenesis [in cancer cells] is an early process and is driven by hypoxia.” 36 Angiogenesis is the formation of new blood vessels. Angiogenesis is “a hallmark of cancer, being necessary for both the growth (progression) and spread (metastasis) of cancer.” Id. Dr. Blaylock further found that “[h]ypoxia is also known to increase expression of CXCR4, which stimulates tumor cell migration and is associated with highly aggressive tumors and a poor prognosis.” 37

36.       Dr. Blaylock states that “[p]eople 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.” 38

37.       Dr. Blaylock has further found that “[r]epeated episodes of hypoxia has been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.” 39

38.       Furthermore, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), “[o]xygen deficient atmosphere means an atmosphere with an oxygen content below 19.5%.” 40

39.       Richard E. Fairfax, Director of the Directorate of Enforcement Programs for OSHA explains in an official post that “[p]aragraph (d)(2)(iii) of the Respiratory Protection Standard considers any atmosphere with an oxygen level below 19.5 percent to be oxygen-deficient and immediately dangerous to life or health.” 41

40.       What would cause such an oxygen-deficient condition? According to OSHA, “[o]xygen-deficient atmospheres may be created when oxygen is displaced by inerting gases, such as carbon dioxide.” 42

41.       That displacement of air by exhaled carbon dioxide is precisely the condition a person finds himself in when wearing a mask over his mouth and nose. Such a practice lowers the oxygen level below the safe limit of 19.5%, which OSHA has deemed to be “immediately dangerous to life.” That fact seems to be the cause of the deleterious health effects of wearing masks found in the studies cited by Dr. Blaylock.

42.       The typical oxygen level is approximately 20.5%. But when a mask is put over the wearer’s mouth and nose, the oxygen level being breathed back in by the wearer of a mask drops to a range between 17% and 18%. 43

43.       That reduced level of oxygen, according to OSHA, is “immediately dangerous to life.” And it does not matter whether it is a surgical mask, an N95 mask, or a thin cloth covering. In tests using all different types of masks, the oxygen level for the wearer dropped to a level below 19.5%, which OSHA has determined is an “oxygen-deficient atmosphere” that is “immediately dangerous to life.” Indeed, one woman wearing a mask while driving her car passed out unconscious from oxygen deprivation and crashed into a wooden telephone pole. 44

44.       But when pressed about wearing masks to prevent the spread of COVID, OSHA cleverly dodged the issue by stating that the oxygen level standards in their regulations “do not apply to the wearing of medical masks or cloth face coverings.” 45 But the issue is not whether the regulations apply to wearing masks. Nobody argued that they do. The issue is whether the standard under their regulations for a safe oxygen level is true. On that matter, OSHA has not backed down. According to OSHA, an oxygen level below 19.5 percent to be oxygen-deficient and immediately dangerous to life or health.” 46 Thus, wearing a mask that reduces the oxygen behind the mask to 17-18% is immediately dangerous to life.

45. Wearing masks creates an environment of moist warm air conducive to the incubation of pathogens. The breathing of those pathogens introduces them into the mouth and lungs and on the skin causing infections of the skin, tooth decay, and other illnesses. Some of those pathogens have been found to be resistant to antibiotics. For example, laboratory analysis of six face masks worn by children at a Florida school found that “five masks were contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi, including three with dangerous pathogenic and pneumonia-causing bacteria.” 47 One-third (33%) of the pathogens found in the masks were determined to be antibiotic-resistant pathogens. 48

46.       Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson M.D., Ph.D., 49 is a Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist. She has a Ph.D. in Pharmacology, specializing in neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuroregeneration and neuroplasticity. Dr. Grisz-Brisson is the founder and medical director of the London Neurology and Pain Clinic. Dr. Griesz-Brisson holds membership in the American Academy of Neurology, the European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS), the General Medical Council, United Kingdom, the German Medical Association, the Swiss Medical Society, the European Academy for Environmental Medicine, and the International Board for Clinical Metal Toxicology. Dr. Griesz-Brisson holds medical licenses in Germany, USA, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Qatar, and Norway. She is one of the foremost experts in the world on the effects of oxygen deprivation on the brain. Dr. Griesz-Brisson states that wearing a mask over one’s mouth and nose creates an oxygen deficiency and an increased intake of carbon dioxide. It causes an oxygen deficiency for the brain cells. 50 In essence, the brain is being suffocated, which causes irreversible degeneration of the brain. Depriving the developing brain of needed oxygen causes brain damage that “cannot be reversed.” Dr. Griesz-Brisson unequivocally warned that prolonged mask-wearing for hours on end will cause irreversible brain damage. She explains that the effects of oxygen deprivation are irreversible. Dr. Griesz-Brisson stated:

 

The rebreathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation. There are nerve cells for example in the hippocampus that can’t be longer than 3 minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive. The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, issues in concentration, slowing down of the reaction time – reactions of the cognitive system.

 

However, when you have chronic oxygen deprivation, all of those symptoms disappear because you get used to it. But your efficiency will remain impaired, and the undersupply of oxygen in your brain continues to progress.

 

We know that neurodegenerative diseases take years to decades to develop. If today you forget your phone number, the breakdown in your brain would have already started 20 or 30 years ago.

 

While you’re thinking that you have gotten used to wearing your mask and rebreathing your own exhaled air, the degenerative processes in your brain are getting amplified as your oxygen deprivation continues.

 

The second problem is that the nerve cells in your brain are unable to divide themselves normally. So in case our governments will generously allow us to get rid of the masks and go back to breathing oxygen freely again in a few months, the lost nerve cells will no longer be regenerated. What is gone is gone.

 

***

 

When in ten years, dementia is going to increase exponentially, and the younger generations couldn’t reach their God-given potential, it won’t help to say “we didn’t need the masks.”

47.       Sayer Ji, writing for Green Med Info, reports that a Meta-Analysis of 65 scientific studies reveals that wearing a face mask induces a serious medical condition that has been labeled: Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES). 51 The research report, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, was written by eight doctors and researchers with broad scientific expertise in cellular anatomy, neuroscience, pathology, pathophysiology, psychology, and medicine. 52

48.       The research paper reveals that “mask-related changes in respiratory physiology can have an adverse effect on the wearer’s blood gases sub-clinically and in some cases also clinically manifest and, therefore, have a negative effect on the basis of all aerobic life, external and internal respiration, with an influence on a wide variety of organ systems and metabolic processes with physical, psychological and social consequences for the individual human being.” 53

49.       Masks Make Breathing Difficult: The study proves that due to airway resistance of the mask, “the mask acts as a disturbance factor in breathing and makes the observed compensatory reactions with an increase in breathing frequency and simultaneous feeling of breathlessness plausible (increased work of the respiratory muscles). This extra strain due to the amplified work of breathing against bigger resistance caused by the masks also leads to intensified exhaustion with a rise in heart rate and increased CO2 production.” 54

50.       Neurological Disorders from Wearing Masks: The restricted airflow causes a significant drop in oxygen intake and a concomitant increase in carbon dioxide intake. This causes the mask wearer to be confused, disoriented, and drowsy. The researchers found that these neurological impairments were a direct result of mask-wearing. “In view of the scientific data, this connection also appears to be indisputable.” 55 The study shows that “masks also restrict the cognitive abilities of the individual (measured using a Likert scale survey) accompanied by a decline in psycho-motoric abilities and consequently a reduced responsiveness (measured using a linear position transducer) as well as an overall reduced performance capability (measured with the Roberge Subjective Symptoms-during-Work Scale).” 56

51.       Susceptibility to Accidents While Wearing Masks: The researchers determined that masks caused the wearer to suffer “confusion, impaired thinking, disorientation … and in some cases a decrease in maximum speed and reaction time …. This can become clinically relevant especially with regard to the further reduced ability to react and the additional increased susceptibility to accidents of such patients when wearing masks.” 57

52.       Bacterial Infections from Masks: It was found that “germs (bacteria, fungi and viruses) accumulate on the outside and inside of the masks due to the warm and moist environment. They can cause clinically relevant fungal, bacterial or viral infections.” The researchers cited a New York study that evaluated a random sample of 343 participants. The study found that frequent wearing of surgical mask type and N95 masks among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic “caused headache in 71.4% of participants, in addition to drowsiness in 23.6%, detectable skin damage in 51% and acne in 53% of mask users.”

53.       Mask Mouth: The researchers further also noted what has been come to be known as “mask mouth.” “There are reports from dental communities about negative effects of masks and are accordingly titled ‘mask mouth.’ Provocation of gingivitis (inflammation of the gums), halitosis (bad breath), candidiasis (fungal infestation of the mucous membranes with Candida albicans) and cheilitis (inflammation of the lips), especially of the corners of the mouth, and even plaque and caries are attributed to the excessive and improper use of masks.” 58 The researchers found that “the main trigger of the oral diseases mentioned is an increased dry mouth due to a reduced saliva flow and increased breathing through the open mouth under the mask. Mouth breathing causes surface dehydration and reduced salivary flow rate. Dry mouth is scientifically proven due to mask wear. The bad habit of breathing through the open mouth while wearing a mask seems plausible because such breathing pattern compensates for the increased breathing resistance, especially when inhaling through the masks. In turn, the outer skin moisture with altered skin flora, which has already been described under dermatological side effects, is held responsible as an explanation for the inflammation of the lips and corners of the mouth (cheilitis). This clearly shows the disease-promoting reversal of the natural conditions caused by masks. The physiological internal moisture with external dryness in the oral cavity converts into internal dryness with external moisture.” 59

54.       Voice Disorders: The report noted that “masks act like an acoustic filter and provoke excessively loud speech. This causes a voice disorder. The increased volume of speech also contributes to increased aerosol production by the mask wearer.” 60

55.       Masks Increase the Spread of Germs: The researchers found that masks increase germs because “the masks act like nebulizers and contribute to the production of very fine aerosols. Smaller particles, however, spread faster and further than large ones for physical reasons. Of particular interest in this experimental reference study was the finding that a test subject wearing a single-layer fabric mask was also able to release a total of 384% more particles (of various sizes) when breathing than a person without.” 61

56.       Masks Cause Depression in Wearers: There were also found severe psychological effects of mask-wearing. “[M]asks also frequently cause anxiety and psycho-vegetative stress reactions in children—as well as in adults—with an increase in psychosomatic and stress-related illnesses and depressive self-experience, reduced participation, social withdrawal and lowered health-related self-care. Over 50% of the mask wearers studied had at least mild depressive feelings.” 62

57.       There is reasonable medical certainty that wearing a face mask will cause hypoxia, hypercapnia, and other conditions that would be dangerous to my health.

58.       Dr. Zacharias Fögen, MD, conducted a study where he compared counties in Kansas that instituted mask mandates with counties in Kansas that did not institute mask mandates. 63 The comparative study showed that there was a significantly increased fatality rate from COVID-19 in those counties that required the wearing of masks. The report states: “Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ~50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.” 64 Dr. Fogen concluded that “[t]hese findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them, making mask mandates a debatable epidemiologic intervention.” 65

59.       Dr. Fogen theorized the increased death rate was from the spread of virions deeper into the respiratory tract due to “deep inhalation of hypercondensed droplets or pure virions caught in facemasks.” 66 The report states:

 

A rationale for the increased RR [risk ratio] by mandating masks is probably that virions that enter or those coughed out in droplets are retained in the facemask tissue, and after quick evaporation of the droplets, hypercondensed droplets or pure virions (virions not inside a droplet) are re-inhaled from a very short distance during inspiration. 67 (endnote citation deleted)

60.       Basically, the mask wearers are re-inhaling a hypercondensed aerosol of germs trapped by the mask. The mask acts as a petri-dish over the mouth and nose of the wearer, who then inhales the contaminants that have coagulated inside the mask.

MASKS CONTAIN TOXIC SUBSTANCES

61.       Dr. Carla Peters, who earned a Ph.D. in Immunology, reveals that “[m]any scientific studies and analysis all arrive at the same conclusion: the wearing of masks by healthy people cannot stop the spread of a virus.” 68 But ineffectiveness is not the end of the story. Research has shown that wearing masks drives and increases what has been characterized as COVID-19.

62.       As we have seen, the masks create a hypoxic and hypercapnic environment that makes people ill. It is, therefore, no surprise that they would be diagnosed with COVID-19. But there is another danger posed by masks that is also driving illnesses. Dr. Peters reveals that masks produced throughout the world used by medical personnel and the general public contain “a diversity of plastics, toxic and cancerous compounds like perfluorocarbon, aniline, phthalate, formaldehyde, bisfenol A as well as heavy metals, biocides (zinc oxide, graphene oxide) and nanoparticles.” 69

63.       Fifteen scientists did a study of batches of disposable masks from twelve different manufacturers sourced from around the world. The scientists found that 70% of the disposable masks contain titanium dioxide (TiO2), a suspected human carcinogen, that, when inhaled, poses a danger to the health of the mask wearers. 70 The scientists explained that TiO2 is commonly applied in face masks to improve stability to ultraviolet light, as a white colorant, or as a matting agent. 71 The scientists revealed that “[i]n animal experiments, toxic effects were reported when TiO2 particles were inhaled.” 72

64.       Dr. Carla Peters revealed that “the Belgian Sciensano found titanium dioxide in 24 different single and reusable types of facemasks meant for the general public systemically exceeded the acceptable exposure level by inhalation when masks are worn intensively.” 73 Dr. Peters further explained:

 

In Germany, The Netherlands and Canada millions of masks have been retracted from the market due to the presence of graphene-oxide known in ECHA as a substance causing eye irritation, skin irritation and may cause respiratory irritation. In a review on graphene nanoparticles the underlying toxicity has been revealed, for instance physical destruction, oxidative stress, DNA damage, inflammatory response, apoptosis, autophagy and necrosis. 74

65.       Dr. Peters states that “”[t]he large part of available current literature indicates that graphene-based nanomaterials are cytotoxic.” 75 A study cited by Dr. Peters explains the damage that can be done through inhaled graphene oxide:

 

The lungs are a potential entrance for graphene nanoparticles into the human body through [the] airway. The inhaled GO [graphene oxide] nanosheets can destroy the ultrastructure and biophysical properties of pulmonary surfactant (PS) film, which is the first line of host defense, and emerge their potential toxicity. … GO can result in acute inflammation response and chronic injury by interfering with the normal physiological functions of important organs. 76

66.       Dr. Peters reveals the many illnesses caused by graphene oxide exposure.

 

A recent publication in Gut 77 showed that exposure to titanium dioxide could exacerbate inflammation of the colon (Colitis Ulcerosa) weakening the innate immune system. Furthermore, titanium dioxide can enter directly into the brain and cause oxidative stress in glial cells (or mast cells), cells with an important role in the proper functioning of the innate immune system and nervous system. Maternal exposure to titanium dioxide during pregnancy may result in impaired memory in the infant. Long-term exposure and high concentrations could even cause DNA damage. Unfortunately, masks with titanium dioxide are still available on the market. 78