https://tinyurl.com/Masks-Evidence-Based-Analysis

An Evidence Based Scientific Analysisof Why Masks are Ineffective,
Unnecessary, and Harmful
By Jim Meehan, MD
About Dr. Meehan
Jim Meehan, MD is an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist with over 20 yearsof experience and advanced training in immunology, inflammation, and infectious disease. He
has performed well over 10,000 surgical procedures. His research experience includes
investigating associations between military vaccinations and Gulf War Syndrome. Dr. Meehan
is also trained in internal medicine, addiction medicine, endocrinology, integrative medicine,functional medicine, and nutrition.
Dr. Meehan is a former editor of the medical journal, “Ocular Immunology and Inflammation.”
Dr. Meehan has peer-reviewed thousands of medical research studies. With this experienceand expertise, Dr. Meehan has dedicated his career to protecting his patients and the publicfrom the fraud, corruption, and pseudoscience so often used by agents and agencies whose
motives and interests have resulted in American medicine and pharmaceutical drugs
becoming the third leading cause of death in the United States.

Key Points● Decades of the highest-level scientific evidence (meta-analyses of multiple randomized
controlled trials) overwhelmingly conclude that medical masks are ineffective atpreventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SAR-CoV-2.
● Those arguing for masks are relying on low-level evidence (observational retrospective
trials and mechanistic theories), none of which are powered to counter the evidence,arguments, and risks of mask mandates.
● The majority of the population is at very low to almost no risk of severe or lethal disease
from CoVID-19. Children are at an extraordinarily low risk of dying from CoVID-19.
Based on CDC published data, ​99.99815% of children that contract CoVID-19 survive.
● Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children in schools and daycares is very rare.
● Masks worn properly are well documented to cause harm to their wearers. Masks worn

improperly, re-used, or contaminated are dangerous.
● Any reasonable risk to benefit analysis of medical masks concludes that the risks
overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits.
● Children are at imminent risk of harm from mask mandates.

Outline1. Evidence Based Medicine: How we (should) make decisions in science and medicine
2. Masks are Ineffectivea. Mixed Messages from the Experts
b. The Evidence Against Masks
c. The Evidence For Masks
3. Masks are Unnecessary
a. Fear and Politics are Subverting Science and Reason
b. Masking Children in Schools is Unnecessary - So Says The Science
4. Masks are Harmful: 17 Ways that Masks Can Cause Harm
5. Masking School Children is Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful
a. Mandatory masks in school are a ‘major threat’ to childrens’ health, doctors warnb. Forcing Children to Wear Masks in Schools is Unnecessaryc. Forcing Children to Wear Masks for Long Periods Risks Causing Them PhysicalHarmd. Forcing Children to Wear Masks for Long Periods Risks Causing Them Mental
and Psychological Harm

Evidence Based Medicine: How we (should) makedecisions in science and medicine
High-level versus Low-level Evidence - the Hierarchy of Medical
Evidence

Advocates for mask mandates simply don’t have the highest-levels of scientific evidence tosupport their arguments. They can only cite low-level science - retrospective observational
studies.
Evidence hierarchies are often applied in evidence-based practices and are integral to decision
making in medicine and the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). The following is fromthe ​Wikipedia definition and description of this issue​:
A hierarchy of evidence (or levels of evidence) is a heuristic used to rank the relative strength

of results obtained from scientific research. There is broad agreement on the relative strengthof large-scale, epidemiological studies. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed
for assessing medical evidence.​[1]​ The design of the study (such as a case report for anindividual patient or a blinded randomized controlled trial) and the endpoints measured (suchas survival or quality of life) affect the strength of the evidence. In clinical research, the best
evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials(RCTs).​[2]​[3]​ Typically, systematic reviews of completed, high-quality randomized controlled
trials – such as those published by the ​Cochrane Collaboration​ – rank as the highest quality ofevidence above observational studies, while expert opinion and anecdotal experience are at
the bottom level of evidence quality.​[2]​[4]1. Siegfried T (2017-11-13). ​"Philosophical critique exposes flaws in medical evidence
hierarchies"​. Science News. Retrieved 2018-05-16.
2. Shafee, Thomas; Masukume, Gwinyai; Kipersztok, Lisa; Das, Diptanshu; Häggström,
Mikael; Heilman, James (28 August 2017). "​ Evolution of Wikipedia's medical content:
past, present and future"​. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 71 (11):jech–2016–208601. d​ oi​:​10.1136/jech-2016-208601​. I​ SSN​ ​0143-005X​. P​ MC​ ​5847101​.
PMID​ ​28847845​.
3. Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB (2005). Evidence-based Medicine:
How to Practice and Teach EBM (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. pp. 102–05.
ISBN​ 9​ 78-0443074448​.
4. Kim Hugel (16 May 2013). "​ The Journey of Research - Levels of Evidence"​. Canadian
Association of Pharmacy in Oncology. Retrieved 8 December 2019.

Masks are Ineffective
We are all confused by the mixed messages we have received on mask wearing in thecommunity, businesses, and schools. The issue has become tribal, divisive, and for most,confusing. However, I am not confused. I am fully informed on the scientific research related
to masks. After reading this, you will be too. Then, you can make the best decisions for you
and your family.
As you will learn from the material that follows, the evidence for and against masks should not
be confusing. The evidence is clear, masks are ineffective, unnecessary, and harmful.
What's happening in the world today, including the misinformation surrounding community
mask wearing, is about political agendas, symbolism, and fear, not science.

Mixed Messages from the Experts:
The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks have repeatedly
been shown to offer no benefit in the mitigation of transmission and infection caused byviruses like influenza and SARS-CoV-2. Which is exactly why they have never been
recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics.
The failure of the scientific literature to support medical masks for influenza and all otherviruses, is also why Fauci, the US Surgeon General, the CDC, WHO, and pretty much every
infectious disease expert stated that wearing masks won't prevent transmission of SARS
CoV-2. Although the public health "authorities" flipped, flopped, and later changed theirrecommendations, t​ he science did not change, nor did new science appear that supported thewearing of masks in public​. In fact, the most recent systemic analysis once again confirmsthat masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of viruses like CoVID-19:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
If the scientific literature demonstrated that masks were effective, then why,
early in the pandemic, did public health experts tell the public not to wearthem?
I have heard multiple answers to this question and none of them are reasonable. Here are acouple of the explanations that fail to withstand reasonable scrutiny:● Early in the pandemic, Fauci, the CDC, the U.S. Surgeon General, and CDC Director
Redfield, all said that masks were ineffective and would not protect the wearer or othermembers of the public from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes CoVID-19. lied to the
public and congress about masks being because they were trying to protect the supplyof masks for health care workers.
○ Early in the pandemic, Fauci, et al, actually told the truth about what years ofscientific research overwhelmingly concluded: medical masks don’t work toprevent the transmission or infection of viral respiratory pathogens.
○ About a month later, for reasons that appear to have more to do with being
lobbied by unnamed interest groups, they all began back-pedaling and claimingthat what they said previously was actually a lie, but they lied because they were
trying to protect the PPE supply for health care workers.
● Absolutely NO NEW research appeared to counter the forty years of meta-analyses andsystemic reviews of many randomized controlled trials that concluded that masks don’t
work to prevent the transmission of upper respiratory viruses.
○ Several low-level evidence, retrospective observational, mechanistic studies, andridiculous “masked hamster cage” studies appeared in the scientific literature.
○ The opinions and theories these studies offered were interesting and worthy of
consideration, but they failed to explain or counter the large body of priorhigh-level evidence. In this paper, I will show that none of these observational

studies or mechanistic theories countered the large body of high-level evidence
built on years of meta-analyzed and systemically reviewed multiple randomized
controlled trials
Redfield, Fauci, Birx, the U.S. Surgeon General, the CDC, and the WHO havebeen terribly inconsistent, confusing, and flip-flopping on masks throughout
the pandemic
We were frequently confused by the mixed messages coming from public health agencies.
Early in the pandemic Dr. Fauci, the U.S. Surgeon General, and t​ he WHO​ all told the public, in no
uncertain terms, not to wear masks. Then, over the course of the next several weeks andmonths, the CDC twice changed their recommendations, as did the WHO, and the two
agencies' recommendations consistently contradicted each other!
CDC: On June 4, 2020, the CDC published guidance indicating that masks do not deter
the spread of Covid-19 after as little as fifteen minutes of exposure to someone withsymptoms. CDC, Public Health Guidance for Community-Related Exposure, updated July
31, 2020.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/public-health-recommendations.html
WHO: While recommending the wearing of masks for health professionals, the World
Health Organization acknowledged that there is no evidence that mask wearing
prevents the spread of Covid-19 and that the science simply does not support requiringotherwise healthy people to wear face masks all day.
“At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthypeople in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthypeople in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including
COVID-19.” World Health Organization (WHO), Advice on the use of masks in thecontext of COVID-19, Interim Guidance (June 5, 2020) at 6.
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-com
munity-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-c
oronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak
WHO also acknowledged some of the risks long-term mask use poses to healthworkers and others:● self-contamination due to the manipulation of the mask by contaminatedhands;● potential self-contamination that can occur if medical masks are notchanged when wet, soiled or damaged;

● possible development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or
worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours● masks may be uncomfortable to wear;● false sense of security, leading to potentially less adherence to wellrecognized preventive measures such as physical distancing and handhygiene;● risk of droplet transmission and of splashes to the eyes, if mask wearing
is not combined with eye protection;● disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them by specific vulnerable
populations such as those with mental health disorders, developmental
disabilities, the deaf and hard of hearing community, and children;● difficulty wearing them in hot and humid environments.
Public Health Authorities changed their minds, but the science did not change.
So, what changed their minds?
More than 40 years of science has consistently concluded that masks don’t work. No newscience emerged to counter this conclusion. So, what is the basis for the change in directionthat emerged from our public health experts?
The following is the Twitter post from Deborah Cohen, UK correspondent for BBC Newsnightand 2019 British Journalism Award winner, indicates that her investigation of the WHO change
from not recommending masks to recommending masks had everything to do with politics
and lobbying:
Deborah Cohen @deb_cohen
Medically qualified, UK Correspondent​ @BBCNewsnight​ | 2019 British JournalismAward winner“We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had notbacked masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put
to WHO who did not deny. We said some people think we should not wait for RCTs
before putting policies in place”
4:25 AM · Jul 12, 2020
The i​ neffectiveness ​of face masks in stemming the spread of viral respiratory diseases,
including Covid-19, is widely known and acknowledged in the scientific and medical literatureand scientific communities. Therefore, it seems that the transition in public healthrecommendations to promote widespread mask mandates was based on a combination of
low-level observational studies, speculative mechanistic studies, fear, and, most of all,POLITICS, NOT SCIENCE.
To clear up the confusion, I will argue that the scientific evidence not only does not support thecommunity wearing of face masks, but the evidence shows that ​healthy people wearing facemasks pose serious health risks to wearers​.

The Evidence AGAINST Masks
Big Data Analysis of 25 U.S. States and 23 Countries Concludes, “Neither
Lockdowns nor Mask Mandates Lead to Reduced COVID Transmission Rates or
Deaths​”A new ​National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper​ by Andrew Atkeson,
Karen Kopecky, and Tao Zha focused on countries and U.S. states with more than 1,000 COVID
deaths as of late July. ​This analysis is the largest and most comprehensive analysis of thelargest datasets to date​. In all, the study included 2​ 5 U.S. states and 23 countries​.
The paper’s conclusion is that the data trends indicate that n​ onpharmaceutical interventions(NPIs) – such as lockdowns, closures, travel restrictions, stay-home orders, event bans,quarantines, curfews, and mask mandates – do not seem to affect virus transmission rates
overall.
Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis of Multiple Randomized Controlled Trials
Concludes that Face Masks Fail to Prevent Transmission of Viral Respiratory
Pathogens
One of the largest and highest level of evidence studies on the effectiveness of face masks on
the transmission of respiratory viruses, which was recently released by the CDC, is ​Jingyi Xiao,
et al., ​Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—
Personal Protective and Environmental Measures​, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 5,(May 2020). h​ ttps://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article● This CDC meta-analysis found that face masks failed to provide a significant reduction
to virus transmission.
● “In our systematic review, we identified 10 [Randomly Controlled Trials] that reported
estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed
influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission
with the use of face masks.”● There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus

transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when wornby uninfected persons to reduce exposure​.
● Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission oflaboratory-confirmed influenza​.
Mandates for children to wear face masks fails even a rational basis test, and is clearly not in achild's best interest, when assessed through a factual, evidence-based analysis, rather than afear-based lens. It is simply not rational to believe that face masks will be properly andstudiously worn by young children for up to ten hours in a school day.
In fact, the overwhelming weight of scientific literature to date establishes that face masks do
not prevent the spread of COVID-19 by, to, or from, children.
● Radonovich, L.J. et al., ​N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza
Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial​, JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824–833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645, 2019.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214○ “Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted
for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95
respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no
significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”;● Long, Y. et al., ​Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza:
A systematic review and meta‐analysis​, J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1‐ 9.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381○ A total of six [Randomized Controlled Trials] involving 9171 participants were
included.
○ There were no statistically significant differences in preventing
laboratory‐confirmed influenza, laboratory‐confirmed respiratory viral infections,laboratory‐confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95
respirators and surgical masks.
○ Meta‐analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against
laboratory‐confirmed bacterial colonization.
○ The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated witha lower risk of laboratory‐confirmed influenza.
● See e.g., Patrick Saunders-Hastings, et, al., ​Effectiveness of personal protective
measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review andmeta-analysis​, Epidemics, v. 20 (September 2017)○ This systemic review found “face mask use provided a non significant protective
effect . . . against 2009 pandemic influenza infection.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436516300858● An April 2020 review by the Norwich School of Medicine found that “the evidence is not
sufficiently strong to support widespread use of face masks”, but supports the use ofmasks by “particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.”○ Brainard, et al., ​face masks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness suchas COVID-19: A rapid systematic review​, April 6, 2020.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1● Dr. Russell Blaylock, a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, healthpractitioner, author, and lecturer warns that not only do face masks fail to protect thehealthy from getting sick, but they also create serious health risks to the wearer.
○ Dr. Russell Blaylock, Blaylock: ​Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy​,
Technocracy News & Trends, (posted May 11, 2020).
https://www.technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/○ [Recent studies] found that about a third of the [healthcare] 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 inblood 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.
○ 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 theCD4+ 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. Id.
● See also Denis G. Rancourt, PhD, ​Masks Don't Work: A review of science relevant to
COVID-19 social policy​, Ontario Civil Liberties Association, April 11, 2020.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340570735○ There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, andmeta-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, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are suchthat masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks andrespirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The
main transmission path is long residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 µm), which
are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one
aerosol particle​.
● Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) ​Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of thecommon cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial​,
American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002○ “N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely toexperience headaches.”○ “Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms ofcold symptoms or getting colds.”● Cowling, B. et al., ​Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic
review,​ Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658
2010.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-mas
ks-to prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic○ “None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either[Health Care Workers] or community members in households . . . .”● bin-Reza et al., ​The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: asystematic review of the scientific evidence​, Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses
6(4), 257–267, 2012.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

○ “There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive
relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza
infection.”● Offeddu, V. et al., ​Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections
in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis​, Clinical Infectious
Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681○ “Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of aprotective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection(VRI) was not statistically significant”
In fact, many physicians and researchers now believe that, because the ​ineffectiveness o​ f facemasks in stemming the spread of Covid-19 is so widely known and acknowledged in thescientific and medical communities, the goal of widespread mask mandates is based entirely
on low-level observational studies, speculative mechanistic studies, fear, and politics, notscience.
● See Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., et. al., ​Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19
Era​, New England Journal of Medicine, N Engl J Med 2020; 382:e63 (May 21, 2020).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372○ We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any,protection from infection. . . It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles.
Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase healthcare workers’ perceived sense of safety, well being, and trust in their hospitals.
Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear andanxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety
are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial
mask.
● See also Lisa M Brosseau, ScD, Margaret Sietsema, PhD, ​COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all
for COVID-19 not based on sound data​, Center for Infectious Disease Research andPolicy, University of Minnesota, April 1, 2020.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid19-not based-sound-data○ Dr. Brosseau is a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases
and professor (retired), University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Sietsema is also anexpert on respiratory protection and an assistant professor at the University of
Illinois at Chicago. They made the following key points in their commentary:

“We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptomsof COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because:● There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of
SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
● Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing
efforts because they have a sense of protection.
● We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare
workers.
Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce
SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing
such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19
transmission experience earlier this year.
Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective atpreventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.
Masks as means of “Source Control” - No, My Mask Does Not Protect You FromMeThe public is being repeatedly misinformed by catchy (guilt and fear based) marketingmessages designed to promote the social responsibility (or guilt) to wear masks as a form ofsource control: “I wear my mask for you and you wear your mask for me.”
Where is the evidence for these claims? On the websites where these unscientific marketingmessages are found, there are never references to science that supports the claims. In fact,
despite almost everything that has been drilled into the public psyche regarding masks, haslittle to know basis in science and absolutely no robust support from the highest-level evidence
based research. Masks have never been proven to protect either the wearer or the communityfrom the transmission of respiratory pathogens. Mask mandates during a pandemic areopposed by decades of high level science.
Simply put, the public is being misled by fraudulent claims supported with weakpseudoscience.
The fallacious argument: "Well, if masks don't work, then why do surgeons
wear them?"
I'm an ophthalmic surgeon. I specialize in ocular immunology, inflammation, and infectious
disease. I’ve performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. I havesuffered the detrimental effects that masks caused to my mental and physical function during
long surgeries. Because most of the surgeries I performed were microscopic procedures thatrequired fine motor skills, I changed my mask frequently to prevent the detrimental effects ofarterial deoxygenation.
However, these facts alone don’t qualify me as an expert on the matter. What qualifies me is
my experience as an editor of a medical journal, the fact that I’ve peer-reviewed thousands of
pre-print research articles, that I am an expert at reading medical research, distinguishing goodscience from bad, and separating fact from fiction.
Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. Itis very easy to be deceived by bad science.
Since the beginning of the pandemic I've read hundreds of studies on the science of medical
masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthypeople should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending
universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by
the highest level of scientific evidence.
First, the premise that surgeons wearing masks serves as evidence that "masks must work toprevent viral transmission" is a logical fallacy. I would classify this claim as an argument offalse equivalence, or comparing "apples to oranges." Surgical masks offer no benefit inprotecting patients from the surgeon’s respiratory droplets contaminating the surgical field
and the exposed tissues of surgical patients.
Surgeons well-versed in the scientific research regarding medical masks, especially thesystemic reviews published by the ​Cochrane Collaboration Wound Group​, know that ​surgicalface masks provide no benefit in the prevention of surgical wound infections​.[​R]​ [​R]​ Surgeons
with experience wearing surgical masks during long surgeries have undoubtedly experienced
and understand the ​detrimental effects masks have on respiration, blood oxygenation,
mental, and physical performance​. For these science-based reasons, there is a worldwide
trend towards surgeons and operating room staff no longer wearing surgical masks during“clean surgery” cases.
Nevertheless, many surgeons continue to wear face masks during clean surgery cases andoutpatient minor procedures. We do so more for symbolic purposes, habit, tradition, or, notinfrequently, because of institutional ignorance. That is, we are forced to wear masks because
it is the ignorant, anti-science policy of the hospital or surgery center where we perform oursurgeries.
Although wearing a mask during a clean surgery is unnecessary, there are other surgical cases
in which surgical masks, eye protection, and face shields are still a good idea. For example,
cases in which bone saws, drills, and other surgical power tools can expose the surgical teamto splashes and splatters from the patient’s bodily fluids.

If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as theyknow the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask.
Another area of "false equivalence" has to do with the environment in which the masks areworn. The environments in which surgeons wear masks minimize the adverse effects surgicalmasks have on their wearers.
Unlike the public wearing masks in the community, surgeons work in sterile surgical suites
equipped with heavy duty air exchange systems that maintain positive pressures, exchange
and filter the room air at a very high level, and increase the oxygen content of the room air.
These conditions limit the negative effects of masks on the surgeon and operating room staff.
And yet despite these extreme climate control conditions, clinical studies demonstrate thenegative effects (lowering arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide rebreathing) of surgical masks
on surgeon physiology and performance.
Surgeons and operating room personnel are well trained, experienced, and meticulous aboutmaintaining sterility. We only wear fresh sterile masks. We don the mask in a sterile fashion.
We wear the mask for short periods of time and change it out at the first signs of the excessive
moisture build up that we know degrades mask effectiveness and increases their negative
effects. Surgeons NEVER reuse surgical masks, nor do we ever wear cloth masks.
The public is being told to wear masks for which they have not been trained in the proper
techniques. As a result, they are mishandling, frequently touching, and constantly reusingmasks in a way that increases contamination and are more likely than not to increasetransmission of disease.
Just go watch people at the grocery story or Walmart and tell me what you think about theeffectiveness of masks in the community.
If you can't help but believe and trust the weak retrospective observational studies andconfused public health "authorities" lying to you about the benefits and completely ignoring therisks of medical masks, then you should at least reject the illogical anti-science
recommendation to block only 2 of the 3 ports of entry for viral diseases. Masks only cover themouth and nose. They do not protect the eyes.
Surgeons and Surgical Masks: Little to No Benefit of Surgical Masks During
Surgery
While it may go against “conventional wisdom,” and may seem counterintuitive to those whoare not involved in scientific research, the actual scientific evidence does not support the
proposition that wearing a mask is an effective method of source control to prevent the spreadof infection.
Many surgeons are surprised to learn that when surgical masks are put to the test inrandomized controlled trials, they fail to demonstrate benefit. In fact, surgical masks haverepeatedly failed to provide evidence of effectiveness as a means of “source control,” even in
the one environment where they are so steadfastly adhered to: the operating room. Simply put,
based on the ​actual science​ ​face masks have repeatedly been found to be ineffective as ameans of source control.​ Face masks do not protect against the very risk for which the
Defendants are forcing small children to wear face masks all day: source control.
● In 2014, the Cochrane Collaboration “Wounds Group” reviewed all research related tothe topic of effectiveness of face masks for preventing surgical wound infections.
○ Lipp, A. and Edwards, P., ​Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgicalwound infection in clean surgery (Review)​, Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 2014, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD002929.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub2/
epdf/full○ “Three [randomized controlled] trials were included, involving a total of 2113
[surgical team] participants. There was no statistically significant difference ininfection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.”● In 2016, the Cochrane Collaboration “Wounds Group” revisited the topic of effectivenessof face masks for preventing surgical wound infections again in 2016. In this updated
review they added any new studies on the topic that entered the literature since their2014 review (above).
○ Vincent, M. & Edwards, P., ​Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgicalwound infection in clean surgery,​ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
2016, Issue 4, Art. No.: CD002929.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub3/
epdf/full○ “Overall, we found very few studies and identified no new trials for this latest
update. We analysed a total of 2106 participants from the three studies wefound.”○ “All three [randomized controlled trials] showed that wearing a face mask during
surgery neither increases nor decreases the number of wound infections
occurring after surgery. We conclude that there is no clear evidence that wearing
disposable face masks affects the likelihood of wound infections developing
after surgery.”● See, e.g., Neil W. M. Orr, M.D., Mchir, FRCS, ​Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre?​,Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, vol. 63, 1981.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf○ This six month long study ​showed a significant decrease in the rate of patient
infections when masks were NOT worn​ in an operating theater.
● Ritter, MA, et al., ​The operating room environment as affected by people and the surgicalface mask​. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research: September 1975 - Volume 111 Issue - p 147-150.
https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop/Citation/1975/09000/The_Operating_Room_Enviro
nment_as _ Affected_by.20.aspx○ “The wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating
room environmental contamination...”● Da Zhou et al., ​Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of face masks
in surgery​, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine; 2015, Vol. 108(6) 223–228.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0141076815583167○ The paper analyzed numerous studies.
○ The use of surgical face masks is ubiquitous in surgical practice. Face Masks
have long been thought to confer protection to the patient from wound infection
and contamination from the operating surgeon and other members of thesurgical staff... ​However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence tosupport claims that face masks protect either patient or surgeon from
infectious contamination.​ (emphasis added)● Zahid Mehmood Bahli, D​ oes evidence based medicine support the effectiveness ofsurgical face masks in preventing postoperative wound infections in elective surgery​?, J
Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2009; 21(2).
http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/21-2/Zahid.pdf○ “No significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection wasobserved between masks group and groups operated with no masks. There was
no increase in infection rate in 1980 when masks were discarded. I​ n fact there
was a significant decrease in infection rate.​” (emphasis added)● Ana E. Figueiredo, et. al., ​Bag Exchange in Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis
Without Use of a Face Mask: Experience of Five Years​, Renal Unit, Hospital São Lucas,
Porto Alegre, Brazil. h​ ttp://www.advancesinpd.com/adv01/21Figueiredo.htm○ “Peritonitis rates reported during our observation period are compatible withthose seen in other centers and support the hypothesis that routine use of a facemask during CAPD bag exchange may be unnecessary.”● M.W. Skinner, B.A Sutton, D​ o Anaesthetists Need to Wear Surgical Masks in the
Operating Theatre? A Literature Review with Evidence-Based Recommendations​,
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 2001.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0310057X0102900402○ The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to
be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use​. . . .
○ There is little evidence to suggest that the wearing of surgical face masks bystaff in the operating theatre decreases postoperative wound infections​.
○ Published evidence indicates that postoperative wound infection rates are notsignificantly different in unmasked versus masked theatre staff.
○ However, ​there is evidence indicating a significant reduction in postoperative
wound infection rates when theatre staff are unmasked​.
○ Currently there is no evidence that removing masks presents any additional
hazard to the patient. (emphasis added).
● See Eva Sellden, M.D., Ph.D.,​ Is Routine Use of a Face Mask Necessary in the Operating
Room?​, Anesthesiology 2010; 113:1447, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.
https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/113/6/1447/9572/Is-Routine-Use-of-a-F
ace-Mask Necessary-in-the○ “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not
scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence tosupport this practice does not exist . . . .”Cloth Masks are Ineffective and May Increase the Risk of Transmission
Cloth masks are absolutely ineffective. Worst yet, they may increase the incidence of disease
in wearers and the population.
Despite the high-level scientific evidence against cloth masks, the CDC made the inexcusable
mistake of telling us cloth masks worked. They even provided directions on their website formaking homemade cloth masks.
A July 2020 review by the University of Oxford, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine f​ ound that
there is no evidence that cloth masks are at all effective against virus infection ortransmission​.
● Jefferson, Tom & Heneghan, Carl, ​Masking lack of evidence with politics​, Centre forEvidence-Based Medicine, July 23, 2020.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
A July 2020 study by Japanese researchers found that cloth masks “offer zero protection
against coronavirus.”● Naoya Kon, ​Cloth face masks offer zero shield against virus, a study shows​, The Asahi
Shimbun, study by Kazunari Onishi. ​http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13523664○ “This experiment reconfirmed that wearing cloth and gauze masks can’t prevent
virus infection.”
In an August 2020 article, Denis G. Rancourt, PhD, a Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties
Association, debunks supposed “studies” purporting to support compelled face mask use forthe general population.
● See Rancourt, F​ ace masks, lies, damn lies, and public health officials: “A growing body ofevidence”​ August 2020.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343399832_Face_masks_lies_damn_lies_and_public_hea lth_officials_A_growing_body_of_evidence○ “[T]here is no policy-grade evidence to support forced masking on the general
population, . . . all the latest-decade’s policy-grade evidence points to the
opposite: NOT recommending forced masking of the general population.”);○ No [randomized controlled trial] study with verified outcome shows a benefit for[health-care workers] or community members in households to wearing a maskor respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study
exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on
this below).
○ Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of theblocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more
benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several
large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.
○ Masks and respirators do not work.​ (emphasis added);● Denis G. Rancourt, PhD, ​Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19
Social Policy​, River Cities Reader, June 11, 2020.
https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-rel
evant-to covide-19-social-policy● see also, Todd McGreevy, ​Still No Conclusive Evidence Justifying Mandatory Masks,

River Cities Reader, August 12, 2020.
https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/still-no-conclusive-evidence-justifying-mandat
ory-masks
I presented a partial list of the various meta-analyses and systemic reviews of multiple
randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The studies represent the highest level of evidence thatmasks don’t work.
This WHO commissioned study is the best counter to my arguments. To any trained
researcher, this study falls far short of countering decades of the science previously
presented.
Advocates for mask mandates simply don’t have the highest-levels of scientific evidence tosupport their arguments. They can only cite low-level science - retrospective observational
studies. The WHO study is a cleverly disguised example of low-level garbage dressed up to
appear better than what it is. You have to examine the details to detect the weak deception.

The Evidence FOR Masks
The best evidence for masks was commissioned by the WHO and published in the Lancet inJune 2020. The title, “​Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent
Person-to-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review andMeta-Analysis,​” sounds like high-level scientific evidence. After all, systemic reviews andmeta-analyses are typically considered the epitome of evidence based medicine. However,
don’t be deceived by the authors’ deceptive attempts to elevate the relevancy of this study.
This systemic review/meta-analysis was ​entirely comprised of low-level observational
studies. No high-level randomized controlled trials were included.
No matter how much the authors attempt to deceive or embellish the study’s relevance with its“dressed up” title, the fact remains,​ this study still amounts to nothing more than a steaming
pile of weak evidence. N​ o matter how much the authors and the WHO want this study torepresent high-level evidence for masking world populations, it simply cannot be considered tobe more than the sum of its low level parts.
Furthermore, the study is seriously flawed with serious misrepresentations andmisinterpretations of the data. The flaws, errors, and mistakes in this analysis of 29
observational studies should lead to its retraction from the Lancet. The flaws are buried in thedata tables, therefore, it is missed by those that do little more than read titles and conclusions.
Which is exactly why studies like this should be subjected to ​thorough and i​ ndependentpeer-review​ before publication.
Scientists all over the world are raising concerns and speaking against the study anddemanding its retraction. For example, ​University of Toronto epidemiology professor Peter

Jueni called the WHO study “methodologically flawed” and ​“essentially useless”​.
Garbage-in-garbage out: the June 2020 WHO commissioned study of masks
published in The Lancet.
● Source: Chu, Derek K., Elie A. Akl, Stephanie Duda, Karla Solo, Sally Yaacoub, Holger J.
Schünemann, and COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study
authors. 2020. “​Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent
Person-to-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review andMeta-Analysis.​” ​The Lancet​ 395 (10242): 1973–87.
Summary​: the WHO-commissioned meta-study on the effectiveness of facemasks and social
distancing, published in The Lancet, is seriously flawed and should be retracted.
This study is nothing more than a seriously flawed meta-analysis of 29 weak observational
studies. None of the trials were randomized controlled trials. No matter how thoroughly you
sift through the weak, low-level of evidence, observational studies, in the end, all you end up
with is weak, easily biased, and essentially unusable evidence.
For a more comprehensive analysis of the flaws and a thorough debunking of the relevance of
this study, read this: ​WHO Mask Study Seriously Flawed, Swiss Policy Research (Sept. 9, 2020)​,
copied here:
Update: A US analyst has reviewed all 29 studies and found ​numerous additional mistakes​.
A. General flaws
1. Of the 29 studies analyzed by the Lancet meta-study, seven studies are unpublished andnon-peer-reviewed observational studies. Non-peer reviewed studies should not be used
to guide clinical practice according to the medRxiv disclaimer. [3] [4] [31] [36] [​37​] [40][​70​]
2. Of the 29 studies considered by the meta-study, only four are about the SARS-CoV-2
virus; ​the other 25 studies are about the SARS-1 virus or the MERS virus, both of whichhave very different transmission characteristics​: they were transmitted almost
exclusively by severely ill hospitalized patients and not by community transmission.
3. Of the four studies relating to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, two were misinterpreted by theLancet meta-study authors[​44​] [​70​], one is inconclusive [​37​], and one is about N95(FFP2) respirators and not about medical masks or cloth masks (see detailed analysis
below).
4. Despite the weakness, misinterpretations, and inapplicability, the Lancet meta-study isused to guide global facemask policy for the general population. However, o​ f the 29

studies considered by the meta-study, only three are classified as relating to a
non-health-care (i.e. community) setting​. Of these three studies, one is misclassified[​50​] (relating to masks in a hospital environment), one showed no benefit of facemasks[​69​], and one is a poorly designed retrospective study about SARS-1 in Beijing based on
telephone interviews [​74​]. None of these studies pertained to SARS-CoV-2.
5. The authors of the Lancet meta-study acknowledge that the certainty of the evidence
regarding facemasks is “low” as all of the studies are observational and none is arandomized controlled trial (RCT).
6. The WHO itself admitted that its updated facemask policy guidelines were based not on
new evidence but on ​“political lobbying”​.
B. Study misinterpretations
As mentioned above, several studies have been misinterpreted by the authors of themeta-study. All of the ​misinterpretations resulted in falsely claiming or exaggerating a benefitof facemasks.​ In the following, only the four studies relating to SARS-CoV-2 are reviewed.
(HCW: health care worker)
1. Heinzerling et al. [​44​]: The meta-study claims that 0 of 31 HCW wearing a facemask and
3 of 6 HCW not wearing a facemask got infected. T​ his is not correct​.
The study showed that 0 of 3 HCW wearing a facemask and 3 of 34 HCW not wearing afacemask got infected. ​This result was not statistically significant (p=0.73)​. Moreover,of the 3 HCW who got infected, one reported wearing a facemask “most of the time”,
but the meta-study classified this HCW as “not wearing a facemask”.
2. Wang et al. [​41​]: This study, which did show a benefit of facemasks, ​was about N95(FFP2) respirators in a health-care setting, not about medical masks or cloth masks​.
3. Wang et al. [​70​]: The meta-study claims that 1 of 1286 HCW wearing a facemask and
119 of 4036 wearing “no facemask” got infected. ​This is not correct.
According to the study, 78.3% (94/120) of infected HCWs were in fact wearing asurgical mask, and only 20.8% (25/120) did not wear any mask when exposed to thesource of infection. The “1 of 1286 HCW” mentioned in the meta-study refers to HCW
wearing an N95 (FFP2) respirator, not a medical or cloth mask.
4. Burke et al. [​37​]: This study had n​ o results relating to the use of facemasks.
Non-Covid studies were also misinterpreted or misrepresented by the Lancet meta-study
authors. For instance, in the case of the non-Covid study with the allegedly biggest impact ofmasks (Kim et al. [​49​] about N95 respirators in a hospital with MERS patients), the meta-study

authors incorrectly mixed serological and PCR results, again exaggerating the benefit of(N95) masks​. ​The actual results of the Kim et al. study were not statistically significant(p=0.159).
C. Studies relating to “social distancing”
In an additional section, the WHO meta-study evaluated studies on the benefit of “social
distancing” measures. However, several independent experts have shown that this section isseriously flawed. The authors again misinterpreted several studies and made several
statistical errors.
As with the studies on facemasks, all of these mistakes resulted in falsely claiming or
exaggerating a benefit of “social distancing” measures.
For more information on this section, see ​PubPeer (and links therein)​ and the C​ EBM review​.
Conclusion
As shown in this analysis, the WHO-commissioned meta-study on the effectiveness of
facemasks and social distancing, published in The Lancet, is seriously flawed and should be
retracted. Health authorities may want to reconsider their Covid-19 policy guidelines.
(end of copy)
Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural
Experiment Of State Mandates In The US
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818● Wei Lyu​ and G​ eorge L. Wehby
Limitations of the Studies Typically Used to Support Masks● They are all low-level evidence, retrospective observational studies. At the time of myanalysis and writing of this paper, none of the studies purporting to support community
wearing of masks used high-level randomized clinical trial methodology.
● Cannot distinguish correlation from causation.
● Does not measure face cover use in the community or any measure of compliance.
○ Estimates represent the intent-to-treat effects of these mandates, not theindividual-level effect of wearing a face mask in public on one’s own COVID-19
risk.
● Did not measure types of masks worn.

● Did not assess adverse effects of masks.
● Did not control for other community-wide and hospital-specific interventions that may
have contributed to or confounded their observations, including:○ Declarations of emergency (March 10),
○ New hospital policies to restrict visitors (March 12) and elective procedures(March 14),
○ School closures○ Hospital restrictions on business travel and on-site working (March 16),
○ Local public transportation reductions (March 17),
○ Issuance of statewide stay-at-home orders (March 24), and○ Automation of screening and testing (March 30).

Masks are Unnecessary
Fear and Politics are Subverting Science and Reason
Public health officials and the media have been warning us that coronavirus kills not just old or
immunocompromised people but young people too. While this is true, it remains extremely
rare.
A Pandemic of Fraud and Fear is More Dangerous than the COVID-19 Pandemic
Death rate data from the CDC: ​COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios
Table 1. Parameter Values that vary among the five COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios.
● Age Group● 0-19 years​:

sCFR

iCFR

“Survival”

0.00003 =3 per 100,000 =0.003%

0.00195%

99.99815%● 20-49 years​: 0.0002 =2 per 10,000 =0.02%

0.012%

99.988%● 50-69 years​: 0.005 =5 per 1,000 =

0.5%

0.3%

99.7%

● 70+ years​:

54 per 1,000 =

5.4%

3.24%

96.76%

0.054 =

Parameters:● Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate, R​0 =​ 2.5, 40% asymptomatic● For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is “the average number ofsecondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where
everyone is susceptible.” The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19–1.37); see
the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).
● According to the CDC's l​ atest best estimate​, 40% of COVID-19 infections are
asymptomatic.
● Parameter values are based on data received by CDC through August 8, 2020.
● These estimates are based on age-specific estimates of infection fatality ratios from
Hauser, A., Counotte, M.J., Margossian, C.C., Konstantinoudis, G., Low, N., Althaus, C.L.
and Riou, J., 2020

Masking Children in Schools is Unnecessary - So Says The Science
School and daycare transmission studies show that transmission of Covid-19
among unmasked children is remarkably low.
German study finds low Covid-19 infection rate in schools. Tests of pupils andteachers in Saxony suggest children may act as brake on infection.
The study by the University hospital in Dresden analysed blood samples from almost 1,500
children and 500 teachers from 13 schools in Saxony, Germany suggests schools may not playas big a role in spreading the virus as some had feared.
“Of the almost 2,000 samples, only 12 had antibodies,” said Reinhard Berner, a professor of
paediatrics at the hospital. In other words, in Saxony’s open and unmasked schools ​0.6% ofschool children demonstrated SARS-CoV-2 antibodies​.
All cases were asymptomatic. There were no fatalities.
“Children may even act as a brake on infection,”​ Berner told a news conference, saying“​infections in schools had not led to an outbreak, while the spread of the virus withinhouseholds was also less dynamic than previously thought.​”“​For other states with low infection rates, the study suggests schools could be reopened
without fear of causing widespread outbreaks of the virus​,” Berner said.
Sweden and Finland: 0.05% of children infected by Covid-19
Sweden kept schools open and unmasked during the pandemic, yet their decision to adhere to
the science and do what has always been done before, did not lead to a higher rate of infection
among their children compared to neighboring Finland, where schools were closed
temporarily.
Based on Covid-19 case data collected from each country during the time period, Feb. 24 toJune 14, the percentage of children between the ages of 1-19 infected by Covid-19 was thesame:● Sweden:

1,124 cases 0.05%● Finland:

584 cases

0.05%

Separate studies by Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet (KI), an independent medical research
institute, and the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children and Unicef, showed that
Swedish children fared better than children in other countries during the pandemic, both interms of education and mental health.
COVID-19 transmission rate 0.3% among children in schools and nurseries in
New South Wales, Australia
The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health: ​Effective testing and contact tracing is essential forschools to safely open during COVID-19 pandemic, two studies show​. The Lancet; August 3,
2020. h​ ttps://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-08/tl-pss080320.php
Real world data from schools where masks were not required or worn demonstrates aremarkably low rate of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. ​Analysis of COVID-19 case data from3103 schools​ and approximately ​4600 nurseries​ in New South Wales demonstrate that
schools and nurseries do not pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.
Subset analysis found that only 27 children or teachers went to school while they were
infectious, with an additional 18 people later becoming infected. Out of 1448 contacts in total,the ​rate of secondary transmission was found to be 1.2%​.
A subset analysis of 7 schools and nurseries that underwent additional investigations
including antibody testing, symptom surveys, and extra RT-PCR testing for the virus showedthat the transmission rates among children and staff were extremely low:●●●●child-to-child rate was 0.3%,
child-to-staff rate was 1.0%
staff-to-child rate was 1.5%
staff-to-staff rate was 4.4%.

The researchers noted that this finding suggests that ​children are less likely to transmit thevirus than adults​.
While coronavirus is obviously concerning and a very real threat to some people (namely, theelderly and immunocompromised), these data also show that the risk for the rest of the
population is extraordinarily low.

Masks are Harmful: 17 Ways That Masks Can CauseHarm
As a physician and former medical journal editor, I've carefully read the scientific literature
regarding the use of face masks to mitigate viral transmission. I believe the public healthexperts have community wearing of masks all wrong. Here are a few of the mechanisms bywhich medical masks can be harmful to their wearers and community wearing of face masks
is a very bad idea:
Wearing masks for extended periods increased incidences of headaches and negatively
affected work performance.
See Jonathan J.Y. Ong, et al., ​Headaches Associated With Personal Protective
Equipment – A Cross‐Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During
COVID‐19​, Headache, the Journal of Head and Face Pain (May 2020).
https://headachejournal.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/head.13811
1. Medical masks adversely affect respiratory physiology and function.
a. Masks inhibit air flow into and out of the lungs.
i.

For people with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),
and many other chronic lung diseases, face masks are intolerable to wear
as they worsen breathlessness.[​R]​

b. Medical masks lower blood oxygen and raise carbon dioxide such that
respiratory rate and depth of breaths are increased.[​R]​i.

Decreasing oxygen and increasing carbon dioxide in the bloodstream
stimulates a compensatory response in the respiratory centers of thebrain. These changes in blood gases result in ​increases in both frequency
and depth of breaths​.

ii.

As masks Increase both the frequency and depth of respirations (breaths),
they increase the likelihood that each respiration will contain a larger
amount of infectious viral particles. This may worsen the community
transmission of CoVID-19 as infected people wearing masks exhale
respiratory plumes loaded with greater levels of infectious viral particles.
These infectious plumes readily move around the sides, bottom, and top
of masks.

iii.

This may also increase the severity of CoVID-19 as the ​increased tidal

volume delivers the viral particles deeper into the lungs​.
iv.

These effects are amplified if face masks are contaminated with theviruses, bacteria, or fungi that find their way or opportunistically grow inthe warm, moist environment that medical masks quickly become.

2. Medical masks lower oxygen levels in the blood.​[​R]​
Wearing a mask for more than a few minutes causes a significant reduction in aperson’s blood oxygen level.
a. Beder, A., U. Büyükkoçak, H. Sabuncuoğlu, Z. A. Keskil, and S. Keskil. 2008.
“Preliminary Report on Surgical Mask Induced Deoxygenation during Major
Surgery.”​ Neurocirugia 19 (2): 121–26. DOI: ​10.1016/s1130-1473(08)70235-5i.

This study of 53 surgeons evaluated the effect of surgical masks on
oxygen saturation of hemoglobin in surgeons performing surgery.

ii.

The study revealed the surgeons experienced a significant decrease in theoxygen saturation of arterial pulsations (SpO2) and a slight increase inpulse rates after one hour. The decrease was more prominent in thesurgeons over the age of 35.

iii.

Given that a​ small decrease in SpO2 reflects a large decrease in partialpressure of oxygen in the arterial blood (PaO2)​[​R]​ , the findings of thisstudy suggests that surgical masks worn more than one hour may lower
arterial oxygen enough to induce physiologically detrimental effects.

b. Here are two cases of the tragic consequences of forcing children to wear
masks: Two Chineses boys drop dead while wearing face masks during physicalexercise classes.[​R​][​R]​
Two boys from two Chinese cities died of sudden cardiac arrest within a week.
The first boy, 15, collapsed after jogging in PE class while wearing a face mask
on April 24. The other boy, 14, reportedly died during a running exam while
wearing a mask.
Why would healthy boys drop dead while wearing masks and running in gym
class?! To answer this question, we must consider how mask induced
deoxygenation and increased oxygen demands of heart muscle during exercise
could have precipitated heart attacks in otherwise healthy teenagers:i.

Point #1:​ Heart muscle needs oxygen to survive. And the harder the heart
works, the more oxygen it requires. The American Heart Association says

this about heart attacks:
1. "Your ​heart muscle needs oxygen to survive​. A heart attack occurs
when the blood flow that brings ​oxygen to the heart muscle isseverely reduced​ or cut off completely."[​R]​ii.

Point #2:​ Masks block air intake and decrease arterial oxygen.
Studies of masked individuals have shown that mask wear decreases
arterial oxygen. For example, the effects of surgical masks worn by
surgeons in the operating room (an environment in which the oxygen
blocking effects of masks are minimized by the high air flow, increased
oxygen levels, and cool temperature of the operating suite) during major
surgery showed a significant decrease in arterial oxygen.[​R]​
The lesson here is that medical masks should not be worn during intense
exercise. As described above and shown in the study of surgeons wearing
surgical masks, medical masks block oxygen intake. Depriving the heart ofoxygen while exercising, especially intense exercise, could precipitate anacute heart attack.

iii.

Any questions? Wait...there’s more...

c. Jogger's lung collapses after he ran for 2.5 miles while wearing a face mask​ [​R]​
Mr Zhang's left lung was punctured due to high pressure caused by running. The
26-year-old became breathless whiling jogging with a mask on in China. Doctors
said his punctured lung was caused by jogging with a face covering. He is now instable condition after undergoing an operation, the hospital said.
d. Hypoxia increases the risk of blood clot formation.[​R]​
e. Lowering arterial oxygen suppresses the immune system, thus increasing thesusceptibility of mask wearers to infectious disease.
3. Medical masks raise carbon dioxide levels in the blood.
Although the body has robust mechanisms for mitigating transient and minor elevationsof CO2 in the air we breathe, these mechanisms can easily be overwhelmed by chronic
exposure to significant elevations in CO2, such as occurs with prolonged wearing of a
medical mask.
a. The science clearly demonstrates that f​ ace masks cause carbon dioxide
rebreathing and hypercapnia​ ​[R​ ]​i.

Fletcher, S. J., M. Clark, and P. J. Stanley. 2006. “Carbon Dioxide

Re-Breathing with Close Fitting Face Respirator Masks.” A​ naesthesia​ 61(9): 910.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04767.
xb. Exhaled air is rich in ​carbon dioxide​, a waste product of ​cellular respiration​.
c. A portion of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inspired (breathed) at each
respiratory cycle.
d. Masks trap CO2 rich respiratory exhalations at the mask-mouth interface, force
re-breathing of CO2 rich exhalations, raise carbon dioxide blood (CO​2​) levels.​ [​R]​e. Objective evidence demonstrating how masks increase blood carbon dioxidelevels and negatively impact health and function.
i.

Transcranial Ultrasound Doppler (TCUD)​ is a noninvasive means ofassessing blood flow in the cerebral vasculature. The increase in carbon
dioxide partial pressures (PCO​2​) caused by medical masks can beassessed by TCUD.[​R]​
1. Elevation of PCO​2​ causes vasodilation of the arteriolar channels
leading to a decrease in peripheral vascular resistance. The
decrease in peripheral vascular resistance is responsible for thechanges in cerebrovascular circulation time, CBF, and the velocity
of flow (V) in cerebral arteries.

2. Medical masks force the wearer to inspire (re-breathe) air that is a
mix of air from the local environment and the respiratory waste
products from the mask wearer’s previous exhalations.
a. Respiratory exhalations contain significantly higher levels ofcarbon dioxide (CO​2​), one of the waste products of
respiration.
b. The pulmonary system is designed to collect oxygen andremove CO2 from the body. Masks trap CO2 rich exhalations
at the mask-mouth interface.
c. Changes in arterial PCO​2​ considerably influence cranial
blood flow (CBF).[​R]​
ii.

Transcranial Ultrasound Doppler (TCUD) studies on masked andunmasked individuals demonstrate the changes in blood flow in the brain
the result from the arterial CO​2​ elevation that occurs within seconds of
donning a mask.
This video demonstrates the use of TCUD and heart rate variability tomeasure the adverse effects of masking a healthy nine year old child:https://bit.ly/2GGQWiZ

4. SARS CoV-2 is armed with a “furin cleavage site” that makes it more
pathogenic.
a. The furin cleavage site makes the virus more capable of invading human cells.
b. The furin cleavage site makes the virus e​ ven more capable of invading cells
when arterial oxygen levels decline​.[​R]​c. Therefore, wearing a medical mask may increase the severity of CoVID-19.
5. Medical masks trap exhaled viral (and other) pathogens in themouth/mask interspace, increase viral/infectious load, and increase theseverity of disease.
a. Face masks trap exhaled viral particles in the mouth/mask interspace. The
trapped viral particles are prevented from removal from the airways. The mask
wearer is then forced to re-breathe the viral particles, thus increasing infectious
viral particles in the airways and lungs.
b. In this way, surgical masks cause self-inoculation, increase viral load, andincrease the severity of disease.
c. Neurosurgeon, Russell Blaylock, MD, raises additional concerns:“By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and willconcentrate in the nasal passages, enter the lungs, olfactory nerves, and travel
into the brain.”​[​R]​
d. Face masks ​trap exhaled viral particles​ in the mouth/mask interspace.[​R]​ The
trapped viral particles are prevented from removal from the airways. The mask
wearer is thus forced to ​re-breathe​ the viral particles, increasing infectious viralparticles in the airways and lungs. In this way, Medical masks cause
self-inoculation, increase viral load, and increase the severity of disease.
e. Asymptomatic or mild cases of CoVID-19 become more severe when theinfected is masked, oxygen lowers, viral load increases from particle re-breathing,
and the disease ​overwhelms the innate immune system​.
i.

The main purpose of the innate immune response is to immediately
prevent the spread and movement of foreign pathogens throughout the
body.[​R]​ii.

The innate immune system plays a crucial role in destroying the virus,
preventing infection, or decreasing the viral load to decrease the severityof infection.

iii.

The innate immunity’s effectiveness is highly dependent on the viral load.
If face masks increase viral particle re-breathing at the same time theycreate a humid habitat where SARS-CoV-2 remains actively infectious, themask increases the viral load and can overwhelm the innate immune
system.

f. This trapping, re-breathing, and increasing pathogen load delivered to the lungs
becomes dramatically more dangerous when the medical mask becomes
contaminated with the opportunistic viruses, bacteria, and fungi that can grow inthe warm, moist environment of the mask.
g. “By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and willconcentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into thebrain.” - Russell Blaylock, MD
6. SARS CoV-2 Becomes More Dangerous When Blood Oxygen Levels
Declinea. Arterial oxygen desaturation is a critical issue in CoVID-19. The virus' ability toinfect cells is markedly enhanced by oxygen desaturation, which has been shownto occur even in the ideal operating room environment in which surgeons
operate: high air flow/exchange systems, cool temperature, and higher room
oxygen levels. when wearing a surgical mask.[​R]​b. One of the features that make SARS CoV-2 uniquely infectious is the "furin"
sequence in the virus that activates increased ACE2 receptor attack and cellularinvasion in low oxygen environments.[​R]​
7. The furin cleavage site of SARS CoV-2 increases cellular invasion,
especially during hypoxia (low blood oxygen levels)​[​R]​a. The furin cleavage site found in SARS CoV-2 is the likely result of thebioengineering “gain of function” (which means increasing the virulence of apathogen) research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This unethical,
dangerous, and illegal-in-most-countries research is alleged to have been ​funded
by Dr. Anthony Fauci (with $7.4 million taxpayer dollars​) and Bill Gates.
b. Furin cleavage sites are found in some of the most pathogenic forms ofinfluenza, which can be acted upon by furin and other cellular proteases. The
ubiquitous expression of cellular proteases across cell types increases thepotential for the virus to successfully infiltrate the host.
c. Furin is a membrane-bound protease that is expressed in multiple tissues
throughout the human body. Furin is expressed in significant concentrations in
the lungs. Thus, viruses in the respiratory tract can make use of this enzyme toconvert and activate their own surface glycoproteins. This makes their role inviral protein processing noteworthy.[​R]​
d. Some of the most pathogenic forms of influenza and HIV have similar furincleavage sites. It is not present in other bat beta coronaviruses. (By the way,
Fauci built his career researching and failing to create a vaccine for HIV). The
furin cleavage site is NOT present in SARS CoV-1 or MERS, or any of the otherknown "bat coronaviruses."e. Let me say it again, the ​SARS-CoV (aka, SARS-CoV-1)​, which is closely related to
the newest SARS-CoV-2 strain, ​does not bear the furin cleavage site​.
So, the question we should all be asking is how did the genetic sequence that codes forthis serious g​ ain of function​ that increases the potential for the virus to successfully
infiltrate the host find its way into SARS-CoV-2?

That’s the trillion dollar question; it demands a real and honest answer.
8. Cloth masks may increase the risk of contracting Covid-19 and otherrespiratory infections.
See MacIntyre CR, Seale H, Dung TC, et al., A​ cluster randomised trial of cloth masks
compared with medical masks in healthcare workers​, BMJ Open 2015; 5: e006577, US
National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, doi:
10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577, April 22, 2015.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/pdf/bmjopen-2014-006577.p
df○ “This study is the first [Randomly Controlled Trial] of cloth masks, and the results
caution against the use of cloth masks.
○ This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moistureretention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk ofinfection.”
9. Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security
a. People adopt a reduction in compliance with other infection control measures,
including social distancing and hands washing.[​R​]
10. Masks compromise communications and reduce social distancing
a. The quality and volume of speech between two people wearing masks is
considerably compromised and they may unconsciously move closer to improve
communications
b. This increases the likelihood of becoming exposed to the infectious viralparticles in the respiratory plumes of aerosolized droplet nuclei that escape thetop, bottom, and sides of the masks.
11. Untrained and inappropriate management of face masks:a. The public is untrained and inadequately educated in the proper selection ofmasks (most are wrongly wearing cloth masks), proper wear, sterility
management, and importance of not reusing single use masks.
b. People must not touch their masks, must change their single-use masks
frequently or wash them regularly, dispose of them correctly and adopt othermanagement measures, otherwise their risks and those of others may
increase.[​R]​ [​R​]c. We can all observe the countless ways in which people in communities are
mis-wearing, mishandling, and increasing their own and the communities risk ofcontracting infectious disease, including CoVID-19.
12. Masks Worn Imperfectly Are Dangerous
To fully appreciate the danger of improper wear and handling of face masks, all you
have to do is observe how the public is managing them. Take a trip to Walmart or yourlocal school and observe how mask wearers pull masks from their pocket or purse, drop
the masks on the floor, cough and sneeze in them, move them below the nose, on theirheads, or under their chin. I see it every day. I also see their soiled and stained surgicalface masks and know that these people are dangerously reusing a mask that should
never be reused.
You don’t need a clinical trial to determine that even when mask-wearers manage to dona fresh, sterile mask properly, keep them on for more than a few minutes at a time, they
very quickly contaminate the mask, their environment, and increase their risk ofinfection as the mask induces them to compulsively touch their faces and their masks.
● The World Health Organization, which has repeatedly changed its position on
universal masking, is adamant that​ if face masks are not worn carefully,
correctly, and kept sanitary, they are worse than ineffective​.
● In other words, masks worn imperfectly are dangerous.
○ See Linda Lacina, ​WHO updates guidance on masks for health workers andthe public - here's what you need to know​, World Economic Forum (June 5,2020).
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/who-updates-guidance-on-m
asks-heres-what-to-know-now/
People can infect themselves if they use contaminated hands to adjust amask or repeatedly take it on or off,” explained WHO Director-General, Dr
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. "I cannot say this clearly enough. Masks
alone will not protect you from COVID-19."
Failing to follow strict medical standards for wearing protective equipment andspecification of sterilizing and cleaning often leads to “skin and mucous membrane
injury, which may cause acute and chronic dermatitis, secondary infection andaggravation of underlying skin diseases.”● Yan, et al., ​Consensus of Chinese Experts on Protection of Skin and Mucous
Membrane Barrier for Health-Care Workers Fighting against Coronavirus Disease2019​. Dermatologic Therapy, March 2020, e13310.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7228211/pdf/DTH-9999-e1331
0.pd
13. Masks collect and colonize viruses, bacteria, and mold.
In Germany, where schools are open and masks are mostly optional, the association of"Kinder f.Weltfrieden eV" commissioned a laboratory analysis to investigate the level ofmicrobial contamination that results after a fresh mask is worn by a child for 6-8 hours
in school. What they found was alarming to all those recommending we mask ourchildren for several hours every day. The masks were found to be contaminated with ​82
bacterial colonies and 4 mold colonies.​ Where do you think the bacteria, molds, andviruses progressively colonizing and growing on the warm moist mask-mouth interface
end up?
Many of the microbes get transferred to surfaces the child (or adult) touches after they
touch, fiddle, and mishandle their mask. This is one of the many reasons that masks arealmost certainly INCREASING the transmission of infectious disease. More dangerously,
these microbes are being inhaled and delivered deep into the lungs where respiratory
disease far worse than CoVID-19 can result.
The oxygen lowering effects of masks forces the body to compensate by increasing
heart rate and deepening inspirations (increasing tidal volumes). Increased tidal
volumes drives the mask pathogens deep into the lungs where they can cause serious
pneumonia, inflammation, and tissue damage.
Furthermore, these risks are compounded by the immune suppression (CD4+ T-cell
suppression) that results from diminished arterial oxygenation. Thus, ​the mask-wearing
child is at imminent risk for harm caused by lung infections that are far moredangerous than a CoVID-19 infection​.
In fact, based on reports from my colleagues in emergency medicine, pulmonology, andinfectious disease, an a
​ larming explosion in bacterial pneumonias​ is being reported at
ERs and urgent care centers across the country.
Evidence that supports the points above:● Zhiqing, Liu, Chang Yongyun, Chu Wenxiang, Yan Mengning, Mao Yuanqing, Zhu
Zhenan, Wu Haishan, et al. 2018. “Surgical Masks as Source of Bacterial
Contamination during Operative Procedures.” J​ ournal of Orthopaedic Translation
14 (July): 57–62.
○ This study investigated whether surgical masks (SMs) could be a potential
source of bacterial shedding leading to an increased risk of surgical site

infection.
○ Results: T​ he longer the operating time the more bacterial colonization
occurred​. A significant increase [in bacterial counts] was noted in the
2-hour group.
● Colleen Huber, NMD, “​Masks Are Neither Effective nor Safe​,” PrimaryDoctor.Org,
July 6, 2020. h​ ttps://www.primarydoctor.org/masks-not-effect○ “The foregoing data show that masks serve more as instruments ofobstruction of normal breathing, rather than as effective barriers topathogens. Therefore, masks should not be used by the general public,
either by adults or children, and their limitations as prophylaxis against
pathogens should also be considered in medical settings.”○ Dr. Huber’s article cites 42 supporting scientific studies.
● “Dr. Jenny Harries, England's deputy chief medical officer, has warned that it was
not a good idea for the public to wear face masks as ​the virus can get trapped in
the material and causes infection when the wearer breathes in​.”○ Angela Betsaida B. Laguipo, BSN, “​Reusing Masks May Increase Your Riskof Coronavirus Infection, Expert Says​,” News, Medical, Life Sciences, March
15, 2020.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200315/Reusing-masks-may-incr
ease-your-risk-of-coronavirus-infection-expert-says.aspx● See also, Melkorka Licea, “Mask Mouth” Is a Seriously Stinky Side Effect ofWearing Masks. New York Post, August 5, 2020.
https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/mask-mouth-is-a-seriously-stinky-side-effect-ofwearing-masks/● Consider this: H​ ealth department investigating after high number of strep throat
cases reported at Shepherd schools.
The Central Michigan District Health Department is investigating after more thana dozen cases of strep throat​ were reported within Shepherd Public Schools
despite COVID-19 protocols.
14. Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air (respiratory plumes) go into
the eyes.
a. Masks may capture respiratory jets and large respiratory droplets, but theycannot prevent the respiratory plumes composed of aerosolizable respiratorydroplet nuclei to escape the top, bottom, and sides of the masks.
b. The respiratory plume wafts into the eyes and generates an uncomfortablefeeling and compulsion to touch and rub the eyes. If your hands arecontaminated and you touch or rub your eyes, you are transmitting and infecting
yourself through the ocular mucosa.[R]15. Contact tracing studies show that asymptomatic carrier transmission isvery rare.
a. Asymptomatic carriers are not a major driver of the disease.[​R​]b. Therefore, one of the key reasons the public was told to wear masks,
asymptomatic spreaders, should not be used as a reason for community wearingof masks.
16. Face masks and stay at home orders prevent the development of herd
immunity.
a. Only herd immunity can prevent pandemics; it is the only thing that ever has.
b. Only herd immunity will protect the vulnerable members of society.
c. Sweden’s example continues to prove this point.
17. Face masks are dangerous and contraindicated for a large number ofpeople with pre-existing medical conditions and disabilities.
a. Large percentages of the population have medical conditions that make wearing
a mask dangerous. Individuals should be examined by a medical professional toensure that mask wear will not further compromise their medical condition.
i.

Children with asthma (7.5% of American children) and other respiratory
disabilities are being harmed by mask mandates, they are being
discriminated against by businesses, schools, and public spaces that
require masks.

ii.

Children with autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders are
extremely prone to agitation and severe anxiety that results from theadverse effects, e.g., oxygen lowering effects, of masks.

iii.

An ever increasing number of children and young adults with autism aresensitive to touch and texture.[​R]​ Covering the nose and mouth with fabric
can cause sensory overload, feelings of panic, and extreme anxiety.

b. If a person with a disability is not able to wear a face mask, state and local

government agencies and private businesses must consider reasonablemodifications to a face mask policy so that the person with the disability canparticipate in, or benefit from, the programs offered or goods and services thatare provided. A reasonable modification means changing policies, practices, andprocedures, if needed, to provide goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations to an individual with a disability.
c. Examples of a person with a disability who might not be able to wear a facemask include individuals with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD), or other respiratory disabilities may not be able to wear a face mask
because of difficulty in or impaired breathing. People with respiratory disabilities
should consult their own medical professional for advice about using facemasks.
d. The CDC also states that anyone who has trouble breathing should not wear aface mask​.[​R]​
e. People with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), severe anxiety, orclaustrophobia (an abnormal fear of being in enclosed or narrow places), may
feel afraid or terrified when wearing a face mask. These individuals may not beable to stay calm or function when wearing a face mask.
f. A person who has cerebral palsy may have difficulty moving the small muscles in
the hands, wrists, or fingers. Due to their limited mobility, they may not be able totie the strings or put the elastic loops of a face mask over the ears. This meansthat the individual may not be able to put on or remove a face mask without
assistance.
g. A person who uses mouth control devices such as a sip and puff to operate awheelchair or assistive technology, or uses their mouth or tongue to use assistive
ventilators will be unable to wear a mask.

Masking School Children is Ineffective, Unnecessary,and Harmful
Face masks are not only ineffective, they are more dangerous than parents are being told.
Scientific study after scientific study over the course of many years have concluded thatwearing face masks for extended periods of time puts the wearer, especially children, in
imminent risk of physical and psychological harms.
If the previous section (“Masks are Harmful”) did not serve to make you question much ofwhat you have heard about the risks of medical masks, let us now examine what the scienceand experts say about masking children.

Mandatory masks in school are a ‘major threat’ to children’sdevelopment, doctors warn
Wednesday, 09 September 2020
The face mask requirement at school is bad for children’s general well-being and shouldbe abolished, 70 doctors wrote in an open letter​ to Flemish Education Minister Ben
Weyts.
The doctors want [Flemish Education Minister] Weyts to immediately reverse his
approach: no face mask requirement at school, only protect the at-risk group and only
advise people with a possible risk profile to consult their doctor.
“In recent months, the general well-being of children and young people has come under
severe pressure,” the letter’s authors said. “We see in our practices an increasing numberof children and young people with complaints due to the rules of conduct that have been
imposed on them.”
The doctors mentioned anxiety and sleep problems as well as behavioural disorders andgermaphobia, which is a pathological fear of germs. They are also seeing an increase indomestic violence, isolation and deprivation.
“Mandatory face masks in schools are a major threat to their development. It ignores theessential needs of the growing child. The well-being of children and young people ishighly dependent on emotional attachment to others,” they wrote.
According to them, “the face mask requirement makes school a threatening and unsafe
environment, where emotional closeness becomes difficult.”
Moreover, “there is no large-scale evidence that wearing face masks in a non-professional
environment has any positive effect on the spread of viruses, let alone on general health.
Nor is there any legal basis for implementing this requirement.”“Meanwhile, it is clear that healthy children living through Covid-19 heal withoutcomplications as standard and that they subsequently contribute to the protection of theirfellow human beings by increasing group immunity”.
“The only sensible measure to prevent serious illness and mortality caused by Covid-19 is
to isolate individual teachers and individual children at increased risk,” they said.
“This risk assessment is not the task of the Ministry of Education,” the doctors underlined,“but the task of the treating physicians in consultation with their patients.”

-

From The Brussels Times

The Great Barrington Declaration
A letter authored by 3 top epidemiologists and professors on October 4 th, 2020, has, as of
6:00 pm, October 9th, 2020, been signed by 4,051 Medical & Public Health Scientists and 7,247
Medical Practitioners. This is a portion of their consensus declaration:"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave
concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing
COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.”
Thus, "The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits ofreaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live theirlives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better
protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection."
Read the letter in full: ​https://gbdeclaration.org/

Forcing Children to Wear Face Masks is Unnecessary
Forcing children to wear face masks in school is ineffective, harmful, and unnecessary. The
risk of CoVID-19 in children is so low (see, “Masks are Unnecessary” above) that any imagined
benefits cannot possibly outweigh the risks. Based on CDC data, the risk of children between
the ages of zero and 19 years of age dying from CoVID-19 is an incredibly low risk of
0.00195%. This rate is much lower than the risk of children dying from influenza.
In fact, there is a large and growing body of physicians, pediatricians, scientists,
epidemiologists, and researchers around the world that are speaking out against theanti-scientific public health recommendations that have been forced upon the public and ourchildren.[​R]​ Those of us that have read the science have concluded that it is senseless anddangerous to force children to wear face masks in school:● See e.g., Michelle Science MD, MSc, FRCPC, et. al., ​COVID-19: Guidance for School
Reopening, Division of Infectious Diseases, The Hospital for Sick Children (“Sick Kids”),
University of Toronto, Canada.
https://www.sickkids.ca/PDFs/About-SickKids/81407-COVID19-Recommendations-forSchool Reopening-SickKids.pdf○ The use of [Non-Medical Masks (“NMMs”)] in the school setting should be driven
by local epidemiology with age-specific considerations.
○ When transmission in the community is low, the use of NMMs throughout theentire school day should not be mandatory for elementary, middle or high school

students returning to school​.
○ Safe masking practices (e.g. proper wearing/storage/removal) should be
reinforced with educational materials provided to parents, students and teachers.
○ Given the current epidemiology, the use of NMMs is not recommended forelementary school students​.
● A Covid-19 cross-country study by the University of East Anglia in England found that amask requirement was of no benefit and could even increase the risk of infection.
○ Hunter, et al., ​Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID- 9 inEurope: a quasi-experimental study​, May 6, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260○ “We found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings andclosure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced
incidence whereas stay at home orders, closure of all non-businesses andrequiring the wearing of face masks or coverings in public was not associatedwith any independent additional impact​.”

Forcing Children to Wear Face Masks for Long Periods Risks
Causing Them Physical Injuries.
The topic of the physical harms caused by masks was covered previously, but it is worth
repeating a few of the key points:
Wearing a mask for more than a few minutes causes a significant reduction in a person’s
blood oxygen level.
● See A. Beder, et al., ​Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during
major surgery​, Neurocirugía (2008). ​http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf● Transcranial Ultrasound Doppler (TCUD) studies on masked and unmasked individuals
demonstrate the changes in blood flow in the brain the result from the arterial CO​2
elevation that occurs within seconds of donning a mask.
This video demonstrates the use of TCUD and heart rate variability to measure theadverse effects of masking a healthy nine year old child: h​ ttps://bit.ly/2GGQWiZ
Wearing masks for extended periods increased incidences of headaches and negatively
affected work performance.
● See Jonathan J.Y. Ong, et al., ​Headaches Associated With Personal Protective

Equipment – A Cross‐Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During
COVID‐19​, Headache, the Journal of Head and Face Pain (May 2020).
https://headachejournal.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/head.13811
Most children wear cloth masks.
● See Brittany Dionne, H​ ow hard is it to find a medical grade face mask?​,​ ​WBRC News, April
18, 2020.
https://www.wbrc.com/2020/04/18/how-hard-is-it-find-medical-grade-face-mask/
But wearing a cloth mask may increase the risk of contracting Covid-19 and other respiratory
infections.
● See MacIntyre CR, Seale H, Dung TC, et al., A​ cluster randomised trial of cloth masks
compared with medical masks in healthcare workers​, BMJ Open 2015; 5: e006577, US
National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, doi:
10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577, April 22, 2015.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/pdf/bmjopen-2014-006577.p
df○ “This study is the first [Randomly Controlled Trial] of cloth masks, and the results
caution against the use of cloth masks.
○ This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moistureretention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk ofinfection.”

Forcing Children to Wear Face Masks for Long Periods Risks
Causing Them Mental and Psychological InjuriesChildren are at risk for psychological trauma in multiple ways by being forced to wear facemasks all day long at school. Doctors from around the country warn of the dangers to childrenof wearing face masks all day.
● See e.g., Jeffrey I. Barke, M.D., ​Open the schools without politics​, American Thinker, June
10, 2020.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/06/open_the_schools_without_politics.ht
mlMandatory face coverings on children is very harmful to the child: learning is inhibited; criticalinteractions among students and between student and teacher are fractured; and the facecovering is counterproductive, as kids will naturally touch their faces, thereby contaminating
their covering. This new normal that many are advocating may well lead to a spike in childhood

behavior problems such as learning disabilities, anxiety disorders, and depression, to name afew.
● See also Kathleen M. Pike, PhD, W​ hy a Mask is Not Just a Mask​, Global Mental Health
Programs, Columbia University, April 17, 2020.
https://www.cugmhp.org/five-on-friday/why-a-mask-is-not-just-a-mask
Many young children burst into tears or recoil when someone wearing a mask approaches. It’sso common that some elementary schools prohibit masks at the school Halloween parade.
One reason for this is that the development of facial recognition is relatively weak in young
children. According to University of Toronto psychologist, Dr. Kang Lee, it is not until kids areabout 14 years old that they reach adult skill levels in recognizing faces. Before then, kids tend
to see individual facial features, rather than recognizing the person as a whole. By putting onmasks, we take away information that makes it especially difficult for children to recognize
others and read emotional signals, which is unsettling and disconcerting. These issues may beespecially true for children with autism spectrum disorder, including Asperger’s syndrome, who
tend to have particular difficulties reading non-verbal cues.
Dr. Alice Kuo, President of the Southern California chapter of the American Academy of
Pediatrics issued a statement criticizing Los Angeles County school reopening guidelines that
require children wear masks as “not realistic or even developmentally appropriate for children.”She explained that, “wearing masks throughout the day can hinder language andsocio-emotional development, particularly for younger children.”● Local Pediatricians Urge Collaborative Decision-Making About Reopening Schools​,
Southern California chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, June 2, 2020.
http://aapca2.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AAP-CA2-press-release-on-schools-reopening 6-2-20-Rev.pdf
Some of the serious psychological harms to children caused by extended mask wearing aretied to lack of facial and emotional recognition.
● See Christiane Bormann-Kischkel, F​ ace Recognition in Children​, Eur Arch Psychiatr
Neurol Sci (1986) 236: 17-20. h​ ttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00641052
The use of salient visual speech cues is hidden by masks making learning difficult for young
children.
● Kaylah Lalondea and Rachael Frush Holta, ​Preschoolers Benefit From Visually Salient
Speech Cues​, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol. 58, 135–150,
February 2015.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712850/pdf/JSLHR-58-135.pdf● see also Martin Wegrzyn , et al., ​Mapping the emotional face. How individual face partscontribute to successful emotion recognition​, PLoS ONE 12(5): e0177239, May 11, 2017.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177239● Lawrence Brancazio et al., ​Use of visual information in speech perception: Evidence for avisual rate effect both with and without a McGurk effect​, Perception & Psychophysics
2005, 67 (5), 759-769. ​https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16334050/● Mustapha Skhiri, ​Visual Cues in Speech Perception, Department of Computer andInformation Science​, Linköping University, GSLT, LiTH 20001/3/02.
http://www.speech.kth.se/~rolf/gslt_papers/MustaphaSkiri.pdf
Voices of teachers and other students muffled through face masks makes learning moredifficult, especially for any child with a diagnosed or undiagnosed hearing impairment.
● See Amanda B. Silberer, PhD, et al., ​Importance of High Frequency Audibility on Speech
Recognition With and Without Visual Cues in Listeners with Normal Hearing​, Departmentof Communication Sciences and Disorders The University of Iowa, March 2014.
https://haar.lab.uiowa.edu/sites/haar.lab.uiowa.edu/files/wysiwyg_uploads/silberer_be
ntler_wu_aas _2014.pdf
The Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) has made clear that “Schools are an important part ofthe infrastructure of communities and play a critical role in supporting the whole child, not justtheir academic achievement.”● See P​ reparing K-12 School Administrators for a Safe Return to School in Fall 2020​.
Guidance from the CDC to school Districts.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/prepare-sa
fe return.html● Nowhere in the guidance provided to local schools by the CDC is any information about
compelling students to wear face masks. In fact, the CDC acknowledges that “[m]ore
research and evaluation is needed on the implementation of mitigation strategies (e.g.,social distancing, masks, hand hygiene, and use of cohorting) used in schools todetermine which strategies are the most effective.” Id. at 5.
The lack of any such recommendation is understandable given that the great weight ofscientific evidence shows unmistakably that wearing face masks for extended periods isharmful to people’s health, safety and emotional well-being, especially to young children.