Take Your Masks Off: That’s What THE Science Says

Take Your Masks Off: That’s What THE Science Says

If you’re a surgeon and risk getting blood shot up your nose, or snot shot down into the open body, wear a mask. If you’re a painter, working with insulation and the like, wear a mask.

Wear a mask if you have an active illness you suspect might be coronadoom. That’s polite. Wear a mask if you are fat, old, diabetic, sick, or are otherwise susceptible, and are venturing to an area which might contain people who are actively sick with the doom.

Of course, if they’re going to arrest or fine you, wear a mask when you’re sure you can’t get away without it, or can’t afford the fine or jail time.

The rest of you don’t have to wear masks. Not now.

What follows are a list of links and papers on the evidence of the efficacy of masks. Which is low to nonexistent. Not that this evidence matters to most, especially those who cherish their fear. But I present it anyway, because I can’t help myself. If you see any I’ve not yet discovered, please put them in the comments.

Show this article to anybody who says, unironically, “The science”.

Breath Free

Science is broken. It is now (and has been) a service of the global progressive order. Witness this headline: Narcissists and Psychopaths Are More Likely to Refuse to Wear Masks, Says New Research.

Two recent studies looked at the relationship between personality traits and reactions to restrictions put in place to slow the spread of the coronavirus COVID-19. Researchers found that people possessing so-called “Dark Triad” traits—narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism—were less likely to comply with restrictions or engage in preventative measures against the pandemic. However, researchers also emphasized the small role personality traits have in the overall response to pandemic restrictions, like face-mask mandates and social-distancing requirements.

Both studies, which, combined, surveyed more than a thousand people in Poland, were published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Personality and Individual Differences.

They boasted of “peer review”, which is like those guys who beat up strangers and post videos of it to Facebook. Notice, too, that psychopathy has been defined as adhering to Reality. Science has been inverted.

Cloth masks: Dangerous to your health?

Respiratory infection is much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks compared to medical masks, research shows. Cloth masks should not be used by workers in any healthcare setting, authors of the new study say…

The trial saw 1607 hospital healthcare workers across 14 hospitals in the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi, split into three groups: those wearing medical masks, those wearing cloth masks and a control group based on usual practice, which included mask wearing.

Workers used the mask on every shift for four consecutive weeks.

The study found respiratory infection was much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks.

The penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% compared to medical masks with 44%.

Reduction in COVID-19 Infection Using Surgical Facial Masks Outside the Healthcare System

In the current COVID-19 pandemic with coronavirus, SARS-COV2, the Danish Health Authorities recommend using facial masks in the health care system when handling patients presumed or proven to be infected with the virus. However, the use of facial masks outside the health care system is not recommended by the Danish Health Authorities. Here, Health Authorities in other countries have different recommendations for the use of facial masks.

Challenges when using facial masks outside the health care system include wearing the mask consistently, an efficacy of the mask of app. 8 hours necessitating a change of mask throughout the day, and that it is not sufficiently tight enough to safely keep the virus out. Moreover, the eyes (mucous membrane) remain exposed. Compliance could also be another challenge.

They instead ask for all to use surgical masks. But if you’re going to do that, you may as well wear those hermetically sealed yellow space suits the media loves to show. After all, why take any chance!

Popular article on mask efficacy.

Another: Obligation du port du masque “sans aucun fondement scientifique” selon le Pr Toubiana qui fustige un “choix politique”. Which has been obvious to us for a long time.

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy. Quoting:

Review of the Medical Literature

Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common 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 to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/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.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “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://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. 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. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

“A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 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 (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Sweden’s top health guy (from one of the few countries that did not panic) says ‘Dangerous’ to think masks will stop virus

Another source with lists of studies on mask efficacy:

  • Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
  • Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
  • Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjol and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
  • In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.

    A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”

  • Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”
  • Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
  • Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.”
  • Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
  • Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
  • Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
  • Caroe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
  • Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
  • Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

The CDC itself: Public Health Guidance for Community-Related Exposure: “While research indicates masks may help those who are infected from spreading the infection, there is less information regarding whether masks offer any protection for a contact exposed to a symptomatic or asymptomatic patient.”

The Surgeon General speaks!


Or if you really want to signal your purity, this:

Can’t pass this up:

Lastly, we saw earlier that a meta-analysis said masks don’t work at stopping influenza spreading.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here


  1. Michael Dowd

    Venice, Florida where I live just initiated a mask ordinance. Among the 14 exceptions to a wearing a mask:

    1. Persons observing physical or social distancing;

    8. Persons whose compliance would be detrimental to their health, safety, or welfare. If this exception is being asserted for health reasons, the person asserting this exception is not required to carry or produce documentation verifying the heath condition or to specifically identify the health condition to the compliance officer or law enforcement officer.

    Surely, this will accomplish exactly what the majority on City Council intended.

  2. Sheri

    Saw a picture of Omar (of the “Gang of Four”) wearing a mask and an hajib. Looks EXACTLY like a niqab, which is one step below a burka. Yes, ladies, it’s coming and we have photographic PROOF of it now. Learn to love living in a burka peering out from tiny holes—sharia law arrives. You can thank those caring government tyrants you elected.

    We should thank those French for proving masks are nothing but government muzzles (which is what mine says on it) in such a creative way! Maybe those airhead college students were right to mock wearing a mask while having sex with their latest available sex partner.

    So far, we have avoided having to wear a mask, though the useless government lapdogs that run the asylum keep trying to push these (including the infectious disease supreme ruler–there can be only one and he’s run out any any competition repeatedly). I swear, these people would go to work naked on a child’s bicycle if they could keep their lofty positions and convince themselves they are the GODS of us all. Humans are failing very rapidly. Could be the sixth great extinction but no one will know. How sad.

  3. Jim Fedako

    No … masks work!

    The goal is not to reduce the spread of COVID … the goal is to use social pressure to enforce government edicts. And it’s working, quite well.

  4. Simon James

    Thank you!

  5. Michael T Williams

    It all boils down to “feelings”! The standard of care has been this so there must not be any deviation from it even if it is contrary to the data. But, Science!

  6. Sheri

    Jim F: Absolutely!

    I would note that not all diabetics need to be masked. I’ve been Type 1 for nearly 50 years. I’ve worked day care and in situations where I was interacting with people in limited space. Not all diabetics have weakened immune systems. In my “youth”, I got well faster than most. I personally, using only my own experience for very limited data, think that the problem with some chronic illnesses is not the illness itself, but the hospital’s procedures. I used to be able to take my own insulin vials and use them in the hospital. Last time, when I broke my wrist and had to have it rebuilt, they refused to use one of my vials of insulin and only let me use the older insulin (that evil cheap stuff from Walmart that worked find for most of five decades….) because it was not on their formulary (strike one for insurance and government regs) list. I had to have two injections because newer insulins don’t mix, even though mine do. My injections were as much as 2 to 3 hours late, as were meals. Dosing wasn’t based on the best method out there but rather one that requires no thought to use. I know hospitals try, but I am unconvinced that “chronic conditions” are not made much worse by the hospitalization and thus end up being more fatal. It would be interesting to know how many people with chronic conditions actually have had Covid and taken care of themselves successfully.
    (Sorry to run somewhat off-topic, but most people probably have no idea how hospitals and chronic conditions mix, allowing Covid to blame the chronic conditions.)

  7. John B()

    I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles, such are promises … Paul Simon

  8. ganderson

    My town just set up a mask/ distancing hotline so we can dime out our neighbors. I sent this to the hotline and to my town councilman this morning.

    I walked through downtown today without a mask. I will walk though downtown tomorrow without a mask. i will walk through downtown on Saturday without a mask. Etc, etc, I will wear a mask when asked to by merchants I do business with so that they don’t get jammed up, but I refuse to wear one outside. And by the way, this virus is apparently so smart that it will attack me while Im strolling through town, but not while I’m sitting in a restaurant. That’s one clever bug! And, should I inform you when I see someone driving her car without a mask? You never know, she might exit the vehicle at anytime! And it’s good to introduce these totalitarian measures now, when death rates, which never came even remotely close to the projections, are falling off the table. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would all be quite impressed with the work you are doing. Might I recommend that you add additional hotlines? I think I saw one of my neighbors idling his car too long, and another one put a recyclable can in with the trash, not to mention the guy at Wentworth Pond that didn’t leash his dog while she was swimming. Lets keep this going until every small business in the town is boarded up!

  9. Dennis

    Yep, plenty of evidence out there that we are being conned, but most won’t listen. The bugmen and sheeple seem to love their new gubbermint issue magic pretend safety muzzles. It’s fun to LARP as do-gooders saving the world from wicked virus and Orange Man like fave superhero with magic power from video game.

    I really like this sentence in the first link: “Researchers found that people possessing so-called “Dark Triad” traits—narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism—” Hah! So, “Machiavellianism” is now a psychological disorder, a “dark triad” personality “trait”! Funny, I thought it was a set of political/ethical principles for leaders written by a late 15th-early 16th century Florentine statesman. I wonder, would these “scientists” also describe Leninism, Bolshevism, Marxism, Maoism, Liberalism, Progressivism, etc., as “dark” personality traits and psychological disorders? We know the answer.

  10. Nicholas Arkison

    Obstacle #89,173 to Making America Great Again:

    “[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce [mankind] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security… And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” -John Hancock et al., 4 July 1776

    “Of course, if they’re going to arrest or fine you, wear a mask when you’re sure you can’t get away without it, or can’t afford the fine or jail time.” -William Briggs, 27 August 2020

    Thoughts, Mr. President?

  11. Nicholas Arkison

    Obstacle #89,173 to Making America Great Again:

    “[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce [mankind] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security… And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” -John Hancock et al., 4 July 1776

    “Of course, if they’re going to arrest or fine you, wear a mask when you’re sure you can’t get away without it, or can’t afford the fine or jail time.” -William Briggs, 27 August 2020

    Thoughts, Mr. President?

  12. JC

    Thanks for the ammunition, WB.

  13. Johnno

    The portions of some medical places dispensing with the necessity of masks for personnel altogether is extremely interesting.

    When I try to explain this whole thing to people I usually use the analogy of wearing a bullet proof vest in an incinerator. The scientific evidence will show that the vest was very resistant to the flames and protected that portion of the body quite well compared to the other areas that were burned to a crisp, so this proves that bullet proof vests work against fires!

    Much the same case for a mask working against a virus. Look! It stopped a bunch of stuff getting through! *Clap*Clap*Clap* Btw… You still tested positive…

  14. PaulH

    On the other side, here is a marginally pro-mask study. Check out Figure 1 on page 23. A recommendation (not a government order) to wear masks by day 15 seems to help a lot. Masks by day 16-30 have some effect. Masks or no masks after day 60 (where we are) make no difference. (The study assumes consistent and accurate mortality numbers from country to country, which we know is not the case.)


  15. Peter

    Clearly there may be feedback between wearing a mask and peoples behaviour. People may act more carefully when not wearing a mask, as opposed to those wearing a mask. It is like wearing a seatbelt in a car, it may not reduce fatalities.

  16. acricketchirps

    Clearly?! Well, I suppose clearly there MAY be anything.

  17. David

    I’m seeing countries with low case per million following a u-curve, and most of them happen to have very strict lockdown regulations.

    Herd immunity possibly suggests that regardless of lockdowns enough population has to be infected for the crisis- ahem, I mean plandemic to be over. Lockdowns may simply delay the numbers to a later date, hence the u-curve.

    Regardless no need to be alarmed since cases don’t mean much more than you have a trace of the virus in you.

  18. Amateur Brain Surgeon

    Dear JohnB. Condors pasa the virus

  19. John B()

    I’d rather feel the earth beneath my feet (than above my head)

  20. Amateur Brain Surgeon

    El Condor Pasa Covid so wear a mask (ABS has not Trademarked the lyrics. Yet)

    You’d rather be a sissy than a male
    Yes you would, if you could, you surely would
    You’d rather menstruate than be male
    Yes you would, if you only could, you surely would

    Away, I’d rather shoot away
    A Covid Condor that’s here and gone
    After pooping on your ground
    He gives the world its brownest sound
    Its brownest sound

    You hate to be a man cause you is weak
    Yes you would, if you could, you surely would
    You fight like Sissy Spacek and Meryl Streep
    Yes you would, if you only could, you surely would

  21. Milton Hathaway

    For me, the one word that perfectly captures 2020 so far is “creepy”. Its like I woke up in a poorly written dystopian-future movie.

    Oh, wait . . . maybe I only dreamt I woke up?


  22. Keith

    While there haven’t been many papers on the health effects of long-term mask use (because few people were mad enough to do it before July 2020), I found these two papers on niqab/mask use.

    Niqab use among Saudi women reduces ventilatory function by 30%: Alghadir A, Aly F, Zafar H. Effect of face veil on ventilatory function among Saudi adult females. Pak J Med Sci 2012;28(1):71-74

    Ahmad et al. 2001: wearing the veil significantly increases the incidence of respiratory diseases and asthma. https://doi.org/10.1081/JAS-100001497

  23. Joy

    Some people just want moaning rights, like Kevin the3 teenager.

    When this epidemic finally slows for the last time, and people look back at old posts here, news articles, thees discussions where people feigned so much upset at being asked to wear a mask are going to look really petty and churlish. Overly dramatic about a small inconvenience!

    I’ve been out a few times with my mask on, into shops and coffee shops, where you’re ALLOWED to remove it!
    Little things please little minds and people are saying about how much they appreciate the small things in life, things they took for granted before. People seem to like each other a bit more, strangers, that is, shopkeepers and fellow shoppers. That’s my impression. Everybody’s got something else to talk about other than the weather!

    If you don’t want to wear one, don’t. Just stop banging on about it as if anybody give a fig.
    It doesn’t take one hundred percent of compliance to have a good effect. Some just want to be sure that they weren’t the cause of some other stranger’s demise. You’d never know.

  24. Mark G Meyers

    In 1975, it was found that in an OR, when people walked in, bacteria density in the air was high, and it didn’t change whether wearing masks or not. It also came to be found that very good air filtration systems help clean out those high bacterial levels. Also, it seems “quiet breathing” doesn’t contribute as much as dead skin. (See the 2001 Skinner/Sutton study)

  25. Joy

    Re Mark Meyers not @ him, necessarily, to whom it may concern:

    The virus is an airborne respiratory infection. One of the hardest types of transmission to mitigate. Not impossible though. Bacterial transmission, like all microbes differ.

    As forTheatre, staff wear plastic boots, masks, occasionally goggles! for flying faeces from a ‘moving hose’, as has happened! ; double gloves are worn for highly infections diseases and the practice is being used for covid 19 don and doffing of equipment. Scrubbing up still goes on even prior to gloves being put on.

    I know this because i’ve been there. Theatres are cleaned by UV and a range of other measures. Same for other areas where aseptic techniques are used.

    Silly experiments carried out by politically motivated individuals of the more recent type, are not going to alter the habits of good infection control.

    People can’t have it both ways, claiming that elderly people died in care homes resulting from poor management on the one hand and then claim that airborne transmission isn’t a risk. That the necessity in an aseptic setting IS having an effect and that everywhere else it has no effect. It is a ll a case of degrees and of course where “YOU” draw the line. Country after country has come to the same conclusion yet you non clinical people think you know best.
    Listen to your Georgian politician anaesthetist who’s telling you to wear your masks. Stop making a constitutional case out of the crisis.

    Some people are naturally non compliant. It’s their God given right. Doesn’t make them right. Luckily they’re in a small minority as long as they’re not encouraging non clinical authorities to tout the same nonsense.

  26. Mark G Meyers

    To: Joy Re: “you non clinical people” (LOL)… You wrote, “Silly experiments carried out by politically motivated individuals of the more recent type, are not going to alter the habits of good infection control. ”

    Some of us are citing studies from 1975 to 2010, and you are talking about the recent hysteria. WHICH IS: 130 observational studies just piled into the Lancet in the past month – the facemasks, they say, make a huge difference fighting Covid, but they just can’t agree with the clinical studies of the past 45 years. Joy, you may work in a clinical setting, but you don’t seem to me to be one who reads.

  27. Joy just repeats all of the points we’ve already responded to. She can be safely ignored.

  28. Dennis

    Muzzles are not a “small inconvenience” but the most visible sign of abjection and tyranny being manifested by this Covid paranoia. Plus they simply do not do what their advocates claim – it is all based on lies and disinformation.

    “Some just want to be sure that they weren’t the cause of some other stranger’s demise.” – This may be the most delusional and sickeningly self-righteous bit of BS I’ve yet heard in an effort to justify mass muzzling. This is the biggest problem – lies having induced a savior complex in so many people and being used to justify mass tyranny in the name “saving” us from a routine flu-like virus. You can pretend you’re saving the world by acting like an abject slave.

  29. Like this:

    People can’t have it both ways, claiming that elderly people died in care homes resulting from poor management on the one hand and then claim that airborne transmission isn’t a risk.

    Nobody said airborne transmission isn’t a risk; who does that even refer to? Obviously it is. What we said is masks don’t work. And the poor management was sticking sick people in the same building as the most vulnerable. Masking or not masking was besides the point.

  30. David

    Mark G Meyers:

    I wouldn’t be surprised. They already spread toxic chemicals in the atmosphere for geoengineering, causing countless animal deaths and potentially humans through illnesses.

    Some may not be intentional but just low quality due to fast tracking approval of a certain vaccine and not having enough human testing. And of course they are protected by the law from lawsuits.

  31. Mark G Meyers

    @David; And thee is a problem with this being an RNA type virus – vaccines are almost impossible to make. 2012-2014 coronavirus vaccines all failed. Now, they are super-fast-tracked, to be done within a year. Also discussed in Plandemic 2: https://www.bitchute.com/video/4u7rt61YeGox/

  32. L Ron Hubbard alias John B()

    2 Chronicles 7:14

    if then my people, upon whom my name has been pronounced, humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from heaven and pardon their sins and heal their land.

  33. Joy

    Mark Meyers, Re the following:
    “To: Joy Re: “you non clinical people” (LOL)… You wrote,…”
    It must not have been clear enough that the reason I wrote not at you but kind of off the back of what you wrote, I wrote my remark regarding politically motivated so called claims of studies that show. Of course I read that your study was 1975, which IS why I wrote what I did.

    I think you assumed otherwise. However I stand by what I wrote about the mask debate. Just as those on one side claim that all uncertainty is not included so the same is true of those who would rather not be wearing masks by decree, (like me). I simply see the entire debate differently from those on the extremes of either side of the debate.
    I don’t mind you laughing, I’ve always been a good source of humour for people. At me and with me!
    Late response as e’ve been been busy and haven’t been reading.

  34. Joy

    “And the poor management was sticking sick people in the same building as the most vulnerable.”
    It isn’t either or, it’s both.
    Masks are essential in dealing with residents or patients at a time of an infection.
    Even for Norrovisrus which can carry off elderly patients very easily. Or winter vomiting bugs, which tend to go around the community in a wave.

    Neither should patients infected be placed with other residents, *without first checking they all have the same disease; nor should the practice of masking be underestimated.
    You present a false choice of a one way system.

    Just because Cuomo messed up, and I watched him live, insisting on homes taking Covid patients, so I was there before those who need the numbers to ‘see’ cause.

    Masking of communities in appropriate spaces has more than one effect on human behaviour.
    In an aseptic clinical setting, accuracy of use and donning and doffing is essential for certainty.

    Out in shops and on busses? for example, the fact that your fellow passenger is wearing a mask is a kind of memory cue, a discipline AND barrier, both physical and indirectly by altering behaviour. Certainly the biggest problem being open coughing and sneezing. That it isn’t 100% matters less in that kind of setting. Risk is to be reduced, not eliminated, such as in a theatre or when tending to a patient.
    Lastly, that people comply does not mean they are afraid or panicking. It might just mean they’re sensible, realistic, and want Trump to win! To keep the noise down.

    Doing so, Shifts the glare onto the anarchists and violent protestors, as opposed to joining in with the mentality and being something approaching THEIR level of behaviour. The latter gives media more ant Trump rhetoric.

  35. Dennis

    “Lastly, that people comply does not mean they are afraid or panicking. It might just mean they’re sensible, realistic, and want Trump to win! To keep the noise down.”

    This is utter nonsense. And in the end it gets back to the notion that this is some uniquely deadly and catastrophic virus, unprecedented in world history, requiring that all life forevermore be changed and that people be treated like mindless slaves forced to walk around with useless muzzles on their faces to prevent what is the effective equivalent of the goddamn flu! You even admit it’s just virtue signalling “top keep the noise down.” WTF! It’s just plain sick and disgusting.

  36. John B()

    Don’t know if any body is watching …

    According to WoM the USA is within a percentage point of Sweden’s deaths per million [571 :: 576]
    Sweden is currently experiencing 1 death per day.

    I can now see the US with another 13000 deaths in the next few weeks (on a par with UK’s current 611 deaths per million at which time the US can expect 25 deaths per day (UK is currently 10 deaths per day)

    I still say we (UK and US) “managed” a higher death toll over a longer period
    If you’re sick, wear a mask or stay home … \

  37. P H

    How tedious to have to read all this. How tedious that you link to this from your Twitter as if it’s authoritative.

    Wearing masks has been recommended to help mitigate the spread of a doplet/aerosol borne disease. If YOU are asymptomatic (or of course with symptoms and you have to go out), you MAY be helping prevent transmission to another. Studies that show that the mask wearer is NOT immune from infection from others are hardly surprising. And if those others are not wearing masks and ARE asymptomatic and breathing, talking, spitting onto your skin, eyes, clothes personal possessions and objects like doorhandles, then no, YOUR wearing a mask won’t really protect you.


    So, why does this matter to you so much? Why is it such a big deal to try ahnd do a little something to help protect other people? Do you also object to stopping at stop signs, pausing a pedestrian crossings, food service staff washing their hands before they prep your food or serve you?

  38. Here is the problem with face diapers. Each SARS-CoV-2 virion is approximately 50–150 nanometres in diameter. Compare to a typical bacteria which is 400 to 2,000nm. An N95 mask, the gold standard these days, removes 95% of particles 300 nm or larger (in controlled laboratory conditions — general use gives far lower protection, around 80%, lower if the wearer has a beard or mustache). The Coronavirus is smaller than the threshold of the mask. Stopping the coronavirus with a mask has been compared to stopping a mosquito with a chickenwire screen.

  39. Dennis

    But TomKatBooks, you’re making too much sense with actual science. Don’t you know that doesn’t matter anymore? These days it’s all about “The Science” (TM, Democrat Party 2020) and having the right ideological approach to viruses and virtue signalling is all that matters!

    As PH says above, “wearing masks has been recommended”! Well, that settles that, eh? How dare one question the motives and science behind such “recommendations” (and it goes beyond that actually in many places, where they have tried to criminalize not conforming to these politicized recommendations based on “The Science,” which is not to be confused with real science that shows they don’t work for their declared purpose!). I hope all the muzzle wearers choke.

  40. Dennis

    That VG paper’s abstract says they studied particles ranging from 2-5 microns in size. That’s about 20-50 times larger than Coronavirus particles, which average .125 microns (and can be as small as .06 microns).

    The Danish study is the only solid, control group study to have been done focusing on Covid itself. Found no benefit to mask (and the subgroup within the test group that had the highest rate of infection was those who reported being most diligent about always wearing the mask according to instructions). And they were using n95 masks. More porous (97%) cloth masks that most people use (and wash and reuse, thus further weakening their already almost non-existent effectiveness), are even less effective. Masks are all propaganda and virtue signalling.

    That CDC recommendation from July is PR propaganda, not science, pushed on them by politicians (and changes their – and the WHO’s – previous long-standing recommendation against generalized public mask wearing to prevent virus spread outside a medical context). Political agenda-driven propaganda, not science.

  41. Martin Dillon

    It is evident from many of these comments that people believe the issue with masks is their protection for the wearer. Masks are to be worn, not primarily to protect the wearer but to prevent the wearer from infecting others. How many of the studies listed on this site are designed to determine the reduction in spreading disease from infected mask wearers? NONE! So why so many assertions, some sarcastic and abusive, about the uselessness of mask wearing? Better would be to provide information on reducing infections from mask wearers. But no unsupported assertions or speculation, please. Only legitimate science is useful for such a question.

  42. Dennis

    Martin: If masks don’t work both ways, they don’t work. Period. It makes no sense to claim the issue is protecting others and not the wearer. Mask porosity is not a one way street.

    You are simply supporting mass tyranny over a virus that is not even particularly dangerous, with an infection rate in the same range as flu. It is political and moral insanity.

  43. Brad tittle

    Our beloved leaders keep studying the dead. It is much easier to study the dead. They don’t rise up and remind you of all the other things happening. Study the living and you are faced with smokers who aren’t dead and have lived longer than they are supposed to live. There is the asthmatic diabetic who lived through the terror, the alcoholic drug abuser who never noticed, the 90 year old cancer patient in end stage with covid who is still here.

    The numbers of the living just keep increasing.

  44. Mark Kaufman

    The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Face Masks




















  45. Dodgy Geezer

    “Take Your Masks Off: That’s What THE Science Says”

    As far as I can see, what the science says is that:

    1 – we still don’t know what the overall effect of wearing/not wearing a mask is.

    2 – we have done a reasonable sized study on a randam sample of people, only considering Covid infections, and found that any specific protection against Covid that they might provide is too small for that study measure.

    3 – the outcome of that study is compatible with masks providing a very small amount of protection, or actually having an even smaller negative effect.

    4 – these effects are POSSIBLE, but the study does NOT give any indication that they exist, because the data covering these hypotheses is NOT SIGNIFICANT.

  46. Dennis

    Very nice list of propaganda Mark. CDC, WHO, every controlled group study of masks prior to Covid recommended against generalized public masks wearing because they don’t work (as did Fraudci and the surgeon general as late as May and June), but suddenly they all changed on a dime because of political pressure – since masks were adopted by politicians and an easy and visible signal of obedience to arbitrary diktats – but I’m supposed to trust a bunch of links to things like Forbes, Wired, NYT, PBS, WSJ, etc…?

    If masks work so well, then explain to me why, despite astonishingly high compliance rates by the mindless sheeple of this country, alleged “cases” have risen since muzzle mandates were imposed?

    Go choke on your face diaper.

  47. Darren R. Cole

    Let’s see here… the vaccines are touting that with the mutating virus that they will only be good for maybe 8 months then guess what… another round of vaccines. Gee I have not heard the usual anti-vaxers jumping up and down protesting this one. Why is that this time? Is it the fear that they have been fed by the one world government that is taking over? I know conspiracy theories. Believe me the Earth is roundish not flat (I watched an amusing documentary just the other day about them. Every experiment that they used to prove it was flat just came out as we said it would to prove that it is roundish. Yes I say roundish because it may be a globe but it is far from actually round. Much fatter at the equator.), we landed on the moon (I’ve met people that have been up there.), and 911 happened (my wife traveled down there shortly after the disaster and the buildings did not fall all by themselves. I cannot imaging that they just tore them down to make two nice fountains.).
    So basically we are for ever supposedly going to be bound to keep getting vaccines every 8 months based on their estimations? This sounds like the big pharma conspiracy to me. We will forever be wearing mask to protect others from us infecting them because as has been said many times they do nothing for us……………..

  48. Dennis

    “Gee I have not heard the usual anti-vaxers jumping up and down protesting this one…”

    Look harder. The alleged need for repeat boosters being touted by Big Pharma has been mentioned by many opposed to the Covid vax obsession.

    As for the rest, I can’t actually figure out what point you’re actually trying to convey in this rambling mess…

  49. Darren R. Cole

    Well let me start by saying that I am sorry that you can’t keep up with my rambling. Try reading it slower and breaking each part down.
    1. I personally have not heard the usual pity party from the conspiracy theory types i.e. anti-vaxers (gee that takes up like 3/4th’s of my message)
    2. We have to get vaccines every 8 months based on what the estimates are for the immunities from each of the vaccines that at best from their estimations will be 80% effective (60% for J&J who are probably the most realistic)
    There is that better. Now I wrote it in a manner that you could understand.
    I was not aware that everything that I posted on here had to be direct to the point. I have seen so many others able to be understood using hyperbole and witticism. I will check out of this thread now so you won’t have to “tolerate my type” anymore. Good day to you!

  50. Dennis

    It’s not a matter of speed in reading, but lack of coherence in the writing. I cannot tell what point you are actually trying to make above or whose side you are actually on. Your explanation does not clear it up.

    On the one hand you seem disdainful of those you call “anti-vaxers” and “conspiracy theory types,” as if there are no legitimate scientific reasons to be skeptical of vaccine claims, especially experimental mRNA vaccines rushed out for Covid with no knowledge of long-term side effects – or of claims being made in general about Covid, about masks, etc, over the past year), but you also complain that those “anti-vaxers” aren’t actually complaining enough (“jumping up and down protesting” about Big Pharma pushing repeated booster shots, or having a “pity party” – pity for whom? about what?).

    But then your last paragraph above appears to take the side of the “anti-vaxers” and “conspiracy theorists” you seemingly disdained before: “So basically we are for ever supposedly going to be bound to keep getting vaccines every 8 months based on their estimations? This sounds like the big pharma conspiracy to me. We will forever be wearing mask to protect others from us infecting them because as has been said many times they do nothing for us…”

    Whatever. I’m done.

  51. Judy

    In early March, 2020 my husband and I were preparing to travel overseas for a month. Because of the Covid 19 situation, I was frequently checking the CDC website to determine if travel to Thailand was safe. At that time, CDC guidance cleared us to travel to Thailand. Curiously, the CDC DID NOT recommend the use of masks for the general population at all and stated they were not necessary or effective. Thailand had a different view and they were providing 3 masks per person per day to all of their people. Because of the CDC’s strong recommendation NOT to mask at that time, we did not use masks the entire time and remained healthy. The first time we wore them was en route back to the USA on a plane out of Taiwan where they were required.

  52. Jody A Lanham

    To Joy
    you said “airborne respiratory infection. One of the hardest types of transmission to mitigate. Not impossible though. Bacterial transmission, like all microbes differ”, so to remind you, coronavirus is a virus, not a bacteria, and they are not the same thing. Also coronavirus is smaller than most all of the other airborne viruses known to date and are almost impossible to mitigate, as you suggest, with a mask whose holes are at least 10 times larger than a virus particle. The virus is in the air and floats in and around us continuously, and there is really nothing one can do to prevent it getting to you if you are in its path. So what is the point of all this nonsense?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *