Everything to do with masks / face coverings

[Kala Namak]

 

On 4/6/2021 at 9:11 PM, Mitochondrial Eve said:

I don't recall having seen this posted yet but perhaps @DarianF may already have done so.

 

Denis Rancourt, who is a member of PANDA, has, in the absence of any risk assessments completed by our governments, compiled this review of scientific reports specifically examining the harms caused by face masks.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349518677_Review_of_scientific_reports_of_harms_caused_by_face_masks_up_to_February_2021

 

Here is the opening summary.

 

 

That link to Denis Rancourt's report appears not to be working, there is however an article here that appears to cover the same points, which I found referenced in a detailed point by point rebuttal, or as the author David Kyle Johnson puts it, a "Complete Debunking" (10,000+ words long, not read it yet) 

Rancourt's article includes a youtube video of a debate between them which I remember watching last year and as I recall, it was very very heated...

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Kala Namak

[Mitochondrial Eve]

7 minutes ago, Kala Namak said:

 

That link to Denis Rancourt's report appears not to be working, there is however an article here that appears to cover the same points, which I found referenced in a detailed point by point rebuttal, or as the author David Kyle Johnson puts it, a "Complete Debunking" (10,000+ words long, not read it yet) 

Rancourt's article includes a youtube video of a debate between them which I remember watching last year and as I recall, it was very very heated...

 

 

 

 

Thanks for pointing out that the link is now broken! It was definitely working the other day when I posted it including the direct quote from the report.

 

I have, however, found another link to it here:

 

https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/wp-content/uploads/5thsciencereview-masksharm-1.pdf

 

Thanks also for posting the video - I haven't watched it yet, but it pre-dates Denis Rancourt's latest report on masks by several months. I understand that he had previously compiled evidence against masks in around May 2020 which proved to be pretty controversial and which is probably the subject matter of the debate in your video. He has now built further upon what he previously presented in his latest report (dated 22nd February 2021).

[Kala Namak]

44 minutes ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

Thanks also for posting the video - I haven't watched it yet, but it pre-dates Denis Rancourt's latest report on masks by several months. I understand that he had previously compiled evidence against masks in around May 2020 which proved to be pretty controversial and which is probably the subject matter of the debate in your video. He has now built further upon what he previously presented in his latest report (dated 22nd February 2021).

Thanks for the link. I've saved my own copy because stuff like this has the uncanny ability to "disappear" all of a sudden. I vaguely remember the video being quite a hard watch as David Kyle was very shouty. Looking forward to reading what the update is.

[Mitochondrial Eve]

1 minute ago, Kala Namak said:

Thanks for the link. I've saved my own copy because stuff like this has the uncanny ability to "disappear" all of a sudden. I vaguely remember the video being quite a hard watch as David Kyle was very shouty. Looking forward to reading what the update is.

 

I'm out of reactions unfortunately but it's a good idea to save it, particularly given that it was taken down from PubMed so quickly! I have done the same.

 

It's good to see you back on the forum.

 

 

[Kala Namak]

10 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

I'm out of reactions unfortunately but it's a good idea to save it, particularly given that it was taken down from PubMed so quickly! I have done the same.

 

It's good to see you back on the forum.

 

 

Thanks, I was never really away, and usually peek in here at least once a day, just haven't posted that much. 

I'm trying to stay positive and to look for some light at the end of the covid tunnel, can't really see that much at the moment if I'm honest. Hopefully more people are waking up and the momentum shifting, but right now the overwhelming majority are compliant, and imo that's not great.

[Mitochondrial Eve]

On 4/9/2021 at 9:27 PM, Kala Namak said:

 

That link to Denis Rancourt's report appears not to be working, there is however an article here that appears to cover the same points, which I found referenced in a detailed point by point rebuttal, or as the author David Kyle Johnson puts it, a "Complete Debunking" (10,000+ words long, not read it yet) 

Rancourt's article includes a youtube video of a debate between them which I remember watching last year and as I recall, it was very very heated...

 

 

 

On 4/9/2021 at 9:42 PM, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

 

Thanks for pointing out that the link is now broken! It was definitely working the other day when I posted it including the direct quote from the report.

 

I have, however, found another link to it here:

 

https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/wp-content/uploads/5thsciencereview-masksharm-1.pdf

 

Thanks also for posting the video - I haven't watched it yet, but it pre-dates Denis Rancourt's latest report on masks by several months. I understand that he had previously compiled evidence against masks in around May 2020 which proved to be pretty controversial and which is probably the subject matter of the debate in your video. He has now built further upon what he previously presented in his latest report (dated 22nd February 2021).

 

This Denis Rancourt Tweet explains what happened with the first link I posted. He has been banned from ResearchGate for publishing evidence showing that masks can cause harm to the wearer. It seems as though his research may have hit a nerve.

 

 

I have now watched his debate with David Kyle Johnson and Rancourt clearly and easily won the day. Rancourt remained calm, focused and effortlessly lucid whilst Johnson seemed pretty unhinged and like a petulant child, especially towards the close. He did get very shouty! The YouTube comments are overwhelmingly in support of Rancourt too which says it all.

[Kala Namak]

4 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

 

This Denis Rancourt Tweet explains what happened with the first link I posted. He has been banned from ResearchGate for publishing evidence showing that masks can cause harm to the wearer. It seems as though his research may have hit a nerve.

 

 

I have now watched his debate with David Kyle Johnson and Rancourt clearly and easily won the day. Rancourt remained calm, focused and effortlessly lucid whilst Johnson seemed pretty unhinged and like a petulant child, especially towards the close. He did get very shouty! The YouTube comments are overwhelmingly in support of Rancourt too which says it all.

Cheers, I saw that tweet. On the one hand I do get a bit annoyed when stuff is removed and people cancelled for non-compliance with the "official narrative". On the other hand, the fact that they are getting increasingly desperate with their attempts to cancel people shows that there are folks that have something major to hide and that hopefully the truth will out and more people will see this debacle for the fraud that it is. 

I have big respect for people like Rancourt that put themselves out there and are strong enough to stand behind what they say even they are opposed by aggressive fascist numpties like Kyle Johnson, and yes I agree with you, imo Rancourt did win that argument. DKJ disqualified himself with his bad behaviour imo. 

[DarianF]

Woman Loses Her Mind Over Masks

https://banthis.tv/watch?id=606f970947499312774e911a

[Athenry04]

6 hours ago, DarianF said:

Woman Loses Her Mind Over Masks

https://banthis.tv/watch?id=606f970947499312774e911a

 

Yeah I watched this the other day, I actually felt sorry for her, she appears to be someone who has swallowed the fear, hook, line and sinker and appears to be on the edge of a media induced breakdown. Sad stuff and there's many people like her, people who willingly gave up their self autonomy a year ago.

[Ziggy Sawdust]

Oh look, how unusual.....The number 33.

 

 

[DarianF]

 

[Mitochondrial Eve]

Back in 2003 during the first SARS scare, rather than promoting the use of masks, the Australian Government threatened prosecution and heavy fines of up to $22,000 for an individual and $110,000 for a corporation if distributors suggested the masks offered unrealistic levels of protection from the disease.

 

https://anti-empire.com/2003-australia-threatens-to-fine-retailers-who-exaggerate-the-benefit-of-masks-vs-sars-up-to-au110000/

2003: Australia Threatens to Fine Retailers Who Exaggerate the Benefit of Masks vs SARS Up to AU$110,000

"Farce mask: it's safe for only 20 minutes"

 

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on this story on 27th April 2003 and quoted the NSW Fair Trading Minister Reba Meagher who said:

 

Quote

I'm sure that everyone would agree that it is un-Australian to profiteer from people's fears and anxieties.

 

It was also pointed out that the masks are only effective as long as they remain dry and can become saturated with moisture from breathing in 15 to 20 minutes rendering them ineffective after such time has passed. They were seen as providing marginal benefit at best, and more as a source of comfort for those anxious about the newly discovered alleged pathogen.

[DarianF]

5 minutes ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

Back in 2003 during the first SARS scare, rather than promoting the use of masks, the Australian Government threatened prosecution and heavy fines of up to $22,000 for an individual and $110,000 for a corporation if distributors suggested the masks offered unrealistic levels of protection from the disease.

 

https://anti-empire.com/2003-australia-threatens-to-fine-retailers-who-exaggerate-the-benefit-of-masks-vs-sars-up-to-au110000/

2003: Australia Threatens to Fine Retailers Who Exaggerate the Benefit of Masks vs SARS Up to AU$110,000

"Farce mask: it's safe for only 20 minutes"

 

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on this story on 27th April 2003 and quoted the NSW Fair Trading Minister Reba Meagher who said:

 

 

It was also pointed out that the masks are only effective as long as they remain dry and can become saturated with moisture from breathing in 15 to 20 minutes rendering them ineffective after such time has passed. They were seen as providing marginal benefit at best, and more as a source of comfort for those anxious about the newly discovered alleged pathogen.

 

Greta's mask looks highly effective against the deadliest virus in history

 

[Foggy Dewhurst]

 

"More Proof of Their Mockery"

From "thejonathankleck" on yt/Bitchute.

 

[Puzzle]

My job requires me to mask up for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week. Since they made it part of my uniform I've had what can only be described as flu like symptoms which went to my lower respiratory tract and I needed 2 lots of anti  biotics to help clear the worst of it. I figured this isn't viral, it's bacterial. I've had it 3 times within the space of 3 months and it's back again, thick green phlegm and snot (sorry too much info)

 

Basically, the mask has made me ill and I was absolutely fine before this, very rarely ill. A normal cold turns into something nastier when you wear these masks for long periods, I mean, how are you meant to recover and get rid of it if you're breathing it back in for hours on end.

 

I'm lethargic, fed up and so, so tired of all this shite! Much to the point that I can't be arsed going against what my body and mind don't agree with anymore just to pay the bills. I'll be leaving soon, I'm done!

[Mitochondrial Eve]

This is yet another study showing the severe adverse effects that can accompany mask wearing.

 

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4344/htm

 

The paper, which has undergone full peer review and was published in The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on 20th April 2021, analyses 65 studies demonstrating "quantifiable, negative effects of masks". It seems that the purpose of the paper is to call for, and aid with, a careful risk-benefit analysis regarding use of face coverings.

 

It won't be a surprise to forum members to learn that the potential risks from wearing masks are vast and wide-ranging. The study separated such risks into the following categories.

• General Physiological and Pathophysiological Effects for the Wearer

• Internistic Side Effects and Dangers

• Neurological Side Effects and Dangers

• Psychological Side Effects and Dangers

• Psychiatric Side Effects and Dangers

• Gynaecological Side Effects and Dangers

• Dermatological Side Effects and Dangers

• ENT and Dental Side Effects and Dangers

• Sports Medicine Side Effects and Dangers

• Social and Sociological Side Effects and Dangers

• Social and Occupational Medicine Side Effects and Hazards

• Microbiological Consequences for Wearer and Environment: Foreign/Self-Contamination

• Epidemiological Consequences

• Paediatric Side Effects and Hazards

• Effects on the Environment

 

One of the parts I found most interesting was reading how wearing masks:

 

Quote

thus, entails a feeling of deprivation of freedom and loss of autonomy and self-determination, which can lead to suppressed anger and subconscious constant distraction, especially as the wearing of masks is mostly dictated and ordered by others. These perceived interferences of integrity, self-determination and autonomy, coupled with discomfort, often contribute to substantial distraction and may ultimately be combined with the physiologically mask-related decline in psycho-motoric abilities, reduced responsiveness and an overall impaired cognitive performance. It leads to misjudging situations as well as delayed, incorrect and inappropriate behavior and a decline in the effectiveness of the mask wearer

 

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why there seem to be some very angry mask wearers out there.

 

As a conclusion, the authors confirm that there is very little evidence demonstrating the positive effects of masks, or that they are even necessary as a public health measure given the much lower revised IFR rate of Covid-19. But the side effects of masks are clinically relevant and need to be taken into account by doctors.

 

 

[Ziggy Sawdust]

[Ziggy Sawdust]

[allymisfit]

7 hours ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

I'm reading this as people walk past me with their masks on haha!! 

 

As usual, solo drivers going about with their masks on in their car. 

 

The real pandemic just now is hypoxia. They've all lost their minds!

 

[Ziggy Sawdust]

 

 

[whatthefoxhat]

On 4/23/2021 at 8:32 PM, Mitochondrial Eve said:

This is yet another study showing the severe adverse effects that can accompany mask wearing.

 

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4344/htm

 

The paper, which has undergone full peer review and was published in The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on 20th April 2021, analyses 65 studies demonstrating "quantifiable, negative effects of masks". It seems that the purpose of the paper is to call for, and aid with, a careful risk-benefit analysis regarding use of face coverings.

 

It won't be a surprise to forum members to learn that the potential risks from wearing masks are vast and wide-ranging. The study separated such risks into the following categories.

• General Physiological and Pathophysiological Effects for the Wearer

• Internistic Side Effects and Dangers

• Neurological Side Effects and Dangers

• Psychological Side Effects and Dangers

• Psychiatric Side Effects and Dangers

• Gynaecological Side Effects and Dangers

• Dermatological Side Effects and Dangers

• ENT and Dental Side Effects and Dangers

• Sports Medicine Side Effects and Dangers

• Social and Sociological Side Effects and Dangers

• Social and Occupational Medicine Side Effects and Hazards

• Microbiological Consequences for Wearer and Environment: Foreign/Self-Contamination

• Epidemiological Consequences

• Paediatric Side Effects and Hazards

• Effects on the Environment

 

One of the parts I found most interesting was reading how wearing masks:

 

 

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why there seem to be some very angry mask wearers out there.

 

As a conclusion, the authors confirm that there is very little evidence demonstrating the positive effects of masks, or that they are even necessary as a public health measure given the much lower revised IFR rate of Covid-19. But the side effects of masks are clinically relevant and need to be taken into account by doctors.

 

 

I'm sure the members of sage,spi-b and all the other alphabetti agencies involved in this psyop have known about this from day one....in fact it was the masks that turned me from a covid sceptic into a full on anti everything the government does/issues/stands for/proclaims/etc.....i might not be able to stop much of this shitshow personally but i'm willing die trying

[Human10]

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Ban the use of face masks in schools”.

Government responded:

Following a review of the latest evidence, in line with public health advice, the DfE recommend face coverings continue to be worn in accordance with our guidance, unless an individual is exempt.

The safety of teachers, staff, students and pupils is of the utmost importance to the Department for Education. We all want to get back to face covering-free classrooms as soon as the scientific advice allows while balancing the interests of students, teachers and the wider community.

Based on the available evidence, PHE has advised that the system of controls is the best way to reduce risk in education settings, this includes wearing face coverings where recommended. The best available scientific evidence is that, when used correctly, wearing a face covering may reduce the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) droplets in certain circumstances, helping to protect others.

Taking the available scientific evidence and educational intelligence into account, our guidance provides the following recommendations on wearing face coverings in schools and colleges:

• In secondary schools and FE colleges, where pupils and students in year 7 and above are educated, face coverings should be worn by staff, adults and pupils (including visitors) when moving around the premises, outside of classrooms, such as in corridors and communal areas where social distancing cannot easily be maintained.

• In those schools and FE colleges, face coverings should be worn by staff, adults and pupils in classrooms or during activities unless social distancing can be maintained. This does not apply in situations where wearing a face covering would impact on the ability to take part in exercise or strenuous activity, for example in PE lessons. Face coverings do not need to be worn by pupils when outdoors on the premises.

• In primary schools and early years settings, face coverings should be worn by staff and adults (including visitors) in situations where social distancing between adults is not possible (for example, when moving around in corridors and communal areas). Children in primary school and early years settings should not wear face coverings.

Subject to the roadmap process, as part of step 3, we expect that face coverings will no longer be required in classrooms or by students in communal areas. This will be no earlier than 17th May, and will be confirmed with one week’s notice.

As part of the ongoing face covering review, the Department for Education worked with Public Health England to consider a range of evidence, balancing both the health and educational considerations. This included the latest public health advice and the most recent scientific evidence, as well as polling data from parents and students and intelligence the Department for Education gathered from schools and colleges across the country on their experiences of wearing face coverings in classrooms, and any impacts on teaching, education and communication.

We recognise that the wearing of face coverings may impact communication and mental health. Schools have done a great job in adapting to Covid secure guidance and are working hard to reduce the impact on education. The Secretary of State for Education made this decision based on the latest public health advice balanced with intelligence on the impacts of face coverings on education and children’s mental health and wellbeing. The decision to continue the current policy is a cautious approach that will help limit the risk of transmission and enable a close monitoring of school and college returns. We will seek to remove face coverings at the first safe opportunity, given the negative impact face coverings may have on communication in the classroom.

Some individuals are exempt from wearing face coverings. This applies to individuals who:

• cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical impairment or disability, illness or mental health difficulties

• speak to or provide help to someone who relies on lip reading, clear sound or facial expression to communicate.

The same exemptions should be applied in schools, and we would expect teachers and other staff to be sensitive to those needs, noting that some people are exempt from wearing face coverings and the reasons for this may not be visible to others.

No pupil or student should be denied education on the grounds that they are not wearing a face covering.

Department for Education

Edited April 30, 2021 by Human10

[DarianF]

Man Kicked Off Plane For Not Wearing Mask In Between Bites of Food

https://www.infowars.com/posts/man-kicked-off-plane-for-not-wearing-mask-in-between-bites-of-food/

[Ziggy Sawdust]

6 hours ago, DarianF said:

Man Kicked Off Plane For Not Wearing Mask In Between Bites of Food

https://www.infowars.com/posts/man-kicked-off-plane-for-not-wearing-mask-in-between-bites-of-food/

 

FFS!

[Niknik]