Jump to content

petition to stop mandatory face masks


Recommended Posts

I've been "lucky". The staff at my two main local supermarkets know I won't ("can't") wear a mask and have been extremely nice to me. I've been harassed a couple of times by other customers, and both times, staff were excellent, stepped in to help me, and looked after me. They've never asked why I can't wear one, and they've said I'm not to feel pressured to wear the poxy lanyard too. That said I've seen staff in both stores not wearing them, so I think that helps. 

 

 

The staff in both stores, in all fairness, are nice enough anyway, but I've felt totally safe and okay going about, sans face nappy, since last year and I hope that continues.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hey guys,    Just popping this petition I made here, to stop mandatory face masks on public transport in the UK, sign and share please, we need as much support as possible to take further ac

Thought I'd share a recent experience. I went to a local indoor shopping centre in Sunderland not because I wanted to but I couldn't return an item I'd ordered online so had to visit the store. Went u

You don't belong on this site you shill. You are a student of bollocks. 

Posted Images

2 hours ago, clownworld said:

I've been "lucky". The staff at my two main local supermarkets know I won't ("can't") wear a mask and have been extremely nice to me. I've been harassed a couple of times by other customers, and both times, staff were excellent, stepped in to help me, and looked after me. They've never asked why I can't wear one, and they've said I'm not to feel pressured to wear the poxy lanyard too. That said I've seen staff in both stores not wearing them, so I think that helps. 

 

 

The staff in both stores, in all fairness, are nice enough anyway, but I've felt totally safe and okay going about, sans face nappy, since last year and I hope that continues.

This has been my experience too. And my Mum's, aside from one awful woman customer last year who got hysterical. Mum to her credit just ignored her and carried on.

 

The staff in the supermarkets we use are fine, really friendly and helpful. The "marshals" employed can try it on, but quickly back down once they see the lanyard. It's why I wear one. It's difficult enough being out in this bizarro world, confronted with gimped zombies everywhere I look (which triggers my anxiety, as I can find it a traumatising sight on a bad day),so to have the staff being nice just helps.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The following web link references 65 studies which show that masks do not work and are harmful. This may be of interest to @DarianF.

 

https://truthcommunity.space/masks/

 

Quote

65 Studies showing masks don’t work and are harmful

1) T Jefferson, M Jones, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2 Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05) or influenza (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95%CI 0.61-1.17) for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers

 

2 ) J Xiao, E Shiu, et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings – personal protective and environmental measures.  Centers for Disease Control. 26(5); 2020 May. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission.

 

3 )J Brainard, N Jones, et al. Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID19: A rapid systematic review.  MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 1. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1.full.pdf “We do not consider that the balance of evidence across all available studies ( AROUND 60 CITED ) supports routine and widespread use of face masks in the community.”

 

4 )L Radonovich M Simberkoff, et al. N95 respirators vs medical masks for preventing influenza among health care personnel: a randomized clinic trial.  JAMA. 2019 Sep 3. 322(9): 824-833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214 Among outpatient HCP, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

 

5 )J Smith, C MacDougall. CMAJ. 2016 May 17. 188(8); 567-574. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 A laboratory-based study reported data that humans infected with influenza rarely produce aerosols that contain infectious viral particles. In 2 other laboratory studies, participants infected with influenza produced droplets containing viral RNA, but viral RNA could not be detected on manikin headforms or on filters of breathing manikins at distances as close as 0.1 m following participants breathing, counting, coughing or laughing.

 

6) F bin-Reza, V Lopez, et al. The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. 2012 Jul; 6(4): 257-267. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/ “ In conclusion there is limited evidence base to support the use of masks and/or respirators in healthcare or community settings.”

 

7) “J Jacobs, S Ohde, et al.  Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial.  Am J Infect Control. 2009 Jun; 37(5): 417-419. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/ Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

 

8) M Viola, B Peterson, et al. Face coverings, aerosol dispersion and mitigation of virus transmission risk. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.10720.pdf surgical and hand-made masks, and face shields, generate significant leakage jets that have the potential to disperse virus-laden fluid particles by several metres.

 

9) S Grinshpun, H Haruta, et al. Performance of an N95 filtering facepiece particular respirator and a surgical mask during human breathing: two pathways for particle penetration. J Occup Env Hygiene. 2009; 6(10):593-603. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15459620903120086 (Masks do not seal properly )- “Based on the findings of this study, we concluded that the future efforts in designing new RPDs for health care environments should be increasingly focused on the peripheral design rather than on the further improvement of the filter media. The face seal leakage was found to represent the main pathway for the submicrometer particles penetrating into the respirator/mask.”

 

10) H Jung, J Kim, et al. Comparison of filtration efficiency and pressure drop in anti-yellow sand masks, quarantine masks, medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2013 https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf The penetration values of most medical masks were over 20%. Medical masks show no significant differences in penetration and pressure drop between inward tests (which mimic inhalation) and outward tests (which mimic exhalation). General masks and handkerchiefs have no protection function in terms of the aerosol filtration efficiency.

 

11) C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers.  BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4) https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long We have provided the first clinical efficacy data of cloth masks, which suggest HCWs should not use cloth masks as protection against respiratory infection. The physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk.

 

12) N95 masks explained. https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained Masks ending in a 95, have a 95 percent efficiency. Masks ending in a 99 have a 99 percent efficiency. Masks ending in 100 are 99.97 percent efficient and that is the same as a HEPA quality filter. .3 microns: The masks filter out contaminants like dusts, mists and fumes. The minimum size of .3 microns of particulates and large droplets won’t pass through the barrier,

 

13) V Offeddu, C Yung, et al. Effectiveness of masks and respirators against infections in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.  Clin Inf Dis. 65(11), 2017 Dec 1; 1934-1942. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended. We found no clear benefit of either medical masks or N95 respirators against influenza

 

14) C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo In our study, HCWs who conducted high-risk procedures had higher rates of CRI ( clinical respiratory illness) but not of laboratory-confirmed pathogens or influenza.

 

15) M Walker. Study casts doubt on N95 masks for the public. MedPage Today. 2020 May 20. https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/86601 Assessment of Proficiency of N95 Mask Donning Among the General Public in Singapore | Global Health | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network These findings support ongoing recommendations against the use of N95 masks by the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic.5 N95 mask use by the general public may not translate into effective protection but instead provide false reassurance.

 

16) N Shimasaki, A Okaue, et al. Comparison of the filter efficiency of medical nonwoven fabrics against three different microbe aerosols. Biocontrol Sci.  2018; 23(2). 61-69. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en A previous report tested the filter efficiency of several respiratory protection devices, two types of N95 masks and two types of surgical masks using the MS2 virus (Bałazy et al., 2006). It was found that the penetration rate of aerosol particles containing the MS2 phage through the surgical mask increased as the particle size increased from 10 nm to 80 nm, which is consistent with our results ranging from 28 nm to 120 nm. Rengasamy et al. (2017)compared facemask and respirator filtration test methods and concluded that the higher efficiencies obtained using viral filtration efficiency test methods with phi-X174 demonstrate that addition of these supplemental particle penetration methods will not improve respirator certification, which agrees with our conclusion.

 

17) T Tunevall. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study. World J Surg. 1991 May; 15: 383-387. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01658736 It has never been shown that wearing surgical face masks decreases postoperative wound infections. On the contrary, a 50% decrease has been reported after omitting face masks.

 

18)N Orr. Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre? Ann Royal Coll Surg Eng 1981: 63: 390-392. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf No masks were worn in an operating theatre for 6 months. There was no increase in the incidence of wound infection.

 

19 )N Mitchell, S Hunt. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms – a costly and unnecessary ritual?  J Hosp Infection. 18(3); 1991 Jul 1. 239-242. https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf Following the commissioning of a new suite of operating rooms air movement studies showed a flow of air away from the operating table towards the periphery of the room. Oral microbial flora dispersed by unmasked male and female volunteers standing one metre from the table failed to contaminate exposed settle plates placed on the table. The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary.

 

20 )C DaZhou, P Sivathondan, et al. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery.  JR Soc Med. 2015 Jun; 108(6): 223-228. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/ evidence is lacking to suggest that masks confer protection from infection either to patients or to the surgeons that wear them

 

21 )L Brosseau, M Sietsema. Commentary: Masks for all for Covid-19 not based on sound data. U Minn Ctr Inf Dis Res Pol. 2020 Apr 1. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles, offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation

 

22 )S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection – evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798. https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744 five major categories of fabric materials including sweatshirts, T-shirts, towels, scarves, and cloth masks were tested for polydisperse and monodisperse aerosols (20–1000 nm) at two different face velocities (5.5 and 16.5 cm s−1) and compared with the penetration levels for N95 respirator filter media. The results showed that cloth masks and other fabric materials tested in the study had 40–90% instantaneous penetration levels

 

23 )Bae, M Kim, et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients.  Ann Int Med. 2020 Apr 6. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342 In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.

 

24)C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers.  BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4) https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577 This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

 

25)W Kellogg. An experimental study of the efficacy of gauze face masks. Am J Pub Health. 1920.  34-42. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.10.1.34  Masks have not been demonstrated to have a degree of efficiency that would warrant their compulsory application for the checking of epidemics

 

26)M Klompas, C Morris, et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Eng J Med. 2020; 382 e63. 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.

 

27)E Person, C Lemercier et al.  Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance.  Rev Mal Respir. 2018 Mar; 35(3):264-268. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/ Dyspnea ( laboured breathing) variation was significantly higher with surgical mask (+5.6 vs. +4.6; P<0.001) and the difference was clinically relevant. Wearing a surgical mask modifies significantly and clinically dyspnea

 

28)B Chandrasekaran, S Fernandes.  Exercise with facemask; are we handling a devil’s sword – a physiological hypothesis. Med Hypothese. 2020 Jun 22. 144:110002. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/ Exercising with facemasks might increase pathophysiological risks of underlying chronic disease, especially cardiovascular and metabolic risks. Though the respirator masks are perceived to be the barriers for preventing aerosol depositions to the respiratory tract, the bitter reality is that masks increase the risk of more in-depth respiratory tract infections. As quoted by Perencevich et al. 2020, “The average healthy person shouldn’t be wearing masks as it creates a false sense of security and people tend to touch their face more often when compared to not wearing masks

 

29)P Shuang Ye Tong, A Sugam Kale, et al.  Respiratory consequences of N95-type mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers – A controlled clinical study.  Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015 Nov 16; 4:48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/ Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers,

 

30)T Kao, K Huang, et al. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease.  J Formos Med Assoc. 2004 Aug; 103(8):624-628. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/ Wearing an N95 mask for 4 hours significantly reduced PaO2 (Pa02, put simply, is a measurement of the actual oxygen content in arterial blood ) and increased respiratory adverse effects in patients.

 

31)F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods.  2018 Oct; 260:98-106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810/ These results also support previous studies that suggest that virus trapped on the outside of facemasks and respirators may pose an indirect contact transmission risk as the HCW doffs these PPE after seeing a patient or continues to wear their PPE for an extended period of time

 

32) A Rule, O Apau, et al. Healthcare personnel exposure in an emergency department during influenza season.  PLoS One. 2018 Aug 31; 13(8): e0203223. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30169507/ Filtering facepiece respirators may become contaminated with influenza when used during patient care.

 

33)A Chughtai, S Stelzer-Braid, et al.  Contamination by respiratory viruses on our surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers.  BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 3; 19(1): 491. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/ Respiratory pathogens on the outer surface of the used medical masks may result in self-contamination. The risk is higher with longer duration of mask use (> 6 h)

 

34)L Zhiqing, C Yongyun, et al. J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jun 27; 14:57-62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30035033/ The bacterial count on the surface of Surgical masks increased with extended operating times; significant difference was found between the 4- to 6-hour

 

35) A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008; 19: 121-126. http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery Wearing a mask reduces blood oxygenation, especially in people over 35. Indeed, a team of researchers from the Department of Neurosurgery at Ufuk University in Ankara, Turkey reported that the longer a mask is worn the more the blood is desaturated. These researchers also assert that: “Surgeons in the operating room frequently experience physical discomfort, fatigue, and possibly even deterioration of surgical judgment and performance. Although considerable information exists about the effects of ambient environment on both mental and physical performance, the final “personal” environment for the surgeon beneath the surgical mask is often very inadequately conditioned…it is known that heat and moisture trapping occur beneath surgical masks…”  The importance of these next findings ( 36,37,38)) is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. . This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.(36,37,38)

 

36)Cutting Edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1 Negatively Regulates Th1 Function Hussein Shehade, Valérie Acolty, Muriel Moser and Guillaume Oldenhove Cutting Edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1 Negatively Regulates Th1 Function | The Journal of Immunology

 

37)Hypoxia Enhances Immunosuppression by Inhibiting CD4+ Effector T Cell Function and Promoting Treg Activity Astrid M Westendorf et al. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2017. Hypoxia Enhances Immunosuppression by Inhibiting CD4+ Effector T Cell Function and Promoting Treg Activity – PubMed

 

38) Hypoxia -driven immunosuppression contributes to the pre-metastatic niche Jaclyn Sceneay, Belinda S. Parker, […], and Andreas Möller Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the pre-metastatic niche

 

39)April 17, 2020 Masks and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764955 Wearing a mask increases blood carbon dioxide levels. Citing four different scientific studies, Dr. Zheng Zhaoshi, PH.D. M.D. at the Department of Neurology, The Third Hospital of Jilin University, “Oxygen concentration inhaled by healthy subjects wearing a surgical mask covering an N95 respirator decreases to about 17%, and the concentration of carbon dioxide increases to about 1.2% – 3% in a short period of light work (2-3). Although participants did not show any obvious changes in physical function and did not have any discomfort ratings, the average carbon dioxide concentration inhaled was far higher than the limit of 0.1% of indoor carbon dioxide concentration in many countries. With prolonged mask wearing, untoward reactions may gradually appear. In another long-term study, after wearing an N95 mask for 12 hours the CO2 concentration of subjects increased to 41.0 mmHg, far higher than the baseline value of 32.4mm Hg at the beginning of the test (4). The subjects mainly reported headache, dizziness, feeling tired and communication obstacles. In real life, the situations and time of wearing masks are much longer than the above experimental research settings”

 

40) PPE-associated headaches increase among health care workers amid COVID-19 https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20200407/ppeassociated-headaches-increase-among-health-care-workers-amid-covid19 Prolonged use of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic such as N95 masks and protective eyewear was shown to cause or exacerbate headache among health care workers in Singapore. 23.4% experienced associated migraine-like symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, photophobia, phonophobia, movement sensitivity and neck discomfort. The onset of pain was within 1 hour of wearing PPE. PPE also causes thermal discomfort, moisture accumulation and difficulty breathing, which likely serve as additional triggers, the researchers added. “The magnitude of this condition is clinically significant “

 

41) Consensus of Chinese experts on protection of skin and mucous membrane barrier for health-care workers fighting against coronavirus disease 2019 Yicen Yan et al. Dermatol Ther. 2020 Jul. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32170800/ Health professions preventing and controlling Coronavirus Disease 2019 are prone to skin and mucous membrane injury, which may cause acute and chronic dermatitis, secondary infection and aggravation of underlying skin diseases. This is a consensus of Chinese experts on protective measures and advice on hand-cleaning- and medical-glove-related hand protection, mask- and goggles-related face protection, UV-related protection, eye protection, nasal and oral mucosa protection, outer ear, and hair protection.

 

42) Skin damage among health care workers managing coronavirus disease-2019 Jiajia Lan, MD, Zexing Song, BS, […], and Juan Tao, MD, PhD https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7194538/?report=reader The general prevalence rate of skin damage caused by enhanced infection-prevention measures was 97.0% (526 of 542) among first-line health care workers. The affected sites included the nasal bridge, hands, cheek, and forehead, with the nasal bridge the most commonly affected (83.1%). Among a series of symptoms and signs, dryness/tightness and desquamation were the most common symptom (70.3%) and sign (62.2%), respectively (Table I ). The health care workers who wore some medical devices more than 6 hours had higher risks of skin damage in corresponding sites than those who did for less time.

 

43) Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS–CoV-2: A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342 Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients. In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.

 

44) The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence Faisal bin‐Reza, Vicente Lopez Chavarrias, […], and Mary E. Chamberland https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/ None of the studies we reviewed established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection. In conclusion, there is a limited evidence base to support the use of masks and/or respirators in healthcare or community settings.

 

45) Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study Jian Hua Zhu,1 ÿShu Jin Lee,2 De Yun Wang,3 HeowPueh ÿLee1 Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study – MedCrave online In conclusion, there is an increase of nasal resistance ( decrease in breathing ability ) upon removal of N95 respirator and surgical facemask after 3hours wearing which potentially due to nasal physiological changes, instead of the size of nasal airways. The nasal resistance was not recovered even after 1.5hours removal of respirator/facemask.

 

46) Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19 Jonathan J Y Ong et al. Headache. 2020 May. Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19 – PubMed A total of 158 healthcare workers participated in the study. Majority [126/158 (77.8%)] were aged 21-35 years. Participants included nurses [102/158 (64.6%)], doctors [51/158 (32.3%)], and paramedical staff [5/158 (3.2%)]. Conclusion: Most healthcare workers develop de novo PPE-associated headaches or exacerbation of their pre-existing headache disorders.

 

47) The operating room environment as affected by people and the surgical face mask M A Ritter et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975 Sep. The operating room environment as affected by people and the surgical face mask – PubMed The microbiological counts were determined in an operating room suite of 8 rooms and a hallway. The bacterial counts in an empty operating room jumped statistically from 13 CFU/ft2/hr (+/- 31) to 24.8 (+/- 58.8) when the doors were left open (people in the hallways) and 447.3 (+/- 186.7) when 5 people were introduced. The wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination and probably work only to redirect the projectile effect of talking and breathing. People are the major source of environmental contamination in the operating room.

 

48) The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using “tracer particles”. Ha’eri GB, Wiley AM Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 01 May 1980, (148):160-162 The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using “tracer particles”. – Abstract – Europe PMC To examine the efficacy of currently used synthetic-fiber disposable face masks in protecting wounds from contamination, human albumin microspheres were employed as “tracer particles,” and applied to the interior of the fact mask during 20 operations. At the termination of each operation, wound irrigates were examined under the microscope. Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experients. Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escaped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound. The wearing of the mask beneath the headgear curtails this route of contamination.

 

49) Wearing of caps and masks not necessary during cardiac catheterization Lawrence J. Laslett MD Alisa Sabin Wearing of caps and masks not necessary during cardiac catheterization – Laslett – 1989 – Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis – Wiley Online Library Although cardiac catheterization‐related infections are rare, caps and masks are often worn to minimize this complication. However, documentation of the value of caps and masks for this purpose is lacking. We, therefore, prospectively evaluated the experience of 504 patients undergoing percutaneous left heart catheterization, seeking evidence of a relationship between whether caps and/or masks were worn by the operators and the incidence of infection. No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used. Thus, we found no evidence that caps or masks need to be worn during percutaneous cardiac catheterization.

 

50) Wearing of caps and masks not necessary during cardiac catheterization Lawrence J. Laslett MD Alisa Sabin Wearing of caps and masks not necessary during cardiac catheterization – Laslett – 1989 – Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis – Wiley Online Library Although cardiac catheterization‐related infections are rare, caps and masks are often worn to minimize this complication. However, documentation of the value of caps and masks for this purpose is lacking. We, therefore, prospectively evaluated the experience of 504 patients undergoing percutaneous left heart catheterization, seeking evidence of a relationship between whether caps and/or masks were worn by the operators and the incidence of infection. No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used. Thus, we found no evidence that caps or masks need to be worn during percutaneous cardiac catheterization.

 

51) Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study Th. Göran Tunevall M.D.  Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study | SpringerLink It has never been shown that wearing surgical face masks decreases postoperative wound infections. On the contrary, a 50% decrease has been reported after omitting face masks. The present study was designed to reveal any 30% or greater difference in general surgery wound infection rates by using face masks or not. During 115 weeks, a total of 3,088 patients were included in the study. Weeks were denoted as “masked” or “unmasked” according to a random list. After 1,537 operations performed with face masks, 73 (4.7%) wound infections were recorded and, after 1,551 operations performed without face masks, 55 (3.5%) infections occurred. This difference was not statistically significant (p> 0.05) and the bacterial species cultured from the wound infections did not differ in any way, which would have supported the fact that the numerical difference was a statistically “missed” difference. These results indicate that the use of face masks might be reconsidered. Masks may be used to protect the operating team from drops of infected blood and from airborne infections, but have not been proven to protect the patient operated by a healthy operating team.

 

52) Do Anaesthetists Need to Wear Surgical Masks in the Operating Theatre? A Literature Review with Evidence- Based Recommendations M. W. SKINNER*, B. A. SUTTON† https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0310057X0102900402  There is little evidence to suggest that the wearing of surgical face masks by staff in the operating theatre decreases postoperative wound infections. Published evidence indicates that postoperative wound infection rates are not significantly different in unmasked versus masked theatre staff. However, there is evidence indicating a significant reduction in post- operative wound infection rates when theatre staff are unmasked.

 

53) [Patient surgical masks during regional anesthesia. Hygenic necessity or dispensable ritual?]. [Patient surgical masks during regional anesthesia. Hygenic necessity or dispensable ritual?]. – Abstract – Europe PMC “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”

 

54) Bag Exchange in Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis Without Use of a Face Mask: Experience of Five Years Ana E. Figueiredo, Carlos E. Poli de Figueiredo, Domingos O. d’Avila From: Renal Unit, Hospital São Lucas, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 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.

 

55) Does evidence based medicine support the effectiveness of surgical facemasks in preventing postoperative wound infections in elective surgery? Z. M. Bahli Does evidence based medicine support the effectiveness of surgical facemasks in preventing postoperative wound infections in elective surgery? – PubMed “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.”

 

56) Is Routine Use of a Face Mask Necessary in the Operating Room? Is Routine Use of a Face Mask Necessary in the Operating Room? | Anesthesiology | American Society of Anesthesiologists 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.

 

57) Use of face masks by non‐scrubbed operating room staff: a randomized controlled trial Joan Webster Use of face masks by non‐scrubbed operating room staff: a randomized controlled trial – Webster – 2010 – ANZ Journal of Surgery – Wiley Online Library in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopedic, 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.

 

58) Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery Cochrane Systematic Review “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.

 

59) [Dubious effect of surgical masks during surgery]. Carøe T [Dubious effect of surgical masks during surgery]. – Abstract – Europe PMC 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

 

60) Surgical Attire and the Operating Room: Role in Infection Prevention Salassa, Tiare E. MD1; Swiontkowski, Marc F. MD https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/fulltext/2014/09030/surgical_attire_and_the_operating_room__role_in.11.aspx 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.”

 

61) Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery Charlie Da Zhou1, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0141076815583167  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.”

 

62) The effect of wearing the veil by Saudi ladies on the occurrence of respiratory diseases E F Ahmad et al. J Asthma. 2001 Aug. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11515979/ Adult women were asked to answer a structured questionnaire related to the occurrence of respiratory tract problems and about veil wearing. Veil wearing was practiced by 58% of the sample. Respiratory infections and asthma were significantly more common in veils users (p < 0.00001 and p < 0.0003, respectively). This unexpected finding was probably secondary to infection.

 

63) Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers A Randomized Controlled Trial Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 0, No 0 In the largest randomized controlled trial to date with 6,024 subjects, medical masks were found to not be effective protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The difference in rates of infection between the control group (no masks) and medical mask wearers was 2.1% vs 1.8%, respectively. Odds Ratio CI was 0.54 to 1.23, P=0.33. No significant difference. Conclusion: The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection. Here is an analysis of this paper by Dr Andrew Kaufman

 

64) A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers Ming Gao et al. Respir Med. 2020 Aug. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32513410/ We report here a case of the asymptomatic patient and present clinical characteristics of 455 contacts, which aims to study the infectivity of asymptomatic carriers. Results: The median contact time for patients was four days and that for family members was five days. Cardiovascular disease accounted for 25% among original diseases of patients. Apart from hospital staffs, both patients and family members were isolated medically. During the quarantine, seven patients plus one family member appeared new respiratory symptoms, where fever was the most common one. The blood counts in most contacts were within a normal range. All CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test. Conclusion: In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection 455 people came into contact with an “ asymptomatic carrier “ and did not contract SARS cov 2 i.e. covid 19.

 

65) Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis Baruch Vainshelboim ( a PhD cardiology expert ) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/ The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. Conclusion The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health. 67 articles cited in this paper

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a clip from Episode 205 of Del Bigtree's Highwire which concerns the risks of nanofibres / nanoparticles in masks which, like asbestos, can reach the lung cavity and could cause mesothelioma. Masks distributed to the public in Belgium are also suspected to be toxic due to titanium dioxide and silver nanoparticles.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

The following web link references 65 studies which show that masks do not work and are harmful. This may be of interest to @DarianF.

 

https://truthcommunity.space/masks/

 

 

 

 

 

 

54 minutes ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

This is a clip from Episode 205 of Del Bigtree's Highwire which concerns the risks of nanofibres / nanoparticles in masks which, like asbestos, can reach the lung cavity and could cause mesothelioma. Masks distributed to the public in Belgium are also suspected to be toxic due to titanium dioxide and silver nanoparticles.

 

 

 

Something for @Truthspoon

to have a look at? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

This has been my experience too. And my Mum's, aside from one awful woman customer last year who got hysterical. Mum to her credit just ignored her and carried on.

 

The staff in the supermarkets we use are fine, really friendly and helpful. The "marshals" employed can try it on, but quickly back down once they see the lanyard. It's why I wear one. It's difficult enough being out in this bizarro world, confronted with gimped zombies everywhere I look (which triggers my anxiety, as I can find it a traumatising sight on a bad day),so to have the staff being nice just helps.

Really does. It makes all the difference. One of the incidents I had was the Police getting aggy, and a tiny little member of staff came barging along, told them off, they slunk away, but as they were, she said in a foghorn voice "officers! you're forgetting something!!" They asked what, and she said "you owe this lady an apology!". It was brill, I see her often now, and it just makes me smile

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it's here, but this is a reminder of what the WHO were recommending about masks a year ago. Nothing like now.. 

 

W. H.O ON FACE MASKS, UPLOADED TO THEIR YOU TUBE CHANNEL ON 10 MARCH, 2020 (NOW AN UNLISTED VIDEO) 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mask violates God’s natural order

The mask causes physical harm

The mask assaults social interactions and development

The mask “legitimizes” a lie

The mask promotes subversion of the social order and the subjugation of man

The mask sows discord

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lebanon:

 

Self-contamination is highly probable, as people are seen repeatedly touching their faces while wearing masks, positioning them below their mouths when speaking and removing them often and improperly. Improper use of face masks is also seen among government officials when appearing on the local media and reporting about the outbreak. Disposable masks are also littering streets, exacerbating the environmental health problems amidst the lack of a waste management strategy.

 

In a country lagging in evidence-based health policies, the risks and benefits of wearing masks are not weighed when making such recommendations. Yet, face masks are implicitly enforced in some public spaces. It was ironic to witness security forces mandating the use of face masks for people driving alone in a car, knowing well that seatbelt use is not enforced, despite a long-standing road safety law, which includes seat belt use.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7535134/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Health Canada has withdrawn face masks containing graphene amidst concerns that they include potentially toxic particles which may be dangerous to our lungs.

 

https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2021/75309a-eng.php

 

Quote

Health Canada is advising Canadians not to use face masks that contain graphene because there is a potential that they could inhale graphene particles, which may pose health risks.

 

Graphene is a novel nanomaterial (materials made of tiny particles) reported to have antiviral and antibacterial properties. Health Canada conducted a preliminary scientific assessment after being made aware that masks containing graphene have been sold with COVID-19 claims and used by adults and children in schools and daycares. Health Canada believes they may also have been distributed for use in health care settings.

 

Health Canada’s preliminary assessment of available research identified that inhaled graphene particles had some potential to cause early lung toxicity in animals. However, the potential for people to inhale graphene particles from face masks and the related health risks are not yet known, and may vary based on mask design. The health risk to people of any age is not clear. Variables, such as the amount and duration of exposure, and the type and characteristics of the graphene material used, all affect the potential to inhale particles and the associated health risks. Health Canada has requested data from mask manufacturers to assess the potential health risks related to their masks that contain graphene.

 

Until the Department completes a thorough scientific assessment and has established the safety and effectiveness of graphene-containing face masks, it is taking the precautionary approach of removing them from the market while continuing to gather and assess information. Health Canada has directed all known distributors, importers and manufacturers to stop selling and to recall the affected products. Additionally, Health Canada has written to provinces and territories advising them to stop distribution and use of masks containing graphene. The Department will continue to take appropriate action to stop the import and sale of graphene face masks.

 

 

 

Edited by Mitochondrial Eve
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Quote
It is a testimony to the power of propaganda, institutional capture, and the desire to socially conform that masking of the general population has successfully been imposed during the COVID-19 era. The harms from this imposition are palpable, and potentially long-term and gargantuan, not the least of which is the psychological training of the public to comply with an absurd measure that has direct personal negative impact. I review the mounting evidence of the obvious: Universal masking harms people and society, without any detectable benefit.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 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.

 

 

 

I think you beat me to it @Mitochondrial Eve . Great post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at Joe Biden, you can se the effects of prolonged mask wearing. Anyone in the early stages of Alzheimer's or Dementia who wears a mask to cause hypoxia is killing brain cells. 

 

The poor sods in care homes who already have dementia are being made worse. The morons who think that a diaper over their mouth and nose will protect them (or anyone else) from the "deadly" virus (that you have a 99.6% chance of recovering from), is killing brain cells every day.

 

In a few years, there will be a massive spike in dementia cases. It will be attributed to "Long Covid" or some other such crap, when in actual fact it's the masks.

 

I look at people over here. Under the mask, their faces are red and swollen, some have a rash, others sores, but they still wear the fucking things. In Flanders, people are like fucking robots. I think if Brussels told them to cut off their balls to prevent Covid-19, they would just do it without question.

 

It isn't the same in Wallonia (French part of Belgium) they are demonstrating and rioting, but not Flanders. I think somehow they have all been mentally castrated, they don't seem to have a ball between them.

 

NO ONE here, ventures out without a mask, they are all obedient sheep. Go to Wallonia and hundreds are disobeying. I find it strange and disturbing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 by Kala Namak
Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 🙂

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...