Discover more from Alexander COVID News-Dr. Paul Elias Alexander's substack
Masks for children: the evidence indicates that COVID-19 blue surgical face masks and white and man-made cloth masks are (were) ineffective and actually dangerous for our children
I wrote this and published some time ago; I included many facets of the COVID response and lots of references and you may keep and use as you like, any of it
The question on whether to wear a face mask or not during the COVID-19 pandemic remains vexing, emotional, and highly contentious. Why? This question about the utility of face coverings (which has taken on a talisman-like life) is now fraught with steep politicization regardless of political affiliation (e.g. republican or liberal/democrat).
Importantly, the evidence just is and was never there to support mask use for asymptomatic people to stop viral spread during a pandemic. While the evidence may seem conflicted, the evidence (including the peer-reviewed evidence) actually does not support its use and leans heavily toward masks having no significant impact in stopping spread of the COVID virus. That’s right, the blue surgical face masks and the white cloth masks are utterly useless!
In fact, it is not unreasonable at this time to conclude that surgical and cloth masks, used as they currently are, have absolutely no impact on controlling the transmission of COVID-19 virus, and current evidence implies that face masks can be actually harmful. Especially as currently used and without other PPE type equipment. We showed this is a prior study (references 1, 2, 3). All this to say and as so comprehensively documented by Dr. Roger W. Koops in a recent American Institute of Economic Research (AIER) publication, there is no clear scientific evidence that masks (surgical or cloth) work to mitigate risk to the wearer or to those coming into contact with the wearer, as they are currently worn in everyday life and specifically as we refer to COVID-19. I do not say the masks cause the infection or disease, but the mask does not help. There is no correlation between mask use or mask mandates and reduction and incidence of the infection/disease. None. In fact, mask mandates were followed by dramatic escalations in infections (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
While not the focus of this op-ed, we would be derelict if we did not raise the crushing harms and pure failures of the lockdowns. Just look at the devastation, the complete disasters visited upon the Canadian population, the US population, the British, the Australian, the Caribbean, the European populations, and other global nations by the specious, unsound, and reckless lockdowns policies. We provide research and reports here to show the catastrophic harms (consequences), threat, dehumanization, and failures of lockdowns and sheltering/shielding (including prolonged lockdowns) (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88). Look at the clear evidence on the catastrophic harms due to school closures with no sound justification for school closures given the exceedingly low (statistically zero) risk to children and very low risk to school teachers (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56).
These ‘lockdown lunatic’ governments and their band of COVID advisors, a complete bunch of highly stupid and inept people. A ‘clown car’ and they responded to the failure of their policies by doing more of it. They locked down ‘harder’. What absurdities and junk ‘drivel’ statements that have been made for 18 months now, by many of these experts and advisors, each being more inane and vacuous and ‘empty’ than the other. Pure nonsense, lacking of any substance or underpinning evidence! A strong grade 11 biology student could run rings around these lockdown lunatics!
We now present evidence below on this renewed push to mandate masking especially of our children, making the argument that all the evidence and our conclusions also apply to the current Delta variant that the hysterical nonsensical media along with the inept and illogical, always unscientific medical experts are going insane with the vapours over. Look at the recent data on Delta variant. UK data shows zero deaths in vaccinated persons under 50 years and 0.08% deaths in unvaccinated under 50 years and this is roughly similar in the US for vaccinated persons. The Delta variant is very infectious but very non-lethal based on present reporting. Natural exposure immunity is life-long, as it builds an immune library that is mature and based on a complete look at the full outer surface of the virus and all of its nooks and crannies, while these vaccines confer a very narrow ‘spike-specific’ immune library. Ver limited and short-lives.
They, the media, and these nonsensical experts, are relentless in trying to scare you into vaccinating with a largely untested vaccine for safety. Scapegoating you and pressuring you to vaccinate, as ‘you are the problem’. These vaccines have not been tested for safety and this is our argument. These vaccines seem very sub-optimal and are not working especially for the Delta variant. Now they are pushing for you to have a 3rd and more booster shots and just consider a breaking report out of Israel that that 14 Israelis have been infected with COVID-19 a week after receiving a 3rd booster shot.
Our position on the vaccine is simple. It should have never been brought for the populations in the first place given we had early drug treatment (that is safe, effective, and cheap) at our disposal and with a ‘focused’ age-risk stratified approach, we could have dealt with this pathogen. With proper strong double and triple down protections of our elderly and high-risk persons, we did not need this vaccine. Risk-benefit analysis reveals no support for these COVID-19 vaccines for children and young people. The reality is that children and young persons DO NOT benefit from the COVID-19 vaccine as their risk from the disease is almost nil in terms od severe illness or mortality. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from children to adults is also negligible as the evidence is stable and clear that children do not transmit this virus to other children or to adults or take it home, unlike how children ‘drive’ seasonal annual influenza. Placing children and young persons at risk of adverse events and death from the vaccine to protect others is contrary to biomedical ethics. It is violative. These COVID-19 vaccines remain under investigation through clinical trials and are as such ‘investigational’ and ‘experimental’. Their long-term adverse events have not yet been studied, and their short-term safety profiles while emerging, remains immature yet paints a very disturbing picture as to adverse effects and death post vaccine, with strong temporal relationships emerging. Mass vaccination of children and the young and vaccine trials on children are therefore immoral, unethical, reckless, and unfounded without merit, and must stop immediately. This is and remains our core position on vaccines.
Importantly, we even hold that voluntary and free and informed consent for vaccination (especially for younger persons) is not possible under present coercive and punitive circumstances. We do not know what the future holds for vaccinated persons safety wise, for ordinarily, we would ‘exclude’ harms in such clinical trials. This was not done in the COVID-19 trials, and as such, we do not know. No one knows and this is why we plead caution. There could be serious transgenerational side effects from these vaccines and we did not study to exclude these possibilities.
Do children spread the virus thus warranting masks?
This brings us to the actual evidence. Do we have any evidence on risk of transmission in children? Is there any on risk to children and COVID spread in schools, to adults, to the home? Well, it turns out we have tons of evidence and while limited here by space, we will provide just a sample using studies/reports (actual reports, systematic reviews, and research studies) to help support our core thesis of why schools must be re-opened immediately and remain open. Closing schools was a devastating policy failure and harmed our children. The school remains the safest place for children and teachers in this emergency.
What do we conclude on the risk of children transmitting? The issue is this is not new, we knew this over one year now. The evidence is clear that children do not readily transmit COVID virus. We have evidence from Switzerland, Canada, the Netherlands, France, Iceland, UK, Australia, Germany, Singapore, Greece, and Ireland that the infection rate in children is very low, that spread from child to child is uncommon, that spread from child to adult/parent is uncommon, that cases in children typically comes from a household transmission/cluster by droplet spread, and if infected, children have no to mild symptoms with the risk for hospitalization, severe illness, or death being very low.
For example, Heavey out of Ireland looked at secondary transmission of COVID in children (March 2020). Researchers looked at children and adults in a school setting and identified 6 cases (3 children, 3 adults of which 2 were teachers) and their 1,155 contacts (924 child contacts and 101 adult contacts identified). Researchers reported no evidence of secondary transmission in the school environment. Specifically, they stated there is “no case of onward transmission to other children or adults within the school…In the case of children, no onward transmission was detected at all. Furthermore, no onward transmission from the three identified adult cases to children was identified”.
Additionally, The Atlantic’s Thompson on January 28th 2021 pointed to a study out of Singapore involving 3 COVID-19 clusters, finding that “children are not the primary drivers” of COVID outbreaks and that “the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among children in schools, especially preschools, is likely to be low.”
A Norwegian study looked at 200 primary-school children aged 5 to 13 and who had COVID-19 (testing all contacts twice within their quarantine), found that there were no instances of secondary spread, further dispelling the notion that children play a primary role in spreading within the school setting.
A very comprehensive systematic review by Ludvigsson published in Acta Pediatrica, studied 47 full-texts and reported “children accounted for a small fraction of COVID-19 cases…children may have lower levels than adults, partly because they often have fewer symptoms, and this should decrease the transmission risk…household transmission studies showed that children were rarely the index case and case studies suggested that children with COVID-19 seldom caused outbreaks…children are unlikely to be the main drivers of the pandemic”.
Duke University researchers (CIDRAP) examined 35 North Carolina school districts with in-person teaching and found that there were no instances of child-to-adult spread in schools.
A recent CDC report on Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in K-12 schools, found that “Based on the data available, in-person learning in schools has not been associated with substantial community transmission”.
Based on a high-quality McMaster University (Brighter World) review, researchers found that in children under 10 years of age “Transmission was traced back to community and home settings or adults, rather than among children within daycares or schools, even in jurisdictions where schools remained open or have since reopened…The bottom line thus far is that children under 10 years of age are unlikely to drive outbreaks of COVID-19 in daycares and schools and that, to date, adults were much more likely to be the transmitter of infection than children,”
A BMJ scoping review study evaluated the role of children in the transmission of COVID-19 virus and included 14 studies. It was found that children are not transmitters to a greater extent than adults. Nonetheless it does appear that in this study it was concluded that children can spread disease. We do not argue with this, but point the reader to the rarity of this type of spread.
Additionally, a high-quality robust study in the French Alps examined the spread of Covid-19 virus via a cluster of Covid-19. They followed one infected child who visited three different schools and interacted with other children, teachers, and various adults. They reported no instance of secondary transmission despite close interactions. These data have been available to the CDC and other health experts for over a year.
We could go on and on about the very low risk of children spreading the virus or its variants, so why the move to mask in August 2021? Is there new data we do not know about? We would also be remiss if we did not accentuate that the school setting for many children especially less advantaged children presents as their principal route out of crushing poverty and for many, it is the only ‘daily’ safety from the dangers of a chaotic, disordered, and at times threatening home life. School closure and shift to on-line learning is a catastrophic mess and a real threat. In a February 2021 BMJ publication, Lewis et al. cogently outlined how closing schools is not evidence based and harms children and this is supported by a very recent systematic review which shows that when the lowest risk of bias studies are examined, school closures have no obvious or distinct effect on SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
Any compelling evidence on effectiveness of masks?
No, we find none, zero! No compelling evidence, no clear evidence, none. If you tortured yourself, you could possibly say, neutral in some instances but clearly ineffective in most. My read of the evidence published to date is that these masks have been and are largely ineffective in curbing transmission of this virus or reducing deaths. A respiratory virus cannot be stopped by these masks. Where is the evidence by these scientific experts that masks work and for our children? When children do not spread the virus or get ill. Where is this evidence? We say they have none and this Delta variant (and others to come) are and will be used to continue the baseless fear mongering within the society, and mainly now to drive persons to vaccinate (especially our children) with an untested vaccine that remains investigational and experimental. Where the safety testing was not done, and we are being asked to submit our children to this risk, where there is no opportunity for benefit but only opportunity for harms for our children. No testing. And this is frightening given children may be set up for a life-time of possible disability and ill effect given we do not know the long-term effects of the vaccines because the vaccine developers did not study this. This last sentence is an incredible one if you ponder it carefully! That we would put out a vaccine that was not safety tested!
We argue that the messaging by the media and medical experts initially suggested that all persons are of equal risk of severe illness from Covid infection. This is where it all went wrong and where societies were greatly deceived by those who should not have done that. We were never ‘all’ at equal risk. This was deeply flawed and has crippled the US and global nations since day one of this pandemic. This caused irrational fear and hysteria and it has held on. This type of deception and the resulting unfounded fear has been driven by the media despite “a thousandfold difference in risk between old and young.”
The use of face masks is our focus in this op-ed. What is the current best evidence (comparative effectiveness research and any type of higher-quality reporting) and what does it tell us about face masks and especially for our children in terms of harms? There are potentially catastrophic harms due to mask use (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33). A recent study report published in JAMA indicated that wearing a mask can expose children to very dangerous levels of carbon dioxide in 3 minutes. We are seeking clarification for this study may have been retracted due to the current political and biased research publication era we are operating in. We will update as needed.
The sum total of the mask evidence, even if we torture it and say it is ‘neutral’, states conclusively that masks do not work in this COVID emergency and will not work for the Delta variant etc. At least how they have been used and the type of masks that have been used. Certainly, this does not apply to a properly fitted seal tested N95 mask in the proper environment and with other protective equipment. Masks based on the evidence, are ineffective and a waste of time in stopping transmission or curbing deaths. We thus provide the ineffectiveness of masks based on references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. We also know of the failure of mask mandates (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). While the recent report by Blazemedia shreds the Delta variant narrative of it being a lethal variant etc., it actually showcases that masks do not work given India has among the highest mask use globally yet is/was ineffective against the Delta variant. These masks do not work and something other than science is at play in terms of the prior catastrophically failed lockdowns, school closures, and masking! The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated “In general, children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks”.
Let us unpack a few of these more pivotal COVID mask studies and a particularly important seminal research study by the CDC published in Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID) in May 2020 and looking at nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings (personal protective and environmental measures using 10 RCTs), found that use of masks did not reduce the rate of laboratory-proven infections with the respiratory influenza virus. “In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”.
Similarly, a strong argument against the use of masks in the current Covid-19 pandemic gained traction when a recent CDC case-control study reported that well over 80% of cases always or often wore masks. This CDC study further called into question the utility of masks in the Covid-19 emergency. This CDC study showed that the majority of persons infected wore face masks, and still got infected.
Just look no further than the study out of Sweden by Ludvigsson on COVID transmission with no lockdowns or mask mandates in children. In terms of masking children which we are vehemently against (in school or out of school) Ludvigsson powerfully evidenced the low risk in children by publishing this seminal paper in the New England Journal of Medicine among children one to 16 years of age and their teachers in Sweden. From the nearly 2 million children that were followed in school in Sweden, it was reported that with no mask mandates, there were zero deaths from COVID and a few instances of transmission and minimal hospitalization.
What about the high-quality randomized controlled trial Danish Study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that sought to assess whether recommending surgical mask utilization outside of the home would help reduce the wearer’s risks of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures. This can be regarded as the highest quality study on the effectiveness of COVID masks. The sample included a total of 3,030 participants who were assigned randomly to wear masks, and 2,994 who were told to not wear masks (i.e. the control arm). The authors concluded that there was no statistically or clinically significant impact of mask-use in regard to the rate of infection with SARS CoV-2.
Perhaps one of the most seminal and rigorous studies (along with the Danish study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine) emerged from a United States Marine Corps study performed in an isolated location; Parris Island. As reported in a recent NEJM publication (CHARM study), researchers studied SARS-CoV-2 transmission among Marine recruits during quarantine. Marine recruits at Parris Island (n=1,848 of 3,143 eligible recruits) who volunteered underwent a 2-week quarantine at home that was followed by a 2nd 2-week quarantine in a closed college campus setting.
As part of the study, participants wore masks and socially distanced while symptoms were monitored with daily checks of temperature. RT-PCR testing was used to assess the effectiveness of these strategies insofar as the presence or absence of SARS CoV-2 mRNA was concerned. Samples were obtained by the use of nasal swabs which were collected between arrival and the 2nd day of supervised quarantine and on days 7 and 14 (the 2nd quarantine used to mitigate infection among recruits). All recruits were required to have a negative RT-PCR result prior to entering Parris Island. It was found that within 2 days following arrival on the closed campus, 16 participants now tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 mRNA (15 being asymptomatic) and 35 more tested positive on day 7 or on day 14 (n=51 in total).
More specifically, of the 1,801 recruits who tested negative with PCR at study enrollment, 24 (1.3%) tested positive on day 7. On day 14, a total of 11 of 1,760 (0.6%) of the previously PCR-test negative participants tested positive; none of these participants were seropositive on day 0. As such, 35 participants who had had negative PCR test results within the first 2 days post arrival at the campus then became positive during the strict supervised quarantine. Of the 51 total participants who had at least one positive PCR test, 22 had positive tests on more than 1 day.
The authors reported that about 2% who had earlier negative tests for SARS-CoV-2 at the beginning of strict supervised quarantine (we ask the reader to think; military grade supervision), and less than 2% of recruits who had unknown prior status, tested positive by day 14. Positive volunteers were mainly asymptomatic and transmission clusters occurred within platoons. The predominant finding was that despite the very strict and enforced quarantine (including 2 full weeks of supervised confinement and then forced social distancing and masking protocols), the rate of transmission was not reduced and in fact seemed to be higher than expected! Hence, we point out that not only was masking ineffective in preventing the spread of disease, but even made things worse. Despite quarantines, social distancing, and masking, in this cohort of mainly young male recruits, roughly 2% still went on to become infected and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sharing of rooms and platoon membership were reported risk factors for viral transmission.
As with the Danish investigation this study of Marine recruits who were kept under stringent military level supervision raises serious questions about the utility of quarantines, as it appears that not only do masks appear to be ineffective in preventing communal disease spread but also that quarantines do not work even when supervised for 2 weeks in a closed college. As we have stated elsewhere, it seems that quarantines are ineffective and that would also seem to include enforced social distancing! At the risk of repeating ourselves, all this is to say that in this study where compliance was monitored and enforced, and the conditions are favourable enough to support a rigorous study, so called ‘mitigation’ strategies just do not work and cannot work amongst the general population. This study stands as one of the higher-quality and more robust studies on the question of masking.
We even argue that the recent escalation of infections in India (Delta) that was followed by the use of early treatment anti-virals such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that crushed the wave and brought things under control as to infections, hospitalization, or deaths, really showed that masks do not work. Why? India was one of the most masked nation on earthy, near 99%.
Again, even if we tried to tease out ‘minimal help’ and say that ‘they may help a little,’ these COVID-19 masks are largely ineffective. As an example, a very recent publication stated that face masks become nonconsequential and do not function after 20 minutes due to saturation. “Those masks are only effective so long as they are dry,” said Professor Yvonne Cossart of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the University of Sydney.” As soon as they become saturated with the moisture in your breath, they stop doing their job and pass on the droplets.” In a similar light, there are indications that wearing a mask that has already been used, which is very common as we tend to reuse our masks, is riskier than if one wore no mask at all.
What can we say about the harms? Is there any evidence that could inform parents and even adults about dangers of these ineffective masks as we have established ineffectiveness above. We are limited by space but we wish to raise some key issues. We have also published on harms elsewhere. During April to October 2020 in the US, emergency room visits linked to mental health problems (e.g. anxiety) for children aged 5-11 increased by nearly 25% and increased by 31% for those aged 12-17 years old as compared to the same period in 2019. During the month of June 2020, 25% of persons aged 18 to 24 in the US reported suicidal ideation. While some of this may be related to the pandemic, we suspect that it is largely a function of our response to the pandemic. Child suicides have escalated in the US due to the lockdowns and school closures.
One of the most starkly revealing and troubling observations come from Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD, who is one of Europe’s leading neurologists and neurophysiologists focused on neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuro-regeneration and neuroplasticity. She has gone on record stating: “The rebreathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation.” There are neurons, for example in the hippocampus that cannot survive more than 3 minutes without an adequate supply of oxygen. Given that such cells are so sensitive to oxygen deprivation, their functionality must be affected by low oxygen levels.
Oxygen deprivation can cause metabolic changes and the metabolic changes that happen in neuronal cells are vitally important for cognitive functioning and brain plasticity and it is known that when drastic metabolic shifts occur in the brain, there are consequent changes of oxidative stress (cellular oxidative state) and these have a significant role in managing neuron functioning (we do not claim that masking would produce complete absence of oxygen of course).
The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, reduced ability to concentrate and reductions in cognitive function. Given that the development of neurodegenerative diseases can take years to develop, then what are the potentially deleterious effects of the use of masks, especially in children, when masks are used over the majority of their day? We and particularly parents, must consider this and weigh the benefits versus the harms. Are there benefits enough to warrant use relative to the potential harms? If the harms outweigh the benefits, then we cannot in good conscience advocate for mask use. Moreover, the continual and stressful impacts of masking (and school closures) will also have a known and deleterious impact on the immune systems in children (and adults).
Other medical harms relate to the notion that children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system, a robust developing immune system that must be challenged in order to retain functionality. Yet by severely restricting children’s activities because of lockdowns and masking (physical activity/fitness exercises are almost impossible whilst wearing a mask), we are probably hobbling their immune systems. We may be setting our children up for future ‘excess’ morbidity due to these societal restrictions by weakening their immune systems. Evidence indicates that regular physical activity and frequent exercise enhance immune competency and regulation.
A child unexposed to nature has little defense against a minor illness, which can become overwhelming due to the lack of a primed ‘tuned-up’ and ‘taxed’ immune system. A robust immune system shortens an illness as a consequence of the presence of preprogrammed anamnestic immunity. Preventing children from such interactions with nature and germs can and does lead to overwhelming infections and serious consequences to the health and life of a child. We might be setting up our children for future disaster when they emerge from societal restrictions fully and with no masks, to then be at the mercy of normally benign opportunistic infections with a now weakened immune system. This cannot be disregarded as we consider the consequences of our actions today in this pandemic and the questionable lockdowns, school closures, and mask policies.
Concerns are being raised regarding psychological damage and why a mask is not ‘just a mask.’ There is tremendous psychological damage to infants and children, with potential catastrophic impacts on the cognitive development of children. This is even more critical in relation to children with special needs or those within the autism spectrum who need to be able to recognize facial expressions as part of their ongoing development. The accumulating evidence also suggests that prolonged mask use in children or adults can cause harms, so much so that Dr. Blaylock states “the bottom line is that [if] you are not sick, you should not wear a mask.” Furthermore, Dr. Blaylock writes, “By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”
Emergent reports, albeit nascent and anecdotal but nevertheless vitally important (and will be clarified and defined in time) regarding the manufacture of masks, where, “many of them (face masks) are made of polyester, so you have a microplastic problem…many of the face masks would contain polyester with chlorine compounds…if I have the mask in front of my face, then of course I inhale the microplastic directly and these substances are much more toxic than if you swallow them, as they get directly into the nervous system.”
There are also reports of toxic mould, fungi, and bacteria that can pose a significant threat to the immune system by potentially weakening it. Of particular concern to us is the recent report of breathing in synthetic fibers in the face masks. This is of serious concern. “Loose particulate was seen on each type of mask. Also, tight and loose fibers were seen on each type of mask. If every foreign particle and every fiber in every facemask is always secure and not detachable by airflow, then there should be no risk of inhalation of such particles and fibers. However, if even a small portion of mask fibers is detachable by inspiratory airflow, or if there is debris in mask manufacture or packaging or handling, then there is the possibility of not only entry of foreign material to the airways, but also entry to deep lung tissue, and potential pathological consequences of foreign bodies in the lungs.”
Reports are that “Graphene is a strong, very thin material that is used in fabrication, but it can be harmful to lungs when inhaled and can cause long-term health problems.” We argue that there is a risk of potential ‘future’ inflammatory/fibrotic lung diseases because we are inhaling these materials in the masks now for over one year with more duration to come and no end in sight. These substances might also be highly carcinogenic. Not just for us as adults but we must be very concerned about the risks especially to our children since they depend on us as mentors and guides for their decision-making. It is our children that we are very concerned for.
These blue surgical masks pervade our lives. “Health Canada has issued a warning about blue and gray disposable face masks, which contain an asbestos-like substance associated with “early pulmonary toxicity.” The warning is specific to potentially toxic masks distributed within schools and daycares across Quebec. Health Canada (and full praise to them)….“discovered during a preliminary risk assessment that the masks contain microscopic graphene particles that, when inhaled, could cause severe lung damage.”
Dr. Richard Urso showed us just how dangerous these are by putting them under a microscope, revealing the melt-blown polypropylene plastic. Some masks even contain fiberglass and this is very dangerous as we know to inhale. We as parents make these decisions, we have to step back and question many of these decisions we are making that seem suboptimal. If it does not seem right, then you have to push back and question and demand the science, demand the data from these seemingly untethered experts.
We certainly are not getting the due diligence and protection from public health experts, the relevant health agencies, and policy makers that we need. They are failing us! COVID-19 has crystallized this. The government leaders are quick to tell us that they are relying on the advice of these experts in their advisory groups who seem incapable of reading the science or are just blinded to it. It is an academic sloppiness and cognitive dissonance that is terrifying by these experts should they come upon anything that differs from their beliefs or views, even when they are clearly wrong!
Moreover, the mass media seems incapable of doing the investigative type of journalism to fully inform the populace on what the public needs to know. We close by reiterating the warning in the JAMA publication that “Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.” We raise this issue of potential harm due to synthetic fibres, chlorine, and chemicals from Covid masks as a public health warning and call on the public to make its own relevant risk-management decisions, weighing the benefits versus the harms (downsides) of such a course of action. Especially with the surgical masks (blue) or similar that quickly get moisture laden with use, fibers tend to get loose and may enter the mouth and nose.
In sum, as mentioned, the optimal comparative research on harms has not sufficiently accumulated but what has been reported is sufficient to inform and guide us in our debate on the potential harms of mask use (surgical and cloth), especially in children. But we do have real-world evidence. While additional evidence will help clarify the extent of risk, the existing details are sobering enough and of tremendous utility as we consider the benefits versus the harms of mask use. Even the potential of minimal harm is enough to prevent justification of such use.
The public remains confused by all of the mask messaging from senior medical experts across the US, and up to today, August 10th 2021, with the renewed push to mask in light of the non-lethal Delta variant. This can be exemplified by comments made by Dr. Anthony Fauci very early on in the pandemic (March 2020) as part of his Covid-19 Task Force role when he stated categorically that (para), “wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better” but “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think it is.” Then and now, he actually echoed the current scientific consensus and this was in line with the World Health Organization’s guidance.
The guidance coming from experts was confusing at best and downright unscientific and flawed at worst. Interestingly, this type of advice (also given by others including Canada’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam), was changed (initially dismissive of mask use) under the notion that in fact the experts were intentionally saying these things so as to prevent runs on surgical masks that were in short supply at the time and needed by healthcare workers.
In relation to the above we point out that the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that “the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.”
We argue strongly against the masking of our children especially as they prepare to re-enter school this fall in 2021, as it is ineffective and can be potentially very harmful. I/we challenge anyone to provide for us the evidence that masks and mandates work and are effective in curbing transmission or deaths, and that they are not harmful to our children. We have searched long and hard and cannot find any such evidence. This is illogical and flies in the face of science. There is no basis for this and we argue something other than science is at play here.
We implore that all government leaders and so-called medical experts include risk-benefit analyses each and any time they seek to advocate for or implement societal policies such as mask mandates etc. We absolutely must have risk benefit analysis of alternative treatments and the lockdowns and masks and school closures etc. Any such action and the findings must be presented to the public with clarity and truthfulness. We need such for each of these vaccines. How come these have never been done? For these types of public health policies that have all been shown to be catastrophic failures, we must have evidence of the benefits as well as well as harms and examine the trade-offs and most importantly, consider the implications to the public. If the policy is destructive, you end it! To do not ever harden it and do ‘more of it’. That is an example of insanity by our governments and their Task Forces and medical advisors and the leaders of the public health agencies and it is what we the public, have been living 18 months now. Insanity! Irrational, illogical, hysterical, and unscientific behavior by all of our governments!