Masks Control People, Not Viruses

▲
11
0
▼

Masks Control People, Not Viruses

invite response
2021 Apr 20, 8:45am 126,293 views 995 comments

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/?source=patrick.net

Published online 2020 Nov 22.

Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis
Baruch Vainshelboim⁎

Abstract
Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making. ...

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.

« First « Previous Comments 978 - 995 of 995 Search these comments

978

Patrick 2024 Sep 1, 9:42pm

979

Patrick 2024 Sep 4, 7:20am

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/duck-duck-goose-wednesday-september

A new study published in the Journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety this week, titled “Wearing face masks as a potential source for inhalation and oral uptake of inanimate toxins – A scoping review.” Hint: It’s not too good for mask maniacs.

The study was a “scoping review” that examined the potential toxic effects of face masks on human health by rounding up other studies. Researchers analyzed twenty-four relevant studies, focusing on the content and release into people’s bodies of known toxic substances from face masks.

Especially extended mask wearing.

The scientists found evidence of concerning levels of several toxic substances in face masks, including:

Microplastics and nanoplastics

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Phthalates and phthalate esters

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

Heavy metals (lead, cadmium, cobalt, copper, antimony)

Titanium dioxide particles

Coincidentally, I’m sure, microplastics were in the headlines this week thanks to a different study by completely different researchers:

These researchers found that a half a percent of autopsied brain matter from “normal individuals” aged 45-50 were made out of plastic. That is double the amount of brain plastic from autopsies conducted in 2016. Nobody has connected the dots to masking.

Call it mask brain. In passing, the toxic mask study mentioned chronic “mask-induced exhaustion syndrome” (MIES), which looks increasingly suspicious after combining the two studies.

Anyway, the mask study concluded that, while masks can helpfully filter large particles, they may less helpfully introduce toxic substances into folks’ airways and gastrointestinal tracts:

Conclusion
Undoubtedly, mask mandates during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have
been generating an additional source of potentially harmful exposition to
toxins with health threatening and carcinogenic properties at population
level with almost zero distance to the airways.

Even more remarkable than a negative mask study being published at all, the researchers didn’t even have to say the magic words! Just the opposite: “On top of that,” the researchers noted, “there was and still is no empirical evidence for the effectiveness of the masks in limiting the spread of viruses in the general populace.”