Mask wearers of the world, take them off—you have nothing to lose but your insanity…
Journal of the American Medical Association, April 17, 2020, “Masks and Coronavirus Disease”: “Unless you are sick, a health care worker, or caring for someone who has COVID-19, medical masks (including surgical face masks and N95s) are not recommended.”
At Children’s Health Defense, JB Handley has written an excellent article, “LOCKDOWN LUNACY: The Thinking Person’s Guide.” Here are two highlights from his section on masks:
“May 29, the World Health Organization announced that masks should only be worn by healthy people if they are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19:”
“’If you do not have any respiratory symptoms such as fever, cough or runny nose, you do not need to wear a mask,’ Dr. April Baller, a public health specialist for the WHO, says in a video on the world health body’s website posted in March. ‘Masks should only be used by healthcare workers, caretakers or by people who are sick with symptoms of fever and cough’.”
“…I often see this study from 2015 in the BMJ cited: ‘A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers’, and it bears repeating, since MOST of the masks I see people wearing in the community right now are cloth masks. Not only are these masks 100% ineffective at reducing the spread of COVID-19, but they can actually harm you. As the researchers explain:”
“’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…’”
Of course, I understand that when people are conspiracy whackos wearing their masks, they don’t respond well to facts, even when those facts come from the very organizations they believe in with religious fervor.
Here is something else from the Washington State Nurses Association: “Reprocessing masks using toxic chemicals is not a solution”:
“Nurses are reporting that respirators and face masks at WSNA repre-sented Providence facilities are being collected for reprocessing using ethylene oxide to decontaminate. The EPA has concluded that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic to humans and that exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of lymphoid cancer and, for females, breast cancer.”
“WSNA sent a cease and desist demand to Providence facilities where our members work, demanding an immediate halt to the reusing of any face masks, including N 95 and other respirators, that have been decontaminated by the ethylene oxide cleaning process. In addition, WSNA is preparing complaints to be filed with the Washington State Department of Occupational Safety and Health, highlighting this workplace hazard.”
“WSNA believes that the reuse of face masks or respirators cleaned with ethylene oxide violates the employer’s legal duty to ensure that nurses and other health care workers are afforded a safe and healthful working environment. While hospitals have long used ethylene oxide to clean certain surgical equipment, it should not be used to decontami-nate face masks or respirators, through which nurses and other health care workers must breathe for many hours at a time.”
“…The CDC warns that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic and teratogenic, and that ‘inhalation of ethylene oxide has been linked to neurologic dysfunction and may cause other harmful effects to the wearer’.”
“Prolonged exposure to ethylene oxide can hurt eyes and LUNGS, harm the brain and nervous system, and potentially cause lymphomas, leukemia, and breast cancer. This extremely hazardous toxic chemical poses a severe risk to human health.” [CAPS are mine.]
Is the use of toxic ethylene oxide to treat masks widespread? According to the Chicago Tribune, way back in March, Medline Industries was reprocessing 100,000 medical masks a day. They applied to the FDA for permission to use ethylene oxide. But wasn’t the horse already out of the barn? Weren’t they already using the chemical? I’ve queried Medline to find out whether the FDA has approved their application.
And finally, I have a lone report about a person from the region of Piedmont, Italy, who checked out his medical mask, which he’d received in the mail from the Department of Civil Protection. He discovered it contained zinc pyrithione.
If true, this is ominous. Consulting a simple safety data sheet on the chemical, from Cayman Chemical, I found a succinct statement: “Toxic if inhaled.”
But of course, medical masks must be worn. The lockdown authorities tell us so. They know. They must know because, well, they’re on television.
Keep breathing through that mask. It’s “safe and effective.”
One might be tempted to say ‘better safe.’ But the mask study quotes a recent W.H.O. update: “The wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks.”
Thank-you for the face mask exemption - medical legal notice.
It is timely because masked people are starting to get hostile (happened twice today) towards others for not wearing a mask. My body reacts negatively and fairly quickly to wearing masks. Starts with sneezing, dry cough, runny nose and if continued then lightheaded.
Even by the medical establishment’s own misunderstanding of what naturally occurring viruses were designed to do, the reasons being given for wearing masks make absolutely no sense.
Considering the size of viruses, which are reportedly ≈1/500th the size of a human hair, wearing a mask to keep them out is akin to putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out.
And it’s no wonder the masks are irritating to wear, as it’s just another sign from Father to let people know they aren’t helping anyone. In truth, masks are actually harmful to everyone.
Masks physically harm those who wear them by restricting their O2 intake, which makes people sick (which is why they want people to wear them).
Wearing the masks also sets a bad example, as it sends the wrong message to the parasitic criminal class that most people will do whatever they’re told without thinking about it, regardless of whether it’s detrimental to their health. And in this case, that kind of behaviour is not only bad for people’s physical health, but also for their spiritual health in not standing up to this wickedness in high places (Eph. 6:12-18).
It is also being used as a divide and conquer strategy. And free-will is being clamped down on more and more. My body reacts as stated and yet people say it is okay to just sneeze and cough in the mask! Where did they get that information from??? People are actually doing that. Very bad.
Agreed. The following excerpt is from the exhaustive work by Arthur Firstenberg entitled " The Invisible Rainbow " (p. 100-105), about the testing done during the “Spanish flu”, to determine what was causing it and how it was spreading:-
The Spanish influenza apparently originated in the United States in early 1918, seemed to spread around the world on Navy ships, and first appeared on board those ships and in seaports and Naval stations. The largest early outbreak, laying low about 400 people, occurred in February in the Naval Radio School at Cambridge, Massachusetts.8 In March, influenza spread to Army camps where the Signal Corps was being trained in the use of the wireless: 1,127 men contracted influenza in Camp Funston, in Kansas, and 2,900 men in the Oglethorpe camps in Georgia. In late March and April, the disease spread to the civilian population, and around the world.
Mild at first, the epidemic exploded with death in September, everywhere in the world at once. Waves of mortality traveled with astonishing speed over the global ocean of humanity, again and again until their force was finally spent three years later.
Its victims were often sick repeatedly for months at a time. One of the things that puzzled doctors the most was all of the bleeding. Ten to fifteen percent of flu patients seen in private practice,9 and up to forty percent of flu patients in the Navy10 suffered from nosebleeds, doctors sometimes describing the blood as “gushing” from the nostrils.11 Others bled from their gums, ears, skin, stomach, intestines, uterus, or kidneys, the most common and rapid route to death being hemorrhage in the lungs: flu victims drowned in their own blood. Autopsies revealed that as many as one-third of fatal cases had also hemorrhaged into their brain,12 and occasionally a patient appeared to be recovering from respiratory symptoms only to die of a brain hemorrhage.
“The regularity with which these various hemorrhages appeared suggested the possibility of there being a change in the blood itself,” wrote Drs. Arthur Erskine and B. L. Knight of Cedar Rapids, Iowa in late 1918. So they tested the blood from a large number of patients with influenza and pneumonia. “In every case tested without a single exception,” they wrote, “the coagulability of the blood was lessened, the increase in time required for coagulation varying from two and one-half to eight minutes more than normal. Blood was tested as early as the second day of infection, and as late as the twentieth day of convalescence from pneumonia, with the same results… Several local physicians also tested blood from their patients, and, while our records are at this time necessarily incomplete, we have yet to receive a report of a case in which the time of coagulation was not prolonged.”
This is consistent not with any respiratory virus, but with what has been known about electricity ever since Gerhard did the first experiment on human blood in 1779. It is consistent with what is known about the effects of radio waves on blood coagulation.13 Erskine and Knight saved their patients not by fighting infection, but by giving them large doses of calcium lactate to facilitate blood clotting.
Another astonishing fact that makes no sense if this pandemic was infectious, but that makes good sense if it was caused by radio waves, is that instead of striking down the old and the infirm like most diseases, this one killed mostly healthy, vigorous young people between the ages of eighteen and forty—just as the previous pandemic had done, with a little less vehemence, in 1889. This, as we saw in chapter 5, is the same as the predominant age range for neurasthenia, the chronic form of electrical illness. Two-thirds of all influenza deaths were in this age range.14 Elderly patients were rare.15 One doctor in Switzerland wrote that he “knew of no case in an infant and no severe case in persons over 50,” but that *“one robust person showed the first symptoms at 4 p.m. and died before 10 the next morning.”*16 A reporter in Paris went so far as to say that “only persons between 15 and 40 years of age are affected.” 17
The prognosis was better if you were in poor physical condition. If you were undernourished, physically handicapped, anemic, or tuberculous, you were much less likely to get the flu and much less likely to die from it if you did.18 This was such a common observation that Dr. D. B. Armstrong wrote a provocative article, published in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, titled “Influenza: Is it a Hazard to Be Healthy?” Doctors were seriously discussing whether they were actually giving their patients a death sentence by advising them to keep fit!
The flu was reported to be even more fatal for pregnant women.
A further peculiarity that had doctors scratching their heads was that in most cases, after the patients’ temperature had returned to normal, their pulse rate fell below 60 and remained there for a number of days. In more serious cases the pulse rate fell to between 36 and 48, an indication of heart block.19 This too is puzzling for a respiratory virus, but will make sense when we learn about radio wave sickness.
Patients also regularly lost some of their hair two to three months after recovering from the flu. According to Samuel Ayres, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, this was an almost daily occurrence, most of these patients being young women. This is not an expected after-effect of respiratory viruses either, but hair loss has been widely reported from exposure to radio waves.20
Yet another puzzling observation was that so few patients in 1918 had sore throats, runny noses, or other initial respiratory symptoms.21 But neurological symptoms, just as in the pandemic of 1889, were rampant, even in mild cases. They ranged from insomnia, stupor, dulled perceptions, unusually heightened perceptions, tingling, itching, and impairment of hearing to weakness or partial paralysis of the palate, eyelids, eyes, and various other muscles.22 The famous Karl Menninger reported on
100 cases of psychosis triggered by influenza, including 35 of schizophrenia, that he saw during a three-month period.23
Although the infectious nature of this illness was widely assumed, MASKS, QUARANTINES, AND ISOLATION WERE ALL WITHOUT EFFECT .24 Even in an isolated country like Iceland the flu spread universally , in spite of the quarantining of its victims .25
The disease seemed to spread impossibly fast. “There is no reason to suppose that it traveled more rapidly than persons could travel [but] it has appeared to do so,” wrote Dr. George A. Soper, Major in the United States Army.26
But most revealing of all were the various heroic attempts to prove the infectious nature of this disease, using volunteers.ALLthese attempts, made in November and December 1918 and in February and March 1919,failed. One medical team in Boston, working for the United States Public Health Service, tried to infect one hundred healthy volunteers between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five.
Their efforts were impressive and make entertaining reading: “We collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers.We always obtained this material in the same way. The patient with fever, in bed, had a large, shallow, traylike arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile salt solutions, using perhaps 5 c.c., which is allowed to run into the tray; and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then gargles with some of the solution.
Next we obtain some bronchial mucus through coughing, and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the mucous surface of the throat… Each one of the volunteers…received 6 c.c. of the mixed stuff that I have described.They received it into each nostril; received it in the throat, and on the eye; and when you think that 6 c.c. in all was used, you will understand that some of it was swallowed.None of them took sick.”
In a further experiment with new volunteers and donors, the salt solution was eliminated, and with cotton swabs, the material was transferred directly from nose to nose and from throat to throat, using donors in the first, second, or third day of the disease.“None of these volunteers who received the material thus directly transferred from cases took sick in any way… All of the volunteers received at least two, and some of them three ‘shots’ as they expressed it.”
In a further experiment 20 c.c. of blood from each of five sick donors were mixed and injected into each volunteer. “None of them took sick in any way.”
“Then we collected a lot of mucous material from the upper respiratory tract, and filtered it through Mandler filters. This filtrate was injected into ten volunteers, each one receiving 3.5 c.c. subcutaneously, andnone of these took sick in any way.”
Then a further attempt was made to transfer the disease “in the natural way,” using fresh volunteers and donors: “The volunteer was led up to the bedside of the patient; he was introduced. He sat down alongside the bed of the patients. They shook hands, and by instructions, ***he got as close as he conveniently could, and they talked for five minutes. At the end of the five minutes, the patient breathed out as hard as he could, while the volunteer, muzzle to muzzle (in accordance with his instructions, about 2 inches between the two), received this expired breath, and at the same time was breathing in as the patient breathed out… After they had done this for five times, the patient coughed directly into the face of the volunteer, face to face, five different times… [Then] he moved to the next patient whom we had selected, and repeated this, and so on, until this volunteer had had that sort of contact with ten different cases of influenza, in different stages of the disease, mostly fresh cases, none of them more than three days old…None of them took sick in any way.”
“We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it wastransmitted from person to person. Perhaps,”concluded Dr. Milton Rosenau,“if we have learned anything, it is that we arenot quite sure what we know about the disease.” 27
Earlier attempts to demonstrate contagion in horses had met with the same resounding failure . Healthy horses were kept in close contact with sick ones during all stages of the disease. Nose bags were kept on horses that had nasal discharges and high temperatures. Those nose bags were used to contain food for other horses which, however, stubbornly remained healthy.
As a result of these and other attempts, Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Watkins-Pitchford of the British Army Veterinary Corps wrote in July 1917 that he could find no evidence that influenza was ever spread directly from one horse to another .
Another excerpt, from p.96-97, tells us what was going on at the same time:-
Then, in 1917, just as the bees on the Isle of Wight itself appeared to be regaining their former vitality, an event occurred that changed the electrical environment of the rest of the world. Millions of dollars of United States government money were suddenly mobilized in a crash program to equip the Army, Navy, and Air Force with the most modern communication capability possible. The entry of the United States into the Great War on April 6, 1917, stimulated an expansion of radio broadcasting that was as sudden and rapid as the 1889 expansion of electricity.
Again it was the bees that gave the first warning.
Wearing masks is slow death. Many people have been complaining of having breathing problems/fainting due to luck of oxygen. If wearing masks is safe, why the social distance and if social distance is safe, why wear masks? By wearing masks, they are testing our obedience to them.
A. Masks Don’t Work: A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy
There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.
The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum , or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.
This paper by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Associatio, reviews medical literature, giving key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:
Source -
B.Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review
It is a stark reminder that scientific knowledge is constantly changing as new discoveries contradict established beliefs . For at least three decades a face mask has been deemed an essential component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by dental personnel.
In 2014, the nursing profession was implored to “stop using practice interventions that are based on tradition ” but instead adopt protocols that are based on critical evaluations of the available evidence.
No matter how well a mask conforms to the shape of a person’s face, it is not designed to create an air-tight seal around the face. Masks will always fit fairly loosely with considerable gaps along the cheeks, around the bridge of the nose and along the bottom edge of the mask below the chin. These gaps do not provide adequate protection as they permit the passage of air and aerosols when the wearer inhales.
It should be no surprise that a study of eight brands of face masks found that they did not filter out 20-100% of particles varying in size from 0.1 to 4.0 microns.
“There is no specific requirement to prove that the existing masks are effective and there is no standard test or set of data required supporting the assertion of equivalence. Nor does the FDA conduct or sponsor testing of surgical masks.”
Source -
2. HEALTH AUTHORITIES DO NOT ROUTINELY RECOMMEND THE USE OF FACE MASKS BY WELL PERSONS
Should people wear face masks to protect themselves from infection? Face masks play a very important role in clinical settings, such as hospitals but there’s very little evidence of widespread benefit from their use outside of these clinical settings. Facemasks must be worn correctly, changed frequently, removed properly and disposed of safely in order to be effective.
Should I wear a face covering? Face coverings offer minimal benefit to the wearer, but may help you protect others and reduce the spread of the disease if you are suffering from coronavirus but not showing any symptoms. Consider wearing a face covering if you have to use public transport to get to work, or are visiting a busy enclosed space where you can’t social distance such as a crowded shop.
B. The Center for Disease Control does not routinely recommend the use of face mask by well persons.
So … not only did the CDC know that there was limited effectiveness of N95 masks in stopping the H1N1 flu, but quarantines (of ONLY the sick, since quarantining the healthy is nonsensical) were mildly effective and lead to economic problems.
The CDC does not routinely recommend the use of face masks by well persons. It might recommend them for ill persons as a source of control measures during SEVERE, or very severe pandemics.
MUST READ: The below article addresses more than face mask like quarantines and advanced planning.
C. Coronavirus: Who should wear a face mask or face covering?
D. Remember the Director of Public Health Gibraltar, Sohail Bhatti early advice?
He said face masks are effective for 15 minutes and often taken off improperly. About wearing a face mask shopping, he said, “What a great way to declare to everyone that you might be Covid positive and creating fear and avoidance around you. I don’t think that works particularly well.”
WHO says no evidence wearing a mask would prevent infection in a healthy person - Dr Bhatti says
The advice CHANGED to stay in line with other health organizations; and Public Health Gibraltar recommends the same precautions as the PHE, wearing masks on public transport and when social distancing cannot be observed, as mentioned.
Also notice that that face masks will give a false perception that one is protected, when these claims of protection are false and misleading.
AND, Bhatti was correct when he first said face masks do keep the FEAR level up – was that the global agenda? To keep FEAR alive?
3. FACE MASKS DO NOT PROTECT AGAINST CORONAVIRUS, AS PER MANUFACTURER'S LABEL
This product is an ear loop mask. This product is not a respirator and will not provide any protection against Covid19 or other viruses or contaminates.
Understand the difference between surgical mask and N95 Respirator:
A surgical mask does NOT provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection
Source -
Masks are loose fitting and may not provide full protection from breathing in airborne pathogens, such as viruses.
Face masks (non-surgical masks) may not provide protection from fluids or may not filter particles, needed to protect against pathogens, such as viruses. They are not for surgical use and are not considered personal protective equipment .
Surgical masks are fluid-resistant, disposable, and loose-fitting devices that create a physical barrier between the mouth and nose of the wearer and the immediate environment. They are for use in surgical settings and do not provide full protection from inhalation of airborne pathogens, such as viruses.
BY THE WAY: Face masks are not recommended for children younger than 5 years old (some say 2 years); and some say masks are not designed for children.
AND they are not recommended for those who have difficulty breathing.
4. LIMITS OXYGEN INTAKE
Some say that face masks limits oxygen intake, and that it isn’t wise to constantly breath what you are exhaling.
If face mask limit oxygen intake – then why limit it? The medical industry is prescribing oxygen to those severely affected. Their efforts included gets a supply of oxygen tanks for hospitals.
5. THERE ARE DIVIDED OPINIONS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS
Concerns include people not wearing them correctly and people constantly touching their faces and adjusting the masks.
One medical expert told MailOnline that masks 'cannot' protect against the virus and that wearing them may even make it worse. Meanwhile Public Health England has warned that there is 'very little evidence' that masks are effective 'outside of clinical settings' such as hospitals.
The way you wear a mask is crucially importantly, academics say, because unless it is tight to the nose and mouth contaminated sneezes and coughs will get through - or linger on the surface.
He added that masks may make the spread of the virus more likely if they become damp .
Source -
After doing your own research, form your own opinion and act accordingly.
6. THEY ARE TREATED WITH HARMFUL CHEMICALS
Some individuals are allergic to materials and chemicals used to make face masks; and can have severe health reactions.
China, which supplies much of the medical goods, use harmful chemicals to treat them. It’s not just medical goods, but also fabrics. Investigate the use of Formaldehyde and ethylene oxide in fabric and materials.
Face masks laced with chemicals like Formaldehyde that can cause allergic reactions.
Although contact dermatitis in healthcare workers is common, there are very few case reports about surgical mask dermatitis. Contact dermatitis due to N95 masks during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic has been documented in a few studies. The article further explores dibromodicyanobutane as a known cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).
The manufacturer of the mask denied the use of any of the agents. But we found positive on commercial allergen patch testing, dibromodicyanobutane preservative in the adhesive used to attach the polyester foam strip to the mask textile was considered the most likely cause of the patient’s contact dermatitis.
The most common relevant general offending allergens also affecting healthcare workers are thiuram and carbamates (rubber accelerators and additives), thiomersal (vaccine preservative), benzalkonium chloride (preservative), formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde (disinfectants), quaternium 15 (formaldehyde-releasing http://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/contact-allergy-to-preservatives/preservative) and fragrances used in pharmaceutical products. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are used widely in many products in our environment, both generally and in healthcare. This makes it difficult sometimes to establish whether proven allergies are work-related. Disposable gowns and masks, used as personal protective equipment, have been described as potential formaldehyde exposures in healthcare settings.
It has been attributed to free formaldehyde, which was confirmed to be present in certain types of N95 mask.
The analysis of the N95 mask used by the latter patientconfirmed the presence of free formaldehyde in his mask. This was unexpected, since it was not displayed on the manufacturer’s list of ingredients.
Source -
Formaldehyde in your fabrics
For years the textile industry has been using finishes on fabric that prevents wrinkling – usually a formaldehyde resin.
According to the American Contact Dermatitis Society, rayon, blended cotton, corduroy, wrinkle-resistant 100% cotton, and any synthetic blended polymer are likely to have been treated with formaldehyde resins. The types of resins used include urea-formaldehyde, melamine-formaldehyde and phenol-formaldehyde. Manufacturers often “hide” the word “formaldehyde” under daunting chemical names.
Formaldehyde is another one of those chemicals that just isn’t good for humans. Long known as the Embalmer’s Friend for its uses in funeral homes and high school biology labs, formaldehyde effects depend upon the intensity and length of the exposure and the sensitivity of the individual to the chemical.
Besides being associated with watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes and throat, nausea, difficulty in breathing, coughing, some pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), asthma attacks, chest tightness, headaches, and general fatigue, as well as the rashes and other illnesses such as reported by the TSA officers, formaldehyde is associated with more severe health issues.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified formaldehyde as a human carcinogen.
Source -
According to the precautions of the PROTECTIVE FACE MASK (FFP3/N95) above, the product has been sterilized with ethylene oxide .
Although too dangerous for direct household use and generally unfamiliar to consumers, ethylene oxide is used for making many consumer products as well as non-consumer chemicals and intermediates.
As a toxic gas that leaves residue on items it contacts including food and spices, ethylene oxide is a surface disinfectant that is widely used in hospitals and the medical equipment industry to replace steam in the sterilization of heat-sensitive tools and equipment, such as disposable plastic syringes. It is so flammable and extremely explosive that it is used as a main component of thermobaric weapons (aerosol bomb).
According to the National Cancer Institute, lymphoma and leukemia are the cancers most frequently reported to be associated with occupational exposure to ethylene oxide. Stomach and breast cancers may also be associated with ethylene oxide exposure. At room temperature, ethylene oxide is a flammable colorless gas with a sweet odor. It is used primarily to produce other chemicals, including antifreeze. In smaller amounts, ethylene oxide is used as a pesticide and a sterilizing agent. The ability of ethylene oxide to damage DNA makes it an effective sterilizing agent but also accounts for its cancer-causing activity.
7. DISPOSABLE FACE MASKS ARE NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY
Creating more trash isn’t the answer, especially when their effectiveness cannot be guaranteed.
Gibraltar is already experiencing the effects of people trashing them.
Most people do not recognize that Lucifer/Satan is the Destroyer. He works to destroy the earth and ALL LIFE on the earth. And with his Synagogue, the market-system was created to make disposable products so that people constantly buy new products and trash the earth. Devices are upgraded in this system so that people constantly buy new devices. If it were about sustainability, you wouldn’t need to buy a new printer just because ink cartridges for your current one are no longer produced.
8. THE FAKES ARE OUT THERE – all in the name of supporting the market-beast system.
China manufactures fake, cheap products.
A. Counterfeit Masks Reaching Frontline Health Workers in US
An Associated Press investigation has found those masks were counterfeits — as are millions of medical masks, gloves, gowns and other supplies being used in hospitals across the country, putting lives at risk.
B. MASK SCANDAL Dangerous counterfeit coronavirus masks sent to front-line healthcare workers ‘from Chinese firm approved by US’
FAKE N95 masks from China were shipped to American doctors on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic, despite warnings the masks were counterfeit.
The masks inside were stamped as if approved by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health signifying they had been certified by the U.S. government as safe for workers in health care settings.
Video in link above:
Trump says he DID wear a mask - but was told he didn't need it
C. Chinese company charged with sending defective face masks to the US
A Chinese manufacturing company has been charged with shipping more than 140,000 defective face masks, marketed as “KN95,” to the U.S. in the middle of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
D. How to spot fake N95, NIOSH, or KN95 respirator mask from China
For example, the FDA doesn’t approve N95 respirators, so if it says it’s approved that should be a red flag.
E. Counterfeit Respirators / Misrepresentation of NIOSH-Approval
Counterfeit respirators are products that are falsely marketed and sold as being NIOSH-approved and may not be capable of providing appropriate respiratory protection to workers.
SIDENOTE:
The fake mask debacle doesn’t even address the bad Covid19 tests sent from China.
As the coronavirus landed in Italy and began to sweep across the continent, European leaders turned to China for testing kits to quickly identify infection hot spots.
Some are regretting it.
9. COVID19 TESTS ARE SUSPECTED TO ACTUALLY INFECT PEOPLE WITH A VIRUS
Could Contaminated COVID-19 Tests Help Spread the Virus?
This begs the question if it’s BIOLOGICAL WARFARE , especially because manufacturers have denied using chemicals; and they do not list all ingredients used, as pointed out above.
Create a virus, sell contaminated, or treated test kits to unsuspecting enemies in the West under the guise of “helping” whilst playing the market-system game.
10. DO NOT WEAR A FACE MASK AS PROOF YOU ARE NOT FALLING FOR THE PSYOP, MEANT TO INSTILL FEAR WORLDWIDE.
Thank-you for this added supporting information. The unfortunate thing is that THEY don't even care about the data/facts. THEY are using raw fear and lies to push their agenda. Sort of like the debate team going up against the football team. The NWO are pushing their agenda in everybody's face and there is no push-back.
Christ warned people 2000 years ago and even today not to fear men. This is why they hated Jesus. It's going to be different this time around...
The extent of marginal benefit of universal masking over and above these foundational measures is debatable.
Masks are visible reminders of an otherwise invisible yet widely prevalent pathogen and may remind people of the importance of social distancing and other infection-control measures.
It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety.
One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask.
I have downloaded the face mask exemption file and looks like I will be having to print and use it. Two counties adjacent to where I live/work have required mandatory mask wearing at all times and everywhere if in public and regardless of social distancing. The masked public are enforcing it. Twice again, masked people have demanded I put on a mask today. They do not ask. They command/demand. Did not. Will not. I have begun talking to the unmasked people (there are a few). Mandatory covid-19 testing is next.
THEY want to force everyone to wear a mask, so that their organised protestors and looters blend in with everyone else and cannot be easily identified.
If it wasn’t for Covid1984 everyone wearing a mask would be considered a potential criminal.
"But despite experts recommending people wear face coverings in public to prevent the spread of the virus a majority of people in Gibraltar seem to be going into shops, parks, restaurants and other locations every day without wearing a mask."
Isn't it possible that the MAJORITY aren't buying the lies, repeated endlessly by the politicians with an agenda?
The more T.H.E.Y. tighten their grip, the more will slip through their fingers.
1. MASKS DON’T WORK
2. HEALTH AUTHORITIES DO NOT ROUTINELY RECOMMEND THE USE OF FACE MASKS BY WELL PERSONS
MUST READ: The below article addresses more than face mask like quarantines and advanced planning.
3. FACE MASKS DO NOT PROTECT AGAINST CORONAVIRUS, AS PER MANUFACTURER'S LABEL
4. LIMITS OXYGEN INTAKE
5. THERE ARE DIVIDED OPINIONS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS
7. DISPOSABLE FACE MASKS ARE NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY
