Preview
Our unified response to the dangerous trend of mandated face masks.
TBYP site
Dear Reader,

Every time we speak truth, the framework of tyranny dissolves a bit more.

We made history and dissolved some tyranny in our previous "instant action" campaign saying NO to the TRACE ACT. Here's the stats:
  • 54,104 of us sent 426,176 notices and 342 personal video messages to elected reps!!!
  • 35,197 individual officials were reached - federal, state & local - across USA.

That draconian bill was introduced on May 1. Our campaign launched on May 9, and the bill hasn't progressed since. And, we helped thousands of public officials see more clearly. (BTW, looks like no one wants to touch that bill! But if they do, I know you'll be ready.)

Now, it's time to take 2 minutes to respond to the dangerous trend of government-mandated face masks.

We are partnering with Stand For Health Freedom, whose campaign against mandatory mask-wearing has already helped Americans send 201,000 emails and tweets to state and local elected officials.

Let's break our record and help their campaign reach 500,000. If you're in the USA, with just one click send a pre-drafted, customizable message urging officials to protect you & everyone in your community by making sure that mask-wearing is a choice.

» Please click HERE to send the form NOW. Time is of the essence.

Do this, and let's stand up to medical tyranny. If you're not yet sure about the facts or the importance of this moment, read the Discussion and the Science Review, just below. Then, copy over your favorite bits and add them into your email Action.

In Solidarity,
Josh del Sol & team

P.S. Humor helps! Scroll down for a poignant meme collection.

 
DISCUSSION: Mandatory face mask issues

S
Do I have to wear a mask? Should I just wear a mask to avoid being heckled or harassed? What if wearing a mask makes me feel unwell? These are just a few of the questions that people are grappling with as a growing number of jurisdictions nationwide institute mandatory mask measures.

Currently, all but a handful of states call for mandatory mask-wearing, and many cities have their own mask ordinances. However, Stand for Health Freedom believes that wearing a mask should be an individual’s choice. A growing contingent of individuals are concerned that mandatory mask policies jeopardize bodily, civil and constitutional rights.

Given the lack of evidence for their use, and strong evidence showing they can cause substantial harm, a universal mandate to wear masks in public — and to be able to access basic services — constitutes an unnecessary power grab and means of controlling the population.

It is unethical and unconstitutional to force healthy men, women and children to abide by measures that can result in physical and emotional harm and that impinge on their ability to participate in society without discrimination. For those with deeply held religious beliefs, mask mandates violate their ability to abide by natural law and follow their convictions to walk in faith, not fear. As such, the decision to wear a mask is a highly personal one and should not be mandated; measures that are meant to protect the community as a whole are ineffective if they hurt individuals in that community.

With unbridled governmental control throughout much of 2020 — under the guise of emergency orders ostensibly to curb coronavirus — Americans from coast to coast have seen their civil, constitutional and religious rights trampled upon. Never before has it been so important to STAND up for your rights! We must urge our lawmakers to make face coverings voluntary, not mandatory. Mandatory medicine and mandated interventions such as social distancing and mask-wearing have no place in a free society; citizens have the right to make responsible decisions about what is best for themselves and their children based on their own unique circumstances.

» Please click HERE to send the form NOW. Time is of the essence.

 
SCIENCE REVIEW: Is chronic face-masking effective... and safe?

Video
1. Are Masks Effective?

A meta-analysis found that face masks had no detectable effect against transmission of viral infections. (1) It found: "Compared to no masks, there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers."

This 2020 meta-analysis found that evidence from randomized controlled trials of face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility. (2)

Another recent review found that masks had no effect specifically against Covid-19, although facemask use seemed linked to, in 3 of 31 studies, "very slightly reduced" odds of developing influenza-like illness. (3)

This 2019 study of 2862 participants showed that both N95 respirators and surgical masks "resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza." (4)

This 2016 meta-analysis found that both randomized controlled trials and observational studies of N95 respirators and surgical masks used by healthcare workers did not show benefit against transmission of acute respiratory infections. It was also found that acute respiratory infection transmission "may have occurred via contamination of provided respiratory protective equipment during storage and reuse of masks and respirators throughout the workday." (5)

A 2011 meta-analysis of 17 studies regarding masks and effect on transmission of influenza found that "none of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection." (6) However, authors speculated that effectiveness of masks may be linked to early, consistent and correct usage.

Face mask use was likewise found to be not protective against the common cold, compared to controls without face masks among healthcare workers. (7)

Airflow around masks

Masks have been assumed to be effective in obstructing forward travel of viral particles. Considering those positioned next to or behind a mask wearer, there have been farther transmission of virus-laden fluid particles from masked individuals than from unmasked individuals, by means of "several leakage jets, including intense backward and downwards jets that may present major hazards," and a "potentially dangerous leakage jet of up to several meters." (8) All masks were thought to reduce forward airflow by 90% or more over wearing no mask. However, Schlieren imaging showed that both surgical masks and cloth masks had farther brow jets (unfiltered upward airflow past eyebrows) than not wearing any mask at all, 182 mm and 203 mm respectively, vs none discernible with no mask. Backward unfiltered airflow was found to be strong with all masks compared to not masking.

For both N95 and surgical masks, it was found that expelled particles from 0.03 to 1 micron were deflected around the edges of each mask, and that there was measurable penetration of particles through the filter of each mask. (9)

Penetration through masks

A study of 44 mask brands found mean 35.6% penetration (+ 34.7%). Most medical masks had over 20% penetration, while "general masks and handkerchiefs had no protective function in terms of the aerosol filtration efficiency." The study found that "Medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs were found to provide little protection against respiratory aerosols." (10)

It may be helpful to remember that an aerosol is a colloidal suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas. In respiration, the relevant aerosol is the suspension of bacterial or viral particles in inhaled or exhaled breath.

In another study, penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. (11)

N95 respirators

Honeywell is a manufacturer of N95 respirators. These are made with a 0.3 micron filter. (12) N95 respirators are so named, because 95% of particles having a diameter of 0.3 microns are filtered by the mask forward of the wearer, by use of an electrostatic mechanism. Coronaviruses are approximately 0.125 microns in diameter.

This meta-analysis found that N95 respirators did not provide superior protection to facemasks against viral infections or influenza-like infections. (13) This study did find superior protection by N95 respirators when they were fit-tested compared to surgical masks. (14)

This study found that 624 out of 714 people wearing N95 masks left visible gaps when putting on their own masks. (15)

Surgical masks

This study found that surgical masks offered no protection at all against influenza. (16) Another study found that surgical masks had about 85% penetration ratio of aerosolized inactivated influenza particles and about 90% of Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, although S aureus particles were about 6x the diameter of influenza particles. (17)

Use of masks in surgery were found to slightly increase incidence of infection over not masking in a study of 3,088 surgeries. (18) The surgeons' masks were found to give no protective effect to the patients.

Other studies found no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks. (19) (20)

This study found that "there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination." (21)

This study found that medical masks have a wide range of filtration efficiency, with most showing a 30% to 50% efficiency. (22)

Specifically, are surgical masks effective in stopping human transmission of coronaviruses? Both experimental and control groups, masked and unmasked respectively, were found to "not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols." (23) In that study, they "did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus" as found in exhaled breath.

A study of aerosol penetration showed that two of the five surgical masks studied had 51% to 89% penetration of polydisperse aerosols. (24)

In another study, that observed subjects while coughing, "neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients." And more viral particles were found on the outside than on the inside of masks tested. (25)

Cloth masks

Cloth masks were found to have low efficiency for blocking particles of 0.3 microns and smaller. Aerosol penetration through the various cloth masks examined in this study were between 74 and 90%. Likewise, the filtration efficiency of fabric materials was 3% to 33% (26)

Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks were found to have 13 times the risk of influenza-like illness than those wearing medical masks. (27)

This 1920 analysis of cloth mask use during the 1918 pandemic examines the failure of masks to impede or stop flu transmission at that time, and concluded that the number of layers of fabric required to prevent pathogen penetration would have required a suffocating number of layers, and could not be used for that reason, as well as the problem of leakage vents around the edges of cloth masks. (28)

Masks against Covid-19


The New England Journal of Medicine editorial on the topic of mask use versus Covid-19 assesses the matter as follows:

"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 20 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic." (29)

2. Are masks safe?

During walking or other exercise

Surgical mask wearers had significantly increased dyspnea after a 6-minute walk than non-mask wearers. (30)

Researchers are concerned about possible burden of facemasks during physical activity on pulmonary, circulatory and immune systems, due to oxygen reduction and air trapping reducing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. As a result of hypercapnia, there may be cardiac overload, renal overload, and a shift to metabolic acidosis. (31)

Risks of N95 respirators

Pregnant healthcare workers were found to have a loss in volume of oxygen consumption by 13.8% compared to controls when wearing N95 respirators. 17.7% less carbon dioxide was exhaled. (32) Patients with end-stage renal disease were studied during use of N95 respirators. Their partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) decreased significantly compared to controls and increased respiratory adverse effects. (33) 19% of the patients developed various degrees of hypoxemia while wearing the masks.

Healthcare workers' N95 respirators were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor influenza virus. (34) And 25% of healthcare workers' facepiece respirators were found to contain influenza in an emergency department during the 2015 flu season. (35)

Risks of surgical masks

Healthcare workers' surgical masks also were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor influenza virus. (36)

Various respiratory pathogens were found on the outer surface of used medical masks, which could result in self-contamination. The risk was found to be higher with longer duration of mask use. (37)

Surgical masks were also found to be a repository of bacterial contamination. The source of the bacteria was determined to be the body surface of the surgeons, rather than the operating room environment. (38) Given that surgeons are gowned from head to foot for surgery, this finding should be especially concerning for laypeople who wear masks. Without the protective garb of surgeons, laypeople generally have even more exposed body surface to serve as a source for bacteria to collect on their masks.

Risks of cloth masks

Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks had significantly higher rates of influenza-like illness after four weeks of continuous on-the-job use, when compared to controls. (39)

The increased rate of infection in mask-wearers may be due to a weakening of immune function during mask use. Surgeons have been found to have lower oxygen saturation after surgeries even as short as 30 minutes. (40) Low oxygen induces hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1). (41) This in turn down-regulates CD4+ T-cells. CD4+ T-cells, in turn, are necessary for viral immunity. (42)

» Please click HERE to send the form NOW. Time is of the essence.


REFERENCES


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

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

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

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

5. J Smith, C MacDougall. CMAJ. 2016 May 17. 188(8); 567-574. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

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/

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/

8. M Viola, B Peterson, et al. Face coverings, aerosol dispersion and mitigation of virus transmission risk. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.10720.pdf

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

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 Jun. 14:991-1002. https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf

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

12. N95 masks explained. https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained

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

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

15. M Walker. Study casts doubt on N95 masks for the public. MedPage Today. 2020 May 20. https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/86601

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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/

22. 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

23. N Leung, D Chu, et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nature Research. 2020 Mar 7. 26,676-680 (2020). https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-16836/v1

24. 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

25. S 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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/

31. 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/

32. 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/

33. 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/

34. 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/

35. 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/

36. 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/

37. 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/

38. L Zhiqing, C Yongyun, et al. J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jun 27; 14:57-62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30035033/

39. 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

40. A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008; 19: 121-126. https://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf

41. D Lukashev, B Klebanov, et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha and its activation-inducible short isoform negatively regulate functions of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. J Immunol. 2006 Oct 15; 177(8) 4962-4965. https://www.jimmunol.org/content/177/8/4962

42. A Sant, A McMichael. Revealing the role of CD4+ T-cells in viral immunity. J Exper Med. 2012 Jun 30; 209(8):1391-1395. https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/3420330
 
MEMES: Truth & humor

George
Bike
Peggy
Box
Rates
Commando
Safe
Car
Control
Card
U-turn
Depp
Real Faux
Ron
Guess who
WTF
Nope
 
 
 
Thank you for helping to create change worldwide! Some of the organizations whose products and events we carefully review may choose to provide a portion of sales to support our mission. You are receiving this email because you subscribed to Josh del Sol's updates via registration at either the 5G Summit and/or the Take Back Your Power website. To unsubscribe, simply use the link just below.


FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO A FRIEND: Click here

Manage your subscription | Unsubscribe

Million Faces Productions, c/o #339 - 14241 NE Woodinville Duvall Road, Woodinville, Washington [98072], United States



Email Marketing by ActiveCampaign