A Balanced Discussion On Masks

Let us pre-empt the Election Variant

Credit: Image editing assistance by supercellex.

Unadvisories

Would it surprise you that government corrupt advice? Probably not.

A reasonable person would typically assume advisories in government go something like this:

Present evidence, make reasonable advice based on evidence, admit when you don’t know something. Simple, right?

Well, they actually go more like this:

Yesmen share overlap as they want to keep the highly paid money from their job and make bank from grifting

I previously wrote anonymous advisories to the government: the red flag for me that they were trying to kill the public wasn’t simply they ignored evidenced advice, they intentionally lied to the public contrary to evidence for their selfish, evil agenda.

If you’ve read the 960+ studies showing harms for shots, you have done more research than the typical ‘advisor’ (read: malicious, selfish lobbyist) that works in government:

• Jonathan ‘Bedpan Scam’ Van-Tam joined Moderna

• Patrick Vallance works for GlaxoSmithKline (yesman Hancock: ‘Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor has no input into contractual and commercial decisions on vaccine procurement’ — What? Scientific advisor doesn’t advise on science?)

• Rishi Sunak has shares in Theleme who in turn have shares in Moderna. Sunak gave Moderna a 10-year contract with the UK for no good reason.

• Matt Hancock’s ‘mate down the pub’ Alex Bourne got £30 mil for a COVID test tubes deal.

• Yesman Keir Starmer says don’t ease lockdowns (pub landlord throws Keir out for helping to ruin businesses)

• Neil Ferguson overinflated death predictions in advocacy of extreme measures (has a history of blowing things out of proportion) [same bad statistics Imperial College London as ‘Viki’ Male who uses skewered datasets to falsely claim shots are safe for pregnancy]

If you know what antigenic shift, antigenic drift, Hoskins effect and mutation rates are, you’re better qualified than these malicious hacks. That’s an extremely low bar to meet: arguably 15 minutes of online research.

Lets show you the evidence regarding masks to allow you to make your own self-determination whether or not the governments act in malice when they tell you what to do.

Back In 2020 CDC Admitted People Wearing Masks Got SARS-CoV-2

In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public […]

CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks — The Federalist

Why? Let us assume unrealistically and fallaciously masks work 100% — to head off the ‘but what if they wore a better mask’ argument moving goalposts.

Quoting “SARS-CoV-2 and the Eyes: A Review of the Literature on Transmission, Detection, and Ocular Manifestations”, it clearly comments eyes are a possible route of infection:

This was known as early as 2020 (2019-nCoV was the ‘old’ name for SARS-CoV-2):

Did the governments tell you of this? No. They simply mandated a mask.

Visors/‘Faceshields’

‘But what if we just mandated visors and faceshields to ‘protect’ the eyes as well?’.

You cannot mandate away bad ideas.

Alas, these do not protect the eyes in any meaningful capacity. Why? You must understand suction.

When one breathes in, they are causing negative air pressure to draw particulate matter towards their face, under the visor, trapping it behind the screen, increasing odds it will enter their eyes.

Viruses do not just ‘charge forward’ at an individual, encounter a cheap plastic flimsy face screen, and go ‘aww dang’. People can stand behind you and breathe. You will be rotating your head from side-to-side, up-and-down and scooping up contaminated air as you do so.

Viruses are some of the most complex biological automata, capable of disabling immune systems, infiltrating the body’s dedicated complex nasal filtration system, into the lungs. A Cheap plastic flimsy screen from China isn’t going to do anything.

Even wearing fully sealed eye protection — example, goggles — you still need to fully sterilise the entire surface, inside and out, daily, as there’s an infection route by touching the exterior, then touching something else that enters eyes, nose or mouth of yourself or others.

Source: Priorclave North America

People do not have sterilising autoclaves in their home. It is simply unrealistic.

Masks Without A Complete Seal Don’t Work

Still assuming the mask itself works, a mask without a complete seal will not work.

CDC (Center for Disease Control) NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) has an advisory showing what different facial hairstyles will break a mask seal (mask manufacturer 3M lists much the same):

We know this because during World War One, the British military required troops to have moustaches under Command No. 1,695 of the King's Regulations in 1906. Troops often grew long moustaches — longer than a gas mask seal.

World War One saw the introduction of chemical warfare, and thus adoption of gas masks. Moustaches caused seal failures with the masks, leading to deaths, and the repeal of the moustache order by the British:

World War I saw shaving refuseniks scuppered – because the seal on gas masks wouldn’t work with beards or whiskers.

Even the US air force prohibits beards as they may interfere with the seal of M-50 gas mask:

[…] facial hair may lead to an improper seal of the M-50 gas mask […]

The US navy has a similar requirement for the same reason, even booting recruits who don’t comply:

If non-sealing masks are considered fatal by the militaries who have plenty of experience in biohazardous situations, then you, the public, can be assured non-sealing masks do not work.

Governments Knew This And Lied

Here is where the government narrative quickly runs aground: for a mask to be effective, it must be:

• A) Fitted properly, and

• B) Have a complete, airtight seal on the face, and

• C) Filter the target material in question

Cloth masks, being porous, loose fitting and hollow, are incapable of forming airtight seals on the face. Likewise surgical masks. Why did they mislead the public by telling them to wear loose fitting, porous masks?

It isn’t by ignorance — their own paperwork admits they knew it would not work. We have to conclude the dishonesty is malice. In a moment we’ll find out why by examining cloth masks.

Cloth Masks

To someone who understands how proper masks work, these are the most infuriating forms of attention seeking fashion accessory security theatre.

As established, a mask must be able to form a seal. It must also have the ability to actually filter the thing it is designed for.

Quoting “COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data”, it notes they have a “very low filter collection efficiency”:

If it has no filter efficiency, why was it recommended?

Moisture Aids Bacterial And Mould Growth

A cloth mask is a moisture absorbing reservoir, promoting bacterial and mould (American: mold) growth.

In “Bacterial survival in microscopic surface wetness”, bacteria aggregate together on plant leaves to survive drying out for more than 24 hours, this also applies to “other environments that are frequently exposed to drying”:

Cotton, used in cloth masks, is a plant fibre, meaning when the mask gets wet with moisture containing bacteria, it will last at least 24 hours on the mask, I.E. the whole day you are wearing it for.

Mould can also compromise plant fibres, including wood. In “Moisture- and mould-proof characteristics of surface modified wood for musical instrument soundboards”, it mentions wood has to be modified to exhibit ‘hydrophobicity’ (water repelling properties) to be resistant to mould:

Cotton fibre masks that absorb water do not possess this trait.

Just dry the masks? Well, no, in the study “Survival of Enveloped and Non-Enveloped Viruses on Inanimate Surfaces” it was found viruses could survive under 5 days (implying longer than 24 hours) after drying, and some variants could survive weeks:

‘Just wear them better?’

The studies remain true even if one were following good practices, such as healthcare workers, and the door closes firmly shut when we look at the study “A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers”, with the condemning conclusion:

Cloth mask group saw the highest rate of infection (ILI: influenza-like illness; symptomatic illness that would include COVID-19), even having a higher rate of infection than the control group (I.E. no mask mandate at all).

Penetration of particles is almost 97%, and before people go ‘aha, a 3% filtration rate’, remember, it absorbs and holds moisture, making it a permanent reservoir of infection. Hence the higher rate of infection compared to control!

Why Would Malicious Governments Mandate This?

Masks are an easy way to visually tell compliant from non-compliant, giving them the power to target enforcement.

It also allows for the greater spread of a disease, which, when your power is based on how much illness there is, incentivises governments to spread disease to acquire more power.

Based on precursory evidence alone, it should be obvious they were intending to harm and even kill people for power.

‘But what about the other masks?’

Typically, this would be a sufficient length article, and most would consider the point proven.

However, given no doubt these arguments will be raised, and people will wonder about other masks, let us discuss those as well, lest anybody get led astray.

Surgical Masks

A crucial difference between these and cloth masks is that they’re disposable.

This means, whatever moisture and microbiome they contain, gets thrown away when they do. Surgical masks also make use of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; A.K.A. Teflon) to make it hydrophobic (water repellent):

[…] Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) has been the most commonly used polymer for manufacturing waterproof membranes […]

— Face Masks to Combat Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Processing, Roles, Requirements, Efficacy, Risk and Sustainability

Ignoring the horrendous ecological and environmental disaster implications, these don’t work either. They’re primarily designed for surgical theatre, an already sterile operating environment.

In the study “Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study”, wound infections during surgical operations with and without surgical masks were examined, and it was found there was no statistical difference:

Without masks: 3.5%. With masks: 4.7%. That is to say, wearing a surgical mask does not save grandma. Not even in a vulnerable surgical theatre setting.

Surgical masks, like cloth masks, are loose fitting, therefore do not meaningfully filter air they draw in or push out. Unlike cloth masks, the outer layer is hydrophobic (meaning water is repelled), however, the inner layers are still absorbent.

Surgical masks come in different ply-ratings (many people think they’re the same), with 3 and 4-ply being the most common:

Source: “A comprehensive review of various categories of face masks resistant to Covid-19”

Their primary purpose is to stop blood splatter entering the mouth and nose of the surgeon, and to prevent saliva from the surgeon landing on the patient. Large, liquid blobs.

As seen with the study above, this isn’t going to stop airborne viral infections, which travels on the tiny moisture particulates of breath, not merely saliva, and exit and enter via the loose fittings. So, again, the governments knowingly lied.

As a side note: surgical masks are FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved, but not NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) approved.

Rated Masks

‘What about rated masks?’

It would make a long-winded article if a rebuttal was written for every type of rated mask, and would give rise to ‘but what about this type of mask?’ in a goalpost pushing exceptionalism. So naturally, this section will contain generalised rebuttals.

Use this compiled table as reference that sources information from this in-depth preprint, 3M comparison list (and Mexican government webpage) so you can see the similarities and traits between different mask classes (the table is not exhaustive):

Even now, governments are giving out the wholly defective KN95 masks…

…despite the fact KN95 masks have a 70% failure rate:

Even the UK government objected to KN95 they were so bad:

‘Well, why don’t we just mandate the high quality masks on the list?’

This will come as the biggest mindblow to anybody reading: with the exception of N95s (not ‘N95’, N95s), none of these are medical masks. To repeat:

Only 1 Mask Out Of The List Of 52 Is Surgery Grade

If you refer to the 3M comparison chart, you will find masks are typically only tested with salt (NaCl). The stuff you put on food:

Notice, also, the only other substance tested, is oil (parafin oil) or oil-related (dioctyl phthalate is a plasticiser). That is because these facemasks are only primarily rated for use in industry settings, for pollution or industries that deal with pollution (E.G. metals manufacturing, petroleum industry, plastics, etc).

They’re only rated for dry or oily environments. They are not designed to stop liquids. Repeat again: they are not designed to stop liquids. So the argument the masks will stop liquids containing viral materials is null and void.

The only mask rated and tested for liquids resistance is the poorly named ‘N95s’ (yes, it does look like the plural of N95). The ‘s’ stands for surgical. It is the only mask approved by NIOSH and cleared by the FDA for surgical purposes:

Source: “Surgical N95 vs. Standard N95 – Which to Consider?” - 3M

That is because masks must pass standard ASTM F1862, which involves a “Standard Test Method for Resistance of Medical Face Masks to Penetration by Synthetic Blood”. I.E. high pressure fluid resistance. That is to say, none of the other listed rated masks have this qualification.

Did the US government publicly inform you of the distinction between ‘N95’ and ‘N95s’?

No. They misled you.

They made you think the cheapo N95 made in China was the same sort of stuff healthcare professionals wear. Instead, the type of mask they’d have you wearing is what someone in a mine might wear (even for pollution particulates it is quite insufficient).

‘Why Don’t We Just Mandate N95s Masks Then?’

Even with this, it isn’t rated for biohazards resistance. All they test on the N95s is salt, parafin oil and fake liquid blood. They’re not checking to see if it stops viruses or bacteria. It has no ‘biological’ rating.

Do you know what the US military use for biohazard situations?

M50 gas masks.

These are full-face respirators, that, notice, protect the eyes, and use rubber to form a complete seal around the wearer’s face (still requires appropriate hair shaving to form a complete seal). The main filtering component is found in the sides of the mask:

Different filters have different ratings. Not all filters will be for biological hazards (some will ‘merely’ filter chemicals or radiological particulates, especially if bought from cheaper stores). Basically all military grade filters will filter biologicals and chemicals at a minimum.

And before you jump down the ‘well why don’t we mandate that’ infinity rabbit hole, many gas mask suppliers won’t necessarily sell masks ironically because ‘terrorism’, and will require a ‘legitimate use’ (read: you have to work in a government approved role, such as law enforcement or military). Grandma dying from Chinese lab virus isn’t a ‘legitimate use’.

On top of this, gas masks in general are simply too expensive; the ‘cheapest’ (which runs the risk of being a Chinese knockoff) can set a person back $100 without filters (you have to buy those separately). The M50 retails for something like $400 (also without filters).

Lower end filters rated for biologics can cost $50, and an air filter (either fan air pressure assist or better flow rate) that won’t make you feel like you’re suffocating in a paper bag can easily cost $100-$150. Each.

So you’d either bankrupt the state providing everyone with a gas mask rated for biologics, or you’ve bankrupt the impoverished if they had to supply their own.

(That and a lot of stores ban full face gas masks on account of robbers using it to hide their identity.)

Summary

• Mask Mandates Do Not Work (No Matter The Mask)

• Governments know their advice is harmful and deadly, but continue maliciously misleading you anyway

• If this was a deadly biological attack, you’d be already dead

The role of the government should purely be advisory. If a person is unwell and opts to wear a face mask, it should be a personal and free choice. If the government wants to offer free masks, they ought to offer the ones that have actually been proven to work.

Corrupt government lobbists; malicious, selfish advisors and corrupt politicians skewer advisory based decision making. The average Internet pundit knows more than most malicious advisors do.

CDC admitted masks did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 (SC2). SC2 can possibly infect via eyes, making mouth/nose only masks worthless. Face visors do not work due to negative air suction, closed circulation and surface adhesion. Goggles would need autoclaves to sterilise, making them impractical.

Masks need an airtight seal to work. Hair breaks mask seals; government did not notify public.

Cloth masks are proven not to reduce disease spread. They're loose fitting, absorb moisture that promotes mould and bacterial growth. Bacteria can last for 24 hours due to forming aggregate to maintain moisture. Viruses can survive for almost 5 days or even weeks on even dry surfaces depending on viral species.

Malicious government knew this, mandated masks to worsen disease spread to consolidate emergency-based power and identify dissenters.

Surgical masks are loose fitting, contain teflon, cause a negative environmental impact due to disposability, and do not reduce wound infections in a surgery setting. They also absorb moisture and have similar flaws to cloth masks.

Only 1 out of 52 'rated' masks were surgery grade: 'N95s'. Only 'N95s' was rated for liquid resistance. Up to 70% of KN95 masks were counterfeit. Governments did not notify the public of N95/N95s surgical distinction, misleading them into thinking N95 were the same as 'N95s'.

Only gas masks are used for biological hazards; not all gas mask filters are rated for biological hazards. Gas masks and the required filters are too expensive to mandate, either for the state or for the impoverished.

Governments intentionally gave advice they knew was harmful and misleading: Governments want to harm and kill the public.

---

Sidenote: some might raise the often mentioned argument of ‘viruses are smaller than the pore size’. Rather than write a correction per comment, a simple refutation:

Whilst technically true, viruses have to travel on water droplets (which are nearly always bigger than pore size; assuming a properly sealed mask). So it isn’t the meaningful rebuttal you might think, at least not to people who understand masks.

Instead, the fact the masks absorb moisture, haven’t been rated for liquid resistance (or biological hazards) makes the ‘it stops water droplets’ point entirely false. It doesn’t so much ‘stop’ water droplets as give it an open air landing space and a personal swimming pool to stay in. For +8 hours. Close to your face.

So, outclass the enemy with intricate knowledge!

---

Found this informative? Receive more for free!

Raise awareness?

Come join us on Element!

What do you think, dear reader? Let us know in the comments.