On 26 September, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) released their updated report on the “COVID outbreak” and the efficacy of various methods employed to deal with the virus. The report’s alarming conclusions are foreshadowed by the exposé’s opening sentence: “Covid-19 is as politically-charged as it is infectious.”
The AAPS report contains a trove of data and conclusions concerning disease transmission from dozens of scientific studies conducted globally over the past decades. In aggregate, the studies indicate that healthy people receive little to no benefit from wearing most masks; and, in fact, some studies reveal that certain masks actually increase the rates of transmission.
The studies on mask efficacy produce a variety of conclusions. Some indicate certain masks are somewhat effective at curbing disease transmission, however, the universal cloth masks that are required in many places do virtually nothing to protect the wearer or those near them. In contrast, numerous studies show that certain masks actually increase the rate of transmission, particularly when constantly adjusted or not regularly cleaned.
From the CDC’s review, here is their official position since 1946:
“There is limited evidence for face masks’ effectiveness in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for the source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.
Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission.”
And the data from Kansas matches the CDC review’s conclusion:
“In Kansas, the 90 counties without mask mandates had lower coronavirus infection rates than the 15 counties with mask mandates. To hide this fact, the Kansas health Department tried to manipulate the official statistics and data presentation.”
An eye-opening study out of Singapore concluded that out of 714 participants, only 90 wore their masks properly (about 12 percent).
Some do not want to wear a mask because of the additional health problems associated with prolonged mask usage. Many mask wearers report suffering an increased frequency of headaches, while others reported a new affliction known as “face-mask-associated-headaches.”
Note: The mask/headache correlation was noted in a Scandinavian study in 2005 as well as a 2009 study from Japan. It is believed headaches could result from the mask’s elastic straps or from the decrease in oxygen intake one suffers when wearing a mask.
Another aversion to prolonged mask wearing is the new phenomenon known as “mouth mask.” Wearing a mask decreases saliva production. Saliva fights bacteria, and without saliva, teeth will decay, gum lines will recede, and “sour” breath can occur.
Wearing a mask can clearly have a host of other harmful health effects on individuals. What is often overlooked, and perhaps most profound, is the emotional and societal consequences resulting from outlawing smiles and social contact.
The immediate macro impact of the masked society was a decrease in communication. Not only do masks muffle sounds, they also hide visual cues that help listeners interpret verbal information. This is particularly detrimental to hearing-impaired people as well as children who are in the process of mastering language.
The decrease in communication was accompanied by a decrease in socialization, which was detrimental to all age groups. Many middle-aged people expressed added stress, resulting in an increase in substance abuse, while physical abuse and suicide also increased.
The combination was particularly devastating for the older population and children. Since the outbreak of government restrictions, many older people have endured heart-breaking isolation almost completely devoid of meaningful physical and emotional interaction.
Children are also suffering disproportionately from the mask mandate. A report entitled, “The Psychological Damage in Children,” produced by 70 Belgian doctors, “begged for the cancellation of masks at school.”
The report stated,
“In recent months, the general well-being of children and young people has come under severe pressure. We see in our practices an increasing number of children and young people with complaints due to the rules of conduct that have been imposed on them. We diagnose anxiety and sleep problems, behavioral disorders and fear of contamination. We are seeing an increase in domestic violence, isolation and deprivation. Many lack physical and emotional contact; attachment problems and addiction are obvious.
The mandatory mouth mask in schools is a major threat to their development. It ignores the essential needs of the growing child. The well-being of children and young people is highly dependent on the emotional connection with others… The aim of education is to create an optimal context so that a maximum development of young people is possible. The school environment must be a safe practice field.
The mouth mask obligation, on the other hand, makes the school a threatening and unsafe environment, where emotional connection becomes difficult. In addition, there is no large-scale evidence that wearing face masks in a non-professional environment has any positive effect on the spread of viruses, let alone on general health.”
With so many adverse social and health problems associated with masking, it seems nonsensical that universal mask mandates would be championed so widely.
Perhaps, though, it is not about public health, as other government programs such as contact tracing and increased testing have been shown to be statistically ineffective at decreasing mortality rates. So why is this happening?
In a 9 July report, The New England Journal of Medicine concluded:
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. … 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.”
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, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask.”
Couple that damning report of the symbolic nature of the pandemic response with the reality that fear can actually lower one’s immune system, thereby increasing the likelihood of illness.
Perhaps more persuasive than any of the medical studies included in the report is the readily available data from entire countries which refused to institute nationwide mask mandates and did not suffer statistically relevant increases in virus deaths. That data point alone should be enough to raise the eyebrows of anyone still capable of critical thought.
TRENDPOST: For some 30 years, the Trends Journal has been encouraging readers to improve their immune systems through a healthy, natural lifestyle. Indeed, the first book Gerald Celente wrote was “Natural Healing” in 1988.
Mr. Celente has an honorary Doctorate of Law from the National University of Health Sciences for the work he has done over the decades in integrative and complementary medicine.
Again, as we keep noting, building up a person’s immune system by eating and living healthy is often the most effective natural medicine to fight off a disease.
In the same vein, as governments are forcing people to shelter-in-place and wear masks, the positive effects of fresh air and sunshine/vitamin D are negated. Data from the 1918 Spanish Flu concludes that patients who were exposed to sunshine and fresh air had much higher recovery rates.
TRENDPOST: Going back to 1961, scientific studies have concluded that drier air is more conducive to disease transmission because it enables respiratory droplets to be able to travel longer distances. Yet, despite this well-documented scientific evidence, there was no campaign for fresh-air or campaign against air-conditioning. (It is perhaps notable that most nursing homes have very little fresh air, as they are entirely ventilated with air conditioning.)