Typical mask wearing does not reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection rates (COVID-19).
A high-quality, large-scale Danish study published in November 2020 found NO evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimised people’s risk of contracting COVID-19.
The randomised-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers
and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection.
The mask study one of the largest of its kind ever completed.
SARS-CoV-2 viral particles are tiny and can easily pass through mask fibres.
“The N95 filtering face piece respirators may not provide the expected protection level against small virions. Some surgical masks may let a significant fraction of airborne viruses penetrate through their filters, providing very low protection against aerosolized infectious agents in the size range of 10 to 80 nm. It should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment.”
“The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and non high-risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.”
“Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Up to 98% of viral particles may pass through cloth masks!
“The results showed that cloth masks and other fabric materials tested in the study had 40-90% instantaneous penetration levels against polydisperse NaCl aerosols employed in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health particulate respirator test protocol at 5.5 cm s⁻¹. Similarly, varying levels of penetrations (9-98%) were obtained for different size monodisperse NaCl aerosol particles in the 20-1000 nm range.
Results obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath.“
“..our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles<2.5 μm.”
Masks have been shown to cause hypoxia (deprivation of adequate oxygen).
“Wearing an N95 mask for 4 hours during HD significantly reduced PaO2 (partial pressure of oxygen) and increased respiratory adverse effects in ESRD patients.”
A 2015 study indicated that hypoxia inhibits T-lymphocytes (the main immune cells used to fight viral infections) by increasing the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1).
“Human beings must breathe oxygen . . . to survive, and begin to suffer adverse health effects when the oxygen level of their breathing air drops below [19.5 percent oxygen]. Below 19.5 percent oxygen . . . , air is considered oxygen-deficient. At concentrations of 16 to 19.5 percent, workers engaged in any form of exertion can rapidly become symptomatic as their tissues fail to obtain the oxygen necessary to function properly.”
A study on 53 surgeons using a pulse oximeter pre and postoperatively:
“Considering our findings, pulse rates of the surgeon’s increase and SpO2 decrease after the first hour. This early change in SpO2 may be either due to the facial mask or the operational stress. Since a very small decrease in saturation at this level, reflects a large decrease in PaO2, our findings may have a clinical value for the health workers and the surgeons.”
More than 1.5 BILLION face masks will pollute the oceans this year!
More than 1.5 billion disposable face masks will wind up in the world’s oceans this year — polluting the water with tons of plastic and endangering marine wildlife, according to a Hong Kong-based environmental group.
A mask exemption is available to anyone with a physical or mental health illness, condition or disability that makes wearing a face covering unsuitable.
A comprehensive overview of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks: https://swprs.org/face-masks-and-covid-the-evidence/
A short video that explains many of the points in our flyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/VRtIRNv9uaB9/
A recent Official Information Act enquiry response confirmed that: “Maintaining the requirement for face coverings on public transport in Alert Level 1 provides wider benefits that support the overall response to the pandemic. For example, face coverings are a constant reminder of the ongoing threat posed by COVID-19 and will help prompt people to be more vigilant about other important behaviours, such as physical distancing, scanning and using the New Zealand COVID Tracer App, hand hygiene and coughing and sneezing etiquette.” https://dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-04/cab-20-min-0477-mandatory-masking.pdf
An October 2021 review of relevant literature from an Australian website: https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/its-crap-victorian-study-claiming-mandatory-masks-stopped-second-wave-shredded-by-experts/news-story/aeb937d27ec5a79e6b728ade598f49ab
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/the-science-of-masks/ a blog post with a reputable organisation which links to hundreds of articles and studies backing up statements made in our flyer.
More critique of mask studies: https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/most-mask-studies-are-garbage