Masks Are Neither Effective Nor Safe: A Summary Of The Science

Masks Are Neither Effective Nor Safe: A Summary Of The Science

At this writing, there is a recent surge in widespread use by the public of facemasks when in public places, including for extended periods of time, in the United States as well as in other countries.   The public has been instructed by media and their governments that one’s use of masks, even if not sick, may prevent others from being infected with SARS-CoV-2, the infectious agent of COVID-19.

A review of the peer-reviewed medical literature examines impacts on human health, both immunological, as well as physiological.  The purpose of this paper is to examine data regarding the effectiveness of facemasks, as well as safety data.  The reason that both are examined in one paper is that for the general public as a whole, as well as for every individual, a risk-benefit analysis is necessary to guide decisions on if and when to wear a mask.

Are masks effective at preventing transmission of respiratory pathogens?

In this meta-analysis, face masks were found to have 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)

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 for 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)

Weighing risks versus benefits of mask use

In the summer of 2020 the United States is experiencing a surge of popular mask use, which is frequently promoted by the media, political leaders and celebrities.  Homemade and store-bought cloth masks and surgical masks or N95 masks are being used by the public especially when entering stores and other publicly accessible buildings.  Sometimes bandanas or scarves are used.  The use of face masks, whether cloth, surgical or N95, creates a poor obstacle to aerosolized pathogens as we can see from the meta-analyses and other studies in this paper, allowing both transmission of aerosolized pathogens to others in various directions, as well as self-contamination.

It must also be considered that masks impede the necessary volume of air intake required for adequate oxygen exchange, which results in observed physiological effects that may be undesirable.  Even 6- minute walks, let alone more strenuous activity, resulted in dyspnea.  The volume of unobstructed oxygen in a typical breath is about 100 ml, used for normal physiological processes.  100 ml O2 greatly exceeds the volume of a pathogen required for transmission.

The foregoing data show that masks serve more as instruments of obstruction of normal breathing, rather than as effective barriers to pathogens. Therefore, masks should not be used by the general public, either by adults or children, and their limitations as prophylaxis against pathogens should also be considered in medical settings.


1  T Jefferson, M Jones, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7.

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.

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.

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.

5  J Smith, C MacDougall. CMAJ. 2016 May 17. 188(8); 567-574.

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.

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.

8  M Viola, B Peterson, et al. Face coverings, aerosol dispersion and mitigation of virus transmission risk.

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.

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.

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)

12  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.

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.

15  M Walker. Study casts doubt on N95 masks for the public. MedPage Today. 2020 May 20.

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.

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.

18  T Tunevall. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study. World J Surg. 1991 May; 15: 383-387.

19  N Orr. Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre? Ann Royal Coll Surg Eng 1981: 63: 390-392.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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)

28  W Kellogg. An experimental study of the efficacy of gauze face masks. Am J Pub Health. 1920.  34-42.

29  M Klompas, C Morris, et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Eng J Med. 2020; 382 e63.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

38  L Zhiqing, C Yongyun, et al. J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jun 27; 14:57-62.

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)

40  A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008; 19: 121-126.

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.

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.

Read full story here...

Showing 121 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

  • Thomas Frank
    commented 2020-09-21 20:52:06 -0700
    B F. Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory has been debunked by many Historians and called a fringe theory .There is still no conclusive proof.
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-09-21 20:41:18 -0700
    Evonne: thank you for your common sense, reasoning, and providing backup to the driving force of the medical community/big Pharma, money!! They work hand in hand.
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-09-21 20:38:44 -0700
    B.F.: Spot on with Pearl Harbor!!

    I might mention “Operation Northwoods” (declassified) and “Operation Mongoose”.

    And if anyone wants to read a factual historical book that will make you say, “this can’t be true, this is a huge conspiracy”, get your hands on “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” by Ed Haslim. Ed is a medical researcher by profession, and his father was a naval MD, he found some info that peeked his curiosity, and he dug deeper. He ties together polio vaccines, Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK, and Ted Cruz’s father with facts and huge number of references at the back. It will blow your socks off. WARNING: some graphic photos and as I always say, question everything. It will make your head spin; but will open your mind. Read it for yourself and come to your own conclusions who did what to whom! There’s a lot of names involved, and a lot people fighting for power. Shocking. In our own government and universities.
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-09-21 20:18:10 -0700
    Oh boy, this could get exciting. Don’t know if we want to down this road. We all know about Pandora and the box. Here’s a relevant example I mentioned in an earlier post. Predictions of this pandemic:
    2017 Dr. Fauci predicts Trump would face a viral pandemic during his term.

    Bill Gates predicts in 2015 a future “Spanish flu like world-wide pandemic”. This is a generalization, but add in the facts that he had invested heavily in vaccines at this time and ramped up investments, including Moderna and Wellcome Institue in the UK. Plus his ties to Dr. Fauci and The WHO makes his talk troubling.

    Then “Event 201” in Oct 2019 in New York in Johns-Hopkins simulating a world-wide pandemic. If you look at the details, this is creepy, knowing what we know now.

    And this one, 10 yrs prior is very specific. Rockefeller Foundation, 2010, “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”. Starting pg 18, “LockStep”. Read pg 19 and tell me it doesn’t apply. It sends shivers down my spine. Published in 2010. I found one link that is a pdf for your convenience.

    Any one of these is curious, but together, along with the players/participants, and their financial investments is very incriminating. And the coordination of all the countries, our US governors is suspicious. Why did all the blue governors say write similar EO. How did our New Mexico governor “know” that these lock-down orders would be the “norm” for the next 12-18 months or until there is a proven vaccine. She had this on the cover of her EO back in April. All health officials were saying if most the population would follow the guidelines, this virus will be gone in a month or two and we’d be back to normal. So here we are 6 months later, and it looks the same. Predicted, or conspiracy? I say the later. More 2 or more planned this, and executed it. There is a whole lot more than this. Start following the vaccines and the money connections.
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-09-21 19:32:25 -0700
    TF: For example, do you think that Pearl Harbor was not the result of a conspiracy? Or do you think that it was front page news in Japanese newspapers the day before it happened?
  • Evonne Kohon
    commented 2020-09-21 18:48:49 -0700
    Brian. Thank you for posting about conspiracies. They are prevalent in power structures. I appreciate your post.
  • Thomas Frank
    commented 2020-09-21 17:21:00 -0700
    Maybe you should start with Trump
  • Thomas Frank
    commented 2020-09-21 17:20:30 -0700
    I mean conspiracy theories that have been debunked you’ll need a large list of piece of paper to write all those on
  • Thomas Frank
    commented 2020-09-21 17:19:47 -0700
    Or maybe you should list conspiracy theories that have been proven out
  • Thomas Frank
    commented 2020-09-21 17:18:12 -0700
    Name me the conspiracy theories that have come true over the years that you are talking about
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-09-21 13:05:41 -0700
    CA & E: Follow the money! Conspiracy has three elements: 1) Secrecy; 2) More than one person involved; 3) Criminal intent. People mock “conspiracy theories,” but many of history’s major events involved conspiracies. Conspiracies are not at all unusual.
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-09-21 13:05:41 -0700
    CA & E: Follow the money! Conspiracy has three elements: 1) Secrecy; 2) More than one person involved; 3) Criminal intent. People mock “conspiracy theories,” but many of history’s major events involved conspiracies. Conspiracies are not at all unusual.
  • Evonne Kohon
    commented 2020-09-21 09:04:22 -0700
    Chuck A

    Thank you for the excellent information. I agree with and appreciate your comments. Western medicine attempts to block sensible and safe remedies to illness, and at least part of the reason is profit motive, but that is well-known.

    Western medicine is highly driven by profit. I offer that excessive profit is the bigger problem. And more money is necessary for more power.

    Vitamin C has long been known to help people heal quickly from numerous illnesses, but many hospitals and doctors fight its use in favor of pharmaceutical products. Sometimes it is because they were trained by the pharmaceutical industry to believe that natural means ridiculous and useless. Often, it is because of hospital protocols and profitability from using treatments that insurers will cover.

    MSM has aided in the propaganda campaign to believe that doctors are authority figures and only they know what is best for you; therefore, you must obey. There has been a long and documented history of agents of western medicine trashing anything that goes against allopathic medical practices.

    Love those orthomolecular medical people! They are interested in enhancing wellness and minimizing harm to their patients.

    Why is Vitamin C not used more often? Because it works. It would dismantle the medical cartel and their financial and mental power over people.

    Whether you choose to believe it or not, there is a conspiracy to depopulate this planet for a select group of preferred survivors. Conspiracy requires only two people to work together for a desired result, but in this case, it involves many more than two. As tyrants get emboldened when they believe they have already won, they make mistakes and announce their intentions before they actually win. Pay attention.

    Pay attention to the messengers who tell you you have no right to decline their ill intentions against you. Who or what can you not criticize? Why? Who claims they have more rights over you than you yourself have? Keep searching and you will understand.

    Our timeline to stop the tyranny is fast approaching the tipping point. Once crossed, because of the power structure and technology, we will lose our opportunity to restrain and reverse the tyrannical end. It’s a choice, and there are plenty out there who are making that choice for us if we allow it.
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-09-21 09:00:12 -0700
    Here’s another “cure” written by Dr Levy who is a practicing MD for 44 yrs, plus a licensed attorney who gives a good summation of information suppression in the medical community, then another modality to treat Covid
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-09-21 08:41:33 -0700
    Couple of interesting links. First is just one article of an individual, this really has nothing to do with “masks”, but with “cures”, and his personal experience of using a “cure” for the last 40 years. Good reading:

    And here’s something that is very interesting. I subscribe to Dr. Dave Janda’s Operation Freedom and was listening and I thought “this guy has some good information on this mask stuff”. So I downloaded it as a reference. I hope you guys can listen to it. Please let me know if you can or cannot play it. Listen to the guest speaker. You all know him. I was really surprised!
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-09-21 07:42:43 -0700
    B.F., In regards to cures (multiple) along with T.M. list of cures, if you can find (been deleted from FB, Tw, Istragram) videos from America’s Frontline Doctors state their professional success with listed cures. Additional cure is mega dose vit C via IV. China CURED their Corona starting last week in Jan when they received 50 tons ascorbic acid (made in some China town shipped to Wuhan) and started with 25 grams/day on critical patients. Cured in less than 3 days. Thousands patients. China MD dropped to 20 grams and still cured but 4-5 days. Then reduced to 15gr/day and that was the lowest therapeutic dose to save critically ill. 3 weeks later, they received another semi load (25 tons) vitamin C to continue treatment. The biggest problem w/ critical ill patients is the “cyto-storm” as the body floods the tissues with cytokines in attempt to destroy the invading virus, but in doing so, causes massive systemic inflammation followed by massive fluid build up in the lungs. Vit C counters the “cyto-storm”, while simultaneously oxidizing the virus. Dbl whammy helping the body. Tons of info from MDs around the world in the following reference in support of cure:

    T.F., why are so many MDs being blocked, deleted, lives threatened from around the world for stating their professional experiences/lab results? If they are wrong, why are people flocking to their clinics for help? If its fake, or doesn’t work, let them blab it around for people to try? What are the afraid of? So what if it’s called “conspiracy”. I say the conspiracy is on the other hand, those trying to shut down this information. They are the ones CONSPIRANING (SP) to hide info. WHY? Other doctors say “there are no dbl blind peer reviewed tests to prove they work”! While allowing thousands of people to die!! There is absolutely no harm done by mega dose vit c via IV (Note: there is a very small portion of the population that does not have a gene to process ascorbic acid, but there is a simple blood test to rule that out). Many patients (cancer, viral, bacteria infected) patients who take 50 to 100grams/day/IV with amazing results. Read the above reference for the tip of the iceberg in “Cures”.
  • Evonne Kohon
    commented 2020-09-20 21:35:40 -0700
    TF. Who is paying you to write such comments?
  • Thomas Frank
    commented 2020-09-20 19:46:02 -0700
    TM Sweden is a small homogeneous country that can’t be compared to the US.One can’t come to any conclusions by the use of an anti malaria drug that has no conclusive studies unless you read about it in conspiracy theories.
  • Tim McMurphy
    commented 2020-09-20 19:01:36 -0700
    “Thomas Frank:
    My question is what would have happened if the large population centers (not South Dakota) had carried on life as usual in March(festivals, large sporting events, concerts, crowded subways, schools, you name it?”

    You mean like Belarus? Less restrictions than Sweden and 1/10th the deaths. Their secret? They used HCQ+ as basic EARLY treatment.

    So what would have happened had the cures (yes plural) been allowed to have been freely used by the medical doctors instead of the murderous political restrictions?

    HCQ+Azithromyacin+Zinc (Dr Didier Raout, Dr Zelenko & others)
    Ivermecton+Doxycycline+Zinc (Dr Borody)
    Inhaled steroids like Budesonide (Dr Bartlett)
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-09-20 17:17:07 -0700
    TF: Probably something like what happened back in 1918 with the Spanish flu pandemic. A lot of people died, but it came and went rather quickly. Without a cure or vaccine, COVID-19 will continue to spread. Sure, we can slow it down, Chinese water torture style (pun intended), but we can’t stop it, until there is a cure, a vaccine, or herd immunity setting in.
  • Thomas Frank
    commented 2020-09-20 17:05:48 -0700
    My question is what would have happened if the large population centers (not South Dakota) had carried on life as usual in March(festivals, large sporting events, concerts, crowded subways, schools, you name it? Trump and many of his medical professionals agree there could have been over a million deaths . If you want to know the difference between the flu and Covid 19 I suggest you read the information around the Diamond Princess cruise ship which scientists have been studying because of its unique circumstances.
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-09-20 15:31:52 -0700
    B.F., That’s good!!! You got me to laughing!!!! Love it! Thank you, I needed that!!
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-09-20 15:27:18 -0700
    CA: As the old saying goes, “Great minds think alike.” But the other side of the coin states, “Fools seldom differ!”
    TF: I think that you made a typo. The population of Japan is not 172 million; it’s 127 million.
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-09-20 14:59:43 -0700
    T.F., couple of questions:
    The 2,000 deaths, is that deaths caused directly by Covid, or deaths w/Covid and other underlying conditions?
    And are you sure of the 2000 deaths per 7 million? Cause that is like 0.02% of the population. That’s less than mortality rate of the regular flu. Here in NM the number of deaths in 2017-18 was 668 (ILI) with population of just over 2 million (0.03%). And if that is true, then why masks now, and not during regular flu?

    Another consideration when comparing to Japan, is lifestyle. Cleanliness and diet. Better comparison would be with S. Dakota, w/ similar diet and lifestyle. They did not lock down nor masks and they have less Cov RELATED deaths. Interesting to compare Hawaii, (they have a great website) which did strict lockdown early including masks and have low Covid related deaths, but low mask usage of only around 50% of population.
  • Thomas Frank
    commented 2020-09-20 14:14:38 -0700
    I’m not questioning the government I am doing what I have observed. I am wearing my mask.Look at Japan.They have always been a mask wearing country. As of now out of 172 million people they have over 2000 covid deaths. My home state here in the US with 7 million people has over 2000 deaths from covid.
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-09-20 13:44:41 -0700
    BF, I think that’s great! I want people to question everything, including me! I encourage me kids (who are now far away) and grandkids to question everything I say. How’s it go, “Inquiring minds want to know”. Don’t trust what I say; check it out! Prove it to yourself, because ultimately, we are responsible for our own lives! And that is super important, to most people.

    And I appreciate civil discussion, like this forum provides. It’s a great way to challenge, as we all learn from each other!!

    Ex: I have extensive training in biological sciences (40 yrs ago), and a friend showed me some info that absolutely goes against my training that maybe viruses are not the cause of disease, but maybe it is the toxins they illicit from cells, called “exosomes”. Huh! I listened, but not researched yet. It came from a Dr. Andrew Kaufman (3 different medical degrees) and he brought out that 100 healthy volunteers in 1919 were exposed to a very sick person with the “Spanish Flu”. 3 different methods were used (total of 300 exposures) and not one person got sick. And he goes on about his hypothesis. He basically says it’s not the virus. There is something else going on. Just an example of how he is questioning the “germ theory”. And it is making my mind spin. And this is good.

    So, BF, keep searching, keep asking, keep questioning!!
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-09-20 13:31:08 -0700
    CA wrote, “I question everything, . . . .” I also question everything, and that includes you, CA.
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-09-20 13:21:59 -0700
    B.F., do you think when the train is approaching a crossing and the whistle blows, that is instilling fear? When the tornado sirens sound, is that instilling fear? How about when the fire truck has his siren on, does that make you fearful? I am just sounding an alarm, to wake up and look around. Use your God-given brain to think and reason, “does this make sense”? And then do research (harder to do now with all the censoring of search engines). IF YOU TRUST WHAT THE ESTABLISHMENT SAYS, THEN YOU’RE A SHEEPLE!

    The government is cracking the whip like a cowboy does to round up the cattle and direct them to a corral. Then you know where the cattle end up, right! The sources that keep repeating the mantra “wash hands, social distancing, wear masks”, have been wrong many, many times before!

    I have learned by personal experience!! I question everything, especially the government! And so should everyone!!
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-09-19 21:31:09 -0700
    CA, you wrote, “We are being led to the great slaughtering. I am not kidding. Pay attention. This is a distraction DESIGNED to instill fear . . . .” It appears that YOU are trying to instill fear!
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-09-18 22:35:11 -0700
    Ok, Brian Farmer, I read your supplied reference to the WSJ and read all it’s references. There is so much "assume"s, and “appears” used I look hesitantly at their “test” data. In one case they use water droplets to “simulate” droplets from a sneeze. OK. We’re interested in viruses. And the droplets do carry viruses, but I know there are viruses that are not in a droplet in sneezes. And viruses can definitely pass through masks. But this is getting to the point of obsurdity as these scientists can’t see the forest because of the trees. There is so much contradictory information on both sides. Then they throw in face shields. Why suggest using shields if masks work?

    Let me say that here in southern NM and west Tx, we have traveled around for the last 4 months and just about everybody is wearing a mask, even while driving in their cars. And now the NM and Tx health officials are discussing more control because of “positive cases”. No longer talking about deaths. The reason is not only deaths are dropping, but the recent CDC revelation that actually Covid deaths is actually around 6% of all the Covid attributed deaths. Huh! So instead of like 181,000 covid deaths, the actual number is around 9,100. Big difference! Just about like the ordinary flu. But they are testing more people every day, so that number will go up, especially since we all know how inaccurate the PCR tests are (like almost always positive results). So if masks are so good at prevention/reducing infections, why is it taking months and months when we were told it would be 3-4 weeks if everyone practiced the 3 protocols. I say it’s BS!!!! Been saying it all along, because this whole thing is following a script that was written 10 yrs ago. It is EXACTLY what was predicted. (read my earlier posts on some of the “forecasts”). We are being led to the great slaughtering. I am not kidding. Pay attention. This is a distraction DESIGNED to instill fear and compliance, and to destroy our country. Like a magic act. Masks, social distancing, wash your hands boys and girls, because I don’t want you to see what is really happening. It’s a distraction!

    If you don’t know what I’m talking about, I don’t think you have enough time to read and understand what the real objective is. Think like this is a chess game, except we are the pawns. And are disposable! I agree with Tim Murphy, this mask thing is over.

    Oh, by the way, have you looked at what the Germans are doing. Check out their protests. They really are peaceful. See what they are protesting; and how many people there are! Maybe they are more enlightened, as opposed to Americans and our “peaceful” protests! WAKE UP!