The following claim will sound so unbelievable as to make me seem crazy, but it is true, and I can prove it. I was the first person in media or medicine to recommend wearing masks to protect against the Wuhan virus.
On March 9th, 2020, I stepped into the Lower Manhattan studio of John Tabacco’s on Broadway where he filmed his Liquid Lunch show, produced by Frank Morano (the lockdowns eventually closed down his operations). He asked me how one could protect against the virus and I explained that masks might help in certain situations. I explained that masks mostly helped protect people against the bad habit of touching one’s mouth and eyes. That is how viruses are spread from person to person, more so than by breathing aerosolized droplets.
Almost no one was wearing a mask at the time and the lockdowns had not yet begun. But fear was in the air. Hand-cleanser gels were appearing in hotel lobbies. Subway usage was down. It was the eve of the Great Scamdemic.
At the time, our government officials were telling us that masks were silly. Tony Virus, the Surgeon General Jerome Adams, and the official stance of the CDC were all strongly opposed to the mass use by the public of wearing masks. I knew that they were lying to us in order to prevent a run on supply of masks that hospital workers needed and I said so on that little TV program.
However, never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that mask mandates would become the abused symbol of obedience for the Marxists who quickly used fearmongering to close down the U.S. economy in hopes of derailing President Trump’s re-election bid.
Broad-stroke, one-size-fits-all, government mandates to wear masks do more harm than good. Many people have poor lung function from COPD, asthma, or other ailments. The masks increase the CO2 concentration they inhale and lower their O2 blood saturation levels. Reused masks also spread bacterial diseases.
Only in proper settings can masks possibly be of any use, and even then, the data are weak. For example, surgical teams wear masks in the operating room to prevent our oral droplets from entering an open surgical site. But the fact is that our low-tech masks do not prevent this from happening. If a surgeon is really serious about preventing infection, they wear space suits with separate air supplies, as one sees in orthopedic surgery.
Other appropriate uses of masks are during visits with nursing home patients, cancer patients with compromised immune systems, or other similar settings. However, again, the data are lacking.
As recently as October, 2019, the W.H.O. issued a report that reviewed the various studies on masks, handwashing, and social distancing, which concluded,
“no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza” The executive summary states:
“Here, we systematically review and evaluate the evidence base on the effectiveness and impact of community mitigation measures for pandemic and interpandemic influenza. This evidence base will contribute to updated public health guidelines for community mitigation measures for influenza. The scope of this review includes evidence on the effectiveness of interventions such as personal protective measures, environmental measures, social distancing measures, and travel-related measures. Consideration is also given to the feasibility of each intervention, including potential ethical issues.
We found that there is a limited evidence base on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical community mitigation measures. There are a number of high-quality randomized controlled trials demonstrating that personal measures (e.g. hand hygiene and face masks) have at best a small effect on transmission, with the caveat that higher compliance in a severe pandemic might improve efficacy.
However, there are few randomized trials for other NPIs, and much of the evidence base is from observational studies and computer simulations. School closures can reduce transmission, but would need to be carefully timed to achieve mitigation objectives, while there may be ethical issues to consider. Travel-related measures are unlikely to be successful in most locations because current screening tools such as thermal scanners cannot identify presymptomatic and asymptomatic infections, and travel restrictions and travel bans are likely to have prohibitive economic consequences.”
Then, the W.H.O. reversed course in June of 2020, once the scamdemic had become a political tool, and issued guidance recommending the wearing of masks to protect against the Wuhan virus. However, because we live in a world where people read only the headlines from propaganda outlets that grossly misinterpret “science”, few bothered to read this actual report. If one does read the report, they will find that the W.H.O. again states there is no evidence to support the use of masks by entire populations of healthy people as a means of prophylaxis!
“There are currently no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of universal or targeted continuous mask use by health workers in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission…
Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets. There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure preventing transmission. A recent meta-analysis of these observational studies, with the intrinsic biases of observational data, showed that either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks were associated with protection of healthy individuals within households and among contacts of cases.
This could be considered to be indirect evidence for the use of masks (medical or other) by healthy individuals in the wider community; however, these studies suggest that such individuals would need to be in close proximity to an infected person in a household or at a mass gathering where physical distancing cannot be achieved, to become infected with the virus.
Results from cluster randomized controlled trials on the use of masks among young adults living in university residences in the United States of America indicate that face masks may reduce the rate of influenza-like illness, but showed no impact on risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
Those quotes are not from some old irrelevant article made obsolete by “new science”. They come from a W.H.O. report issued in June of 2020, long after the lockdowns and mask mandates had hurled the world into a state of totalitarianism!
OK, so the W.H.O. is not a credible scientific organization, one might say. What have the hard-core scientific journals reported on the matter?
The New England Journal of Medicine posted a paper in May of 2020 concluding that masks for the masses was a complete waste of time. This is not aging very well:
“What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection control measures…
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.”
Where did Tony Virus weigh in on this crucial debate? As the outbreak began to unfold, before it was being politicized, Tony is memorialized on video stating several times that masks are silly and should be discouraged from use by the peasant masses.
In one pre-scamdemic TV interview, Tony said, “When you are in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better (with finger air-quotes), and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often, there are unintended consequences, because people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”
During another Fuacian rogue interview, he told Spectrum News, “There is no reason for anyone, right now in the United States, with regard to coronavirus, to wear a mask….There’s this misperception that wearing a mask, even if you were in an area where there was transmission, is going to absolutely protect you. A mask is more appropriate for someone who is infected, to prevent them from infecting you.”
Later, Tony Virus admitted to congress that he was lying all along out of concern that healthcare workers would run out of masks of the entire population demanded them. In June, Rep. David McKinley (R) asked whether he regretted recommending against masks as recently as March 31st. An angry Tony Virus replied, “OK. We’re going to play that game…I don’t regret that (i.e. lying to the American public) because,…at that time, there was a paucity of equipment (i.e. masks) that our healthcare providers needed…We did not want to divert masks and PPE away from them…”
But Tony Virus was never elected by any American to any job. He is a career Deep State bureaucrat, not the omnipotent wise Gandalf of the nation. Where did he get the idea that it was his job to lie, degrading the trust in science, just to protect us?
By the time Fall, 2020 came around, before the important election, Tony Virus had not only done a 180 and become a mask advocate, but he was doomsaying that the scamdemic would not end for years. People would be forced to social distance and wear masks for years, as previously detailed.
Somebody in high levels of the federal government, with the proven unreliable track record of Tony Virus, should be fired under normal circumstances. When their mistake, or lies, lead to crimes against humanity, they should be prosecuted, as will be detailed in subsequent chapters.
The entire campaign to have everyone on the planet wear masks is a maskquerade. As the NEJM authors stated, masks began as voodoo talismans, or gimmicks to make us think we were doing something to protect against the invisible enemy. Then, they morphed into Nazi-like passport papers, visible proof of obeyance to the Marxists driving the fascist totalitarian state power granted to them by pandemic laws. A bare face without a mask became a scarlet letter of shame.