VARIOUS FACE MASK STUDIES PROVE THEIR INEFFECTIVENESS

  1. Neil W M1 Orr MD Mchir FRCS "Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre?"

    No masks were worn in one operating theatre for 6 months. There was no increase in the incidence of wound infection.

  2. Ritter et al., in 1975, found that "... the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination."

  3. Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. "Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments."

  4. Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. "No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used," they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.

  5. In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.

  6. A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that "The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use."

  7. Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that Surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.

  8. Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.

  9. Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that "No significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks."

  10. Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. "Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist," wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.

  11. Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.

  12. Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.

  13. Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”

  14. Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”

  15. Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

  16. Surgical mask / cloth face mask studies Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults ≥18 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities — United States, July 2020 The US Centre for Disease Control performed a study which showed that 85 percent of those who contracted Covid-19 during July 2020 were mask wearers. Just 3.9 percent of the study participanets never wore a mask.

    Original: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf

    Erratum. correction: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6938a7.htm?s_cid=mm6938a7_wStudy

    https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-cdc-study-covid-masks

  17. Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review This study used 5462 peer-reviewed articles and 41 grey literature records. “Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to critical shortages of medical-grade PPE. Alternative forms of facial protection offer inferior protection. More robust evidence is required on different types of medical-grade facial protection. As research on COVID-19 advances, investigators should continue to examine the impact on alternatives of medical-grade facial protection” So how is your cloth and surgical mask working again if EVEN medical grade alternatives are failing ?

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371574/

  18. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses “There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33215698/

  19. Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery “We included three trials, involving a total of 2106 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27115326/

  20. Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review Two randomised controlled trials were included involving a total of 1453 patients. In a small trial there was a trend towards masks being associated with fewer infections, whereas in a large trial there was no difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16295987/

  21. Evaluating the efficacy of cloth facemasks in reducing particulate matter exposure “Our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles less than 2.5 μm”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/

  22. Face seal leakage of half masks and surgical masks “The filtration efficiency of the filter materials was good, over 95%, for particles above 5 micron in diameter but great variation existed for smaller particles. Coronavirus is 0.125 microns. therefore these masks wouldn’t protect you from the virus”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4014006/

  23. Comparison of the Filter Efficiency of Medical Nonwoven Fabrics against Three Different Microbe Aerosols “The filter efficiencies against influenza virus particles were the lowest” “We conclude that the filter efficiency test using the phi-X174 phage aerosol may overestimate the protective performance of nonwoven fabrics with filter structure compared to that against real pathogens such as the influenza virus”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29910210/

  24. Aerosol penetration through surgical masks “Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the submicrometer-size aerosols containing pathogens ”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1524265/

  25. Particle removal from air by face masks made from Sterilization Wraps: Effectiveness and Reusability “We found that 60 GSM face mask had particle capture efficiency of 94% for total particles greater than 0.3 microns” How big is the virus again? 0.125 microns.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33052962/

  26. A New Method for Testing Filtration Efficiency of Mask Materials Under Sneeze-like Pressure This study states that “alternatives” like silk and gauze etc could possibly be good options in the pandemic. It’s done on starch particles. Does not state how big they are either, but they can still get through the material and my research points that starch particles are “big” much bigger than most viruses.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32503823/

  27. Protecting staff against airborne viral particles: in vivo efficiency of laser masks “The laser mask provided significantly less protection than the FFP2 respirator (P=0.02), and only marginally more protection than the surgical mask. The continued use of laser masks for respiratory protection is questionable. Taping masks to the face only provided a small improvement in protection”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16920222/

  28. Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE “Worn as designed, both commercial surgical masks and cloth masks had widely varying effectiveness (53 – 75 percent and 28 – 91 percent particle removal efficiency, respectively)”. Different brand, different results and only when they applied a “nylon layers” did the “efficiency” improve. Synthetic fibres do not breathe, so this will inevitably effect your breathing.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32838296/

  29. The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using “tracer particles” “Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escaped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound” human albumin cells aka aborted fetal tissue, is much larger than the virus and still escaped the mask.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7379387/

  30. Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic? “Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals” so why have the government suggested you make your own when they are not effective ?

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/

  31. Using half-facepiece respirators for H1N1 “Increasing the filtration level of a particle respirator does not increase the respirator’s ability to reduce a user’s exposure to contaminants”

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19927872/

  32. Why Masks Don’t Work Against COVID-19 The site is full of studies proving masks dont work for coronavirus or the flu. Article:

    https://www.citizensforfreespeech.org/why_masks_don_t_work_against_covid_19

  33. Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy This is full of studies proving mask protection is negligible for coronavirus, flu etc Article:

    https://thewallwillfall.org/2020/06/23/masks-dont-work-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covid-19-social-policy/

  34. Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review There is fewer data to support the use of face masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/

  35. “Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword?” – A physiological hypothesis No evidence to suggest that wearing a mask during exercise offers any benefit from the droplet transfer from the virus. “Exercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment, cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/

  36. Use of face masks by non-scrubbed operating room staff: a randomized controlled trial Surgical site infection rates did not increase when non-scrubbed personnel did not wear face masks. 2010

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575920/

  37. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms – a costly and unnecessary ritual? When the wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1680906/

  38. Masks: a ward investigation and review of the literature Wearing multi layer operating room masks for every visit had no effect on nose and throat carriage rates.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2873176/

  39. Aerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks used in the health care industry The protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous submirconometer-sized aerosols. “Conclusion: We conclude that the protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous submicrometer-sized aerosols”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8239046/

  40. Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review Meta analysis review that says there is limited evidence to suggest that the use of masks may reduce the risk of spreading viral respiratory infections.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32675098/

  41. Modeling of the Transmission of Coronaviruses, Measles Virus, Influenza Virus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and Legionella pneumophila in Dental Clinics Evidence to suggest that transmission probability is strongly driven by indoor air quality, followed by patient effectiveness and the least by respiratory protection via mask use. So this could explain “second waves” and has nothing to do with hand shaking, or not wearing a mask.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32614681/

  42. Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings-Personal Protective and Environmental Measures The use of face masks, either by infected or non infected peresons, does not have a significant effect on influenza transmission. SO MASKS DON’T PROTECT YOU FROM ME, AND VICE VERSA.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32027586/

  43. Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis Meta analyses suggest that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protective effect over face masks and their insignificant protection.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28487207/

  44. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta- analysis Use of n95 respirators compared to surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory confirmed influenza.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32167245/

  45. Adolescents’ face mask usage and contact transmission in novel Coronavirus Face masks surfaces can become contamination sources. People are storing them in their pockets, bags, putting them on tables, people are reusing them etc. This is why this study is relevant:

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32582579/

  46. Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets Loosely folded face masks and “bandana style” face coverings provide minimum stopping capability for the smallest aerosolized droplets. This applies to anyone who folds or shoves a mask into their pockets or bad. It also applies to cloth and homemade cloth masks:

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32624649/

  47. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial Face mask use in healthcare workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of colds symptoms or getting colds.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

  48. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers Penetration of cloth masks by influenza particles was almost 97 percent and medical masks 44 percent. so cloth masks are essentially useless, and “medical grade” masks don’t provide adequate protection.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

  49. Simple respiratory protection–evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles Cloth masks and other fabric materials tested in the study had 40-90 percent instantaneous penetration levels against polydisperse NaCl aerosols. “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”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20584862/

  50. Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range “The study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18326870/

  51. Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks? The n95 filtering respirators may not provide expected protection level against small virons

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16490606/

  52. Do Surgical Masks Stop the Coronavirus?

    Study Article: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/coronavirus-surgical-masks-china.html

  53. Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis This study states that an N95, depending on the brand, can range from 0.1-0.3 microns. however, most people cannot buy an N95 with a micron smaller than 0.3 micron because they are expensive and not readily available on the public market. “N95 respirators made by different companies were found to have different filtration efficiencies for the most penetrating particle size (0.1 to 0.3 micron)” ” Above the most penetrating particle size the filtration efficiency increases with size; it reaches approximately 99.5% or higher at about 0.75 micron” ” Meta-analyses suggest that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protective effect (OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.52-0.73; I2=0%), and facemask use provided a non-significant protective effect (OR=0.53; 95% CI 0.16-1.71; I2=48%) against 2009 pandemic influenza infection”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28487207/

  54. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta- analysis “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 the general public, neither non high-risk medical staff who are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients” N95 masks did show a positive effect for BACTERIA but not viruses.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32167245/

  55. Adolescents’ face mask usage and contact transmission in novel Coronavirus This study used dye to show if masks were contaminated. “As a result, masks surface become a contamination source. In the contact experiment, ten adults were requested to don and doff a surgical mask while doing a word processing task. The extended contamination areas were recorded and identified by image analysis”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32582579/

  56. Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS- CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50 percent in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/

  57. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers “An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95 percent CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95 percent CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97 percent and medical masks 44 percent”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

  58. Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range “The study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses. An exhalation valve on the N95 respirator does not affect the respiratory protection”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18326870/

  59. Performance of N95 respirators: filtration efficiency for airborne microbial and inert particles Coronavirus is 0.125 micron, as you can read in this study, it states that most N95 masks can only filter particles as small as 0.75 microns. This is too big to trap this virus. that is a fact. And even with an efficiency of 95 percent (depending on brand, so filtration may be lower) IF the virus can be trapped... it’s still missing 5 percent and maybe more based on an N95 that has 0.1 microns .

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9487666/

  60. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019 a chinese study that proves that an airborne coronavirus particle (0.125 micron) can pass directly through an n95 mask Study article:

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31978945/

  61. Airborne coronavirus particle (less than 0.125 micron) will pass directly through a N95 face mask. Study Article:

    https://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/airborne-coronavirus-particle

    SIZE OF THE CORONAVIRUS. Size can vary but all are smaller than 0.3 micron . “Human coronaviruses measure between 0.1 and 0.2 microns, which is one to two times below the cutoff” This “cut off” is referring to the size an N95 mask can trap. Most of us are not using MEDICAL or regular N95s.
  62. FACE MASK SIDE EFFECTS AND HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

  63. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery Face mask side effects include lowered oxygen levels This study proved that surgeons that wore a mask in surgery for an hour + had significant reductions in blood oxygen saturation. This is relevant because most of us are being made to wear face masks at work for the whole shift, long journeys on public transport, and when we are in a public places doing shopping etc. and this requires a degree of exertion that is not taken into account. “Considering our findings, pulse rates of the surgeon’s increase and SpO2 decrease after the first hour” Decreasing oxygen and increasing carbon dioxide in the bloodstream stimulates a compensatory response in the respiratory centers of the brain. These changes in blood gases result in increases in both frequency and depth of breaths. This exposes another risk – if your mask traps some virus you are breathing more hence increasing viral load and exposure.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1130147308702355?via%3Dihub

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18500410/

  64. Impact of structural features on dynamic breathing resistance of healthcare face mask Face mask side effects include impeded breathing. Ask people if they have issues breathing in these masks. anecdotal or not, as everyone is different. “The results showed that each evaluation index was significantly different (P < 0.05) among different test masks”

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31280156/

  65. Respiratory consequences of N95-type Mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers-a controlled clinical study The benefits of using N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222

    “It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation in as much as 20 percent, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death” “CONCLUSIONS: Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers, and this needs to be taken into consideration in guidelines for respirator use” Yet we force pregnant women to use them...? What could this do to the fetus?
  66. Headaches and the N95 face-mask amongst healthcare providers Face mask side effects include headaches. These headaches can force you to use added or unnecessary medications like painkillers that carry their own side effects. The theory as to why masks can trigger headaches is the RESTRICTION OF OXYGEN. What are the long-term health effects on Health Care Workers with headaches arising from impeded breathing? Here are several sources and studies that back up this claim:

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16441251/

    Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32232837/

    How to Avoid Migraine Triggers While Wearing Your Mask

    https://www.withcove.com/learn/migraine-triggers-mask

  67. Your Health Your Responsibility This video shows that even reading a book with a mask on decreases blood oxygen levels to your brain. what implications does this have for developing children forced to wear masks at school etc?

    https://youtu.be/ul5E5BUrII4

  68. Physiological impact of the N95 filtering facepiece respirator on healthcare workers “CONCLUSIONS: In healthy healthcare workers, FFR did not impose any important physiological burden during 1 hour of use, at realistic clinical work rates, but the FFR dead-space carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards, and elevated P(CO2) is a possibility” Remember in “healthy healthcare workers” even their carbon dioxide levels rose. Most of the wider public have at least one health problem. Even healthy people were shown to have elevated CO2 levels above the healthy guidelines.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20420727/

  69. he adverse skin reactions of health care workers using personal protective equipment for COVID-19 Face mask side effects include adverse skin reactions The adverse skin reactions of health care workers using personal protective equipment for COVID-19

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32541493/

  70. Your Mask May Be Causing Candida Growth in Your Mouth Face mask side effects include yeast infections

    https://www.everydayhealth.com/coronavirus/your-mask-may-be-causing-candida-growth-in-your-mouth/

  71. ‘Mask mouth’ is a seriously stinky side effect of wearing masks Face mask side effects include dental issues “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before,” says Dr. Rob Ramondi, a dentist and co-founder of One Manhattan Dental. “About 50 percent of our patients are being impacted by this, [so] we decided to name it ‘mask mouth’ — after ‘meth mouth.’ ” “While mask mouth isn’t quite as obvious, if left untreated, the results could be equally harmful. Gum disease — or periodontal disease — will eventually lead to strokes and an increased risk of heart attacks,” says Dr. Marc Sclafani, another co-founder of One Manhattan Dental”

    https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/mask-mouth-is-a-seriously-stinky-side-effect-of-wearing-masks/

  72. All That Mask-Wearing Could Be Giving You (Gasp!) Mouth Fungus—Here’s How to Deal

    https://www.wellandgood.com/mouth-sores-from-wearing-masks/

  73. ‘Maskne’ Is a Real Thing—Here’s How to Stop Face Mask Breakouts Face mask side effects include acne

    https://www.health.com/condition/skin-conditions/maskne-mask-acne-mechanica

  74. Improper use of medical masks can cause infections Face mask side effects include mould and infections Masks can cause bacterial and fungal infections around the mouth,and in the mouth and lungs EVEN if you wash the cloth mask. Mould colonies were found in masks in as little as one day.

    https://www.aa.com.tr/en/health/improper-use-of-medical-masks-can-cause-infections-/1766676

  75. Mould Colonization in Your Sinuses Could Be Holding You Back From Making a Full Recovery Information on mould and how it can affect your health.

    https://moldfreeliving.com/2019/01/26/could-mold-colonization-in-your-sinuses/

  76. An investigation into the efficiency of disposable face masks What are the dangers of bacterial and fungal growths on a used and loaded mask? This study tested all kinds of disposable masks and proved they cause you to breathe back in your own crap.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7440756/

  77. Can the Elastic of Surgical Face Masks Stimulate Ear Protrusion in Children? Disfiguration in children. Can masks stimulate ear protrusion in children? This is due to masks that are too tightly fitted. Tight masks can also cause tension headaches. Is this healthy for children long term?

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32556449/

  78. When You Wear A Face Mask Every Day, This Is What Happens To Your Lungs Mask use can trigger allergies due to the mask collecting particles that stay on you for long periods of time.

    https://www.thelist.com/214073/when-you-wear-a-face-mask-every-day-this-is-what-happens-to-your-lungs/

  79. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease. And yet, we make sick people wear them. Even people without breathing issues, have lowered oxygen rates.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/

  80. Other Face Mask Side Effects and Health Implications to Consider There is a great potential for harm that may arise from public policies forcing mask use on the wider population. The following unanswered questions arise unanswered:
    • Can masks shed fibers or micro plastics that we can breathe in?
    • Do these masks excrete chemical substances that are harmful when inhaled?
    • Can masks excrete chemicals or fumes when heated, either with bodyheat sunlight or other sources of heat?
    • Clothing dye can cause reactions, so how do we know that the manufacturing process of these masks do not pose a risk to us? Because, in reality, we do not buy our masks from medical companies or facilities who operate in sterile environments.
  81. [Gaps in asepsis due to surgical caps, face masks, external surfaces of infusion bottles and sterile wrappers of disposable articles] “It is obvious that the surfaces of the boxes of sterile packed disposable instruments and infusion bottles are not sterile. The disposable surgical masks and surgical caps used for sterile clothing are delivered by the producers not sterile, either.” AND THIS IS HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT.

    Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6099666/

  82. Mask Production Video This is a “factory” that produces alot of masks. Does this look a sterile environment to you? This is what the majority of us are getting when we purchase online or in stores that sell them in bulk. Do you want that on your face?

    https://youtu.be/8gyO9TSlC0Q

  83. Allergies and the Immune System Can pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask? Can this elicit a greater reaction to viruses? For example, if you have a dust allergy your mask is collecting this thus causing inflamation to the wearer and lowering his or her immune system. “This can cause wheezing, itching, runny nose, watery or itchy eyes, and other symptoms” would that not facilitate spread and infection rate of viruses?

    https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/allergies-and-the-immune-system

  84. Virus interactions with bacteria: Partners in the infectious dance Bacteria and viruses can interact an increase infection suseptability:

    https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1008234

  85. When viruses and bacteria unite!

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/when-viruses-and-bacteria-unite/

  86. An empirical and theoretical investigation into the psychological effects of wearing a mask Face mask side effects include altered behaviour Are there negative social consequences to a masked society? This study implies that, yes, masks do cause people to adopt altered behaviours based on mask use.

    https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/43402/

  87. Mask mandates may affect a child’s emotional, intellectual development Face mask side effects stagnate a child’s natural intellectual development It is well known that children find it hard to recognise faces up untill a certain age. Mask use will further interfere with this. Is this healthy for a developing child?

    https://www.wishtv.com/news/mask-mandates-may-affect-a-childs-emotional-intellectual-development/

  88. Disabled People and Masks Contributing Toward Mental Health Issues Face mask side effects and mental health What about disabled people? Deaf /people hard of hearing rely on mouth reading. What are the implications for them? What about people who suffer cognitive and behavioural disorders like autism? This could cause them HUGE distress. Not just from wearing a mask, but seeing others in masks (because let’s face it – IT’S NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOUR). Can masks cause anxiety, or make other mental health disorders worse? Since masks CAN impede breathing, this can cause fainting and other bodily reaction that would otherwise be avoided if masks were not used. Here is a search engine link to prove that it is very common:

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mask+anxiety&ia=web

  89. Maine study looks into long-term psychological effects of wearing face masks coronavirus, COVID-19 pandemic This is a study on the psychological effects of masks.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/slightly-blighty/202005/the-psychology-wearing-face-mask

  90. Masking the Truth – Face Masks, Empathy and Dis-inhibition

    https://podtail.com/fi/podcast/conspiracy-theoryology/masking-the-truth-face-masks-empathy-and-dis-inhib/

  91. Covid-19 face masks: A potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal? Proof of increased littering due to increased mask use. a quick engine search will tell you, people are dumping them EVERYWHERE – into our rivers, into greenland areas etc. Plastics like nylon leach chemicals are going into our environment.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32563114/

  92. Why Masks Don’t Work Against COVID-19 Can used and loaded masks become vectors of enhanced transmission for both the wearer and other people? (The evidence from studies suggest yes). Masks become useless after about 20 minutes due to the moisture in your breath. This moisture can become the droplets that viruses travel on. Can this not facilitate transmission? Can masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that otherwise, could be avoided when breathing without a mask? (The evidence suggests yes). Can large droplets trapped via a mask become atomized or aerosolized into breathable components? Even down to the virion size. (The evidence suggests yes).

    https://www.citizensforfreespeech.org/why_masks_don_t_work_against_covid_19

  93. -->