Fact: government officials have no idea what they are doing.

Here’s all the proof you need. Just look at how many times they’ve contradicted there own advice:







Fact: mask mandates aren’t based on medical research.

Clinical studies don’t support masking.

Or to put it more bluntly, the experts simply do not yet know whether mass masking outside of healthcare settings slows the spread of COVID.

Some studies say they do. Some say they do not. Some also say that they do not and could actually do more harm than good if worn and handled incorrectly. The more honest experts among us admit that there is no evidence to support mass masking outside of healthcare situations.

Like these epidemiologists from Oxford University:

Now that mask mandates are popular, there are studies coming out left and right that indicate that masks work to keep spit from spewing out of your mouth when you talk, sing, laugh, cough, and hence stop the virus hitching a ride on your spit out into the air. Yet, they all conclude with words like “this suggests” that masks “may slow the spread.”

In other words, these new studies are far from conclusive. More importantly, they contradict years of prior research, such as the following studies:

“There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.”
“None of the studies we reviewed established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”
“We identified 6 clinical studies ... and 23 surrogate exposure studies. In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection.”
“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant.”
“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... 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.”
“There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks."
“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 30 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.”

Of note: the authors of the above study wrote a letter to the editor on June 3, voiding their above statement on the efficacy of masks. They cited studies that came out in a large cluster between late April to mid-May that, once again, magically contradict previous research leading up to April. This is what we call “observer bias.” You can read their letter here.

“Wearing a cloth mask or face covering could be better than doing nothing, but we simply don’t know at this point.”

The above article comes complete with an arm-twisted walk-back of some of the authors original statements concerning the ineffectiveness of masks, added on July 16. They conclude their sort of/kind of retraction with these words, “In summary, though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles, offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation, and should not be recommended as a replacement for physical distancing or reducing time in enclosed spaces with many potentially infectious people.” Translations: We support mask mandates, but they don’t work. At the bottom of the page, you will find links to the fifty-two studies they originally reviewed.

Honest manufacturer’s claims on mask packaging state that the masks aren’t designed to stop viruses.

Levi’s washable cloth mask
A generic single-use surgical mask

Mask-wearing is justified under the “precautionary principle,” which applies when evidence isn’t available.

“The precautionary principle is, according to Wikipedia, ‘a strategy for approaching issues of potential harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking.’ The evidence base on the efficacy and acceptability of the different types of face mask in preventing respiratory infections during epidemics is sparse and contested. … This raises an ethical question: should policy makers apply the precautionary principle now and encourage people to wear face masks on the grounds that we have little to lose and potentially something to gain from this measure? We believe they should.”

Lab experiments & simulations don’t necessarily translate to the real world.

“Mathematical modelling suggests that a face covering that is 60% effective at blocking viral transmission and is worn by 60% of the population will reduce R0 to below 1.0.”

Dr. Fauci doesn’t follow his own advice.

After railing for weeks about how Americans must stay home, social distance, and wear a mask (even outdoors), he was seen breaking all of his own rules at a baseball game:


His excuse?

“I was totally dehydrated and I was drinking water trying to rehydrate myself.”

You see the water in his hand, right?

The problem is that Dr. Anthony Fauci doesn’t have skin in the game: he doesn’t get side effects when you wear a mask. On this point, Psychologist Gaird Giggerenzer said:

“Never ask the doctor what you should do. Ask him what he would do if he were in your place.”

Be suspicious of any doctor that doesn’t take his own medicine. He could be a fraud.

Fact: infection rates in masked areas don’t actually prove anything.

After several dozen cities, a few counties, and countless national chains rolled out their own mask mandates, in August some people started comparing the per-zipcode COVID-19 numbers for areas with mandates against the numbers without the mandates.

According to The State (08/12/2020):

  • “On average, areas with mask orders have seen a 15.1% decrease in the total number of new cases during the four weeks after the ordinances were passed. That means those areas saw a decrease of 34.6 cases per 100,000.”

  • “On the other hand, areas without mask requirements have seen a 30% increase in cases during that time. Those areas saw an increase of 24.1 cases per 100,000 people.”

“This new data shows us what we already knew, wearing face masks works.”

Dr. Linda Bell, State Epidemiologist (SC DHEC)

Is this true?

Well first of all, no one is being transparent with the data. Not The State, and not DHEC. The latter in particular continues to keep the full COVID-19 data sets proprietary, out of reach of those who would like to see and analyze the underlying data for themselves. This is the first red flag of a fraudulent narrative.

Furthermore, no area has actually truly achieved universal masking. Very few counties in South Carolina have imposed this; the cities that have comprise a relatively small part of South Carolina, although they may comprise a large portion of the population.

Which brings us to the final and most serious reason to be suspicious of these claims: unlike real science, these amateurs aren’t following scientific methodology, which is necessary to separate real effects from illusions.

Real scientific experiments include careful precautions:

  • Control groups, carefully designed to isolate any possible competing variables that might skew the results. No-mandate zip codes do not qualify as not control groups, because they do not have the same density, demographics, industries, modes of transportation, outbreak dates, healthcare quality and access, and more. It’s comparing apples and oranges.

  • Applying statistical analysis tools to the data, which are needed to determine whether the apparent effects are actually real, or are merely illusions. This means having enough data to meet the threshold of statistical significance, applying regression analysis to isolate multiple effects within the same data, calibrating the data by weight, and computing measurement error.

  • Peer review, such as it is, provides some incentive to the scientist to be careful to follow the scientific method and not taint the study with observer bias or outright fraud. Publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal encourages others to reproduce the experiment, which can uncover unforeseen variables or mistakes in the methodology.

It’s a fact that many medical science journal’s papers are suspect, because they fail in one of these areas. If the scientists themselves regularly get it wrong, then the media, the politicians, and the government-funded academics with agendas will certainly get it wrong.

In other words, whoever crunched these numbers couldn’t win a high school science fair with this junk. Correlation isn’t causation!

Fact: universal masking is risky.

It is simply not true that masking offers all benefit and no risk. Side effects can include headaches, skin breakouts, respiratory infections, anxiety attacks, and more. None of these are taken into consideration when governors, county officials, and mayors decide to lay down the law and make people do what’s best for them.

N95s are probably the most effective mask to wear, but is well-known that they can cause issues with breathing, heat stress, increased heart rate and headaches when worn too long and without a doctor’s guidance.

Surgical masks should be discarded after every use, and those cute little cloth masks that every seamstress is busily whipping up—those are the worst offenders.

This study is the first [randomized controlled trial] of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.

Fact: alternatives are being censored.

  • https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/2020/07/28/facebook-takes-down-viral-video-making-false-claim-that-hydroxychloroquine-cures-covid/amp/
  • https://c19study.com