explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Facial masks never worked!

Swiss LibertarianMar 10, 2022, 2:35:38 AM

Facial mask mandates are now gradually being removed, but they will try to bring them back in the future, although they are completely useless!

This was well known before the COVID "pandemic" and numerous experts called it right from the start. Even the infamous Fauci admitted that facial masks are useless, on TV and in a private email released under a FOIA request. But then, those who promoted the fearmongering around COVID decided that they wanted people to wear face masks - not for medical reasons, but to control compliance and instill fear.

Without the face masks, people would hardly even have known that there was a "deadly virus" they should be scared of, as almost no one was dying. No dead bodies in the streets, and most people didn't lose family members or friends to COVID. The death toll for the under-70-year-old was 0.04% - in most countries even less than that, based on this Stanford study published by WHO:

Covid mortality much lower than expected, according to Stanford study

How do you impose economically ruinous lockdowns and "vaccine" mandates on people who do not see any real threat? You make them wear facial masks, so they feel as if there is some dangerous pathogen everywhere they go.

Here is a quick summary of the evidence against facial masks.

Masks cannot block viruses

This is an electron-microscope photo of the fibers in an N95 mask:

Viruses are much smaller than the distances between the tightest fabric fibers. They claim that viruses move through masks in a brownian motion, thus bringing them into contact with the fibers, which are supposed to carry an electric charge that will attract particles. But if that were true, then smoke particles should be blocked as well. To demonstrate that this is not the case, just blow some smoke through a facial mask - a surgical mask or even an N95 mask. Smoke particles go right through!

Simple logic: if smoke particles are not stopped, then neither are viruses!

I wrote expert systems for protective clothing in dangerous work environments for DuPont. Viruses were not among the threats their suits offered protection from - even full bodysuits with full head covering gas masks, but viruses were in the catalogues.

Nothing less than biohazard suits of level 4 with independent air supply can provide protection against viruses.

Masks did not prevent the spread of COVID

All the data shows that mask mandates never had the slightest incidence on infection rates.

Masks are harmful

Facial masks are not just totally useless as protection against viruses, as shown above, they are actually harmful, as documented in this German study:

Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?



On the one hand, the advocacy of an extended mask requirement remains predominantly theoretical and can only be sustained with individual case reports, plausibility arguments based on model calculations and promising in vitro laboratory tests. Moreover, recent studies on SARS-CoV-2 show both a significantly lower infectivity [175] and a significantly lower case mortality than previously assumed, as it could be calculated that the median corrected infection fatality rate (IFR) was 0.10% in locations with a lower than average global COVID-19 population mortality rate [176]. In early October 2020, the WHO also publicly announced that projections show COVID-19 to be fatal for approximately 0.14% of those who become ill—compared to 0.10% for endemic influenza—again a figure far lower than expected [177].

On the other hand, the side effects of masks are clinically relevant.


In addition to protecting the health of their patients, doctors should also base their actions on the guiding principle of the 1948 Geneva Declaration, as revised in 2017. According to this, every doctor vows to put the health and dignity of his patient first and, even under threat, not to use his medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties [9]. Within the framework of these findings, we, therefore, propagate an explicitly medically judicious, legally compliant action in consideration of scientific factual reality [2,4,5,16,130,132,143,175,176,177] against a predominantly assumption-led claim to a general effectiveness of masks, always taking into account possible unwanted individual effects for the patient and mask wearer concerned, entirely in accordance with the principles of evidence-based medicine and the ethical guidelines of a physician.

The results of the present literature review could help to include mask-wearing in the differential diagnostic pathophysiological cause consideration of every physician when corresponding symptoms are present (MIES, Figure 4). In this way, the physician can draw on an initial complaints catalogue that may be associated with mask-wearing (Figure 2) and also exclude certain diseases from the general mask requirement (Figure 5).

For scientists, the prospect of continued mask use in everyday life suggests areas for further research. In our view, further research is particularly desirable in the gynecological (fetal and embryonic) and pediatric fields, as children are a vulnerable group that would face the longest and, thus, most profound consequences of a potentially risky mask use. Basic research at the cellular level regarding mask-induced triggering of the transcription factor HIF with potential promotion of immunosuppression and carcinogenicity also appears to be useful under this circumstance. Our scoping review shows the need for a systematic review.

The described mask-related changes in respiratory physiology can have an adverse effect on the wearer’s blood gases sub-clinically and in some cases also clinically manifest and, therefore, have a negative effect on the basis of all aerobic life, external and internal respiration, with an influence on a wide variety of organ systems and metabolic processes with physical, psychological and social consequences for the individual human being.

Masks are no longer recommended for surgeons

Surgical masks got their name from being used by surgeons - to protect their patients from getting infected by the surgeons, in case they carried dangerous pathogens. Since 1985, several medical studies tried to discover if those masks actually had an effect on reducing post-operative infections. 

Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: a controlled study 



It has never been shown that wearing surgical face masks decreases postoperative wound infections. On the contrary, a 50% decrease has been reported after omitting face masks. The present study was designed to reveal any 30% or greater difference in general surgery wound infection rates by using face masks or not. During 115 weeks, a total of 3,088 patients were included in the study. Weeks were denoted as "masked" or "unmasked" according to a random list. After 1,537 operations performed with face masks, 73 (4.7%) wound infections were recorded and, after 1,551 operations performed without face masks, 55 (3.5%) infections occurred. This difference was not statistically significant (p greater than 0.05) and the bacterial species cultured from the wound infections did not differ in any way, which would have supported the fact tha the numerical difference was a statistically "missed" difference. These results indicated that the use of face masks might be reconsidered. Masks may be used to protect the operating team from drops of infected blood and from airborne infections, but have not been proven to protect the patient operated by a healthy operating team.

Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery 


The use of surgical facemasks is ubiquitous in surgical practice. Facemasks have long been thought to confer protection to the patient from wound infection and contamination from the operating surgeon and other members of the surgical staff. More recently, protection of the theatre staff from patient-derived blood/bodily fluid splashes has also been offered as a reason for their continued use. In light of current NHS budget constraints and cost-cutting strategies, we examined the evidence base behind the use of surgical facemasks.

Examination of the literature revealed much of the published work on the matter to be quite dated and often studies had poorly elucidated methodologies. As a result, we recommend caution in extrapolating their findings to contemporary surgical practice. However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination. More rigorous contemporary research is needed to make a definitive comment on the effectiveness of surgical facemasks.

While this study insists that "It is important not to construe an absence of evidence for effectiveness with evidence for the absence of effectiveness", absence of evidence is pretty much the point. Doing something without evidence that it works is irrational. It's superstition.

Facial mask propaganda

So what are the arguments of those who push facial masks? Here is a representative article from the New York Times:

Masks Work. Really. We’ll Show You How


They do not present any actual scientific study, yet somehow, they apparently manage to convince most of their readers, which is really shocking when you read the article. Even the headline reads as if it was written for a 5-year-old - "They work. Really".

The very first sentence is extremely familiar: we hear that every time propagandists try to push false claims:

"The public health debate on masks is settled"

Well, sort of - but not the way he claims! There are hundreds of studies that prove that masks do not work. Not a single study found that they do. Except one from Bangladesh, which is so flawed that it cannot possibly be taken seriously.

""said Joseph G. Allen, director of the Healthy Buildings program at Harvard"

Attempt to influence the reader with a title and the name of an institution, but without actual evidence: typical manipulation.

When you wear a mask, “you protect yourself, you protect others, you prevent yourself from touching your face,” he said.

None of this is even remotely true! As this study shows, even professional healthcare workers are at risk from contamination from viruses on the outer surface of medical masks, so how are they going to be less of a risk to the average person?

Contamination by respiratory viruses on outer surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers 


The next sentence is the only one that matters:

And you signal that wearing a mask is the right thing to do. 

Virtue signaling aka signaling submission to authority. Everything else after this can be dismissed as irrelevant drivel. They don't have any scientific evidence for masks blocking viruses or for masks having prevented the spread of COVID or any other respiratory disease.


When something cannot work, it does not work. It's that simple.

The Swiss national hero Tell is supposed to have shot a tyrant, Gessler, who had put a hat on a pole and demanded that every citizen should greet the hat. Tell refused to do so. He undestood that greeting the hat was merely a sign of submission to tyranny.

Facial masks are Gessler hats!