Are Facemasks Safe And Effective? Part One
What does it say about the credibility of a profession which continues to espouse such a discredited and potentially harmful measure?
Headlines such as those below have fuelled the growing fear that mask maniacs continue to hold sway over the scientific evidence.
For example the Belfast Telegraph recently reported that:
“there have been renewed calls for face coverings to be mandatory for hospital visitors in Northern Ireland to help protect patients.”
And in the USA, the climate is growing too. “Mask Mandates are now in effect in California”
Whilst New York City has been promoting an ad with a masked child at school, a classroom full of masked children behind her, with the well-worn message of mask make-believe claiming that these efforts will “keep our children safe and our schools COVID-free.”
But the largest and most significant return of mask mandates is at the White House. And the WHO continues to call for masking. Remember where we began, Dr Jenny Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England and current Head of UKHRSA speaking to the BBC in March 2020:
“For the average member of the public walking down a street, it is not a good idea to wear a face mask in the hope of preventing infection.
In fact, you can actually trap the virus in the mask and start breathing it in, people can put themselves at more risk rather than less.”
And according to Professor Russell Viner, President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, children may be more at risk from COVID-19 if they wear masks, speaking on BBC Newsnight he said:
“there does seem to be evidence that they can have negative health effects for the wearer, the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current
evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks, including its potential for wearers to increase their own or others risk of infection through improper use”.
The potential for harm was further underlined by the Co-Chairs of the APPG (All Party Group at Westminster) on Pandemic Response and Recovery who said:
“It was deeply concerning to see schools “strongly encouraging” children to wear face coverings before the summer break. Despite early hopes, we now know from the real world data that mask mandates had no significant effect on interrupting the spread of coronavirus.
Meanwhile, the damaging unintended harms of covering our faces are profound and still being felt. The use of masks is not , and has never been, a benign or recommended public health intervention.”
So three high profile government medical experts emphasise the potential for masks to cause harms, a view confirmed by a recent Norwegian study which found that the incidence of COVID-19 was 33-40 percent higher in those wearing face masks compared to those not wearing face masks.
Many articles have concentrated on whether masks were necessary and whether they worked to reduce illness or transmission, little attention has been paid to whether they were harmful.
So as the spectre of masking raises its head around the world, it is opportune to examine the issue again from this perspective, as a recent Cochrane review emphasized that “more attention should be paid to describing and quantifying the harms” that may come from wearing masks.
This article therefore concentrates on their potential for harm and thereby attempts to hold those who mandated them to account. Dr Gary Sidley, a former clinical psychologist, sets out the multiple areas where masks cause harm.
These include: mental health conditions, communication problems, respiratory problems and exposing the wearer to micro-plastics and other contaminants, this article will consider these in turn.
I will firstly consider the harms to mental health and development caused by the psychological impact of wearing masks before going onto to consider the harms caused by the physical barrier of the mask itself.
Harms to development and mental health caused by the psychological impact of wearing masks
The importance of a baby interacting with faces and the psychological harms of a child being unable to do so have been widely reported. A well known study, the “still-face effect”, reveals that children become emotionally distressed when they are unable to see and reciprocate facial expressions.
According to this research, having children spend time around people whose facial expressions are masked could have potentially disastrous consequences for their social and emotional development.
As Professors Tzvi Ganel and Erez Freud report:
“Masks significantly reduce a child’s ability to navigate complex social and emotional cues and, because children are still in a delicate development phase of their growth, masks are a direct threat to their health and wellbeing.”
They go on to say:
“Human brains are wired to recognize and respond to emotions that are uniquely displayed via facial features. A child’s early development relies heavily on the loving interactions between the invested caregiver and the child.
As children age, their development continues as they learn through social interactions with their peers. Both of these tender developmental processes have been significantly interrupted by the widespread adoption of masks.
Mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder are likely to follow.”
“Young children especially rely on facial expressions to understand situations. With face coverings, this may become increasingly difficult for them to learn “social attachment,” making them more vulnerable to feelings of mistrust and concerns for their safety.”
This theme is developed by Dr Chloe Carmichael a clinical psychologist, she too highlights their psychological impact on social development and specifically about the developmental need for children to “read” situations, interpret them and respond in an appropriate manner.
She refers to “social cognition as this ability to “read” “understand” and “respond to” a situation This type of social awareness not only requires real-time ability to see facial expressions in order to facilitate awareness in the first place, but it requires a history of past experiences of viewing facial expressions to create the social cognition skills necessary to recognize, process, and respond to this situation in a socially appropriate manner.
Clearly young children were faced with masked adults for a considerable part of their early lives thereby denying them not only the facility but also the history, and this clearly inhibits their development.
Green et al refer to this as “Reciprocity” – the process of inter-communication between a baby and a parent, explaining it thus:
“The baby sends out signals using facial and vocal expressions about his/her needs, and then waits for a response.
The parent or caregiver reads and responds to the baby’s signals, and this in turn serves as a return signal for the baby to read, so a mask covering the face may affect the infant’s ability to develop facial processing”.
They further opine that for an infant, “this has the potential for long reaching effects in the early stages of neurobehavioral development.”
“For infants and children to feel safe, there is a heavy dependence on facial expressions as they rely on their parents’ emotional cues via facial expression to regulate their responses towards them or to potentially threatening situations.”
And most worryingly, they state , brain growth is strongly affected by the baby’s experiences with people in their world, and brain development is influenced by relationships, experiences, and the environment.
Dr Carmichael concludes:
“..not only is a child’s development affected but it creates a sense of isolation and disconnection– which sets the stage for depression and anxiety”.
Dr Gary Sidley explains the further potential for psychological harm:
“Many people who have suffered historical sexual and physical abuse will be re-traumatised by the requirement to wear face masks, simply the sight of masked people can trigger disturbing memories (“flashbacks”) of assault and degradation.”
“Many already tormented by recurrent panic attacks, involving catastrophic thoughts of imminent death and feelings of breathlessness, will find masks very difficult to tolerate.
Similarly, those suffering obsessive-compulsive fears about the prospect of contamination, or severe health anxieties, will have their emotional difficulties intensified by regular mask wearing.
It is a common misconception that a face covering will provide reassurance—on the contrary, habitual wearing will prolong their fears.”
Do we imagine filling young children’s minds with fear will not do long term harm? After all the message of masks is clear-I am a danger to you and you are a danger to me. it impresses upon children that other humans are a danger to them, at a delicate developmental time when they should be learning the basis of trust and to build social relationships.
Dr Raj Persaud, a consultant psychiatrist, explains the source of the fear caused by masks, the brain fills in the gaps in what we know about others, and so the brain cannot but speculate as to what the mask is hiding. He says:
“In a pandemic the face mask looks like it might be concealing a dangerous infection […] Filling in the gaps in what you know about others but doing so under background conditions where the brain projects threat onto the outside world, is now linked to serious mentalillness.
Diagnoses such as borderline personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, or severe autism, involve deficits in processing other people’s facial expressions.(as would be the case if they are wearing a mask). Paranoia has been linked to a tendency to make negative assumptions about relatively neutral facial expressions.”
And the impact is potentially long lasting as the research shows, for example Green et al:
“For an infant, this(wearing a mask) has the potential for long reaching effects in the early stages of neurobehavioral development”.
As Winston and Chicot confirm:
“The importance of early bonding on the long-term mental health and resilience of children is well established.
Brain development of infants (as well as their social, emotional and cognitive development) depends on a loving bond or attachment relationship with a primary caregiver, usually a parent, the absence of which can lead to long-term mental health problems as well as to reduced overall potential and happiness”
“Children’s early experiences have a profound and lasting impact on their future learning and development”.
And as according to a study by the New South Wales Government 90 percent of brain development takes place in the first five years of life, you can see the dangers here. “Masking children is tragic, unscientific and damaging,” according to Dr Paul Alexander “there is tremendous psychological damage to infants and children, with potential catastrophic impacts on the cognitive development of children.”
There is considerable evidence demonstrating the psychological and mental health impact, an impact which has been ignored by policy makers and which does not support the dismissive “children are resilient” approach designed to avoid responsibility.
The Hart Group’s detailed research reported:
- one in six children were reporting significant mental health problems
- ‘national state of emergency in child and adolescent mental health‘
- In the UK there are one million children are waiting for mental health support
- 400,000 children and young people are being treated per month for mental Health problems
- one in six children were reporting significant mental health problems
- one in four young people felt ‘unable to cope’.
- a worrying increase in self-harm and eating disorders,
- an ‘explosion’ of children with disabling tic disorders.
- record numbers being prescribed anti-depressants
The graphs below show the trends in the number of children admitted to acute paediatric wards for mental health and for eating disorders from January 2019 to January 2021.
The NHS reported that one in five children and young people had a probable mental disorder in 2023 with the Childrens Society reporting that the likelihood of a young person having a mental health problem has increased by 50 percent.
Moving now to the harms caused by the mask itself.
Harms to Cognitive Development and educational progress caused by the physical mask barrier
There is considerable evidence to show the adverse effects on cognitive development caused by the increase in inhaled carbon dioxide (CO2) and the consequential reduction in oxygen due to the presence of material covering the nose and mouth This section will also include some more general health effects.
Dr. Margareta Griesz-Brisson, Director of the London Neurology and Pain Clinic, is one of Europe’s leading neurologists explains the potential for damage, she states that:
“to deprive a child’s or an adolescents’ brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal. Oxygen deficiency inhibits the development of the brain, and the damage that has taken place cannot be reversed.”
She also refers to a reduction in cognitive function. What does the CO2 do?
The effects of increase in CO2 Walach et al report that wearing of NMC (surgical masks or FFP2 masks) raises CO2 content in inhaled air quickly to a very high level in healthy children in a seated resting position that might be hazardous to children’s health.
Header image: L Julia
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Carmel
| #
Some interesting mask articles…..
https://BROWNSTONE.ORG/ARTICLES/TIME-TO-UNMASK-THE-TRUTH/
https://BROWNSTONE.ORG/ARTICLES/CDC-REFUSES-TO-POST-THE-FIX-TO-ITS-MASK-STUDY/
https://BROWNSTONE.ORG/ARTICLES/HOW-DANGEROUS-ARE-MASKS-FOR-CHILDREN/
https://BROWNSTONE.ORG/ARTICLES/STUDIES-AND-ARTICLES-ON-MASK-INEFFECTIVENESS-AND-HARMS/
https://PALEXANDER.SUBSTACK.COM/P/CHILDREN-FACE-MASK-STUDY-CATALONIA
Reply
Greg Spinolae
| #
It’s a little disturbing that almost no blog discussions on masks refer to the critically important: “Tracheal Centrifugal Vortex” (TCV) or the fact that much of the literature/articles on this topic appear to have been memory holed by search engines.
The tracheal centrifugal vortex is a natural airflow pattern that helps filter inhaled gas and protect the lungs from infection. As air enters the trachea, it spirals around the central axis, creating a vortex-like flow. This airflow pattern allows for the efficient removal of particles, such as dust, pollen, and pathogens, from the inhaled air. The vortex flow aids in separating heavier particles from the air, directing them towards the sides of the trachea, where they can be trapped by the mucus layer. This layer contains cilia, which are hair-like structures that continuously move in a coordinated manner to push the trapped particles and mucus upwards, towards the mouth, where they can be expelled. This natural filtration process helps protect the lungs from potential infections by reducing the number of pathogens that reach the delicate lung tissue. MASKING alters airflow so as to REMOVE almost all of the certrifugal vortex.
references or citations for tracheal centrifugal vortex
There are several references and citations for the tracheal centrifugal vortex, which is also known as the tracheal vortex or the tracheal spiral. Some of these sources include:
Scharfman, B. E., & Holmes, P. (2006). A computational study of the flow in the trachea. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 128(4), 645-653.
Mathey, E. F., Mayer, E. P., & Boucher, O. (1967). The tracheal spiral airflow. Respiration Physiology, 2(2), 150-155.
Zhang, L., & Kleinstreuer, C. (2010). CFD modeling of airflow in the trachea and bronchi. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 13(6), 791-800.
Inglis, D. R., & Dawson, K. A. (1997). The tracheal vortex: A review of its relevance to pulmonary disease. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 185(1), 51-61.
Longest, P. W., & Thys, H. (2011). A computational fluid dynamics study of the human tracheal spiral airflow. Journal of Biomechanics, 44(15), 2660-2667.
These sources provide detailed information on the tracheal centrifugal vortex and its role in respiratory physiology, as well as computational studies that explore the airflow patterns and their implications for lung health and disease.
Reply
Greg Spinolae
| #
In the light of the ACTUAL EVIDENCE of MULTIPLE HARMS caused by masks, putting a mask on children should be a criminal offence punishable by VERY LONG prison terms. Any clinician recommending masking should be STRUCK OFF for, at very least, incompetence in that their egregious lack of knowledge/training is, and will be, an actual cause of harm and potentially death to their patients.
Reply
VOWG
| #
Again more words. The correct answer is no, masks are not safe and effective. Bacteria incubators that cannot stop an airborne pathogen.
Reply
Greg Spinolae
| #
Yes; VOWG, all you say is true but it’s a very long way from the ONLY objection to masks. The “cannot stop most pathogens” and “bacterial incubators” facts are true, but the fact that a mask also EXACERBATES DELIVERY of those pathogens directly to the alveoli by subverting tracheal vortex filtering makes masks not just passively “ineffective” and “unsafe” but actuvely and profoundly DANGEROUS. Which is why I think that clinicians advocating masks need, at the very least, retraining and, if persistent in such claims, need to be struck off their licence-to-practice register.
Masks are SO dangerous that it behooves those aware to extol ALL of the dangers so that the charlatans advocating masks are FULLY discredited on multiple fronts.
Reply
Hugh Mccarthy
| #
As you say VOWG, however wrt my position on education boards, I have to counter with science—no one believes me just because I say so.
Anyone would know masks do not work and, in any case, were not needed. Even if both the previous conditions were met , anyone who has children or who has been in a school would know children would not use these things hygienically….and neither do adults.
Reply
Casey Jay
| #
Thank-you all for the comments & this article. The WHO and every government worldwide needs to pay dearly for all of the harm caused! This is criminal to say the least, especially in light of the prior studies and information available surrounding the harms of mask use.
Reply
Jakie
| #
That’s the point entire, Forced Mask wearing causes many health issues…leaving humans open to whatever comes along to kill you.
Then, have masks been tested for graphene oxide and other toxins delivered via onboard nano filaments, nano tubules…..???
Reply
Carmel
| #
There are 10 pages for the Safety Data Sheets for Formaldehyde…..many of the side effect symptoms are the same as for COVID??!!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9426499/Scientists-evidence-toxic-chemicals-face-masks.html
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
And yet your body naturally produces formaldehyde.
Reply
Hugh Mccarthy
| #
See Part 2 Jakie
Reply