Are Facemasks Safe And Effective? Part Two
As a terrible indictment of public policy, the authors report that:
“Robust results show that the wearing of NMC, especially by children, would help prevent the spread of SARS-CoV2 did not exist, instead the research revealed the harm of mask wearing (Schwarz et al 2021)
Most frequently they report irritation, tension and stress,headaches, difficulties concentrating, fatigue and sleepiness and attributed these effects to the high content of carbon dioxide in the inhaled air”
“To the best of our knowledge there are no solid peer-reviewed data on carbon dioxide concentration in inhaled air under NMC, especially for children”.
“The normal content of carbon dioxide in breathed air in the open is about 0.04 vol percent (i.e. 400 parts per million/ppm) whereas levels of 2,000 ppm are acceptable for closed rooms and also represents the safety limit for children and pregnant women.
In the work place for healthy adults doing eight hours of work and a 40 hour week the limit accepted in many countries, for instance in Germany which applies EU Health and Safety regulations and in the United States is 5000ppm.”
What Walach et al found is alarming, particularly for children sitting at a desk for a school day, they report:
“Even under conditions of sitting still for approximately 18 minutes with NMC, we measured strong increases in the carbon dioxide in the inhaled air under the face mask.
The increases were numerically large and statistically highly significant and violate accepted safety norms for carbon dioxide”
The researchers report that their findings have been corroborated since by a different research group (Rhee et al 2021). And they cite research by Azuma et al found that even short term exposure to carbon dioxide contents of 1000 ppm is associated with decline in concentration and cognitive problems.
Unbelievably the researchers showed that the C02 content in inhaled air rises to between 13,000 and 13,750ppm no matter whether children wear a surgical or an FFP2 mask which is obviously well beyond the 2000 ppm that is considered the limit of acceptability and beyond the 1,000 ppm that are normal for air in closed rooms.
For younger children the continuous exposure to high carbon dioxide contents that exceed safety limits by a factor of 8–12 is very worrying. Kisielinski, Wagner et al also reported in their 2023
scoping review aimed “at investigating the toxicological effects of face masks in terms of CO2 rebreathing on developing life, specifically for pregnant women, children, and adolescents”.
The latter two groups, of course, have been among those most frequently subjected to mask mandates in schools, despite Covid’s low levels of risk for them.
Alarmingly they found that wearing a mask for more than 5 minutes “bears a possible chronic exposure to carbon dioxide of 14,000 to 32,000 ppm in the inhaled air”( fresh air as stated earlier has around 400ppm CO2)
The authors also report a wide range of harmful effects. Even “at levels of 500ppm a range of harmful effects were found eg increased heart rate, increased blood pressure, symptoms of headache, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, dizziness, rhinitis, and dry cough”.
They continue:
Levels above 5000ppm can lead to “reduced cognitive performance, impaired decision-making and reduced speed of cognitive solutions.” And “reduced thinking ability, risk to children’s mental development, memory and learning, increased anxiety and respiratory problems.”
With regard to children, the authors highlight, “a reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance of two full standard deviations in scores in children born during the pandemic”.
“the harmful effects include respiratory acidosis, metabolic stress, increased blood flow and decreased exercise tolerance and reproductive concerns due to destruction of cells in testes are among the many possible results of effectively poisoning oneself by breathing in too much carbon dioxide”.
The review notes that these levels far exceed levels already found to indicate an increased risk of stillbirths, irreversible neuron damage and destruction, and testicular toxicity in adolescents.
The authors point out:
“that popular mask use may be related to current observations of a significant rise of 28 to 33 percent in stillbirths worldwide and highlight recent data from Australia and Italy showing a three-fold increase with statistical significance in stillbirths in the general population during lockdown period (March-April-May) 2020 compared to the same period in 2019”
Among the few countries that do not require the wearing of masks in public is Sweden, but “no increased risk of stillbirths was observed in Sweden”. They go onto point out that:
“It has to be pointed out that this data on the toxicity of carbon dioxide on reproduction has been known for 60 years,”
They conclude:
“Mask-wearers are likely breathing in CO2 levels between 14000 ppm and 32000 ppm well above any thresholds, (consequently) there could be a developmental risk to healthy children and early life from prolonged mask wearing with possible long-term consequences”
Further research by Borovoy, Huber and Crisler notes wider physical harms,including:
“Wearing a mask causes physiological changes to multiple organ systems, including the brain, the heart, the lungs, the kidneys and the immune system”
“ The nose and mouth are the gateways to the lungs for land vertebrates. There is no known history of a species that has begun to voluntarily or involuntarily obstruct, partially obstruct or filter the orifices to their airways and lungs i.e the passage out of the body of C02”
“Several studies have demonstrated statistically significant deleterious effects on various cardiopulmonary physiologic parameters during mild to moderate exercise in healthy subjects and in those with underlying respiratory diseases”. (WHO).
Research by Schwarz et al is all encompassing and damning. The potential disadvantages/impairments of mask use by children include:
“ irritability, headache, difficulty concentrating, less happiness, reluctance to go to school/kindergarten, malaise, impaired learning and drowsiness or fatigue.”
The research team notes the particular issues for disadvantaged people for, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery and those living in hot and humid environments”.
Evidence on the impact on the Cognitive Function
- delays in babies’ physical development
- a generation of babies struggling to crawl and communicate
- babies suffering delays in learning to walk
- toddlers struggling to make friends, with developing their speech and language, and with toileting independently
- regression in children’s independence
The observations of Ruth Sedgewick, the head of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) in Northern Ireland, support these findings.
“A growing number of young children in Northern Ireland are experiencing significant communication problems following the Covid–19 lockdowns. We’re seeing children who can’t talk at all: they grunt or they point at things they want.
They don’t know how to speak to the other children and if they want a toy, they will push the other child out of the way or snatch a toy from them.”
Indeed many Speech therapists have seen an alarming spike in the number of babies and toddlers who are speech delayed caused by mask-wearing. And a new study (October) by Irish researchers found that babies born during March to May 2020, when Ireland was locked down, were less likely to be able to say at least one definitive word, point, or wave goodbye at 12 months old.
An Irish Health Information and Quality Authority report in March is especially critical:
“making children wear masks in the classroom is ‘child abuse’” and adds that (mask wearing) can worsen existing health issues, stunt language skills, cause psychological harm, inhibit communication learning and cause anxiety”
“it’s really important that they can see facial expressions in order to develop their communications and language skills.”
And the U.K. Government’s own evidence summary found no statistically significant effect on transmission in education settings and acknowledges the harm inflicted by face masks in class:
80 percent of pupils reported that wearing a face covering made it difficult to communicate, and more than half felt wearing one made learning more difficult. With the obvious impact on education. For reasons of length, I have omitted harms to education, which I have covered here and here.
I now turn to the risk caused by material trapped by the mask
Multiple studies show the presence of harmful fungus and chemicals. As Bororov, Huber et al report:
“face masks are more likely to trap and re-circulate respiratory droplets and microbes, with incubation and proliferation of the same, inside the masked airspace and airways, which increases – not decreases – the risk of infections from major respiratory pathogens, bacterial, fungal and viral”
And a recently-published Japanese study found that 99 percent of the masks examined contained bacterial colonies. The type of mask worn—cloth or disposable—made no difference.
Fungus was found on 79 percent of them. Findings which have been replicated by a South Korean study and reported in the Mail they noted that several of the bacteria can cause serious harm to the bladder and the respiratory and digestive systems.
The study also suggests N95 Covid masks may expose wearers to dangerous level of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer, many masks were found to release toxic levels of TVOCs (toxic volatile organic compounds, levels up to more than eight times the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recommended limit for indoor air.
Tight-fitting disposable masks are much worse than cotton masks. Furthermore the research by Kisielinski, Wagner et al highlighted earlier noted that “other noxious agents in the masks contribute to toxicological long-term effects like the inhalation of synthetic microfibers, carcinogenic compounds and volatile organic compounds.”
Dr Paul Alexander too highlights the potential danger:
“if I have the mask in front of my face, then of course I inhale the microplastic directly and these substances are much more toxic than if you swallow them, as they get directly into the nervous system.”
And research by Jenner et al reported that: “microplastics were identified in all regions of the human lungs” with a consequential risk of inflammatory/fibrotic lung diseases and these substances might also be highly carcinogenic the researchers add.
Whilst Health Canada reported that “ masks contain microscopic graphene particles that, when inhaled, could cause severe lung damage.”
In addition daycare educators in Canada reported that children had begun to feel as though they were swallowing cat hair while wearing them. “We now know that children were inhaling the equivalent of asbestos all day long. It appears to be Graphene which can be harmful to lungs when inhaled.”
“What is indeed alarming is that blue masks that were being used all across Canada in school classrooms had never been tested for safety or effectiveness and that all of these blue and similar surgical face masks cause plastic fiber inhalation and the outcomes could be devastating, especially to our children. These face mask plastics will degrade very slowly over time and as such, in the lungs it may remain and just build up to dangerous levels.”
Concluding remarks
There is a long list of psychological, developmental, educational and physical harms, many of which are long term and irreversible.
He continues:
“Public-health officials—and the executive-branch leaders who credulously listened to them —ignored centuries of Western norms, the best medical evidence, and common sense, deciding that their own novel and evidence-free course was the one that all of society should be forced to follow”.
And Dr Paul Alexander:
“Children come with a potent innate immune system that works tremendously well. At the time their immune systems are still being developed we have forced lockdowns, school closures and masks on them.
We have no prior experience on the subsequent outcomes pertaining to children’s development, health, and well-being.”
Since it is accepted that children were not at risk and they were not a risk to others, as studies in the UK and many other countries confirmed and further that almost all coronavirus transmission to children comes from adults, NOT the other way around.
Why were they exposed to any risk from masks? Why were NO risk analyses carried out before forcing children to wear masks?
Why will no one answer?
Header image: CGTN Europe
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.
Greg Spinolae
| #
A HUGE Thankyou Hugh for these 2 articles; individually and together an important contribution to the information pool on what will inevitably emerge as yet another monumental health failure scandal. Apart from the deleterious effects already observable, we WILL observe huge increases in the very near future (2028-2038) of:
• very early onset dementia – at ages from as low as 20 yo
• cancers initiated and exacerbated by forced hypercapnia and hypoxia in youth
• severe neuological disease and disability including permanent brain damage in young people
• yet unknown disabilty syndromes.
many of which will be attributable to masking victims in 2020-23.
Reply
Wisenox
| #
Just more of their “safe and effective” bullshit.
Same phrase, quoted or highlighted, over and over and over.
Reply
Len Winokur
| #
Am I correct in recalling that studies have shown the wearing of a mask to increases the level of carbon dioxide in the blood? Because there’s a physiological basis for this being a real-time detriment to peace of mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vmwsg8Eabo
Reply
author
| #
I believe you are Len—I certainly know masks reduce the oxygen levels in the blood–this would suggest increased levels of CO2.
Reply
author
| #
I believe you are Len—I certainly know masks reduce the oxygen levels in the blood–this would suggest increased levels of CO2.
Reply