The Masque of Amontillado

On the utter idiocy of masking

Remember, as the uber-rich elitist/snob Leona Helmsley told us years ago, “We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." Similarly, I suppose, for the pandemic, only the little people wear masks

In Edgar Allan Poe’s The Casque of Amontillado, in his usual macabre writing, he writes about a man taking fatal revenge on someone by immurement. Right. I didn’t know what that was either… but in a sentence, immurement is from the Latin im-, "in" and murus, "wall"; literally "walling in") and is a form of imprisonment, usually until death, in which a person is sealed within an enclosed space with no exits. The person dies, of asphyxiation, or starvation.  You get where I am going with this, swapping “casque” for “mask,” right?
____________________________________________________

Do masks work? German physician Dr. Zacharias Fögen was unable to find published evidence that masking effectively reduced the severity of the disease or had an influence on case fatality. The death rate in counties where masks were mandated was 85% higher than in those where they were not. After accounting for confounding factors, the mortality rate remained 52% higher. On further analysis, he wrote, “this study determines that over 95% of this effect can solely be attributed to COVID-19.” SeeThe Foegen effect A mechanism by which facemasks contribute to the COVID-19 case fatality ratein journal Medicine. In other words, while other pathogens or CO2 build-up could have weakened the immune system, it was COVID-19 that caused the rise in deaths in counties where masks were mandated. He named this the Foegen effect, referring to the reinhalation of viral particles trapped in droplets and deposited on the mask, which worsens outcomes, as the Daily Skeptic points out in The Foegen Effect: Why Face Masks Increase Death Rate of Covid 19. Fögen noted two large studies had found similar results with case fatality rates. In other words, the studies found a positive link between masking and death. The first was published in the journal Cureus, inCorrelation Between Mask Compliance and COVID-19 Outcomes in Europe found no association between case numbers and mask compliance, but a positive association with death and mask compliance.

The second study, was published in PLOS One, Association between COVID-19 outcomes and mask mandates, adherence, and attitudes revealed an association between negative COVID outcomes and mask mandates across 847,000 people in 69 countries. One report focused on the health and safety of wearing masks and proposed the potential of permanent fibrotic lung damage caused by inhaling fibrous nanoparticles. The author explained in Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report, “There are real and significant dangers of respiratory infection, oral health deterioration and of lung injury, such as pneumothorax, owing to moisture buildup and also exposure to potentially harmful levels of an asphyxiant gas (carbon dioxide [CO2]) which can cause serious injury to health.”He began gathering demographic data from the state of Kansas to analyze the effect of wearing a mask using data in counties where masks were mandated and those that didn't. The results suggested that masking was not innocuous. In fact, it may present a greater threat than the infection, making it a “debatable epidemiological intervention.”

In fact, the CO2 levels in mask wearing kids rises to over 13,000 ppm, when the normal should be 1,000, not to exceed 2,000. The CDC on this “danger?” Zilch. The study in then National Library of Medicine in the peer reviewed journal Environmental Research entitled Carbon dioxide rises beyond acceptable safety levels in children under nose and mouth covering: Results of an experimental measurement study in healthy children tells it all.

Even the AFP - American Family Physician,  the AAFP's editorially independent, peer-reviewed and evidence-based clinical journal – and their fact check admits that 2,000 ppm is problematic and that 13,000 is very problematic:

Famed psychologist Dr. Stephen Porges,  humans get signs of security, safety, alarm and otherwise from minute, subconscious lines we make subconsciously around our faces, with kids particularly vulnerable. Humans (along with other mammals) have elaborate detection systems for danger, affronts, and so forth.  Sometimes the detection system becomes defunct as in the case of extreme naivety – or extreme paranoia – here caused by fear and the masking that goes along with it. George Gilder summarizes the issue as “Masks on children may well impair the development of the crucial part of the brain that recognizes faces and facial expressions and renders us social beings rather than sociopaths.”  Hence, the massive uptick in suicides, depression, among youths, as well as adults, may be predicated on this. Some estimates state  that 1 out of 5 kids is now being treated for some form of depression, anxiety, etc., and Brad Polumbo, in an article in the Foundation for Economic Education  says “the damage we’re  inflicting on children is too devastating to be waved away in the name of public health – it’s quickly becoming an emergency in its own right,” and then goes on to detail the massive amount of mental damage being done  to kids, quoting – as just one example of many -  Dr. Richard Delorme at one of France’s largest children’s hospital, stating  “We sometimes have children of 9 who already want to die.”   University of California San Francisco professor Vinay Prasad, M.D. agrees with Delorme, and has broken from the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP), which says masks are ok.  Rather, writing in The Atlantic, he noted “Early childhood is a crucial period when humans develop cultural, language, and social skills, including the ability to detect emotion on other people’s faces. Social interactions with friends, parents, and caregivers are integral to fostering children’s growth and well-being.” Second story on Prasad’s concerns here.  Prasad is not alone. Here are 47 different studies to review that question the efficacy of masks, along with the damage they do.  More reading on this issue? Lifesite News has a comprehensive resource here for your review on this, and similar mask related questions.  

But there is more: the largest COVID-19-specific mask trial to date, the Danish study -see here or Annals of Internal Medicine here -  found masks may either reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or increase it by 23%. Either way, the reason for this is because the virus is aerosolized and spreads through the air. Aerosolized viruses — especially SARS-CoV-2, which is about half the size of influenza viruses — cannot be blocked by a mask, as explained in my interview with Denis Rancourt, who has conducted a thorough review of the published science on masks and viral transmission.vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.  Masks don’t work at all as proven in this large Bangladesh study; not a single randomized study has shown a protective effect of any size that is statistically significant. 

And the efficacy of masks? Well, the “science” was self reporting/anecdotal. The CDC's own  says 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported "always" wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask "often." So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had "often" or "always" worn a mask. See CDC here or here. 

Porges and airline Capt. Tom Bunn, the latter of whom does work with fearful flyers. Fearful flyers and Covid? In short, all humans read micro-expressions in the face of others to get a sense of safety, truth telling, and more. See Bunn’s recent work Panic Free Pandemic Workbook – Exercises to Calm Pandemic -Related Fear, Anxiety and Claustrophobia. In short, masks are destroying the ability to read micro-expressions, and thus gain a sense of security – particularly in children - in spades. All this as, what can only be considered legally culpable negligence, the American Academy of Pediatrics on Aug, 2021 removed its page encouraging “face time” with infants. Yes, Big Pharma and Big Money go a long ways, don’t they! Here’s the original before it goes down the fasco-Marxist memory hole, cited from Twitter here:

Wendy Bowman adds to Porges, re. the fear porn the elites are pushing on the kids, who have a zero chance of dying, by writing: “A primitive area of the brain called the amygdala that’s responsible for our fight-or-flight response in stressful situations is activated when fear and anxiety assume control. In turn, this causes the release of adrenaline and cortisol, and while that would be useful in a life-or-death situation, it’s not so helpful when you’re exposed to chronic life stress. “As you surround yourself with negative thoughts and stress, the amygdala overrides the voice of reason in the frontal lobe of our brain. When this happens, our emotions take over and we lose the ability to rationally think. The stress surrounding COVID-19 can leave us in a chronic state of ‘amygdala hijack,’ putting us in a constant fight-or-flight state that causes our stress hormone cortisol to rise.” The remedy is simple, but for a lot of people, not so easy: Try to disconnect from the nonstop social media and news, or risk facing what Villanueva calls neuroplasticity. “Science has discovered the brain’s amazing ability to ‘reroute’ its own pathways in an effort to maintain its own health and efficiency of message transmission,” she says, “but these pathways can become rerouted in a manner that can lead to chronic anxiety and mind racing, and ultimately, chronic depression.”

Here's what happens to kids with masks:

During 2020 and 2021, many infants and young children were raised in an environment where they are unable to read facial cues. In the short video above, you’ll see what happens during the “still face” experiment when the infant does not get a response from the mother.

Research at PLOS  (see also here in Frontiers in Psychology) produced after 2020 has demonstrated that both children and adults struggle to recognize emotion in people who are masked. How this will affect overall child development and whether the children can “catch up” now that mask mandates have been lifted in most areas is yet to be determined.

However, we do have some clues. A retrospective study⁴² published online in late 2020 and updated periodically through early 2021, used data from Germany's first registry showing the experience children are having wearing masks. Parents, doctors and others were allowed to enter their observations.

The experience of 25,930 children was telling. The average time children were wearing a mask was 270 minutes each day, and there were 24 health issues reported that were associated with mask wearing that fell into the categories of physical, psychological and behavioral issues.

For example, reported effects included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%), drowsiness or fatigue (37%), shortness of breath (29.7%), dizziness (26.4%), unwilling to move or play (17.9%). Hundreds also experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.

Regarding masks and kids,  a German consumer protection agency also found popular COVID masks are harmful to children. LifeSite wrote: “Stiftung Warentest, one of Germany’s largest consumer organizations, carried out a study on the FFP2 masks to check whether they were adapted to children’s breathing power and lung volume, and whether they allowed them to receive enough oxygen. The organization released their findings earlier this month and concluded that “all FFP2 mask models that were tested were unsuitable for children and offered too much breathing resistance and not enough breathing comfort,” and ““One thing is clear, however, children generally have less powerful breathing than healthy adults, and often only half of their lung volume.” Based on this and after consulting with experts, the consumer organization set as requirement a breathing resistance for FFP2 children masks that was half that of the one allowed for adults. Following the tests, none of the children-sized masks tested came even close to the lower threshold. What’s more, the study also concluded that a number of the masks did not even fit the appropriate breathing criteria for adults. Before the report by Stiftung Warentest’s, a number of experts and studies in other countries had already suggested that wearing a mask is not only inefficient at slowing the spread of COVID-19 but could also have harmful effect on people’s physical and mental health, particularly children.” Lifesite also added “One of the most starkly revealing and troubling observations came from Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD, one of Europe’s leading neurologists and neurophysiologists focused on neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuro-regeneration and neuroplasticity. She has gone on record stating: “The rebreathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation.”

And exactly how big is Big Pharma? Glad you asked! Per ZeroHedge, below. As Gilda Radner used to say about another megalopoly, “They don’t care about you. They don’t  have to.”