Masks for Protection Against Covid-19 … The Great Deception!

Share the article:

By Kathleen Marquardt

Due to an overwhelming amount of media and political outcry for the necessity of mask-wearing and the contradicting evidence over whether they are necessary or not, many healthcare workers are confused. In fact, many are wondering why there are so few – just two to be exact – experts from whom we are being given almost all of our information. And many wonder why these so called experts are all over the board on this issue.

Long before anyone ever heard of COVID-19, scientists had investigated the efficacy of mask-wearing, and then of masks versus respirators, for protection against influenza and other respiratory viruses. Studies involving face masks have been done in homes, elementary schools, hospitals, and at large public universities, throughout the world. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, use of the N95 mask was primarily limited to industries like mining, construction, and coatings. Though there are N95 masks designed for the healthcare industry, according to OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard requirements, users of these masks must first undergo a medical evaluation to determine if they are physically fit to wear such a respirator, and they must also be trained on the proper (safe) use and protective limitations of the device.

Before COVID-19, only those diagnosed with an infectious disease, were encouraged to wear face masks. In fact, the CDC previously did not recommend wearing a face mask unless a person was known to be infected. So why did this virus outbreak cause some medical doctors, clinics and hospitals to move away from the guideline of ‘non-infected need not wear a mask’, to everyone needs to wear a mask and stay 6’ away from others?

At first, the only recommendations on wearing face masks (to protect the public from COVID-19), came from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx. But even they flip-flopped on whether or not we should be wearing masks to protect against COVID-19.

Consequently, it has taken other (selfthinking) doctors and infection control experts to ask critical questions about mask-wearing: what are the risks? What are the benefits? Are the benefits greater than the risks? If the benefits are not greater than the risks, why promote them?


As mentioned earlier, before using the N95 masks, workers are required to be evaluated to determine if they are going to be able to wear one without compromising their health.

According to a NIH, National Library of Medicine, (NIH/NLM) study, “Wearing N95 masks results in hypoxygenemia and hypercapnia, which reduce working efficiency and the ability to make correct decisions.” The researchers found that the N95 mask reduced blood oxygen levels significantly; and the longer the wearer used the mask, the greater the fall in blood oxygen levels.

Also, according to a study on Medcrave (an online publishing library), there is an increase in nasal airflow resistance upon removal of N95 respirator and surgical face mask after 3 hours of continual use. This is potentially due to physiological changes of the nasal airways. According to the study, “The nasal resistance was not recovered even after 1.5 hours removal of the respirator/face mask”.

Dr. Russell Blaylock, who was a clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, goes further than other doctors. He contends that the combined science regarding face masks indicates that anything less than an N95 mask, used continually, would not help at all. Quoting a McIntyre study, he pointed out that, if everyone wore masks and followed all suggested procedures, as thoroughly as possible, it still would not reduce the spread of influenza germs.

According to a 1991 article on the use of surgical masks, by Drs. Daley and Norman, “Prolonged wearing of a surgical face mask causes loss of intellect potential and cognitive performance due to a decrease in blood oxygen and subsequent brain hypoxia. Note – some changes may be irreversible.”

According to a report in the American Journal of Infection Control, “Surgical masks are designed to prevent bacteria and other particles from contaminating a sterile field, as when a surgeon is performing an operation. Surgical masks are not designed to prevent the wearer from inhaling viruses…. surgical masks should not be expected to provide respiratory protection. SURGICAL MASKS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THE H1N1.”

One point that isn’t mentioned much in the media, concerning face masks, is that surgical masks are designed and approved for sterile environments. Those sterile environments are operating rooms where additional oxygen (O) is pumped into the room to provide the necessary extra oxygen for the mask-wearing doctors and assistants. They are not designed for outdoor use, in crowds, or even the grocery store. In a non-sterile environment, a surgical mask quickly becomes saturated with particulates and contaminants, especially from crosscontamination associated with constant hand to mask contact. This is why the recommendation is to change the mask after just 20 minutes of use, and that’s if the user doesn’t contaminate the mask with his/her hands during the 20-minute period. And how many people do that?

It does not take an N95 mask to cause harm to the wearer.

First, and you may have heard it before, anyone with a respiratory health condition should NOT wear a mask of any kind, at any time. Yet, we see many businesses, healthcare facilities and doctor’s offices that will not allow anyone to enter without a mask. In the case of healthcare facilities and doctor’s offices, those with health conditions must either endanger themselves more by wearing a mask, or forego services that might be vital to their health.

Numerous sources, including Blaylock, ACS Chem Neurosci, Journal of Virology, NCIB/NIH, JAMA, CIDRAP, and others, have documented that mask-wearing can be harmful. From headaches, upon an hour of mask-wearing, to much more dangerous effects.

In one of the most quoted sources, bin-Reza, et al, from 2012 concluded that, “None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.” And, as Dr. Blaylock states:

  • Mask wearing causes hypoxia and hypocapnia. Hypoxia is a diminished availability of oxygen to the body tissues. Hypocapnia is a deficiency of carbon dioxide in the blood, which eventually leads to alkalosis.
  • Those with pulmonary disease – asthma, pulmonary edema, COPD, show decreased oxygenation and increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the blood.
  • Pregnant women have a need for a higher intake of oxygen (and their bodies normally have a lower CO2 accumulation to protect the baby). A study of pregnant women wearing masks showed a 35% decrease in their ability to exchange air. As their oxygenation levels fell, CO2 began to accumulate in their bodies. As they normally have lower CO2 accumulation to protect the baby, if their accumulation were to rise to normal levels, it would be harmful to the baby. These results alone limited the study; they didn’t dare do more. Yet, no state is telling pregnant women that they shouldn’t wear masks, especially for long periods of time. 
  • Those with obesity have poor oxygen intake to begin with. Wearing a mask could cause it to drop precipitously, causing a crisis.
  • There are tens of millions of diabetics. Dr. Blaylock says THEY SHOULD NOT BE WEARING MASKS. 
  • The build-up of CO2 could damage the brain. Those who have seizures are particularly at risk. In normal people, it causes hyperexcitability in the cortex which precipitates seizures.
  • An elevation in CO2 causes anxiety, blood pressure rise, breathlessness, and panic attacks. The bipolar person is highly sensitive to those effects. 
  • When CO2 levels rise and O levels fall, it suppresses immunity by inhibiting T-lymphocytes – the ones that fight viruses. Hypoxia makes it worse because it increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor, which inhibits T-lymphocytes. Not only that, it stimulates another type of cell, the T-regs (immune suppressor cells which exacerbate immune suppression). (Note: from the Journal of Immunology, “This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19, and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infection and, if so, cause a much worse outcome. People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen.”) 
  • Seemingly, no one in society is in any danger from the virus unless you already have an immune suppressing disorder. If worn too long, the mask itself is producing immune suppression. The rise in CO2 can cause cardiac arrythmia, and fragile heart patients can experience hypoxia and hypocapnia. There are cognitive effects – brain fog, confusion, difficulty thinking and speaking, along with anxiety. 
  • Repeated hypoxia stress, when oxygen levels fall, causes atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), heart attacks, and stroke from hypercoagulation of the blood. 
  • By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel to the brain. 


COVID-19 enters the body through the mouth, nose, or eyes, and, according to researchers at the University of Hong Kong, the virus can adhere to the outer layer of a face mask for a week. Because the mask is ‘catching’ the virus germs before they can enter the body, it could possibly be contaminated with the coronavirus or any other virus. So, improperly wearing the mask can increase the risk of contamination. If your hands touch the outside of the mask improperly (not using the elastic to put it on and take it off), or you adjust it frequently, you can be exposing yourself while thinking you are safely protected.

According to the CDC, “If the inside of the mask touches another part of the body that is contaminated with the virus – hair, forehead, chin, neck, hands, other clothing – and then returned to cover the nose and mouth area, infection can occur.” 


This brings us to the question, why the national fervor for wearing masks? Why the push, first by WHO and CDC, then governors, mayors, and down the line? 

Never before in history have healthy people been told to wear masks. The research shows us why both healthy people and the compromised should not wear masks. Only those who have a communicable disease should be wearing masks – and only when in close distance to healthy people, and never for any length of time. 

The patent answer (to the above question) is to follow the money. And there is a lot of money involved, both to design and then set up vaccines “for the whole world”. 

Our civilization has gone through a lot of catastrophes. The most recent one regarding diseases was the Spanish Flu of 1918. Since then we’ve gone a century with polio, smallpox, AIDS, and some small scares more recently that were predicted to be devastating – SARS, Dengue Fever, Mad Cow Disease. But then the coronavirus COVID-19 came along right after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Johns Hopkins University, and the World Economic Forum staged Event 201, which simulated an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people “that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms”. 

This Event 201, conducted October 18, 2019, was ostensibly put together to help the world’s leading experts work out scenarios on how to deal with such an event, if one ever occurred. But one has to wonder how they managed to come up with a pandemic so closely mimicking real-life COVID-19. Then, some five months later in an interview with the Curator of TED Talks, Chris Anderson, Bill Gates “. . . outlined that, despite the comparatively small threat of coronavirus, he and his colleagues ‘don’t want a lot of recovered people’ who have acquired natural immunity. They instead are hoping we become reliant on vaccines and anti-viral medication. 

At the coronavirus simulation, Event 201, a poll, which was part of the simulation, said that 65% of people in the U.S. would be eager to take a vaccine for COVID-19, “even if it’s experimental.” 

Gates also said in the TED interview, “It is really tragic that the economic effects of this are very dramatic. I mean, nothing like this has ever happened to the economy in our lifetimes. But … bringing the economy back ,… that’s more of a reversible thing than bringing people back to life. So we’re going to take the pain in the economic dimension, huge pain, in order to minimize the pain in disease and death dimension.” 

The World Economy is dropping dramatically. In an article in OffGuardian, Kevin Ryan points out that, “By all accounts, the impact of the response will be great, far-reaching, and long-lasting.” Rosemary Frei, in her article, Did Bill Gates Just Reveal the Reason Behind the Lock- Downs? said, “Bill Gates outlined that, despite the comparatively small threat of coronavirus, he and his colleagues ‘don’t want a lot of recovered people’ who have acquired natural immunity. They instead are hoping we become reliant on vaccines and anti-viral medication. Shockingly, Gates also suggests people be made to have a digital ID showing their vaccination status, and that people without this ‘digital immunity proof’ would not be allowed to travel. Such an approach would mean very big money for vaccine producers.” 

Cheryl Chumley, in the Washington Times, declares that “In fact, COVID-19 will go down as one of the political world’s biggest, most shamefully overblown, overhyped, overly and irrationally inflated and outright deceptively flawed responses to a health matter in American history, one that was carried largely on the lips of medical professionals who have no business running a national economy or government.”

Kevin Ryan, in Is the Coronavirus Scare a Psychological Operation, notes that, “governments have used psychological warfare throughout history to manipulate public opinion, gain political advantage, and generate profits. Western governments have engaged in such tactics in the war on terrorism as well as in its predecessor, the war on Communism. It appears that the same kinds of effects are being seen as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In both cases, state-sponsored terrorism and propaganda were used to distort the public’s perception of the threats, leading to increased governmental control of society and huge financial benefits for corporations.” This is definitely something to consider. 

Bill Gates isn’t the only technocrat involved. Dr. Anthony Fauci (CDC), Dr. Deborah Birx (White House coronavirus coordinator), Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (Director General of WHO), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness (CEPI ), George Soros, and nine pharmaceutical companies are all working to produce a coronavirus vaccine – including Moderna, Inovio, and SmithKline. But Bill Gates appears to be the main player. 

Pat Wood, editor of Technocracy News and Trends believes, “It is imperative to understand that the ‘Great Panic of 2020’ is engineered around the pandemic by Technocrats who are driven to take over and control the whole planet, and especially the United States.” 

Rosemary Frei points out that, “The increasing outsourcing of healthcare policy to medical bureaucrats during the COVID-19 crisis illustrates the dangerous temptation to remove control over policy from democratic deliberation in favor of a technocracy, i.e., rule by ‘experts.’ In health care, such a system would be particularly perilous since the experts placed in charge of policy would be ‘bioethicists’ whose predominant views disparage the sanctity of human life.” 

Subscribe Today

Every other month, Soil & Mulch Producer
News brings you important stories about:

• New Technology
• Products
• Industry News
• Research Studies

Soil & Mulch Producer News features articles and services relevant to your daily operations.


You Might Also Like