The Mask Dilemma

In October 3, 2020, Ontario implemented a face mask regulation called “O. Reg.
546/20 RULES FOR AREAS IN STAGE 3″. The regulation was that every citizen had
to wear masks in public places with certain exceptions. People who had a medical
condition were exempted from wearing a mask and did not have to show proof,
according to the by-law among other exemptions.

“Section 2 of Schedule 1 (g) has a medical condition that inhibits their ability to
wear a mask or face covering;.”


Toronto’s reasoning for wearing face masks is for “source control”:

“Masks and Source Control

When we wear a high quality, well-fitted mask, we are protecting others from our
respiratory droplets and aerosols. This is called source control and can reduce the
spread of germs in the air and on surfaces. Good quality and fitted masks can also
protect the wearer from infection.”

The website provided a pdf file from Toronto Public Health claiming that masks

protect from respiratory viral particles and provided no studies to back up their
claims. Instead, there are numerous studies showing that masks do little to
nothing when stopping the spread.

A study in Japan called: “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the
common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial

Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to
provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is
needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.”
Source: These are but one of many
studies we have on showing the small efficacy of face masks concerning
respiratory viruses.

The japan study mentions the cold which is in fact a coronavirus. The scientific
name for the common cold is Coronavirus 299E.

This is also why the CDC says that if you test positive it could be from the common
cold. “A positive test result shows you might have antibodies from an infection
with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance that a positive
result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the
same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the
common cold.” See photo: Screenshot_20200721-103400_Gallery.

A study done in Switzerland called The Swiss Policy Research, released a study
called: “Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence.”

In the Swiss report it says:
“Studies claiming face masks are effective –
Some recent studies argued that face masks are indeed effective against the new
coronavirus and could at least prevent the infection of other people. However,
most of these studies suffer from poor methodology and sometimes show the
opposite of what they claim to show.

Typically, these studies ignore the effect of other measures, the natural
development of infection rates, changes in test activity, or they compare places
with different epidemiological conditions. Studies performed in a lab or as a
computer simulation often aren’t applicable to the real world.

An overview:

A meta-study in the journal Lancet, commissioned by the WHO, claimed that
masks could reduce the risk of infection by 80%, but the studies considered mainly
N95 respirators in a hospital setting, not cloth masks in a community setting, the
strength of the evidence was reported as “low”, and experts found numerous
flaws in the study. Professor Peter Jueni, epidemiologist at the University of
Toronto, called the WHO study “essentially useless”.
A study in the journal PNAS claimed that masks had led to a decrease in infections
in three global hotspots (including New York City), but the study did not take into
account the natural decrease in infections and other simultaneous measures. The study was so flawed that over 40 scientists recommended that the study be withdrawn.
A US study claimed that US counties with mask mandates had lower Covid
infection and hospitalization rates, but the authors had to withdraw their study as
infections and hospitalizations increased in many of these counties shortly after
the study was published.
A large study run in Bangladesh claimed that surgical masks, but not cloth masks,
reduced “symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections” by 0.08% (ARR), and only in people
over 50. But a subsequent re-analysis of the study by statisticians found that there
was in fact no benefit at all. According to one reviewer, the Bangladesh study was
designed so poorly that it “ended before it even began”.
A German study claimed that the introduction of mandatory face masks in
German cities had led to a significant decrease in infections. But the data did not
support this claim: in some cities there was no change, in others a decrease, in
others an increase in infections (see graph below). The city of Jena was an
‘exception’ only because it simultaneously introduced the strictest quarantine
rules in Germany, but the study did not mention this.
A review by the University of Oxford claimed that face masks are effective, but it
was based on studies about SARS-1 and in health care settings, not in community
A review by members of the lobby group ‘Masks for All’, published in the journal
PNAS, claimed that masks are effective as a source control against aerosol
transmission in the community, but the review provided no real-world evidence
supporting this proposition.
A study published in Nature Communications in June 2021 claimed that masks
reduced the risk of infection by 62%, but the study relied on self-reported online
survey results and various modelling assumptions, not on actual measurements.
A meta-study published in the BMJ claimed face masks reduced infections by 53%,
but the meta-study was based on seven low-quality observational studies. In
response, the BMJ published an editorial acknowledging the “lack of good
research” and the implausibility of the result.
A German study, published in PNAS, claimed that N95/FFP2 masks are highly
effective against coronavirus infections, but the study consisted only of a
mathematical model without any real-world or lab data”

The Swiss study also reveals the risks:

“Risks associated with face masks –
Wearing masks for a prolonged period of time may not be harmless, as the
following evidence shows:

The WHO warns of various “side effects” such as difficulty breathing and skin
An Israeli-Canadian study, published in Cognitive Research in February 2022,
found that “face masks disrupt holistic processing and face perception in
school-age children”.
Tests conducted by the University Hospital of Leipzig in Germany have shown that
face masks significantly reduce the resilience and performance of healthy adults.
A German psychological study with about 1000 participants found “severe
psychosocial consequences” due to the introduction of mandatory face masks in
The Hamburg Environmental Institute warned of the inhalation of chlorine
compounds in polyester masks as well as problems in connection with face mask
The European rapid alert system RAPEX has already recalled over 100 mask
models because they did not meet EU quality standards and could lead to “serious
A study by the University of Muenster in Germany found that on N95 (FFP2)
masks, Sars-CoV-2 may remain infectious for several days, thus increasing the risk
of self-contamination.
In China, several children who had to wear a mask during gym classes fainted and
died; autopsies found a sudden cardiac arrest as the probable cause of death. In
the US, a car driver wearing an N95 (FFP2) mask fainted and crashed due to CO2
The website provides the sources in all their claims just as a real scientific journal

On March 18, 2020, The CDC said that “If you are NOT sick: You do not need to
wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not
able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be
saved for caregivers.”
/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html says explains how to wear a face mask “properly”: “Your mask should
fit your face, covering your nose, mouth and chin without gaping.”

The government mandated the people to take part in an ineffective method that
actually makes citizens breathe in a toxic substance which is Carbon Dioxide.
According to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999:
Schedule 1: List of Toxic Substances. #74 is Carbon Dioxide CO².

This actually falls under the criminal code Section 245 (1):

“245 (1) Every person who administers or causes to be administered to any other
person or causes any other person to take poison or any other destructive or
noxious thing is guilty.”

On CBS 60 Minutes Overtime, there was an interview with Dr. Anthony S. Fauci,
M.D., Director of NIAID. The person who everyone was taking advice from said this
in the interview: “People should not be walking around with masks. There’s no
reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an
outbreak, wearing a mask might make people ‘feel a little bit better’ and it might
even block a drop. But it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think
that it is. And often, there are unattended consequences, people keep fiddling with
the mask and they keep touching their face.”

If someone happens to be “asymptomatic” with a respiratory virus, wouldn’t
restricting yourself of oxygen also increase the rate of infection?

One thought on “The Mask Dilemma

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s