Ivermectin & Population Control Poison: a Deep Dive into a Nobel Prize Winning Medicine.

I know this article is going to get swarmed with hate, just like my vitamin investigations. Posting content like this leads to a loss of subscribers therefore a loss of revenue. This is why everyone will discuss how bad processed food is but few will discuss processed supplements and processed medicines. I wonder why that is? Why aren’t we allowed to ask, “What ingredients are in this? How are they made? What exactly do these ingredients do when we consume them?”… those seem like reasonable questions to me. After all, most of us read labels before buying a product at the grocery store so why is it taboo to read the label of a health product? Or a miracle cure? Is wanting to know what we are swallowing or injecting really that outrageous? I don’t think so but as I have demonstrated, simply saying, “Hey guys, this product contains hazardous ingredients. Here’s the data from the manufacturer” gets me labeled a shill, a conspiracy theorist and a confused idiot.

However, I’m not here to appease the masses and I have nothing to sell you, 100% of my income comes from donations and subscriptions, so call me whatever you’d like, cancel your account, speak ill of me, whatever you feel is justified as a response to looking at ingredients in a product famous doctors, the CDC, the NIH, Merck and Billy-boy Gates are recommending.

Over the past year, I have been obsessed with researching the foundations for what we assume to be true, yet never questioned. Alarmingly, it seems everything I have looked into is never what we have been told it is (Vitamins, Dinosaurs, Satellites FFS!, GeoEngineering, Covid, Covid masks, you name it, it’s probably a lie). So, when my friend

Tim Truth created a video talking about Ivermectin being a fertility reducing poison pushed on us as a cure, I wasn’t surprised but I was very disappointed. The reason for my disappointment was that I never questioned what exactly Ivermectin is or what is in it. I’m not exactly sure why I blindly trusted strangers online for medical advice. I cannot come up with a single good reason, but looking back, I can clearly see the Psychological Operation (PSYOP) ran on the populous, especially with Ivermectin.

When the media came out against Ivermectin, because I don’t trust the media, I got suckered into believing it must be a wonder drug. After all, the guy who invented it won awards, right?! And so many people were saying it cured them! Not only did I blindly trust, I spent hundreds of dollars stocking up, in fear that it might be banned. I wanted to be sure this miracle treatment would be available for my family. I even saved the link to Dr. Stella Immanuel’s website where she will prescribe you Ivermectin (for a fee). (btw, it was embarrassing just to type all of that)

After listening to Tim’s show, I wanted to look into the real history of Ivermectin but there didn’t appear to be any content of this nature available online other than short-and-sweet, sugarcoated summaries on the NIH, CDC and Merck’s websites. Since I am on a mission to discover the foundation of things we assume to be true, I decided to dig into it.

Here’s my research. Hopefully you choose to read it with an open mind, and if not, that’s fine too. If Ivermectin is helping you, FANTASTIC! TAKE IT! I want everyone to do what they feel is right. I want all of us to be happy and healthy. Without further ado, let’s begin:


Every solution starts with a problem and this is how Ivermectin came to be. You see, people living in fertile river valleys in the tropical and Sahel regions of Africa, Yemen, southern Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, and the Brazilian Amazon were developing one, or more, of the following symptoms:

Let’s condense the list to skin and eye issues. These symptoms would eventually be named River Blindness. The medical term is Onchocerciasis.

River Blindness was such a problem that a super-creepy postage stamp would be created to raise awareness:


Nobody knew what was causing River Blindness, so in the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was suggested that perhaps black flies, which live near bodies of water, were causing the health problems (skin and eye issues).

[Keep in mind, this exact timeframe was the beginning of Virus Theory, Germ Theory, Vaccine Theory and what I will call Vitamin Theory. All of these theories are based on Immune System Theory. All of these theories rely on, “your body needs this lab-made product to be healthy”. And all of these theories are all highly profitable, that part is not a theory.]

A handful of scientific experiments were conducted to determine if black flies were the cause of these symptoms. As you read through these studies, keep in mind, this research became the foundation for what would known as Ivermectin:

A document written in 1922 discusses how eight different experiments were ran by different scientists to prove the existence of insect larvae in the bloodstream of humans who were infected with the aforementioned symptoms. All of the experiments produced, “almost completely negative results”. Meaning, nothing had been found in the blood of people deemed to be infected.

In one of those experiments, a scientist examined 2,000 cases (infected people), and only once was he able to locate larvae. In this single instance, the scientist claimed that he squeezed them out of some dudes finger (for real, that’s what the paper states). The document says, he “squeezed the finger powerfully” until it bled. That blood was used for a blood smear and, allegedly, larvae were present. Nobody was able to replicate these results. The scientist himself was unable to duplicate the result. Larvae never appeared in the remaining 1,999 infected people.

In another experiment, 290 men with skin issues were selected. Out of these 290, 24 were investigated further. Although doctors did not locate larvae inside these men they did locate tumors, lots of tumors. More studies of the same nature were conducted which also found tumors. It was then hypothesized that black flies might cause tumors.

Another set of experiments involved two men who were already suffering from the aforementioned symptoms. These men allowed black flies to bite them. The flies were then dissected. Science claimed to have discovered that the infection from the men was present in some, but not all, of the flies that bit them. Science was unable to determine the reason why half of the flies did not contain the infection.

In the three studies that followed, flies were fed something science deemed to be infected then the flies were dissected. The results were the same as the prior study, meaning some flies allegedly had the infection in them while others did not, despite consuming the same infected food.

This evidence somehow confirmed that the health problems (skin and eye issues) were likely caused by larvae. They theorized this larvae was spread from person to person through “repeated bites” of a black fly.


The next studies were to prove the larvae, theoretically transmitted through a fly bite, grow inside people and cause illness, which was a key component to the fly bite transmission theory. In this study, two monkeys were given injections of “advanced stage fly larvae” which the scientists claim to have extracted from the heads of dissected flies who were deemed to be carrying the infection. The scientists injected the larvae under the monkeys skin. One monkey received the injection “in the head” and the other received it “in the flank”. As of two months later, neither monkey showed any symptoms of disease. There is no further mention of the larvae.

Because the monkey studies were unsuccessful, scientists switched to using other animals and methods. These new methods involved dorsal fins, removing slices of skin then keeping the skin alive to run wacky tests on it, centrifuging blood samples to try to find larvae, and more … that was when I stopped reading because it was pointless.

After three hours of digging, I am unable to locate a single study that demonstrates a perfectly healthy person who did not have parasites, worms, larvae, nor any form of disease, was bit by a fly which transmitted larvae, causing disease. This is very concerning because it is the foundation for everything that follows. If you can find a normal study that took place on healthy humans and didn’t involve a human injecting another human with anything please share the links.


Up until this point, citizens who were deemed to be infected were being fed highly toxic poisons as medicine. These ineffective and deadly chemical compositions were called Diethylcarbamazine and Suramin.

Despite the medicine being labeled a cure, it was not curing anyone, so Science told the citizens that the only way they can save themselves is if they move away from the rivers to prevent the disease. The relocation had devastating impacts on the communities. When they surrendered their natural resource, the river, they were no longer near water, therefore could no easily longer grow food and now had to travel to access water. To make matters worse, the relocation did not stop the disease the flies were causing.

So, in 1974, the World Health Organization and the World Bank, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization (← the same entity who currently requires chemicals be added to our food supply under the guise of “vitamins) and the United Nations Development Program, launched the Onchocerciasis Control Program. They ordered toxic chemicals to be repeatedly sprayed from planes directly onto the rivers to kill the flies, of course. The World Bank acted as a trust fund for this program.

Helicopter spraying river for black fly larva

Surprisingly, the repeated poisoning of the river did not stop people from developing skin and eye issues. Want to know why? Don’t you dare say, “because the flies never caused the disease to begin with”, that’s something a conspiracy theorist would say! The correct answer is, history claims, “immigrant flies began to reinvade treated rivers, and some flies developed resistance to the insecticides used by the program.” … so, to recap: feeding the people poison medicine didn’t work, moving away from the river didn’t work and poisoning the river over and over didn’t work. People were somehow still developing skin issues and eye issues.

This brings us to the discovery of Ivermectin.

Like My Work? Buy Me a Coffee


In 1971, a scientist named Satoshi Ōmura traveled from Japan to the US to meet with other scientists including the head of Merck Research Laboratories. He was given money by the NIH and several large pharmaceutical companies ”to search for naturally occurring novel therapeutics”. In 1973, only two years after the meeting and funding, he was contracted by Merck to work for them.

History claims, shortly after the contract was signed, Satoshi took a soil sample from a golf course and it just so happened that this sample contained a new, undiscovered bacteria. This bacteria was said to have killed parasites in soil.

Long story short, Merck created a concoction in a lab, said it was the same as the dirt-bacteria, and it was called Avermectin / Avermectin B1. Ivermectin is a chemically modified derivative of Avermectin B1.

When Ivermectin first went to market it was sold as a parasite medicine for animals. This chemical blend was labeled“25 times more potent” than existing parasite medications.

Merck’s human-drugs division realized that if Ivermectin could enter the human market the profit potential was unfathomable. So, Merck did what it needed to do to demonstrate that this product (recently discovered in that golf course soil sample then produced in a lab with chemicals) was a cure for humans too.

Since science had somehow proven River Blindness was caused by larvae transmitted through repeated bites from a black fly, this was the perfect target market for Merck’s animal product. With the support of the WHO, clinical trials began in 1981, resulting in the approval of Merck’s Ivermectin drug being used in humans. Merck named the human version of the drug Mectizan. (Mectizan was the brand name whereas Ivermectin is the generic drug name, meaning they are they same thing, both of which are derived from lab-made Avermectins, which we are told is the same as the dirt-bacteria discovered by the dude at the golf course, right after the injection of pharmaceutical company funding.)

Ivermectin would become one of Merck’s best selling products of all time. Within 25 years sales would exceeded $1 billion dollars.

Merck stated that because of the financial success of their animal parasite drug, they were able to afford to do good in the world by donating millions of doses per year to the people living in regions that have infected flies. Just in 2006, Merck donated over 69 million doses.

Now that you know the real history of Ivermectin, lets take a deeper look at what exactly it is.


History claims the bacteria in the soil discovered by Satoshi Ōmura was Streptomyces avermitilis (S. avermitilis). Just like we learned in my Pfizer Cheese article and WTF! How Vitamins are Made piece, this stuff they are selling us isn’t natural. They are not bottling golf course soil bacteria. In the case of Vitamins and Ivermectin, what we are purchasing is being made in a lab through microbial fermentation. Here’s a brief overview of how Avermectins are mass produced:

  • S. avermitilis 41445 is the bacteria strain you start with:
dsm 41445
  • yeast extract malt extract glucose (YMG) is fed to the bacteria to grow it:
  • ethidium bromide (EB) is needed
  • ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) is needed

All of those ingredients are going to eventually result in the production of Avermectins, which they call industrially derived mutants. But get this…


These lab-made GMO Avermectins, created from mutant bacteria (Streptomyces avrrmitillis) are so toxic that they kill Arthropods.

Arthropods areinvertebrates with jointed legs, including lobsters, crabs, scorpions, bees, butterflies, spiders and more.

They make up about 84% of all animals on Earth.

Arthropods have a major role in maintaining ecosystems as pollinators, recyclers of nutrients, scavengers and food for other animals. But if you want to kill them, Ivermectin works great! Need to massacre some blue crabs? Get out the Ivermectin:

Yep, Ivermectin is an excellent poison to slaughter these dudes:

Blue Crab Blue Crab 347 blue crab stock pictures, royalty-free photos & images

One must ask, how much of the 84% OF ALL CREATURES IN THE WORLD can this substance kill?

Because of its effectiveness in demolishing Arthropods, Avermectin B1 / Abamectin / Ivermectin is used as an insecticide.

And only 0.05% of it is needed to kill life:

It is the main active ingredient in cockroach killer:

Ivermectin was registered as Fire Ant Killer with the EPA back in the 1980s and has been used as an ant killer ever since.

And to kill the alleged parasites in our bloodstream (transmitted from fly bites), this poison has to be in our blood. I know people are going to say, “It’s only toxic to insects! It doesn’t hurt people!“. I find it really strange how often people say this now. Vitamin D IS Rat Poison, but they tell me it doesn’t hurt people. Vitamin B3 IS insecticide that contaminated a city, but that doesn’t hurt people either. K2 IS pesticide and rat poison, but it doesn’t hurt people. Vitamin B is made from cyanide, but it’s a special type of cyanide that doesn’t hurt people (also developed by Merck). Ivermectin IS insecticide, but it doesn’t hurt people. Why are all these vitamins and miracle cures literal poison that kills life? And what do all of these healthy poisons have in common? Merck, Bill Gates, the United Nations and pals give them away for free to help people… Does nobody else find that fact to be eyebrow-raising?…

And I know someone is going to say, “Everything is poison! It’s the dose that makes it safe!” – NO, everything is not poison. Nobody got diabetes from eating too many apples. Nobody had a heart attack from too much broccoli. Hell, nobody has ever become obese from pounding bags of carrots all day. Not everything is poison. And nobody ever died from drinking too much clean water either. I might write a post just on that because it is the most common rebuttal and it’s simply false.

For the sake of being a thorough journalist, just to be 100% sure this product is only poison for 84% of life on earth but not humans, let’s check out the manufacturers safety data sheets for Ivermectin:


A Manufacturers Safety Data Sheet (MSDS / SDS) is what is provided by the company who makes the chemical product. The MSDS outlines how to handle the product, how to dispose of it without damaging the environment, what to do if it is inhaled or swallowed, if employees need to wear respirators around it, health issues that result from the product, etc. You can’t get any closer to the truth than by looking at the data directly from the company who makes the product because, for legal reasons, the manufacturer cannot lie or sugarcoat Safety Data Sheets.

Here’s Merck’s Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Veterinary Ivermectin, meaning what will be given to animals:

In Section 2 of the MSDS we see this is a very toxic product. Category 1 means it can inflict permanent damage with a single exposure. Category 2 means it can inflict damage with repeated or prolonged exposure. We also learn that it attacks the Central Nervous System:

An attack on the Central Nervous System (CNS) can result in a wide range of horrible side effects including vision loss / blindness, infections (such as meningitis, carpal tunnel syndrome), paralysis, severe headaches, confusion, seizures, weakness, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, stroke, and genetic predisposition. But that’s not all. A CNS attack can also result in a plethora of skin issues including Skin Discoloration (Ataxia-telangiectasia and Tuberous sclerosis complex). This is Tuberous sclerosis complex, a side effect of a Central Nervous System attack:

This is River Blindness, caused by larvae:

Tuberous sclerosis complex rash, a side effect of a Central Nervous System attack:

River Blindness caused by larvae:

In Section 3 of the Veterinary MSDS for Ivermectin we are provided with a list of chemicals in the product:

I don’t want to dive into all of these, but here’s a couple:

Propylene Glycol (“PG”) removes water, therefore it is dumped into everything to act as a preservative. It is also used as a flavoring agent, a dough-strengthener and an emulsifier. You will find this chemical in pharmaceuticals, foods, and personal care products. As with all chemicals, it too is toxic and this product specifically causes kidney injury.

Interestingly, PG can also cause “sepsis-like syndrome”. According to the WHO, spesis is caused by bacteria or parasites.

So, 49% of each dose of animal Ivermectin can cause the identical problems it is taken to stop or prevent. But no need to worry, that’s Ivermectin made for animals, not people. The FDA has classified PG as generally safe for humans to eat:

Butanone is another ingredient in animal Ivermectin. It is also used in plastic welding because it dissolves plastic. It is used in dry erase markers to make the erasable dye… and it is great for healthy medicines for animals and humans.

Butanone accounts for 10% of the animal product and it too is hugely toxic. In fact, it is so toxic that as of 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was forced to add butanone to its dangerous, toxic chemicals list because of the neuropsychological effects it causes due to being rapidly absorbed through undamaged skin and lungs. This dangerous chemical also contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone, which is toxic, even in low concentrations. But people are going to say, “This is for animals, not humans!”. Ok, let’s make sure that is true…

Next we will look at Fisher’s MSDS for Ivermectin. This Safety Data Sheet specifies to only use it in a lab and not to use it a “food, drug, pesticide” or to kill anything.

The reason I show you this is because, even though this Ivermectin states not to use it as food, medicine or pesticide, it has the exact same hazard classifications at the veterinary use Ivermectin:

Additionally, you will see that this product is labeled hazardous. It also damages fertility and can harm an unborn baby. In fact, it is a Category 1A, which means “known human reproductive toxicant” (meaning, it is not suspected to cause harm, it does cause harm):

In the image above, we also see that it is Fatal if Swallowed.

Here we see that if it is ingested a poison center should be called immediately. We also learn it is “very toxic to aquatic life”.

I know the response is going to be, “But that says not to use as medicine! Show me a safety data sheet for the medicine version or you’re a shill!” – Ok, I will do you one better than that.

I went on a mission to find the best of the best of the absolute best, most-purest-ever Ivermectin. I was able to locate a couple USP grade Ivermectin’s that exceed pharmaceutical standards. These are as pure and clean as it is ever going to get!

Here it is, at the hefty price of $144 for only one kilo (2 pounds)!

Let’s check out Spectrum Chemicals MSDS for Ivermectin, USP grade (purest of purest of pure!). This one even says to use it as a medication (for humans)!

As we can see from the image above, this Ivermectin is a mixture of two Avermectins.

The good news is, although this product is considered Hazardous, it is a Category 2 and 3 Hazard. This means it might cause permanent damage with repeated or prolonged use and it is suspected of causing harm but it is not guaranteed that it will cause harm, so that’s good.

If we scroll down to Label Elements we see the same warnings as the other products:

And the skull graphic is required, because it is deadly.

To be more specific the skull pictogram means Acute Toxicity. The legal definition is, “Acute toxicity means that exposure to a single dose of the chemical may be toxic or fatal if inhaled or swallowed, or if it comes into contact with the skin.

Oh look, it also can affect the central nervous system, just like the other Ivermectins:

When this product ships it must ship as Toxic Solids and Hazardous Waste:

In Europe, three additional Hazard Classes must be added in addition to a second skull:

Keep Me Writing! Make a KoFi Donation

To recap: the animal version of Ivermectin is a hazardous toxin, the lab-use-only version is a hazardous toxin and even if you spend the money to buy the absolute best, top shelf, cleanest-ever Ivermectin, it is still a hazardous poison that is “very toxic if swallowed”.


Remember how, on the purest-of-pure Ivermectin USP grade MSDS, it says Ivermectin is a mixture of Avermectins (mutant bacteria stuff made in a lab):

I located a 2008 document from the Canadian Government website, OEHHA.ca.gov. In the document they discuss the US government labeling Avermectin B1 a reproductive toxin back in 1994.

Because Merck was making Ivermectin using Avermectin, this same document features a response from Merck regarding the safety of Ivermectin. Quote:

“Merck states that primates are less sensitive to the acute effects of abamectin and its analog, ivermectin, than rodents. The commenter implies that because humans are primates, abamectin should be less toxic in humans than in rodents.” … “Abamectin interferes with gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transmission and, as such, produces neurotoxic clinical signs such as tremors, ataxia, convulsions, or coma that are more severe in rodents and dogs than primates.”… ”There are no developmental studies with abamectin in primates. Therefore, EPA believes that the rodent studies cited in the proposed rule provide sufficient evidence that abamectin can reasonably be anticipated to cause developmental toxicity in humans.” – well that’s interesting, eh?


Tim Truth did a deep dive into Ivermectin and how it plummets fertility. While you listen to this, remember that everything is based on the premise that a black fly transmits larvae that causes skin issues and blindess. (58 minute video. If it won’t play, audio-only version is below. If that won’t play either, watch on Bitchute)

Attributions: https://chemtrails.substack.com/p/ivermectin-and-population-control

47 studies confirm ineffectiveness of masks for COVID and 32 more confirm their negative health effects

Young children being forced to wear masks is of particular concern.

I always love to say this whenever I share this info,,, so then,,, ” Woof woof get the fuck outta here you fucking muzzeled dog!!!”

July 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Prior to facemask mandates as an alleged preventive for Covid infection and transmission, such masks were infrequently worn in hospitals and other medical facilities. They were only used in operating theatres or for visiting seriously ill patients in order to prevent infection from spit or droplets into open wounds or to partially protect visitors from acquiring and transmitting pathogens more dangerous than Covid. Many doctors and nurses have told LifeSite that for decades, if not longer, staff wearing medical masks were an uncommon sight in health care facilities other than as mentioned.
No studies were needed to justify this practice since most understood viruses were far too small to be stopped by the wearing of most masks, other than sophisticated ones designed for that task and which were too costly and complicated for the general public to properly wear and keep changing or cleaning. It was also understood that long mask wearing was unhealthy for wearers for common sense and basic science reasons.
There has been an international flood of lies about mask wearing in order to justify the bizarre and disturbing situation we have today of almost everyone wearing masks in many regions, inside and outside healthcare facilities, in schools with children of all ages, during sports events, in churches, in grocery stores and all commercial facilities, while driving and walking, and long after peak infection has passed.
It has also continued long after it was discovered that Covid was not nearly as dangerous as we were led to believe, that many of the mitigation policies caused serious damage of all kinds, including many deaths, and long after prevention and treatment protocols were discovered and used with great success, and the very best ones often criminally suppressed by government and health authorities.
The unnecessary and greatly exaggerated fear during the first few months of this pandemic, which would never have been labeled a pandemic until the WHO unilaterally changed the pandemic definition to include much less dangerous pathogens, has been manipulated to continue to this day, unlike past experiences with similar virus outbreaks. There have been numerous lies fed to the public by the WHO, national and regional government leaders and health bureaucrats and the media and many other institutions – all certainly for the purpose of maintaining fear until the large majority of the public has been injected with the poorly tested, unnecessary and dangerous Covid vaccines for which we have no evidence of their long-term safety. 
President Joe Biden has been consistently presenting numerous, outrageous lies to justify his extreme Covid and vaccine policies and Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D, has written an article published on LifeSite today that summarizes all of the most prominent and damaging lies that have generated continuing fear and caused a large percentage of Americans and citizens of other nations to accept the Covid vaccines in order to allegedly be able to return to a normal life. Included in Alexander’s list are the lies related to mask mandates.
An acquaintance of Paul Alexander has written the list below of 47 studies confirming that masks are useless in preventing Covid infection and transmission and a second list further down of 32 studies confirming the negative health effects caused by frequent mask wearing, especially for young children. This has been a growing, serious concern in recent months as the dangerous health and emotional effects, especially on children, who are at almost zero risk of Covid harm, are becoming more pronounced and deeply worrisome.
1.  Surgical mask / cloth face mask studies
Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults ≥18 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities — United States, July 2020
The US Centre for Disease Control performed a study which showed that 85 percent of those who contracted Covid-19 during July 2020 were mask wearers. Just 3.9 percent of the study participants never wore a mask.
Original: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf
Erratum. correction: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6938a7.htm?s_cid=mm6938a7_w https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-cdc-study-covid-masks
2. Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review
This study used 5462 peer-reviewed articles and 41 grey literature records.
“Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to critical shortages of medical-grade PPE. Alternative forms of facial protection offer inferior protection. More robust evidence is required on different types of medical-grade facial protection. As research on COVID-19 advances, investigators should continue to examine the impact on alternatives of medical-grade facial protection”
So how is your cloth and surgical mask working again if EVEN medical grade alternatives are failing ?
Study Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371574/
3.  Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses
“There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33215698/
4.  Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery
“We included three trials, involving a total of 2106 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27115326/
5.  Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review
Two randomized controlled trials were included involving a total of 1453 patients. In a small trial there was a trend towards masks being associated with fewer infections, whereas in a large trial there was no difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16295987/
6. Evaluating the efficacy of cloth facemasks in reducing particulate matter exposure
“Our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles<2.5 μm”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/
7.  Face seal leakage of half masks and surgical masks
“The filtration efficiency of the filter materials was good, over 95%, for particles above 5 micron in diameter but great variation existed for smaller particles.
Coronavirus is 0.125 microns. therefore these masks wouldn’t protect you from the virus”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4014006/
8.  Comparison of the Filter Efficiency of Medical Nonwoven Fabrics against Three Different Microbe Aerosols
“The filter efficiencies against influenza virus particles were the lowest”
“We conclude that the filter efficiency test using the phi-X174 phage aerosol may overestimate the protective performance of nonwoven fabrics with filter structure compared to that against real pathogens such as the influenza virus”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29910210/
9.  Aerosol penetration through surgical masks
“Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the submicrometer-size aerosols containing pathogens ”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1524265/
10. Particle removal from air by face masks made from Sterilization Wraps: Effectiveness and Reusability
“We found that 60 GSM face mask had particle capture efficiency of 94% for total particles greater than 0.3 microns”
How big is the virus again? 0.125 microns.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33052962/
11. A New Method for Testing Filtration Efficiency of Mask Materials Under Sneeze-like Pressure
This study states that “alternatives” like silk and gauze etc could possibly be good options in the pandemic. It’s done on starch particles.
Does not state how big they are either, but they can still get through the material and my research points out that starch particles are “big”, much bigger than most viruses.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32503823/
12. Protecting staff against airborne viral particles: in vivo efficiency of laser masks
“The laser mask provided significantly less protection than the FFP2 respirator (P=0.02), and only marginally more protection than the surgical mask. The continued use of laser masks for respiratory protection is questionable. Taping masks to the face only provided a small improvement in protection”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16920222/
13. Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE
“Worn as designed, both commercial surgical masks and cloth masks had widely varying effectiveness (53 – 75 percent and 28 – 91 percent particle removal efficiency, respectively)”. Different brand, different results and only when they applied “nylon layers” did the “efficiency” improve. Synthetic fibres do not breathe, so this will inevitably effect your breathing.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32838296/
14. The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using “tracer particles”
“Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escaped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound”. Human albumin cells, aka aborted fetal tissue, is much larger than the virus and still escaped the mask.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7379387/
15. Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic?
“Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals” so why has the government suggested you make your own when they are not effective ?
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/
16. Using half-facepiece respirators for H1N1
“Increasing the filtration level of a particle respirator does not increase the respirator’s ability to reduce a user’s exposure to contaminants”
17. Why Masks Don’t Work Against COVID-19
The site is full of studies proving masks dont work for coronavirus or the flu.
Article: https://www.citizensforfreespeech.org/why_masks_don_t_work_against_covid_19?fbclid=IwAR0Qviyvt6BObOg aMij03Cj0fgTcm_gm5jhXcMkO8GcH3Kur-bwib0o8rf8
18. Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy
This is full of studies proving mask protection is negligible for coronavirus, flu etc.
Article: https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide- 19-social-policy?fbclid=IwAR0Qviyvt6BObOgaMij03Cj0fgTcm_gm5jhXcMkO8GcH3Kur-bwib0o8rf8
19. Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review
There is less data to support the use of face masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/
20. “Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword?” – A physiological hypothesis
No evidence to suggest that wearing a mask during exercise offers any benefit from the droplet transfer from the virus.
“Exercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment,cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/
21. Use of face masks by non-scrubbed operating room staff: a randomized controlled trial
Surgical site infection rates did not increase when non-scrubbed personnel did not wear face masks.
2010 Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575920/
22. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms – a costly and unnecessary ritual?
When the wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1680906/
23. Masks: a ward investigation and review of the literature
Wearing multi layer operating room masks for every visit had no effect on nose and throat carriage rates.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2873176/
24. Aerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks used in the health care industry
The protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous submirconometer-sized aerosols.
“Conclusion: We conclude that the protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous submicrometer-sized aerosols”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8239046/
25. Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review
Meta analysis review that says there is limited evidence to suggest that the use of masks may reduce the risk of spreading viral respiratory infections.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32675098/
26. Modeling of the Transmission of Coronaviruses, Measles Virus, Influenza Virus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and Legionella pneumophila in Dental Clinics
Evidence to suggest that transmission probability is strongly driven by indoor air quality, followed by patient effectiveness and the least by respiratory protection via mask use.
So this could explain “second waves” and has nothing to do with hand shaking, or not wearing a mask.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32614681/
27. Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings-Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
The use of face masks, either by infected or non infected peresons, does not have a significant effect on influenza transmission.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32027586/
28. Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Meta analyses suggest that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protective effect over face masks and their insignificant protection.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28487207/
29. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta- analysis
Use of n95 respirators compared to surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory confirmed influenza.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32167245/
30. Adolescents’ face mask usage and contact transmission in novel Coronavirus
Face mask surfaces can become contamination sources. People are storing them in their pockets, bags, putting them on tables, people are reusing them etc. This is why this study is relevant:
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32582579/
31. Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets
Loosely folded face masks and “bandana style” face coverings provide minimum stopping capability for the smallest aerosolized droplets.
This applies to anyone who folds or shoves a mask into their pockets or bag. It also applies to cloth and homemade cloth masks:
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32624649/
32. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial
Face mask use in healthcare workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of colds symptoms or getting colds.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
33. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
Penetration of cloth masks by influenza particles was almost 97 percent and medical masks 44 percent. so cloth masks are essentially useless, and “medical grade” masks don’t provide adequate protection.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/
34. Simple respiratory protection–evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles
Cloth masks and other fabric materials tested in the study had 40-90 percent instantaneous penetration levels against polydisperse NaCl aerosols.
“Results obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles, including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20584862/
35. Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range
“The study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18326870/
36. Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?
The n95 filtering respirators may not provide expected protection level against small virons
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16490606/
37. Do Surgical Masks Stop the Coronavirus?
Study article: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/coronavirus-surgical-masks-china.html
38. Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis
This study states that an N95, depending on the brand, can range from 0.1-0.3 microns. however, most people cannot buy an N95 with a micron smaller than 0.3 micron because they are expensive and not readily available on the public market.
“N95 respirators made by different companies were found to have different filtration efficiencies for the most penetrating particle size (0.1 to 0.3 micron)”
“Above the most penetrating particle size the filtration efficiency increases with size; it reaches approximately 99.5% or higher at about 0.75 micron”
“Meta-analyses suggest that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protective effect (OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.52-0.73; I2=0%), and facemask use provided a non-significant protective effect (OR=0.53; 95% CI 0.16-1.71; I2=48%) against 2009 pandemic influenza infection”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28487207/
39. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta- analysis
“The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory- confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for the general public or non high-risk medical staff who are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients”
N95 masks did show a positive effect for BACTERIA but not viruses.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32167245/
40. Adolescents’ face mask usage and contact transmission in novel Coronavirus
This study used dye to show if masks were contaminated. “As a result, masks surface becomes a contamination source. In the contact experiment, ten adults were requested to put on and off a surgical mask while doing a word processing task. The extended contamination areas were recorded and identified by image analysis”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32582579/
41. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial
“Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period”
“Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
42. Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial
“The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50 percent in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/
43. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
“An analysis of mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95 percent CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95 percent CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97 percent and medical masks 44 percent”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/
44. Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range
“The study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses. An exhalation valve on the N95 respirator does not affect the respiratory protection”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18326870/
45. Performance of N95 respirators: filtration efficiency for airborne microbial and inert particles
Coronavirus is 0.125 micron, as you can read in this study, it states that most N95 masks can only filter particles as small as 0.75 microns. This is too big to trap this virus. that is a fact.
And even with an efficiency of 95 percent (depending on brand, so filtration may be lower) IF the virus can be trapped… it’s still missing 5 percent and maybe more based on an N95 that has 0.1 microns .
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9487666/
46. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019
A chinese study that proves that an airborne coronavirus particle (0.125 micron) can pass directly through an n95 mask
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31978945/
47. Airborne coronavirus particle (<0.125 micron) will pass directly through a N95 face mask.
Study article: https://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/airborne-coronavirus-particle
SIZE OF THE CORONAVIRUS: Size can vary but all are smaller than 0.3 micron .
“Human coronaviruses measure between 0.1 and 0.2 microns, which is one to two times below the cutoff” This “cut off” is referring to the size an N95 mask can trap. Most of us, are not using MEDICAL or regular N95s.
1. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery
Face mask side effects include lowered oxygen levels.
This study proved that surgeons that wore a mask in surgery for an hour + had significant reductions in blood oxygen saturation.
This is relevant because most of us are being made to wear face masks at work for the whole shift, long journeys on public transport, and when we are in a public places doing shopping etc. and this requires a degree of exertion that is not taken into account.
“Considering our findings, pulse rates of the surgeon’s increase and SpO2 decrease after the first hour.”
Decreasing oxygen and increasing carbon dioxide in the bloodstream stimulates a compensatory response in the respiratory centers of the brain. These changes in blood gases result in increases in both frequency and depth of breaths. This exposes another risk – if your mask traps some virus you are breathing more hence increasing viral load and exposure.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18500410/
2. Impact of structural features on dynamic breathing resistance of healthcare face mask
    Face mask side effects include impeded breathing.
Ask people if they have issues breathing in these masks. anecdotal or not, as everyone is different.
“The results showed that each evaluation index was significantly different (P < 0.05) among different test
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31280156/
3. Respiratory consequences of N95-type Mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers-a controlled clinical study
The benefits of using N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage.
“Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222
“It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20 percent, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving aroundalone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death”
“CONCLUSIONS: Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers,and this needs to be taken into consideration in guidelines for respirator use”
Yet we force pregnant women to use them…? What could this do to the fetus?
4. Headaches and the N95 face-mask amongst healthcare providers
Face mask side effects include headaches.
These headaches can force you to use added or unnecessary medications like painkillers that carry their own side effects. The theory as to why masks can trigger headaches is the RESTRICTION OF OXYGEN.
What are the long-term health effects on Health Care Workers with headaches arising from impeded breathing?
Here are several sources and studies that back up this claim:
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16441251/
Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32232837/
How to Avoid Migraine Triggers While Wearing Your Mask
5.    Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial
“Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headaches during the study period”
“Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds”
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
6.    Your Health Your Responsibility
This video shows that even reading a book with a mask on decreases blood oxygen levels to your brain. what implications does this have for developing children forced to wear masks at school etc?
7.    Physiological impact of the N95 filtering facepiece respirator on healthcare workers
“CONCLUSIONS: In healthy healthcare workers, FFR did not impose any important physiological burden during 1 hour of use, at realistic clinical work rates, but the FFR dead-space carbon dioxide andoxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards, and elevated P(CO2) is a possibility”
Remember in “healthy healthcare workers” even their carbon dioxide levels rose. Most of the wider public have at least one health problem. Even healthy people were shown to have elevated CO2 levelsabove the healthy guidelines.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20420727/
8. The adverse skin reactions of health care workers using personal protective equipment for COVID-19
     Face mask side effects include adverse skin reactions
The adverse skin reactions of health care workers using personal protective equipment for COVID-19
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32541493/
9. Your Mask May Be Causing Candida Growth in Your Mouth
     Face mask side effects include yeast infections
10.  ‘Mask mouth’ is a seriously stinky side effect of wearing masks
Face mask side effects include dental issues.
   “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them    before,” says Dr. Rob Ramondi, a dentist and co-founder of One ManhattanDental. “About 50 percent of our patients are being impacted by this, [so] we decided to name it ‘mask mouth’ — after ‘meth mouth.’ ”
“While mask mouth isn’t quite as obvious, if left untreated, the results could be equally harmful.
Gum disease — or periodontal disease — will eventually lead to strokes and an increased risk of heart attacks,”
says Dr. Marc Sclafani, another co-founder of One Manhattan Dental”
11. All That Mask-Wearing Could Be Giving You (Gasp!) Mouth Fungus—Here’s How to Deal With it
12.  ‘Maskne’ Is a Real Thing—Here’s How to Stop Face Mask Breakouts
Face mask side effects include acne
13. Improper use of medical masks can cause infections Face mask side effects include mould and infections
Masks can cause bacterial and fungal infections around the mouth,and in the mouth and lungs EVEN if you wash the cloth mask. Mould colonies were found in masks in as little as one day.
14. Mould Colonization in Your Sinuses Could Be Holding You Back From Making a Full Recovery <
Information on mould and how it can affect your health.
15.  An investigation into the efficiency of disposable face masks
What are the dangers of bacterial and fungal growths on a used and loaded mask?
This study tested all kinds of disposable masks and proved they cause you to breathe back in your own crap. Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7440756/
16. Can the Elastic of Surgical Face Masks Stimulate Ear Protrusion in Children?
     Disfiguration in children. Can masks stimulate ear protrusion in children?
This is due to masks that are too tightly fitted.
Tight masks can also cause tension headaches. Is this healthy for children long term?
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32556449/
17.  When You Wear A Face Mask Every Day, This Is What Happens To Your Lungs
Mask use can trigger allergies due to the mask collecting particles that stay on you for long periods of time.
18.  The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients   with end-stage renal disease
    The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease.
And yet, we make sick people wear them. Even people without breathing issues, have lowered oxygen rates.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/
19.  Other Face Mask Side Effects and Health Implications to Consider
There is a great potential for harm that may arise from public policies forcing mask use on the wider population.
The following unanswered questions arise unanswered:
Can masks shed fibers or micro plastics that we can breathe in?
Do these masks excrete chemical substances that are harmful when inhaled?
Can masks excrete chemicals or fumes when heated, either with bodyheat sunlight or other sources of heat?
Clothing dye can cause reactions, so how do we know that the manufacturing process of these masks do not pose a risk to us? Because, in reality, we do not buy our masks from medical companiesor facilities who operate in sterile environments.
20.  [Gaps in asepsis due to surgical caps, face masks, external surfaces of infusion bottles and sterile wrappers of disposable articles]
“It is obvious that the surfaces of the boxes of sterile packed disposable instruments and infusion bottles are not sterile. The disposable surgical masks and surgical caps used for sterile clothing are delivered by the producers not sterile, either.” AND THIS IS HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT.
Study article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6099666/
21.  Mask Production Video
This is a “factory” that produces alot of masks. Does this look a sterile environment to you? This is what the majority of us are getting when we purchase online or in stores that sell them in bulk. Do you wantthat on your face?
22.  Allergies and the Immune System
Can pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask? Can this elicit a greater reaction to viruses? For example, if you have a dust allergy your mask is collecting this thus causing inflamation to the wearer and lowering his or her immune system.
“This can cause wheezing, itching, runny nose, watery or itchy eyes, and other symptoms” would that not
facilitate spread and infection rate of viruses?
23. Virus interactions with bacteria: Partners in the infectious dance
     Bacteria and viruses can interact an increase infection suseptability:
24.  When viruses and bacteria unite!
25. An empirical and theoretical investigation into the psychological effects of wearing a mask
     Face mask side effects include altered behaviour
Are there negative social consequences to a masked society? This study implies that, yes, masks do cause people to adopt altered behaviours based on mask use.
26. Mask mandates may affect a child’s emotional, intellectual development
Face mask side effects stagnate a child’s natural intellectual development. It is well known that children find it hard to recognise faces up until a certain age. Mask use will further interfere with this. Is this healthy for a developing child?
27. Disabled People and Masks Contributing Toward Mental Health Issues
     Face mask side effects and mental health
    What about disabled people? Deaf /people hard of hearing rely on mouth reading. What are the implications for them? What about  people who suffer cognitive and behavioural disorders like autism? This could cause them HUGE distress. Not just from wearing a mask, but seeing others in masks (because let’s face it – IT’S NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOUR).
Can masks cause anxiety, or make other mental health disorders worse?
Since masks CAN impede breathing, this can cause fainting and other bodily reaction that would otherwise be avoided if masks were not used. Here is a search engine link to prove that it is very common:
28. Maine study looks into long-term psychological effects of wearing face masks coronavirus, COVID-19 pandemic
This is a study on the psychological effects of masks.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/umaine-study-looks-into-long-term-psychological-effects-of- wearing-face-masks-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic/ar-BB13EfiU
29. Masks: Have You Been Captured by This Psyop?
Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification? This can easily trigger fear as a mask is reminding you there’s a virus. The use of mask can also cause you to engage in risky behaviours due to a “false sense of security” because you feel protected.
30. Masking the Truth – Face Masks, Empathy and Dis-inhibition
31. Covid-19 face masks: A potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment
What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?
Proof of increased littering due to increased mask use. a quick engine search will tell you, people are dumping them EVERYWHERE – into our rivers, into greenland areas etc. Plastics like nylon leach chemicals are going into our environment.
32. Why Masks Don’t Work Against COVID-19
Can used and loaded masks become vectors of enhanced transmission for both the wearer and other people? (The evidence from studies suggest yes). Masks become useless after about 20 minutes due to the moisture in your breath. This moisture can become the droplets that viruses travel on. Can this not facilitate transmission?
Can masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that otherwise, could be avoided when breathing without a mask? (The evidence suggests yes).
Can large droplets trapped via a mask become atomized or aerosolized into breathable components? Even down to the virion size. (The evidence suggests yes).
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here. 

Cov!d (Understanding the science behind the death stabs and implications of associated EMF interaction)

https://seed305.bitchute.com/TqwQBAPngf3g/JwVYSKEjV3ws.mp4 https://seed305.bitchute.com/TqwQBAPngf3g/JwVYSKEjV3ws.mp4   This is by far the most thorough and insightful exposé for people who haven’t yet awakened, in my opinion. -A

‘Stunning’: The Real Reason Health Officials Won’t Let Independent Scientists Examine mRNA Vaccine Vials

A data leak suggests the real reason health officials don’t want individual vaccine vials examined by independent scientists is that the vials are all different — and the mRNA in the shots is not intact. Story at a glance: The reason health officials don’t want individual vaccine vials examined by independent scientists is that the… Continue reading ‘Stunning’: The Real Reason Health Officials Won’t Let Independent Scientists Examine mRNA Vaccine Vials

Your Government quietly confirmed the Fully Vaccinated are developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome while they had you worried about Russia-Ukraine & the Cost of Living

BTW I do not buy AIDS theory more on this could be found in Jon Rapapport’s blog  at nomorefakenews.com and in his book AIDS Inc from 1980’s but do note that what they’re telling you is that people who took this shot will be terminally ill and they will see dire consequences in years to… Continue reading Your Government quietly confirmed the Fully Vaccinated are developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome while they had you worried about Russia-Ukraine & the Cost of Living

New UK government data shows the COVID vaccines kill more people than they save

I’ve been asking everyone: Show me the all-cause mortality data proving the vaccines are safe. I finally got some data. It’s from the UK government and it’s devastating. REALLY devastating. Overview New UK government data allows us to analyze the data in a way we couldn’t before. This new analysis shows clearly that the COVID… Continue reading New UK government data shows the COVID vaccines kill more people than they save

SCIENCE HORROR: Vaccine spike protein enters cell nuclei, suppresses DNA repair engine of the human body, will unleash explosion of cancer, immunodeficiency, autoimmune disorders and accelerated aging

Remember Spike protien is Graphene Oxide, don’t give me any carrot to bellieve that the poison is protien… – A   This finding can only be described as a true “horror” in its implications. Stunning new research published in Viruses, part of the SARS-CoV-2 Host Cell Interactions edition of MDPI (Open Access Journals) reveals that vaccine spike proteins enter… Continue reading SCIENCE HORROR: Vaccine spike protein enters cell nuclei, suppresses DNA repair engine of the human body, will unleash explosion of cancer, immunodeficiency, autoimmune disorders and accelerated aging

COVID vaccine: missing key by Jon Rappoport

Remember spike protien is Graphene Oxide and it’s deratives along with other parasites and NPs… Where’s the wiggle? —In the US alone, reported COVID vaccine injuries have topped 600,000. The well-known Harvard Pilgrim study concludes you should multiply the number of reported vaccine injuries by 100 to arrive at a true number— In any field where… Continue reading COVID vaccine: missing key by Jon Rappoport

Immortal Creature With Tentacles Found In Moderna and J&J “Vaccines”

Dr. Carey Madej explains the jaw-dropping, horrific lab findings inside of the Moderna and J&J COVID “vaccines”….. HYDRA VULGARIS / POLYPODIUM HYDRIFORME… description below) Included is Dr. Madej’s important update from Critically Thinking With Dr. T & Dr. P.   https://seed163.bitchute.com/t4zj7R86xRFS/MRUS92FiOd47.mp4  

If I were an atheist materialist biological machine by Jon Rappoport

If I were an atheist materialist who believed all humans were nothing more than biological machines, the practice of delivering an infant whole and alive, through Caesarean Section, and then cutting out his heart and removing tissue for medical research would still make me turn away and want to forget I had ever heard this… Continue reading If I were an atheist materialist biological machine by Jon Rappoport