Mask hazards: a stifled debate

Reuters struck again last night, re-posting my tweet of a year ago, again twisting facts, in order to allege misinformation, thereby obscuring an alarming risk of mask-wearing.

Here’s what happened:

Dr. Anthony Fauci participated in a histopathology analysis of deaths in the 1918-1919 pandemic, here:  https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/198/7/962/2192118  “Predominant role of bacterial pneumonia as a cause of death in pandemic influenza:  Implications for pandemic influenza preparedness.”

This study had not seen much controversy until I unearthed it a year ago, and tweeted about it.  I wrote that masks likely contributed to deaths in the 1918-1919 pandemic, because the Fauci team had found bacterial pneumonia to be the predominant cause of death during that time, and that was the last time that Americans had experimented with widespread mask use, and that we now know that masks incubate a lot of bacteria quickly in high-risk places throughout the airways.

That was back before Twitter permanently suspended my account, in February 2021, for saying things that their “fact checkers” don’t like about mask hazards and vaccine hazards.  None of my tweets had ever been disproven, and many that seemed controversial at the time, such as those on the ineffectiveness of masks, hazards involving the COVID vaccines, etc., are now less controversial and widely acknowledged as true by many throughout the world.   There are others who remain on Twitter who say now what I was saying several months ago. Nevertheless, Twitter’s agenda is relentlessly pursued, and so many people including me have been removed permanently.

In the 2008 paper cited above, Fauci’s research team studied this:

“Methods:  We examined relevant information from the most recent influenza pandemic that occurred during the era prior to the use of antibiotics, the 1918-1919 “Spanish flu” pandemic.  We examined lung tissue sections obtained during 58 autopsies and reviewed pathologic and bacteriologic data from 109 published autopsy series that described 8398 individual autopsy investigations.”

And they found this:

“The postmortem samples we examined from people who died of influenza during 1918-1919 uniformly exhibited severe changes indicative of bacterial pneumonia.  Bacteriologic and histopathologic results from published autopsy series clearly and consistently implicated secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory-tract bacteria in most influenza fatalities.”

And they concluded this:

“The majority of deaths in the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory-tract bacteria.” [Emphasis mine]

All of that is from the Abstract alone, as you can see:

Here is what I wrote that Twitter and Reuters did not like:  That 1918-1919 pandemic was the last time that Americans experimented with widespread multi-hours mask use.  A major difference is that the last pandemic occurred before the widely available antibiotics that we have available now to help mitigate the damage caused by masks. 

Masks clearly flunk the Darwin test abysmally; no successful species has ever deliberately obstructed their own breathing, or rigged a moist warm bacteria incubator at the entrance to their airways.  To do so would be almost laughably knuckleheaded, except for all the children and adults injured by “mandates.” The practice of masking is simply not done, nor likely imagined, by wiser species in the animal kingdom.  Thus the findings of Fauci’s team are not surprising.

Here are the conclusions of two different research teams:

Fauci’s research team attributed the 1918-1919 deaths they found to bacterial pneumonia, as seen above. 

We accept their finding and attribute it to widespread masking, which is known to incubate staph, pneumococci and pseudomonas, predominantly, at the gateway to the lungs, where you certainly do not want to be breeding such microbes.  My research team and I wrote about that phenomenon and related hazards here:

https://pdmj.org/papers/masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_part2/

We cited studies such as these: 

Bacteria are exhaled through masks at an increasing rate over time of use.  [i]

European train commuters using new masks bred an average of 100,000 bacterial colonies on each mask during their commute.  [ii]

Masked surgeries were found to result in more infections than unmasked surgeries, in a controlled study of 3,088 surgeries. [iii]  The surgeons’ masks were found to give no protective effect to the patients.

My research team and I think that we have compiled the largest body of research to date in English on the hazards of masks.  This series of papers are in volume 1 of Primary Doctor Medical Journal.  [iv]

Last October, at the time of the Twitter censorship, and the Reuters attack only a few hours later, I wrote in more detail about that particularly sneaky middle-of-the-night one-two punch in this article:

https://www.primarydoctor.org/censorship-vs-the-scienc-on-masks

Here is last night’s attack:

https://twitter.com/i/events/1450228607645667329

Reuters argues in bad faith:  They alleged a much stronger role of viruses in Fauci’s team’s paper than is put forth in that paper by its authors. They labeled my post as misinformation, without contacting me for comment, because they knowingly attribute the connection with masks to a different source, Anthony Fauci, and then say: No, he didn’t say that.   True, he didn’t say it.  I said it: Masks are hazardous, and never worth the risk for the general public, except in certain occupational circumstances, for protection against airborne debris.

Fact-check on Reuters:  False, strawman argument, beneath journalistic standards.

---

[i] U Kelkar, B Gogate, et al.  How effective are face masks in operation theatre?  A time fram analysis and recommendations.  Int J Inf Control.  2013.  8(1).   https://www.ijic.info/article/view/10788

[ii] Blick.  Your corona mask really is that gruesome.  [article in German].  Sep 16, 2020.  https://amp.blick.ch/wirtschaft/gebrauchte-exemplare-getestet-so-gruusig-ist-ihre-corona-maske-wirklich-id16096358.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social_user&utm_campaign=blick_amp

[iii]  T Tunevall.  Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study.   World J Surg.  May 1991 15: 383-387.  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01658736

[iv] Primary Doctor Medical Journal. https://PDMJ.org.