Guest Post: Blaise Vanne On Uselessness Of Masks, Death Rates, Pollution Buildup

Part 1 in an on-going series on the greatest scam this side of the Crab Nebula
There is utterly unfounded public hysteria, driven by the media and politicians… this is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.”
– Dr. Roger Hodkinson, Pres., Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians, studies completed at Cambridge Univ.

Before we start on the vaccine – more properly, the gene therapy shot – some words on mask usage. Remember the world-wide calls to stop plastic straw usage? According to Strawless Ocean, there will be more plastic in the ocean by weight than fish in 2050. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering cites research that estimates that three million face masks are throw in the trash every minute across the globe – that’s equivalent to about 129 billion face masks per month (or 3 million a minute). An article in Natural Health 365 concludes “In their paper, the team of researchers, who hail from both Princeton and the University of Southern Denmark, note that disposable face masks are not biodegradable and contain minuscule plastic fibers, microplastics, and nanoplastics. Once these masks are thrown away and end up in the environment, masks are exposed to solar radiation and heat and start to break down to some degree. However, the degradation of plastics within the masks is slow to virtually non-existent – causing them to accumulate in our soil and water. And while there’s not enough data about the true impact of these masks on the environment yet, the researchers strongly suspect that the rampant use of disposable face masks are causing harmful biological and chemical substances to spread and pose health hazards to animals, humans, and the ecosystem. Where do all these face masks go? Among other places, straight into our oceans.”

GreenMedInfo adds: “Not only are masks not being recycled, but their materials make them likely to persist and accumulate in the environment. Because masks may be directly made from micro-sized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release micro-sized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags. Of course, all this is ingested by sea life, impacting their health (save the whales!) as well as the health of all that consume them (birds, sea mammals, humans). Microbes from your mouth, known as oral commensals, frequently enter your lungs, where they have been linked to advanced stage lung cancer; wearing a mask could potentially accelerate this process. The “new normal” of widespread masking is affecting not only the environment but also the mental and physical health of humans.” Specifically, GreenMed tells us “Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton. Polypropylene is already one of the most problematic plastics, as it is widely produced and responsible for large waste accumulation in the environment, as well as being a known asthma trigger. Further, the researchers noted: “Once in the environment, the mask is subjected to solar radiation and heat, but the degradation of polypropylene is retarded due to its high hydrophobicity, high molecular weight, lacking an active functional group, and continuous chain of repetitive methylene units. These recalcitrant properties lead to the persistence and accumulation in the environment.” Of course, once these masks get weathered, they create micro-sized polypropylene particles in a matter of weeks, then break down further into nanoplastics that are less than 1 mm in size.

But then new masks go one worse says GreenMed: “Made from microsized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release microsized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags. Further, “Such impacts can be worsened by a new-generation mask, nanomasks, which directly use nanosized plastic fibers (e.g., diameter <1 mm) and add a new source of nanoplastic pollution.” A report by OceansAsia further estimated that 1.56 billion face masks may have entered the world’s oceans in 2020, based on a global production estimate of 52 billion masks manufactured that year, and a loss rate of 3%, which is conservative…. Based on this data, and an average weight of 3 to 4 grams for a single-use polypropylene surgical mask, the masks would add 4,680 to 6,240 additional metric tons of plastic pollution to the marine environment, which, they note, “will take as long as 450 years to break down.”

Going further down the rabbit hole Greenmed opened up in the link above, “Such plastics also contain contaminants, such as polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which may be genotoxic (i.e., causing DNA damage that could lead to cancer), along with dyes, plasticizers and other additives linked to additional toxic effects, including reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity. Aside from the chemical toxicity, ingestion of microplastics from degraded masks and other plastic waste is also toxic due to the particles themselves as well as the potential that they could carry pathogenic microorganisms. Another issue that’s rarely talked about is the fact that when you wear a mask, tiny microfibers are released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. The risk is increased when masks are reused. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study to be published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials, where researchers from Xi’an Jiaotong University said scientists, manufacturers and regulators need to assess the inhalation of microplastic and nanoplastic debris shed from masks — both disposable and cloth.”

Then there is the issue of commensals from the mask furthering lung cancer and impacting fetuses. Again, from GreenMed: “Not only that, but researchers from New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine revealed that when these oral commensals are “enriched” in the lungs, it’s associated with cancer. Specifically, in a study of 83 adults with lung cancer, those with advanced-stage cancer had more oral commensals in their lungs than those with early-stage cancer. Those with an enrichment of oral commensals in their lungs also had decreased survival and worsened tumor progression”; then re. the unborn “t’s also known that microplastics exist in human placentas, and animal studies show that inhaled plastic particles pass through the placenta and into the heart and brains of fetuses. The fetuses exposed to the microplastics also gained less weight in the later part of the pregnancy. “We found the plastic nanoparticles everywhere we looked — in the maternal tissues, in the placenta and in the fetal tissues. We found them in the fetal heart, brain, lungs, liver and kidney,” lead researcher and Assistant Professor Phoebe Stapleton of Rutgers University told The Guardian.” You can read the study directly yourself at here.

So here is what we get from masks, per Dr. Jim Meehan:
– Medical masks adversely affect respiratory physiology and function
– Medical masks lower oxygen levels in the blood
– Medical masks raise carbon dioxide levels in the blood
– SAR-CoV-2 has a “furin cleavage” site that makes it more pathogenic, and the virus enters cells more easily when arterial oxygen levels decline, which means wearing a mask could increase COVID-19 severity
– Medical masks trap exhaled virus in the mouth/mask, increasing viral/infectious load and increasing disease severity
– SARS-CoV-2 becomes more dangerous when blood oxygen levels decline
– The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 increases cellular invasion, especially during low blood oxygen levels
– Cloth masks may increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 and other respiratory infections
– Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security
– Masks compromise communications and reduce social distancing
– Untrained and inappropriate management of face masks is common
– Masks worn imperfectly are dangerous
– Masks collect and colonize viruses, bacteria and mold
– Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes
– Contact tracing studies show that asymptomatic carrier transmission is very rare
– Face masks and stay at home orders prevent the development of herd immunity
– Face masks are dangerous and contraindicated for a large number of people with pre-existing medical conditions and disabilities

Oh yes. According to the past president of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Lee Merritt, MD, typical ear loop “masks will not provide any protection against COVID-19 (coronavirus) or other viruses or contaminants” in that the viruses are too small for a typical mask. Just like we don’t use a chain link fence to keep out mosquitos, so too masks don’t keep out viruses. Worse, a review of scientific reports, up to February 2021, suggests that universal masking seriously harms people and society without any notable benefit. The author of the review, Denis G. Rancourt, points out multiple ways masks inflict damage and undermine our health. Some of the mask-related adverse health effects reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis were discomfort, irritation, psychological impact, and mask contamination. Pathogens can rapidly accumulate in improperly used masks, and can actually increase the risk of spreading viruses – including SARS-CoV-2 – to others. And what masks are doing to children – who now have more suicide deaths than Covid deaths – is disgusting: Says NaturalHealth 365 “The psychological and developmental implications of mask-wearing are particularly detrimental to children. Numerous studies show that face masks impair face recognition, verbal and non-verbal communication, block emotional signaling and diminish children’s ability to bond and emotionally connect with others.” As of this report in April, 2021 (numbers change monthly, but the reality will not) CDC stats tell us a total of 134 children under the age of 15 died in the USA from COVID. In contrast for the 2019–2020 flu season, 188 children died from the annual flu.). 134 out of around 28,171 kids that age who have died altogether in the past year. I slept through junior high math class, but if you divide 134 by 28,171, that’s 0.45%. And no doubt of those 134 kids, there is no doubt most, if not all, had serious co-morbidities.

More to follow!


One Reply to “Guest Post: Blaise Vanne On Uselessness Of Masks, Death Rates, Pollution Buildup”

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Canuck Law

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading