Letter to the Oregon Health Authority
On the Proposed Adoption of a Rule Requiring Masks to Be Worn in Indoor Spaces in Oregon (OAR 333-019-1025)
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
I am writing regarding the proposed permanent rule requiring indoor masks:
Adoption of a rule requiring masks to be worn in indoor spaces in Oregon (OAR 333-019-1025)
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
In this letter, I will prove that masks:
do not prevent the spread of COVID
may cause physical health problems
may inflict psychological harm
pose a special threat to children and teens
I could share a bunch of peer-reviewed studies demonstrating that masks are not only ineffective at preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 but also pose threats to both physical and mental health (and don’t worry, I will), but before we go there, how about we take a look at this sobering graph:
That is the 2020 vs. 2021 all-cause excess mortality for Oregon. The green line represents 2020 excess deaths, and the blue line is 2021 excess deaths. Notice anything?
In 2020, there was a 3.9% increase (1,541) in deaths over the anticipated number.
That percentage jumped to 16.1% in 2021—in other words, there were 6,346 excess deaths over the expected number.
Hmm, something big changed in 2021. What was that, I wonder.… I’ll bet a lot of people could figure it out if this Upton Sinclair quote didn’t apply:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”1
Oh well, no matter, that’s not the topic we’re discussing today. But if you are curious—and you care about saving lives—you will click this link to discover why.
Setting that variable aside, would you agree that the pandemic response policies were pretty much the same from 2020 to 2021? Masking, periodic lockdowns, social distancing, the whole shebang, right?
So if that’s the case, why did the deaths increase—and not just by a little bit, but by a substantial margin?
Does it look to you like those policies worked? Be honest. Don’t think like a bureaucrat following orders; think like a human being with your own rational mind. You are capable of assessing data and coming to logical conclusions independently. It’s time for you to exercise that ability.
Now that you’re in critical thinking mode, let’s dive into the science.
For starters, you can scan this compilation of 150 comparative studies demonstrating the inefficacy and negative health impact of masking.
Written by former Queensland Health Principal Research Officer Wendy Corfield and submitted by Alan Ballard, this 76-page report provides exhaustive peer-reviewed evidence of the ineffectuality of and hazards associated with mask-wearing.
Swiss Policy Research also offers these comprehensive pieces delineating the peer-reviewed evidence disproving the safety and efficacy of masks:
But all that might be a bit overwhelming.
How about we start with this CDC study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020? This was early enough in the pandemic that some researchers could still be a tad truthful without fear of reprisal from the Ministry of Truth.
After conducting a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature published between 1946 and 2018, the CDC authors found ten randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of masks. Here’s what they learned:
“In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25).”
This is consistent with the scientific consensus regarding the ineffectiveness of masks for respiratory viruses over the past century—which Fauci was referencing when he stated on February 17, 2020, that “There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask” and before July 29, 2020, when he said, “It is very important for people to universally wear masks.” I know, he claimed the first statement was a “lie” to save N95s for the public health community (June 12, 2020), so it was okay. Uh-huh.
It couldn’t be that mask-wearing suddenly became a partisan political weapon by which to visually remind people that we were in the midst of a crisis, thus justifying overbearing restrictions while offering the added bonus of distinguishing the obedient from the dissidents. Surely, policymakers had health in mind when they reversed course on decades’ worth of public health policy and began mandating masks.
Although, if it was about health, then why is mainstream narrative pusher Dr. Leana Wen only just now admitting, “Cloth masks are not appropriate for this pandemic … because we’re dealing with something that’s airborne”?
Weird, right? So now everyone needs to scramble to reprogram their scripts to wear N95 or KN95 masks. Only most people didn’t get the memo, and if they did, it probably made them scratch their heads for a second and realize this may be another one of the narrative pillars that has been eroding over the past few months:
Something tells me you don’t want to make the compliant think too hard by permanently requiring masks indoors—and N95/K95 ones, no less. You don’t want to jar them out of their mass hypnosis. Then they might really get mad about all the lies they’ve been told over the past two years and start asking questions. That’s the last thing the tyrants, colluders, and believers want. Best not to poke the hive.
Sorry, back to the science. As it turns out, N95s don’t prevent transmission, either, as this four-year study published in JAMA concludes:
“N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Here’s a fun demonstration by Dr. Ted showing how successfully various masks contain an aerosol:
In other words—not very. Funnily enough, even The Sydney Morning Herald knew this when they reported in April 2003, “Health authorities have warned that surgical masks may not be an effective protection against the virus.” In fact, claiming masks prevented the transmission of SARS was such a serious violation that “Retailers who cash in on community fears about SARS by exaggerating the health benefits of surgical masks could face fines of up to $110,000.”
Can you imagine that? A government agency—in Australia, of all places—actually penalizing corporations trying to cash in on people’s fears of a SARS virus? I mean, it’s almost like they were trying to protect the public from fraudulent exploitation of a health scare by unscrupulous entities. Those were the days.
Okay, back to reality, or at least the semblance of reality we inhabit now.
But first, wanna hear something funny? In October 2009, Anthony Fauci—the real one—coauthored a study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases titled Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness. After analyzing preserved lung tissue sections from victims of the 1918–19 flu epidemic, they determined:
“The majority of deaths in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory–tract bacteria.… pandemic planning needs to go beyond addressing the viral cause alone (e.g., influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs).”
“This study provides strong evidence for the identification that SMs [surgical masks] as source of bacterial contamination during operative procedures, which should be a cause for alarm and attention in the prevention of surgical site infection in clinical practice.”
“I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections. Reports coming from my colleagues, all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise.
“Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly.…
“New research is showing that cloth masks may be increasing the aerosolization of the SARS-COV-2 virus into the environment causing an increased transmission of the disease …
“In February and March we were told not to wear masks. What changed? The science didn’t change. The politics did. This is about compliance. It’s not about science.”
When a group of parents had their children’s masks analyzed in a lab, the horrifying findings included these disease-carrying pathogens:
Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia)
Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis)
Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis)
Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis)
Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, blood stream infections, meningitis, UTIs— resistant to antibiotics)
Escherichia coli (food poisoning)
Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)
Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)
Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires' disease)
Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections—high morbidity rates)
Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)
The peer-reviewed journal Primary Doctor Medical Journal published an entire series of articles assessing the safety and efficacy of masks, including the following:
Part 1 reports:
“Research on synthetic fibers has shown a correlation between the inhalation of synthetic fibers and various bronchopulmonary diseases, such as asthma, alveolitis, chronic bronchitis, bronchiectasis, fibrosis, spontaneous pneumothorax and chronic pneumonia.”
Part 2 assesses the microbial risks associated with mask-wearing:
“Bacteria that live in the mouth and upper respiratory tract may be aspirated and cause infection in the lungs. We know that mask-wearers have greater inspiratory flow than non-mask wearers. This is presumably due to the hypoxic condition of mask obstruction to the airways. As a result, microbes may be more likely to be aspirated while wearing a mask than not wearing one.…
“One of the risks of mask wearing is that masks maintain bacteria in greater numbers and for a longer period of time. This increases the risk of those bacteria entering the respiratory system and/or blood stream through micro wounds.”
In Part 3, we learn about the serious and potentially fatal risks of hypoxia and hypercapnia that can result from masking. A mere 45-second test resulted in substantial increases of carbon dioxide across all mask types tested:
You can see this mechanism in action in the following video. This firefighter tests a range of masks with the same multi-gas testing device fire departments use to ensure the air is safe to breathe.
The instant he puts on each type of mask, the alarm warning the oxygen levels have dropped beneath OSHA-approved safety levels is triggered.
Hypoxia poses an even greater risk to children. A Brown University study has found a 23-percent drop in children’s development between March 2020 and June 2021 while the pandemic measures of masking, lockdown, and social distancing were in effect.
Ecotextile News relays a warning from Professor Michael Braungart, director at the Hamburg Environmental Institute:
“[M]ask wearers unwittingly run the risk of breathing in carcinogens, allergens, and tiny synthetic microfibres by wearing both textile and nonwoven surgical masks for long periods of time.”
Regarding mandates, Braungart says:
“I’d be very wary of mandating masks as some chemicals and fibres may have long-term effects—and that possibly opens the floodgates of personal injury claims at some stage in the future.”
An SF Gate article assessing the destructive influence of COVID policies on children cites a preprint that identified “significant reductions in attained cognitive function and performance in children born over the past 18 months during the pandemic.”
Masks retard speech, cognitive, and social development because they obscure the facial expressions crucial to cultivating communication skills and emotional intelligence. This Tablet article quotes a UK government report:
“Wearing face coverings may have physical side effects and impair face identification, verbal and non-verbal communication between teacher and learner. This means there are downsides to face coverings for pupils and students, including detrimental impacts on communication in the classroom.”
“Masks have encouraged anonymity and discouraged dialogue.
‘People don’t know how to communicate anymore,’ said Jazlyn Korpics, 18, a senior at Liberty. ‘Everybody’s a robot now — their minds are warped.’”
“Facial expressions are integral to human connection, particularly for young children…. Covering a child’s face mutes these nonverbal forms of communication and can result in robotic and emotionless interactions.”
“The importance of the face in social interaction and social intelligence is widely recognized in anthropology.”
Mask-wearing can be especially traumatizing for children, and attempts to force-mask victims are tantamount to abuse:
Most distressing of all, perhaps, is the psychological harm COVID measures have inflicted on children and teens.
In this Healio Psychiatry article, Dr. Anthony Cousien of the University of Paris’s Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry states:
“Recent studies have reported a deterioration in children’s mental health since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, with an increase in anxiety and mood disorders.…
“Rates of suicide ideation and suicide attempts among children were also higher when COVID-19–related stressors were heightened in 2020. We aimed to better assess temporal trends in suicide attempts among children while adjusting for annual and seasonal fluctuations.”
Please take two minutes and thirty-five seconds to watch this heartrending testimonial by Sophie Corcoran about her experience of masking just after the COVID-19 Plan B restrictions were lifted in the UK:
Tears streaming down her face, Sophie sobs:
“I literally watched and felt like my entire life was falling apart because of what this government did to young people.… The damage this has done to us is forever, and we’ll never get it back.”
Now take another couple minutes to watch this brilliant satirical speech by a teen sharing her perspective on masking:
Finally, watch this freedom-fighting firecracker deliver a rousing speech to Florida’s Palm Beach County School Board. A second-grader named Fiona Lashells, she was suspended thirty-eight times for refusing to wear a mask before she secured a victorious repeal of the mask mandate for herself and her fellow schoolmates:
May all of us be inspired to emulate Fiona’s courageous nonconformity, independent spirit, and perseverance as we shake off the tyrannical chains of dehumanizing mask mandates and other malignant COVID policies.
Like Fiona, you have the power to end this suffering. You have the power to restore the freedoms of adults, teens, and children alike by rejecting this unscientific and injurious proposed rule to permanently muzzle citizens indoors.
It is time for you to represent us.
Thank you for standing up for present and future Oregonians.
© Margaret Anna Alice, LLC
If you feel the work I am doing is worthwhile and want to make it possible for me to spend more time writing and researching in my aim to unmask totalitarianism and awaken the sleeping before tyranny triumphs, please consider supporting me, whether it be by subscribing, donating, buying me a coffee, or sharing my posts. I thank you for reading, thinking, sharing, and supporting my work in whichever ways you choose.
Remember, a subscription to Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass makes for an intellectually adventurous gift down the rabbit-hole!
Note: Purchasing any items using Amazon affiliate links included in my content will further support my efforts to unmask tyranny.
Considering Oregon has received $47.3 million in coronavirus funding, we can’t pretend it doesn’t play a factor; still, that’s peanuts compared to what some school districts and hospitals are getting, so I’m hoping that’s not really a concern in this case and that you would weigh the science and the will of the people in your decision.