now browsing by category


Top Eight COVID Lies

The Truth About COVID-19 | A New Book by Dr.Joseph Mercola
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Fact Checked March 20, 2021
Reproduced from original article:

misinformation on coronavirus


  • Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner in Cheshire, England, has made it his mission to add some balance to the widespread fear-mongering that occurs at the hands of the health care lobby and media, including in regard to COVID-19
  • The top COVID lies include that there’s no such thing as naturally acquired herd immunity and that vaccines induce stronger and longer lasting immunity than recovery from natural infection
  • COVID-19 death statistics are also misleading, and the universal mask mandates and lockdowns said to save lives are a farce
  • Other COVID lies include the myth of asymptomatic spreaders driving the pandemic and the “official” narrative that the virus didn’t leak from a laboratory accident

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner in Cheshire, England, and the author of three books, including “Statin Nation,” has made it his mission to add some balance to the widespread fear-mongering that occurs at the hands of the health care lobby and media.

“In a world where the truth can be, literally, turned upside down, how can you know what to believe, and who to believe?” he asks. His blog attempts to “dig down to find the meaning behind the headlines,” and one of his recent posts centered on COVID-19 and the “impossible things” — some might call them lies — that are being propagated in its name.1

Top Eight COVID Lies

Kendrick’s post takes aim at widespread COVID-themed disinformation, highlighting six top inconsistencies. I’ve added two more as well.

1.No Such Thing as Herd Immunity — Except From Vaccines — Herd immunity occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community. When the number susceptible is low enough to prevent epidemic growth, herd immunity is said to have been reached. Prior to the introduction of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved via exposure to and recovery from an infectious disease.

Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only the naturally acquired immunity that comes from prior illness but also the temporary vaccine-acquired immunity that can occur after vaccination.

In the case of COVID-19, however, we’ve been told that the idea of natural herd immunity to COVID-19 is not achievable — and even considering that it could be is “deadly and dangerous.”2 Yet, a curious thing happened. When vaccines became available, the idea of vaccine-induced herd immunity to COVID-19 became widespread. According to Kendrick:3

“First, I was told that attempting to create herd immunity was not achievable. It would also be extremely dangerous and would inevitably result in many hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.

Then the vaccines arrived at fantastical speed and I was told that mass vaccination, by creating herd immunity, would be the factor that would allow us to conquer COVID19 and return to normal life. I am not entirely sure which of these things is impossible, but one of them must be.”

2.Vaccines Induce ‘Stronger and Longer Lasting Immunity’ — In February 2021, The HuffPost reported that the COVID-19 vaccine would “induce stronger and longer lasting immunity” than the immunity induced by natural infection.4 However, an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, Dr. Meryl Nass, suggests the protection the COVID vaccine provides will be inferior to that acquired via natural infection:

“No one knows how long immunity lasts, if in fact the vaccines do provide some degree of immunity … For every known vaccine, the immunity it provides is less robust and long-lasting than the immunity obtained from having had the infection.

People who have had Covid really have no business getting vaccinated — they get all the risk and none of the benefit.”

In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises people who have previously been infected with COVID-19 to still get vaccinated, even though trials suggest there’s no benefit in this population. A CDC report also incorrectly cited the vaccine’s effectiveness for those previously infected, prompting one congressman to say they’re “lying.”

In a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.5

But according to Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky, “That sentence is wrong. There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either.”6 Kendrick adds:7

“I also know that vaccinations can only ever really create an attenuated response. Whereas a full-blown infection triggers a full-blown immune response.

So, I think it is pretty close to impossible that vaccination can provide greater protection than that from getting the actual disease. Which is why I think it is utterly bonkers we are actually vaccinating people who have circulating antibodies in their blood.”

3.Universal Mask Use Is Essential to Stop COVID-19 — It’s been touted that face masks are essential to stopping the spread of COVID-19 and could save 130,000 lives in the U.S. alone.8 But in 2019, the World Health Organization analyzed 10 randomized controlled trials and concluded, “there was no evidence that facemasks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”9

Only one randomized controlled trial has been conducted on mask usage and COVID-19 transmission, and it found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.10

“Never has a trial been subjected to such immediate and hostile reporting. Fact-checkers (whoever exactly they might be, or what understanding they have of medical research) immediately attacked it,” Kendrick noted, adding:11

“Yes, we have now entered a world when political fact checkers feel free to attack and contradict the findings of scientific papers, using such scientific terms as ‘Mostly false’ … Ignoring the modern-day Spanish Inquisition, and their ill-informed criticisms, I will simply call this study.

More evidence that face masks don’t work. Perhaps someone will come along with a study proving that face masks work. So far … nada. Another impossible thing.”

4.COVID-19 Death Statistics — The positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for COVID-19 are plagued with problems, one of which is that they are not designed to be used as diagnostic tools as they cannot distinguish between inactive (noninfectious) viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.12

If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick from it and you cannot spread it to others. Further, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.” These false positive tests, in turn, can contribute to the number of people dying “with” COVID-19, but not actually dying “of” the disease.

“[W]e have the very strange concept that any death within twenty-eight days of a positive COVID19 swab is recorded as a COVID19 death,” Kendrick said, explaining:13

“You can have a positive swab long after you have been infected — and recovered. There are just some bits of virus up your nose that can be magnified, through the wonders of the PCR test, into a positive result.

Which means that an elderly person, infected months ago, can be admitted to hospital for any reason whatsoever. The they can have a positive swab — everyone is swabbed. Then they can die, from whatever it was they were admitted for in the first place. Then, they will be recorded as a COVID19 death.

In truth, this is just the start of impossible things when it comes to the number of COVID19 deaths. Do not get me started on PCR cycle numbers, and false positives. We would be here all day.”

5.The Swedish COVID-19 Response Was a Disaster — Sweden handled the pandemic differently than most of the globe, and has been chided for its looser restrictions and lack of severe lockdowns. In October 2020, TIME called the Swedish COVID-19 response a “disaster,”14 but Kendrick cites data showing that the death rate in Sweden in 2020 was right in line with other years — nothing out of the ordinary.15

When Kendrick compared the number of deaths in Sweden in 2012 — one of their highest death statistics — to 2020, the difference between absolute death rate in 2012 and 2020 is 0.012%.

“That is 120 extra deaths per million of the population, which is 1,224 people in a population of 10.2 million. The statistics tell us that twelve thousand people died from COVID19 in Sweden. Maybe you can make all that add up. Frankly, I find it impossible.”16

6.Lockdowns Have Worked — Available data reveal lockdowns have been completely ineffective at lowering positive test rates, while extracting a huge cost in terms of human suffering and societal health.

Using data from the Worldometer,17 Kendrick compiled a list of the countries with the highest rate of COVID-19, based on deaths per million of the population. Every country on the list, which included the U.K., Italy, the U.S., Spain, Mexico and others, had “fairly strict” lockdowns.

Four countries that have been criticized for not having strict lockdowns — Sweden, Japan, Belarus and Nicaragua — did not make the list, and have an average death rate of 391 per million. In contrast, the top 20 “lockdown” countries have an average death rate of 1,520 per million. According to Kendrick:18

“Yet although this evidence is out there, I am being asked to believe that lockdowns work. At least the WHO agrees with me on this impossible thing.

As Dr. David Nabarro, the WHO special envoy on COVID19 said‘We really do appeal to all world leaders, stop using lockdown as your primary method of control. Lockdowns have just one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.’19

7.Asymptomatic Spreaders Are Driving the Pandemic — The reasoning given for lockdowns, masks and social distancing is to stop the spread of disease among people who are asymptomatic. It’s common sense to stay home if you’re sick and exhibiting symptoms, but for people who feel healthy, the institution of lockdowns to prevent asymptomatic spread is unprecedented.

Yet, during a June 8, 2020, press briefing, Maria Van Kerkhove, the World Health Organization’s technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that asymptomatic transmission is very rare, meaning an individual who tests positive but does not exhibit symptoms is highly unlikely to transmit live virus to others.

A study in Nature Communications also found “there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts.”20 When they further tested asymptomatic patients for antibodies, they discovered that 190 of the 300, or 63.3%, had actually had a “hot” or productive infection resulting in the production of antibodies. Still, none of their contacts had been infected.21

8.The Virus Didn’t Come From a Lab Accident — Despite the complete absence of a plausible zoonotic origin theory, WHO’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has officially cleared the Wuhan Institute of Virology and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.22

The WHO investigation was riddled with conflicts of interest from the start, and no credible theory for natural zoonotic spillover has been presented to date. However, there are at least four distinct lab origin theories, including the serial passage theory, which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture, as well as evidence for genetic manipulation.23

You may be wondering, if there’s so much evidence pointing toward a lab origin, why are leading health authorities and scientists dismissing it all and insisting SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence, mysterious as it might be?

Should the COVID-19 pandemic be officially recognized as the result of a lab accident, the world might be forced to take a cold hard look at gain-of-function research that allows for the creation of these new pathogens. The end result would ideally be the banning of such research worldwide, with significant financial repercussions, the ending of prestigious careers in that realm and potential criminal charges for those involved as well.

In the face of misinformation and manipulation, what you can do now is keep your eyes open and your ears tuned to the science, so you don’t fall victim to the unnecessary panic and fear, or the increased surveillance and control, that is being created.

Click here to learn more

More Than a Billion COVID Masks Have Wound Up in the Oceans

Reproduced from original article:

As mask mandates continue around the world a new type of environmental pollution is spreading as fast as COVID-19 itself, in streets and storm drains, and oceans.

Environmentalists believe that as many as 1.56 billion masks, made with a type of microfiber plastic called polypropylene, have entered the oceans already, adding an additional 4,680 to 6,240 metric tons of marine plastic pollution to the waters. Scientists said it will take 450 years or more for them to break down completely.


SOURCE: The Denver Channel December 24, 2020

Landmark Study Finds Masks Are Ineffective

Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola      Fact Checked      December 03, 2020


  • The first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection
  • Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed the people who did not adhere to proper mask use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference
  • Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls
  • 1.4% tested positive for antibodies at the end of the month-long study compared to 1.8% of controls
  • 0.5% in the mask group and 0.6% tested positive for one or more respiratory viruses other than SARS-CoV-2

The first randomized controlled trial1,2 to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection specifically — which journals initially refused to publish — is finally seeing the light of day.

The so-called “Danmask-19 Trial,” published November 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine,3 included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study.

To qualify, participants had to spend at least three hours per day outside the home and not be required to wear a mask during their daily work. At the end of the study, participants reported having spent a median of 4.5 hours per day outside the home.

For one month, participants in the mask group were instructed to wear a mask whenever they were outside their home. Surgical face masks with a filtration rate of 98% were supplied. In accordance with recommendations from the World Health Organization, participants were instructed to change their mask after eight hours.

Antibody testing was performed before the outset and at the end of the study period. At the end of the month, they also submitted a nasal swab sample for PCR testing.

What the Danmask-19 Trial Found

The primary outcome was a positive PCR test, a positive antibody test result (IgM or IgG) during the study period, or a hospital-based diagnosis of COVID-19. Secondary end points included PCR evidence of infection with other respiratory viruses.

Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations. So, what did they find? As you might expect, there’s a reason why the researchers had such a hard time getting this study published:

  • Among mask wearers, 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.
  • 1.4% (33 participants) tested positive for antibodies compared to 1.8% (44) of controls.
  • Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% (22 participants) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% (53) of the controls.
  • 52 participants in the mask group and 39 in the control group reported COVID-19 in their household. Of these, two participants in the mask group and one in the control group developed SARS-CoV-2 infection — a finding that suggests “the source of most observed infections was outside the home.”
  • 0.5% (nine participants) in the mask group and 0.6% (11 individuals) tested positive for one or more respiratory viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 (secondary outcome).

Masks May Lower, or Raise, Infection Risk

All in all, this landmark COVID-19-specific study failed to deliver good news to those who insist face masks are a crucial component of the pandemic response. Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may increase your risk by 23%. In other words, the preponderance of evidence still shows that masks have virtually no impact on viral transmission.

Another take-home point that you get from this study, which Del Bigtree points out in The Highwire video report above, is that the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.

So, we are destroying economies and lives around the world, for what, exactly? To protect a small minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed in “Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,” means little to nothing. As reported by the authors:4

“Although no statistically significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 incidence was observed, the 95% CIs are compatible with a possible 46% reduction to 23% increase in infection among mask wearers.

These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect …

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 may take place through multiple routes. It has been argued that for the primary route of SARS-CoV-2 spread — that is, via droplets — face masks would be considered effective, whereas masks would not be effective against spread via aerosols, which might penetrate or circumnavigate a face mask. Thus, spread of SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols would at least partially explain the present findings …

The present findings are compatible with the findings of a review of randomized controlled trials of the efficacy of face masks for prevention (as personal protective equipment) against influenza virus …

Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon.”

Government Tyrants Double Down on Mask Mandates

The researchers point out that results could potentially turn out differently if everyone were wearing a mask. At the time of the study, Danish authorities did not recommend universal mask use and most Danes did not wear them. Hence “participants’ exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks.”

That possibility, however, is a big “if,” and not sufficient to mandate universal mask wearing. Any claim to such effect is nothing but a wholly unscientific guess. Despite that, many local leaders are now doubling down on mask mandates, some even requiring them to be worn inside your own home when anyone outside the family is present and even if physical distancing can be maintained.5

As an example of extremes, a June 2020 Harvard University paper6,7 even suggested couples should wear face masks during sex. Others are tripling down on masks, recommending you wear two or even three at the same time.8 Former Food and Drug Administration commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb is urging Americans to wear N95 surgical masks whenever possible.9

Epidemic of Spineless Leadership

Missing entirely from most recommendations is common-sense health guidance known to improve your immune function and lower your infection risk naturally, such as supplementing with vitamin DNACmelatoninquercetin and zinc.

As noted by Angela Rasmussen, a virologist and affiliate of the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security, in a November 15, 2020, op-ed in The Guardian,10 our immune systems know how to handle the virus; it’s our politicians who have failed to cope with it. She writes:11

“Most of the evidence in both COVID-19 patients and animal models shows that the immune response to this is quite typical for an acute viral infection. Initially, the body ramps up high levels of IgG antibodies, but after the infection is cleared, those antibodies drop to a baseline level, which may be below the limit of detection of some serological tests.

Antibodies are produced by B-cells, a specialized type of immune cell that recognizes a specific antigen, or viral target. When an infection is cleared, B-cells producing antibodies convert from being plasma cells, which are specialized to pump out massive quantities of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, to being memory B-cells.

These cells produce lower levels of IgG antibody; but, importantly they persist in the body for years. If they are re-exposed to SARS-CoV-2, they rapidly convert to plasma cells and begin producing high levels of antibody again.

There is no indication that most COVID-19 patients are not developing immune memory, and animals experimentally infected with SARS-CoV-2 are protected against rechallenge with high doses of virus …

Furthermore, antibodies are not the only important part of the immune system. T-cells are also a key component to the immune response. They come in two flavors: helper T-cells, which coordinate immune responses and facilitate immunological memory, and killer T-cells, which kill infected cells. Previous studies have shown that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces robust T-cell responses.”

As noted by Rasmussen, the data collected on the responses of T-cells to SARS-CoV-2 infection “underscore that SARS-CoV-2 is not an anomalous virus capable of miraculous feats of immune evasion.”

In other words, provided your immune function is normal, the virus is as vulnerable as any other virus and you’re not destined to die just because you develop symptoms. So, the reason we’re in the situation we’re now in, Rasmussen says, is not because SARS-CoV-2 is somehow different or more lethal than anything that has come before. We’re in this situation due to political failures.

Mask Mandates Have Had No Impact on Infection Trends

Other data analyses that add support to the Danish study’s results include Yinon Weiss’ work presented in his article12 “These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID.” In it, he shows that states’ mask rules appear to have had nothing to do with infection rates, which is what you’d expect if masks don’t work.

Weiss points out that “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.” To see all of the graphs, check out Weiss’ article13 or Twitter thread.14 Here are just a select few to bring home the point:

austria covid-19
germany covid-19
belgium covid-19
italy covid-19
european covid-19

Masks Delay Inevitable Acceptance of COVID-19 Reality

What everyone needs to come to terms with is that we have a new respiratory virus in town — one that may stay with us indefinitely. The question then becomes, just how long do we lock ourselves in our homes and shun all social relationships?

How long do we neglect our children’s education and social development by keeping schools closed? How long do we leave our elderly family members to languish in isolation? A better part of the global population has essentially stopped living altogether, and for what? For fear of an illness that 99.7% of people recover from15 — an illness that is as likely to kill you as the seasonal influenza if you’re under 60.16

Data clearly show that COVID-19 has not resulted in excess mortality, meaning the same number of people who die in any given year, on average, have died in this year of the pandemic.17,18 Several studies19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26 also suggest immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is far more widespread than anyone imagined.

In an October 28, 2020, Wall Street Journal opinion piece,27 Joseph Ladapo, an associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, points out that we really must accept reality and move on with life, unpredictable as it may be. He writes:

“By paying outsize and scientifically unjustified attention to masking, mask mandates have the unintended consequence of delaying public acceptance of the unavoidable truth.

In countries with active community transmission and no herd immunity, nothing short of inhumane lockdowns can stop the spread of COVID-19, so the most sensible and sustainable path forward is to learn to live with the virus.

Shifting focus away from mask mandates and toward the reality of respiratory viral spread will free up time and resources to protect the most vulnerable Americans …

Until the reality of viral spread in the U.S. … is accepted, political leaders will continue to feel justified in keeping schools and businesses closed, robbing young people of the opportunity to invest in their futures, and restricting activities that make life worthwhile.”

There’s Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself

Hopefully, if you’ve been reading this newsletter, you’re no longer incapacitated with fear and are capable of making more level-headed decisions based on the data at hand rather than the fear porn published in the daily papers. For the latest news and top tips for combating COVID-19, check out my Coronavirus Resource Page.

Everything really points to this pandemic being overblown and prolonged for purposes that have nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with “resetting” the global financial and power structures — none of which will benefit us.

The lockdowns are essentially just conditioning you to accept a radically new way of life — one in which we have limited ability to travel or work, one in which we’re conditioned to being partially or wholly dependent on a government handout, one in which we must submit to being tracked and surveilled with little or no right to privacy, one in which the government dictates how you can spend your time, where you can go, who you can spend time with and for how long.

Eventually, once the global economies are in irreparable shambles, the central banks will roll out a debt erasure program to solve all our problems. The price will be your humanity, your freedom. Will you pay it? Or will you resist the whole deviled scheme while you still can?

Health WARNING: Prolonged use of a face mask has 4 NEGATIVE health effects

Reproduced from original article:
by:  | December 3, 2020

mask-warning(NaturalHealth365) Let’s be frank about something that the mainstream media doesn’t like to admit: while some people believe that wearing a face mask may help slow the spread of viral illnesses like COVID-19, it doesn’t come without a cost. In fact, there is plenty of evidence revealing the negative health effects of prolonged use of face coverings, from N95s to cloth masks.

So, whether you’re choosing to wear a mask or forced to wear one due to a local or state mask mandate, keep reading to discover how you can avoid “maskne” and other unintended health consequences.

Your face mask could be causing oral health problems plus 3 other issues, scientists say

If you’ve ever gone several hours wearing a face mask, you may notice that your mouth feels unpleasantly dry. Unfortunately, wearing a mask can exacerbate dry mouth by promoting mouth-breathing and reducing humidity in the air you inhale.

And it turns out a dry mouth isn’t just uncomfortable and foul-smelling. According to the National Institute of Dental and Craniofascial Research, persistent dry mouth increases the risk of tooth decay and oral infections, including an infection with Candida albicans, the bacteria responsible for oral thrush. Masks can trap bacteria inside your mouth, where they can overgrow and irritate your delicate oral tissues.

Wearing your face mask day-in and day-out could also be leading to these other issues, according to experts:

  • Skin irritation. “Maskne” is a trending topic for a reason!  Known clinically as acne mechanica, maskne happens as a result of prolonged use of face coverings, which trap bacteria and debris against your skin, clog your pores, and lead to inflammation and breakouts. Skin irritation caused by face coverings are made even worse if you wash cloth masks with harsh chemicals.
  • Carbon dioxide build-up in the body. According to the American Lung Association (ALA), prolonged use of certain face coverings like N95s may lead to a build-up in carbon dioxide levels in people with pre-existing lung diseases, which, by the ALA’s own count, is as many as 37 million Americans. Excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the body, known as hypercapnea, can cause symptoms including headaches, dizziness, and shortness of breath. While you may not experience this issue from your mask, anyone with respiratory illnesses should be speaking to their doctors about what kind of face mask practice is right for them – if any at all.
  •  Increased risk of respiratory illness. A 2015 randomized controlled trial published in BMJ Open revealed that the use of cloth masks, at least in the healthcare setting, may increase the risk of respiratory infections due to a combination of “moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration.”  As a disturbing side note: many ancillary staff members in hospitals are being instructed to wear their own cloth masks at work in order to “preserve” personal protective equpiment for clinical staff.

Ultimately, while some officials may suggest that wearing a mask reduces the risk of respiratory illnesses, it’s important to consider that the evidence on this is weak, at best.  In fact, when you dig a little deeper into the research (for the past 10 years) – wearing a mask does little to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  Not too mention all the very real threats that increase our risk of getting sick.

Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air.  These chemicals – the ‘off-gassing’ of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials – increase your risk of headaches, dementia, heart disease and cancer.

Get the BEST indoor air purification system – at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers.  I, personally use this system in my home AND office.  Click HERE to order now – before the sale ends.

Hopefully, this information will motivate you to optimize your overall health through no-nonsense lifestyle habits like eating more healthy (organic) food, staying physically active and minimizing your exposure to unwanted (chronic) stress.

If you are covering your face, do these three things to reduce your risk of complications

No matter how you feel about wearing a mask, there are things you can do to reduce your risk of unintended health effects while wearing them:

  1. First, avoid touching or fidgeting with your mask. If you do touch your mask, be sure to do so only after washing your hands with soap and water.
  2. Cleanse your face after removing your mask with a gentle product that will remove any built-up bacteria, dirt, oil, and debris.
  3. Avoid using harsh detergents and fabric softeners to wash your cloth masks, as these have been show in research from New York University to irritate your skin.

Remember, your best defense against any bacterial or viral infection is a strong immune system.  Take good care of yourself … it’s worth the effort.

Sources for this article include:

Why Won’t Anyone Publish the Danish Mask Study?

© 18th November 2020 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC.
Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here:
Reproduced from original article:
Posted on: Monday, November 16th 2020 at 3:45 pm
Written By: GreenMedInfo Research Group
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2020

A study of 6,000 Danes was set to reveal whether wearing a face mask actually reduces the risk of COVID-19. The only problem is leading medical journals are refusing to publish the data, and the study’s lead author hinted it’s because they’re not “brave enough” to do it

Does a mask work? It’s a question recently posed by the Danish newspaper Berlingske,[i] and one that would seem to demand an answer from scientists and public health officials alike. Yet, despite mask mandates existing in 34 U.S. states and the District of Columbia,[ii] there’s shockingly little hard data about whether or not they slow the spread of infectious disease.

Researchers from Denmark wanted to change that, conducting what may be the only randomized trial[iii] to determine if masks actually protect against COVID-19,[iv] but multiple medical journals have refused to publish the findings.

Thomas Benfield, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen and one of the study’s lead authors,[v] was asked when it would be published. Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson published Benfield’s emailed response on Twitter, which is simply: “As soon as a journal is brave enough …”[vi]

What Does the Danish Mask Study Reveal?

Speaking to Nature in October 2020, Benfield said his team wasn’t yet ready to share the study’s results.[vii] In truth, three medical journals — The Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association — have refused to publish the study, leading to speculation that it reveals a message that goes against the status quo.

Berlingske, which is the oldest daily newspaper in Denmark, suggests this is so, stating (loosely translated), “The researchers behind a large and unique Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask even have great difficulty in getting their research results published. One of the participating professors in the study admits that the still secret research result can be perceived as ‘controversial.'”[viii],[ix]

The study included 6,000 participants who were randomly assigned to wear a face mask or not for a 30-day period. Participants were confirmed to not have COVID-19 or symptoms of it at the start of the study, and they were required to spend more than three hours per day outside of the home with exposure to other people during the study period.[x]

Described as an “outstanding sample,” the Berlingske article, which was written by Lars Henrik Aagaard, praised the study, noting, “The study and its size are unique in the world, and the purpose was once and for all to try to clarify the extent to which the use of masks in public space provides protection against corona infection.”[xi]

While the results were originally expected to be published in August 2020, Benfield later said that his comment was taken “a bit out of context” and, “The article is being reviewed by a respected journal. We have decided not to publish data until the article has been accepted.”[xii]

Study Co-Author Hints at Controversial Results

Aagaard interviewed another of the study’s researchers, Christian Torp-Pedersen, a chief physician at North Zealand Hospital’s research department, who similarly said, “We cannot start discussing what they (the medical journals) are dissatisfied with because, in that case, we must also explain what the study showed, and we do not want to discuss that until it is published.”[xiii]

He then went on to say that he “might also have dared to go as far as Benfield,” had he been asked why the results haven’t been published, referring to his “brave enough” comment. Aagaard asks, “Does this mean that your research results may be perceived as controversial in the eyes of some?” to which Torp-Pedersen replies, “That’s how I want to interpret it, too.”

Aagaard then states, “Can one interpret a controversial research result in the sense that no significant effect of mask use is demonstrated in your study?” Torp-Pedersen says, “I think that’s a very relevant question you are asking.”[xiv]

Dr. Henning Bundgaard with Denmark’s Rigshospitalet is another of the study’s authors. In speaking with Bloomberg in July 2020 — when he still expected the study’s results to become public the next month — he said, “All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions based on new studies.”[xv]

Denmark was one of the latest countries to institute a mask mandate, which took effect October 29, 2020 for all public indoor spaces.[xvi] In July, however, Bundgaard told Bloomberg he worried mask mandates may offer a “false sense of security” and make people “sloppy” when following other guidelines like handwashing, self-isolating if you’re sick and social distancing. Also revealing is Bloomberg’s last paragraph:


Bundgaard’s study on masks is due to be published next month. In the meantime, he says he hopes they don’t become mandatory in Denmark.”[xvii]

Masks have become a contentious topic in the U.S., dividing neighbors, colleagues and families over whether or not they slow the spread of infectious disease. The controversy continues to grow, particularly since public health officials have been giving conflicting information from the start,[xviii] and solid data, such as what may be revealed via the Danish study, is sorely lacking.



[i] Washington Examiner October 22, 2020

[ii] Axios August 4, 2020

[iii] Twitter October 18, 2020

[iv], Reduction in COVID-19 Infection Using Surgical Facial Masks Outside the Healthcare System

[v] Nature October 6, 2020

[vi] Twitter October 18, 2020

[vii] Nature October 6, 2020

[viii] The Blaze October 22, 2020

[ix] Berlingske October 19, 2020

[x] Washington Examiner October 22, 2020

[xi] The Blaze October 22, 2020

[xii] Washington Examiner October 22, 2020

[xiii] The Blaze October 22, 2020

[xiv] The Blaze October 22, 2020

[xv] Bloomberg July 26, 2020

[xvi] The Local October 29, 2020

[xvii] Bloomberg July 26, 2020

[xviii] Twitter February 29, 2020


Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Is It Time for Full-Time Mask Mandates?

Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola      Fact Checked      November 02, 2020

mask mandate


  • Despite claims of having a pandemic plan in place, and despite having conducted a global coronavirus pandemic response exercise a mere 10 weeks before the COVID-19 outbreak, planners appear to have overlooked the most important part of pandemic planning, namely researching and identifying the most effective response measures
  • Universal mask wearing, like the lockdowns, has no basis in science. On the contrary, the available scientific evidence near-conclusively shows that mask wearing does not reduce infection rates
  • Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data reveal 85% of COVID-19 patients had “always” or “often” worn a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness
  • Despite lack of scientific support for universal mask wearing, Dr. Anthony Fauci now supports a federal mask mandate, saying “the data on masks speaks for itself”
  • The World Health Organization encourages universal cloth mask use, not because they’ve been proven to work best but rather because they encourage “cultural expression” and “offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities”

When you look at the timeline1,2 of statements about the pandemic made by government officials, public health spokespersons and media pundits who unquestioningly echo the talking points du jour, it’s a panoply of mixed messages to say the least.

This, despite former White House Coronavirus Task Force lead Dr. Anthony Fauci’s February 25, 2020, assurance that the U.S. was “reasonably well prepared” as it has had a pandemic plan in place “for years.”3

As noted in a Fox News article4 published in mid-April 2020, many of the statements have not aged well and, now, months later, the situation has hardly gotten any better.

Pandemic Planning Clearly Lacking in Key Areas

Despite claims of having a pandemic plan in place, and despite having conducted a global coronavirus pandemic response exercise a mere 10 weeks before the actual outbreak, the planners appear to have overlooked the most important part of pandemic planning, namely researching and identifying the most effective response measures.

Instead, the October 2019 “Event 201”5 pandemic preparedness exercise largely focused around how to censor “misinformation” about the pandemic and how to ensure compliance with whatever measures were dictated.

Aside from the wholly unscientific strategy of isolating healthy, productive individuals for months on end and closing the doors to small businesses while allowing shopping to continue in large box stores like Walmart, one of the most controversial pandemic response measures has been the mandating of mask wearing.

This measure, like the lockdowns, actually has no basis in science. On the contrary, the available scientific evidence near-conclusively shows that mask wearing does not prevent the spread of infectious disease.

Most studies have focused on influenza, and the results from such studies are more than sufficient since coronaviruses are about half the size of flu viruses. Hence, if a mask cannot prevent the spread of influenza, it’s illogical to assume they can prevent the spread of a much smaller virus, especially if it’s airborne.

Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data6,7,8 seem to confirm this, as 71% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14% reported having worn a mask “often.”

Despite the dearth of scientific support — and despite the dramatic decline in deaths and improved treatments — many areas are now starting to insist on more stringent measures than were implemented during the height of the pandemic. Rather than moving forward, we seem to be moving backward. The obvious question is why?

Fauci’s Mixed Messages

Fauci has been a prominent public leader for the coronavirus response in the U.S., but his flip-flopping on issues have done little to guide the nation toward a resolution of the pandemic. This is particularly true when it comes to mask wearing.

In a 60 Minute COVID-19 segment aired March 8, 2020,9 Fauci said masks are “important for someone who is infected to prevent them from infecting someone else,” but that “right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks; there’s no reason to walk around with a mask.”

He also noted that “when you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask may make you feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.” He also pointed out there are unintended consequences of mask wearing that can increase your infection risk, things like touching your mask and then touching your face.

Overall, his message in March was that masks should be reserved for health care professionals. A couple weeks later, in early April 2020, he suddenly did a radical about-face and changed his messaging, urging people to wear cloth masks in public unless they could maintain a 6-foot distance from others.10

Mid-June 2020, when pressed about his turnabout on masks, he stated11 he’d initially downplayed the benefits of face masks due to concerns about personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages. The clear subtext was “I lied to you because I thought it was for the greater good.” If he is willing to lie about this, how can he possibly be trusted about other recommendations?

In March, he accurately confirmed that masks are ineffective and offer a false sense of security. Then, when he did recommend mask wearing, he recommended wearing the least effective mask alternative — cloth masks, for which there are no standards at all.

At the end of July 2020 — just days after getting caught at a baseball game with his mask pulled below his chin12 — Fauci started recommending the addition of face shields to protect the mucous membranes of your eyes.13 Then, October 23, 2020, he suddenly announced his support for a federal mask mandate to ensure nationwide compliance.14

Why? Not only has the science not changed — it still shows masks do not decrease infection rates — but a federal mandate also fails to take into account the level of threat in individual states or cities. What’s more, in a September 15, 2020, press conference, he stated that “a national mandate probably would not work.”15

Some areas have and are doing quite well in terms of infection rates, hospitalizations and deaths. Why should people in those areas be forced to wear masks even in the absence of a significant threat? (And that’s supposing masks worked in the first place.) As reported by CNN October 23, 2020:16

“’If people are not wearing masks, then maybe we should be mandating it,’ the leading infectious disease expert told CNN’s Erin Burnett Friday … Mask mandates may be tricky to enforce, but it might be time to call for them, Fauci said.

‘There’s going to be a difficulty enforcing it, but if everyone agrees that this is something that’s important and they mandate it and everybody pulls together and says, you know, we’re going to mandate it but let’s just do it, I think that would be a great idea to have everybody do it uniformly,’ he said.

As cooler weather comes, people need to ‘double down’ on measures that work, Fauci said. ‘Universal mask wearing’ is one, he said, as is keeping a distance from others and frequent hand washing.”

Mask Wearing — A Measure That Works?

Ironically, Fauci has stated that “the data on face masks speaks for itself.”17 Now, if we were all to agree that the data does speak for itself, then there would be no mask mandates because the data clearly do NOT support this measure for the public at large.

As noted by Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., a former full professor of physics and researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association in Canada, all of the well-designed studies that have been published so far have failed to find a statistically significant advantage to wearing a mask versus not wearing one.

Even research published in the CDC’s own journal found no significant effect of face masks on the transmission of influenza, and research published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2020 noted that:18

“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes).

The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic …

It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals.

Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask …”

Type of Mask Matters

According to Fauci, a slow-motion video (above) of an individual talking and sneezing with and without a cloth mask graphically illustrates that masks work.19

However, the devil’s in the details, and many are using cloth masks or N95-rated masks with breathing valves. As demonstrated in the video below by researchers at the Florida Atlantic University’s College of Engineering and Computer Science, masks with exhalation ports allow potentially infectious droplets to pass through unfiltered.

As such, these masks do nothing to protect others if you happen to be infected with the virus. As reported by Florida Atlantic University news desk:20

“For the study,21 just published in the journal Physics of Fluids, researchers employed flow visualization in a laboratory setting using a laser light sheet and a mixture of distilled water and glycerin to generate the synthetic fog that made up the content of a cough-jet.

They visualized droplets expelled from a mannequin’s mouth while simulating coughing and sneezing. By placing a plastic face shield and an N95-rated face mask with a valve, they were able to map out the paths of droplets and demonstrate how they performed …

Visualizations for the face mask equipped with an exhalation port indicate that a large number of droplets pass through the exhale valve unfiltered, which significantly reduces its effectiveness as a means of source control.”

Despite the fact there are clear differences between N95 respirators, valved N95 masks, surgical masks, homemade cloth masks, cotton bandanas and any number of other face coverings, health officials have been strangely mum about these specifics in their mask recommendations.

Even stranger, when the type of mask is mentioned in the recommendations, it’s typically been cloth masks, which clearly provide the least reliable protection of all. The World Health Organization, for example, encourages universal cloth mask use — not because they’ve been proven to work best but rather because they encourage “cultural expression” and “offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities.”22

If public health officials and politicians continue with mask mandates, then informed citizens might question if current policy is intended more to scare them than follow the science. ~ Stanley Young, Ph.D.

If masks were in fact a key pandemic control measure, wouldn’t infection control be at the top of the list? As it stands, infection control is nowhere on the list of justifications for universal mask use given by the WHO.23

Many Experts Have Noted Lack of Scientific Justification

Quite a few experts in various fields have now spoken out about the lack of evidence to support universal mask mandates. Among the latest is Stanley Young, Ph.D., an applied statistician who currently serves on the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific advisory board. In an October 14, 2020, article, he writes:24

“Dr. Mandy Cohen has told us we must wear masks in many kinds of settings. She told us that wearing the masks will help ‘fight’… SARS-CoV-2. Gov. Cooper has told us they are relying on ‘data and science.’ I am a scientist. I disagree.

Not long ago, I considered the COVID data our health experts were giving us. If masks were so effective, why were we not seeing improvement in the numbers? I decided to dive into the literature …

I studied the studies and found one for influenza. The peer-reviewed meta-analysis study looked at flu viral transmission, using 10 randomized clinical trials. When you combine all 10, the study showed that the results are consistent with pure chance.

Just how did the researcher characterize their results? ‘The evidence from RCTs suggested that the use of face masks either by infected persons or by uninfected persons does not have a substantial effect on influenza transmission …

In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.’ Adding up those infected while wearing a mask, 156/3495, 4.46%, and those infected while not wearing a mask, 161/3052, 5.23%, the results are consistent with chance.

I presented my opinion to Dr. Cohen and her staff. After some prodding, I heard from Mr. Fleischman, a senior official on Mandy’s staff. He provided me with another study that dealt specifically with the COVID-19 virus. Here is what I found. 

The study he sent was a meta-analysis that looked at transmission of the virus. A total of 19 randomized studies were summarized. Here is what they had to say, ‘Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective.’ They also noted that ‘… respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently.’

Mechanistically, masks have always only been thought to stop large droplets. Transmission through very fine droplets cannot be stopped by ordinary masks. Most recently, the CDC has confirmed that the virus can be transmitted through fine droplets.

The meta-analysis that Mr. Fleischman had sent me supports this claim because, again, it showed no benefit to wearing masks. Incidentally, the Netherlands recently dropped the mask mandate saying the research did not support wearing them …

These two studies provide no scientific basis for one size fit all; if public health officials and politicians continue with mask mandates, then informed citizens might question if current policy is intended more to scare them than follow the science.”

Journals Refuse to Publish Negative Mask Study

Perhaps most egregious of all, Danish researchers recently conducted a randomized trial in an effort to prove the usefulness of face masks against COVID-19 infection but ended up proving the opposite. They now are complaining they cannot find a publisher. Peer review journals are simply refusing to accept the paper. Why?

The controversy has been covered in a Twitter thread25 by Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter. The study,26 which is currently only available in German, concluded tens of millions of contaminations can occur each day as people use the masks inappropriately, touch their faces and neglect to wash their hands.

For this reason, universal mask wearing may actually do more harm than good. This is clearly important information that should be disseminated to the general public, yet medical journals are shunning the paper, probably because it doesn’t align with their narrative that supports universal mask recommendations.

Undisclosed Mask Dangers

There’s also evidence to suggest chronic mask wearing can have other unintended health effects. For example, another paper27,28 that has yet to undergo peer-review suggests mask fibers can pose a health risk. According to this paper:29,30

“There is no biological history of mass masking until the current era. It is important to consider possible outcomes of this society-wide experiment … Masked individuals have measurably higher inspiratory flow than non-masked individuals.

This study is of new masks removed from manufacturer packaging, as well as a laundered cloth mask, examined microscopically. Loose particulate was seen on each type of mask. Also, tight and loose fibers were seen on each type of mask.

If every foreign particle and every fiber in every facemask is always secure and not detachable by airflow, then there should be no risk of inhalation of such particles and fibers.

However, if even a small portion of mask fibers is detachable by inspiratory airflow, or if there is debris in mask manufacture or packaging or handling, then there is the possibility of not only entry of foreign material to the airways, but also entry to deep lung tissue, and potential pathological consequences of foreign bodies in the lungs …

Further concerns of macrophage response and other immune and inflammatory and fibroblast response to such inhaled particles specifically from facemasks should be the subject of more research.

If widespread masking continues, then the potential for inhaling mask fibers and environmental and biological debris continues on a daily basis for hundreds of millions of people. This should be alarming for physicians and epidemiologists knowledgeable in occupational hazards.”

Another potential concern is related to the plastics used. For example, surgical masks are made of polypropylene,31 a known asthma trigger.32 If you have asthma, wearing a surgical mask could potentially worsen your condition.

“Mask mouth” — tooth decay, gum line recession and potent bad breath — is another effect dentists around the world have raised alarm about. Dr. Rob Ramondi, a dentist and cofounder of One Manhattan Dental told the New York Post:33

“We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before. About 50% of our patients are being impacted by this, [so] we decided to name it ‘mask mouth’ …”

Other common complaints associated with extensive mask wearing include fatigue, headaches, shortness of breath and anxiety,34 likely due to hypoxia (reduced blood oxygenation).35

According to Dr. Russel Blaylock, face masks “pose serious risks to the healthy,” as the mask can lead to a concentration of viruses in the nasal passages where they can “enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”

The Mask Conundrum

So, to summarize, while face masks, overall, do not significantly reduce infection rates, N95 respirators (those without breathing valves) are the most effective in terms of blocking respiratory droplets.

However, they’re also more likely to cause hypoxia when worn for hours on end. According to Blaylock,36 “It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness.” What’s worse, hypoxia is also associated with impairment of immune function.

“Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs.

This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome,” Blaylock writes.37

On the other hand, cloth masks and other types of homemade cloth facial coverings, which are most often recommended for the general public, are also the most useless in terms of infection control. So, what gives?

Consider Peaceful Civil Disobedience

Clearly, most people are being bombarded with mainstream media propaganda that seeks to convince you that masks are necessary to prevent the spread of COVID-19. So, it is entirely understandable that you would want everyone to wear masks because you believe they will save lives.

However, if you carefully evaluate the evidence, independent of the mainstream narrative, it is likely you will conclude that this recommendation has nothing to do with decreasing the spread of the virus but more to indoctrinate you into submission.

Most objections to mask-wearing requirements are not to the masks themselves, but to the mandate, and well-documented consequences such as oxygen deprivation should give anybody pause when considering a legal requirement of wearing masks in public.

We already see that most people wear masks in public regardless of mandates.38 But it is entirely irresponsible and unethical for governments to mandate such a practice on anybody.

In my interview with Patrick Wood, he provides compelling evidence that this has been a carefully crafted technocratic strategy that has been in place for the last 50 years or so. By submitting to these orders, we are likely setting the stage for inevitable mandatory vaccinations.

With COVID-19 fatality rates39,40,41 as low as they are, mandatory mask wearing, social distancing, lockdowns and business shut-downs are not only ineffective and unnecessary, but these measures are also contributing to a global economic collapse. It appears the only justification for this strategy is to increase fear, tyranny and transfer of wealth to the upper 0.00001%.

Remember back in March 2020 when they said we just need to slow down the rate of infection to avoid overcrowding hospitals? How did we go from that to now having to wear masks everywhere until every trace of the virus has been eliminated, even though a vast majority remain asymptomatic and don’t even know they have the virus unless they get tested?

I predict it is likely that, at some point in the future, a tradeoff will be offered: Mask mandates will be dropped provided everyone gets vaccinated. By then, many may be willing to take just about anything as long as they don’t have to wear a mask anymore.

I would encourage you to read up on the many open questions relating to fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines before making your decision. Overall, it seems the best way to avoid having to make such a devious trade is to engage in civil disobedience now, and go unmasked.

If civil disobedience feels disconcerting, keep in mind that in many areas, mask rules include the following exception: “You must wear a mask unless you can maintain a 6-foot distance.” In other words, if you’re without a mask and maintain 6-foot social distancing, you’re still in compliance with the rules as written.