The Great Reset, page 17
Some Protests Are More Equal Than Others
Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, claimed that politically approved gatherings were COVID safe. “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus,” Nuzzo tweeted on June 2, 2020, as the George Floyd protests were raging across America.45
On April 30, 2020, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer declared that no large gatherings would be tolerated: “It is probably not going to be safe to congregate in masses for quite a while and it is heartbreaking…. These big gatherings can’t safely happen right now.”
But Whitmer changed her tune on June 1, 2020: “The death of George Floyd has once again shown a light on the systematic cycle of injustice in our country. To the overwhelming majority who have taken to the streets and protested peacefully, protesting historic inequities black Michiganders and those across the country are facing, I hear you. I see you. I respect you, and I support your efforts to enact real structural change in America.”46
More than one thousand “health professionals” signed a public letter supporting the Floyd protests, minimizing the risk of transmitting COVID-19 at such gatherings and declaring that “opposition to racism” was “vital to the public health.”47
Many studies in the medical literature since the 1970s have revealed that masks, even in medical settings, are not particularly helpful in stopping disease spread and that they serve as contaminated hubs for the spread of bacteria and viruses.
Here is a small sampling of mask studies compiled by Chris Masters in a 2020 article titled “Studies of Surgical Masks Efficacy.” In the words of the article:48
Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”49
Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end ofteach operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”50
Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002….51
A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded, “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”52
Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”…53
Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”54
And when medical studies turned specifically to mask effectiveness with airborne viruses, the results also showed them to be ineffective. In the words of the Swiss Policy Research group overview of studies:55
A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, [either] as personal protective equipment [or] as a source control….56
A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting.57
A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS One, found that face masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.”58
A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no high-quality evidence in favor of face masks and recommended their use only based on the “precautionary principle.”59
A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks against virus infection or transmission.60
A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, either in the general population nor in health care workers….61
An April 2020 review by two U.S. professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, either as self-protection or to protect third parties (so-called source control)….62
A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use.63
An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology, and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections.64
As the Biosecurity and Bioterrorism study cited in the previous chapter found, “Studies have shown the ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus. The pores in the mask become blocked by moisture from breathing, and the air stream simply diverts around the mask.”65
Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson summed up a 2015 British Medical Journal study: “A randomized trial (the gold standard yadda yadda) of 1600 health-care workers showed those wearing masks were 6 times (!) as likely to have flu-like illnesses as those in the control group after 4 weeks.”66
A May 2020 article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated very clearly that masks don’t work against viruses. “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” the article said. “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,” the article explained. But the authors of the article essentially recanted these claims in July 2020 as COVID-19 hysteria ramped up and support of mask mandates became—mandatory.67
A 2020 CDC report found masks to be ineffective against COVID-19 as well. “A Centers for Disease Control report released in September shows that masks and face coverings are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, even for those people who consistently wear them,” reported Jordan Davidson of The Federalist.
“A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 ‘case-patients,’ who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from health care facilities who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite ‘always’ wearing a mask.”68
Earlier bouts of mass masking in some parts of the United States during the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak were also deemed “useless.” As the Washington Post reported in April 2020 (before the great COVID-19 mask flip-flop by public health officials), John M. Barry, author of The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History, had pointed out, “During the influenza pandemic of 1918, officials often advised Americans to wear face masks in public. Doctors believed that masks could help prevent ‘spray infections.’ ” But though millions wore the masks, they “were useless as designed and could not prevent influenza,” according to Barry. “Only preventing exposure to the virus could.”
Many officials had been eager to enforce mask mandates in 1918. “On Nov. 1, 1918, Eugene C. Caley became the first man in Oakland, Calif., to be arrested for not wearing a mask. He was released on bail, although similar scofflaws in San Francisco had been sentenced to up to 10 days in jail,” noted Barry.
“This is only the beginning,” said the chief of police, according to the Oakland Tribune. “We are going to enforce this mask ordinance if we have to pack the city jail with people. This epidemic is too serious to be taken as a joke, and men arrested… will find that it’s no laughing matter when they face the police judges.”69
“In October 1918, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a public service announcement telling readers that ‘The man or woman or child who will not wear a mask now is a dangerous slacker’—a reference to the type of World War I ‘slacker’ who didn’t help the war effort. One sign in California threatened, ‘Wear a Mask or Go to Jail,’ ” according to History.com.70
Just as in our present era, mask rebellion was prevalent. “I am 75 years old and have been living in this state 67 years,” E. Piercy said in police court, according to Los Angeles’s Evening Express. “I must have my smoke, and I’m not going to give up my tobacco for a cheesecloth muzzle!”71
In 1918, a San Francisco health officer shot three people, two of them innocent bystanders, for refusal to comply with the mask mandates, History.com reports.
Also, just as in our present era, hypocrisy abounded. “This was far different from the treatment San Francisco’s leaders received when they didn’t comply. At a boxing match, a police photographer captured images of several supervisors, a congressman, a justice, a Navy rear-admiral, the city’s health officer and even the mayor, all without masks. The health officer paid a $5 fine and the mayor later paid a $50 fine, but unlike other ‘mask slackers,’ they received no prison time (not to mention no one shot at them),” Becky Little of History.com explained.72
Science Rejected Mandatory Masks in 1919
“In 1919, Wilfred Kellogg’s study for the California State Board of Health concluded that mask ordinances ‘applied forcibly to entire communities’ did not decrease cases and deaths, as confirmed by comparisons of cities with widely divergent policies on masking…. Kellogg found the evidence persuasive: ‘The case against the mask as a measure of compulsory application for the control of epidemics appears to be complete.’
“In a comprehensive study published in 1921, Warren T. Vaughn declared ‘the efficacy of face masks is still open to question.’ The problem was human behavior: Masks were used until they were filthy, worn in ways that offered little or no protection, and compulsory laws did not overcome the ‘failure of cooperation on the part of the public.’ Vaughn’s sobering conclusion: It is safe to say that the face mask as used was a failure.” —E. Thomas Ewing in Health Affairs, May 2021.73
“Mask Madness”
Statistician William H. Briggs declared the whole mask phenomenon “Mask Madness.” “Having healthy asymptomatic people wear masks at what is clearly the end of a routine pandemic is asinine,” Briggs wrote in 2020.
“We might as well have a tinfoil hat mandate to protect from aliens. It would, at this point, be just as useful,” he explained. “This moral panic is like Prohibition. This time not against alcohol, but against breath. Three-quarters of Americans falsely believe death is lurking in people’s breath,” he added.
“Forcing masks on people in ‘passing encounters in public spaces’ has no medical justification. None.”74
The (Political) Science
As coronavirus mask and vaccine mandates started dropping from even blue Democrat states in 2022, the New York Times revealed the reason, and that reason had to do with “The Science”—the POLITICAL Science! The Times reported that the “easing” of COVID restrictions was in part due to “political focus groups that began in the weeks after the November election.”
New Jersey Democrat governor Phil Murphy was “stunned by the energy of right-wing voters in his blue state” after he nearly lost what was expected to be an easy re-election in 2021, according to the Times. “Arranging a series of focus groups across the state to see what they had missed, Mr. Murphy’s advisers were struck by the findings: Across the board, voters shared frustrations over public health measures, a sense of pessimism about the future and a deep desire to return to some sense of normalcy,” the Times reported. “Even Democratic voters, they agreed, were wearying of the toughest restrictions, growing increasingly impatient with mandates and feeling ready to live with the risk that remained.”76
“Phases of the Moon”
“I keep seeing people telling journalists that kids can take off masks when case[s]/hospitalizations/deaths fall below some number. That is like tying masking to the phases of the moon. Not a shred of empirical data that shows that masks have benefit above but not below any threshold.”
—Vinay Prasad, associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco75
When You Lose CNN…
“It is so sad but it’s true. The CDC has turned into a punch line,” said CNN reporter Brian Stelter in 2022. “There’s a huge credibility crisis for the CDC,” Stelter admitted. “If they hear all these mixed messages and all this confusion, it’s all too complicated, they just move on and ignore it.”77
“Avoid the Showers”
“It’s best to avoid the showers if possible, since you can’t get masks wet—otherwise they lose their efficacy. If you need to shower at the gym, shower as quickly as possible and only remove your mask when your face and head is [are] going to get wet.” —NBC News, “CDC Updates: Wear a Mask while Exercising Indoors at Gyms”78
In order to justify the continued mask mandates, the CDC released a study claiming that two masks were more effective than one. Even Anthony Fauci promoted two masks in early 2021. Wearing two masks “just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective,” Fauci said.79
But the CDC “study” was ridiculed as “nothing more than a handful of experiments on mannequins in a contained environment.”
Investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel pointed out, “No human beings were involved in this study. And yes, it was that simple. The CDC sprayed aerosols at mannequins and slapped a science™ label on their experiments.”
Schachtel reported, “First and foremost, it is not a completed study at all. These are mere experiments conducted on mannequins, not humans. A proper study on the efficacy of masks needs to be a randomized controlled trial involving human beings in their normal settings—such as the Danish mask study that showed there is no evidence that masks do anything to prevent COVID-19—and not mannequins in a laboratory.”80
But why stop at double masking? CNBC correspondent Contessa Brewer displayed an onscreen graphic claiming that wearing three masks boosts your viral protection up to 90 percent!81 “A three-layer mask could block up to 90 percent of the particles,” Brewer claimed.
NBC News featured guests suggesting wearing four masks.
Dr. Scott Segal, chair of anesthesiology at Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, told NBC News, “If you put three or four masks on, it’s going to filter better because it’s more layers of cloth.”82
“Doing Something Virtuous”
“Masks gave meaning to people with meaningless lives. People were led to think they were doing something virtuous by wearing a mask all day. Many don’t want the scam to end because it makes people reexamine the sunk costs and entertain the possibility that it was all for nothing.” —investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel83
Jeffrey Anderson, former director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice explained why obscuring people’s faces should not be dismissed as a minorinconvenience. “Masks hide from view the familiar faces, infectious smiles, and warm glances that bring light and color to everyday life. To dismiss this loss so cavalierly is to devalue human warmth and sociability in a remarkably callous way,” Anderson wrote. “In his detailed study of emotions, Charles Darwin observed that human beings’ reliance on facial expressions is a key difference between us and animals. He wrote an entire book on the subject, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872). Communication, according to Darwin, was ‘of paramount importance to the development of man.’ ”
Anderson also explained how politics corrupted the CDC’s science. “Anyone who thinks the CDC is an impartial, politically neutral agency, dedicated solely to the pursuit of scientific truth, should perhaps consider the [2021] e-mail evidence that the teachers union and Joe Biden’s White House effectively rewrote sections of the agency’s return-to-school guidance.”84
Masks mandates do work—but not to prevent the spread of the virus. Mask mandates work to embed fear of the virus in the public consciousness, a form of social conditioning. Masks advanced the Great Reset agenda. They were the perfect psyop, instilling fear in the public and confirming the message that the virus was a threat that justified the lockdowns, stay-at-home-orders, and curfews. They were daily and hourly confirmation of the alleged death tolls breathlessly reported through the twenty-four-hour news cycle. Anyone who doubted the viral apocalypse being preached by the cacophony of political leaders, unelected health bureaucrats, the media, and scare family and friends, only had to go to their local Walmart to see the frightening and unprecedented masked faces of the public.
People would inevitably think, It must be as bad as they (the government-media-corporate complex) are claiming. Look at all these people masked up! Given the psychological effectiveness of masks—given how they served to grease the COVID-19 panic and the pathway to a Great Reset—there was little incentive for government officials to remove the mandates that everyone wear them.
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was against mask mandates before he was for them:
There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people 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. And, often, there are unintended consequences—people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
