Vermont Mask Survey – Final Report, 7 June 2021 / View Press Release
OSHA Information – SARS – Fact Sheet
OSHA Information – Masks: Surgical v. N95
Excerpt from, “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis” by Baruch Vainshelboim of the Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs, Palo Alto Health Care System and Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. Published in: Medical Hypotheses, Volume 146 (January 2021) – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/pdf/main.pdf
“Breathing is one of the most important physiological functions to sustain life and health. Human body requires a continuous and adequate oxygen (O2) supply to all organs and cells for normal function and survival. Breathing is also an essential process for removing metabolic byproducts [carbon dioxide (CO2)] occurring during cell respiration [12,13].
“It is well established that acute significant deficit in O2 (hypoxemia) and increased levels of CO2 (hypercapnia) even for few minutes can be severely harmful and lethal, while chronic hypoxemia and hy-percapnia cause health deterioration, exacerbation of existing condi-tions, morbidity and ultimately mortality [11,20–22].
“Emergency medicine demonstrates that 5–6 min of severe hypoxemia during cardiac arrest will cause brain death with extremely poor survival rates [20–23]. On the other hand, chronic mild or moderate hypoxemia and hypercapnia such as from wearing facemasks resulting in shifting to higher contribution of anaerobic energy metabolism, decrease in pH levels and increase in cells and blood acidity, toxicity, oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, immunosuppression and health deterioration [11–13,24].
“The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16,17,25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16,17], while medical and non-medical face-masks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 μm to 440 μm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25].
“A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26]. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose etc…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 μm.
“Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people [26].”
Excerpt from, “Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword? A physiological hypothesis” by Baskaran Chandrasekaran and Shifra Fernandes of the Department of Exercise and Sports Sciences, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India. Published in: Medical Hypotheses, Volume 144 (2020). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7306735/pdf/main.pdf
“Exercising with customized tight facemasks induces a hypercapnichypoxia environment [inadequate Oxygen (O2) and Carbon dioxide(CO2) exchange][15]. This acidic environment both at the alveolar and blood vessels level induces numerous physiological alterations when exercising with facemasks: 1) Metabolic shift; 2) cardiorespiratory stress; 3) excretory system altercations; 4) Immune mechanism; 5)Brain and nervous system.Fig. 1illustrates the possible physiological alterations while exercising with facemasks.”
“In conclusion, exercise with facemasks may increase the risk of Sudden Cardiac Death via the development of acute and/or intermittent hypoxia and hypercapnia. The hypothesized mechanisms include increased adrenergic stimulation, increased oxidative stress leading to electrophysiological abnormalities that promote arrhythmias via non-reentrant and reentrant mechanisms.”
Vermont Mask Survey by Amy Hornblas*, a longtime Vermont school health educator – at https://vtmasksurvey.com.
As far as one can read and listen, those opposed to facial masking have cited a variety of concerns, including but not limited to:
- Legitimate scientific concerns being suppressed/not being discussed
- Difficulty breathing, fatigue and symptoms related to oxygen depletion
- Negative effects on social and emotional well-being (children, adults alike)
- Difficulty policing criminal activities
- Strained relationships
- Infringements on a person’s rights to bodily autonomy, and the “precedent” that government facial masking orders might set.
Coincidentally, Amy Hornblas of Vermont Mask Survey sent an “open letter to Dr. Mark Levine and the Vermont Department of Health” on 2/15/2021, just four days before the state’s mask lawsuit.
To quote from her excellent letter:
“One year after the COVID-19 restrictions began, data continues to emerge shedding light on the costs and benefits of public health policies such as lock-downs, masks, and distancing.
“Public health officials should be continually re-evaluating these policies, in light of new and existing evidence. Conducting an ongoing cost/benefit analysis of public health measures is basic best-practice in the field.
“It is especially important when implementing entirely new strategies that restrict the freedom of everybody in the community.
“This summer our own University of Vermont Department of Medicine released a study called Risk Factors for COVID-19: Community Exposure and Mask Wearing, co-authored by Mark Levine. Among other things, this study found that mask wearing made no statistically significant difference between those who tested positive and those who did not. It also found that “wearing a facial mask outside of work increased probability of COVID-19 infection.
“Mask mandates across the U.S. appear to have had no impact at all on the natural slope of infection rates, as demonstrated in research released this fall by Rational Ground. The graphs compare the infection rates to the implementation of mandates, which occurred at different times in each state. While correlation does not prove causation, there is a clear pattern: mandates made no difference in every case.
“Lock-downs, social distancing, and masks are all justified by a perception that people without symptoms (a.k.a. “asymptomatic”) can be super-spreaders of the virus in community settings. However, the evidence for this is also lacking. A recently published large-scale study called Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China confirms that “asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.”
Read Amy’s letter in its entirety, here.