Updated date:

Universal Face Mask Mandates Are a Vendetta Against Rational Thought

I have spent considerable time studying journal articles about or related to using face masks to control COVID-19.

Distressed-texture, masked baby face image compiled by R. G. Kernodle

Distressed-texture, masked baby face image compiled by R. G. Kernodle

Use of a Useless "Test" Perpetuates the Illusion of a Pandemic

The following quote is from a meticulously detailed, twenty-nine page report on the RT-PCR process entitled, Review Report - Corman-Drosten et al., Eurosurveillance - External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results :

  • In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.

Here are the twenty-two reviewers who wrote that report:

  • Dr. Pieter Borger (MSc, PhD), Molecular Genetics, W+W Research Associate, Lörrach, Germany
  • Rajesh Kumar Malhotra (Artist Alias: Bobby Rajesh Malhotra), Former 3D Artist / Scientific Visualizations at CeMM – Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (2019-2020), University for Applied Arts – Department for Digital Arts Vienna, Austria
  • Dr. Michael Yeadon BSs(Hons) Biochem Tox U Surrey, PhD Pharmacology U Surrey. Managing Director, Yeadon Consulting Ltd, former Pfizer Chief Scientist, United Kingdom
  • Dr. Clare Craig MA, (Cantab) BM, BCh (Oxon), FRCPath, United Kingdom
  • Kevin McKernan, BS Emory University, Chief Scientific Officer, founder Medical Genomics, engineered the sequencing pipeline at WIBR/MIT for the Human Genome Project, Invented and developed the SOLiD sequencer, awarded patents related to PCR, DNA Isolation and Sequencing, USA
  • Prof. Dr. Klaus Steger, Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Molecular Andrology, Biomedical Research Center of the Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany
  • Dr. Paul McSheehy (BSc, PhD), Biochemist & Industry Pharmacologist, Loerrach, Germany
  • Dr. Lidiya Angelova, MSc in Biology, PhD in Microbiology, Former researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Maryland, USA
  • Dr. Fabio Franchi, Former Dirigente Medico (M.D) in an Infectious Disease Ward, specialized in “Infectious Diseases” and “Hygiene and Preventive Medicine”, Società Scientifica per il Principio di Precauzione (SSPP), Italy
  • Dr. med. Thomas Binder, Internist and Cardiologist (FMH), Switzerland
  • Prof. Dr. med. Henrik Ullrich, specialist Diagnostic Radiology, Chief Medical Doctor at the Center for Radiology of Collm Oschatz-Hospital, Germany
  • Prof. Dr. Makoto Ohashi, Professor emeritus, PhD in Microbiology and Immunology, Tokushima University, Japan
  • Dr. Stefano Scoglio, B.Sc. Ph.D., Microbiologist, Nutritionist, Italy
  • Dr. Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens (MSc, PhD), specialist in Laboratory Medicine (clinical chemistry), Maasziekenhuis Pantein, Beugen, The Netherlands
  • Dr. Dorothea Gilbert (MSc, PhD), PhD Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology. DGI Consulting Services, Oslo, Norway
  • Dr. Rainer J. Klement, PhD. Department of Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Germany
  • Dr. Ruth Schruefer, PhD, human genetics/ immunology, Munich, Germany,
  • Dra. Berber W. Pieksma, General Practitioner, The Netherlands
  • Dr. med. Jan Bonte (GJ), Consultant Neurologist, The Netherlands
  • Dr. Bruno H. Dalle Carbonare (Molecular biologist), IP specialist, BDC Basel, Switzerland
  • Dr. Kevin P. Corbett, MSc Nursing (Kings College London) PhD (London South Bank) Social Sciences (Science & Technology Studies) London, England, United Kingdom
  • Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, specialist in Virology / Immunology / Human Biology / Cell Biology, University Hospital Würzburg, Germany

The Corman-Drosten Paper

Header screen capture of Cormen, Drosten et al. paper

Header screen capture of Cormen, Drosten et al. paper

The Corman-Drosten paper (referred to by the reviewers listed earlier) is a seminal paper describing the Reverse Transcription - Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) as the standard test for detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus particles.

These twenty-two reviewers point out, in great detail, that this test is not a proper test. Consequently, an improper test produces improper or false cases. False cases, then, create the improper or false appearance of a COVID-19 continuing pandemic.

When qualified experts point this out, and still the test remains the standard of COVID-19 disease detection, clearly logic has fallen victim to delusion or something worse.

If the pandemic in which many people believe (or claim to believe) does not currently exist, then the need for intrusive measures attempting to control it are not necessary, even if such measures had any hope of working. The stark landscape of cloth-covered faces, thus, suggests that something has gone terribly wrong.

CDC Violated the Law, Causing a Massive Reclassification of Death

Figure 1. Chart showing comparison of COVID-19 fatalities using CDC 2003 guidelines and CDC 2020 guidelines, from Ealy et al 2020 paper on federal law

Figure 1. Chart showing comparison of COVID-19 fatalities using CDC 2003 guidelines and CDC 2020 guidelines, from Ealy et al 2020 paper on federal law

The following detailed legal analysis has determined that the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been responsible for generating inaccurate data during the COVID-19 declared crisis:

Henry Ealy and nine others (2020). COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, Volume 2: 4-22. https://jdfor2020.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/adf864_165a103206974fdbb14ada6bf8af1541.pdf

The authors state:

We allege the CDC violated

  • the IQA [Information Quality Act],
  • PRA [Paperwork Reduction Act],
  • OMB [Office of Management and Budget] compliance guidelines, and
  • Executive Order 12866 [requires proper peer review].
  • In doing so, the CDC has fatally compromised all COVID-19 data and adversely impacted federal, state, and local public health policies regarding COVID-19.

By illegally enacting standards that drastically changed the protocol for listing cause of death, the CDC enabled inflation of COVID-19 deaths to an exaggerated extent that gave the appearance of a gravely serious crisis. The number of deaths subsequently attributed to COVID-19, thus, raised alarm levels to a point that caused seemingly desperate acts of trying to control a killer virus by whatever means necessary, including an attempt by state governments to force the public to wear face masks.

Why has this legal analysis seemingly escaped public attention? Why is there no visible discussion of it? This leads me further to suspect that something has gone terribly wrong, and the wrong has not been made right. Instead, this wrong has created a springboard for many people to take advantage of a gross misrepresentation of reality.

Face masks have become fashion statements that support this gross misrepresentation.

Asymptomatic Spread of COVID-19 is Not a Main Driver of the Pandemic

A useless test that has produced inflated case numbers caused people to question why COVID-19 continued to spread in such a seemingly unchecked manner. This falsely heightened questioning of falsely contrived case numbers has led to a popular explanation of asymptomatic transfer. In other words, visibly healthy people with zero symptoms suddenly became significant disease threats.

Let's look at what a very detailed investigation into this claim reveals:

Clare Craig (Fellow of the Royal College of Pathology) and Jonathan Engler (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) (December, 2020). Has the Evidence of Asymptomatic Spread of COVID-19 been Significantly Overstated? Lockdown Sceptics (website):

  • What is undoubtedly true is that the policy-making of governments responsible for the lives of billions of people around the world may in part be influenced by the dangerous assumption that there is persuasive evidence of asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2. It is far too soon to make that assumption and the evidence underpinning it is, at best, circumstantial.
  • ... after examination of the most frequently-cited papers in this area available to date, we are struck by the paucity of persuasive evidence of anything but the most minor of symptoms resulting from supposed asymptomatic spread; most or all of which could be misdiagnoses and in any event are at no more than anecdotal level. There is no evidence, outside of China, that anyone has developed even moderate COVID-19 based on true asymptomatic spread, as opposed to pre-symptomatic spread.

Even the last sentence in the above quote requires further examination, considering the following study of almost ten million people in Wuhan, China that produced little evidence of asymptomatic spread:

Cao S, Gan Y, Wang C, Bachmann M, Wei S, Gong J, Huang Y, Wang T, Li L, Lu K, Jiang H, Gong Y, Xu H, Shen X, Tian Q, Lv C, Song F, Yin X, Lu Z (2020). Post-Lockdown SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Screening in Nearly Ten Million Residents of Wuhan, China, Nature Communications, 11(1), 5917.

  • Virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and repositive cases, indicating no 'viable virus' in positive cases detected in this study.
  • None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period
  • .... there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts.
  • Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2. In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.
  • In summary, the detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases in the post-lockdown Wuhan was very low (0.303/10,000), and there was no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious.

All of the above statements register as very clear statements about the inability of asymptomatic people to transmit the disease to others. Yet, critics attempt to downplay or deny the implications of this study. Even the authors of the study continue to advocate masks, as if afraid to trust their own findings.

Such persistent labeling of asymptomatic people as disease threats, in the face of clear indications to the contrary, is excessive. According to any other standard of risk by which humans have carried on their lives for millennia, such persistent labeling of healthy people takes on the appearance of a behavioral disorder.

Fearing people because they might develop into symptomatic cases is no more logical than fearing people because they might develop into thieves or killers or pedophiles. We cannot know all that a person might be or might not be in a public encounter, but rational people simply do not allow such uncertainties in the daily moments of living to dictate their whole lives.

Forcing face masks onto everyone because of what might be, again, defies sound reasoning. Furthermore, doing so, guided by a useless test, strengthened by an illegal definition of COVID-19 death, amounts to a crime against humanity.

The Question of Whether Face Masks Work

Is there any high-quality physical evidence that cloth face masks control the spread of a virus-induced illness such as COVID-19, allegedly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus?

I have answered this question in twelve other articles.

In addition, I have created a document that explains how each of twenty-two studies offered as evidence by my own state's health department fails. Click on the link to read that document.

Screen capture of header in document by R. G. Kernodle critiquing North Carolina's evidence for its face mask mandate

Screen capture of header in document by R. G. Kernodle critiquing North Carolina's evidence for its face mask mandate

Further, I have created another document -- These Fifteen Credible Medical Studies Find Face Masks Not Effective Even In Hospitals.
Again, click the link to read it.

The Failure of Face Mask Mandates Globally

Figure 2. Graph of COVID-19 case growth curves for various countries with dates of mask mandates, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

Figure 2. Graph of COVID-19 case growth curves for various countries with dates of mask mandates, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

As the above graph (Figure 2) shows, daily new cases per million people skyrocketed, after many weeks into nationwide mask mandates in France, Italy, Spain, much of the United States, and the United Kingdom.

Another example of mask-mandate failure is the German state of Thuringia, as illustrated below (Figure 3):

Figure 3. Thuringia, Germany graph of COVID-19 new cases per week with date of nationwide mask mandate, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

Figure 3. Thuringia, Germany graph of COVID-19 new cases per week with date of nationwide mask mandate, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

If forced government mask mandates had any effect, then intelligent people would reasonably expect to see a clear indication of this, rather than the opposite.

The Failure of Face Mask Mandates Locally

The governor of North Carolina (the state in which I reside) mandated face masks statewide on June 26, 2020. With this in mind, I looked at four states that never officially issued government-forced, statewide mask mandates: Alaska, Florida, Idaho, and Missouri (see Figures 4 - 7).

North Carolina Vs. Alaska

Figure 4. Graph comparing COVID-19 cases per million people for North Carolina and Alaska, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

Figure 4. Graph comparing COVID-19 cases per million people for North Carolina and Alaska, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

North Carolina Vs. Florida

Figure 5. Graph comparing COVID-19 cases per million people for North Carolina and Florida, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

Figure 5. Graph comparing COVID-19 cases per million people for North Carolina and Florida, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

North Carolina Vs. Idaho

Figure 6. Graph comparing COVID-19 cases per million people for North Carolina and Idaho, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

Figure 6. Graph comparing COVID-19 cases per million people for North Carolina and Idaho, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

North Carolina Vs. Missouri

Figure 7. Graph comparing COVID-19 cases per million people for North Carolina and Missouri, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

Figure 7. Graph comparing COVID-19 cases per million people for North Carolina and Missouri, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

By the beginning of 2021, the four states that never had a formal government-forced face mask mandate showed case numbers smaller than North Carolina with its statewide government-forced mandate.

Did masks mysteriously stop working in North Carolina? Did they ever work? What percentage of the population was actually using them? Of this percentage, what percentage was actually using them correctly? While relevant, these questions need not be answered, in order to see clearly that the North Carolina statewide mandate did little more than if it never existed.

The four states without a mask mandate showed larger peaks than North Carolina at some point along their COVID-19 case-growth curves, but those peaks declined (without face mask mandates), and they continued to decline, while North Carolina's numbers continued to climb (with a face mask mandate still in continuous effect since months before).

Again, did face masks in North Carolina magically stop working? The rational answer to that question is obvious.

The Bigger Question: Is there a Disease and Death Crisis Caused by COVID-19?

As other writers have pointed out, if a true disease and death crisis existed, requiring extraordinary attempts to control it, then we would reasonably expect to see a marked increase in deaths from all causes.

We do not see such a marked increase.

Figure 8. Graph of United States age-adjusted death rate from 1900 to 2020, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

Figure 8. Graph of United States age-adjusted death rate from 1900 to 2020, adapted by R. G. Kernodle

Notice, in the above graph (Figure 8), that the current USA death rate was as high as it is now in the year 2003. Every year after 2003, the death rate steadily declined, which gives the appearance that the current death rate is high, compared to the previous 17 years. Now notice all the years before 2003, where death rates declined tremendously, as life quality improved over a hundred years. This is not the picture of a death crisis.

The current so called crisis is a crisis of death awareness, primed by people who have been living for seventeen years with a lower death rate, who are only now becoming conscious of death numbers due to a small localized upward trend in a mere blip of time.

Excess Death from All Causes: United States Vs. Sweden

Figure 9. Graph comparing excess mortality for the United States and Sweden from January through December of 2020, adapted and notated by R. G. Kernodle

Figure 9. Graph comparing excess mortality for the United States and Sweden from January through December of 2020, adapted and notated by R. G. Kernodle

Many critics have found fault with Sweden for its more relaxed approach to COVID-19, which never included a government-forced countrywide face mask mandate. But pay close attention to the above graph (Figure 9), which compares excess deaths for the USA and Sweden for the entire year of 2020.

This is not the picture of any greater success by the United States in controlling COVID-19. The graph certainly fails to show any effectiveness of government-forced face mask mandates.

In Brief

  1. A useless RT-PCR test has been elevated to a diagnostic standard, often run prior to clinical assessment of symptoms, contrary to all previous standards of diagnosing illnesses.
  2. An illegal protocol has been enacted by the CDC, heavily biased towards assigning COVID-19 as cause of death.
  3. All-cause deaths are not historically excessive.
  4. The highest tier of evidence fails to support the functional effectiveness of cloth face masks.

Added all together, this paints a picture of overreaction, mass hysteria, incompetence, fraud, and violation of human rights on a scale hardly seen before.

Comments

Ron Hooft from Ottawa on January 29, 2021:

I couldn't disagree more.

Related Articles