Note:
Several complex paragraphs were deleted.
They are in the original article at the link
along with many links to references.
Ye Editor
"A concerned husband was forced to do his own research about the effects of wearing masks after a local college forced his wife to wear a mask at school.
Kris Stark reached out to The Gateway Pundit to share what he found.
Based on the data he gathered, he found that bacteria can accumulate on both surgical and more so on cotton face masks if worn for a longer period of time.
Read his findings below:
As per the request of a local college, I researched the masks that my wife is requested to wear for her class, and here is what I have found:
I first visited the CDC website to see which masks would be acceptable and it states “Have two or more layers of washable, breathable fabric.
Completely cover your nose and mouth.
Fit snugly against the sides of your face and don’t have gap.
Have a nose wire to prevent air from leaking out of the top of the mask.”
Further down it states that “If you have asthma, you can wear a mask.
Discuss with your health care provider if you have any concerns about wearing a mask”.
I have concerns.
If I have to speak with a medical provider about wearing a mask, it is a medical tool, devise, treatment, or procedure that I am being asked to partake in, against my informed consent.
Under the asthma tab, it says, “Use products safely and correctly.
Always read and follow the directions on the product label to ensure you are using safely and effectively”, so I have done my research on the materials they have told me will keep me safe.
My findings are as such:
I researched the effectiveness of recommended materials, here is what I have found:
Recommended 2-layer gaiters by CDC. 2 layers of gaiter only provide 20% protection for particles of .5 microns or larger.
It never addresses the fact that this recommended material (along with all recommended masks) harbor harmful bacteria, as scientifically proven by WDBJ7 news.
I looked into what caused the main bulk of death in the 1918 flu pandemic outbreak. I found that bacterial pneumonia caused more than half of all deaths.
The majority of deaths during the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 were not caused by the influenza virus acting alone, report researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health.
Instead, most victims succumbed to bacterial pneumonia following influenza virus infection.
The pneumonia was caused when bacteria that normally inhabit the nose and throat invaded the lungs along a pathway created when the virus destroyed the cells that line the bronchial tubes and lungs.
If “pneumonia was caused when bacteria that normally inhabit the nose and throat invaded the lungs along a pathway created when the virus destroyed the cells that line the bronchial tubes and the lungs”,
Where did these bacteria come from?
The nose and throat.
By wearing a mask, you are forcing her to rebreathe these harmful bacteria that her body should be expelling, but are proven science to be captured by masks or all kinds.
Care providers and experts of the day in epidemiology, pathology, bacteriology, and infectious diseases clearly concurred that pneumonia from secondary bacterial infections caused most deaths during the pandemic.
In his classic review, Jordan summarized the key factors involved in the production of influenza-related pneumonia during the pandemic as follows:
“(1) The influenza virus weakens the resistant power of the pulmonary tissues so that various bacteria are able to play the role of secondary invaders;
(2) the precise nature of the secondary—and tertiary—invaders is largely a matter of accident, dependent on the occurrence of particular bacteria in the respiratory tract of persons at the time of infection, and in the case of group outbreaks, on their occurrence in contacts;
(3) the character of the resulting pneumonia, clinical and pathologic, is largely determined by the nature of the secondary invaders, whether Pfeiffer bacillus, streptococcus, pneumococcus, or other organisms; (4) there seems little doubt that the influenza virus, besides depressing the general pulmonary resistance, also acts directly on the pulmonary tissues, causing capillary necrosis, edema, and hemorrhage;
(5) it seems to be true, therefore, that the fatal outcome of influenza pneumonia is determined partly by the degree to which the influenza virus depresses local and general pulmonary resistance, and partly by the virulence and nature of the bacteria which invade the tissues in the wake of the specific virus” (6).
Which just so happen to be the same bacteria found in masks.
Some of the bacteria found on a mask are, but not limited to:
Bacillus, Staphylococcus, and Acinetobacter spp. were mostly cultured from the masks and 43% of these isolates were resistant to ampicillin or erythromycin.
Microbial profiling demonstrated a consistent difference between mask types.
Bacillus
Methods and results:
Spores from several Bacillus species, including seven strains of B. anthracis and six close neighbours, were prepared and studied using identical media, protocols and instruments.
Here, we report the spore length and diameter distributions, as determined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM).
We calculated the aspect ratio and volume of each spore. ...
These bacteria range from .5 to 2.5 microns.
All well larger than can be safely released from a mask.
Cotton and Surgical Face Masks in Community Settings:
Bacterial Contamination and Face Mask Hygiene
The general assumption is that both medical and non-medical mask use is safe, although this has not yet been monitored or studied in detail.
Studies on mask efficacy generally do not account for the fact that the microorganisms in human saliva and exhaled breath could form a biosafety concern, especially when masks are worn for too long, not properly stored, or re-used without proper disinfection.
In fact, the human saliva contains 100 million bacterial cells per milliliter and harbors a range of pathobionts, including Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida albicans, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Neisseria, Prevotella, and Veillonella spp.
Furthermore, cotton serves as substrate for microbial growth and is able to retain moisture, making cotton masks more favorable for high microbial contamination than surgical masks.
In addition, the reuse of cotton masks, moisture retention and poor filtration may result in increased risks of transmission of respiratory viruses compared to surgical masks.
Furthermore, provided by the same NIH study:
While a number of studies have focused on the importance of face masks in the transmissions of respiratory viruses, accumulation of pathobionts on the masks due to human saliva and exhaled breath represents a possible underestimated biosafety concern.
Microorganisms present on the skin and in the upper respiratory tract could be transferred to the face mask while wearing it.
For optimal growth, bacterial cells need a surface to grow on, warmth, moisture, and nutrients, which is the environment created on the face mask due to exhaled air and water vapor.
Growth of these microorganisms will also increase the amount of bacteria that are inhaled or could be transferred to the skin.
This could theoretically cause some disturbance in the skin and nasal microbiome due to for instance the overgrowth of certain pathobionts, which are associated with an increased risk of inflammation and infections.
For example, research has found that S. aureus is part of a healthy skin microbiome, but can cause skin infections when the abundance of this species increases.
In several studies, the use of face masks has been associated with acne linked to an accumulation of S. aureus".
