If Masks Really Worked to Prevent COVID-19 You Wouldn’t Be Able to Smell

My business partner was on an American Airlines flight recently and fell asleep during the trip. When he woke up the passenger in the adjacent seat was glaring at him and upbraided my friend because his mask had fallen below his nose during his slumber.

My friend and workmate said nothing. He stood up. Grabbed his briefcase from the overhead and took out a small spray bottle. It contained a raspberry-scented liquid. He sprayed it and asked the mask Nazi, “Can you smell that?”

The man replied, “yes, I smell raspberries.” My friend then pointed out to his clueless seatmate that the droplets in the spray were much larger than a Covid-19 virus. My clever buddy said the following:

If you are smelling raspberries then the mask is not preventing air particles with those molecules from penetrating your mask and entering your respiratory system. In other words, the mask is a joke and you are delusional. Mind your own business.

As I thought about this I suddenly realized that underwear and trousers are comparable to a conventional cloth face mask. Have you ever been near someone who committed the act of flatulence? Most times those incidents are most unpleasant and the noxious aroma stings your nose, pollutes your palate, and makes your eyes water.

If a derriere mask cannot block methane gas, why do so many educated people embrace the unscientific religion that masks stop airborne viruses?

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to If Masks Really Worked to Prevent COVID-19 You Wouldn’t Be Able to Smell

  1. walrus says:

    Larry, with respect, it has been pointed out numerous times that the mask is designed to trap droplets from your exhaling breath. These droplets may contain virus particles if you have Covid 19.

    Flavours, scents and farts are molecules that easily penetrate masks

    Masks in use today are not worn to directly “protect you from the virus” but to indirectly protect other people from you.

    • Larry Johnson says:

      You are wrong. What I did not include in the post is my prior experience as a Respiratory Therapist. I handled ventilators. And my wife was the Nurse manager of the Critical Care Unit at NIH. She also, a few years earlier, was the Nurse Manager for NIAID (i.e., Fauci). I know exactly the truth about masks. Your ignorance is inexcusable. Stop drinking the kool aid.

    • chris moffatt says:

      if the mask doesn’t stop droplets, whether raspberry flavored or something more noxious, coming in, it won’t stop droplets going out. The fact is most masks are about 1000 times too coarse to stop corona virus in either direction.

      • Yeah, Right says:

        Chris, the masks do stop droplets (very well, actually).

        The fact that the weave is too course for “naked” virus particles is irrelevant.

        They are intended to stop water droplets that have been coughed out by an infected person, and those droplets are much more that 1000 times the size of a virus.

    • Yeah, Right says:

      For what it is worth, this is the current statement from the Australian Federal Department of Health: “The main value of wearing a mask is to protect other people. If the person wearing the mask is unknowingly infected, wearing a mask will reduce the chance of them passing the virus on to others.”

      Or, basically, what Walrus said.

      The health profession is not particularly worried about virus particles floating around in the air: those will dessicate very rapidly.

      What concerns them is virus-laden droplets being coughed out (or even just breathed out) by an infected person.

      Surgical masks will stop those droplets.

      Standing 1.5m apart will also be effective (gravity is your friend).

      The two together is very effective.

  2. Fred says:

    These are population control devices, they work by magic. They inspire the authoritarians to control their fellows, because all are assumed to be infected. Forever.

  3. Jim says:

    CDC conducts critical science [it actually states this on website]

    For more than a year: to mask or not to mask has been the question – and the controversy is one Dr. Anthony “Science Fiction” Fauci himself helped spread with his own flip-flops on the matter, resulting in egg on his face.

    Buried in the thousands of pages of recently released Fauci emails are communications showing his initial pronouncements on whether to, or not, wear a mask – including that they should only be worn by those who are ill — was not a temporary lapse, or slip of the tongue.

    Rather, this was boilerplate science, fully endorsed by the agency he has led for decades, the National Institute of Allergy [NIAID] and Infectious Diseases, which is part of the federal National Institutes of Health.

    The NIH says they are “the nation’s medical research agency, supporting scientific studies that turn discovery into health.”

    Fauci’s key role – advising President Trump and now President Biden – made him the go-to guy for the science of all things COVID-19.

    More than a year ago, he first discouraged wearing masks, then said to wear them.

    What changed?

    The simple answer is that in April 2020, another federal agency, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidance – saying everyone should mask up, period, as a means to protect public health, inside and outdoors. To this day, no one knows from what actual scientific premise — and evidence — this CDC diktat arose; as none exist.

    Be that as it may: From then on, Fauci went along with the CDC.

    But prior to the initial CDC guidance that came two months later — according to a Feb. 11 email to Fauci — he was asked by an editor of The Pharmacist’s Letter, published by TRC Healthcare, to review material they would be publishing in March 2020.

    The TRC website says: “Because we believe that eliminating knowledge gaps and educating front-line clinicians is an essential ingredient in improving patient outcomes, we are therefore committed to delivering the most current and relevant evidence-based information available.”

    The Pharmacist’s Letter story was titled: “Reinforce Infection Control In Light of Coronavirus.”

    The Pharmacist’s Letter asked Fauci “to review what we have written for accuracy and content. Please share any comments or changes you may have on the article.”

    The Feb. 11 email to Fauci included a draft of contents planned for publication the next month.

    Fauci responded by forwarding the email to Dr. Andrea M. Lerner, M.D. She is a Medical Officer in the NIAID office of the chief of staff.


    Fauci told Lerner: “Please take a look at this and respond for me,” according to his Feb. 11, 2020 email.

    The draft Pharmacist’s Letter, in the February email to Fauci – in section specific to masks, began as follows: “Clear up confusion about masks. Emphasize that masks are for SICK patients.”

    And says, in part, “discourage surgical masks for most patients withOUT symptoms. . . there’s no evidence they help. They’re too loose to limit inhaling germs. . .and viruses can also get in through the eyes.”

    The published version in March says: “Clear up mask confusion. Caution that unnecessary use is leading to shortages.”

    And says: “Discourage masks for most people withOUT symptoms. Masks are too loose to keep all germs out. . .and viruses can get in through the eyes.”

    The Physician’s Letter, in a subsequent note, to the March 2020 edition, alerted readers the following month to the April 2020 CDC guidance, and said henceforth, refer to the CDC.

    “4/14/20 – This article was published before CDC released recommendations about cloth face coverings in public settings, available here*. Please keep in mind that guidance is changing quickly. Refer to the CDC for the most current recommendations.”

    *The link referred to is at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html and indicating CDC mask-wearing guidance was last updated on April 21, 2021.

    Just to emphasize, as this is key: the NIH is the purveyor of scientific knowledge in our system of government — “the nation’s medical research agency, supporting scientific studies that turn discovery into health.”

    The CDC is supposed to defer to the NIH on matters of scientific knowledge.

    Or put another way: scientific knowledge flows from the NIH to the CDC.

    Here, on the mask fairy tales, the CDC did whatever the hell it wanted; not based on science but based on who knows what.

    This is the CDC mission: “CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.”

    And this, which is embarrassing in its juvenile use of grammar: “To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science.” Perhaps they meant to say: CDC concocts critical science.



    I wonder what proportion of those in some form of counseling/therapy with psychologist/psychiatrist is similar [and correlates] to the proportion of the idiotic mask nuts telling the rest of us how to live?

    These folks live with a crutch of always being in therapy; and so want the rest of us to live with the crutch of wearing a demonstrably useless face diaper.

  4. blue peacock says:

    A British expert orchestrated a behind-the-scenes ‘bullying’ campaign to ensure blame for Covid was directed away from a Chinese lab with which he had worked closely.

    Dr Peter Daszak, 55, from Manchester, persuaded 26 other scientists to sign off on a letter he had written to world-leading scientific journal The Lancet claiming the virus could only have been natural in origin and to suggest otherwise creates ‘fear, rumours, and prejudice’.

    The letter flatly denied the virus could have originated in a lab in Wuhan and dismissed it as a ‘conspiracy theory’.


    The questions we ought to be asking is why did the groupthink orthodoxy gravitate to masks, lockdowns, vaccines and why were they so insistent on silencing dissenting voices? We know Big Tech played a big role in canceling anyone that provided a counter-narrative to the groupthink. Why did they do that? Who was running the play?

    Even Harvard professor of Medicine Martin Kulldorf was canceled by Big Tech because he provided a counter to the lockdown narrative.


  5. Deap says:

    Masks serve as shamanic totems. There was deep spiritual hunger among those who wanted to believe in powers higher than themselves. The mask was their supplication.

    When a mass hysteria grips a people, what are the underlying common denominators? Currently my belief system is it is easier to wear a mask on occasion than argue with True Believers. This too shall pass. But the propensity for mass hysteria will remain. I’d like to learn more about that.

  6. Alves says:

    I am aware that you disagree, but as Walrus pointed, non-N95 masks are used to protect other people from contamination by your droplets. It is far from perfect, but better than nothing, as the chance of not being contaminated is increased and the viral load of the initial contamination is also reduced, which is a good thing.

    It will not protect from contamination by aerosol and that is a well know fact.

    If governments were really serious, they would be pushing for wide spread use of N95/pff2 masks, though. By now it should be possible.

    • Deap says:

      What is the problematic viral load in aerosols. Sounds like missing “critical science” to me, at this late date. Close prolonged contact with someone coughing or sneezing, or just passing someone outdoors for a few seconds who is not symptomatic.

      The fact we still do not know this, yet willingly accepted universal masking mandates is a material missing part of the entire “pandemic” scenario.

      Had this been labeled a simply another “bad flu season” would the entire world have collapsed into mass hysteria, with little to no critical science to underpin the vast majority of state sponsored mandates?

      What was the contribution immediately using the word “pandemic” (sounds a lot like panic, and not just a cross border infection) in triggering the lurid imagery straight out of Hollywood’s Andromeda Strain or Matt Damon’s Contagion?

      Why does the cross border transgression at the US Mexican Border not trigger the same “pandemic” hysteria? Yet not wearing a mask at an outdoor graduation event is a crime against humanity. Too many patent inconsistencies – for political and not science-based effect.

      I think our heads have turned into mush after the past year’s goings on.

      • Alves says:

        Oh yes, the mass histeria that took away 0.56% of Peru`s population, 0.25% of Brazil, almost 0.2% of the USA, likely over 0.3% of Russia, and all of that with plenty of people still susceptible to COVID-19 around… as time passes and data accumulates, it would be better to recicle your arguments. It is not a bad flu season, which has a IFR of 0.02% or something around that. Come on.

        Anyway, we do not know for sure a lot about the virus and no one is talking about “problematic viral load in aerosols”, that is an unknow for sure. The assertion is that being contaminated by less virus is better and that aerosols versus aerosols + droplets will likely end in a reduced virus load when compared to the alternative.

        However, and let me repeat myself here because this, to me, is the real proof that most governments do not really care, it is a well know fact that PFF2/N95 masks work against virus. Infact, economic disaster could have been reduced by a lot by the simple use of a n95/pff2 mask, as restrictions could be a lot less than they were.

        Nevertheless, it is kind of silly to still have this kind of discussion about the USA, though. Just use one of the three approved vaccines and move on. Talk about masks are for the countries that are screwed without enough vaccines or for people that can not actually be vaccinated.

        • Desayuno con diamantes says:


          More than 30 from 43 doctors died so far in India were fully vaccinated..


          THE BIG SCAM: Germany’s hospitals (which are by law to be self-financing) have been dedicated to drastically eliminating the availability of beds, which artificially caused the collapse of ICUs and allowed them to receive government aid without increasing the number of patients…( Wondering which more scams will be appearing with time…)


          Euro 2020: Danish star Christian Eriksen ‘stable’ in hospital after collapsing on pitch during game with Finland …Vaccinated in Italy by WEF Dragui´s dictatorship..a young healthy guy in the plenitude of his sports career…


          The United States calls an emergency meeting for the cases of myocarditis in adolescents vaccinated with Pfizer and Moderna…

          In the United States, the side effects of vaccines already amount to 1,136,117 affected people, of which 5,888 have died, according to the Vaers database as of June 4 ..
          According to a study of +500,000 vaccinated people in Israel, the effectiveness of the first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine against Coronavirus is only 50% …


          With those data, at any other time in history, these meds would have been forbidden time ago….

          What the people is really dying from is from neglecting any other health conditions by the primacy of Covid-19 over everything else during already a year and a half, which equates to the elimination of health care in full in many public health systems, except for the rich, which is for sure one of the goals behind all this…

        • Larry Johnson says:

          You are wrong. The N95 provides no such protection. Do the math. Covid is .125 microns. N95 filters .3. Anything less than that passes. If you smell it, the virus can get through.

          • Leith says:

            The Covid virus does not travel through the air alone. It is a hitchhiker on tiny droplets of saliva and/or water or dust particles. These droplets/particles are a hell of a lot larger, typically by an order of magnitude

            And N95 masks can and do filter particles smaller than 0.3 microns, the good ones that are made to spec. They have multiple layers that carry an electrostatic charge that helps entrap these smaller particles.

        • Larry Johnson says:

          A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
          C Raina MacIntyre 1 , Holly Seale 1 , Tham Chi Dung 2 , Nguyen Tran Hien 2 , Phan Thi Nga 2 , Abrar Ahmad Chughtai 1 , Bayzidur Rahman 1 , Dominic E Dwyer 3 , Quanyi Wang 4

          PMID: 25903751 PMCID: PMC4420971 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577

          Free PMC article

          Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.

          Setting: 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.

          Participants: 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.

          Intervention: Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.

          Main outcome measure: Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.

          Results: The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

          Conclusions: This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

      • Yeah, Right says:

        The advice I have received was this: if someone breaths out a water droplet that is large enough to “protect” the covid-19 virus from drying up then that droplet is very unlikely to travel more than 1.5m because, well, gravity is a thing.

        But droplets small enough to hang in the air and float more than 1.5m are unlikely to shield virus particles from UV and, basically, will dry out too quickly to be much of a danger.

        But all bets are off is someone COUGHS out a water droplet, because then the velocity is much greater.

        So surgical masks are designed to catch coughing.

        Or, in other words: BOTH distancing AND surgical masks are important where you are in a Covid “hotspot”.

        Where there isn’t a Covid “hotspot” then distancing alone is sufficient, and a mask is unnecessary.

  7. walrus says:

    Thank you Larry, I’m always happy to be proved wrong. I was under the mistaken impression that the virus may be present in aerosols that a mask helps trap.

    Can you please explain for me why the CDC, FDA, etc., etc. still believe in mandatory masks?

    I also don’t understand why operating theatre staff, including surgeons, have been wearing something similar for perhaps a hundred years.

    • Deap says:

      Lots of fluids and particles splashing around during surgeries. Masks provide physical protection from frank particulate matter; but not necessarily microscopic infection protection. Gowns and gloves play a role too, so face and head coverings are also part of surgical garb.

      Hospital-acquired infections – the attempted “sterile environment” of hospital settings actually created super-bugs plaguing many a patient’s recoveries or surgical wounds that never heal. This issue rarely gets public attention directly, but there are ways to track a hospital’s post surgical infection rate.

      There are outliers who think a dirtier hospital may in fact be a safer hospital, allowing less lethal bugs to survive instead of unwittingly creating anti-biotic resistant super bugs in super-sterile settings. BTW: Science is never settled.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      None of those people or groups believe in masks. They just want dupes to. It’s political theatre and an IO – and you have fallen for it.

      See for yourself – https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/06/12/no-masks-no-distancing-disgraceful-covid-hypocrisy-of-the-g7-elite/

  8. Desayuno con diamantes says:

    “why do so many educated people embrace the unscientific religion that masks stop airborne viruses?”

    Because they are not so educated…
    Because the TV says it so…
    Because POTUS, kamal and Fauxci says it so…
    Because eventhough appearing like adults, they have so childish mind that they really love being mandated all day what to do..
    Because in the end they are all a bunch of masochists…
    Because they are a bunch of mindundis who never shone at anything and have just found a new sense to their empty lives in becoming mask gestapo and a probable way to go up without merits….

  9. DLM says:

    Breathe on your hand without a mask, then breathe on your hand through a mask. You will feel the breath the first time but not the second. This suggests that masks do reduce how far you can expel virus particles by breathing. Is this line of reasoning wrong? I fully admit that I have minimal understanding of medicine. I am also inclined to ask that if masks don’t work, why didn’t more nurses and doctors catch Covid?

    • Desayuno con diamantes says:

      “I am also inclined to ask that if masks don’t work, why didn’t more nurses and doctors catch Covid?”

      Because, as people fully inmersed in the world of viruses and bacterias 8-10hours/5-6days/week, the whole year, for decades, they have developed strong immunity than the average human being?

      The whole Covidian cult and its cultists are willingly forgetting, and trying to erase from people´s minds´consideration, the, through ages of evolution widely demonstrated, astounding power of natural inmunity…which no pre-Covid-19 pandemic about to crash corporation could in any way imitate, less made it better…They are not such luminaires…

      The fact the Johnson&Johnson CEO is caliming for the need to vaccinate the whole population every years for the decades to come so demonstrate…willingl yfirgetting that people who have passed Covid-19 have probably immunity for life…

  10. Leith says:

    I like them whether they work or not. Because at 79 years old I’m rediscovering how beautiful and expressive women’s eyes are.

    • AK says:


      I also find women’s smiles incredibly captivating. It is one of my favorite of my wife’s numerous enchanting features. And by no means does being able to admire her smile preclude me from admiring her eyes.

  11. English Outsider says:

    I believe one rationale behind the use of masks is that they reduce the velocity of exhaled air. This is particularly the case when the wearer is coughing or speaking.

    Since the viral load is heaviest when the breath is just exhaled this prevents the projection of that viral load as far as if masks are not worn. The particles are dissipated or “diluted” before getting as far.

    Why not cotton though? The material they use doesn’t rot so that’s a long term disposal problem. I haven’t seen studies showing how important this velocity reduction factor is compared with other factors – reduction of large droplets in or out of the mask etc – but if it’s the significant factor then cotton would do as well.

  12. Ishmael Zechariah says:

    Fellow Pilgrims,
    The following links might be pertinent:
    1-Visualization of air flows w/ w/o masks:
    There is a strong caveat:
    “Schlieren is good at helping us understand airflows,” he warns, “but we can’t make any claims about droplet mitigation using schlieren … We’re looking at airflows and refractive-index changes; we’re not looking at droplets and virus transport.”
    2-“Aerosol penetration through surgical masks”: This article is from 1992, somewhat prior to the current PMC-subverted dialogue we are dealing with world-wide;
    “Results: A surgical mask consisting of filter material performed better than did a surgical mask consisting only of a shell with a coarse pore structure. The latter passed 80% of submicrometer-sized aerosols with little flow dependency, whereas the penetration of submicrometer-sized aerosols through the mask made of filter material ranged from 25% at a flow rate of 5 L/min to 70% at 100 L/min. “
    3-The precautionary principle:
    “The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) is a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous. Critics argue that it is vague, self-cancelling, unscientific and an obstacle to progress.”

    Assertive use of the rhetoric of “science” when the data is ambiguous might not be very helpful. I am sad to see that the term “scientist” has become a pejorative. maybe justifiably so.

    Ishmael Zechariah

    OT: Some news about Turkey:
    watching these videos in Turkey w/o VPN can get you a jail term, but a lot of folks do…

  13. scott s. says:

    My question is why hasn’t the Public Health Service and Surgeon General been at the forefront of this? Isn’t that why they exist? Why is some guy from NIH running things, who isn’t even in the commissioned service?

    From what I’ve read, aerosol is the primary route of person to person transmission. It appears the best defense is air movement, to reduce the concentration of aerosols transporting live virus. These days I can go on base (Schofield Barracks) maskless including the base gym, but off-base it’s mask up or die (though recently the gov did allow for maskless outdoors).

    • Desayuno con diamantes says:

      The aim of masks, amongst many, is that citizens do not talk to each other..

      In this case they do not want you vtalking to civilians (..not going to contact some fed up “negationists” and start planning for a coup to straight the ship a bit…

      As a sample, and for you to test these are plans for all of us from the One World Government, past university access exam in Spain had as topics for redaction “Negationism” and “The importance of Silence”…This is for people in their 18…go figure..They do not leave any aspect of life go wild…

      Tight control…

  14. Deap says:

    A downside of masks is we often start mouth-breathing to gasp in enough oxygen. Thus circumventing one of our primary immune defense systems – the mucous of our nasal and sinus cavities, as well as warming the air to a required temperature that we take into our bodies.

  15. Desayuno con diamantes says:

    Contrary to what they do all involved governments, who refuse to give the daily data of hospitalized and EMR and ICU entries of vaccinated cases ( which they have…) at least an honest hospital which has not succumbed to blackmail and strong pressure to forget even Deontologic oath…

    IHU Méditerranée Infection;
    La “vaccination” ne prévient ni “les hospitalisations ni les formes les plus sévères” (“vaccination did neither prevent hospitalizations nor the most severe forms”).
    Courrier envoyé par Pierre-Édouard Fournier et @raoult_didier
    à @TheLancet:


    Now, tell me, why are they still vaccinating people and why Tony Blair is calling for the imposition of a two-tier society?


    This, when Boris Johnson stated these past days…

    “Dexamethasone has saved one million lives. We do not know the extent of our defenses. We will have to continue vaccinating. We firmly believe that there will be another wave. We must investigate antivirals ”

    Whoever wants to understand, let him understand….


    We accept that they laugh at us without blinking. The mask thing is just one example.



    Authorities usually advise people through social media on caring to put their pets fresher muzzles in summer so that they are able to breathe freely and refresh…
    Notice this is not being done with humans…

  16. Christian J. Chuba says:

    Masks stop infected people from spreading the virus to non-infected people. It does not matter how small the virus is because it needs to ride on droplets to spread to others.

    Here is a case study that specifically measured mask usage on an airline …

    Over several weeks on flights from Dubai to Hong Hong there were zero examples of covid spreading on airline flights when mask usage was mandatory. They can measure this because at that time, Hong Kong required all new arrivals to be tested immediately and then 14 days later so they knew who was already sick on the plane vs being sick afterward.

    • Artemesia says:

      In other words, masks cannot be said to have stopped any virus from spreading: nobody was sick who boarded the plane; nobody was sick who disembarked.

      Masks work 100% when no one is sick.

      Someone mentioned use of masks by physicians and nurses, especially in operating theaters.
      It happens that I had three surgeries over the months of the pandemic. Everyone in operating theater was masked.
      NO ONE outside the operating theater was masked.

      People who are not sick or who do not need to maintain a sterile environment do not customarily wear masks.
      Doesn’t matter whether N95 or paper-tissue: if you are not sick, mask is, as Deap noted, shamanic totems.

      • Leith says:

        Actually there have been over 2000 cases in HK imported by airline and ship passengers/crew. They were hospitalized immediately after testing.

  17. Sam says:

    They call Jeremy “The Cleaner.” It’s who you phone at 7am on a Saturday when it’s just got out that you’ve created a pandemic that is going to kill millions of people.


  18. Sam says:

    Hi @SpringerNature, what’s going on with the stealth edits?

    First, you added a natural origins disclaimer to this important article. Then you quietly removed it. Are you now claiming the virus didn’t come from nature after all? Why did you add the disclaimer in the first place?


    How can you trust “the science” journal Nature when they do these types of stealth edits with no explanation?

  19. Sam says:

    This is the sort of heavy lifting that ought to win Pulitzers (instead of taking dictation from Schiff).

    There’s also a lot more where this came from. 100s of hours of unexplored interviews, conference talks and so on from the last ten years featuring Daszak, Baric, Farrar, etc.


    Roger Stone got nailed for lying to Congress. Comey, Brennan, Clapper and now Fauci are apparently immune from perjury.

  20. j.+casey says:

    A few weeks back I saw a FOIA response letter from the CDC (will try to find it and post) that said, “CDC is not aware of any randomized, controlled trials that demonstrate the ability of N95 masks to reduce the transmission of viral infection.”

    Masks are key part of the Cult Covidian long-con, as is the supposed danger of so-called asymptomatic carriers, which is what supposedly necessitates the need for masks.
    We are way past pseudo-science now, and well into just plain mass psychosis. The fact that we, as a country, have thrown out own children under the bus is, even for me, truly shocking. A society that exploits its most vulnerable members is doomed.

    • blue peacock says:

      As I noted up-thread, even Harvard professor of Medicine, Martin Kulldorf was canceled by Big Tech because his narrative went against the groupthink orthodoxy of lockdowns.

      Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya also spoke against lockdowns and noted how herd immunity was achieved over the past century for various infections.

      Of course anyone that contested the groupthink narrative were promptly discredited and canceled.

  21. Sam says:

    A fascinating thread that unpacks the collusion and orchestration among the Chinese, Americans and British virologists in the early days of the pandemic to close ranks.

    Who killed the lab leak hypothesis?

    Jeremy Farrar got news of the outbreak early, he hand-picked experts to advise world leaders, and made sure institutions spoke as one: “There was no leak, the virus emerged naturally”.

    On 2019’s last day, the head of China’s CDC called him…


Comments are closed.