This was written last year to my Governor in Massachusetts, in response to attacks for not wearing my mask above my nose. Never thought we still be fixated on wearing masks, or virus, or for that matter, imposing dangerous experimental vaccines. I am posting now, because it's just as relevant now as it was last year.
October 13, 2020
Governor Baker
Massachusetts State House,
24 Beacon Street,
Office of the Governor,
Room 280,
Boston, MA 02133
Subject: Wearing Masks
Dear Governor Baker,
I am confused on the way Covid-19 was handled in Massachusetts, particularly with the imposition of masks, which by themselves are not only unhealthy for people who wear them continuously, particularly the vulnerable population, but ends up causing more risks to the wearers by promoting more bacterial infections to themselves and others.
I have read studies regarding the efficacy of masks, conducted both in 2020, and in the past 7 years, and the consensus indicate – even under settings where they found some efficacy in masks – that there is no conclusive proof that they work against viral infections from spreading in the public setting. In RCT studies where masks demonstrated some efficacy, these studies were conducted in very control settings with emphasis on the proper use of them, where disposable masks were worn with gowns and gloves and dispose of after 20 to 30 minutes of use with patients. These studies, unfortunately, cannot be extrapolated for the rest of the population for the following reasons:
The majority of the population does not wear gloves or gowns, except in control setting -- clinical.
People re-use (even disposables ones) the same masks, taking them off and replacing them repeatedly (sometimes 20 times a day), contaminating the inside of the masks with whatever bacteria and viruses were filtered from the outside, and contaminating the outside with their own pathogens that was filtered from the inside. Rendering the whole purpose of wearing the masks ineffective.
Most people wear cloth masks, and at least 20 to 30 percent wear scarfs. The scarf offer no protection whatsoever, and depending on the material, the cloth ones minimally filter some bacteria in the short term, but does not filter viruses which are significantly smaller that easily penetrated through the pores of the fiber, essentially rendering the purpose of wearing the masks in the first place moot.
Cloth and Scarf masks that are porous can’t filter both bacteria and viruses, when washed, become even more porous, making them less effective (as if they were effective in the first place).
Cloth material are positively charged, worn all day long, attract and collect dust. Dust contain mites, mites contain feces, the feces contain streptococcus, staphylococcus, pneumococcus, etc.. Fibers of the fabric, along with the dust, along with the moisture from one’s breath that breed the aforementioned bacteria, are inhaled by the wearer into their lungs, posing risks for infections, like pleurisy, strep throat, pneumonia, bronchitis, and other upper respiratory illnesses. This is not good for people with upper respiratory problems like COPD, sinusitis, asthma, or prone to pleurisy and pneumonia, etc. These types of bacterial infections are highly infectious, and more likely to be spread by the wearer, particularly where they work in high traffic areas like Café Nero, and are constantly handing coffee over to their patrons without gloves (they remove and replace their masks 20 to 30 times a day, contaminating both the outside and inside of the masks). In addition, masks cause all kinds of rashes and bacterial skin infections to the wearer’s face, especially among children.
Of the seven or more studies that I have read (and this is just a sample), including the ones listed on the CDC’s site, the masks’ efficacy is either inconclusive or don’t work (for the aforementioned reasons).
Furthermore, if baristas at cafes or cashiers at Walmart, Targets, and CVS are exchanging money and products with their patrons, how are masks going to stop the spread of infection? If all surfaces of the bathrooms, tables, counters and products have been handled numerous times by both patrons and retail clerks, what could masks do (if they were effective) if surfaces are already contaminated and hence so is the population that has come in contact with it?
Masks were designed to be worn for short periods of time, and in clinical settings, discarded after brief use. It seems to me that we are placing a population at risks for all kinds of upper respiratory infections, particularly the vulnerable, for both the wearer and who they come in contact with. Many long term wearers, clerical employees interacting with consumers, are experiencing headaches, dizziness, and anxieties, mainly because they are not getting enough oxygen and breathing their own carbon dioxide (and waste). In fact mask wearers, as result of their profession, have a higher suicide rate than the rest of the population. To me that’s recipe for a disaster – an unhealthy population is more prone to infections, bacterial or otherwise, infecting and re-infecting each other.
Studies of sample population in California and in other states, ascertained that the spread of infection has reached 20 to 25% or more. More testing will not reveal a spike in infections, but an already asymptomatic population. Some researchers say that this percentage may be as high as 50%, and that this would confer herd-immunity benefits that would eventually burn out the virus. If we were to extrapolate this sampling, that would mean that 75 to 150 million people are already have markers (monoclonal-antibodies) for presumptive (not yet identified) Covid-19. So, here is where it gets confusing:
The intent to blunt a spike will never occur, since we may have 25 to 50% of population infected, but are asymptomatic. To accurately determine if in fact a population has increasingly become more infected, one would have to test those that have tested negative to determine if they got infected between tests. That would determine if in fact the population was getting more infected rather than reflect a percentage of an already infected population. And that’s assuming that all tests and testing kits have been audited by an independent 3rd party to ensure they’re able to accurately detect the covid-2 genome, and the tests have not yielded a false negative and positives.
Secondly, how is a cohort who showed no symptoms, but tested positive, different than the group that did test positive and had symptoms but were quarantined and allowed to go back into the public? Why is characterizing an asymptomatic population at risk of infecting others, but the ones that have recovered from mild symptoms are not? If both groups: the recovered vs. the asymptomatic have antibodies, and neither have symptoms, how are they different? Shouldn’t the recovered Covid-19 just as easily infect a population equally as much as the asymptomatic population? Aren’t the viral loads of both the recovered and asymptomatic group on par? Isn’t viral/bacterial load (and one’s immune system) the key determinant for the risk of infecting others? What would quarantining do to an asymptomatic person that has had the antibodies presume to be covid-2 for some time? Isn’t that person past the quarantine period, and therefore preclude the necessity of quarantine? Particularly if the viral load is insignificantly too low – taking 30X amplification through a faulty PCR Test to show a fragment from prior corona virus infection?
An asymptomatic person, with no symptoms, may, depending on stress, cause the immune system to drop, and hence, at risk for infections (bacterial or otherwise) – yields symptoms, and test positive, does not mean that the person is sick because of Covid-19, but may have a common household bacterial cold as would the case for all of us when exposed to bacterial or viral infections, for the same reason that a recovered Covid-19 cohort can just as easily have a relapse or get sick again and expose others to infection – more so than asymptomatic group that is already healthy. Isn’t the asymptomatic group just as immune from Covid-19 as the recovered Covid-19 group, with the same antibodies, because the asymptomatic, essentially means they’re temporarily immune? Yes, anyone get sick again, having recovered from a cold, just as much as asymptomatic group can get also sick if their immune system is compromised. I suspect the logic used for quarantining an asymptomatic group once tested positive is that there’s no way to tell if that person just recently got infected, and hence, no way to determine if that person will get suddenly ill thereby posing a threat to others? I get it. But if they’re healthy, then aren’t they asymptomatically immune? Quarantining a healthy person for 15 days by immobilizing them and cutting them off from breathing fresh air, exercising, and the possibility of social interaction (despite distances), at a time when oxygen, sunshine and heat is bad for viruses and bacteria, is compromising their present state of health.
I, for example, am allergic to dust (that is the bacteria in dust), hence easily catch a staph or strep cold if stress causes my immune system to drop – these opportunistic bacteria in my body would knock me on back for more than two weeks, though I would’ve easily recovered from a viral cold in two to three days. It’s the bacterium that poses a threat to my body. Which is the reason why I avoid people with strep throat, bacterial colds, pneumonia or other respiratory infections – I have more to fear from people wearing masks all day than I do from viral infections. It’s the bacterial “load” that I am afraid of. We’re all carriers of deadly pathogens. Fortunately, our immune system keeps these pathogens at bay in minute amounts, for building defenses so at the appropriate time proper defenses can be mobilize to fight off the pathogens when they grow in numbers (opportunistic pathogens grow when the immune system is compromised). 500 years ago Europeans began wiping out about 70% to 80% of the indigenous population of both North and South America – the Europeans weren’t sick, they were carriers of their own pathogens to a population that had little exposure to them. And an asymptomatic, healthy population that have trace amount of the virus, provides herd immunity by naturally vaccinating the population, without the deadly side effects of prematurely made vaccines that have deadly and crippling consequences.
There is some controversy on the RT-PCR testing that was not designed to test Covid-19 genome (because at the time, according to NIH, they did not have covid-2 genome identified) but instead the kit only identifies (and amplify 30 times) insignificant corona viral DNA/RNA fragments, yielding both 80% false positives and false negatives. How much of that data is being used for building both models and benchmarks? Have we audited these inadequate test kits to determine their efficacy in identifying the Covid-2 genome (the FDA list approved four, while there are 75 being used – left to the manufacturers to self-audit the kits); what percentage of the population (tested false positive) the data encapsulated? I suspect by now, these tests have been improved to test specifically for Covid-19 genome (if Covid-2 genome was identified– and that’s an optimistic if), but what percentage in the past was this data used for testing that couldn’t accurately identified Covid-19? Shouldn’t this data be flagged for audit or with a caveat that there’s no conclusive proof that this particular population was truly infected with Covid-19? And shouldn’t this group be retested (with the proper test, if or when we have a valid one) to ensure they weren’t false positives (leading them to believe they were infected)? I would hate to apply for a job in this market with a false positive report on my test. Florida, for example, tested 100% in 40 locations, which is statistically impossible. Yet, when two locations were audited, the actual tested positives were less than 10%. How many of the locations in Massachusetts that did testing and had a high rate of positive tests were audited? That’s the kind of information that would benefit us and truly inform policy. What about performing autopsy on the dead labeled Covid-19 to truly determine the real cause of death, and truly determine if in fact they had covid-19 (since the virus load accumulated in the lungs would certainly show signs of the virus – but for some reason are label covid-2 in the absence of said virus) instead of lumping all comorbidities as Covid-19 regardless of the true cause of death? Isn’t that important to inform policy in the future for the appropriate response?
Household confinement, destruction of businesses, massive unemployment, social distancing, forced to wear unhealthy masks under threat of law enforcement, is characteristic of a totalitarian, communistic police state that eats away at the very liberties that were hard won by all predecessors (civil rights, freedom fighters, etc.) in the last two hundred years, and violates the very foundation for which our republic and democracy stands. A Healthy society depends on healthy citizens. Already we have a rise in both suicides, by at least 25% since last year, suicide ideation by 50%, and depression up from last year by 400%. Citizens give rise to governance through consent, not through a minority elite comprise of powerful institutions and their lobbyists wielding disproportionate influence over government and health ministries. When society loses its ability to provide a modicum of freedoms for its citizens, e.g., the freedom to pursue happiness, than it can only give rise to the kinds of dissent of the likes we have not seen since the days our founding fathers revolted to the tyranny imposed by British rule. Our founding fathers were clear on this, which is why they embedded in the second paragraph of America’s Declaration of Independence the following clause:
“ -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the government, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4th, 1776.
The civil war which erupted in this country in the last few months is but a tip of an iceberg of festering frustration and anger waiting for some galvanizing force that will redirect it to the real culprit of their unhappiness: the insanity of the draconian measures being impose upon them – closure of businesses, loss of job and income, poverty, curtailment of social interaction, restrictions on freedom, mandatory subservience through wearing unhealthy masks, and the suppression of the truth. Once they realize that, they will cease fighting each other, unite on this single commonality and provide the critical mass needed to force their leaders to restore what they took away in a power-grab, top-down approach without people’s consent and without sound science. Let’s not get confuse what is truly at stake here. The ends do not justify the means.
Respectfully yours,
Rob Lake,
A citizen with the backbone to speak with the voice of reason.
p.s. I voted for you, twice.
Incidentally, recently CDC’s re-assessed the count of all Covid-2 fatalities with 1 or more comorbidities, and adjusted them to 6% of previously reported, from 191,353 to 9,500 for the entire US population thus far. That would mean that Massachusetts’ fatality count of 9890 is actually only a fraction – 588 (most of which were people in their 70s/80s that would have died had they been exposed to the flu or other comorbidities, pneumonia, cancer, etc.). Perhaps now would be a good time to reconsider if Covid-2 is actually as serious as everyone has claimed it to be, given recent CDC’s disclosure.