I have been reading a lot of books and material and listening to pod casts about the COVID virus lately. I don’t think much accurate information will be found on Google and Youtube because of the high amount of censoring done against anything not politically correct. There are a number of very smart people who aren’t in a position to profit from what they write who are looking at all the information and coming to conclusions that are much different then what we hear on the news or the media. A recent small book is entitled “Unreported Facts About COVID 19, Lockdowns: part 3 Masks” by Alex Berenson. Here are some quotes from the book.

June 5, the WHO had released a statement entitled “Advice on the use of masks in the context of Covid-19.” The paper ran 16 pages and included 80 footnotes and this statement: At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence. Less than 48 hours later they completely reversed their position because of worldwide government pressure.

In December 2013 the Canadian nurses’ union filed a grievance against the requirement for nurses to wear face covering. The case went to a neutral arbitrator, James Hayes. He heard thousands of pages of testimony from six expert witnesses, consulted 249 exhibits, and read more than 100 scientific papers. In September 2015, Hayes issued a 136-page ruling saying hospitals could not make nurses wear masks. The “scientific evidence said to support the [mask mandate] on patient safety grounds is insufficient,” he wrote. (https://www.ona.org/wp-content/uploads/ona_kaplanarbitrationdecision_vaccinateormask_stmichaelsoha_20180906.pdf)

A study done on particle size that people breath out and masks came to this conclusion, “In basic terms, masks have almost no chance of catching most of the particles we exhale.”https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850208002036)

In a paper published on Nov. 18, Danish researchers reported on a trial that covered almost 5,000 people in Denmark in the spring. The trial was carefully designed and executed, and the conclusion: Unless future large randomized controlled trials find different results, the Danish mask study essentially should end the debate if surgical masks protect people who wear them outside hospitals. As physicians and infectious disease professionals largely agreed, the answer is that they don’t. Anyone who says otherwise, for whatever reason, is being untruthful – and as of Nov. 10, that group, unfortunately, includes the Centers for Disease Control.

At the conclusion of the book the author asks the question, ”on the basis of such flimsy evidence that masks make any difference why would the universal use of them be pushed so hard by so many?” He comes to several conclusions but the last one is the one I have believed to be true for some time, ”But the worst reason of all is that mask mandates appear to be an effort by governments to find out what restrictions on their civil liberties people will accept on the thinnest possible evidence. ”