Dear Reader,
The wearing of a face mask to protect against a respiratory virus is an act of grand deceit. It is a behavior that defies research on the topic. Wearing a face mask, as this article (one of many) points to — is unsafe to do and is ineffective.
Until the narrative around mandatory masking has changed, each day by 6am Eastern, I will both post here and send out a science-based reason why no one should wear a face mask.
I ask that you help me circulate these pieces to those around you who you believe could most benefit from them. It is important not to remain silent on this topic. These are important discussions to be having with friends, family members, business owners, healthcare practitioners, public servants, and others in the community.
-Allan
Carbon dioxide is a natural, healthy part of life. We exhale carbon dioxide normally and also inhale some carbon dioxide normally. There is nothing wrong with that. It is when there is too much carbon dioxide inhaled that it becomes a problem. In the HSE Contract research report No. 27/1991 article, “Dead Space and inhaled carbon dioxide levels in respiratory protective equipment,” L. A. Morris writes:1
“Carbon dioxide is a normal body constituent and has important physiological roles in the control of respiration and the regulation of cerebral blood flow.2 It is readily taken up by the blood and can freely diffuse into the body tissues, leading to a rapid onset of toxic effects.”3
Carbon dioxide so easily diffuses into the body’s tissues, making too much inhaled carbon dioxide particularly toxic, with impacts that harm the entire body. Morris points out:
“When ambient levels exceed a threshold of about 0.3 % CO2, the partial pressure gradient from the blood to the lungs becomes less favorable to the elimination of metabolically generated carbon dioxide.4 The body initially compensates for this by increasing pulmonary ventilation. However, as inhaled CO2 levels increase further (beyond 1-2%) the effectiveness of this response falls off, with the result that arterial CO2 levels increase beyond their normal range, 35-45 mm Hg.2,5 If unchecked, the consequent acidosis can cause severe disruption to acid-base regulation with widespread effects on the respiratory, circulatory and central nervous systems.”4
At high enough levels, carbon dioxide even creates a narcotic effect. Morris continues:
“At concentrations in excess of 7.5%, carbon dioxide has a narcotic action leading to signs of intoxication and eventual loss of consciousness. While such levels are unlikely to be encountered in industrial RPE, they could be attained in the rare even of air supply failure in a positive pressure device.”6
This narcotic effect can be felt in under two minutes in high enough concentrations. Morris writes about this further:
“The toxic effects of carbon dioxide are known to be related to the duration of exposure as well as the ambient concentration.7 For example, an ambient level of 10% CO2 can lead to the onset of neurological symptoms in less than two minutes.8,9 On the other hand, concentrations in the range 1 to 1.5% have been tolerated for extended periods (up to 42 days) without adverse physiological effects or symptoms.10,11 Indeed, during prolonged exposures at these levels there may be some adaptation or acclimatization which can modify the physiological and biochemical changes.”12,13
You may ask, though, how much carbon dioxide is trapped behind a face mask. Without that information, after all, this data from Morris is not very helpful.
Michelle Rhea et al. in a somewhat dishonestly named April 2021 study “Carbon dioxide increases with face masks but remains below short-term NIOSH limits,” cover that topic further.
A more fitting title for their paper would be “Carbon dioxide increases with face masks far above NIOSH limits.” According to their research, KN95 masks are acceptable to wear for no more than 15 minutes, because they fall slightly below the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 15 minute threshold for carbon dioxide. With the mandates everywhere to be found, no one who wears a face mask realistically wears a face mask for only 15 minutes. Your child at school is estimated to wear a face mask for more like 270 minutes.14 Taking that into consideration, the title of Rhea’s work is dishonest, in deed. 1% is the 8 hour NIOSH exposure limit for carbon dioxide. Wearing no mask, according to Rhea keeps one below that limit.
Rhea looks at the Chinese standard, KN95 mask in the study. 70% of KN95 mask sold in the United States do not meet the minimum standards for that product, according to a September 2020 study.15 Had N95 masks been used in this study, that may have produced different results, likely with higher levels of carbon dioxide, since a higher standard mask would likely have less air transfer.
Rhea determined that KN95 masks create an environment between 2.5% and 3.0% carbon dioxide under the mask. Again 3% is the NIOSH 15 minute exposure limit for carbon dioxide. Though we must keep in mind the vast possibility of individual dead space, Rhea’s research means that a KN95 mask can likely be worn by most people for less than 15 minutes without carbon dioxide levels becoming dangerous.
I have not seen those headlines or warnings flashed anywhere during Covid. The CDC is the parent organization of NIOSH. Would it be asking too much for the CDC to publicly state these limits and the dangerous conditions caused by wearing them for more than 15 minutes, seeing that the CDC is purporting to forcibly mask us and our children for our safety?
A dangerous environment is not just created by KN95 masks, but surgical masks also trap carbon dioxide in the dead space of the wearer.
According to Harald Walach et al. writing in a research letter for the Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics on June 30, 2021:
“The normal content of carbon dioxide in the open is about 0.04% by volume (ie, 400 ppm). A level of 0.2% by volume or 2000 ppm is the limit for closed rooms according to the German Federal Environmental Office, and everything beyond this level is unacceptable.”16
Walach’s study has limited use in practical setting because it was conducted in a laboratory and after only a few minutes of mask use. This information is useful for demonstrating a trend, but does not describe real life scenarios well. Real life scenarios may prove far more harmful to wearers of face masks. Walach’s conclusions were that face masks significantly exceed safe federal limits for carbon dioxide:
“We measured means (SDs) between 13,120 (384) and 13,910 (374) ppm of carbon dioxide in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece 2 (FFP2) masks, which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6. This was a value reached after 3 minutes of measurement. Children under normal conditions in schools wear such masks for a mean of 270 (interquartile range, 120-390) minutes.17 The Figure shows that the value of the child with the lowest carbon dioxide level was 3-fold greater than the limit of 0.2 % by volume.18 The youngest children had the highest values, with one 7-year-old child’s carbon dioxide level measured at 25,000 ppm.”
Even higher readings than these are likely to be noticed after longer periods of mask wearing and in environments of normal activity outside of a laboratory.
Nothing about these findings is surprising. This is research in a mainstream publication pointing to what occupational health professionals have long known: a dangerous amount of carbon dioxide accumulates behind a face mask.
The research letter from Walach was retracted by the editor of the journal, Dimitri Christakis, 17 days after it was first published in a July 16, 2021 letter Christakis writes:
“Given fundamental concerns about the study methodology, uncertainty regarding the validity of the findings and conclusions, and the potential public health implications, the editors have retracted this Research Letter.”19
Having not read the feedback received by Christakis, I am unable to comment on the validity of the criticism toward the methodology. The measurements reported in the results are approximately what could have been expected. I have no idea if Walach’s work was faulty, which is unlikely since the range was inside the limit one would expect and which other research confirms. Even if Walach’s research was faulty, could it possibly matter to you or me if the results were 2x, 5x, or 10x the German federal limit? The trend remains the same — too much carbon dioxide exists behind the face mask, so much as to be illegal for a grown man at work.
Walach’s point is well taken. Face mask limits were put in place for safety. Carbon dioxide limits were put in place for safety. Those standards are being violated en masse across the globe, sacrificing the wellbeing of those wearing them, and for the sake of a face mask that does not work.
The likely reason for retraction is to be found in the Christakis letter. Walach and team attacked a topic they were not supposed to: mandatory masking of the population.
Walach had a second piece of research in a major publication retracted in the same month. It was a peer reviewed article illustrating that there may be more danger to taking the Covid vaccine than there is benefit of prevention.20
The successful publishing of that piece and the retraction likely also played a role in the retraction of the Walach face mask piece. The backlash was fierce.
Six members of the editorial board of the journal Vaccines threatened to resign if the study was published.21 Walach was also fired from his university post as a punishment for publishing an article critical of Covid-19 vaccines. The University of Poznań, his former employer issuing a statement that it did not agree with Walach on his criticism of vaccines. It is unclear why anyone needs to agree with or disagree with Walach when it was data that he was presenting.
Given the poor post-marketing resources for Covid-19 vaccine data, it appears that Walach and his co-authors identified the best resources they could to determine that there is, in deed, a trend toward the Covid vaccines being unsafe.
In a letter from his former employer, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, signed by the press officer of the school, Rafał Staszewski, and the head of the College of Health Sciences, Jarosław Walkowiak, university leadership pays lip service to academic freedom before stating their opinion: “In our opinion, the study misleadingly used data to yield conclusions that are wrong and may lead to public harm.”22
If Walach’s research is such a danger to public health, proving him wrong with robust debate backed by solid data would be significantly more reassuring than silencing his work and pushing him out of his job.
Walach’s former employers close their letter on the firing of Walach with this “Vaccinations are the most important weapon in the fight against the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic. This is the message that the Poznan University of Medical Sciences wishes to spread.” They are terrified to appear to oppose the official narrative. Can such cowardly authors possibly be brave enough to actually support the academic freedom that they claim to support? That would be unusual.
Freedom is won by the brave and lost by the cowardly. In all ages, this one being no different, cowards pave the way for tyranny and exchange freedom for the ability to continue in their own comfortable cowardice.
Outlandish reactions to Walach’s work, and the work of other honest and heroic scientists, in an attempt to use readily available data and the scientific method to open discussion on the topic is one reason why there has been so little scientific debate on the topic. Dissent has been dealt with harshly. Brave men, like Harald Walach, are in short supply. Scienticism — an obedience to authority — has replaced the scientific method — a process of research and question asking.
Morris LA. Dead Space and Inhaled Carbon Dioxide Levels in Respiratory Protective Equipment. HSE Health & Safety Executive. 1991. Retrieved from https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/1991/crr91027
LAMBERTSEN, 1960. Carbon dioxide and respiration in acid-based homeostasis. Anesthesiology; 21: 642-651
LAMBERTSEN, 1974; NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, 1976. Effects of excessive pressures of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide: implications in aerospace, undersea and industrial environments. In: Mountcastle VB, ed. Medical physiology. Vol. 2. 13th ed. St Louis: Mosby: 1563-1597.
MALKIN, 1975. Barometric pressure and gas composition. In: Calvin M, Gazenko OG, eds. Foundations of space biology and medicine. Joint USA/USSR publication in three volumes. Vol. II, Book 1: Ecological and physiological bases of space biology and medicine. Washington (DC): National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 3-64.
LANPHIER and CAMPORESI, 1982. Respiration and exercise. In: Bennett PB, Elliott DH, Eds. The physiology and medicine of diving. 3rd ed. London: Bailliere Tindall: 99-156.
BOSTOCK, 1985. An investigation into the performance of positive pressure powered dust hoods and blouses at low flow rates. Annals of Occupational Hygiene; 29: 415-420.
KING, 1949. High concentration — short time exposures and toxicity. Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology; 31: 365-375.
BROWN, 1930. The physiological effects of high concentrations of carbon dioxide. US Naval Medical Bulletin; 28: 721-734
DRIPPS and COMROE, 1947. The respiratory and circulatory response of normal man to inhalation of 7.6 and 10.4 per cent CO2 with a comparison of maximal ventilation produced by severe muscular excise, inhalation of CO2 and maximal voluntary hyperventilation. American Journal of Physiology; 40: 370-377.
EBERSOLE, 1960. The new dimensions of submarine medicine. New England Journal of Medicine; 262: 599-610.
HARRISON and SMITH, 1981. Hazards of enclosed spaces — raised ambient CO2. Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Services; 67: 138-146
CHAPIN et al, 1955. Changes in the sensitivity of the respiratory center in man after prolonged exposure to 3% CO2. In: Rahn H, Fenn WO. Studies in respiratory physiology. 2nd series: Chemistry, mechanics, and circulation of the lung. Ohio: Wright Air Development Center: 250-253. (WADC Technical Report 55-357).
SCHAEFER et al, 1963. Respiratory acclimatization to carbon dioxide. Journal of Applied Physiology; 18: 1071-1078.
Walach H, Weikl R, Prentice J, et al. Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. Published online June 30, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2659
ECRI. Up to 70% of Chinese KN95 Masks Tested by ECRI Don’t Meet Minimum Standards. 2020. Retrieved from https://www.ecri.org/press/up-to-70-of-chinese-kn95-masks-tested-by-ecri-dont-meet-minimum-standards
Walach H, Weikl R, Prentice J, et al. Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. Published online June 30, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2659
Schwarz S, Jenetzky E, Krafft H, Maurer T, Martin D. Corona children studies “Co-Ki”: first results of a Germany-wide registry on mouth and nose covering (mask) in children. Published 2021. Accessed June 15, 2021. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-124394/v1
Mitteilungen der Ad-hoc-Arbeitsgruppe Innenraumrichtwerte der Innenraumlufthygiene-Kommission des Umweltbundesamtes und der Obersten Landesgesundheitsbehörden. [Health evaluation of carbon dioxide in indoor air]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2008;51(11):1358-1369. doi:10.1007/s00103-008-0707-2
Christakis D, Fontanarosa PB. Notice of Retraction. Walach H, et al. Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. Published online June 30, 2021. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(9):e213252. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.3252
Walach H, Klement RJ, Aukema W. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations — We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines. 2021; 9(7):693. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070693
Wadman Meredith. Scientists quit journal board, protesting ‘grossly irresponsible' study claiming COVID-19 vaccines kill. Science. 2021. Retrieved from https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-quit-journal-board-protesting-grossly-irresponsible-study-claiming-covid-19
PUMS. Press statement: COVID-19 Vaccinations. 2021. Retrieved from https://pums.ump.edu.pl/about-pums/news/240-university-statement-regarding-article-by-dr-walach.html
The bestselling book "Face Masks In One Lesson" by Allan Stevo describes how to never wear a face mask again. The follow-up to the book, "Face Masks Hurt Kids," describes why to never wear a face mask again. We must defeat the awful, narrative around the mandates.
Examples of how face masks hurt kids will be posted to the Lockdown Land Substack each morning by 6am Eastern until the narrative around this ineffective and harmful medical intervention has shifted. Face masks are, in fact, not just harmful to children. Face masks are harmful to everyone. Thank you so much for helping me circulate this research.