Face masks pose serious risks to the healthy !


Face masks pose serious risks to the healthy – Blaylock

Face masks pose serious risks to the healthy – Blaylock


Message From Michael Tellingerhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/frimedianorge/permalink/345683613079957/


Bill Gates is the world’s largest vaccine producer and the single largest donor to #WHO and the #CDC Foundation. Those agencies are now marketing arms for his vaccine empire.

Hvordan er Norge blit et omvendt Land?

Evidence that self-isolation (when infected) is dangerous

SOURCE https://accountingweekly.com/evidence-that-self-isolation-when-infected-is-dangerous/

More immunologists question the science behind Covid-19 and the lockdown

SOURCE https://accountingweekly.com/more-immunologists-questions-the-science-behind-covid-19-and-the-lockdown/

ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION: The potential global impact of the coronavirus outbreak



Occult 9/11 – Masonic Symbolism Explained


From Technocracy News: Dr. Russell Blaylock, author and health expert, warns that not only do face masks fail to protect the healthy from getting sick, but they also create serious health risks to the wearer. The bottom line is that if you are not sick, you should not wear a face mask.

As businesses reopen, many are requiring shoppers and employees to wear a face mask. Costco, for instance, will not allow shoppers into the store without wearing a face mask. Many employers are requiring all employees to wear a face mask while at work. In some jurisdictions, all citizens must wear a face mask if they are outside of their own home.  ⁃ TN Editor

With the advent of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a number of medical practices that have little or no scientific support as regards reducing the spread of this infection. One of these measures is the wearing of facial masks, either a surgical-type mask, bandana or N95 respirator mask. When this pandemic began and we knew little about the virus itself or its epidemiologic behavior, it was assumed that it would behave, in terms of spread among communities, like other respiratory viruses. Little has presented itself after intense study of this virus and its behavior to change this perception.

This is somewhat of an unusual virus in that for the vast majority of people infected by the virus, one experiences either no illness (asymptomatic) or very little sickness. Only a very small number of people are at risk of a potentially serious outcome from the infection—mainly those with underlying serious medical conditions in conjunction with advanced age and frailty, those with immune compromising conditions and nursing home patients near the end of their lives. There is growing evidence that the treatment protocol issued to treating doctors by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mainly intubation and use of a ventilator (respirator), may have contributed significantly to the high death rate in these select individuals.


Russell Blaylock, MD

As for the scientific support for the use of face mask, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, “ None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”1   Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission. And, as you have seen, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission.

It is also instructive to know that until recently, the CDC did not recommend wearing a face mask or covering of any kind, unless a person was known to be infected, that is, until recently. Non-infected people need not wear a mask. When a person has TB we have them wear a mask, not the entire community of non-infected. The recommendations by the CDC and the WHO are not based on any studies of this virus and have never been used to contain any other virus pandemic or epidemic in history.

Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications.

There is a difference between the N95 respirator mask and the surgical mask (cloth or paper mask) in terms of side effects. The N95 mask, which filters out 95% of particles with a median diameter >0.3 µm, because it impairs respiratory exchange (breathing) to a greater degree than a soft mask, and is more often associated with headaches. In one such study, researchers surveyed 212 healthcare workers (47 males and 165 females) asking about presence of headaches with N95 mask use, duration of the headaches, type of headaches and if the person had preexisting headaches.2

They found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia). It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.3   Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance.

Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung.

While most agree that the N95 mask can cause significant hypoxia and hypercapnia, another study of surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In this study, researchers examined the blood oxygen levels in 53 surgeons using an oximeter. They measured blood oxygenation before surgery as well as at the end of surgeries.The researchers found that the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels (pa02) significantly. The longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the fall in blood oxygen levels.

The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. . This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.5,6,7

People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.8,9  Repeated episodes of hypoxia has been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.10

There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.

It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain.11,12 In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.13

It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk group also survive, from an infectious disease and epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a return next winter. During this time, we need to protect the at-risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in general, care for them.

One should not attack and insult those who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest that is the wise choice to make.


  1. bin-Reza F et al. The use of mask and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence. Resp Viruses 2012;6(4):257-67.
  2. Zhu JH et al. Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study. J Lung Pulm Resp Res 2014:4:97-100.
  3. Ong JJY et al. Headaches associated with personal protective equipment- A cross-sectional study among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19. Headache 2020;60(5):864-877.
  4. Bader A et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126.
  5. Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Th1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376.
  6. Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84.
  7. Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the pre-metastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355.
  8. Blaylock RL. Immunoexcitatory mechanisms in glioma proliferation, invasion and occasional metastasis. Surg Neurol Inter 2013;4:15.
  9. Aggarwal BB. Nucler factor-kappaB: The enemy within. Cancer Cell 2004;6:203-208.
  10. Savransky V et al. Chronic intermittent hypoxia induces atherosclerosis. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2007;175:1290-1297.
  11. Baig AM et al. Evidence of the COVID-19 virus targeting the CNS: Tissue distribution, host-virus interaction, and proposed neurotropic mechanisms. ACS Chem Neurosci 2020;11:7:995-998.
  12. Wu Y et al. Nervous system involvement after infection with COVID-19 and other coronaviruses. Brain Behavior, and Immunity, In press.
  13. Perlman S et al. Spread of a neurotropic murine coronavirus into the CNS via the trigeminal and olfactory nerves. Virology 1989;170:556-560.



ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION: The potential global impact of the coronavirus outbreak


CORONA PSYOP / PLACEBO (PANIC: IT’S ALL ON YOUR MIND): They made the Corona in 2013…And now they stirring up a Big scenario, so people first will follow, in fear and panic for then just reject the whole thing…


Mask Is a Double-edged Sword in the Fight Against
COVID-19 Pandemic
Jianqing Wu1
, Ph.D., J.D. and Ping Zha2
, M.D. (Chi. Med.)
March 28, 2020
(Preprint for comments, NOT published)
Correspondence: tempaddr2@atozpatent.com
1. End the Incurable Era (Independent researcher for cause), P. O. Box 689,
Beltsville, MD 20704. www.igoosa.com.
2. Independent Researcher (Not affiliated with any entity), can be reached by using the above address.
Keywords: coronavirus, COVID-19, mask use, disease severity, transmission route, lung damages, cold flu influenza
The COVID-19 pandemic has become out of control. To determine whether the lack of protection of lungs is a factor for the rapidly increasing infected population, we constructed a mask use model and analyzed how viral particles behavior. We found that mask can prevent viral particles from crossing it, reduce oxygen uptake efficiency, raise inlet air temperature, and increase resistance to breathing. We found that uninfected people should wear masks in any closed public building where viral particles from infected persons are expected to exist; that masks can dramatically aggravate disease severity on infected persons; that use of masks by infected persons is justified only if cross-infection and successive infections from external viral sources outweigh the expected harm; that people with unknown infection status should exercise due care. We further found at this point no fast measure can break the chain of infection, social distancing rule is insufficient, and wearing masks is the only effective remedy for interim protection. We found that World Health Organization’s rules on the use of masks
are largely incorrect, and so are the rules of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the U.S. We predicted that those rules have dramatically increased severe infection incidence rate, and have made COVID disease of infected persons much severer. We personally noted that a big percent of Americans still do not wear masks in closed public areas, and leave the most lethal transmission route open. If masks are not correctly used, the U.S. and many Western nations
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 1
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
will sustain the worst damages in all aspects from human life and economic activities.
At the time of writing this article, there are 571,678 total cases, with 26
494 deaths in nearly 199 countries [1]. At least most countries have reported cases. In the U.S., 103,321 infection cases with 1,668 deaths were reported in 54 states [2]. So the increase in new cases is so fast that we must examine every measure that has been used in the fight against the pandemic. We have extensively evaluated the disease severity on a kinetic framework in prior studies [3, 4]. We have noted personally that most Americans have paid great attention to avoiding physical contacts, but few of them wear masks even in public places
such as groceries, stores and public arenas. We suspected that failure of using proper lung protection is the main reason for the rapid increase in new cases. Since the details of viral spread within lungs are not the kinds of research that can be done under the medical research model, we will examine the role of masks by establishing simple models for visualization.

A. Implications That Disease Severity Depends on Viral Concentrations Classical infection theories imply that viral infection is a number game. Per classic model, the actual number of viral particles that enter any given cell is a statistical process: some cells may absorb more than one infectious agent while others may not absorb any [5]. Cells infected by at least one viral particle increase when more viral particles are present. This model implies that as the viral concentration increases, the percentage of cells infected with at least one viral particle increases. When more cells are infected, the virus can cause
severer damages. Even though this model does not directly address disease kinetics, it implies that viral number determines infection degree.
While a virus may operate independently from other viral particles [6],
viral spread is often facilitated by groups of viral genomes, such as polyploid virions, aggregates of virions, virion-containing proteinaceous structures, secreted lipid vesicles, and virus-induced cell-cell contacts. These multi-genome structures may promote virus-virus interactions and the evolution of social-like traits [7, 8, 9, 10]. Those properties imply that infection requires certain viral concentration, and may require more time to form infectious structures. When viral concentration is highly diluted, it is impossible to form infectious structures or at least could take more time to form the infectious structures.
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 2

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851

B. Airborne Viral Particles
We safely assume that infected humans can generate airborne viral
particles based on three lines of facts: human tidal breathing tests, animal influenza research, and observed cases on transmission routes.
1. Human tidal breathing
Based on many studies on influenza, normal (tidal) breathing can shed viral particles by the exhaled air [11]. Exhaled influenza virus RNA generation rates range from 3.2 to 20 influenza virus RNA particles per minute and over 87% of particles exhaled were under 1 µm in diameter. In a closed small room, the viral concentration can rapidly rise (add about 28,800 RNA copies/day for influenza virus). Influenza virus could be detected in the exhalations of infected persons during normal tidal breathing or talking but not during coughing [12]. Later
studies showed that respiratory particles by influenza patients were produced while breathing or coughing, but not both maneuvers side-by-side [13, 14, 15].
The scattering data and conflicts demonstrate that the exact number of viral particles a person can generate may depend on many factors.
Bacteria and viruses can travel through the air. When someone sneezes or coughs, tiny mucous droplets filled with viruses or bacteria scatter in the air. The expelled air can travel at the initial speed of 75-100 miles per hour [16]. In air samples collected from a school during an influenza season, influenza A virus was detected in densities ranging from 2.0×10(-1) to 1.9×10(4) (gene copies m−3 air) [17]. Infection could be caused by exposure to the air containing 23–586 gene copies for 8 hours. Whether influenza virus can be transmitted by airborne particles and what concentration can cause infection have been studied for years [14, 15]. The answer depends on a large number of factors such as viral nature, viral concentration, viral out-of-the-body survival time, exposure time, humidity and temperature, host health, etc. “Conflicting” conclusions regarding the relative importance of airborne, droplet, and contact-based spread among humans [18,
19] are natural. Disease severity naturally depends on exposure to and thus immunity against influenza virus; and immunocompromise affects influenza viral reproduction [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. When at least one variable is not controlled or omitted, studies naturally reach different conclusions.

2. Airborne viral particles in animal studies
Several animal studies provide useful hints. Influenza A virus can exist in all particle size ranges in quantities ranging from 5.5×10(2) (in particles ranging from 1.1 to 2.1 μm) to 4.3⨯10(5) RNA copies/m(3) in the largest particles (9.0-10.0 μm) [22]. Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus was detected from 1.3⨯10(6) (0.4-0.7 μm) to 3.5⨯10(8) RNA copies/m(3) (9.0-10.0 μm). Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) can be detected in a room containing infected pigs and at various distances from the outside of swine farms experiencing PEDV outbreaks [26]. Infectious PEDV was found in the air from experimentally infected pigs up
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 3

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
to 10 miles downwind from naturally infected farms at the concentration of 7.98×10(3).
Viruses were detectable in association with aerosolized particles.
Proportions of positive sampling events were 69% for PEDV, 61% for HPAIV, and 8% for PRRSV. For all 3 viruses, higher numbers of RNA copies were associated with larger particles [27]. Influenza virus RNA was detected in air samples collected between 1.5 and 2.1 Km away from the farms with viral levels significantly lower at 4.65⨯10(3) RNA copies/m3 [28]. Pigs can be a source of infectious aerosols of Influenza A virus. Such aerosols can be exhausted from pig
barns and be transported downwind to a long distance [29]. Some of these viral particles are infectious. The viral concentration depends on viral source and distance from the source. The viral concentration is 5.71⨯10(7) in oral fluid, 8.32⨯10(4) inside air, and 4.57⨯10(4) in exhaust air. Relative to the oral fluid, virus in the inside air is diluted by about a thousand times and exhausted air has
a further lower viral concentration.

Notwithstanding some conflicting findings in other viruses [30], COVID-19 virus can be transmitted through air efficiently beyond disputes.
C. Assumptions Used in Our Models
Based on hints of animal studies, human influenza studies and our personal observations, we assume that COVID-19 viruses from infected persons can exist as airborne particles (we do not need to resolve exact form of particles in this study), can travel long distances, and can infect health persons. We further assume that it is impossible to totally avoid them. The chain of infection cannot be broken by identifying and isolating infected persons. Thus, the only realistic
strategy is to mitigate the pandemic by reducing disease severity. We consider the following facts.

1. Vulnerability of lungs to viral attacks
Human lungs are the most fragile vital organs based on data from Guyton [16]. First, they normally have almost 600 million alevoli. The total inner surface area is about 70-100 m2. Each alveolus may be made of 40 type I cells and 77 type II cells [31]. So, the lungs have about 70 billion epithelial cells that are exposed to the internal air way. The epithelial cells are fragile and vulnerable as if they were exposed to air in back doors. If we view blood circulation as the protective means, the virus can enter epithelial cells, infect them, and damage them without activating the adaptive immune response. An implication is that, if
an airborne viral particle has successfully evaded all defense mechanisms in the respiratory track, the particle will get into the alveolar space, get out of the space by only a small chance, and most probably land on an epithelial cell. This also implies that lungs have potentially a large number of target cells for each
viral particle to hit.
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 4

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851

The airway structure is well structured channels for redistributing viral
particles from the common areas to alveoli, from any part of the lungs to other parts of the lungs, and from infected alveoli to uninfected alveoli. Viral particles entering passing through the trachea can be distributed to any of the alveoli purely by chances. After a viral particle has entered a nostril, it most probably eventually hits bronchi wall or gets into an alveolar space. This structure guarantees that some viral particles originated from any alevoli can be sucked back, reaching other alveoli through alveolar ventilation. This structure explains why infection of a part of the lungs can spread to the whole lungs quickly.
A third problem is that the lungs must work continuously. Oxygen cannot be stored in any buffer so as to allow the lungs to take a break. They must work continuously from the person’s birth to death. This functional nature raises infection chance by precluding the small probability theory from being applied.
Breathing in viral-containing air a few times may be harmless, but breathing the same air in a few hours can lead to serious disease. This time-dependent infection chance has a determinant impact on disease severity. In each breathing cycle, viral particles originated from infected cells are exhaled to a common space of the respiratory track in an exhaling cycle, and then are sucked back to the lungs, reaching deep bronchi membrane followed by further move into other alveoli by alveolar ventilation. Based on the total volume of 500 ml of tidal breath
and 150 ml of dead space, the virus may be diluted by 3 to 4 times by outside air.
Thus, normal breathes could redistribute about 1 to 6 RNA particles per minute within the lungs for influenza virus [12]. In fact, the time-dependent nature guarantees that re-infection and successive infection can gradually spread the virus from infected regions to substantially all uninfected regions of the lungs unless the acquired immune response can inhibit viral activities. The respiratory structure and time-dependent viral redistribution greatly favor viral spread within the lungs. Notwithstanding those two weaknesses, nothing can alter the critical role of viral concentration. If a small number of viral particles contact lung tissue, they probably cannot cause serious damage to
the lungs. The body has many levels of defense mechanisms. If just one or a few alveoli are infected, the body may clear up the virus by host responses or innate immune responses. When both host responses and innate immune response fail to control viral reproduction, disease outcome depends on relative speeds between the viral reproduction process and the immune response.

We previously proposed a re-infection concept [3]. As implied by collective infection theory, both viral number and mutants can increase viral virulence.
Lungs can defend against a limited number of viral attacks. The epithelial cells cannot be immersed in blood fluid because the alveolar inner surface must be kept try. Thus, blood does not do much to stop the virus from entering the cell.
This means that those cells are susceptible to viral attacks even after acquired
immune has developed. The re-infection is more important because the COVID19 virus mutates rapidly or has changed, and has generated 1111 strains as on
March 24, 2020 [Sup. n1].
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
In the contest between viral reproduction and immune response, the viral
number is a determinant factor. If the virus attacks only one or a few spots in the
100 m2 inner surface or 70 billion cells, the infection can generate a small
number of viral particles for redistribution. It would take a relatively long time
for the infection to reach the whole lungs. However, if a large number of viral
particles attack thousands to millions spots in the lungs at substantially same
time, the virus can spread to the whole lungs more quickly. This number law
must be true whether the virus spreads by cell-to-cell contact or by breath-driven
re-infection process. For the obvious reason, exposure to a small number of viral
particles may result in a mild disease, but exposure of the lungs to a large
number of viral particles can be lethal.
D. Effects of Masks on Lung Functions
Masks are used with an assumption to prevent the virus from passing
through it when they are used to prevent COVID-19 infection. Whether a mask
does good or evil depends on where the virus comes from and whether viral
concentration in the ambient air is higher or lower than the viral concentration
inside the respiratory track. Net effect depends on who wears the mask and
under what circumstance the mask is worn. In addition, a mask has other effects
on health.
1. Masks can filter out some viral particles from external air
We use a simple model to show how a mask prevents the virus from
entering into the respiratory track and the lungs when the mask is worn by an
uninfected person who breathes in ambient air that contains the virus (See
Figure 1 below).
Figure 1. In this model, viral particles (which are shown in an exaggerated
size for clarity) exist only in the external air while the respiratory track does not
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 6
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
have any virus. When the person breathes, viral particles from the air are filtered
out by the mask. Some viral particles may stick to the outer surface of the mask
while some small particles may penetrate into the mask middle layers. Naturally,
some small viral particles may pass through the mask and eventually get into the
respiratory track. Their final fates depend on luck, host responses, and innate
2. An infected person should NOT wear a mask with several exceptions
Figure 2 shows how a mask can keep viral particles from getting out of the
lungs when an infected person wears it in a place, where air is not contaminated
by the virus.
Figure 2 shows that alveoli 1, 2 and 3 are infected, and shed viral particles
that are moving along the respiratory track. Since the viral particles cannot pass
through the mask, some of them stay on the inner surface and some of them stay
in the voids between the mask and the nostrils. The viral concentration inside the
respiratory track will rise with time to reach some sort of dynamic equilibrium.
The viral concentration in the respiratory track depends on the number of
infected sites, viral reproduction speeds, breathing mechanical properties, etc.
We anticipate that the viral concentration in the respiratory track from
thousands of infected cells is much higher than that from a few infected cells.
Insert (b) shows how the exhaling cycle forces viral particles to move
toward the nostrils, but due to the barrier of the mask, they cannot get out
except that a very small number may squeeze through. Some viral particles stick
on the mask inner surface while others are bounced back to the respiratory
Insert (c) shows that an inhaling cycle sucks viral particles back to the
lungs. Due to mixing of fresh air, the viral concentration is diluted slightly. The
virus may be inhaled to reach tertiary bronchi. Some viral particles may strike
any part of the respiratory track, and some may get into other alveoli. The insert
(c) shows that the sucked-back viral particles hit three previously uninfected
alveoli, An, A(n-1) and A(n-2). As a result, more lung tissues are infected, and
disease severity is increased. We assume that re-infection can cause viral spread
to distant areas (e.g., from the upper left lung to the lower right lung). Viral
redistribution is the most powerful means to get the whole lungs. Without this reinfection process, viral spread could have to depend on cell-to-cell contact or
blood circulation.
Insert (c) also shows that viral particles from an infected alveolus A1 can
be redistributed to an infected alveolus A3. Infection of a previously infected cell
may be an aggravating factor because the virus is rapidly mutating. It is possible
that the virus in alveolus A1 is different from the virus in alveolus A3 (their
physical locations can be anywhere in the lungs) in some aspects. Thus, the viral
mutants from alveolus A1 in combination with the virus in alveolus A3 may be
more infectious. Moreover, if the lungs have been able to resolve the infection in
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 7
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
the alveolus A3, the newly arrived virus may revive viral reproduction activity at
alveolus A3 and thus turns a healing process into a mew disease process.
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 8
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
Figurea 1 and 2 show only several alveoli for illustration purpose. They
should be interpreted by considering 600 million alveoli, comprising about 70
billion epithelial cells with a total surface area of 70-100 squired meters.
Lungs are big organs in the human being. Initial viral attack may be limited
to a relatively small region or several small regions except in cases involving
severe exposure. Disease severity can be effectively mitigated by slowing down
the re-infection process. However, wearing a mask is like keeping all internal
viral particles to within the respiratory track. An infected person with a mask is a
perfect system for raising internal viral concentration. If any part of the lung
tissue is infected, this part of tissue sheds viral particles continuously within a
time window. Since generated viral particles cannot get into the air due to the
barrier of the mask, most of the viral particles get back to the lungs in inhaling
cycles. As a result, the viral concentration in the respiratory track rapidly goes
up. The breathing cycles redistribute generated viral particles among all spaces
in the lungs. When a subsequently-infected alveolus starts shedding virus, the
viral particles are added to the existing viral particles in the respiratory track.
Eventually, the lungs reach a dynamic equilibrium at which all points in the
respiratory track including all alveolar spaces have the similar viral
In the case that an infected person wears no mask, most viral particles are
discharged into the air. In each exhaling cycle, all viral particles carried in about
500 ml air are completely discharged into the air. If we sum all viral number up
for a day or several days, the total number of discharged viral particles is very
large. The adverse effect of wearing the mask is expected to be big. For this
reason, an infected person must not wear a mask in the time window that the
lungs are actively shedding viral particles.
3. When the inside and outside viral concentrations are close
As a general rule, wearing a mask is good only if the outside viral
concentration is higher than the inside viral concentration. Human health
problem is often not a clear-cut problem. A healthy person may get infected and
thus becomes an infected person without knowing the time of infection.
Conversely, an infected person may clear up the virus and thus becomes a
healthy person. In addition, the outside viral concentration is a variable that
cannot be determined reliably. However, one still can make sound and rational
decisions in many situations.
4. The effects of masks on oxygen and carbon dioxide exchanges
A mask adds additional volume to the dead space of breathing. Some of the
air in the voids between the mask and the nose and mouth is sucked back to
reach bronchi and alveoli by alveolar ventilation.
In a very cold day, mask can keep the lungs warmer. The mask can reduce
heat dissipation from the covered area on the face. When the nose and mouth are
kept warmer, they warm up air that is inhaled. In addition, mask also adds
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 9
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
additional space to the dead space. Some exhaled air stays in voids between the
nose and the mask. This portion of air is warmer and is mixed with incoming air
to raise air temperature. When low temperature is a big hazard, the mask can
improve lung functions.
5. Masks make breathing more difficult
When a mask is worn, the air must pass small holes in the mask. This
obviously increases resistance to air flow. For a person with poor lung function,
the mask diminishes lung function. If the lung function is already near the
disability level, it can have adverse impacts.
Whether wearing a mask is beneficial or not depends on relative viral
concentrations in the respiratory track air and the ambient air. If the viral
concentrations were identical and if their viral RNA variants were not a factor,
wearing a mask has no benefit in controlling viral exposure. In evaluating mask
benefits, we must consider viral RNA variants and other types of viruses that
promote COVID infection in the lungs.
1. Uninfected persons in places with airborne viral particles
In a case when a healthy person is visiting a hospital or a public area that
contains a significant amount of viral particles from infected persons, mask is the
most powerful tool for preventing lungs from being infected. Since no mask can
ever filter out the virus completely, it is all about viral number or total viral
particles that reach deep bronchi and hit alveoli. Final results depend on how
many viral RNA copies are inhaled and how long the exposure lasts. Since the
lungs have limited innate defense capacity, the lungs may be able to overcome
viral amounts from one breath, but cannot handle the viral amount that is
breathed from the same air for hours. When the ambient air contains extremely
low viral concentration, a mask may extend exposure time to hours without
posing a real risk.
Tolerable exposure for a person depends on a large number of other
factors. If the person’s health condition and immune system are in a top shape,
the person is able to resist viral attack better than when the person is in a poor
health. Most important aggravating factors are temperature, air humidity, and
emotional condition. Temperature can directly affect blood vessel diameters;
humidity affects oxygen-carbon dioxide exchange efficiency; and emotion state
affects immune functions and blood vessel conditions.
Social distancing rule can effectively prevent an infected person from
infecting a healthy person from droplets and viral particles from the infected
persons. This measure eliminates the most lethal transmission route. However,
this measure is not effective to stop the viral particles that have been suspended
in the air from infecting healthy persons. Even if the viral concentration in the
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 10
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
air is not very high and the virus gradually loses activity, extended exposure may
still pose risk to certain people.
Mask should be used by an uninfected person in the following situations:
(a) In hospitals, quarantines and isolated homes, air contain relatively high
viral concentrations in different mutants plus other disease agents, wearing a
mask may reduce infection risks.
(b) Uninfected people who shop in groceries, poorly ventilated open public
spaces, and closed office buildings in a pandemic season should wear masks and
reduce the duration of exposure.
(c) Uninfected persons should wear a mask anywhere infected persons
probably appear. Whether such a person gets infected depends on personal
health condition and other factors such as temperature, humidity, foods, and
emotion condition.
Uninfected persons should not wear a mask in the following situations:
(a) An uninfected person in an open space without other people, wearing
masks do not produce good benefits unless mask is used to filter out pollen or
dusk, or as a mean to warm up inlet air in a cold day.
(b) Do not wear a mask in a widely open space with few or no other human
beings. Even if a few viral particles may come from the wind, they most probably
have little or no infectious power. Even if a single viral particle gets into the
respiratory track, it may be cleared by defense mechanisms.
(c) In a widely open area where a limited number of infected persons and
non-infected persons work together, infected persons should not wear masks so
that the virus will not be redistributed to other parts of the lungs. Weather the
uninfected persons should wear a mask depends on wind direction and relative
positions of infected persons and uninfected persons. A small wind or good air
ventilation can quickly drive virus-carrying air away from the breathing space of
health persons.
2. Infected persons
For infected persons, the benefits of masks are judged by comparing the
viral concentration and composition in the ambient air and those in the air from
the respiratory track of an infected person.
The most important factor considered is the time window for redistributing
the virus by the re-infection process. After an initial infection, viral reproduction
scale may be limited due to the small size of infection. The lungs start shedding
virus, which most probably starts activating the adaptive immunity. When the
immune system has reached a certain level, viral reproduction will be brought
under control. Re-infection may take place in a small time window. It is obvious
that the scale of re-infection and speeds of re-infection process determine the
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 11
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
degree of lung damages as well as damages to other organs. This time window is
most probably one or a few days before the sign of symptoms to the point what
the entire lungs are completely infected. The re-infection speed and initial
infection scale (the points of seed infection) determine how rapidly the lung
condition degrades.
(a) If the infected person is in an open space or without the risk of crossinfection from other types of virus, wearing a mask can only promote re-infection
of uninfected alevoli by patient’s own virus.
(b) In personal isolation, wearing a mask most probably hurts the person.
The mask help patient-own virus reach the maximum viral concentration.
(c) From the earliest signs or suspected infection to a point of completing
re-infection of the lungs, patients should be housed so that they can avoid
wearing mask to slow down the re-infection process. What can make difference is
the speed of re-infection process.
(d) After the re-infection time window is over, the potential adverse effect
of re-infection by patient’s own virus is a less concern, as compared with newly
arrived viral particles or different types of viruses. Masks may offer benefits in
some circumstances. However, a best strategy is avoiding getting into such an
environment so that the patient can avoid wearing a mask.
The default rule to encourage infected persons to wear masks is
questioned from a public policy ground. The death rate of infected persons is the
hallmark of the danger of any pandemic disease. The top priority is to save each
infected person while minimizing the risk to uninfected people. The disease can
disrupt human life because the disease can cause death. If the death rate for the
disease is reduced to near zero, the disease will become a tolerable illness like a
mild flu. Thus, the top priority is finding cures and effective treatments for
infected persons. Protecting uninfected people from being infected is just a
short-term desperate attempt. It cannot work on a long-term basis because this
disease eventually infects everyone.
3. Persons with uncertain infection statuses
There is always an uncertain time as to when an uninfected person is
infected by the virus. When a person is infected and starts shedding viral
particles, there is a point to change the relative viral concentrations in the
external air and internal air. If the air in the respiratory track has higher viral
concentration than does the air from the ambient, wearing a mask can harm the
person. The change point depends on many factors. If viral concentration
attributable to infected lungs is lower than that in the inhaled air, or if external
air contains virulent viral mutants or other highly infectious viruses, wearing a
mask may have net benefits. If the outside air is cleaner than the air in the
respiratory track, warning a mask can only hurt the person.
4. Tradition of not using masks
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 12
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
As of March 26, 2020, we still saw shoppers did not wear masks in grocery
stores, department stores and home product stories. Stories took measures to
limit the density of shoppers and required them to follow the 6 feet social
distancing rule. This rule can eliminate the worst transmission risks, but cannot
eliminate all transmission risks. When the viral concentration in the air has
reached a certain level, the air can infect shoppers or visitors. The air can pose
risk if the total number of viral particles inhaled is more than what the shoppers’
defense systems can handle. Considering other exposure scenarios, we found
that the failure to use masks among uninfected people is the main reason for
continuous rise in positive cases.
5. Homemade masks
When no mask is available on the market, people should be enabled to
make and use homemade masks. A mask comprising several layers high-density
cotton cloth with one or two coffee filter papers or other suitable papers inside
may capture big droplets and even some of small airborne particles. In each
exhaling cycle, some small viral particles from the respiratory track are captured
on the inner surface of the mask. When the mask is used for a long time, large
droplets are accumulated on the outside surface while some small particles are
caught on the inner surface with some of them getting into the middle layers.
The mask can capture good percent (but not all of them) of the droplets and
airborne particles that could have reached the respiratory track and landed on
lungs cells. The mask must have partial protection. To improve efficiency,
homemade masks should be washed and heat-dried frequently for reuse.
The benefits of masks should be weighed quantitatively: reducing viral
number entering the lungs by as much as possible. If a person can reduce viral
particles entering into lungs to 1% or less than 0.1% of the reference by
improving ambient ventilation, wearing masks, and shorten time of exposure,
those measures can make big difference. Even if those efforts fail to prevent an
infection on some vulnerable persons, they collectively can make the disease
much milder, and reduce death risk and disability risk.
F. WHO and CDC Rules On Use of Masks
The World Health Organization (WHO) has the following rules as of March
28, 2020 [32]:
(1) If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care
of a person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection.
(2) Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
(3) Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent handcleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
(4) If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 13
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
Those rules are probably based on outcomes from controlled trials.
However, when the role of mask is so subtle and viral spreading speed is the
most important factor, the decision cannot be based on the outcome of
population-based trials [33].
The first rule is incorrect because the pandemic has infected a
considerable portion of people, and there is no assurance that air in stories,
public places, groceries stores are free from the COVID-19 virus. Rule (2) is
incomplete because if the person’s coughing and sneezing is caused by COVID19, then wearing a mask promotes the virus to reach the rest of lungs rapidly.
Re-infection speed is a determinant factor in the race between the viral
reproduction and adoptive immune response. We also question the Rule 3 for
other reasons. While hand cleaning is essential for avoiding risk from generating
airborne viral particles, infection caused by physical contact is different. A
million viral particles entering into the lungs are much worse than the same
virus attacking hands or face surface. This rule reflects a presumption that has
been refuted by many model studies we have found [4].
The WHO also maintains the following rules on the use of medical masks to
protect against COVID-19 [32]:
(1) Before putting on a mask, clean hands with alcohol-based hand rub or
soap and water.
(2) Cover mouth and nose with mask and make sure there are no gaps
between your face and the mask.
(3) Avoid touching the mask while using it; if you do, clean your hands with
alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
(4) Replace the mask with a new one as soon as it is damp and do not reuse single-use masks.
(5) To remove the mask: remove it from behind (do not touch the front of
mask); discard immediately in a closed bin; clean hands with alcohol-based hand
rub or soap and water.
While precaution is necessary when many things are uncertain, rule (4)
reflects an absolute approach. This rule would guide people not to use medical
masks even in dangerous situations. An implied assumption is that the mask has
captured a great number of viral particles in breathing cycles. If physical contact
of the virus that is expected to exist on the mask outer surface is a concern,
inhaling all of the viral particles would be a huge worry. Those viral particles
would have been more dangerous if they had been breathed into the lungs.
Physical contact may redistribute a fraction of the captured viral particles to
body parts that are almost immune to viral attacks or generate airborne particles
in very low concentration. When no medical mask is available on market, reuse is
a rational option. Used masks can be heat-treated in an oven for a sufficiently
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 14
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
long time to make sure that the virus is inactivated, and inactivated viral
particles are tapped off from outside surface of the mask.
The CDC of the U.S. still provides the following rules on use of mask [34] as
March 28, 2020:
“Wear a facemask if you are sick[:] If you are sick: You should wear a
facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) and
before you enter a healthcare provider’s office. If you are not able to wear a
facemask (for example, because it causes trouble breathing), then you should do
your best to cover your coughs and sneezes, and people who are caring for you
should wear a facemask if they enter your room. Learn what to do if you are sick.
If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are
caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask).
Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers.”
Those rules are similar to the rules for controlling influenza [35]. Both two
rules are opposite to our findings. By following those rules, people do not need to
wear a mask when they visit stores, closed public areas, or closed buildings even
if they have no control and no knowledge of infected persons. This rule has an
effect of keeping the chain of infection active for the population and resulting in
worst pandemic disaster. The second rule is really bad because masks can do
great harm to infected persons. Therefore, we urge CDC to reverse those two
rules as soon as possible.
The CDC suggests that when no mask is available, health workers could
“use homemade masks” such as a bandanna or a scarf. We add that due to
exposure duration and accumulation of infection probability, the homemade
masks are much better than bandanna or a scarf. For health care professionals,
protection standard should be much higher because the virus can be
accumulated in the lungs in time-dependent process.
Infection cases in Spain, Italy and United States rapidly rise. We suspect
that neglecting lung protection is the main reason for the disastrous outcomes.
We urge the WHO and CDC to pay attention to lung protection in all closed
public areas that lack ample ventilation.
G. Conclusion
Whether a person should wear a mask depends on the viral traveling
direction, which further depends on personal infection status, disease stage, air
ventilation condition or wind direction, existence of infected persons, density of
people, season, etc. The use of mask interferes with oxygen-carbon dioxide
exchanges, increases air humidity, and makes breathing more difficult. It is the
only most effective means for preventing the virus from entering the respiratory
track at this time. Uninfected persons should wear masks to reduce the number
of the viral particles entering the lungs in a closed public area where infected
persons may present. Wearing a mask can increase the concentration of virus
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 15
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
generated from infected tissues and dramatically promote viral re-infection by
patient’s own virus. An infected person should avoid wearing a mask upon the
earliest time of knowing the infection unless the person is under a risk of getting
cross infection from the different or more virulent viruses. We urge WHO and
CDC to reverse rules on the use of masks for ordinary persons as soon as
This study provides principle for determining whether wearing a mask is
beneficial to a person. Our approach is contrary to findings from populationbased trials. Whether using of a mask is beneficial depends on viral travel
direction, which in turn depends on a large number of external factors and
patient health and disease conditions. Any results from controlled trials followed
by statistical analysis cannot address the large number of important factors.
Randomized controlled trials ignore most of those variables and measure
differences between two groups. Such findings cannot be used to any specific
person or case. Our model could be developed to study the behaviors of viral
particles of different sizes in the future.
The author(s) declared that no grant was used in support of this research
Additional information is provided in a supplemental document and some
information will be stored in igoosa online database. This article may be used by
any person for personal use as fair use; any use for research and development
and public welfare is permitted by default.
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 16
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
1. WHO, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 68 Data
as reported by national authorities by 10:00 CET 28 March 2020. Accessed at
2. CDC. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) in the U.S. Updated March 28, 2020 Accessed at
3. Wu, JQ and Zha, P. Preventive, Mitigating and Treatment Strategies for
Containing or Ending The COVID-19 Pandemic (a first update) (February 25,
2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3544428 or
4. Wu, JQ and Zha, P. Association of COVID-19 Disease Severity with
Transmission Routes and Suggested Changes to Community Guidelines (March
13, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3554043 or
5. Ellis, Emory; Delbruck, Max. The Growth of Bacteriophage. The Journal
of General Physiology. 1939, 22(3): 365–384.
6. Zwart MP, Hemerik L, Jenny S. et al. An experimental test of the
independent action hypothesis in virus–insect pathosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B
(2009) 276, 2233–2242.
7. Leeks A, Sanjuán R, and West SA. The evolution of collective infectious
units in viruses. Virus Res. 2019 May; 265: 94–101.
8. Vignuzzi M., Stone J. K., Arnold J. J., et al. Quasispecies Diversity
Determines Pathogenesis Through Cooperative Interactions in a Viral Population,
Nature, 2006, 439: 344–8.
9. Shirogane Y, Watanabe S, Yanagi Y. Cooperation between different
variants: A unique potential for virus evolution. Virus Res. 2019 Apr 15;264:68-
10. Leeks A., Segredo-Otero E.A., Sanjuán R., West S.A. Beneficial
coinfection can promote within-host viral diversity. Virus Evol. 2018;4/2.
11. Fabian P., McDevitt JJ, DeHaan WH. Influenza virus in human exhaled
breath: an observational study. PLoS One 2008,3, e2691.
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 17
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
12. Stelzer-Braid S, Oliver BG, Blazey AJ, Argent E, Newsome TP,
Rawlinson WD, Tovey ER. Exhalation of respiratory viruses by breathing,
coughing, and talking. J Med Virol. 2009B;81:1674–1679.
13. Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Thewlis RE, Vishnu A, Davis KA, Cao G,
Palmer JE, Clark KE, Fisher MA, Khakoo R, Beezhold DH. Measurements of
airborne influenza virus in aerosol particles from human coughs. PLoS ONE.
14. Milton DK, Fabian MP, Cowling BJ, Grantham ML, McDevitt JJ.
Influenza virus aerosols in human exhaled breath: particle size, culturability, and
effect of surgical masks. PLoS pathogens. 2013;9:e1003205.
15. Lindsley WG, Pearce TA, Hudnall JB, Davis KA, Davis SM, Fisher MA,
Khakoo R, Palmer JE, Clark KE, Celik I, Coffey CC, Blachere FM, Beezhold DH.
Quantity and size distribution of cough-generated aerosol particles produced by
influenza patients during and after illness. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9:443–
16. Guyton AC. The cough reflex, In Text of Medical Physiology (8th Ed).
W.B. Saunders Company pg 411-412 (various page rages).
17. Coleman KK., Sigler WV. Airborne Influenza A Virus Exposure in an
Elementary School. Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 1859 (2020)
Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 1859 (2020)
18. Brankston G, Gitterman L, Hirji Z, Lemieux C, Gardam M. Transmission
of influenza A in human beings. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7:257–265.
19. Tellier R. Aerosol transmission of influenza A virus: a review of new
studies. J R Soc Interface. 2009;6(Suppl 6):S783–S790.
20. Hall CB. Nosocomial viral respiratory infections: perennial weeds on
pediatric wards. Am J Med. 1981;70:670–676.
21. Hall CB, Douglas RG, Jr, Geiman JM, Meagher MP. Viral shedding
patterns of children with influenza B infection. J Infect Dis. 1979;140:610–613.
22. Frank AL, Taber LH, Wells CR, Wells JM, Glezen WP, Paredes A.
Patterns of shedding of myxoviruses and paramyxoviruses in children. J Infect
Dis. 1981;144:433–441.
23. Weinstock DM, Gubareva LV, Zuccotti G. Prolonged shedding of
multidrug-resistant influenza A virus in an immunocompromised patient. N Engl
J Med. 2003;348:867–868.
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 18
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
24. Sato M, Hosoya M, Kato K, Suzuki H. Viral shedding in children with
influenza virus infections treated with neuraminidase inhibitors. Pediatr Infect
Dis J. 2005;24:931–932.
25. Glezen WP. Influenza control. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:79–81.
26. Alonso C, Goede DP, Morrison RB, Davies PR, Rovira A, Marthaler DG,
Torremorell M. Evidence of infectivity of airborne porcine epidemic diarrhea
virus and detection of airborne viral RNA at long distances from infected herds.
Vet Res. 2014 Jul 14;45:73. doi: 10.1186/s13567-014-0073-z.
27. Alonso C, Raynor PC., Goyal S, Olson BA, Alba A, Davies PR,
Torremorell M. Assessment of air sampling methods and size distribution of
virus-laden aerosols in outbreaks in swine and poultry farms. Journal of
Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 2017, Vol. 29(3) 298–304.
28. Arruda AG, Tousignant S, Sanhueza J, Vilalta C, Poljak Z, Torremorell
M, Alonso C, Corzo CA. Aerosol Detection and Transmission of Porcine
Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV): What Is the Evidence,
and What Are the Knowledge Gaps? Viruses. 2019 Aug 3; 11(8). Epub 2019 Aug
29. Corzo CA, Culhane M, Dee S, Morrison RB, Torremorell M. Airborne
Detection and Quantification of Swine Influenza A Virus in Air Samples Collected
Inside, Outside and Downwind from Swine Barns. PLoS One. 2013 Aug
30. Alonso C, Raynor PC, Davies PR, Torremorell M. Concentration, Size
Distribution, and Infectivity of Airborne Particles Carrying Swine Viruses. PLoS
One. 2015 Aug 19;10(8):e0135675. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135675.
ECollection 2015.
31. Weibel ER. On the Tricks Alveolar Epithelial Cells Play to Make a Good
Lung. Am J Respir Crit Care Med Vol 191, Iss 5, pp 504–513, Mar 1, 2015.
32. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: When and how
to use masks. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/
33. Wu, JQ and Zha, P. Randomized Clinical Trial Is Biased and Invalid In
Studying Chronic Diseases, Compared with Multiple Factors Optimization Trial
(November 4, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3480523 or
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 19
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851
34. CDC. How to Protect Yourself, Accessed at
Last Access on March 28, 2020.
35. Qualls N, Levitt A, Kanade N. et al. Community Mitigation Guidelines to
Prevent Pandemic Influenza — United States, 2017. Carrie Reed MMWR
Recomm Rep. 2017 Apr 21; 66(1): 1–32. Published online 2017 Apr 21. doi:
© All right reserved, Wu & Zha v100 20
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563851

SOURCE https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3563851

Fort Bragg, N.C. Starting tomorrow, Friday April 10, Fort Bragg will require that a face covering be worn by anyone entering a commissary, exchange or shoppette, or any other public area or work

Message From Michael Tellinger
Michael Tellinger is a South African author, politician, explorer and founder of the Ubuntu Party which supports the supply of free resources across society.


Watching the USA from the outside is like watching a great tragedy taking place – with the villains running freely causing more and more destruction – shifting the blame onto those who want to uphold peace and harmony and to simply live a beautiful life.
For all my friends in the USA – please be aware that your country is under full blown attack by the same Rothschild funded Bolshevik insurgent agents that caused most of the destruction and chaos in the world over the past 250 years.
This is the most dangerous organized crime syndicate on Earth. They have killed presidents, started wars, over-turned governments, abducted, tortured, extorted, bribed and murdered millions of people to retain their control over most of the world’s governments to date.
Among their more famous victims have been: Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Archduke Franz Ferdinand 1914; Tsar Nikolai Romanov 1918, JFK in 1963, Hendrik Verwoerd South African Prime minister 1966, and many world leaders who defied their banking system – including Muammar Gaddafi of Libya.

Donald Trump is the first leader to have broken that control and removed them from power in the USA by taking control of the FED.


Since Trump controls the army and the FED, their main tool is the mainstream media, with its repeating lies and propaganda 24/7 to poison the minds of the people. They are fighting for their survival.
They will lie to your face, use human tragedy and emotion in their favour against you, destroy the economy, destroy cities and monuments, bring down an entire country, kill and deceive everyone – just to achieve victory.


If they cannot destroy Trump – they will be finally destroyed after 250 years of global control.
If you live in the USA, it is very difficult to get a clear view of the situation, because most of the US media is part of the Cabal and toxic with ant Trump propaganda. Trump’s victory will liberate all other countries from the Rothschild control of all central banks and bring freedom to people everywhere.
Whether you like Trump or not, is not the issue – he is the only world leader who has defeated the Rothshilds by hijacking their central bank in the USA.
This happened quietly during March 2020, and without any media coverage, because the media is owned by the same of Rothschild banking empire.
Inform yourself – be smart – be aware. The freedom of the world depends on your next move and what happens in the USA in November 2020
In unity – Michael Tellinger

Image may contain: 2 people

CBS NEWS: Trump Fed pick wants to revive the gold standard. Here’s what that means

NPR.ORG: Trump Wants To Move The U.S. Secret Service Back To Treasury

Occult & Illuminati holiday traditions

BlackRock – Its influence and acquisition worldwide and especially in the United States – The world is a big company – When a crisis whims for others, or when you create your own crises, everything can happen, even in the Corona crisis.


Dæven så mye gøy man går glipp av når man kjører det livet her «safe».
Alt som er gøy skjer jo når vi gir slipp og tar sjanser.
Nå har det eskalert. Nå er mennesker farlig for hverandre. Masker og sosial distanse— hør på ordet «sosial distanse» hvor fucked up er det ikke? Det nye «normale» ? Verste av alt er at mange ikke vil innrømme at maskene ikke beskytter men gjør folk sjuke!
Hvordan blir det med uteliv? Jeg så.mange fulle folk i går kveld når jeg gikk tur. Feststemte jenter i kjoler. Håpefulle menn. Det var en fantastisk temperatur og stemning. Før regnet kom.
Men jeg lurer på hvordan denne en meters regelen overholdes i barer? Skal man aldri kunne stå skulder mot skulder i en bar mer? Stå helt tett fordi det er trangt? Flørte med en fremmed?
De vil ta fra menneskene alt det som gjør det magisk å være menneske.