Mask Masquerade A Masked Massacre. Now Unmasked: 

Abstract: Masks were mandated everywhere in countries were the pandemic got subsequently out of control: what could have gone wrong? Well what if masks, instead of reducing the pandemic, augmented it?Anti-scientific” scream hysterical lemmings without any scientific education, nor any attempt at any reasoning whatsoever! One would indeed expect anti-scientific lemmings to read no scientific literature whatsoever. But so-called “experts”? Scientific studies have shown that masks can quintuple (multiply by five) virus transmission (and the reason is increasingly understood).

More broadly, the mask craze has led a naïve public to assume it was protected when it was not, and thus incited the public to engage in legal, yet very dangerous activities, where the virus gets in the air, floats around, and penetrate masks. The public would not have otherwise engaged in these activities, if the public had realized that the virus was floating around, and just used its common sense… instead of being hypnotized by masks fostered by an elite of greedy, power crazed exploiters with various biased interests that it is urgent to expose… for health, political, moral and philosophical reasons!

The Western elite, as it is, by enacting ineffectual, counterproductive, or even iniquitous laws, such as mask laws, or closing public schools, while keeping private schools open, is responsible for the COVID massacre, and should be criminally charged: there are advanced countries with few, or basically no COVID cases or deaths. Hint: no masks in Australia.

Philosophically speaking, the deadly mask craze is an example of intellectual fascism: an idea from authority, right or wrong, is adopted, because it is the law. A famous example of laws against civilization were racist laws of the Twentieth Century, such as forbidding “colored” persons in the front of the bus. Indeed, what if the law is criminal? Where is the possibility of conscientious objection?

Practically, and in the most pragmatic way, I am saying that, when one goes into confined, non-HEPA filtered air with strangers, one is NOT protected from the coronavirus, mask or no mask, and whether others or oneself wear them, or not.



Mandatory public wearing of masks to fight COVID has been an obvious failure. People were ordered to wear masks, and the pandemic exploded. I will show it was not an accident: the scientific reasons why masks by the public in public are an abject public failure are now well established, and were obvious all along… That evidence was overridden by biased, power-hungry authorities, and the willingness of the sheeple to obey lies coming from its masters. (Whereas social distanciation does work.) 

If mask wearing is such an abject failure, why were people required to wear masks? Was it to make the pandemic worse? Yes, of course, that’s how billionaires were made faster than they would have been made otherwise, and how “democrats” won an election, and how “elected representatives” gave the world the impression they cared, and did something about it.  

Politicians tell us: “science” says to wear masks. OK, masks did work pretty well, at least for doctors, during the Black Plague of 1348 CE, and, indeed, masks work in medical settings, then, or now. However, science does not say that wearing masks is of public benefit, when worn by the public. Just the opposite. Right, as I said, masks work in medical settings, at an average 70% efficiency. 

This sort of outfit used to make us laugh, but now, not anymore. In 1348 CE, the Personal Protection Equipment, as shown above, were made in Europe. Now they are made in China. The beak, by the way, protected against contact with patients and was laden with plants toxic to the plague bacillus. Notice that during the Black Death, no aristocrat seems to have died from the Plague: they knew how to implement social distanciation. However, French ex-president Valery Giscard D’Estaing just died from COVID… Among many other famous person who died from it. The Black Death (probably Yersinia Pestis, from Alexandre Yersin, a French doctor of the Pasteur Institute who identified it at huge personal risk, in Hong-Kong… From a small hut, as the British had blocked his access to hospitals. Yersin was on a French government mission to identify the nature of the plague.

Masks are effective in medical settings, but doctors know how to use masks, they have been trained. And the medical masks are ultra-clean, so clean they can use electrostatic attraction to imprison small particles (that’s how they are so effective). Medical masks are not covered with dry COVID bursting in clouds of viruses…

Mass epidemiological studies have been conducted on public mask wearing in Denmark and the Netherlands. Verdict: masks are of no measurable efficiency when used by the public, in public. Worse, the Danish study article points out to adverse mental health consequences for children. The article wonders: “Will mandatory mask usage be scaled back in light of these results?

The establishment has vested interests in pursuing the mask’s mythology, so it counter-attacked.  

The Mayo clinic rolled out to great noise and fury a study demonstrating the efficiency of masks, to prevent… COVID transmission between… inanimate objects covered with “masks”. Mayo used two (2) micron sized droplets carrying the virus… Two microns, that’s around 2,000 times bigger than the COVID virus… Very “scientific”… 

Mayo claimed a 99% interception rate… In other words, masks don’t stop all two (2) micron droplets, just 99% of them. If one is in COVID AIR, 1% COVID air will saturate one’s airways in minutes… with COVID. 

Besides, N95 masks are called that way, because they intercept only 95% (and only above .3 micron, nearly three times the diameter of SARS 2). SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can remain infective in aerosol for up to 16 hours according to a Tulane study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases. Actually there was “no detectable biological half-life” after 16 hours, meaning no decay, in appearance or the capacity to replicate. So infected people, mask or no mask, can come into a room and fill it up with suspended SARS-CoV-2. The researchers found that the virus can survive in the air much longer than other related coronaviruses, such as SARS 1, or MERS.

The corrupts at the plutocratic “Associated Press” “fact check” that the masks are effective, with speculation and twisted logic speculating that Coronaviruses are attached to giant droplets, a bit like flying bathtubs of water, and it is well known that masks stop all and any water droplets (what happens when masks are drenched with all these droplets?) 

People noticed that masks do not stop wildfire or cigarette smoke. Associated Press, the association of plutocratic media, Associated Plutocrats, quotes Dr. Jonathan Parsons, a pulmonologist at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center who said. “Respiratory droplets are much larger than the harmful materials in the wildfire smoke.” Parsons is speculating that the coronavirus is in the droplets, and ONLY in the droplets. But what Parsons is imagining, there is experimental evidence against. Yes, OK, maybe, the coronavirus is, initially in droplets. Then what happens when those droplets are deposited and now the virus is on a fomite, or becomes airborne, thanks to the mask? Oops, it would seem that the authorities from the elite did not think of this highly likely scenario?

Common sense says this: cigarette smoke is between .1 micron and one micron. The SARS-COV2 virus is .125 micron at most so? So if you smell smoke through your mask, you can smell the coronavirus. The ANTI-IDEA that coronaviruses always come within a flying bathtub attached is NOT scientific. Because it is unproven as a direct fact. It is also contradicted by the most powerful of all facts: the explosion of the pandemic in the many countries which give enormous fines if one does not wear the stupid masks.   

Studies which flaunt the efficiency of masks, if and only if they fit superbly, self-contradict: what if they don’t fit superbly? Would you smell the cigarette smoke/coronavirus? Not just this, but, once again, stopping 99% of the virus is not good enough, just as stopping 99% of the bullets when there is one billion bullets is not good enough. 

Let’s do the math. One virus per one million cubic microns is one virus for every cube of size 1/10 millimeter on the side. Visualize this as the equivalent of one single virus the size of a cube of one millimeter on each side in a larger cube of one meter on the side: assuredly not a very high density, 1/1,000,000,000,000. There are 10^12 viruses per cubic meter at that density. That’s 10^9 viruses per liter. If one breathe six liter of air per minute, this means one would be exposed to exactly six billion coronaviruses per minute!!!

Thus, at a viral density of 1/1,000,000,000,000, if the stupid mask, fitting perfectly, stops 99% of the viruses, that means if the stupid mask is five times more efficient than a N95 mask fitting perfectly, one would still breathe 60 million coronaviruses per minute. This computation is obviously too hard for the average politician and voters to understand in any sense. Instead of thinking, they search for an authority to obey. Another factor is that, on the exterior surface of the mask, droplets containing the virus will be deposed… and then evaporate fully, or in part. The result is that the mask will then turn into a virus dissemination machine after having reduced the size of the virion carriers, making them more transmissible. Indeed, the more reduced, the more those virion carriers will elude masks found in the way. The smallest smoke particles are virus size, and they go through. Enthusiastically. That is the difference with HEPA filters… Which are very efficient at this sort of size, from Brownian motion, and do, indeed, stop smoke (I have used them very efficiently against thick smoke from massive forest fires… a forest fire smoke to which was added the smoke of entire towns burned to a crisp…)

Only HEPA filters stop two micron droplets, or particles around a tenth of a micron, with more than 99.97% efficiency. 

HEPA filters have a MINIMUM particle collective efficiency of 99.97% for particles of 0.3 µm diameter or more. Paradoxically, HEPA filters are more efficient for even smaller size, due to electrostatic effects and increased dominance of Brownian motion on small particle trajectories. A HEPA filter typically lasts three to five years, depending on hours of operation, cleanliness of the room, and type of work being performed.

SARS-CoV2 is one tenth of a micron across. Instead the Mayo-mayonnaise Clinic pretends disingenuously that it is .2 microns across (id est ten times more voluminous). The SARS 2 viral transmission is airborne. 

The Mayo propaganda is equivalent to me going out in the rain with an umbrella, observing the umbrella stops the rain, and then claiming umbrella wearing is effective against COVID. A parody of science for mental retards knowing no physics. Basically, SARS-CoV2 is a gas. SARS-CoV2 is not made of little water canon balls spewed as if from a waterfall… as most of the medical establishment elite has been keen of representing it… while watching, mesmerized, their biotech stocks going airborne to heavens, just as well, making them wealthier everyday.

And the price of the public masquerade is high, because the arrogant elite has acted accordingly, brandishing masks, and using the ineffective masking of the population as a way to avoid taking effective measures against the transmission of COVID

In the USA, the mask masquerade was a strategy to win the election: the absence of systematic mask hysteria from Trump was used as a main argument and symbol to pretend that Trump was not fighting the pandemic effectively. Never mind that Trump was saving the world with the vaccines of Operation Warp Speed: hatred knows no bound, especially when organized by plutocrats.

Research and logic show that physical distancing is universally effective at reducing the spread of COVID-19, while social bubbles and masks are more situation-dependent. Masks work at 70% in medical settings, 0% in public settings, overall. 

In high transmission settings (parties, choirs, restaurant kitchens, crowded offices, nightclubs, gyms, protests and bars) masks make no difference, because the air is full of virus, BEYOND THE SATURATION POINT. Masks may half the transmission rate, of even reduce the transmission rate to just 1% as Mayo-mayonnaise claims, but that doesn’t affect the transmission probability, because it is already sky high (and so on the number of infections).. This has been amply documented in various scientific papers, some published in Science and Nature. 

So why does the elite insist on wearing masks as a panacea? Would it have to do with being invested in biotech stocks? Many billionaires were created from the spectacular rise of biotech stocks. Now I am not against this, not at all. Simply, though, people of the elite should be forced, by law, to declare their investments, whenever they mass publicize their opinions, directly, or indirectly.. 

Not just this. HEPA filter companies seem to be small and US based. So they interest nobody from the Global Deep Plutocracy which leads us by the nose. 

Make no mistake: I sometimes wear masks… And since February, I have used the trick of not breathing when I pass people (I have a background in deep sea diving, apnea). The critique here was against masks as panacea. Far from it, it’s probably the opposite!

It’s my morality and habit to disagree with interlocutors, just to create a debate… And I find that pleasurable. Debates feed hearts and minds. No debate, no humanity, no truth, no power, only subjugation.


Two million years ago there were at least a dozen homini species, in East Africa alone (and there were other species in Eurasia, at the very least). Hate exterminated all of them, but for one lineage. So, arguably, we are a product of hatred. Hatred is underneath, even when not fully visible, it motivates deeply, and explains a lot of otherwise apparently unexplainable behaviors… Some of them akin to sawing what our civilization rests on. An example is the fact democratic politicians weaponized the pandemic to vanquish Donald Trump. To do this, they, and their propaganda machine, brandished a lot of lies, including that masks worked, and “Trump vaccines” did not. 

This sort of erosion of credibility, replacing it my faith (in hatred!), is a dangerous strategy. So is the adoption of the color mentality, when color is seen as determining everything (Black Lips Matter!) Be careful when we saw through the branch on which we sit, that of meta-civilized behavior… I literally heard a sixth grade teacher teach that he would not listen to presidential debates, because they would certainly drive him insane. 

From the very beginning of the pandemic, masks were viewed as ineffectual, or even dangerous protection. What worked was social distanciation, and when that failed, testing, tracing, isolation of contacts… (And probably HCQ and the like which were systematically used in countries which limited the outbreaks; HCQ is very efficient against SARS 1, and several other coronaviruses). Masks returned because, like Islamist or monkish coverings, they imparted the idea that something morally correct was done. All they did was to make a bad situation, worse… Instead of sending billions of dollars of orders to HEPA filter companies…

The Mask Masquerade has been unmasked as a masked massacre. Amen. Irrationality has a price.  

Patrice Ayme



Note on some of the scientific background: Here is a recent Science article:

Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2Kimberly A. Prather1,*, Linsey C. Marr2,*, Robert T. Schooley3, Melissa A. McDiarmid4, Mary E. Wilson5,6, Donald K. Milton7See all authors and affiliationsScience 16 Oct 2020:Vol. 370, Issue 6514, pp. 303-304DOI: 10.1126/science.abf0521ArticleInfo & MetricseLettersPDF

There is overwhelming evidence that inhalation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represents a major transmission route for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is an urgent need to harmonize discussions about modes of virus transmission across disciplines to ensure the most effective control strategies and provide clear and consistent guidance to the public. To do so, we must clarify the terminology to distinguish between aerosols and droplets using a size threshold of 100 µm, not the historical 5 µm (1). This size more effectively separates their aerodynamic behavior, ability to be inhaled, and efficacy of interventions.Viruses in droplets (larger than 100 µm) typically fall to the ground in seconds within 2 m of the source and can be sprayed like tiny cannonballs onto nearby individuals. Because of their limited travel range, physical distancing reduces exposure to these droplets. Viruses in aerosols (smaller than 100 µm) can remain suspended in the air for many seconds to hours, like smoke, and be inhaled. They are highly concentrated near an infected person, so they can infect people most easily in close proximity. But aerosols containing infectious virus (2) can also travel more than 2 m and accumulate in poorly ventilated indoor air, leading to superspreading events (3). Individuals with COVID-19, many of whom have no symptoms, release thousands of virus-laden aerosols and far fewer droplets when breathing and talking (4–6). Thus, one is far more likely to inhale aerosols than be sprayed by a droplet (7), and so the balance of attention must be shifted to protecting against airborne transmission. In addition to existing mandates of mask-wearing, social distancing, and hygiene efforts, we urge public health officials to add clear guidance about the importance of moving activities outdoors, improving indoor air using ventilation and filtration, and improving protection for high-risk workers (8).”

VENTILATION and FILTRATION. That’s Ultra Violet and HEPA FILTERS. Get it?


Aside from transmitting COVID more than no mask at all, in more way than one, could it be that masks will cause MASK LUNG?

Here is Nature again, same article:

The higher particle emission rate for jaw movement than for breathing is an indication of greater frictional shedding of the paper towel and cotton masks during jaw movement compared to breathing, at least as tested here. Likewise, the difference in the size distributions of mask rubbing and with-mask expiratory activities is likely due to the vigorous frictional force applied by hand on the masks. Regardless of the larger particles (> 5 µm), rubbing mask fabrics generates a considerable number of particles in the range of 0.3–5 µm similar to that observed for the expiratory activities. This finding corroborates the interpretation that some proportion of the particulates observed during expiration were particulates aerosolized from the masks themselves.

What of all those fibers getting in the lungs, would not they cause… fibrosis of the lungs, in the long run?


The extracts found below from the very long and thorough Nature article on masks reveal a dramatic result; often the usage of masks in NON medical conditions INCREASES DRAMATICALLY the emissions of particles! Nature, with Science, are the world’s top scientific journals. Published: 24 September 2020

Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities

Sima Asadi, Christopher D. Cappa, Santiago Barreda, Anthony S. Wexler, Nicole M. Bouvier & William D. Ristenpart.

Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 15665 (2020) 

…[some] studies… indicate a strong potential for masks to help reduce transmission of respiratory illnesses. To date, however, none have investigated the effectiveness of masks across a range of expiratory activities, and limited consideration has been given to different mask types. Furthermore, no studies to date have considered the masks themselves as potential sources of aerosol particles. It is well established that fibrous cellulosic materials, like cotton and paper, can release large quantities of micron-scale particles (i.e., dust) into the air39,40,41,42. Traditionally, these particles have not been considered a potential concern for respiratory viral diseases like influenza or now COVID-19, since these diseases have been thought to be transmitted via expiratory particles emitted directly from the respiratory tract of infected individuals43. Early work in the 1940s indicated, however, that infectious influenza virus could be collected from the air after vigorously shaking a contaminated blanket44. Despite this finding, over the next 70 years little attention focused on the possibility of respiratory virus transmission via environmental dust; one exception was a study by Khare and Marr, who investigated a theoretical model for resuspension of contaminated dust from a floor by walking45. Most recently, work by Asadi et al. with influenza virus experimentally established that “aerosolized fomites,” non-respiratory particles aerosolized from virus-contaminated surfaces such as animal fur or paper tissues, can also carry influenza virus and infect susceptible animals46. This observation raises the possibility that masks or other personal protective equipment (PPE), which have a higher likelihood of becoming contaminated with virus, might serve as sources of aerosolized fomites. Indeed, recent work by Liu et al. demonstrated that some of the highest counts of airborne SARS-CoV-2 (the virus responsible for COVID-19) occurred in hospital rooms where health care workers doffed their PPE, suggesting that virus was potentially being aerosolized from virus-contaminated clothing or PPE, or resuspended from virus-contaminated dust on the floor47. It remains unknown what role aerosolized fomites play in transmission of infectious respiratory disease between humans, and it is unclear whether certain types of masks are simultaneously effective at blocking emission of respiratory particles while minimizing emission of non-expiratory (cellulosic) particles….

….Surprisingly, wearing an unwashed single layer t-shirt (U-SL-T) mask while breathing yielded a significant increase in measured particle emission rates compared to no mask, increasing to a median of 0.61 particles/s. The rates for some participants (F1 and F4) exceeded 1 particle/s, representing a 384% increase from the median no-mask value.

…. Discussion

Our results clearly indicate that wearing surgical masks or unvented KN95 respirators reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask. However, for the homemade cotton masks, the measured particle emission rate either remained unchanged (DL-T) or increased by as much as 492% (SL-T) compared to no mask for all of the expiratory activities. For jaw movement, the particle emission rates for homemade paper and cloth masks were an order of magnitude larger than that of no mask (Fig. 2d). These observations, along with our results from manual mask rubbing experiments (Fig. 5), provide strong evidence of substantial shedding of non-expiratory micron-scale particulates from friable cellulosic fibers of the paper and cloth masks owing to mechanical action40. The higher particle emission rate for jaw movement than for breathing is an indication of greater frictional shedding of the paper towel and cotton masks during jaw movement compared to breathing, at least as tested here. Likewise, the difference in the size distributions of mask rubbing and with-mask expiratory activities is likely due to the vigorous frictional force applied by hand on the masks. Regardless of the larger particles (> 5 µm), rubbing mask fabrics generates a considerable number of particles in the range of 0.3–5 µm similar to that observed for the expiratory activities. This finding corroborates the interpretation that some proportion of the particulates observed during expiration were particulates aerosolized from the masks themselves.

…Our results showed that the root mean square amplitude of speech, as measured externally when participants wore any type of mask, equaled or exceeded that of the no-mask condition (Figure S1a), suggesting that participants were indeed talking louder with the mask. Although an increase in the intensity of the speech signal when wearing masks would result in greater output of particles in these conditions48, the difference in the intensity of speech across the different conditions was not very large (Figure S1a). As a result, this mechanism alone cannot explain the increased particle output in some of the masked conditions

… The substantial particle shedding by the cloth masks confounds determination of the cloth mask efficacy for reducing outward emission of particles produced from the expiratory activity. Measured material filtration efficiencies vary widely for different cloth materials 32,34,35,63. The influence of particle shedding on such determinations has not been previously considered….

… That the masks shed fibers from mechanical stimulation indicates care must be taken when removing and cleaning (for reusable masks) potentially contaminated masks so as to not dislodge deposited micro-organisms.

… emission reduction due to surgical masks was greater than the corresponding reduction due to KN95 respirators, although this difference was only significant for coughing (p < 0.05). That the surgical masks appear to provide slightly greater reduction than the KN95 respirators is perhaps surprising, as KN95s are commonly thought of as providing more protection than surgical masks for inhalation. Both surgical masks and KN95 respirators typically have high material filtration efficiencies (> 95%)63, although the quality of surgical masks can vary substantially64. The fit of surgical and KN95 respirators differs substantially.

… Our work does raise the possibility, however, that virus-contaminated masks could release aerosolized fomites into the air by shedding fiber particulates from the mask fabric. Since mask efficacy experiments are typically only conducted with fresh, not used, masks, future work assessing emission of viable pathogens should consider this possibility in more detail.

This is exactly what is happening, and one of the two reasons why the pandemic took a much more dramatic turn in the second wave (with masks) than the first (without masks). The other main reason being that a mask, KN95, which stops 95% of relative large particles, larger than the virus, especially when electrostatically discharged, will not stop enough virions in a SARS-CoV2 laden confined air.

Tags: , ,


  1. Derrick Strobl Says:

    The study you’ve cited concludes as follows:
    “Our observations are consistent with suggestions that mask wearing can help in mitigating pandemics associated with respiratory disease.”


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Derrick Strobl Of course. But the devil is in the details of the article, as found in the “Discussion” before the “Conclusion”. And the Devil shows why masks did not work as a way to stop the pandemic. They actually made it worse, a bit of logic shows… as observed, too.

      I am not the only one to think this, BTW. Health authorities in the USA initially thought this way… Before Democrats won the propaganda battle by playing dumb. This is still the official lines in several countries including Sweden, Netherlands, etc. And the fact is, the epidemic in Europe without mask mandate was small, whereas it completely exploded, with the mask mandate. I explained in detail why in my 3,200 word essay… where other studies are quoted.


  2. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to a subgroup of idiots who called me names on the Internet for the preceding essay]
    From same article which the dishonest ones did not read and interpret correctly: “Our results clearly indicate that wearing surgical masks or unvented KN95 respirators reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask. However, for the homemade cotton masks, the measured particle emission rate either remained unchanged (DL-T) or INCREASED BY AS MUCH AS 492% (SL-T) compared to no mask for all of the expiratory activities. ”

    People with brains will realize what it means: 100% certainty to catch COVID in a COVID room, even with a KN95 “respirator”. Just do the math, indeed,


  3. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [More writing to the deranged haters of the Internet…]
    What the silly ones do not understand is that, if the virus itself is airborne (from fomites, this has been demonstrated in PPE rooms), one has to intercept at least a billion viruses each time one breathes.

    With the 95% efficiency of a KN95, that is still 50 million viruses getting in, each time one breathes. This is why HEPA filters have to be used, not masks. Masks for doctors, perfect. To stop the pandemic? In most cases and places, worse than useless. Hence the present situation.

    However drastic social distanciation works, and this is why Europe switched back to it… After the mask masquerade failed.


  4. John W. Sone Says:

    Are your insights based on any kind of science, social or natural, or are they channeled from another dimension? I’m trying to decide whether you are merely propagating misinformation or whether, more disturbingly, it is disinformation.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Decide away, in this morass of insults you delve in, please. However, the other dimension part is obviously true. Why? Because there are dimensions to knowledge, and these can be strictly defined… Thanks to modern neurobiology. Lower dimensional beings, flat ants on a Moebius strip, are in an eternal loop of collective certainty. Higher dimensional beings know better.


  5. Jeremy Wolfe Says:

    Patrice Ayme You are cherry picking statements from the report as well as misinterpreting it.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Be specific, please. Notice the “We have not directly measured virus emission” in the Conclusion of the Nature article. Also read my entire essay, and think about the MOST significant msg. “Cherry picking” is what we scientist do. Learn.


  6. Brandon Evans Says:

    Australia just recently changed stance on masks.…/coronavirus-victoria-ends…


  7. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to more Internet retards]
    Direct epidemiological studies in several countries have shown the INEFFECTIVENESS of masks in general, in public, for the public, as a mean to stop the present pandemic.

    That does not mean masks are useless 100% of the time in all places, for all people. That has been demonstrated to be false.. For SEVEN CENTURIES….

    And I know this, and it is fully in my essay. What we are dealing with is people who prefer to hate rather than understand what they don’t know.

    The Nature article indeed confirms that masks can QUINTUPLE COVID, it’s written black on white. Now haters will come back and say: lie, it’s 482%… Like mosquitoes they know only one jab.


  8. De Brunet d'Ambiallet Says:

    You are fearless, and correct, of course.


  9. Paul Handover Says:

    Your article is a long one and I have only read it quickly before doing further research. But I will say that the growth in cases tells us that whatever we are doing we are doing the wrong thing. This pandemic has run for at least nine months! Nine months! And to others I want to say that Patrice often writes unclearly, often at a level that is too elevated for me, but never, ever untruthfully.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Paul, thanks for the very supportive comment. I needed that! Some people actually asked authorities to ban me from Facebook for this essay. The gist of my essay being that one should use UVs, ventilation and HEPA filters to block the virus. Masks are dangerously ineffective, hence the explosion of the pandemic: masks were not used in March-April, so social distanciation, which works, was more effective… Masks decrease social distanciation, that’s why the pandemic augments.

      Should you re-read my essay, please use the latest version, I added a letter to Science Magazine from a month ago, which supports my general drift, and the existence of which I learned in the meantime.

      Practically I am saying that, when one goes into confined, non-HEPA filtered air with strangers, one is not protected, mask or no mask, and whether others or oneself wear them, or not.


  10. Gmax Says:

    Biden wants people to wear masks for 100 days. What you showed is that it would make the pandemic worse. Good job Biden. Is he surrounded by idiots? Dr Fauci cackled
    away that it would be great that everyone wears masks, he couldn’t wait… what you are saying is that the pandemic is worse one BECAUSE OF THE MASK CRAZE. I am surprised Facebook didn’t shut you down yet, ha ha ha Anyway thanks great work!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, Fauci is not doing a public service by focusing on masks wearing. This will be revealed in the fullness of time. The only thing that can break the pandemic at this point in the USA is a ferocious lockdown… Although the “no walking” in LA is grotesque and anti-health.


  11. ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

    Hi Patrice,

    I agree with you when you say that the homemade cotton masks imbue a false sense of security in people who wear them. And – I agree they are probably not very effective. The gaps in a cotton mesh are akin to giant open barn-doors for the virus.

    But – the N95 masks must work to some extent, because otherwise our health professionals would all be on beds themselves.

    I have a paint/spray respirator that effectively captures smoke. The smoke can be very dense and there is no hint of the smell of smoke. It has both a 100 nm (.1 micron) particle filter and a carbon-filter for gas absorption. AFAIK, while the N95 lacks the carbon-filter for gas, its mesh is like my respirator’s mesh and is good for 100 nm. For my respirator, the P100 designation means 99% filtering for particles .1 micron and larger.

    I think the public was told to do something as a matter of expedience (craft their own masks) – when the smarter thing to do would have been to put a helluva big effort into making sure they all had N95 masks by now. Just my two cents.


    • ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

      I should add that homemade masks were found in some tests to limit the expectorate spray areas/volumes created by the sneezing people who were wearing them in the tests. So – such masks may be more effective at that sort of thing rather than preventing viruses from being breathed. I’d say every bit of help we can get we should use, and nothing’s perfect. I’m not qualified to give medical advice, but I have to believe the masks (even non-N95) have at least some value.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Hi Ronald: Well, the science is in: FIVE TIMES WORSE for some categories of mask has been demonstrated: I quoted the NATURE article, and everybody agrees now…. Among experts. I am not a doctor (in medicine) either. One of my friend who is a just retired doctor gave me a long moral lesson about him being a sheep following the CDC, and referring only to experts. But the experts have been idiotic in this crisis in the leading democracies… Some countries did extremely well, but they had their own experts disagreeing with the idiotic experts. Experts in idiocy, maybe?

        If one is not an idiot (like Fauci; clever and charming idiots, like Fauci, are the worst), one will notice that the difference between the first wave and the catastrophic second wave was… the masks… For the reason I gave (6,000 words of reasons).

        Socrates condemned the lack of experts. But nowadays experts are too much like pigeons. They want to be fed, get wealthy, so they say and do anything which please their leaders… Watch Fauci with Kim Kardashian or Cuomo, son of Cuomo, to get an idea… while more than 6,000 people are dying a day between North America and Europe.

        Another expert catastrophe was ANTARCTICA. I always thought it could melt, and I had FIGHTS, with famous climate experts who pontificated, with no proof, and only IDIOTIC logic that it could never melt. They didn’t know basic physics (water being DENSER at 4 Centigrades… not at zero C…)

        Wisdom respects nothing, not even experts.


  12. MC Says:

    I haven’t worked in the Emergency Department since March. Having said that I think it’s best we don’t discuss the topic of Covid. It’s not that I’m not interested in it. But my strategy to such questions is based on a professional approach that makes it hard for me to tolerate speculation and controversy that feeds reactions. You’re entitled to opinions, but for my part, my Bayesian reasoning that has served me well for 35 years, 100,000+ patients, a few mistakes, but no lawsuits…….advises me to move past topics of infectious disease with you. The kinds of judgments and conclusions you’re describing are best left to experts in infectious disease, virology, immunology, and epidemiology. There are lives at stake, and I find the debates in the public sphere tragically tinged with drama and political agendas. We’ll see hundreds of thousands more deaths before long. Easily on the scale of a major world war.

    e.g. mask controversies. Honestly Patrice, quoting studies is not equivalent to knowledge about best practices in epidemiology, and public health. I’m not going to do the work to dissuade you or instruct about assessment of medical literature, assessment of therapeutics, statistics or the role of bias in medical literature, external validity…..etc.etc. My standards are high, and I don’t hold my self up as an arbiter of the literature in any particular field other than Emergency Medicine. But what I know is that it requires years of dedication and training to be in a position to advise individuals, let alone entire populations what to do in a situation like ours. I’m not really interested in your assessment of the literature. At the risk of irritating you further, I’d suggest that if you want my opinion of the literature, you check in with the CDC website or our Alameda County web site. I guess I’m just one of the sheep that’s joined the CDC, Infectious disease, public health, epidemiology cult.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear MC:
      At this point, I am rather baffled by your statement, and trying to figure something to say out of it. It seems to me that you are denying the interest of having public thinking as engaged in by public intellectuals. Public intellectuals are the backbone of civilization, IMHO.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: