CDC Maskdemic, The Research

When we read over the guidelines from the CDC, studies and reports, we must pay careful attention to the words used as they change the meaning dramatically.

In this episode I will cover CDC pages and cited articles used to drive policy across our nation and the world.


Let’s get the party rolling with reading a few quotes from the CDC page titled, “Evidence for Effectiveness of Cloth Face Coverings.[1]” Pay close attention to the words used.

In the summary section, they state,

“CDC recommends that people wear cloth face coverings in public settings and when around people who don’t live in your household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.”

Notice the keyword used is “recommend.” They recommend people to wear. They did not say it’s required.

Next point,

“Cloth face coverings may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others.”

In the above sentence, they used the word “may” in conjunction with help. It implies they are not sure if it will help prevent the spread or not.

They continue stating,

“Cloth face coverings are most likely to reduce the spread of COVID-19 when they are widely used by people in public settings.”

Notice the word choice “likely.” And,

“Cloth face coverings should not be worn by children under the age of 2 or anyone who has trouble breathing…”

It states “should not” with those two years of age or younger or individuals who have trouble breathing.  By keeping the terms subjective, it gives them latitude to change policies without notice or accountability. But the fact remains, a face mask does cause breathing issues. The question, does wearing a face covering cause you any issues with your breathing?

In the main section of their recommendations, they mention those who should not, so then, who should wear a mask?

“CDC recommends all people 2 years of age and older wear a cloth face,” 

Didn’t they state earlier that no-one two years of age or younger should wear a mask?  So then, which is it, mask, or not to mask? That is the question that I ask.  

And with that question, let’s look at the next statement,

“COVID-19 can be spread by people who do not have symptoms and do not know that they are infected.”

By saying can, it implies they do not know and therefore making policy based on a rough guess. And to prove this point, in an article dated June 8th from CNBC, it stated [2]

“WHO officials now say that while asymptomatic spread can occur, it is not the main way it’s being transmitted.”

And again, we see the word “can” used. This implies uncertainties. They are not sure how it spreads, or even if asymptomatic spread is possible. Let’s continue,

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.”

“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing,” she said. “They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.”

And with every rule, there are exceptions.  So then, what are the exceptions to the mask-wearing fiasco?

“People who are deaf or hard of hearing.”

“… people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, mental health conditions or other sensory sensitivities, may have challenges wearing a cloth face covering.”

Younger children (e.g., preschool or early elementary-aged)”

Yet, earlier they claimed only those under two, and now it’s preschool or early elementary. It seems the CDC is in the business of constant confusion as it allows them to change policies on a dime to drive any narrative they desire.

And they continue,

“People should not wear cloth face coverings while engaged in activities that may cause the cloth face covering to become wet.”

“People who are engaged in high-intensity activities, like running, may not be able to wear a cloth face covering if it causes difficulty breathing.”

“People who work in a setting where cloth face coverings may increase the risk of heat-related illness or cause safety concerns due to introduction of a hazard (for instance, straps getting caught in machinery)”


Before diving into the CDC cited articles, I want to cover some of the words they use.  This is to show you the tactic deployed to allow them the ability to flip-flop and change policy as they go. Keep in mind certain local politicians are using these CDC documents and cited references to drive policy and draconian measures.

  • Recommend is a verb used to put forward an idea that is suitable for a purpose or role.  It’s also used to offer a suggestion or make something seem appealing or desirable.  Think about commercials and marketing, and they recommend and suggest.
  • May is used to express a possibility, ask for or give permission, and express hope. It’s not concrete. It’s not definitive.  It’s a possibility.  Something may stop, or it may help.  Not sure, but it might.
  • Likely, it is used to modify a noun to make it appear suitable or seems that it might happen or be true. The vaccine will likely work.  Wearing a mask will likely slow the spread.  It’s likely, but no guarantee.
  • Presume supposes that something is the case based on probability.  It’s presumed a mask will slow the spread.  Again, not a guarantee. 
  • Suggest is to put something forward for consideration or cause someone to think something exists or is the actual case. In other words, a suggestion does not have to exist.  It only has to do the job of making you believe it does. Hence, the power of suggestion, as used in movies and commercials, helps you buy into a concept or theory they are selling.  Think mainstream media.
  • Plausible is to make something seem reasonable or probable. Or it’s used to create arguments intended to deceive.

And last but not least is the word potentially.

  • Potentially is used to define something possible, but not yet happened.

All the words they use are carefully selected to confuse, deceive, and allow them to change policies at the flip of a switch without question or thought.

Studies Cited Articles

Now we see how important words are, and how they change the meaning, lets looks at the cited documents used to drive policies across the US and other parts of the world.

Study #1

A quantitative assessment of the efficacy of surgical and N95 masks to filter influenza virus in patients with acute influenza infection [3], dated July 15, 2009.

 “Surgical and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the spread of PCR-detectable influenza.”

Their recommendations for wearing masks depends on the prevention of disease transmission or acquisition.  If prevention is critical, they recommend using either a routine surgical or procedure mask worn by the infected patient. They did not say cloth mask.

If the goal is to prevent acquisition (getting the disease) from infected patients, the choice of mask is between a surgical or N95 type mask. But even this choice is dependent on whether the outbreak a pandemic or seasonal. It’s all speculative.

Regarding surgical masks, they are designed to trap respiratory secretions expelled by the wearer (the person who is ill) and help prevent transmission to others. They are not designed to stop the inhalation of airborne particles. Their ability to protect from getting a disease varies.

The N95 masks are designed to reduce exposure from airborne particles, but only if those particles are larger or equal to .3 micrometers. And even then, they presume the mask is properly fitted to help protect the wearer from transmission.

The study consisted of twenty-six patients who were clinically diagnosed with the flu.  Nineteen were confirmed positive using the PCR test via nasal swabs.   I will touch on this in detail later, but the PCR test is not accurate, nor should it be considered the gold standard.  The inventor of this test, Dr. Kary Mullis, was firm on that point.


Based on their findings, they concluded more guidelines and stated,

“current guidelines recommending surgical or procedural masks be worn by patients with suspected influenza to limit viral dissemination to others. The findings also support the guidelines that N95 respirators (designed to prevent disease acquisition) may not be necessary, because they appear to offer no additional benefit over surgical masks…”

“…the greater filtration capacity of N95 masks may have some benefits as long as they can be worn appropriately and tolerated.”

In other words, the N95 mask does not guarantee complete protection from infection or in stopping the spread of flu type diseases. However, the N95 mask can help if properly fitted to the wearer.

The study was completed with this advice, mask use for individuals with severe influenza.  In other words, healthy people should not be wearing a mask.

Study #2

Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic? [4], dated August, 2013.

In this study, they examined homemade masks as an alternative to commercial.

For the test, they picked different common household materials to find the effectiveness against bacterial and viral aerosols. To test the masks, participants coughed into them while wearing. For source control, a “Molnlycke Health Care Barrier 4239, EN14683 class I” face mask was used.

To test the fit factor against leakage, a “TSI PortaCount Plus Respirator Fit Tester and N95-Companion Module model 8095” was used.

To check for leakage the volunteers performed each of the following exercises for 96 seconds: (1) normal breathing, (2) deep breathing, (3) head moving side to side, (4) head moving up and down, (5) talking aloud (reading a prepared paragraph), (6) bending at the waist as if touching their toe and (7) normal breathing.

Remember, the Coronavirus particle [5] is 0.125 μm.

To test filter efficacy of the masks they used two microorganisms known to survive the stresses caused by aerosolization, bacillus atrophaeus (0.95-1.25 μm) and bacteriophage MS2 (MCIMB10108) 23 nm (0.023 μm) in diameter. Each participant keep their mask for a (15 min) duration.

They concluded all the materials tested had limited ability to block microbial aerosols. And as expected, the surgical mask had the best filtration efficiency against both microorganisms. The tea towel had a relatively high filtration efficiency for both bacteria’s, but breathing was difficult [6]. Two other tests performed used a pillowcase and a 100% cotton t-shirt. They found these materials to be the most suitable for an improvised face mask.


It’s noted the seal between the face and mask is critical in reducing exposure to contaminants.  If the fit around the mouth and nose is not proper, then an infection can flow between the person and their mask, therefore, making the mask of zero to little benefit.

The materials used were new and never worn before. If a mask is soiled, damp, or worn for a few hours, it will not be as effective as its original condition.

In addition, a mask does hinder your ability to breath, and they caution those with condition to take that into consideration as it can be impracticable for them to wear one.

Also, When a person breathes heavier because of a mask, it will increase leakage, allowing contaminants to flow in [6].

And one last discussion point is homemade masks must be continuously cleaned and changed.  In Canada, they recommend you throw the mask after each use [7].

Conclusion, The Findings

“Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals…”

In other words, they do not know if masks will stop the spread or not.

“Wearing a face mask in public areas may impede (slow) the spread of an infectious disease by preventing both the inhalation of infectious droplets and their subsequent exhalation and dissemination.”

However, the evidence of proportionate benefit from widespread use of face masks is unclear.”

And, again, the study shows they do not know.

“Facemasks may prevent contamination of the work space during the outbreak of influenza or other droplet-spread communicable disease by reducing aerosol transmission.”

An important fact about many of these studies is they were mainly performed on healthcare workers in controlled settings.

“To date, studies on the efficacy and reliability of face masks have concentrated on their use by health care workers … they are also more likely to be trained in the use of masks and fit tested than the general public. Should the supply of standard commercial face masks not meet demand, it would be useful to know whether improvised masks could provide any protection to others from those who are infected.”

They do not know if a homemade mask will work to protect you from those infected.  Yet, the CDC cites and uses this study to allow political pundits to enforce policies based on opinion, guesses, and general recommendations.

And on that point, I leave this study with the following four points,

“A protective mask may reduce the likelihood of infection, but it will not eliminate the risk, particularly when a disease has more than 1 route of transmission.”

“Thus any mask, no matter how efficient at filtration or how good the seal, will have minimal effect if it is not used in conjunction with other preventative measures…”

“An improvised face mask should be viewed as the last possible alternative…”

“… these (homemade) masks would provide the wearers little protection from microorganisms from other persons who are infected with respiratory diseases. As a result, we would not recommend the use of homemade face masks as a method of reducing transmission of infection from aerosols.”

To protect from infection via aerosols, they do not recommend a homemade mask.

Study #3

Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19 [8], dated February 21, 2020.

This case is based on a family of five members living in China. The findings cited are used to enforce policy across the world. So, keep when they speak about asymptomatic spread.

The overview of this study is as follows,

“…to our knowledge, transmission of the novel coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from an asymptomatic carrier with normal chest computed tomography (CT) findings has not been reported.”

That said, the five patients had a fever and respiratory symptoms.  Four were symptomatic, and one was asymptomatic.

All participants has chest CT Scans and PCR testing via nasal swabs. 

Two critical issues with the methods used:

  1. Many of the swabs coming out of China are contaminated [9]
  2. PCR test generates inaccurate results, even though they consider it the gold standard, which I will follow up on in another report. [10].


The results were as follows.

“Patient 1 (presumed asymptomatic carrier), … Results of RT-PCR testing were negative on January 26, positive on January 28 (2 days later), and negative on February 5 and 8(8-10 days later). … The sequence of events suggests that the coronavirus may have been transmitted by the asymptomatic carrier.”

Notice how the results are inconsistent and the word choice used to draw conclusion; presumed, suggest and may? 

The results are dependent on how the test was performed, collected, or its quality, as it can affect the results by producing false negative or positive reading.  

Concerning patient one (1) and the second test, they stated,

“…her second RT-PCR result was unlikely to have been a false-positive and was used to define infection with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.”

They are assuming infection, even though they are not sure. And the last statement in this study drives this point home.

“The mechanism by which asymptomatic carriers could acquire and transmit the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 requires further study.”

One last point to touch on, which I will cover in a follow-up report, is that the gold standard PCR test is inaccurate and should not be used for the purpose they are.  This was also re-iterated by its inventor, Dr. Kary Mullis [11].  

I believe the reason it’s used is due to its inconsistencies. It enables them to drive policies and, more importantly, continue the narrative to collect DNA samples and track in a global database [12].

Again, I will cover this in a follow-up report.

Study #4

Potential utilities of mask-wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2 [13], dated March 31, 2020.

This study suggests SARS‐CoV‐2 can be transmitted through droplets and aerosols.

Their findings were homemade masks, made of cloth alone, may not have the ability to block this virus and therefore offer no protection against it.

A few notes from the study concluded that medical masks could not reduce infection rates of some viral respiratory diseases. Therefore, some countries opposed the use of medical masks in everyday social settings. But they continued and stated they recommend mask-wearing and instant hand hygiene when needed.

And here is the twist.  The recommendation of handwashing with masks is crucial to reduce fatal cases, even though the death rates are pretty much nil. Yet, they need this combination of protection before they market effective vaccines against the coronavirus.

This implies the entire maskdemic scenario is a social engineering exercise for a mandatory mRNA vaccine they will market to use, even though it has never been licensed [14] for use in humans and comes with serious side effects.  

I can see the campaign ads running now. Save grandma, get a vaccine, so we can track you and make sure grandma is safe.  Your loved ones deserve it.

Study #5

Rapid Expert Consultation on the Possibility of Bioaerosol Spread of SARS-CoV-2 for the COVID-19 Pandemic [15], dated April 01, 2020.

“Currently available research supports the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 could be spread via bioaerosols generated directly by patients’ exhalation. One must be cautious in imputing the findings with one respiratory virus to another respiratory virus, as each virus may have its own effective infectious inoculum and distinct aerosolization characteristics. Studies that rely on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect the presence of viral RNA may not represent viable virus in sufficient amounts to produce infection. Nevertheless, the presence of viral RNA in air droplets and aerosols indicates the possibility of viral transmission via these routes.”

Basically, they don’t know.  And it is these experts with their opinion who are driving policy to strip away our rights.

Study #6

Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [16], dated April 10, 2020.

This report relies on the PCR test, which is known to be inaccurate and not designed for these types of scenarios in which it is used.  It’s an important point to remember as the combination of this test and word choice through these studies is driving policy for masks, vaccines, and other healthcare directives.

The report states,

 “presymptomatic transmission might occur, through generation of respiratory droplets or possibly through indirect transmission.”

By using the words “might” and “possible” it allows for fear to spread, guesswork to rule, and enables further attacks on our churches and first amendment rights.  

They continue, and I quote,

“Speech and other vocal activities such as singing have been shown to generate air particles, with the rate of emission corresponding to voice loudness.”

This statement has nothing to do with a virus.  It asserts that speaking distributes air particles, which is true.  And it supports the cancel culture narrative. To futher push these points they use a news article as their basis for policy against places of worship:

“News outlets have reported that during a choir practice in Washington on March 10, presymptomatic transmission likely played a role in SARS-CoV-2 transmission to approximately 40 of 60 choir members.* [17]

Again, both the spread and transmission are unknown.  “Likely” is not conclusive, and “approximately” is a guess. This mainstream medias false narrative and cited speculation drive the hype to attack religion (mainly Christians) protected under the first amendment.

Another quote of interest,

“the possibility of presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 increases the challenges of COVID-19 containment measures.”  

A chance of transmission increases containment, yet they claim it is only a possibility.  And to expand on this then they continue,

“…magnitude of this impact is dependent upon the extent and duration of transmissibility while a patient is presymptomatic, which, to date, have not been clearly established.

I hope you are starting to see the games played by the words chosen.  And how non-conclusive reports based mainly on speculation, and not facts, are used to strip your freedoms without a single shot fired.

Study #7

Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks [18], dated April 24, 2020.

In this April study, it claimed, 

“…there is limited knowledge available on the performance of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks.”

And they continue, 

“…need to evaluate filtration efficiencies as a function of aerosol particulate sizes in the 10 nm to 10 μm range, which is particularly relevant for respiratory virus transmission.”

And with that said, they admit the information they have is lacking on how different materials perform with particle sizes required for virus transmission. And the fit of a mask is critical. If not fitted properly, leakage occurs and allows access for the virus to enter, rendering cloth masks ineffective.

Another point in this study is how cloth masks do not have an elastomeric gasket which is used to increase mask effectiveness and reduces leakage.  It’s interesting how this is a known fact, yet officials leave it while they demand you to wear anything you can find around your face.  Why?  Because, the virus and masks are political. It’s an election year.

The Conclusion?

Cotton, natural silk, and chiffon can provide suitable protection for viruses between 10 nm to 6.0 μm.  If cotton is selected it needs to be used in multiple layers and should have a high thread count.  Any porous material should be avoided.

An N95 mask, if fitted, will offer more protection than cloth. But they are not guaranteed to protect the wearer 100%.

This study closes on three points,

  1. Openings and gaps around facial contours and edges will lead to leakage and reduced performance.
  2. Leakages around the cloth mask reduce efficiencies by ∼50% or more due to improper fitting.  
  3. Humidity from breathing and repeated use and cleaning of the mask significantly reduce their performance.

Study #8

Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks [19], dated May 27, 2020.

In this report, they established the following, 

“surgical face masks could (they are not sure) prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.”

“Some health authorities recommend (opinion, based on being not sure) that masks be worn by ill individuals to prevent onward transmission (source control) …”

A little background on surgical masks,

“Surgical face masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound infection and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures …”

“… most of the existing evidence on the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro experiments with nonbiological particles, which may not be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is little information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections …”

“Our results indicate that aerosol transmission is a potential (maybe something in the future, but not sure) mode of transmission for coronaviruses as well as influenza viruses and rhinoviruses…”

And in their study, which is used to help draft policies and keep the world shut, it has a few little limitations.  One is around exhaling.

Remember the assault on churches and singing [17], and how they suggested it could be the cause of transmission?  Well, here, they again contradict themselves. They claim many of the participants had undetectable viral shedding in exhaled breath for each of the viruses studied.

“…they did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus or rhinovirus detected in exhaled breath.”

They are uncertain if exhaling can cause infection, yet they are banning singing in churches across California [20].

And they continue,

“…in the present study we were able to identify infectious influenza virus in aerosols, we did not attempt to culture coronavirus or rhinovirus from the corresponding aerosol samples.”

The question then is, how do you know if it spread or not?  You don’t, you make guesses and call it political science.

Study #9

Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection [21], dated June 03, 2020.

This report is best if I cite them in their words.

“It has been suspected that infected persons who remain asymptomatic play a significant role in the ongoing pandemic, but their relative number and effect have been uncertain.”

Again, they do not know. But why are they keeping this fear alive?  Social engineering, but for what?  Let them speak and provide the answer.

“To supplement conventional diagnostic testing, … innovative tactics for public health surveillance, such as crowdsourcing digital wearable data and monitoring sewage sludge, might be helpful. … The prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, has remained uncertain.”

In other words, the endgame is total tracking and surveillance of your life.  In an earlier report, I covered this and showed how they currently have low-orbit satellites for video surveillance and positional tracking [22].  

And to push this point, these comments in the discussion section of this report were of interest.

“As noted earlier, the data and studies reviewed here are imperfect in many ways. The ideal study of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection has yet to be done.”

No proper studies have been done to prove asymptomatic. Yet regarding prisons, they claim it is possible, but not sure if a contagious respiratory virus could spread quickly throughout the population.  Yet we see many mayors and governors allowing the release of dangerous criminals across the country based on non-conclusive reports and recommendations [23]

And to wrap up, they give you their perfect world where each human across the globe would have daily and continuous testing via technology. But until they have the technology, your internet devices are the tool they choose to monitor your every step.  Once the mRNA vaccine is released, it will contain the nanotechnology required to track your every footstep.  It also alters your DNA, making you a product of the biotech company that holds the patent. This unlicensed vaccine technology has never been used on human beings [14].  You are their guinea pig—Resist at all costs.

Study #10

Evidence Supporting Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 While Pre-symptomatic or Asymptomatic — Volume 26, Number 7 [24], dated July 2020. 

This is an interesting report in the way they drew conclusions.  They used a process called a rapid literature review [25].  These reviews have many limitations such as, but not limited to;

  1. Search is not as comprehensive
  2. In some cases, there may only be one reviewer.
  3. Possible non-blinded appraisal and selection
  4. Limited/cautious interpretation of the findings
  5. No universally accepted definition of a “rapid review”
  6. Be mindful of limitations and potential biases when cutting corners.

With that said, here are the findings from this report.

They found more inconclusive information to help drive this pandemic to new, unprecedented levels.  Regarding virologic evidence, they stated,

“Currently, SARS-CoV-2 infection is primarily diagnosed by detection of viral RNA via reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) or by viral culture … Although RT-PCR identifies viral RNA and cannot determine whether infectious virus is present, infectiousness can be inferred from cycle threshold…”

And this is what they call evidence: speculation and guesswork.  Last time I checked, “evidence” was based on facts, not political narratives. And speaking on political stories, what did they find out about mask-wearing and self-quarantine?  

“Two reports described specimens with low RT-PCR Ct values among pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic residents of a nursing home… The study with data on pre-symptomatic infected patients reported an average RT-PCR Ct value… Two reports described culture of infectious virus from persons with asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although these reports did not identify actual virus transmission while pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic, the low RT-PCR Ct values and ability to isolate infectious SARS-CoV-2 provide plausible virologic evidence for SARS-CoV-2 transmission by persons not demonstrating symptoms.”

As you dive deeper into these reports and studies, many contain limitation clauses.  With this report, they found more limitations around modeling because of insufficient data laced with inconsistencies.  Yet these are the models used to destroy our civil liberties and freedoms.

And last is this little gem—the path to forced mRNA vaccines with tracking technology built-in.

“If the COVID-19 pandemic is found to be driven by undetected asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, new innovations in disease detection and prevention (beyond exhaustive contact tracing, mass testing, and isolation of asymptomatic contacts) may be needed.”

And please remember this is all speculation and the key for their total and complete control over every aspect of your life.   If people would read these reports, they would know how badly government officials, healthcare authorities, and agencies are deceiving them. Ignorance is no excuse to lose your freedoms.  Please research for yourself and turn off the MSM.

Study #11

Performance of Fabrics for Home-Made Masks Against the Spread of Respiratory Infections Through Droplets: A Quantitative Mechanistic Study [26], dated July 8, 2020.

In this study, they discuss how home-made masks have several implications besides breathability and droplet blocking efficiency.

One issue with home-made masks is that they are known to soak and hold droplets. Making them a cesspool of virus and bacteria contamination. They do not slow the spread; they can increase it.

Another critical point is the size of viruses.  Some range from .08μm for flu-like bugs and .125μm for cold viruses like coronavirus. This means particles in this range can pass through the pores of the fabric without interacting with it. The virus just entered your system.

Their conclusion is as follows,

“ … we conclude that during pandemics and mask shortages, home-made face coverings with multiple layers can be effective against transmission of respiratory infection through droplets. Mask wearing … can be an effective strategy in conjunction with social distancing, testing and contact tracing, and other interventions to reduce disease transmission.”

And we see again the push for mRNA vaccines with nanotechnology to track your every waking hour as your freedoms slip by. And all this is based on non-conclusive reports and opinion without scientific facts to back it. This is a dangerous political game they are playing at our expense.


1.   CDC. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Preventing. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020).

2.   Higgins-Dunn, W. F., Noah. Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is ‘very rare,’ WHO says. CNBC (2020).

3.   Johnson, D. F., Druce, J. D., Birch, C. & Grayson, M. L. A quantitative assessment of the efficacy of surgical and N95 masks to filter influenza virus in patients with acute influenza infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 49, 275–277 (2009).

4.   Davies, A. et al. Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic? Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 7, 413–418 (2013).

5.   Covidhealthtracker. Covidhealthtracker (2020).

6.   Measuring Pressure Drop Across Protective Mask. Validyne Engineering (2015).

7.   Face coverings and face masks | (2020).

8.   Bai, Y. et al. Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19. JAMA 323, 1406–1407 (2020).

9.   UW Medicine halts use of coronavirus testing kits airlifted from China after some had contamination. The Seattle Times (2020).

10. Wyllie, A. L. et al. Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs. medRxiv 2020.04.16.20067835 (2020) doi:10.1101/2020.04.16.20067835.

11. The Ebola Test’s Inventor Says The Test Is Unreliable. Transmissions (2014).

12. How REDCap is being used in response to COVID-19 – REDCap. REDCap

13. Ma, Q.-X. et al. Potential utilities of mask-wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2. J. Med. Virol. (2020) doi:10.1002/jmv.25805.

14. Caceres, M. Pfizer and BioNTech Begin Human Clinical Trials of COVID-19… The Vaccine Reaction (2020).

15. National Academies of Sciences, E. Rapid Expert Consultation on the Possibility of Bioaerosol Spread of SARS-CoV-2 for the COVID-19 Pandemic (April 1, 2020). (2020). doi:10.17226/25769.

16. Wei, W. E. et al. Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 — Singapore, January 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 69, 411–415 (2020).

17. Richard Read. A choir decided to go ahead with rehearsal. Now dozens of members have COVID-19 and two are dead. Los Angeles Times (2020).

18. Konda, A. et al. Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks. ACS Nano 14, 6339–6347 (2020).

19. Leung, N. H. L. et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat. Med. 26, 676–680 (2020).

20. Chace Beech. Three California churches sue Newsom over singing ban. MSN (2020).

21. Oran, D. P. & Topol, E. J. Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Narrative Review. Ann. Intern. Med. (2020) doi:10.7326/M20-3012.

22. Walk in Verse. 5G: A Blessing or a Curse. buzzsprout (2020).

23. Laila, C. California to Release 18,000 Prisoners by End of August to ‘Slow the Spread of COVID-19’. The Gateway Pundit (2020).

24. Furukawa, N. W., Brooks, J. T. & Sobel, J. Evidence Supporting Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 While Presymptomatic or Asymptomatic – Volume 26, Number 7—July 2020 – Emerging Infectious Diseases journal – CDC. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 26, (2020).

25. What is a Rapid Review? – Systematic Reviews & Other Review Types – Research Guides at Temple University. Temple University Libraries (2020).

26. Aydin, O. et al. Performance of Fabrics for Home-Made Masks Against the Spread of Respiratory Infections Through Droplets: A Quantitative Mechanistic Study. medRxiv 2020.04.19.20071779 (2020) doi:10.1101/2020.04.19.20071779.

CDC Maskdemic, The Research by K. Saitta
© 2007-2022 Walk In Verse All rights reserved

Share This

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on pinterest

Get News & Updates



Lock Step 2010 Is 2020 in Real-Time

May 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation[1] spoke of a pandemic. Their scenario’s broken into four sections: Lock Step, Clever Together, Hack

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top