The Baker Knew
Massachusetts governor lied to the People
A Massachusetts (MA) state FOIA response shows that Massachusetts’ Governor Charles Baker’s administration knew in April 2020 that the masks recommended by the CDC do little to prevent airborne transmission of the SARS-COV-2 virus. Baker ordered population masking anyway. He lied to the people of Massachusetts in COVID-19 Order 31, Order 55, and in every Motion to Dismiss court filing, media engagement, and public conversation about masks. There is no nice way to put it. He lied.
Baker’s administration contracted with a team led by Professor Gregory Rutledge of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to test masks in March and April of 2020 prior to Order 31 issued in May to mask the population.
Someone supplied 1,263 pages of information obtained through a Massachusetts (MA) state FOIA type of request. This article is a review of the pertinent pages, which contain numerous research papers, data tables, internal e-mails from the highest ranks of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA DPH), and laboratory test results from Rutledge. Baker’s staff knew the truth and lied to the public.
Before proceeding with a review of the evidence, please consider the following. RCT studies from biologists and epidemiologists are neither appropriate nor necessary for testing the efficacy of masks. A mask or respirator is a product that is specified, designed, manufactured, tested, and failure analyzed by engineers, not biological scientists or medical doctors. Doctors put masks on their faces and sometimes read the specifications on the box. Engineers know the material properties, structure, fit requirements, and effectiveness of different grades of masks in filtering particle types and sizes. You will see that NIOSH and OSHA are the responsible agencies for masks, not the medical wing of the CDC, which has little to no expertise.
Following are government agents who received e-mails and test results in March and April 2020. They learned then that the lowest level of protection requires full-spec N95’s, training, and fit testing. Pay particular attention to the material tests near the end as they pertain to masks as recommended on the CDC web site.
Some acronyms:
EHS - Executive Office of Health & Human services
MEMA - Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency
Government personnel copied on e-mails:
Leslie Darcy - Chief of Staff, MA EHS
Samantha Phillips - Director MEMA
Ruby Cherfils, COO of the MA DPH Pappas Rehab Hospital for Children
Kerin Milesky of MA DPH
Ryan Schwarz of MA EHS
Amanda Sachs of MA EHS
Heather Shampine
Michael Russas
Katherine Fillo
Roberta Crawford of MA DPH
Stephen Sullivan of MA DPH
Rebecca Ullman
John Grieb (DPH)
Matthew Courchene (DPH)
Brian Devin (DPH)
Betsy Schwechheimer (DPH)
Maureen DiPalma (DPH)
Maria Beaudry (DPH)
Gary Kleinman of the United States Government HHS
BEGIN MA FOIA REVIEW
Now begins the FOIA material. The page numbers are from the 1,263-page pdf obtained. If there is a citation, then either a quote from that paper follows the citation or a table from that paper follows the citation. If there is no citation, then a graphic of e-mail is posted. Following the quote or table or e-mails are the author’s comments and explanations under “AUTHOR SUMMARY”.
Pages 4 & 6
L sa M Brosseau, ScD, and Rachae Jones, PhD COMMENTARY: Protecting health workers from airborne MERS- CoV - learning from SARS, May 19, 2014
“And, of course, the respirator should fit, which means that each HCW needs a fit test that ensures he or she will have the model, make, and size that will offer consistent protection. Also, fit testing should be accompanied by in-depth training in proper use, donning, doffing, and performing a user seal check every time the respirator is donned. There is absolutely no way to guarantee protection without a fit test.”
“But it is prudent to use higher levels of protection for HCWs who have close and extended contact with MERS patients and those exposed to aerosols from high-risk procedures.”
AUTHOR SUMMARY Pages 4 & 6
This excerpt references a US NIOSH-approved N95 filtering facepiece respirator.
Baker’s staff knew that each person needs a fit test, in-depth training, and a seal check every time a mask is donned. They knew there is absolutely no way to guarantee protection without a fit test and that higher level protection than N95’s are recommended for healthcare workers, which means that N95’s are not enough.
Page 70
Zayas et al, BMC Public Health, 2013, 13:811, www.biomedcentral.com/1471, 2458/13/811
AUTHOR SUMMARY Page 70
This is a 2013 study on coughing into a sleeve at the elbow, a surgical mask, one’s hand, and a tissue. The best solution was determined to be coughing into your sleeve at the elbow, which was better than a surgical mask.
Real numbers of particles ≤ 500nm:
41,300,000 Coughing into your Sleeve at elbow
44,000,000 Coughing into a Surgical mask
51,300,000 Coughing into your Hand
62,200,000 Coughing into a Tissue
Notice the beginning of the x-axis on this graph. It is NOT ZERO. These relative differences are negligible in the real world. That means NONE of these methods are much better than the others and including surgical masks.
Surgical masks are NOT effective at preventing TENS of MILLIONS of aerosols from escaping.
Page 238
Shiu et al, Infection control for respiratory virus infections, Volume 32; Number 4; August 2019, www.co-infectiousdiseases.com, Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
“theoretically wearing a respirator should provide better protection than surgical mask”
“but respirators have not been shown to provide significantly better protection against respiratory infections than surgical masks”
“A recent meta-analysis reported no significant difference in the overall risk of laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection among HCPs wearing respirator to those wearing surgical masks”
“Compliance of wearing a respirator could be an issue as wearing respirators are often considered as uncomfortable, which could lead to improper wearing and negate any potential protective effect”
AUTHOR SUMMARY Page 238
Even respirators (such as N95’s) are not shown to provide much better protection than surgical masks when not worn properly. And surgical masks are continually characterized as offering little protection against aerosols. Thus, without a perfect fit, training in donning and doffing, and diligence in execution each and every time, even N95’s are not effective. Putting N95’s on children is, therefore, useless.
Page 445
AUTHOR SUMMARY Pages 445 et al
Ruby Cherfils, Chief Operating Officer of the MA DPH Pappas Rehab Hospital for Children, knew on March 12, 2020 that KN95 masks require fit testing AND require training to properly wear them. In her e-mail to John Grieb (DPH), Matthew Courchene (DPH), and Brian Devin (DPH) she wrote the following:
“Great news, found an approved vendor … to do a train the trainer next week. She can provide supplies for testing and we will need mask for the fit.”
The following people were also copied as shown on subsequent pages: Betsy Schwechheimer (DPH), Maureen DiPalma (DPH), Maria Beaudry (DPH), Clare Mundry (DPH), Valenda Liptak (DPH - CEO of Western Massachusetts Hospital), Kerin Milesky (DPH), Roberta Crawford (DPH), Susan Seslar (DPH - Chief Nursing Officer Western Massachusetts Hospital), Anthony DiStefano (DPH), Brian Sallisky (DPH)
All of the aforementioned people and likely many more knew on March 12, 2020 that the minimum respirator for airborne virus is an N95, proper fit testing is required, training in donning and doffing is required, and proper execution is required each and every time.
This is not at all what the MA DPH conveyed to the public and what Baker stated in his mask orders and other communications to the public. Omission of this information in communicating with the public is an egregious lie regarding the effectiveness of homemade and other cloth masks recommended by the CDC.
Page 688
Source document titled Air disinfection to protect healthcare workers and others from airborne SARS-CoV-2 transmission; no date listed
Uncategorized References listed with this document:
Roy CJ, Milton DK. Airborne transmission of communicable infection--the elusive pathway. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1710-2.
Santarpia J, Rivera D, Herrera V, et al. Transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in viral shedding observed at the University of Nebrasia Medical Center. medRxiv 2020
Nardell EA. Indoor environmental control of tuberculosis and other airborne infections. Indoor Air 2016;26:79-87
“Among the important difference are the interventions likely to interrupt transmission, including fit-tested regulators (not surgical masks) for personal protection, and air disinfection.”
AUTHOR SUMMARY Page 688
Before COVID-19, masking had been studied for decades and it was known and accepted that surgical masks are not capable of preventing airborne virus transmission. Despite knowing this, Baker and his agents ordered public masking using cloth masks and surgical masks anyway.
Page 1008
Source: The interagency Board for Emergency Preparedness and Response; International Personnel Protection, Inc.; Emergency Response Tips; Minimum Recommended Guidance on Protection and Decontamination for First Responders Involved in COVID-19 Cases – Detailed Reaction Guide, By Christina M. Baxter (Emergency Response TIPS) and Jeffrey O. Stull (International Personnel Protection); IABPUB-2020-01-01; 4/10/2020
“Surgical or procedure masks, medical face masks, and many dust masks are not respirators and should not be relied on for protection from inhalation of contaminated aerosols.”
AUTHOR SUMMARY Page 1008
Again, surgical masks are specifically called out as not being reliable to stop an airborne virus. Baker through his agents knew in April 2020 that surgical masks and the masks recommended by the CDC do not work against airborne virus.
Page 1022
Source: The interagency Board for Emergency Preparedness and Response; International Personnel Protection, Inc.; Emergency Response Tips; Balancing the Risk – Strategies for Respiratory Protection During a Pandemic, By Christina M. Baxter (Emergency Response TIPS) and Jeffrey O. Stull (International Personnel Protection); IABPUB-2020-01A-01; 3/17/2020
AUTHOR SUMMARY Page 1022
On 3/17/2020, MA DPH was in possession of this literature stating the NIOSH preferred P100 respirator and minimum N95 respirator to mitigate transmission of the SARS-COV-2 virus aerosol. Baker through his agents knew or should have known regular cloth masks and improperly fit, donned, or cleaned N95’s are NOT effective at preventing airborne transmission.
Page 1025
Source: The interagency Board for Emergency Preparedness and Response; International Personnel Protection, Inc.; Emergency Response Tips; Balancing the Risk – Strategies for Respiratory Protection During a Pandemic, By Christina M. Baxter (Emergency Response TIPS) and Jeffrey O. Stull (International Personnel Protection); IABPUB-2020-02-02; 4/10/2020
AUTHOR SUMMARY Page 1025
Seen clearly in this chart, both NIOSH and OSHA specify which masks work in which situations. These US federal government organizations have decades of experience in testing and specifying masks and respirators. Though NIOSH is in the CDC, they have not been publicly commenting on the mask issue over nearly two years. The main CDC arm has pages of RCT studies and homemade sewing instructions for masks, none of which reflects NIOSH or OSHA expertise. Why is it that the organizations with the expertise have not publicly offered professional opinion, while an organization without expertise, the main CDC, provides recommendations to the public? Why do many governors from US states follow the recommendations of the CDC for masking?
Pages 1125-1129
AUTHOR SUMMARY Pages 1125 - 1129
This is the beginning of the contract engagement to test KN95 masks for Baker’s office. These KN95 masks are believed to be samples from the 1.2 million masks that Baker had flown in from China on the New England Patriots team plane in late March or early April 2020.
News10 Massachusetts-gets-1m-masks-on-patriots-jet
ABC News stated it was 1.7 million N95 masks.
abc News New England-patriots-plane-transports-17-million-n95-masks
Testing of masks by MIT professor under contract begins:
April 9, 2020 - Jimmy Nguyen of AFFOA informed Jeremy Walsh of Cambridge Fire Department that Professor Gregory Rutledge of MIT would perform the tests on masks.
April 9, 2020 - Walsh informed Nguyen of agreement to terms and stated masks would be delivered that day.
April 11, 2020 - Rutledge informed Walsh with copy to Nguyen of reports on the first mask tests run.
Pages 1125-1129 again
SUMMARY Pages 1125-1129 again
April 14, 2020 at ~7PM - Walsh of Cambridge Fire sent email to Russas of mass.gov copy to Heather Shampine of mass.gov email suffix.
Reports from Rutledge show that a sample of the millions of masks Governor Baker had flown in from China perform to 71% and 78% filtration efficiency (FE). This is far below the specification of 95% performance that KN95 masks are purported to have. Did Baker return the masks to China to get the $Millions back for The People of Massachusetts?
April 14, 2020 at ~7:30PM - about a half hour later, Russas forwarded the message to Samantha Phillips, MEMA Director
April 14, 2020 at ~ 8:30PM - Samantha Phillips forwarded the results to what appears to be a group e-mail DPH-ESF-8 (DPH)
April 14, 2020 at ~ 8:39PM - Kerin Milesky of DPH informs Katherine Fillo of DPH about the failure of the masks
By the end of the day April 14, 2020 several of Governor Baker’s agents knew or should have known of the early testing failure of KN95 masks to provide protection from SARS-COV-2 virus aerosols. The list of state agents includes:
Sam Phillips - MEMA Director
Heather Shampine
Michael Russas
Kerin Mileski
Katherine Fillo
Page 1151
AUTHOR SUMMARY Page 1151
April 14, 2020 at ~ 8:39PM, Roberta Crawford of DPH also forwards Sam Phillips’ e-mail thread with the mask testing report to Stephen Sullivan of DPH
April 15, 2020 Samantha Phillips forwarded reports to Leslie Darcy, Chief of Staff, Executive Office of Health & Human Services
Agents of Baker knew or should have known on the night of April 14, 2020 that the KN95 masks from China failed the tests at MIT:
Sam Phillips - MEMA Director
Leslie Darcy - Chief of Staff, MA EHS
Heather Shampine
Michael Russas
Kerin Mileski
Katherine Fillo
Roberta Crawford of MA DPH
Stephen Sullivan of MA DPH
Please don’t stop reading here. The testing gets worse as more samples were tested.
Pages 1177-1178
AUTHOR SUMMARY Pages 1177-1178
Another e-mail stating the KN95 masks are failing to meet the specifications. One group of masks tested close to N95 specs. The rest were “a bit low” and “performed poorly”.
April 16, 2020; From: Professor Rutledge; To: Leslie Darcy, Chief of Staff, EHS
“84-88% filtration efficiency, which is a bit low, but better than a lot of other materials we’ve tested”
“performed poorly, at 52% filtration efficiency Another mask with identical packaging that we tested previously also performed poorly (about 70%)”
What other materials? Later in this article is a nearly exhaustive list of failing mask materials.
April 17; From: Professor Rutledge; To: Leslie Darcy, Chief of Staff, EHS
“The Weihui material is a bit lower, FE ~ 84% There seems to have been some unusual variability in this test, so maybe worth repeating
Both of the unlabelled materials performed well below expectation, with FE <50%”
Clearly there is a major issue when the KN95’s purported by the Chinese manufacturer to be 95% FE are LESS THAN 50% for some of them. MA citizens should want to know if Baker got The People’s money back from China?
Pages 1176-1178
AUTHOR SUMMARY Pages 1176-1178
April 19; From: Professor Rutledge; To: Leslie Darcy; cc: Sam Phillips, MEMA Director and others at DPH
April 19; From: Leslie Darcy; To: Professor Rutledge
Agents of Governor Baker on this page who knew or should have known about the failing KN95 masks by April 19, 2020 include:
Leslie Darcy - Chief of Staff, MA EHS
Samantha Phillips - Director MEMA
Kerin Milesky of DPH
Ryan Schwarz of EHS
Amanda Sachs of EHS
These are not low level workers. The upper echelon was keenly aware of the testing and of the failures of the KN95 masks. There is no excuse for subsequently misinforming the public about the effectiveness of masking and ordering the public to mask becasue of the CDC’s errant recommendations. It has been known for decades that NIOSH and OSHA are the go-to agencies for expert resources and opinion, not the main CDC.
Pages 1176-1178 again
AUTHOR SUMMARY Pages 1176-1178 again
April 21, 2020 - From Rutledge to Darcy
“these 3 packages all measured around 70-75% FE”
“Kraft #1 measured worse, at 52% FE”
“None of these numbers appear very promising, so that further sampling to reduce the uncertainty was not pursued at this time”
“Anysound packages (FE = 75%)”
Professor Rutledge found packages to be between 52% and 75%, no where near the 95% specification of a KN95 or N95.
Please understand that these mask materials are put across a test fixture without any leaks at edges like actual masks on children or untrained adults would have. Remember fit testing and proper care training are required with N95 masks that meet spec in order to get to 95%.
Again, this evidence shows that agents of Baker knew or should have known in April 2020 that regular masks do not provide meaningful protection against aerosols.
IMPORTANT QUOTE - “NONE OF THESE NUMBERS APPEAR VERY PROMISING”
THOUGHT MOMENT
If it takes 10 seconds of breathing in the vicinity of an infected person to receive a minimum effective dose of aerosolized virus (id est, to become infected yourself), then one of these KN95 respirators with 52% FE would take ~ 21 seconds, and a full spec N95 at 95% would take ~ 3 minutes and 20 seconds. The difference between 10s and 21s is not much protection at all. Some would say - useless.
Pages 1204, 1205, 1221
AUTHOR SUMMARY Pages 1204, 1205, 1221
April 22, 2020 - From Rutledge to Darcy et al
“Nothing really new to report: FE’s range from 40 to 65%.”
The tests are down to a mere 40%, making the time multiplier for a minimum effective dose to be 1.67X. In other words, instead of 10 seconds, it would take 16.7 seconds to be infected. Why bother masking at all even with this minimum recommended KN95 that requires training and fit testing? Remember that after these tests, Baker recommended CDC style bandanas and homemade cloth masks for 2-year-olds and older.
It is doubtful that the maskers will ever give up the argument despite all the evidence. Even if they were to read this article, they’d like find excuses. No one wants to be made the fool. After two years, be kind and tell them it’s not a matter of being made a fool for so long. It’s a matter of trust. There’s nothing wrong with being a trusting person and believing in so many politicians and doctors who purported that masks have some semblance of protection. But after reading these e-mails and knowing these facts, trust must turn to discernment, and then to revulsion at the criminal intent of politicians to do this to The People.
In these e-mails, Rutledge is saying the last tests show similarly poor performance.
IMPORTANT !!!
Apparently, Leslie Darcy had asked about FE for common materials (presumably like those in the CDC homemade mask recommendations). Professor Rutledge answers in e-mail with the following:
“In response to your earlier question about data on FE for common materials, you might find interesting the google data sheet posted here, by Yang Wang group at Missouri Univ. Sci Tech
(https://www.tinyurl.com/ve28f3l)."
Missouri Univ Sci Tech Testing Tables HERE
EXAMPLES FROM THE WEBLINK PROVIDED BY RUTLEDGE ABOVE WILL BE ADDED TO THE END OF THIS ARTICLE
April 22, 2020 - Milesky e-mailed Crawford and Fillo, both of DPH
“These are on the 3 million that came from China.”
Milesky, a Director in DPH, confirmed that these masks that failed tests by Professor Rutledge did indeed come from the 3 million that came from China. 3 million useless masks that Massachusetts taxpayers probably paid $Millions for.
Keep in mind that Leslie Darcy and others copied and in receipt of a forwarded message had the link to the study of other materials that will be shown below.
Pages 1237-1240 & 1250
AUTHOR SUMMARY PAGES 1237-1240 & 1250
April 23, 2020 - From Rutledge to Darcy copy to Michael Rein of AFFOA
“This mask was run without the usual RH conditioning. The FE is around 88%.”
While the FE appears good relative to the others, it still falls significantly short of the 95% spec and the RH (“relative humidity”) conditioning was not used in the test. With aerosols, especially ones that are water-based, RH may substantially affect the results. Seasonality of respiratory viruses is linked to a combination of temperature and RH.
IMPORTANT
April 23, 2020 - Darcy forwarded entire e-mail thread with lab results to Rebecca Ullman and Kerin Milesky
April 23, 2020 - Milesky forwarded entire e-mail thread with lab results to Gary Kleinman
Gary Kleinman has a designation of OS/ASPR/EMMO after his name. That is a United States government office designation, specifically, under the United States Department of Health & Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response (ASPR), Office of Emergency Management and Medical Operations (EMMO)
WHY LOOK AT MASSACHUSETTS
There are many places in the world where there is corruption and where COVID-19 hit hard. Why write about Massachusetts, a little state of 6.9 million people in the northeast corner of USA?
First, Joel Smalley wrote a brilliant analysis of the death certificate database received from Massachusetts on a state FOIA. Such an available database is difficult to come by. Usually, data hounds rely on the parsed and filtered reports from CDC or MoH’s.
And after this author, The “Real” CdC (Coquin de Chien), wrote about MA, people sent things they wanted revealed.
But the most important reason is that healthcare dominates the economy of Massachusetts and influences the world. The U.S. federal government is likely the largest employer in Massachusetts, though it is difficult to confirm that anywhere. After US, Partners Healthcare may be the next largest employer, but that’s also difficult to find because certain health businesses are excluded from rankings.
The Boston Business Journal lists Mass General Brigham as the largest state employer with 74,013 Total Massachusetts employees and Beth Israel Lahey Health as the second largest employer with 27,107 Massachusetts employees.
Moderna, Inc. is in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Biogen Inc. is in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Another 7 pharmaceutical companies with revenues in the $Billions are headquartered in Massachusetts.
In fact, there are more than 50 pharmaceutical companies in Massachusetts EACH with annual revenues greater than $100M.
Much of this information can be found at Dunn & Bradstreet
5% of all public companies that make medical devices are headquartered in Massachusetts totaling 554 organizations. The top five medical device companies in MA combine for more than $62B in annual revenue.
The Massachusetts Medical Society owns the renowned New England Journal of Medicine, which the author believes has been compromised and captured by money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (an article for a future time).
With this new knowledge of the economy of Massachusetts, it becomes obvious why MA may be the center of systemic and systematic fraud in reporting of medical data.
It has been said many times by Baker that Massachusetts is the model by which the nation of USA forged its COVID-19 policy. And if any world nations followed USA, which followed Massachusetts, then Massachusetts has a lot to answer for.
That is why Massachusetts is being looked at now by people around the world.
The Missouri University Science & Technology Tables
Filtration performance of common household materials for manufacturing homemade masks
Rather than post the tables into this article, the link is here.
Following are observations and calculations of real-world scenarios using the Filtration Efficiencies (FE) of the various materials from the tables and conservatively estimated leakage.
Cotton Print 1 - Joanne Fabric Brand Scenario
Typical fabric mask ~ 90% of air leaks at edges. Thus, 10% is filtered by mask.
Max FE (from table)= 4% to 19%
Effectiveness = 10% x 4% to 9% = 0.4% to 1.9%
Surgical Mask Scenario (10-cycle wash to original FE)
Typical mask ~ 90% of air leaks at edges. Thus, 10% is filtered by mask.
Max FE (from table)= 28% to 56%
Effectiveness = 10% x 28% to 56% = 2.8% to 5.6%
Woolen Scarf Scenario (1 layer to 4 layers)
Typical mask ~ 90% of air leaks at edges. Thus, 10% is filtered by mask.
FE Range (from table)= 19% to 48%
Effectiveness = 10% x 19% to 48% = 1.9% to 4.8%
KN95 Rutledge MIT Testing Scenario (not fit to children’s faces)
Typical respirator not fit-tested ~ 80% of air leaks at edges. Thus, 20% is filtered by mask (depending on fit, facial hair, etc.).
FE range (from Rutledge e-mails) = 40% to 88%
Effectiveness = 20% x 40% to 88% = 8% to 17.6%
Bandana Scenario
~90% of air leaks at edges. Thus, 10% is filtered by mask.
Max FE (from table)= 19.54%
Effectiveness = 10% x 19.54% = 1.954%
Pillowcase Thread Scenario (4 layers)
~90% of air leaks at edges. Thus, 10% is filtered by mask.
FE Range (from table)= 58%
Effectiveness = 10% x 58% = 5.8%
Cotton Solid 1 Scenario (4 layers)
~90% of air leaks at edges. Thus, 10% is filtered by mask.
Max FE (from table)= 24%
Effectiveness = 10% x 24% = 2.4%
On the CDC website, there are instructions on how to sew homemade masks from common household materials. The effectiveness of these masks is in the range of 1% to 5% range. In order to get to the higher range, one must use 4 layers of material.
To calculate that in time of minimum effective dose to infection, instead of 20 seconds without a mask, it would take 21 seconds if a 4-ply mask were worn, or 20.2 seconds with a single ply.
If the number of virions per volume in a closed environment would require 20 minutes to be infected without a mask, then it would take 21 minutes with a 4-ply mask, or 20 mintues and 12 seconds with a one-ply mask.
Are we done yet? Masking never worked, never showed any change in curves, and never will work against airborne virus. It’s simple physics that seems to escape most people’s ability. The may simply be an education system issue where people will adopt superstitious practices in place of real understanding from a foundation of education. Even medical doctors argue that masks are wonderful. Why? They have no idea what they’re talking about. Ask an electrician or a plumber and you’ll get a better answer.
SUMMARY
Baker and his agents knew since March and April 2020 that anything less than an N95 will not prevent airborne virus spread and infection. Even if an N95 is used, it is useless on children of young ages and others who have not been trained in donning the mask. N95’s must be fit-tested every time they are worn. The governor’s staff knew all of this weeks before issuing the order. Baker’s agents contracted with a group led by an MIT professor to test samples from the KN95’s flown in from China. Even those KN95’s did not perform well. Baker and his staff knew the truth and spread lies to the public in order to mask them.
NIOSH and OSHA are the agencies with expert knowledge in protective devices such as respirators and masks. They have not been outspoken because it would be embarrassing for the CDC and because the government wants people masked in order to have a reason to get vaccinated. It is clearly written in the order from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Seconday Education. If a school reaches a threshold of 80% vaccination, then that school’s vaccinated students no longer have to mask. This was always about coercing people to vaccinate. Those who understand engineering, fluid dynamics, material properties, and physical sciences knew all along that masks are not effective against airborne virus.
This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a proven fact from the e-mails herein that government leaders have been lying to the public.
I knew from day one masks had nothing at all to do with protecting people from covid. all I have is a lowly undergraduate degree, but I worked for several years doing bench work (lowest level basic lab work) for one of the Big Pharmas, and yes we wore N95's which were fit tested to each of us. It was clear as day the whole and only point of masks was to remind everyone THERE'S A HORRIBLE PANDEMIC HAPPENING BE AFRAID HAIR ON FIRE HAIR ON FIRE. Creating this level of fear primed everyone to get vaccinated. Mission accomplished. Most people got their jabs.
I am of the firm opinion that masks are nothing about "safety" or any other reasonable thing. They are about, at best, visible compliance; at second best, a very prominent and pervasive means of keeping fear in the very visible mainstream of public awareness; and third, a deliberate means of harm. If there are those of us who are still trying to explain what is going on from a standpoint of "health and safety," then there is a serious issue of denial. This is a planned, rehearsed, and utterly evil depopulation agenda. It doesn't work as well to just start killing off 8 billion people, so they are doing it by stealth. Sounds crazy, I know. It IS crazy. Utterly insane. That doesn't mean it isn't true.