Nanoplastics in face masks and other heavy metals
PFAS in Face Masks
Excerpts from above article:
Testing revealed that many masks actually contained formaldehyde, among other harmful chemicals. In case you didn’t know, formaldehyde is added to give the distinct ‘clean’ fragrance that you get once you open a new set of masks.
What’s more shocking is that the masks were also known to possess aniline, a known carcinogen. Braungart, a noted scientist, explains, “What we are breathing through our mouth and nose is actually hazardous waste. We found formaldehyde and even aniline and noticed that unknown artificial fragrances were being applied to cover any unpleasant chemical smells from the mask.
In the case of the blue-coloured surgical masks, we found cobalt – which can be used as a blue dye. All in all, we have a chemical cocktail in front of our nose and mouth that has never been tested for either toxicity or any long-term effects on health.” PFAS-
Perfluorocarbons or PFCs are used in textiles to add a coating to allow it to repel water — commonly found in bags and jackets, but they’re not intended to be inhaled. Sedlak found the PFCs to be within the safe limit of 16 milligrams per kilogram, however, wearing it so close to the nose and mouth for extended periods of time definitely impacts the level of exposure.
PFC on your face, on your nose, on the mucous membranes, or on the eyes is not good.
Other resources:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=toxic+substances+in+face+masks&form=APIPH1&PC=APPL
Recently released docs reveal disease experts warned CDC about flawed data to support masks – LifeSitenews
Michael Osterholm director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, and six colleagues criticized CDC on mask policy because of flaws in their data. He had several other scientists signed the letter which was obtained by FOIA.
Osterholm and his colleagues expressed concern that including such unsupported claims on trusted websites such as that of the CDC “not only damage the credibility of science and endanger public trust by misrepresenting the evidence, but also provide false expectations in terms of respiratory protection to the public.”
We believe the information and recommendations as provided may actually put an individual at increased risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and for them to experience a serious or even life-threatening infection,” Osterholm wrote.
Osterholm and his colleagues “strongly urg[ed]” the IDSA to “remove the suggestion that masking prevents severe disease” from its webpage.
Two recent publications conclude there are no differences between surgical masks and respirators for preventing person-to-person transmission of infectious respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. But these studies are deeply flawed.
One of these is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) by Loeb et al comparing SARS-CoV-2 infections in healthcare workers wearing respirators or masks for care of COVID-19 patients.1 The other is a Cochrane review by Jefferson et al of mask and respirator studies in households and healthcare settings.2
Both are built on the premise that infectious respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV, and influenza are only transmitted person to person by large droplets. This is not true. The science is very clear that the predominant mode by which these viruses are transmitted person to person is inhalation of small particles, most of which are around 1 micrometer.3–13
Effective Thinking 