December 2016 | By: Will Offley, RN | Issue: BCMJ, vol. 58 , No. 10 , December 2016 , Pages 554, 556 Point | BC Medical Journal |

“When a public health policy is put into effect to reduce a risk to patients, best practice calls for evidence that the risk actually exists, consistent application of the policy, and an assessment of whether the policy achieves its stated goals. Failure to meet these criteria indicates the need to reconsider the policy.

In 2012 British Columbia instituted a mandatory vaccinate or mask policy for all health care staff who receive an influenza vaccination. The policy’s stated purpose was “to prevent transmission [of influenza] from them to their patients.”[1]

This vaccinate or mask policy is not based on evidence, but on an assumption that hospital-acquired influenza is a significant threat to patients. It is predicated on the 24-hour period in which a person can be infected with the influenza virus but remain asymptomatic. However, recent studies have challenged this concern, determining that there is little if any evidence that infected individuals shed significant amounts of influenza virus in the 24-hour asymptomatic period following infection.[2]

A policy without evidence
The reality is that no provincial statistics are kept on nosocomial influenza infections. The BC Centre for Disease Control has acknowledged that it does not maintain records on the incidence of hospital-acquired influenza, stating that “we are unable to differentiate between nosocomial and community-acquired cases (a positive lab report was sufficient for provincial reporting)” (electronic communication from Lisa Kwindt, BC Centre for Disease Control, 11 January 2016). Nor does the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority,[3] Providence Health Care,[4] the Interior Health Authority,[5] the Northern Health Authority,[6] the Provincial Health Services Authority,[7] or the Fraser Health Authority[8] keep such records. Without these data, the vaccinate or mask policy is, in effect, based on assumptions and guesswork, not evidence. There is no proof of a threat to patient safety; nor is there a means to establish a baseline. In short, there is no way of measuring the effectiveness of the policy.

Inconsistent application
In 2015 James Hayes addressed these issues in an arbitration between the Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Ontario Hospital Association concerning that province’s vaccinate or mask policy. In striking down the policy, Hayes posed the question, “If hospital authorities were convinced about the utility of masks for the purpose alleged, why not mask everyone?”[9] He dismissed the arguments of the expert witnesses who provided testimony defending the compulsory policy, stating that they did not explain “to my satisfaction, or to my understanding, why masking should not be required generally if the risk of [health care worker] transmission is as serious as they maintain and if masks actually serve as an effective intervention.”[9]

Vaccination and immunity are not the same thing. There are many ways an individual may be infected with influenza despite having had the annual vaccination. As an example, many infections occurred in the 2014–15 flu season when there was a mismatch between the vaccine and the circulating H3N2 virus, which resulted in a vaccine efficiency in Canada of –8%.[10] Considering that the 2014–15 vaccine offered virtually no protection to the influenza strain circulating in Canada, it would be reasonable to expect that a policy consistent with the stated goals would have immediately been enforced—one that required all health care workers to don masks regardless of their vaccination status. No such action was taken.

The current policy is also inconsistent in its scope. The rationale for compulsory masking of nonvaccinated health care workers makes no sense whatsoever from the standpoint of infection control unless all other nonvaccinated individuals are obliged to don masks as well. Visitors and family members are at the bedside of patients for far longer periods of time than health care workers. They engage in more intimate contact (e.g., kissing, holding hands). They are also, as a rule, far less likely to engage in proper handwashing and cough etiquette than are health care workers. Yet Vancouver Coastal Health Authority made it clear early on that the vaccinate or mask policy would not be enforced with visitors, but would be on the honor system instead.[11]

As well, physicians, residents, and medical students are often seen without masks in flu season. As it is extremely unlikely that there this group would have a 99%+ vaccination rate, it appears incontestable that the policy is not being enforced equally for this category among health care workers.

Infection control measures are meaningless if they are not consistent, and the vaccinate or mask policy is utterly inconsistent. And if the masking policy has been implemented in such a partial, patchwork, and inconsistent way, the question arises—what is its actual purpose?

Patients vs health care workers
Another key concern with the current policy is the imbalance between the rights of patients to safe care and the rights of health care workers to informed consent and medical confidentiality. The policy simply obliterates the rights of health care workers without discussion and without even acknowledging it is doing so. And with what justification? Where is the threat to our patients?

The stated policy is intended to promote patient safety. But many of its proponents do not appear to believe that compulsory masking is an effective method of preventing influenza transmission. For example, in the Ontario arbitration, Dr Bonnie Henry, BC’s deputy provincial health officer, while defending mandatory masking policies, admitted that “there’s not a lot of evidence to support mask use.”[9] Dr Allison McGeer, epidemiologist and flu vaccine researcher, also testified in support of mandatory masking policies, but stated “there’s quite a limited literature concerning the effectiveness of masks in prevention transmission.”[9] Even the BC Ministry of Health’s own policy documents concede that masks don’t work, remarkably stating that “the [vaccinate or mask] policy will not be amended to require vaccinated staff to wear masks because there is no strong evidence to support universal masking as a preventative measure in the presence of pronounced vaccine mismatch and in the absence of an outbreak.”[12]

Also at issue is the practical matter of wearing masks. It appears that coercion is at the heart of the vaccinate or mask policy. Masks are extremely uncomfortable to wear for 12 hours a day continuously over a 4-month period. In addition, the requirement to mask serves to put psychological pressure on staff to comply and get a flu shot through the very real peer pressure and disapproval many experience from some of their co-workers.


Judged by its professed goals, vaccinate or mask is an utterly incoherent policy. Given its inconsistent and selective enforcement and its lack of universal application of basic infection control principles, it is clear that the policy cannot be shown to confer any benefit to patients. It should be discontinued.”

This article has been peer reviewed.



1.    BC influenza prevention policy: A discussion of the evidence. Vancouver, BC: Provincial Health Services Authority; 2013; p. 15.

2.    Patrozou E, Mermel L. Does influenza transmission occur from asymptomatic infection or prior to symptom onset? Public Health Rep 2009; 124:193-196.

3.    Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, FOI application 2015-F-117, 15 January 2016.

4.    Providence Health Care, FOI application F15-029, 30 November 2015.

5.    Interior Health Authority, FOI application 50-IH-2015-2016, 7 January 2016.

6.    Northern Health Authority, FOI application NH-2016-0207, 17 March 2016.

7.    Provincial Health Services Authority, FOI application PHSA 0090-15, 4 February 2016.

8.    Fraser Health Authority, FOI application, 1-788-FOI, 11 January 2016.

9.    In the Matter of an Arbitration between Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Hospital Association and Ontario Nurses’ Association, Re: ‘Vaccinate or Mask’ Policy. Accessed 18 October 2016.

10.    Skowronski DM, Chambers C, Sabaiduc S, et al. Interim estimates of 2014/15 vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2) from Canada’s Sentinel Physician Surveillance Network. Euro Surveill 2015;20:ii=21022.

11.    Lindsay B. BC health officials issue flu shot reminder. Vancouver Sun. 30 November 2015.

12.    Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. Influenza Control Program Frequently Asked Questions. 3 November 2015. Accessed 18 October 2016.


Link To Full Article @ BCMJ



1981: Surgeon’s medical mask study concludes, “minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all”




June 6, 2020 | BARRICADE GARAGE | Video 

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect anyone who comes near that precious jewel.” 

CDC estimates mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported…

And if masks are so effective, why wasn’t the public instructed to wear them back in 2018, when tuberculosis killed over 1.5 million people including over 200,000 children?…..

There is zero scientific evidence that the virus is spread by asymptomatic people.  No study even exists asserting this claim. Yet a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific study concludes that asymptomatic people CANNOT spread a virus.

Use your imagination to figure out why the media hasn’t reported on this fact.

The World Health Organization stated on April 2, 2020 thatthere was “no documented asymptomatic transmission.…

Link To Video








Link To Video

Tammy Clark & Kristen Meghan Talk Masks w/ Host, Reinette Senum, On Western Women Save The World








Sheriff Richard Mack is a staunch supporter of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and calls on Sheriffs and Law Enforcement across the country to uphold their sworn oaths to the Constitution and to reject tyranny in all forms.”

Link To Video


“In A Free Society, Such As America Was Meant To Be, Masks Cannot Be Forced Upon The Citizens.”








“Respiratory pathogens on the outer surface of the used medical masks may result in self-contamination.”; Over 40 Scientific Peer Reviewed Articles related to hazards and ineffectiveness of wearing face masks






Surgical masks as source of bacterial contamination during operative procedures








Harmful Effects of Rebreathing Carbon Dioxide (CO2); Effects of oxygen-deficient atmospheres; Masks are a political agenda, not a protection against CV or Flu








BANNED VIDEO: Firefighter Tests Oxygen Levels w/ Face Covering CV-19 Masks; NIH STUDIES FIND NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS OF WEARING A MASK; Masks are neither effective nor safe: A summary of the science








Dear humans: face masks don’t work; the study-review was published by your very own CDC








Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review








The Great American Mask Rip-Off






Why Face Masks Don’t Work, According To Science







“Exposing the maskerade: The questions every American should be asking about indefinite mask mandates”







A mask is a medical device.
Only a licensed physician is qualified to recommend wearing a mask.
Forcing a mask, which is a medical intervention, without informed consent, is not only practicing medicine without a license, and violating basic civil rights, it is causing harm to human beings by deliberately restricting  oxygen intake[ forced covering of the nose and mouth causes suffocation ] and forcing the rebreathing of CO2.
Dangers of oxygen-deficient atmospheres 
“Workers can become asphyxiated by exposure to atmospheres deficient of oxygen, that can lead to serious injury or loss of life.

“Effects of exposure to low oxygen concentrations can include giddiness, mental confusion, loss of judgment, loss of coordination, weakness, nausea, fainting, loss of consciousness and death.”

[4] How inhaled CO2 affects the body
“When there is exposure to very high levels of CO2, in excess of 5% (50,000 ppm), the body’s compensatory mechanisms can become overwhelmed, and the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord) functions are depressed, then fail. Death soon follows.”–-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Scientific Peer Reviewed Articles regarding hazards and ineffectiveness of wearing masks:
Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock – Masks Pose serious Risks To The Healthy
1981 Surgeon Study – Neil W M Orr MD
 Conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all

Ritter et al.
, in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.
Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”
Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.
Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”
BCMJ, vol. 58 , No. 10 , December 2016 , Pages 554, 556 Point Counterpoint By:  Will Offley, RN BC Medical Journal
Cover up: The lack of evidence for vaccinate or mask policies
More Peer Reviewed Sources for Hazards and Inefficacy of Face Masks:

Dr. Thomas Cowan: There is no such thing as a covid case.
Dr. Thomas Cowan – Debunking Peer Reviewed Claims of Covid-19 isolation
Dr. Andrew Kaufman Covid-19 RT PCR Test Fraud