Skip to main content may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on the site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Why Masks Are Dangerous For Our Children; Watch the Shocking CO2 Levels a Carbon Dioxide Meter Detects Beneath Face Masks


Masking children remains a hot topic of debate during COVID-19 hysteria.

While some authoritative states continue abusing their children, common sense has prevailed in others.

Center for Dignity compares school mask mandate policies around the United States:

Below is a list of state-by-state policy, legislation, and litigation regarding school mask mandates. This information is changing rapidly and we will be updating this document accordingly. Be sure to check back often for updates.

Ten States have attempted bans that prohibit schools districts from setting mask requirements (with various success based on ongoing litigation): AR, AZ, FL, IA, OK, MT, SC, TN, TK, UT. School mask mandate bans1 are currently in effect in seven states: AZ, FL, MT, OK, SC, TX, UT.

Sixteen states and DC require masks be worn in schools regardless of vaccine status.

U.S. Territories vary in their school masking requirements, but none have banned school mask mandates.

As noted in the CDC’s updated Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools (updated 11/5/21):

Due to the circulating and highly contagious Delta variant, CDC recommends universal indoor masking by all students (age 2 and older), staff, teachers, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status.

But the CDC has a nasty track record of putting politics above science.

In many states, children must wear face masks 6-8 hours per day in school.

School officials obediently enforce the policies and some parents refuse to stick up for their children.

As WLT noted nearly a year ago, long-term use of face masks is dangerous and worthless against stopping viral spread.

Let’s not forget this brilliant article published by GlobalResearch:

I happen to know a thing or two about masks and safety. Why? Because for 25 years I was the editor of an award-winning trade magazine called HazMat Management that covered such topics as pollution prevention and compliance with health & safety laws. We routinely published articles on masks, gloves, respirators and other forms of personal protective equipment (PPE). Now let me tell you a few things about that mask you’re wearing. And please note that what I’m about to share was also stated in the most recent edition of Del Bigtree’s program The Highwire when two OSHA mask experts spoke to the fact that the kinds of masks people are wearing were never (never!) designed to be worn for long periods and doing so is very harmful.

The blue typical mask depicted in the photograph contain Teflon and other chemicals. A Facebook friend reminds us: 1. Masks are “sterilized” with Ethylene Oxide — a known carcinogen. Many teachers in various school boards have been experiencing significant symptoms as a direct result of the effects of this chemical. 2. The masks contain (not sprayed with) PTFE which makes up Teflon along with other chemicals. I found and have posted the US patent to allow manufacturers to use PTFE as a filter in commercial masks… “breathing these for extended periods can lead to lung cancer.”

Don’t agree? Argue with the experts at OSHA, which is the main US agency, i.e., its Occupational Health & Safety Agency. These masks are meant to be worn only for short periods, like say if you’re sanding a table for an hour and don’t want to inhale sawdust. They don’t do anything whatsoever to stop the spread of any virus, and the emerging science of virology now understands that viruses aren’t even passed person to person. I know that sounds incredible, but it’s the case that the virus is in the air, you breath it in, there’s no way to prevent that short of living in an oxygen tent, and if you have a strong immune system you’ll be fine, and if you have a weak immune system you may have to deal with the effects of your immune system working to restore balance within your metabolism.

Surgical Face Masks: No Statistically Significant Benefit Against COVID-19. Danish Study in Annals of Internal Medicine
So let’s say you don’t wear the blue packaged masks, and instead wear a homemade cloth mask — the kind people wear over and over and hang on their rearview mirror and so on. Those masks are completely useless against a virus, and are also very dangerous. OSHA would never condone a person wearing a mask of this kind for anything more than the shortest time. Re-breathing your own viral debris is dangerous to health, and the oxygen deprivation children suffer wearing such masks all day will certainly cause brain damage. I’m not making this up. Again, you might say, well, Guy, you’re not a doctor. True, but I did edit that magazine for 25 years. That’s a long time and many articles on masks and PPE. I’ve attended numerous OH&S conferences and listened to experts discussing these matters.

You may hear people saying that surgeons and nurses wear masks like this all day. Um, no. No they don’t. They’re trained in the proper use of masks, which is to wear them in the OR, then dispose of the mask when they leave that room. Are you aware that operating rooms are actually supplied extra oxygen, to compensate for the reduction in oxygen flow from mask wearing? To my mind, it’s criminal (not hyperbole) to force children to wear masks all day. Setting aside the very real psychological effects, we’re going to have a generation of brain damaged children. Ever heard the expression, “Not enough oxygen at birth?” That’s a joke at the expense of a mentally challenged person, but that’s literally what we’re doing. And we’re told it’s to “keep us safe”! We’re told this by doctors who actually don’t know about PPE and laypeople who have no clue.

So, you can choose to believe me or not, but I was the editor for a quarter century of a magazine that had a strong occupational health and safety mandate, and I can tell you that the mask wearing currently mandated by governments and private businesses offers no health benefit whatsoever, in no way protects you or anyone else from any virus, and actually does you damage beyond wearing it for a few minutes. Got that? Good. Now please share this message and get the conversation going with parents, who must end this masking of children immediately. This is a very serious matter. And related to that, let me just state this doesn’t end for me when the lockdown ends or the masking ends. No, this ends for me when every politician and bureaucrat who inflicted this travesty, this crime against humanity, on the population of Canada (and other affected countries) is in the dock, and faces their misdeeds in a court of law.

And as for those of you who have put masks on young children, I will have a long memory on that score. A very long memory.

END NOTE: The CDC and WHO have acknowledged that asymptomatic people do not spread the virus, so the case for masks for such people is moot in the first place.

Even the NIH National Library of Medicine lists studies that admit further research is required to determine the clinical implications of long-term face mask usage.

From an observational study in BMC Infectious Diseases:

CO2 levels

Fig. 4 depicts the serial changes in CO2 levels over time for one individual. Overall, the mean CO2 with no mask was 0.27% when breathing ambient air with a CO2 concentration of 0.04%. The percent mean (SD) CO2 values for no mask, JustAir® PAPR, KN95 respirator, and valved-respirator were 0.26 (0.12), 0.59 (0.097), 2.6 (0.14) and 2.4 (0.59), respectively with the NIOSH levels depicted as reference (Fig. 5). The 2.4–2.6% CO2 concentration translates into a 10-fold increase in CO2 with KN95 respirator and valved-respirator or 24,000–26,000 PPM at the nasolabial fold, which is greater than the NIOSH 8-h TLV-REL of 5000 PPM. Although, there was approximately a 4-fold reduction of CO2 with PAPR to 0.59% or 5900 ppm, it still remained slightly greater than the NIOSH 8-h TLV-REL of 5000 PPM. Overall, use of respirators resulted in significant increases in CO2 concentrations, which exceeded the 8-h NIOSH exposure threshold limit for TWA-REL. However, the increases in CO2 concentrations did not breach short-term (15-min) limits. Importantly, these levels were considerably lower than the long-term (8-h) NIOSH limits during donning JustAir® PAPR.

cont. from Discussion:

Our findings have significant implications for health care personnel who are required to wear PPE for long periods of time. Elevated CO2 has been reported to result in hemodynamic changes in the intracranial arteries and considered a contributor towards discomfort, fatigue, dizziness, headache, shortness of breath, generalized weakness, lethargy and drowsiness [10]. Furthermore, these symptoms increased with prolonged use of the face mask [8, 19]. Some studies even showed proportional decrease in cognitive abilities with increasing CO2 levels [15,16,17,18].



Our study demonstrates a significant increase in end-tidal CO2 concentrations among healthy volunteers while donning KN95 respirator, valved-respirator as well as PAPR. However, the CO2 rise during donning PAPR was consistently lower when compared to the K95 and valved-respirator. Therefore, there should not be a concern in their regular day-to-day use for healthcare providers. The clinical implications of elevated CO2 levels with long-term use of passive masks needs further studies. Use of PAPR prevents relative hypercapnoea. We recommend further studies to evaluate whether PAPR (like JustAir® alone which provides adequate filtration of viral particles both during inhalation and exhalation) should be advocated for healthcare workers requiring PPE for extended hours. Also, further research is needed to determine if PAPR is more comfortable and, reduce symptoms such as headaches and does not impair cognitive performance.

Increased CO2 concentrations with long-term mask usage isn’t a new research topic with the arrival of COVID-19.

It’s also investigated in this 2010 study titled “Physiological impact of the N95 filtering facepiece respirator on healthcare workers.

The lack of (expected) lower PtcCO2 with the FFR-with-valve suggests that the exhalation valve may
not decrease CO2 at a low work rate, possibly because the exhalation pressure is not sufficient to activate the exhalation valve, or because of the loss of FFR surface area for gas exchange if the valve is not activated. The potential for substantial CO2 retention with N95 FFR or N95 FFRwith-valve was highlighted by 2 non-obese subjects, an otherwise healthy 42-year-old female ex-smoker (peak 60-min PtcCO2 50 mm Hg), and a 21-year-old man with no noteworthy medical history (peak 60-min PtcCO2 52 mm Hg), although both were asymptomatic. Pulmonary function testing was not carried out in the subjects, but the normal control values obtained when not wearing an FFR suggest that the FFR’s effect on CO2 retention is of some concern. It is possible that the ex-smoker subject may have had some degree of pulmonary impairment related to past tobacco use; however, the other subject had no known risk factors. The FFR VD is a repository for exhaled gas, which subsequently mixes with the air that enters through the FFR and is re-breathed during successive inhalations.22 Technically, this can increase the CO2 and decrease the O2 entering the lungs.23

The study concluded with:

Healthcare worker use of FFR and FFR-with-valve for 1 hour at clinically realistic low work rates had only mild
physiological impact. At a low work rate, for up to 1 hour, FFR-with-valve may offer no physiological advantage over FFR-without-valve. The mixed inhalation/exhalation O2 and CO2 levels in the FFR VD microenvironment did not meet the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s standards for workplace ambient O2 and CO2 concentrations. FFR comfort issues need to be addressed further to maximize healthcare worker adherence to FFR use.28 Future studies will also need to address the possibility of CO2 retention in susceptible individuals and the physiological impact of FFR (with and without exhalation valve) worn for longer periods. 

The comparative study is also listed in the NIH National Library of Medicine.

Conclusions: In healthy healthcare workers, FFR did not impose any important physiological burden during 1 hour of use, at realistic clinical work rates, but the FFR dead-space carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards, and elevated P(CO2) is a possibility. Exhalation valve did not significantly ameliorate the FFR’s P(CO2) impact.

Del Bigtree of The Highwire put the CO2 question to the test with a carbon dioxide meter:


And here’s a video of an Irish citizen performing the same test:

Is this the air we want children breathing 6-8 hours per day?

What are the long-term health implications of this physical and psychological abuse?

Every politician and school official in the country should face these questions.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

We Love Trump
Thanks for sharing!
Send this to a friend