To Those Still Wearing Masks: Throw Them Away. They Don’t Work

To Those Still Wearing Masks: Throw Them Away. They Don’t Work

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


For the past almost three years, I have written several comprehensive scientific articles demonstrating that wearing face masks won’t prevent viral diseases. In spite of the obvious facts presented by myself and other journalists, as well as numerous doctors and scientists, government officials and corporate media pundits continued to drone on about how great masks are.

Last month, the Biden administration announced that on May 11, 2023, COVID-19 national and public health emergency declarations that were put in place under former President Donald Trump in early 2020 will end. Could the reason for this be that the lies and propaganda that permeate the COVID narrative have become so blatantly obvious? It would seem so because former die-hard supporters of COVID restrictions like masks and so-called COVID vaccines have started to change their tune. They are starting to question what’s really going on. And the mainstream press is reporting it.

Example: Washington Post columnist Leana Wen MD, who is also a medical news analyst for CNN and a graduate of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders programme, was a staunch advocate of mandating masks. In February 2022, National Review reported that Wen advocated that people wear triple-ply masks even when outdoors. And that kids in school wear them. She then did a 180 and now advocates that wearing masks should be up to the individual. She also stated that “masking has harmed our son’s language development” as reported in this video and in this article.

Example: Last January, Fox News reported that in her Washington Post column, Wen “admitted…that the medical community is overcounting the amount of COVID deaths and hospitalizations.” Actually, that’s an understatement: the deaths are grossly inflated. Since 2020, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has reported on its website (see comorbidities and other conditions) that only over 5% of all COVID-19 deaths were due to it alone. The other 95% of COVID deaths had multiple comorbidities. In other words, they died of something else. COVID apologists try to explain away this fact by claiming that critics are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the data. But at a press conference in 2020, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois’ Department of Public Health succinctly states:

“I just want to be clear in terms of the definition of people dying of COVID: technically, even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death. Everyone who is listed as a COVID death, doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death.”

Example: On his show, Jimmy Dore presented a compilation of newscasters and government officials on TV and, in their own words, falsely claiming that the COVID shots would prevent people from getting COVID-19 and infecting others, but that Biden, Fauci and other notables all got COVID anyway. Former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under Donald Trump, Deborah Birx MD, best known for wearing a variety of brightly colored scarves, also admitted this when she testified before Congress back in December 2020 and in a 2022 Fox News interview said, “I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines.”

And they overplayed the masks. Reason Magazine and the New York Post, along with other mainstream publications, reported on an exhaustive January 2023 review (not to be confused with a systematic review) published by the Cochrane Library, which “found essentially no relationship between mask wearing and disease rates.” The articles, which can be read here, and here, stated in their title that “the CDC Grossly Exaggerated” the effectiveness of “mask mandates.” Both articles went on to say that the CDC “cannot be trusted as a source of public health information.”

The Cochrane review is difficult to read, but it’s not always the fault of the authors. In a February 2023 interview, lead author Dr. Tom Jefferson, MD, explained that in his original 2020 mask review (the 2023 review is an update), his research team was “forced” to “insert unnecessary text phrases in the review” in order to get published. This and other kinds of censorship have become a common problem in scientific journals as explained in this 2020 article in Scientific American.

Dr. Jefferson also explained that Cochrane published an editorial to accompany his original 2020 review, in his view, “to undermine our work.” He described the editorial as a call to action,“you’ve got to do something, you can’t wait for good evidence,” which is “a complete subversion of the precautionary principle,” (the precept that an action should not be taken if the consequences are uncertain and potentially dangerous). Dr Jefferson went on to say:

“…when academics and politicians started jumping up and down about masks. We call them ‘strident campaigners.” They are activists, not scientists.” Nevertheless, “…the evidence really didn’t change from 2020 to 2023. There is still no evidence that masks are effective during a pandemic.”

Levels of evidence

As explained in my previous articles, there are three kinds of scientific research: observational, experimental, and modeling (usually computational, “using computers to study something”). Observational studies, in the case of masks, are mainly epidemiological or statistical. Experimental research determines the effectiveness of masks via controlled experiments. Computer modeling is used to predict the effect that masks will have on case numbers and deaths based on their filtering capacity combined with mandates. However, only observational and experimental research count as scientific evidence. Computer modeling is highly inaccurate and does not count as scientific evidence, as illustrated by this hierarchy of scientific evidence.

Source: Islon Woolf MD

As shown in the above image, the gold standard in medical science is randomized controlled trials with verified outcomes (RCTs) combined with meta-analysis and systematic reviews, because they eliminate bias and speculation. All observational/epidemiological studies do is establish a correlation between mask wearing and COVID-19 case numbers and deaths as shown in this study. But as stated in this 2021 Harvard University article, “Observational studies can’t prove causation.”

This 2020 article in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) warns that relying on weak observational studies “will hinder the goal of finding effective treatments for COVID-19—and a great many other diseases.” This is why the only studies that matter are RCTs, because they test the masks directly to see if they actually work. And every properly conducted RCT done over the past 80 years shows that masks, regardless of what kind, don’t prevent viral diseases.

Example: Canadian Family Physician. July 2020 study. 11 systematic reviews, 18 RCTs. 26,444 participants. Synthesis: “Overall, the use of masks in the community did not reduce the risk of influenza, confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenzalike illness or any clinical respiratory infection.”

Example: Emerging Infectious Diseases, peer reviewed journal published by the CDC. May 2020 study. Systematic review of 10 RCTs on the effectiveness of face masks from 1946-2018 (see Face Masks): “In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”

Example: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2020 study conducted in Denmark. First RCT to determine if masks are effective against SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus. JAMA, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine wouldn’t publish it. The RCT involved over 6,000 Danes and found what all other RCTs found:

Discussion: “Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect.”

Another problem with masks is that they can severely damage the physical and mental health of adults and children. A massive comprehensive review of the many studies conducted on the health and well-being of people wearing masks was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in April 2021. It clearly demonstrates that mask wearing is in no way shape or form a small thing to ask of people.

Obstructing the nose and mouth with a mask causes oxygen deprivation, which increases CO2 levels in the blood, causing hypoxia, hypercapnia, headaches, confusion, physical and mental exhaustion, which the authors call MIES (Mask-induced Exhaustion Syndrome), cancer due to lower oxygen levels along with toxic substances in the masks, facial lesions, damage to teeth and gums, heart attacks, strokes, and psychological deterioration. Masks are also a breeding ground for all sorts of pathogenic microbes that “can cause clinically relevant fungal, bacterial or viral infections.” The authors emphatically state that “…mask-induced adverse changes are relatively minor at first glance, but repeated exposure over longer periods…have measurably harmful effects not only on healthy people, but also on sick people…”

A fly in the ointment?

In 2021, the peer-reviewed journal Science published a huge mask study conducted in Bangladesh that supposedly involved some 340,000 people. This randomized trial only evaluated cloth and surgical masks. N95 masks, also known as respirators, were not included. The study found no benefit in wearing cloth masks, but found an 11% decrease in symptoms associated with COVID-19 in the groups that wore surgical masks. However, the study was deeply flawed as pointed out in a 2021 paper by Dr. Denis Rancourt, PhD, a 2022 review published in ResearchGate, and in the Cochran Review led by Dr. Tom Jefferson mentioned previously.

Most importantly, the Bangladesh study was not an RCT of 340,000 people as hyped in the media. It was a “cluster randomized trial” of 300 treatment villages where there was a mask wearing intervention campaign and of 300 villages where there wasn’t. 340,000 is the total population of all the villages combined, not of how many people individually participated in the study or of how properly and consistently anyone wore masks, which there would be no way to know. Also, cluster randomized trials are “more prone to biases,” which individual RCTs are designed to eliminate, and can give a different result than individual RCTs. For example, a 2005 Cochrane review of hip protectors. “The cluster trials showed large positive effect whereas individually ran

Flawed logic

In July 2020, Professor Denis Rancourt, who has written scientific papers demonstrating that masks are ineffective against viral pathogens, debated Professor David Kyle Johnson who wrote scathing critiques of Rancourt’s work. While both are PhDs, Rancourt’s is in physics. He’s an actual scientist who has been published numerous times in the scientific literature. Johnson’s PhD is in philosophy. He specializes in and teaches logic and supposedly specializes in debunking pseudoscience. But judging from the debate, Johnson certainly doesn’t practice logic as far as I’m concerned. He acted like an angry, petulant, spoiled child and even threw a temper tantrum.

Johnson labeled Rancourt a conspiracy theorist and a pseudoscientist, which is the ad hominem fallacy, invalidating what is being said by attacking someone’s character or reputation. Johnson also misrepresented Rancourt’s position on COVID-19 and accused him of saying things that he didn’t say, an example of the straw man fallacy, creating “a dishonest, distorted, or otherwise inaccurate version of a person’s original argument.”

Johnson’s whole schtick was that masks can reduce the amount of infectious viral particles contained in droplets and aerosols in the air, which will reduce COVID-19 infection. He compared the filtration efficiency of masks with traffic laws against speeding, reducing accidents. This is a false equivalence fallacy, claiming two entirely different things are the same because they share similar characteristics.

Johnson’s arguments were based on inferior observational studies, computer modeling, which isn’t scientific evidence, and on mechanistic studies, which determine filtration efficiency. As explained in this EPA report and demonstrated in this 2008 HSA study in the U.K., these, and all other filtration efficiency studies show that huge amounts of infectious viral particles will always go around and through any kind of mask.

Johnson acknowledges that forcing people to wear masks won’t eliminate all infectious particles that are in the air and that they can go through masks. That’s why his arguments are fallacious. The scientific literature clearly shows that most respiratory infections are caused by “small particle aerosols,” rather than large droplets and can remain in the air indefinitely as reported in the Lancet. And as estimated by Cambridge University press, 100 COVID-19 virus particles would be enough to make a human sick. But as reported in Science Daily, even “One Virus Particle Is Enough To Cause Infectious Disease.” In reality, you will be breathing in thousands of infectious virus particles in buildings regardless of what you have on your face.

Johnson also incorrectly asserted that most large droplets existing in the mouth of an infected person wearing a mask won’t have a chance to evaporate or aerosolize into smaller microscopic particles that could possibly escape from the mask. But as reported in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health review cited earlier, mask wearers exhale more fine microscopic aerosol particles than non-mask wearers, which increases the risk of infection for everyone.

Bottom line: it doesn’t matter how many droplets and aerosol particles masks filter out because MASKS DON’T WORK. It doesn’t matter what kind of mask you’re wearing because MASKS DON’T WORK. It doesn’t matter whether or not you wear your mask properly because MASKS DON’T WORK. It doesn’t matter how many comply or don’t comply with mask rules because MASKS DON’T WORK. None of these things matter because MASKS DON’T WORK.

Closing thoughts

People who buy into the mask lie think they are following the science when they are really following authoritarian orders. A consensus is defined as: “An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.” But before we trust a scientific consensus on something like COVID-19, we need to ask the following: Is it an informed consensus? Or is it an ignorant, captured, corrupt consensus? Massive corruption in medical science is a reality as explained here and here. So, if a majority of doctors, scientists, and politicians have not studied a topic like masks, or if they have sold their souls to the highest bidder in exchange for wealth, power, and status instead of valuing truth and making the world a better place, we need not listen to them.

Everything comes with a price tag. There is no free lunch. There are positives and negatives, pros and cons, to whatever path we choose to follow. In a free society, that price will be a small class of criminals who operate outside the law. But it’s far lower than the price we are paying for a criminal government that operates within the law. So, don’t blindly believe what corrupt corporate stooges in medicine, government, and the media are telling you. Don’t allow yourselves to be bossed around by a bunch of idiots who don’t know their butt hole from a gopher hole. Doubt and question everything. A mind is a terrible thing to waste and freedom is too precious a gift to throw away.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Michael J. Talmo has been a professional writer for over 40 years and is strongly committed to the protection of civil liberties. He also has a website: and did three music videos on COVID-19.The Masker Mash, COVID Vaccine Man, and The Corona Globalists. He can be reached at [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page


Overprocurement: Germany Has Billions of Corona Masks Too Many, Now They Are Being Burned

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


The people in charge have found a term that should at least suggest some meaning: thermal recycling. Four federal states state that they have thermally recycled a total of 17.25 million expired corona masks. Translated this means: They were burned.

This is the result of a WELT survey of all countries. 6.1 million masks were destroyed in Baden-Württemberg, 5.5 million in Saxony, five million in North Rhine-Westphalia and 656,000 in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Eleven federal states announced that they had not yet disposed of any corona masks, but that they were partially planning to do so. Thuringia could not provide any information about the type of recycling.

The Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) in Berlin has also “energetically recycled” masks in the past few months. The number is so far “less than a million pieces,” said a spokesman on request. The destroyed masks were bought at the height of the pandemic. They have passed their sell-by date without a buyer having been found for them beforehand. At federal and state level, the majority were surgical, FFP2 and similar masks.

In October last year it was announced that the federal government wants to dispose of up to 800 million expired masks. According to WELT information, this was taken over by the disposal company Remondis in the Euskirchen warehouse in North Rhine-Westphalia. According to documents, November 11, 2022 to November 30, 2023 was agreed as the period. “Energy recovery” is also to take place at the storage locations in Augsburg, Dresden and Crailsheim in the district of Schwäbisch-Hall.

The federal and state governments are sitting on a mountain of masks worth billions. According to the Federal Ministry of Health from September, there are a total of 3.7 billion masks in the federal inventory, around 20 percent of which are the subject of legal disputes and cannot be handed over. According to a spokesman on Tuesday, 1.4 billion certified surgical masks and 260 million FFP2 masks can currently be delivered. Most of these will last until the end of next year.

“I’m often the only mask wearer in the room”

As a sign that the pandemic is not over, Health Minister Lauterbach also wears a mask at the World Economic Forum. He wants to set an example. So far it hasn’t made school: “I’m often the only mask wearer in the room,” he says in the WELT interview with Jan Philipp Burgard.

In addition, the federal states have a total of 180 million corona masks, as the responsible health and interior ministries announced on request. Bavaria (68.5 million), Lower Saxony (24.6 million) and Hesse (22.6 million) stock the most masks. In twelve federal states, a total of 54.3 million of the masks will expire this year or next. These are mostly medical surgical masks.

You can only burn what you bought yourself

Several ministries want to have more masks destroyed in the future. The problem: So far you can only burn those that you have bought yourself. For masks that were procured by the federal government and then distributed to the federal states, they need the approval of the federal government.

“The Hessian Ministry of the Interior and Sport, together with many ministries from other states, is turning to the federal government with an urgent request to either take back the unusable protective masks from federal deliveries or to agree to their destruction by the states, as ongoing storage costs are incurred,” says a spokesman. Unfortunately, approval has not yet been obtained. “The Federal Ministry of Health refers to open customs issues that have not yet been clarified by the Federal Government.”

The Ministry of the Interior in Saxony also reports that it is waiting for the masks procured by the federal government “until legal questions have been finally clarified”. The Saarland announced that it planned to destroy 1.8 million masks from the federal inventory. A spokesman for the Health Senate in Hamburg says: “The preparations have been made.” When asked when approval can be given, a spokesman for the Federal Ministry of Health answered evasively: “The BMG is in regular contact with both the federal states and the General Customs Directorate.”

Karsten Klein, chairman of the FDP parliamentary group in the budget committee of the Bundestag, criticizes the previous government’s overprocurement: “The traffic light coalition inherited a huge and very expensive mask mountain from Jens Spahn. As important as the federal government’s support for the procurement of masks was at times in 2020, under Spahn it resulted in a real buying spree that completely lost sight of the need,” said Klein about the former Federal Minister of Health from the CDU.

In future crises, procurement must be based on reliable demand forecasts and there must be better coordination between the federal and state governments. “There must be no immense over-procurement and thus a waste of taxpayers’ money.” The Federal Ministry of Health must now “at all costs” look for ways to give away masks before their shelf life expires. Depending on the mask type and manufacturer, this is usually between two and five years.

Kathrin Vogler, health policy spokeswoman for the Left Group in the Bundestag, also criticizes the destruction: “Instead of distributing leftover masks to people free of charge at train and bus stations or in doctor’s offices, the federal states and the Ministry of Health are now destroying millions of masks.” This shows that those responsible have not even begun to understand the social dimension of infection control. “Prevention measures such as masks and tests must be available to everyone with low thresholds and as free of charge as possible.”

Almost six billion euros in procurement costs in the federal government alone

At the beginning of November, the Budget Committee of the Bundestag called on the government to ensure that the personal protective equipment in the federal inventory “is definitely recycled as needed before the expiry date expires” and that options for free and fee-based disposal are also examined in order to ensure disposal “to be avoided due to exceeding the expiry date”.

In addition, masks are stored in addition to the federal inventory as part of the “National Health Protection Reserve”. The establishment of the reserve was decided by the then federal government in mid-2020 in order to prevent future shortages. According to the Ministry of Health, there are currently 245 million masks in reserve, some of which will expire at the end of 2023.

But doubts about the usefulness of the reserve are increasing. In November, the budget committee asked the government to implement a proposal from the Federal Court of Auditors and to examine “whether physical storage for the federal healthcare system is necessary and economical at all” and at which authority this should best be located – as well as what alternatives to one Stockpiling at the federal government may exist.

Overall, mask procurement is a very expensive affair for the taxpayer. The costs at federal level alone have totaled 5.8 billion euros since the beginning of the pandemic. For this purpose, 4.2 billion surgical masks and 1.7 billion FFP2 masks were procured.

In the past, the Federal Court of Auditors has repeatedly criticized that under the leadership of ex-Health Minister Spahn, there was a “massive over-procurement” of masks that would have been “avoidable”.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


Just throw this crazy vaxtard off the airplane – and the captain did just that.

Just throw this crazy vaxtard off the airplane – and the captain did just that.

Jim Crenshaw – November 1st, 2022

She was partially correct, she said “I’m not sitting here”…correct asshole, in fact your not sitting anywhere on this flight. Crazy Karen strikes out.

If she would have asked me if I was vaccinated and had a “vaccinated card” I would have very politely told her it was none of her damn business and to sit her stupid ass down so we could take off or get the hell off the plane and to shove it up her ass. Keep in mind I would have been polite and smiled the entire time.

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

School Mask Mandates: Lancet Study Debunks CDC’s Justification

School Mask Mandates: Lancet Study Debunks CDC’s Justification

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


The Lancet, a world-renown medical journal, is out with a new study debunking a highly-cited CDC study that was used to support mask mandates in schools.

Specifically, the study not only replicates the CDC study, which found a “negative association” between masks and pediatric cases of Covid-19, it also extends the study to include more districts over a longer period of time. In the end, the new study had nearly “six times as much data as the original study.”

“Replicating the CDC study shows similar results; however, incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates,” the study finds. “These results persisted when using regression methods to control for differences across districts. Interpretation: School districts that choose to mandate masks are likely to be systematically different from those that do not in multiple, often unobserved, ways. We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.”


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Health Impact News


Mask Nazis Who Terrorized Americans For Years Are Worried They Might Get Mocked For Mask Obsession

Mask Nazis Who Terrorized Americans For Years Are Worried They Might Get Mocked For Mask Obsession

The New York Times’ reliable doomsayer Paul Krugman made another dramatic prediction Tuesday after a federal judge finally struck down a CDC mask requirement on planes and public transportation.

“Soon we’ll be seeing many incidents in which those who choose to protect themselves with KN95s etc face harassment, even violence,” Krugman wrote in a viral Twitter post with nearly 32 thousand “likes” and more than 7,000 retweets. “Because this was never about freedom.”

Krugman’s latter point was the quiet part out loud, just not the way he probably intended. Compulsory masking was always about control. Even NORAD’s Santa Claus fell victim to the left’s mask obsession.

Since the inception of Covid-19, facial coverings became a sort of religious talisman among liberals who demanded strict adherence to their pandemic ritual no matter how useless and no matter the significant consequences to children. When the pendulum has occasionally swung in the opposite direction to see mandates lifted, however, those who forced compulsory masking on their neighbors have fretted over minor mockery after the same population kicked families off airplanes for refusal to mask babies, barred kids from school who didn’t mask up, and refused service to customers who didn’t comply with the mask regime.

There’s no shortage of mask freakout compilations on YouTube highlighting the virulent endeavor to muzzle the entire country. Below are several episodes of the mask police out in full force documented by Twitter’s LibsOfTikTok:

These were far from isolated incidents. Three months ago in New York, a 16-year-old girl was refused entry to her high school and was allegedly forced to sit in the cold with no access to food or water.

“She was getting treated definitely worse than a prisoner,” Vincent Igoe, the girl’s father, told Fox News. “Even inmates in jail get offered food and water.”

In California, maskless students reported being “barricaded” in the school gym as administrators turned down the temperature to “freeze” them into compliance. The February incident came just before stars and celebrities packed L.A.’s Super Bowl stadium without face masks despite local students being compelled to wear facial coverings for schoolroom entry the next day.

Last fall, a substitute teacher reportedly “taped” a mask to a 9-year-old with plastic running across the face and from the nose to forehead after the student took a sip of water.

Even those who did wear masks were persecuted for coverings that came with the wrong political expression. Individuals who wore masks reading “Let’s Go Brandon,” a popular euphemism for “f-ck Joe Biden,” on airplanes were forced to swap them for blue surgical masks or face being kicked off.

Earlier this year, enough momentum grew among Democrats to label airplane mask objectors as “terrorists” worthy of being placed on a no-fly list that Republican lawmakers felt compelled to write a letter to the Justice Department in protest.

So yes, after two years of real incessant mask discrimination, there might be some harsh feelings towards those who imposed their own Covid psychosis on the rest of the country and now expect unconditional grace from those smeared as disease-ridden parasites.

No one should be violently harassed for their own decision on whether to mask. Respect is also a two-way street, and scared people would be better off staying home.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at


Are You A ‘Domestic Extremist’ – It May Be Easier Than You Think!

Are You A ‘Domestic Extremist’ – It May Be Easier Than You Think!

Are You A ‘Domestic Extremist’? It’s Easier Than You Think!

The Biden Justice Department has announced that it is setting up a new “domestic terrorism” division to monitor Americans for “extremism.” How do they define it? Among other things, it’s being “anti-authority.” What could go wrong?

Also today, voting reform…or election fixing?

Bernie Sanders wants to give you a new face mask!

And…major Danish newspaper apologizes to its readers for printing government COVID lies.


Watch This episode of – Liberty Report:



The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Share this…
Share on FacebookPin on PinterestTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn


Federal Judge Blocks Biden’s Vaccine Mandate for Children’s Education Program

Federal Judge Blocks Biden’s Vaccine Mandate for Children’s Education Program

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.


U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty ruled Saturday that the Biden administration unconstitutionally bypassed Congress when ordering workers in Head Start programs to take the injection by Jan. 31, and for students 2 years or older to be masked indoors and outdoors.

“If the Executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the Legislative branch to make laws, then this country is no longer a democracy — it is a monarchy,” Doughty wrote.

“This two-year pandemic has fatigued the entire country. However, this is not an excuse to forego the separation of powers,” Doughty, an appointee of then-President Donald Trump, continued. “If the walls of separation fall, the system of checks and balances created by the founders of this country will be destroyed.”

“In the words of Thomas Paine, ‘Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.’ Common Sense (1776). This issue will certainly be decided by a higher court than this one. This issue is important. The separation of powers has never been so thin,” he concluded.

The ruling applies to a lawsuit from 24 states: Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall praised the ruling in a news release, calling Biden’s effort to mask children “nonsensical and damaging.”

“This victory will help ensure that numerous Head Start programs will continue to operate rather than have to fire teachers and cut back services to children,” Marshall wrote. “And this win will forestall the nonsensical and damaging practice of forcing masks on two-year-olds.”

Separately, a Texas judge issued a similar ruling for the Head Start program in the Lone Star State on Friday, calling Biden’s mandate “arbitrary and capricious.”

The judgement comes after a series of major legal defeats for Biden in his crusade to impose vaccines on all Americans, which will be soon taken up by the Supreme Court.

Read the judge’s ruling here.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


“Pandemic Policy Mandates”: Who Will be Held Responsible for this Devastation? “The Unvaccinated are the Scapegoats”

“Pandemic Policy Mandates”: Who Will be Held Responsible for this Devastation? “The Unvaccinated are the Scapegoats”

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


If the pandemic policy response had taken the form of mere advice, we would not be in the midst of this social, economic, cultural, political disaster. What caused the wreckage was the application of political force that was baked into the pandemic response this time in a way that has no precedent in human history. 

The response relied on compulsion imposed by all levels of government. The policies in turn energized a populist movement, Covid Red Guard that became a civilian enforcement arm. They policed the grocery aisles to upbraid the maskless. Drones swarmed the skies looking for parties to rat out and shut down. A blood lust against non compliers came to be unleashed at all levels of society.

Lockdowns granted some people meaning and purpose, the way war does for some people. The compulsion to bludgeon others trickled down from government to the people. Madness overtook rationality. Once this took place, there was no longer a question of “Two weeks to flatten the curve.” The mania to suppress the virus by ending person-to-person contact extended to two years.

This happened in the US and all over the world. The madness achieved nothing positive because the virus paid no attention to the edicts and enforcers. Ending social and economic functioning, however, shattered lives in countless ways, and continues to do so.

It is precisely because so much about life (and science) is uncertain that civilized societies operate on the presumption of the freedom to choose. That’s a policy of humility: no one possesses enough expertise to presume the right to restrict other people’s peaceful actions.

But with lockdowns and the successor policy of vaccine mandates, we’ve seen not humility but astounding arrogance. The people who did this to us and to billions of people around the world were so darn sure of themselves that they would take recourse to police-state tactics to realize their goals, none of which came to be realized at all, despite every promise that this would be good for us.

It’s the compulsion that’s the source of all the issues. Someone wrote the edicts at someone’s behest. Someone imposed the orders. Those somebodies should be the people who should own the results, compensate the victims, and otherwise accept the consequences for what they have done.

Who are they? Where are they? Why haven’t they stepped up?

If you are going to force people to behave a certain way – to close their businesses, kick people out of their homes, stay away from meetings, cancel vacations, physically separate everywhere – you have to be damn certain that it is the right thing to do. If the people who did this were so sure of themselves, why are they so shy to take responsibility?

The question is pressing: who precisely bears the blame? Not just in general, but more precisely: who was willing to step up from the beginning to say “If this does not work, I accept full responsibility?” Or: “I did this and stand by it.” Or: “I did this and I’m very sorry.”

So far as I know, no one has said anything like this.

Instead, what we have is a big jumble of messy bureaucracies, committees, reports, and unsigned orders. There are certain systems in place that seem structured in a way that makes it impossible to find out who precisely is responsible for their design and implementation.

For example, a friend of mine was being harassed by his school for not being vaccinated. He wanted to speak to the person who imposed the rule. In his investigation, everyone passed the buck. This person put together a committee which then agreed on best practices left over from some other printed guidance approved by another committee, which had been implemented by a similar institution on another matter. This was then adopted by a different division and passed on to another committee for implementation as a recommendation and then it was issued by another division entirely.

Incredibly, throughout the whole investigation, he failed to find a single person who was willing to step up and say: I did this and it was my decision. Everyone had an alibi. It became one big mush of bureaucracy with no accountability. It’s a tub of dough in which every bad actor pre-built a hiding place.

It’s the same with many people who have been disemployed for refusing to divulge their vaccine status. Their bosses typically say that they are very sorry for what happened; if it had been up to them, the person would continue to work. Their bosses in turn demur and blame some other policy or committee. No one is willing to speak to victims and say: “I did this and stand by it.”

Like millions of others, I’ve been harmed materially by pandemic response. My story lacks drama and is nothing remotely close to what others have experienced but it is salient because it is personal. I was invited to join in a live studio appearance on TV but then was refused because I refused to divulge my vaccine status. I was sent to a separate studio reserved for the unclean where I sat by myself.

The person who informed me said the policy was stupid and he objected. But it is the company policy. Maybe I can speak to his boss? Oh, he is against this stuff too. Everyone thinks it is dumb. Who then is responsible? The buck is always passed on and up in the chain of command but no one will accept the blame and bear the consequences.

Even though the courts have repeatedly shot down the vaccine mandates, there is universal consensus that the vaccines, while perhaps offering some private benefits, are not contributing to stopping infections or spread. Which is to say: the only person who might suffer from being unvaccinated is the unvaccinated himself. And yet still, people are losing their jobs, missing out on public life, being segregated and blocked, and otherwise paying a heavy price for not complying.

And yet there are still people who are intensifying the blame game that blames not government nor public health authorities nor anyone in particular but rather a whole class of people: the evil unvaccinated.

“I am furious at the unvaccinated,” writes Charles Blow of the New York Times, a paper that kicked off the pro-lockdown propaganda as early as February 27, 2020. “I am not ashamed of disclosing that. I am no longer trying to understand them or educate them. The unvaccinated are choosing to be part of the problem.”

How precisely are the unvaccinated the problem? Because, he writes,“it is possible to control the virus and mitigate its spread, if more people are vaccinated.”

This is plainly untrue, as we’ve seen from many countries’ experiences around the world. Look up Singapore or Gibraltar or Israel or any high vaxx country and see their case trends. They look the same or worse than low vaxx countries. We know from at least 33 studies that the vaccines cannot and do not stop infection or transmission, which is precisely why Pfizer and people like Anthony Fauci are demanding 3rd and now 4th shots. Shots without end, always with the promise that the next one will achieve the goal.

Mr. Blow is propagating falsehoods. Why? Because there is an appetite out there to tag someone or something with the fault for the wreckage. The unvaccinated are the scapegoats to distract from the real problem of discovering and holding to account those people who undertook this experiment without precedent.

The trouble now is finding out who they are. The governor of New York did terrible things but now he has resigned. His brother at CNN propagated lockdown ideology but he was fired. The mayor of New York has perpetrated evil but he is sneaking out of office in a few weeks. Some governors who locked down their populations have declined to run again and will try their best to disappear.

Dr. Deborah Birx, whom we know for certain was the person who talked Trump into approving lockdowns, quietly resigned and has done her best to avoid the spotlight. The journalist at the New York Times who whipped up total hysteria while calling for brutal lockdown has since been fired from his job. So too for hundreds of public health officials who have resigned or been fired.

Who is left to blame? The most likely candidate here is Fauci himself. But I can already tell you his excuse. He never signed a single order. His fingerprints are on no legislation.

He never issued any edicts. He never had anyone arrested. He never blocked the entrance to any church nor personally padlocked any school or business. He is merely a scientist making recommendations supposedly for people’s health.

He has an alibi too.

Much of this reminds me of World War I, the “Great War.” Look up the causes. They are all amorphous. Nationalism. An assassination. Treaties. Diplomatic confusions. The Serbs. Meanwhile none of these reasons can actually account for 20 million dead, 21 million wounded, and wrecked economies and lives all over the world, to say nothing of the Great Depression and rise of Hitler that came as a result of this appalling disaster.

Despite investigations, countless books, public hearings, and public fury that lasted a decade or more after the Great War, there never was anyone who accepted responsibility. We saw a repeat of the same following the Iraq War. Is there any record of anyone who said “I made the decision and I was wrong”?

So it might be for the lockdowns and mandates of 2020 and 2021. The carnage is unspeakable and will last a generation or two or more. Meanwhile, the people responsible are slowly slipping out of public life, finding new jobs and sanitizing their hands of any responsibility. They are scrubbing resumes and, when asked, blaming anyone and everyone else but themselves.

This is the moment in which we find ourselves: a ruling class terrified of being found out, called out, and held accountable, and therefore incentivized to generate an endless series of excuses, scapegoats, and distractions (“You need another shot!”).

This is the least satisfying conclusion to this awful story. But there it is: it is very likely that the people who did this to us will never be held accountable, not in any court and not in any legislative hearing. They will never be forced to compensate their victims. They will never even admit they were wrong. And herein lies what might be the most egregious feature of evil public policy: this is not and will not be justice or anything that even vaguely resembles justice.

That is what history would suggest, in any case. If it is different this time and the perpetrators actually do face some consequences, it would still not make things right, but at least it would set a fabulous precedent for the future.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture. [email protected]

Featured image is from Brownstone Institute



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)