Study Shows: Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome May Be Misinterpreted as “Long COVID”

Yes, Face Masks Really Make Us Sick. This is true according to a study that found mask-induced exhaustion syndrome (MIES) can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups, and may have been misinterpreted as “long-term COVID” With a new campaign of fear upon us, it is important to know that wearing facemasks can have multiple adverse effects and therefore should not be enforced.

The research scientists of a systematic review, argue that the effectiveness of masks in all healthcare settings was debatable even before 2020 (source, source). In 2020, many scientists and leaders started to believe that the use of masks could also provide protection against viral transmission, although evidence for the effectiveness of this measure was only weak (source).

Since the plandemic began, the researchers observed “a large number of studies that tried to assess the antiviral effectiveness of masks, with hardly conclusive results” (source, source), and argue that, “While certain properties may have justified their invention and application in the past, e.g., retention of bacteria during surgical wound care and operations (source, source), the question needs to be addressed as to the long-term effects widespread mask-wearing may have on normal breathing.”

Those Advocating for the Return of the Facemask

Just recently we have been observing individuals who have been calling for a return of the facemasks to “prevent the transmission of Eris, or EG.5.1, a new “wave” of the yet-to-be-isolated virus. For example:

• In the UK the Independent cited Dr Trisha Greenhalgh, a University of Oxford healthcare expert and also an Independent Sage (iSage) member, who wrote on social media: “My various science WhatsApp groups are buzzing… I understand little of the detail, but it looks like it’s once again time to MASK UP.” (source)
• Canada has seen a protest led by a human rights group named DoNoHarm (you can’t make it up!) calling for its return. BC’s Human Rights Commissioner, Kasari Govender, wrote, “The minor inconvenience masks cause for some must be balanced against the more profound harms to the rights of marginalized people to participate in society and, in this case, to access healthcare.” (source)
• The United States has seen Morris Brown College in Atlanta reinstate its mask mandate as a “precautionary measure” According to the school’s official Instagram account, students and faculty must all mask up.
• Several hospital systems have reinstated mask mandates. UMass Memorial Hospital confirmed in a statement last week that it would reimpose masking for staff. Patients and visitors are exempt from the mandate, it stated.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Additionally, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends masks in indoor public transportation settings. The agency suggests people make decisions based on the level of COVID hospital admissions in their county. The CDC also recommends older adults and the immunocompromised wear masks or anyone more likely to get severely sick from COVID-19.

(However, the CDC inadvertently admitted that masks cannot stop wildfire smoke with average particles of at least 10 microns however, the “science” says that “coronavirus particles are approximately 100 times smaller.”)

Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome

Surely we should all know by now, that there is an absence of strong empirical evidence of mask effectiveness.

The fact that masks are not only ineffective but are also detrimental to health was concluded in a previous study by the same team of researchers. They found that both healthy and sick people can experience Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES), with typical changes and symptoms that are often observed in combination, such as:

• An increase in breathing dead space volume.
• Increase in breathing resistance.
• Increase in blood carbon dioxide.
• Decrease in blood oxygen saturation.
• Increase in heart rate.
• Increase in blood pressure.
• Decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity,
• Increase in respiratory rate.
• Shortness of breath and difficulty breathing.
• Headache.
• Dizziness.
• Feeling hot and clammy.
• Decreased ability to concentrate.
• Decreased ability to think.
• Drowsiness.
• Decrease in empathy perception,
• Impaired skin barrier function.
• With itching.
• Acne, skin lesions, and irritation.
• Overall perceived fatigue and exhaustion.

The researchers left their opinions and advice to doctors.

The Systematic Review

This led the ten researchers to conduct a systematic review to further evaluate the use of masks which has been redacted. The researchers (who all deserve a mention), (Kisielinski, Hirsch,  Wagner, Wojtasik,  Funken, Klosterhalfen, Kanti Manna, Prescher, Sukul, and Sönnichsen.) conducted a review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects titled “Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation”

A systematic review is described as the most reliable source of evidence to guide clinical practice. The purpose of a systematic review is to deliver a meticulous summary of all the existing, available primary research in response to a research question.

The Findings

The aim of this review was to study the adverse effects of face masks on metabolic, physiological, physical, psychological, and individualized parameters by evaluating the use of cloth masks, surgical masks, and N95/FFP-2 masks and humans of all ages and genders. The team detected and compiled reports on frequently statistically significant physiological and psychological changes (p < 0.05) belonging to the MIES such as:

• – increase in breathing dead space volume (60, 65).
• – increase in breathing resistance (53, 59, 66, 67, 83).
• – increase in blood carbon dioxide (26, 51–58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 68, 71, 81, 87, 91, 94).
• – decrease in blood oxygen saturation (26, 52–54, 57–60, 62, 67, 71, 72, 79, 81, 91, 94, 100, 101).
• – increase in heart rate (26, 52, 56, 57, 60, 61, 67, 68, 72, 81, 83, 94, 100, 101).
• – decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity (53, 59, 62).
• – changes in respiratory rate (52–54, 56, 59, 60, 62, 68, 79, 81, 100).
• – shortness of breath and difficulty breathing (47, 52–54, 58, 68, 69, 73, 79, 81, 83, 86, 87, 92, 94).
• – headache (54, 63, 73, 78, 82, 84, 89, 92–95).
• – dizziness (54, 79, 81).
• – feeling hot and clammy (52, 53, 58, 60, 68, 69, 83, 86).
• – decreased ability to concentrate (101).
• – decreased ability to think (81, 94, 95, 101).
• – drowsiness (95).
• – impaired skin barrier function (47, 74, 95).
• – itching (47, 52, 53, 74, 80, 82, 83, 86, 97, 98).
• – acne, skin lesions, and irritation (47, 68, 74, 81, 82, 86, 95, 98).
• – false sense of security (85, 96).
• – overall perceived fatigue and exhaustion (52–54, 57–62, 68, 70, 71, 73, 79, 83, 94).

Moreover, the researcher could objectify additional symptoms of the MIES as follows:

• – decrease in ventilation (53, 59, 62).
• – increase in blood pressure (26, 52, 53, 59, 62, 81, 83, 87, 100).
• – increase of measured temperature of the skin under the mask (58, 68, 69, 90).
• – increase of measured humidity of the air under the mask (58, 69, 90).
• – communication disturbance (86, 88, 94, 95, 99).
• – voice disorder (76, 86).
• – perceived discomfort (47, 52, 53, 69).
• – increased anxiety (75, 88, 92).
• – increased mood swings or depressive mood (75, 76, 88, 92).

and:

• – changes in microbial metabolism (lower gut and oral) (26, 77).

The research found that of the 54 included studies, 51 reported numerous adverse mask effects across multiple clinical disciplines. Also, 14 of 17 studies, which were not included in the meta-analysis also reported those numerous mask effects.

Overall, the systematic review found mask-related symptoms that can be classified under what has been previously described as Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES) with typical changes and symptoms that are often observed in combination. (source).

Conclusion

The research concludes “This systematic review comprehensively revealed ample evidence for multiple adverse physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes of medical face masks, with worse outcomes in the case of N95 masks. This can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups e.g., children, pregnant, older adults, and the ill.”

“Besides transient and progressive hypoxemia, hypercarbia, and individualized clinical symptoms our findings are in line with reports on face masks caused down-stream aberrations (e.g., oxidative stress, hypercapnia, vasoconstriction, pro-inflammatory response, immunosuppression, etc.) at the organ, cellular and microbiome levels and support the MIES (Mask Induced Exhaustion Syndrome).”

“From our point of view, while a short application of the mask seems to be less harmful, longer and long-term use may cause a shift toward the pathophysiological direction with clinical consequences even without exceeding physiological thresholds (O₂ and CO₂).”

“In the sense of the effectiveness of face masks in the real-world setting (cost-benefit), the mask should show a benefit in terms of reduced respiratory infections, e.g., in healthcare through fewer consultations or hospitalizations, unfortunately, this was not the case”

Mask Use Should Be Discouraged

The team offered their opinion based on the facts that they have found, and said: “The exact threshold of harmless and non-pathogenic time wearing a mask should exclusively be determined by further intensive research and studies.” and that “Due to the ultimate lack of exclusion of the harmfulness of mask-wearing, mask use by the general public should be discouraged.”

They claim that “So far, several MIES symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES triggered by masks contrasts with the WHO definition of health.” (below)

They also point out the obvious Political Interference saying “From the above facts, we conclude that a mask requirement must be reconsidered in a strictly scientific way without any political interference as well as from a humanitarian and ethical point of view.” and that “There is an urgent need to balance adverse mask effects with their anticipated efficacy against viral transmission. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of mask effectiveness, mask-wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law.”

So then, predictably this happened!

Nevertheless, it was a surprise to see research opposing the WHO policies being published in a top journal in the first place. Thankfully it was and is still available for us to judge on its “standards” and “scientific soundness.”

We may be about to experience individuals from teachers to shop assistants putting pressure on us to wear these cloths of compliance once again. Yet they will be the ones who have not even conducted a risk assessment let alone read a piece of research opposing the man on the TV. With what we know we can not comply, even if just to avoid confrontation.