California law making it easier for former inmate firefighters to turn pro

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Sept. 11, 2020 accelerating the process for expunging the felony records of formerly incarcerated volunteer firefighters.

This new law is designed to make it far easier for former inmates to earn an emergency medical technician certification, the first step in becoming a professional firefighter in most cities and counties. For decades, thousands of inmate firefighters have battled wildfires across the state, working alongside professional firefighters in the scorching heat and smoke.

Yet these men and women prisoners who throw themselves in danger to help save lives and property have found ir impossible to put their firefighting skills to use after their release, even in a state desperate for such labor.

𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐎𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐒 𝐄𝐗-𝐈𝐍𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐁𝐘 𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐎𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐊 𝐈𝐍𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐆𝐄𝐓𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 “𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐇” 𝐛𝐲 𝐉𝐎𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐀 𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐅𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐖 𝐖𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐄 𝐈𝐍𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐃:
.
To qualify, inmates cannot have any gang affiliation, any history of a serious or violent felony, the nature of their conviction is rigorously reviewed and a high school or GED diploma is required before an inmate can even apply for the program. Each inmate must be medically certified under state fitness standards outlined under the National Fire Protection Association Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire Depts. 2007 Edition (NFPA 1582).

After many weeks of physical training running 10 miles a day in full firefighting gear carrying 80 lb. packs and holding a 6 lb. pick head fire ax, testing commences, and only a few inmates pass the preliminary prerequisites actually qualify. Once accepted into the Fire Fighting Program; Series courses are 4-6 weeks of classroom instruction (NFPA 1001, NFPA 1021, and NFPA 1500) which includes EMT/paramedic certification, basic medical training, fire safety, and control, wildland fires, search and rescue evacuations (people AND animals), evidence protection, forcible entry, fire behavior, and control, mechanical malfunctions, emergencies, inmates are even trained in response to terrorism among a few of the classroom classes.

Inmate firefighters also need to complete 40 and 50 hours a week equaling 450 hours at the fire academy before applying for certification. Then 𝐈𝐅 and 𝐎𝐍𝐋𝐘 𝐈𝐅 they pass 𝐀𝐋𝐋 of the above requirements inmates spend 5 days per week digging ditches and clearing fire breaks, felling trees and logging them out of dense forests, loading sandbags for future use, restoring historical areas, maintaining parks, clearing dead dry brush and other fire hazards, identifying dangerous injured and frightened animals including venomous snakes, inmates are available year-round for assistance with non-fire, woods-related programs, and environmental projects as well as being loaned out to local private landowners to backburn and remove hazards from acreage (the correctional facility gets paid a large amount, inmates do not receive extra compensation). All these “𝐁𝐄𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄” inmates actually go out to fight fires.

So, if you even remotely think “It’s a way they can repay their debt to society” “become millionaires” or don’t “deserve a job” they’ve been extensively trained in, I hope you never have to depend on these highly skilled inmates to rescue you or your loved ones because you have only to look around and allow yourself to truly see what’s going on in order to understand lives are at risk, including your own and your families. These men and women are not inmates fighting fires, they’re exactly the same as any other 𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐅𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐒.

press

Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez
Human Rights Advocate, Researcher/Chronological Archivist and member in good standing with the Constitution First Amendment Press Association (CFAPA.org)

Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez aka Lady2Soothe

Social Security and the Payroll Tax Cut Deferral Program

Payroll Tax Cut Deferral Program

Trump DOES NOT have the power to unilaterally rewrite the payroll tax law. Under the Constitution, the power belongs to Congress.

However, if Trump manages to pass the “Payroll Tax Cut Deferral Program”, the Social Security portion of payroll taxes (6.2%) won’t be taken out of paychecks. The employee portion of the payroll tax would allegedly be deferred through the end of the year, but that doesn’t mean Trump will reinstate the employer’s portion; and of course, it doesn’t aid unemployed workers.

The “Payroll Tax Cut Deferral Program”, (not Suspension Program), is nothing more than an interest-free loan; EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE TO REPAY the federal government, likely on April 15, 2021. The risk here is, many workers won’t be able to adjust their spending to cover the obligation, thus, accruing penalties, and interest if not paid by the April 15th deadline.

There will be some employers who will continue to withhold the tax from their workers, placing the amount equal to the deferral in escrow , claiming a refund to be passed back to employees after Dec. 31, 2020, in essence providing employers with higher compounded interest rates. Meanwhile, workers won’t see but a few pennies more on their paychecks.

Additionally, if Trump’s reelected, he stated, he’ll “terminate” the payroll tax altogether depleting the $2.9 trillion in assets within four years. This whole “program” poses a mortal threat to the 64 million Americans currently receiving Social Security benefits and the hundreds of millions more who should receive benefits in coming decades.

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that “Social Security is fully funded until 2036.” But lest we forget, Lyndon Johnson was the first president who *borrowed* $2 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for the Vietnam War. Next, Ronald Reagan with the help of Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people with their 1983 Social Security Amendment payroll tax hike which generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, then Reagan raided Social Security of roughly $3 trillion causing even more deficit. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue on general government operations and military buildup. His successor, George H.W. Bush used the surplus money as a giant slush fund ‘borrowing’ $1.37 trillion of Social Security surplus revenue to pay tax cuts for the rich and his war in Iraq, at an estimated cost of $1.7 trillion, again, never repaid. Bill Clinton looted $3 trillion and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during his presidency.

So when Trump say’s “we need to cut Social Security”, what he really means “Past presidents have *borrowed* many trillions from Social Security to pay for wars, corporate subsidies, special interest groups and tax cuts for the rich, therefore we need to cut back your benefits so we don’t have to pay any of it back…

Make no mistake about it, Trump’s intention is to bankrupt Social Security.

AS A SIDE NOTE:

Social Security currently has reserves of $2.9 trillion, while payroll taxes bring in $1 trillion per year. “Illegals” and “Undocumented Workers” bring in $12 BILLION a year in taxes. Whenever employers send in W-2 forms which have Social Security numbers not matching with anyone on record, the agency routes the paperwork to what’s called the Earnings Suspense File, where it sits until people can prove the wages are theirs. There are still 340 million plus unclaimed tax forms recorded in the file, compared to 270 million nearly a decade ago. A good portion of those forms were filed by employers on behalf of some of the most unlikely funders of Social Security “undocumented immigrants”. In fact, illegal immigration is considered largely responsible for the mushrooming of the file, with undocumented workers paying billions in taxes for retirement benefits they will never receive. Can’t argue undocumented immigrants drain the system!

BTW: It’s hard enough getting those benefits if you are a life-long citizen, so immigrants without social security numbers aren’t privy to the welfare some seem to think they get. Illegal immigrants cannot walk into social services and get money, food stamps, and rarely get medical unless it’s an emergency for a child born in the U.S. Immigrants don’t qualify! No paperwork no handouts. I have helped at food banks.., no illegals in line, they live mainly on rice, beans, eggs, tortillas, day in day out, meat is a treat, they’re afraid so they only seek work and if they pay into the tax system they never get a refund, our government keeps their money. They may use S.S. numbers of others or dead people but they can’t collect benefits… Let’s see you try running from the cartel, changing your name, can’t claim your place of birth, lose family, leave everything you know and love behind to give your children a chance at education and life while working jobs no one else will, while living with 3 to 5 families crammed into one squalid shanty.

Blacks and Asians have had their fill of field work, and face it, White people are just too damn lazy to squat down in the blazing sun 12 hours a day 7 days a week picking produce for less than minimum wage. Better thank immigrant field workers the next time you’re at the grocery store thumping watermelons and squeezing tomatoes!

Ironically its people like Trump, his family, and politicians who are the freeloaders, living tax-free as corporate welfare queens. They’re the ones receiving the “entitlements” along with all the multimillionaires in Trump’s cabinet, free Cadillac healthcare for life along with gigantic tax loopholes.

press
 
 
Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez
Human Rights Advocate, Researcher/Chronological Archivist and member in good standing with the Constitution First Amendment Press Association (CFAPA.org)

Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez aka Lady2Soothe

In today’s world, only privileged people say “I don’t support violence of any kind”

It is a technique of distancing because of discomfort. Behind the “violence” of these protests is an entire civil”i”zation’s history of rabid violence against its own people, which continues today. Violence cloaked in consumer habits for low-cost goods made in subhuman conditions worldwide…but out of our sight. Violence in a rape culture popularized from Disney to Universal, Rap to Country, and beyond.

Violence in our work out gear, our yoga clothes (no irony there), in mass factory farms of greens promoting monoculture destruction of diverse ecosystems (yep, you thought I was going to say beef) all for those spirit elevating green juices.

Violence in our factory meat production, in our addiction to technology and the cobalt needed for those batteries taken via violence as Africans are robbed of their land, health, and history.

Violence in the reservations set away from public view where Indigenous culture has had its roots ripped up, raped, burned, stomped on, and set ablaze again.

Violence in religion, yes, religion, where belief after belief has been forcibly thrust down the throat and into the bodies of indigenous people on every continent since religion was created.

So, when I hear people say, I cannot condone violence of any kind, which aspect do they mean?

It must be nice to remove one’s self so far from the reality and history of those around you that you can negate the emotions, the rage, the frank history that propels the so-called violence.

In fact, to stand by and “not condone” is to stand with the oppressor who says repeatedly “if you would just comply there won’t be violence”

No, the time for absolution from violence has come to an end. It is time to be violent, to be rabid and vocal, to stand, link arms, defend, hold strong.

It is time to tear down these violent laws, these violent churches, these violent consumer habits, and claim restitution.

We cannot sit and cower from our anger, we cannot sit and have pleasant intellectual discourse, we did that, and it got us here.

~TwoMoon

press
 
 
Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez
Human Rights Advocate, Researcher/Chronological Archivist and member in good standing with the Constitution First Amendment Press Association (CFAPA.org)

Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez aka Lady2Soothe

2020 YEAR OF TERROR and VENGEANCE

Lost your livelihood during this time of record unemployment? Wrestling with the impossible choice of feeding your family or getting evicted and living on the street? No worries, you can apply to be a contact tracer and earn up to $22 an hour ratting out your family, friends, neighbors, and enemies!

Build your future career rooting out those who think they know someone who caught COVID-19, maybe someone in their small apartment complex was recently infected and shares the laundry room. Well, if the team can’t connect with them over the phone, you can send someone in protective gear to not so politely knock on their door.

Gestapo tactics anyone?

It’s been estimated only 15% of Gestapo cases started because of their surveillance operations. The inefficient Gestapo only numbered 16,000 in a population of approximately 66 million so they depended on family, friends, and neighbors to do their dirty work for them. [1] A far greater number of Gestapo cases began following tip-offs from members of the public by widespread petty and false complaints. Every allegation, no matter how trivial, was investigated with meticulous and time-consuming thoroughness. An estimated 42% of these denunciations were false. Authorities debated changing the system, but ultimately decided to keep it because it was great for keeping everyone in line, it’s estimated approximately 42% of accusations were personally motivated.

A Berlin stoker reported a prostitute who gave him a venereal disease. Husbands and wives informed on each other. A housewife in Mannheim told Gestapo her husband was making derogatory comments about Hitler’s regime. Turns out the wife wanted her husband out of the way to continue a love affair with an off-duty soldier. In another case, two married doctors were involved. The wife accused the husband of carrying out illegal abortions. This led to his arrest and imprisonment. The husband claimed his wife had a vengeful motive. The husband had passed on a sexually transmitted disease to his wife while carrying on a love affair of his own. Their motive, revenge!

[1] Nazi leadership introduced a hostile environment and initiated measures, whether through legislation or violence, to establish an ethnically defined “people’s community.” By being largely compliant, those who were not excluded had helped to create an even more hostile environment, one in which it was possible to carry out terror in broad daylight without significant unrest or intervention on behalf of the persecuted.

Ever since Coronavirus lockdown measures went into effect, police stations have been inundated with calls denouncing neighbors for excessive public outings. The avalanche of complaints about joggers, overly frequent trips to the supermarket, people not wearing masks has increased exponentially.

And now it’s been announced, several companies are partnering with the United States government offering $17-$22 an hour for ordinary citizens to turn in their family, friends, neighbors and enemies to authorities. What motivates these people to inform on their fellow-man? Money? Fear-based insinuations? Perceived threat of virus? Hostility toward those disparaged as “other”? Are these people convinced it’s their civic duty? Maybe resentments or grudges?

Isn’t it enough Apple and Google, announced on April 10, 2020, they expect Digital Contact Tracing (DCT) to be released in May with the “Coronavirus 2019 Enhanced Tracking Technology for iOS and Android”; wireless radio signals warning people someone they have been in contact with ‘may perhaps’ be infected?

[3] Are we to continue remaining passively on the sidelines while government continues to step on our Constitutional [4] [5] Fourth Amendment rights which prohibit “unreasonable searches and seizures” requiring warrants be supported by probable cause determining what is permissible surveillance at the federal and state levels?

In Katz v United States; defined an unreasonable search as; “when the government engages in warrantless surveillance of individuals under circumstances in which they have a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ the use of eavesdropping devices violates privacy.

[3] Arguably, the [4] [5] Fourth Amendment issues could be avoided by making use of the so-called ‘special needs doctrine’; accordingly, a warrantless search would not pass the Katz test to be predicated on a ‘special need’, relating to national security, and whether individuals can be subject to quarantines, forced medical testing, mandatory vaccines and involuntary RIFD microchip implant devices, raising the question of government “seizures” (of the body).

There is a complex point to be made about compliance when ‘special needs’ are not conducted for a traditional law enforcement purpose, and circumstances make securing a warrant impracticable, the Supreme Court has ruled warrantless searches may be permissible. However, the ‘special needs doctrine’, is highly controversial.

In Ferguson v City of Charleston, the Medical University of South Carolina subjected unwitting pregnant women to tests for cocaine use; those who tested positive were then charged with criminal child abuse. Ultimately, the Supreme Court noting the ‘special need doctrine’ cannot serve law enforcement purposes. Because the women were threatened with criminal sanctions based on a non-consensual search, the ‘special need’ could not justify the search.

In the context of ‘Contact Tracing’, application of a ‘special need’ consideration would likely preclude any sort of criminal penalty. Therefore, a person could not face criminal sanctions for a quarantine violation based on information obtained through a non-consensual search i.e. “Enhanced Tracking Technology”.

Now back to applying to be a ‘Contact Tracer’ earning up to $22 an hour ratting out your family, friends, neighbors, and enemies, snitching on rule-breakers, wantonly lying about marginalized people, narcing on annoying neighbors, getting even with an ex. When do we stop tattling on one another?

So, think about it, how willing are you to trade in your own privacy and the privacy of others for profit?

And lest we forget [2] [6] Eva-Maria Buch studying foreign languages at Humboldt University; she was accused of passing secrets to the Soviet Union. On October 10th, 1942, Eva was arrested by a Gestapo officer who said she’d be treated more leniently if she named other collaborators within the group, she replied: ‘That would make me as low as you want me to appear.’… Eva Buch was guillotined at Plötzensee Prison, Berlin August 5, 1943. She was 22 years old.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Remember Evangelical Christians; Matthew 7:2: “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”… Because you might be the next one who finds the Gestapo kicking down your door!
 
 
 
   
[1] Careless whispers: how the German public used and abused the Gestapo
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/careless-whispers-how-the-german-public-used-and-abused-the-gestapo-1.2369837
[2] Jewish Germans Had Their Lives Destroyed by Nazis During Kristallnacht. Their Neighbors Let It Happen
https://time.com/5449578/kristallnacht-lessons-bystanders/
[3] Would COVID-19 digital contact tracing programs violate the Fourth Amendment?
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/10007-would-covid-19-digital-contact-tracing-programs
[4] “Seizure of a Person” ~ 4th AMENDMENT
https://letourvoicesecho.wordpress.com/seizure-of-a-person-fourth-amendment/
[5] Know Your 4th Amendment Rights
https://letourvoicesecho.wordpress.com/know-your-4th-amendment-rights/
[6] Eva-Maria Buch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva-Maria_Buch

press
 
 
Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez
Human Rights Advocate, Researcher/Chronological Archivist and member in good standing with the Constitution First Amendment Press Association (CFAPA.org)

Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez aka Lady2Soothe

Surgical Masks ~ CDC, OSHA, New England Journal of Medicine, Surgeon General etc.

People conceive face masks in terms of physical tools to mitigate risk, yet masks are nothing more than symbolic gestures producing a false sense of security. Psychologically, masks provide protection to a person’s perception of future-oriented risk reinforcing fears, increasing anxiety, and instilling potential loss of something valuable in anticipation of a threatening future, just perceived in the present.

The human smile has profound significance for human relations, and there is a significant distinction between wearing a mask and wearing a facial covering. Historically, masks have been associated with playing a role, like in the theatre. In fact, the Latin word persona comes from the Greek word prosepon, which means mask. Wearing a mask is like portraying someone else. Using the term “facial covering,” instead of “mask” it becomes clear the effect is to blot out the human face and the inability to connect through a smile.

Masks are being used to stoke fear and cultivate compliance. However, on a basic and fundamental level, facial coverings are stripping us of our humanity and blotting out the face of God from our sight.

The elites have been caught showing what they really believe. Facial coverings are required for the unquestioning masses, but not for the governing elite.

In the 1919 influenza pandemic, masks were available and dispensed to populations, but they had no impact on the epidemic curve. At the time, it was unknown the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can penetrate the surgical mask barrier. As recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared, “in the community setting, face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.”

Dr. Eli Perencevich, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa’s College of Medicine “The average healthy person does not need to have a mask, and they shouldn’t be wearing masks, masks won’t help people avoid the virus and they may actually increase the risk of getting it. People wear them incorrectly increasing the risk of infection because they’re touching their face more often.”

Homemade masks were created as a fashionable way to keep the wearer from breathing in large particles, like car exhaust, air pollution, and pollen during allergy season. They were not conceived of as a way to protect you from acquiring COVID-19.

I’ve been saying for months, every time I put on one of these masks I get severe headaches lasting hours upon hours as a result of hypo-ventilation i.e. not being able to breathe properly to get oxygen into my lungs.

When we take a breath, we pull air into our lungs which primarily contains nitrogen and oxygen. When we exhale, we breathe out carbon dioxide. … Just like oxygen, carbon dioxide is transferred to blood to be carried to the lungs, where it is removed when we exhale. Statics prove; moderate to high levels of carbon dioxide cause headaches and fatigue, higher concentrations produce nausea, dizziness, vomiting, and loss of consciousness often occurs because excess carbon dioxide uses up space in the air instead of oxygen, creating an environment for asphyxiation. A high concentration of carbon dioxide in a confined space is toxic.

I’ve seen people walking/jogging down the street where there is absolutely no one within a quarter-mile in any direction. It’s dangerous to wear a mask when there is absolutely no possibility of infecting someone or being infected by someone. I’ve even seen people wearing masks in their cars; masks habitually slip over eyes, not to mention passing out from inhaling carbon dioxide, either can cause accidents. People, if you’re forced by the government, please use good common sense when wearing one.

AND to those who haphazardly throw the alleged potentially hazardous medical waste (masks, gloves, hand-wipes, etc.) on the ground; litter ends up in storm drains and bodies of water where wildlife mistake these items for food, and lest we forget the people tasked with picking up your precarious discards. Where is your respect for others and the environment? Public shaming and a minimum $1,000 for a first-time offense, double the fine and jail time for additional offenses!!!

Face masks don’t filter out the particle size of the coronavirus. Any viruses aerosolized in a sneeze or cough will get through the mask. Viruses are about 20400 nm (nanometer) in size (0.00080314961”) and considered organic structures which interact with living organisms. Rather than a living organism, bacteria are larger, about 1000 nm in size (3.937e-5”). They are visible under light microscope. Whereas viruses are infectious particles about 100 times smaller than bacteria and can only be observed by electron microscopy.

A virus is a small infectious agent replicating only inside the living cells of other organisms and only active when inside a host because viruses can’t undergo any chemical reactions of their own outside a host cell, they do not need energy because the host cells take over the needed energy to reproduce the viruses.

It is believed the N95 mask ‘may’ effectively prevent viral spread. These masks, when properly fitted, seal closely to the face and filter out 95% of particles 0.3 microns or larger, however, they’re also difficult to fit correctly. For those reasons, the CDC does not recommend them for general use. [4]

“Even a properly fitted N95 respirator does not completely eliminate the risk of illness or death. The respirator is intended to prevent specific diseases or infections. The respirator is labeled or otherwise represented as filtering surgical smoke or plumes, filtering specific amounts of viruses or bacteria, reducing the amount of and/or killing viruses, bacteria, or fungi, or affecting allergenicity and contains coating technologies unrelated to filtration (e.g., to reduce and or kill microorganisms).” As stated above an organism can be seen only through a microscope. Microorganisms include bacteria, protozoans, and fungi and “can only be observed by electron microscopy”.

CDC

also does not recommend surgical masks. Surgical masks are not regulated, anyone can sell anything and call it a surgical mask. [4] “While a surgical mask may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets, a face mask, by design, does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes, or certain medical procedures. Surgical masks also do not provide complete protection from germs and other contaminants because of the loose fit between the surface of the face mask and face.” These masks don’t seal against the face, even though they include non-woven polypropylene moisture resistant layers, approximately 70% of the outside air moves through the mask and about 30% travels around the sides… 30% plus 70% = 100% ineffective.

Fabric masks (handkerchief/bandanna), lacking non-woven moisture-repelling layers are too porous to trap any germs allowing air in and around the sides, . They impede only about 2% of airflow. Wearing basic fabric masks over a warm, wet mouth breeds infection rather than deters it.

By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain. [3]

The World Health Organization (WHO)

[1] discourages mask use: “The wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks. There is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

There’s been enough research done to be able to confidently say masks wouldn’t be able to stop the spread of infection and they only have a small effect on transmission. We shouldn’t be relying on masks to help us go back to normal. All of this leakage in surgical and fabric masks are why public health officials don’t believe wearing a mask prevents anyone from catching a virus already floating around in the environment because airflow follows the path of least resistance.

Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams

urges the public to stop buying face masks “”They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, face masks actually increase your risk of infection if they aren’t worn properly.”

Dr. William Schaffner, a preventive medicine professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine,

“the rush to buy masks is a “psychological thing.” Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “There is no role for these masks in the community.”

New England Journal of Medicine

[6]“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”

[6] “It is clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19.”

OSHA

[7]Cloth:
“Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”

Surgical masks:
“Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”

Respirators:
“Require proper training, fit testing, availability of appropriate medical evaluations and monitoring, cleaning, and oversight by a knowledgeable staff member.”

*For those trying to find fault in this source, keep in mind the word “intended.” The masks are “intended” to work, but they don’t. They cannot use they “will” because it’s a lie. Wording is very important. Pay attention and you won’t have to attack everything so quickly. It will save you and I a lot of time.

The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 was much deadlier than the coronavirus pandemic, 50 million people died. Experts reviewing evidence from 1918 concluded flu masks failed to control infection. In 1919, Wilfred Kellogg’s [2] study for the California State Board of Health concluded that mask ordinances “applied forcibly to entire communities” did not decrease cases and deaths, as confirmed by comparisons of cities with widely divergent policies on masking.”

The Woodstock music festival took place in August 1969. The “Hong Kong flu” (H3N2) influenza pandemic lasted between the winter of 1968 and the early months of 1970 and within the 18 months killed an estimated 100,000 people in the U.S. and 1 million worldwide, yet daily life, more or less, proceeded as if it were business as usual. There were no statewide lockdowns or mandatory mask requirements, and large public events, such as the Woodstock music festival, took place as scheduled.

Masks do have one effect: People tend to stay away from those wearing them because “masks and social distancing are the new herd immunity” … By their reasoning: if I’m not wearing a mask, theirs won’t work. … Great scare tactic to continue keeping people socially segregated.

And BTW, the Coronavirus didn’t create a $1.5 trillion student debt crisis, it didn’t make the minimum wage a starvation wage, and it didn’t leave 40% of Americans unable to afford a minor emergency. Trickle-down economics did.

Oh, and FYI, [5] The CDC NOW SAYS CORONAVIRUS ‘DOES NOT SPREAD EASILY’ ON SURFACES. Its guidelines now include a section on ways the virus doesn’t easily spread, including from touching surfaces or objects. Other ways the virus doesn’t easily spread are from animals to people or people to animals. Stephen Hahn, commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration said “there was no evidence to suggest the virus can spread through food or what it’s wrapped in, and that there was no need to wipe down groceries.”

THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CDC) RECOMMEND ALCOHOL AT A CONCENTRATION OF 70% FOR USE AS A DISINFECTANT AND ANTIMICROBIAL

Alcohol at this dilution efficiently penetrates the bacterial cell wall, disrupts the molecular confirmation, then destroys (denatures) the proteins and enzymes inside of the cell.

70% undiluted Isopropyl alcohol/rubbing alcohol will kill coronavirus on surfaces in about 30 seconds. Why 70% and not higher? 70% Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) a better disinfectant than 91% or 99%. 70% is the most effective concentration of isopropyl alcohol for disinfection. Solutions between 60% and 90% alcohol with 10 – 40% purified water, is rapidly antimicrobial against bacteria, fungi, and viruses. Once alcohol concentrations drop below 50%, usefulness for disinfection drops sharply. Notably, higher concentrations of alcohol don’t generate more desirable bactericidal, viricidal, or fungicidal properties.

The presence of (distilled) water is a crucial factor in destroying or inhibiting the growth of pathogenic microorganisms with isopropyl alcohol. Water acts as a catalyst and plays a key role in denaturing the proteins of vegetative cell membranes. 70% IPA solutions penetrate the cell wall more completely which permeates the entire cell, coagulates all proteins, and therefore the microorganism dies. Extra water content slows evaporation, therefore increasing surface contact time and enhancing effectiveness.

Solutions of 91% IPA may kill some bacteria, but require longer contact times for disinfection, and enable spores to lie in a dormant state without being killed. A 50% isopropyl alcohol solution kills Staphylococcus Aureus in less than 10 seconds, yet a 90% solution with a contact time of over two hours is ineffective. Some disinfectants will kill spores with exposures times exceeding 3-12 hours, these are classified as a chemical sterilant.

STERILIZE vs DISINFECT vs SANITIZE
People use the terms sterilize, sanitize, and disinfect interchangeably, however, there’s a legal difference.

STERILIZATION is the process by which all microorganisms are directly killed or are inactivated.
1. The optimal way to sterilize is with an autoclave which is a strong heated container used for chemical reactions and other processes using high pressures and temperatures, e.g. steam sterilization. You’ll find autoclaves in medical facilities and tattoo salons although you can purchase them for home use for around $175.
2. Boiling, by placing glass jars, bottles, and fitting screw-top lids in a large pot filled with cool water, make sure, the bottles and jars are completely submerged and there is no air trapped inside. Bring water to a rolling boil and continue to boil for a FULL 10 minutes. Turn off the heat and leave the bottles and jars submerged in hot water, until you’re ready to fill them.

DISINFECTANTS are products that destroy all organisms in 10 minutes. Disinfecting requires a strong solution to destroy germs rather than simply reduce organisms. Disinfecting a surface will “kill” the microscopic organisms. When you disinfect, the viruses and fungi present on the surface might not be eliminated. According to the EPA’s guidelines, a disinfectant should reduce the level of pathogenic bacteria by 99.999% during a time frame of greater than 5 minutes but less than 10 minutes.

SANITIZERS are agents which destroy 99.999% of bacteria in 30 seconds. It is a chemical process lessening, even killing germs on surfaces to make them safe for contact. Sanitization is the process by which the numbers of microorganisms are substantially reduced so they are no longer harmful; 99.99% of microbes need to be removed from surfaces. With a sanitizer, you can only reduce the number of microbes to a safe level. Sanitizing is meant to reduce, NOT kill, the occurrence and growth of bacteria, viruses, and fungi.

The disinfecting and sanitizing processes can both reduce the microbes to a 99.99 percent level. However, disinfecting is regarded as the superior cleaning process since it can also kill the spores of the microbes.

1. When you disinfect, you use a chemical completely destroying all microbes. The chemical is called a disinfectant.
2. When you sanitize, you use a chemical sanitizer. With a sanitizer, you can only reduce the number of microbes to a safe level.

BLEACH VS. AMMONIA
Both bleach and ammonia products are effective in sanitizing and disinfecting and are inexpensive to boot. Bleach is typically used to disinfect and sanitize fabrics as well as ceramics and dishes, while ammonia effectively cleans hard surfaces such as glass and tile. Remember to never mix bleach and ammonia. The combination releases toxic fumes.

REVIEW OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE
Key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature establishing that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:
https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy?fbclid=IwAR2C5uGfUS5yapm7zdWts5O2tN3yZlLPeXxdEuWr-U-3AnizJFT4lvuHrvU

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002 N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and- infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x “There were 17 eligible studies. None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 “We identified six clinical studies. In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214 “Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381 “A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

THERE ARE NUMEROUS VALID REASONS TO NOT WEAR A MASK IN ADDITION TO THE STATISTIC ABOVE

ADHD
Agoraphobia
Apnea
Anxiety
Asthma
Chronic Sinus Issues
Claustrophobia
Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS)
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)
Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Depression /other mental health
Deviated Septum
Down Syndrome
Dysautonomia
Emphysema
Epilepsy
Hyperemesis Gravidarum (HG)
Hyperhidrosis
Hypoxia
Lung Cancer
Lung Disease and other assorted issues
Multiple Sclerosis
Panic Attack / Panic Disorders
Pleurisy
Post-Partum Anxiety (PPA)
Post-Partum Depression (PPD)
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Pulmonary Embolism
Raynaud’s Syndrome
Reflex Neurovascular Disorder/disease
Sensory Processing Disorder
Vertigo

So, the next time you see someone out and about not wearing a mask, please do not HARASS or BULLY them. You do NOT know their situation or their personal physical or mental health struggles.

After reading all the confirmed data above, and if you want to wear a mask, fine, but please do not become a mask bully and make an already difficult situation even worse for those around you with your nasty looks or your rude remarks.

MANDATE VS LAW

A law is passed by the general assembly and signed by the governor. An order and mandate are interchangeable and are made by the executive branch like a governor or DOH secretary with the power given to them by the legislature. It’s not the governor or secretary acting unilaterally,” said Mallinson. “They’ve already been given the authority by a law that’s been passed by the legislature.

The power to issue a mask mandate comes from the power given to her by the legislature under the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955. Section 5 of that law discusses control measures and says, Upon the receipt by a local board or department of health or by the department, as the case may be, of a report of a disease which is subject to isolation, quarantine, or any other control measure, the local board or department of health or the department shall carry out the appropriate control measures in such manner and in such place as is provided by rule or regulation. Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1955/0/0500..PDF

The State Department of Health cites PA Code gives authority to take necessary disease control measures to protect the public from spread of an infectious disease. PA Code § 27.60 The Department or local health authority shall direct isolation of a person or an animal with a communicable disease or infection; surveillance, segregation, quarantine or modified quarantine of contacts of a person or an animal with a communicable disease or infection; and any other disease control measure the Department or the local health authority considers to be appropriate for the surveillance of disease, when the disease control measure is necessary to protect the public from the spread of infectious agents. (b) The Department and local health authority will determine the appropriate disease control measure based upon the disease or infection, the patient’s circumstances, the type of facility available and any other available information relating to the patient and the disease or infection. (c) If a local health authority is not an LMRO, it shall consult with and receive approval from the Department prior to taking any disease control measure.

Businesses are required to force customers to wear masks regardless of the data proving masks are ineffective and hazardous to people’s health, and I’ll continue educating those who so willingly relinquish their rights to government because it’s less restrictive than closing their doors for good. Yes, I’ll wear a mask AS I CONTINUE TO LOUDLY PROTEST THEIR EFFECTIVENESS.

HAND SANITIZER WARNING

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning the public to stop using the following hand sanitizer products as they tested positive to contain 81% (v/v) methanol and NO ethyl alcohol. Those who have been exposed to hand sanitizer containing methanol should call 911 and seek immediate care. Substantial methanol exposure can result in nausea, vomiting, headache, blurred vision, permanent blindness, seizures, coma, permanent damage to the nervous system or death. Children accidently ingesting these products and adolescents and adults who drink these products as an alcohol (ethanol) substitute, are most at risk for methanol poisoning. If you have any of these products, the FDA says to dispose of them immediately in appropriate hazardous waste containers. DO NOT flush or pour them down the drain.

1. All-Clean Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-002-01)
2. Esk Biochem Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-007-01)
3. CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 75% Alcohol (NDC: 74589-008-04)
4. Lavar 70 Gel Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-006-01)
5. The Good Gel Antibacterial Gel Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-010-10)
6. CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol (NDC: 74589-005-03)
7. CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 75% Alcohol (NDC: 74589-009-01)
8. CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol (NDC: 74589-003-01)
9. Saniderm Advanced Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-001-01)

press

Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez
Human Rights Advocate, Researcher/Chronological Archivist and member in good standing with the Constitution First Amendment Press Association (CFAPA.org)

Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez aka Lady2Soothe

CITATIONS:
[1] Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of Covid-19
file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.3-eng.pdf
[2] Influenza, a study of measures adopted for the control of the epidemic,
by Wilfred H. Kellogg.
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011933637
[3] Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy
https://www.citizensforfreespeech.org/blaylock_face_masks_pose_serious_risks_to_the_healthy?utm_campaign=blaylock_report&utm_medium=email&utm_source=cffs&fbclid=IwAR2hf_H7F2yqfnAUAkCWL8l79Z_ahjDmYFQm0C9OL0EliVYOWSeAn8wJsW0
[4] FDA
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-and-surgical-masks-face-masks
[5] CDC NOW SAYS CORONAVIRUS ‘DOES NOT SPREAD EASILY’ ON SURFACES
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html
[6] New England Journal of Medicine
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?query=recirc_mostViewed_railB_article

[7] OSHA:
https://www.ecf-fl.org/resources/2020%20OSHA%20COVID-19%20Face%20Mask%20PPE%20Update%20as%20of%206-10.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2r1NDBTfZ8vS7RNiSRLEvq_xK9iVngm3U2RBDPpQ-Vh_6K-Ow5AC7V6nM

Covid-19 – Navigating the Uncharted
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?articleTools=true