This article is over three years old, but its message is, unfortunately, timeless.

Over the past couple of years, you may have been familiar with a situation like this. Without a face mask, you walked into a store, hospitality venue or healthcare setting. An assistant, doorman or receptionist told you that you may not enter without a face covering, that you must wear one. In effect, ‘no mask, no service’. How did you react? What did you say? How did you feel?

If you were like me, when this happened it felt awkward and difficult. It felt confrontational to refuse to wear a mask but it felt an affront to your personal liberty – and intelligence – to accept that someone could bar you from accessing a shop, pub or surgery simply because you didn’t believe that a piece of ill-fitting, highly permeable and uncomfortable cloth worn over your mouth and nose could protect you from a virus. Either way it didn’t feel ‘good’.

And what did you do? Did you acquiesce to their demand? Did you ‘go along to get along’ and accept that you’d need to wear a mask? Or did you, like me, get strident and angry and remonstrate with the gatekeeper, using a mixture of emotion and indignation to pushback upon their insistence that you comply with what you knew to be irrational impositions?

Or maybe you were smarter than I and learned quickly that your own outcomes lay in your own hands; that if you took the time to educate yourself about the true mask ‘laws’ and trained yourself to be assertive, you could say ‘no’ and still go inside.

Find out the facts

In the journey towards confidence, whatever follows, the first thing one needs to do is become informed. If you are to establish a necessary bedrock upon which to build assertiveness, making the time to read up on mask matters is a priority. Understand the research that has been done on mask effectiveness; look at the data; think about what it all means. There are many excellent sources, on Substack for example; and there are some well-written books that cover this topic, either as part of a wider critique of coronavirus coercion or as their sole focus. The data keeps growing, as do the sources, so keep reading.

In addition to having a grasp of the facts – and those are the real facts, as in those which have been proven by scientific methods, using hard evidential data – it is important that there is a knowledge of the law; the real law. As well as using magical enchantments as the basis of their ‘scientific’ approach (“I wear my mask to protect you”), mask mavens have pointed to a higgledy-piggledy miscellany of laws, rules, requirements and mandates to back up their demands for face covering compliance.  The truth is, when it comes to wearing a mask, a lot of these claims are based on nothing enshrined in law: they are usually recommendations and requests, all grouped together as ‘guidance’.

Train yourself to be assertive

Assertiveness is a social skill that involves being direct, open and honest with people while still demonstrating respect for their feelings, wants, and needs. In a nutshell it is being able to say what I want without acting at your expense. Being assertive sits right in the middle of being passive and being aggressive.

There are 5 main elements of assertiveness:

• The ability to say ‘no’ to people or refuse their demands;
• The ability to openly ask for what you want and need from others;
• Being able to talk honestly about your feelings – both positive and negative – with others;
• Knowing how to start a conversation, maintain it and end it;
• Being a good listener and knowing how to empathise with your interlocutor.

Some people – in my experience, only a lucky few – are naturally self-confident and assertive, seemingly possessed of the whole package of traits and familiar with the behaviours that are required if one is to calmly and firmly push back against the mask zealots. It’s easy to meet these people and feel they have some natural advantages that you do not, and never will, have. 

But, as with most things, being assertive, having a positive personal impact when dealing with others (also known as having ‘gravitas’), is something that can be learned by anyone. And once acquired, these skills may be honed through use and practice as they become second nature.

Six tricks of the trade

To develop your assertiveness, here are some areas that you can work on. This is not a comprehensive list, but it is full enough to ensure that, overall, you will feel more confident about saying ‘no’ to the mask enforcers. Some techniques are concerned with how you appear to other people; whilst others are about managing your inner thoughts and preparing for the moment when assertiveness will be required. We’ll start with the outward-facing ones, of which there are three.

1. Train your voice

As this short video of Margaret Thatcher shows, it is eminently possible to develop one’s voice. In Thatcher’s case, this was done, with the help of a voice coach, so that she would sound more authoritative, more ‘statesman’-like. But, with diligent practice, any of us can make these sort of changes, on our own. The goal should be to speak slower, in a lower register and with greater timbre, and with a positive tone that sounds as if you have a smile on your face.

2. Lift your stature

Type ‘tall people are more successful’ into your Internet search engine and you will see a long list of articles that will tell you that if you are tall, say over 6 feet 4 inches, then you will be considered smarter, you’ll be more successful at work and probably richer, too. Is this truth or fallacy? For our purposes of increasing assertiveness, it doesn’t matter: no matter your actual height, the goal is create the impression of being ‘larger than life’ and to give you the feeling of elevated levels of confidence. You can’t add physical inches, but you can act like you have. Think about your stance, the way you hold yourself and how you move. Do you appear apologetic and mousey? Or do you walk with purpose; as Shakespeare, who is credited with inventing the word, said, do you have ‘swagger’?

3. Manage your body language

Our overall goal is to gain entry to a place without wearing a mask. It is not to ‘win’ the mask argument, change our interlocutor’s mind, or even influence it, and it is definitely not to dominate and bludgeon the gatekeeper into submission.

As such, physical behaviours are quite possibly the most important and the most difficult to master. How others see us is difficult to gauge: after all, as humans we practice mirror imaging whereby, based on how we would like to be seen and how we hope to come across, we imagine how we appear to someone else if they were us. How they really see us is something we cannot explicitly control, but only influence: all we can do is present our best self, the version that is sincere and assertive.

How we make (and break) eye contact; the set of our face and the expressions we adopt whilst speaking and listening; our posture; our gestures; the distance between us that we maintain … all of these things matter.

In brief, don’t crowd, don’t lean over or in, don’t wave your arms around and don’t cross them, don’t stare as if conducting an interrogation, and do maintain an affable, open countenance.

And here are the other techniques, aimed at helping you manage and marshal your ‘say no to the mask’ mindset.

1. Stay calm

No matter how angry this subject makes you feel, you mustn’t let frustration take you over. When you show emotion, maybe through the use of intemperate language or with a raised voice, you commit the cardinal sin of giving your interlocutor a reason to deny you entry. So don’t let your feelings put you at a disadvantage: your aim is to be at ease, using a firm, relaxed voice at an appropriate volume. And the best way to achieve this state is by taking control of your own stress and dissipating anxious feelings.

So, prior to leaving home, perform some simple breathing exercises, such as these. When approaching the venue settle yourself by repeating a short sequence of deep breaths, imagining stress leaving your body as you exhale. Over the longer term, consider taking a mindfulness course – I recommend those run by this organisation – and learn to meditate.

2. KISS

In his excellent book, ‘Face Masks In One Lesson’, Allan Stevo shares the one, nine word sentence that you need to remember:

“I am unable to wear a face mask safely.”

When dealing with someone who has power over you, ‘keep it simple’ is the golden rule 99% of the time. Use short sentences, and only a very few of these. Use ‘I-statements’ -like Stevo’s – that express your own reality, your own feelings, wants, needs or opinions and, unlike statements that begin with ‘you’, are less confrontational. Don’t frame the topic, create a preamble, present facts, debate or feel the need to justify your position in any way; simply focus on your sole objective, which is to gain entry to the shop, restaurant or hospital without having to wear a mask, and speak accordingly.

3. Practice makes perfect (or ‘better’, at least)

For most people, this is not a one-time fix: one doesn’t become assertive without effort and it doesn’t happen overnight. When the mask ‘mandates’ were introduced I struggled to learn how to say ‘no’, simply, clearly and with brevity. So, it is important to practice this new approach, in the familiarity and security of one’s own home. Like trying on a new pair of denim jeans, it will be necessary to walk around, stretching and getting comfortable in this new ‘skin’. Try it out with a sympathetic friend or family member. Think about what your ‘I-statement’ will be (perhaps Allan Stevo’s will be yours, or maybe you’ll want to find your own version). And spend time having positive, affirming thoughts, for example “I will not be denied entry”, “I will remain calm, but I will stand up for myself” and “No matter the hostility I might experience, I will express myself openly and directly”.

Stand your ground

In an ideal world, you could set a boundary, say “no,” stand up for yourself, or address an issue just one time and not have to do it again. With the mask mandates – as with the rest of the Covid coercions – the reality has been different. To access every venue, every shop and every healthcare setting, every time, we have needed to assert our rights not to wear a face covering. 

Along with the techniques outlined above, you need to become persistent and relentless; in effect, a broken record, repeating the small number of short sentences. And never raising your voice, never getting into a shouting match and never being rude to the person who stands between you and maskless entry. 

In short, if at first you don’t get what you want and ask for, don’t give up. Keep practicing and preparing; keep calm and respectful; keep determined – and keep smiling.

July 2022

Paul Stevens is a business coach and gravitas trainer and part of the Smile Free campaign.

The post Grow in confidence and lose the mask appeared first on Smile Free.

A powerful new documentary, Masking Humanity: The Human Toll of Mask Policies in Care Homes and Hospitals, confronts one of the most controversial legacies of the Covid-19 response: the imposition of face coverings in settings where the stakes were most human – and most tragic.

Far from a simple act of public health, the film argues that masking became a politicised mandate, driven not by scientific evidence, but by pressure and conformity. Drawing on first hand testimony, investigative reporting, and insights from medical professionals and frontline workers, Masking Humanity reveals how mask mandates disproportionately harmed society’s most vulnerable: residents of care homes, dementia patients, and those reliant on face-to-face human connection for comfort, communication, and dignity.

“Removing facial expression for somebody with dementia… is the epitome of cruelty,” says Valerie, a care specialist featured in the film.

The documentary features a revealing clip from BBC Newsnight’s then Science Correspondent Deb Cohen, exposing how “political lobbying” was responsible for getting the World Health Organization – which had not recommended masking – to turn 180 degrees and suddenly recommend it, overriding their own well-established body of evidence.

Dr Gary Sidley, of campaigners Smile Free who produced the film, says: “The mass masking of people across a range of community settings resulted in multiple harms and widespread misery, particularly for vulnerable people in our hospitals and care homes. Although most sections of society have now ditched the face coverings, pockets of pro-mask mania remain within our health and social care sector, constituting an ongoing threat of a future re-run of this pernicious restriction. Hopefully, the cruelty and desolation that masks inflicted on frail elderly people – as powerfully captured in our ‘Masking Humanity’ film – will empower more staff and managers working in these services to speak out against them.”

With a proper reckoning for the Covid years still sorely needed, Masking Humanity challenges viewers – and policymakers – to reckon with the cost of silence, the failure of courage, and the risk of repeating the past.

Masking Humanity has just premiered on YouTube and can be watched free of charge, in full, below:

The post On 5 Year Anniversary Of Mask Mandates, New Documentary “Masking Humanity” Exposes the Hidden Human Cost of Mask Policies in Health and Care Settings appeared first on Smile Free.

In May 2020, within a matter of days of each other, at the height of the initial panic surrounding the COVID-19 ‘emergency’, two people, one American and one Canadian, lost their lives due to actions committed by individuals in state-funded positions of authority. These deaths, their manner and the role of certain individuals in them, were strikingly alike. However, one victim would become a point of protest for millions worldwide, leading to societal upheaval on a massive scale; the other would go unnoticed and unmarked, her death the direct result of the febrile atmosphere and enforcement of unevidenced, irrational and petty COVID mask rules.

25^th May, 2023 marked the three-year anniversary of the death of a man called George Floyd. Detained by police for allegedly attempting to make a purchase in a convenience store in Minneapolis, USA, using a counterfeit $20 bill, Floyd’s death was determined, by two autopsies, to be a homicide caused by restraint and neck compression. (The autopsies, one carried out by an official working for local government and the second by doctors working for Floyd’s family, differed over whether there were contributing factors. The ‘official’ one said there were, i.e. Fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use, and the family one said there wasn’t.)

27^th May, 2023 marked the three-year anniversary of the death of a woman called Danielle Stephanie Warriner. Although there are no Wikipedia pages dedicated to Warriner’s demise, the coroner’s report records that her death was the result of brain injuries, consistent with ‘restraint asphyxia following struggle and exertion’, received over two weeks earlier whilst a patient at Toronto General Hospital (TGH), Ontario, Canada. Known by her middle name, Stephanie’s alleged crime was failing to wear a COVID face mask properly. I recommend pausing to take that in.

A part-time nightclub bouncer, George Floyd, 48, stood at 6 feet 4 inches and weighed over 220 pounds. Called by the store clerk, four policemen responded, three officers being involved in handcuffing and restraining Floyd, while the fourth prevented onlookers from intervening. Forcibly removed from his car, Floyd was held face down in the street.

As a still photo from the hospital’s CCTV footage shows, Stephanie Warriner, 43, was a slight figure standing 5 feet 5 inches tall and weighing 120 pounds. Having experienced long-term mental illness, including Bipolar Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), mother-of-five Warriner had been admitted to TGH on 10^th May due to what the civil suit filed by her family describes as a ‘productive cough’. A COVID-19 test had been negative. Having gone in search of a sandwich, in the early hours of 11^th May Warriner was confronted aggressively by five TGH personnel, four of whom were security guards, about her improper usage of a face mask.

Whilst being held down by one of the arresting officer’s knees being pressed into his neck, George Floyd was heard to plead that he could not breathe. In total, he was kept in this position for nine and a half minutes, being motionless and without a pulse for the final two minutes. Video footage of the moments of Floyd’s presence in the convenience store, leading up to his arrest and restraint – and incorporating police bodycam recordings – was shown at the officer’s trial. This appears to be the fullest footage of the incident, although there is another clip which includes footage of the officer kneeling on Floyd.

A few minutes into the arrest, officers called for an ambulance on a non-emergency basis, soon after escalating the call to emergency status: they failed to provide medical assistance while he lay on the ground.  The medical examiner found that Floyd’s heart had stopped while he was being restrained; in other words, he died at the scene.

As recorded in the family civil suit document, after being ‘berated’ and ‘demeaned’ by TGH security guards for wearing a COVID face mask too low, Stephanie Warriner was ‘forced towards the wall’, ‘thrown to the ground’ and restrained in the prone position, with weight applied to her back. During this time Warriner was ‘forced into handcuffs’. Once the guards removed their weight from her back, Stephanie was seen to be ‘limp and lifeless’: they did not attempt resucitation, and nor did they call for help. Instead, as this still image from the CCTV feed shows, they placed Warriner in a wheelchair and removed her from the view of security cameras and eyewitnesses.

About ten minutes later the guards, moving her body into an elevator bay, attempted to resuscitate Warriner but, as the coroner’s report noted, because of the ‘downtime’ that had elapsed between the damage being incurred and measures being taken, Stephanie developed a brain injury from which she never recovered.

The majority of the incident was captured on CCTV and may be viewed below – if you can stomach it. (You will notice that during recording, the CCTV camera appears to be moved. More about this later.) As a result of the restraint, Warriner went into cardiac arrest, but did not die immediately. In fact, she lived for another sixteen days, being first intubated and placed in intensive care and then transferred to Toronto Western Hospital on 15^th May. Following the incident, no attempt was made to contact Stephanie’s family until 22^nd May, a full eleven days later.

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, things moved fast. The day after, all four officers involved were placed briefly on administrative leave before being fired. Within three days, the Federal Department of Justice and the FBI announced jointly that they were conducting a ‘robust criminal investigation’ into Floyd’s death as a ‘top priority’. Within a week, two autopsies had been published. By 3^rd June, less than two weeks after the incident, one officer had been made the subject of an upgraded charge of second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter and the other three had been charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. After being charged, all four were held in jail for periods ranging between a few days and four months.

And what of Stephanie Warriner? What transpired after her fatal encounter with the TGH security guards? The simple answer is ‘not much’. To begin, in July 2020, two of the guards were dismissed from University Health Network, the teaching and research hospital network of which TGH is a part, and two were the subject of ‘internal disciplinary action’ (although what that action consisted of was not made clear). According to a media report, at this time Toronto police said investigators were ‘awaiting the results of a full autopsy and that the case was in its early stages.’ Five months later Warriner’s sister, Denise, was still awaiting information from the police. Then, finally, fully six months after the fact, in early December 2020, two guards were each charged with two counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of manslaughter.

Meanwhile, in the George Floyd case the wheels of justice turned comparatively swiftly. By April 2021, the officer who had directly contributed to Floyd’s death through the placement of a knee on his neck was found guilty in his Minnesota state criminal trial. He was sentenced to a custodial sentence of 22.5 years. Of the other three officers’ state criminal trials, two pled guilty and received custodial sentences of three years and 42 months respectively; and one, having waived his right to a jury trial, is awaiting the judge’s decision. Additionally, all four policemen were the subjects of Federal civil rights proceedings for abusing their positions as officers, depriving Floyd of his constitutional rights, and failing to give medical aid. By July 2022, all had either pled, or been found, guilty and received custodial sentences ranging from 2.5 years to 21 years, all of which run concurrently with their state sentences.

By contrast, Stephanie’s assailants have been treated with considerably greater leniency. In November, 2022, two and a half years after her death, an Ontario judge quashed the case against the two guards, due to finally come before a jury in May of this year, saying that there was “a lack of admissible evidence to support the findings necessary for making a placement order on both counts”. Subsequently, the Federal government declined to pursue further criminal action. This despite the coroner’s report and other evidence, such as the CCTV video and court documents submitted by the Crown for an earlier preliminary hearing which contain evidence that one of the guards lied in his deposition, having initially claimed that Stephanie had, “delivered several overhand and underhand punches to [Guard A’s] face and was kicking her feet.”, but then, ‘Later on, [Guard B] began sobbing and admitted he had not been truthful in the report, saying “I’m sorry. I would have never said the things I said in there if I knew there was a video.”’

Speaking of the CCTV video, over two minutes of the recording of what went on during the assault on Warriner has never been – and never will be – seen. During her interrogation and debasement the camera was intentionally moved to point elsewhere. The guard monitoring the CCTV from the security office claimed that he ‘suffers from anxiety’ and moved the camera because he was ‘anxious and concerned about the altercation and use of force between [Guard A] and Stephanie.’ In their civil suit, Warriner’s family make it clear that they believe the camera was moved to ‘shield the other defendant guards from any potential criminal liability’.

About ten minutes later the guards, moving her body into an elevator bay, attempted to resuscitate Warriner but, as the coroner’s report noted, because of the ‘downtime’ that had elapsed between the damage being incurred and measures being taken, Stephanie developed a brain injury from which she never recovered.

The majority of the incident was captured on CCTV and – if you can stomach it – may be viewed below. (You will notice that during recording, the CCTV camera appears to be moved. More about this later.) As a result of the restraint, Warriner went into cardiac arrest, but did not die immediately. In fact, she lived for another sixteen days, being first intubated and placed in intensive care and then transferred to Toronto Western Hospital on 15th May. Following the incident, no attempt was made to contact Stephanie’s family until 22nd May, a full eleven days later.

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, things moved fast. The day after, all four officers involved were placed briefly on administrative leave before being fired. Within three days, the Federal Department of Justice and the FBI announced jointly that they were conducting a ‘robust criminal investigation’ into Floyd’s death as a ‘top priority’. Within a week, two autopsies had been published. By 3rd June, less than two weeks after the incident, one officer had been made the subject of an upgraded charge of second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter and the other three had been charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. After being charged, all four were held in jail for periods ranging between a few days and four months.

And what of Stephanie Warriner? What transpired after her fatal encounter with the TGH security guards? The simple answer is ‘not much’. To begin, in July 2020, two of the guards were dismissed from University Health Network, the teaching and research hospital network of which TGH is a part, and two were the subject of ‘internal disciplinary action’ (although what that action consisted of was not made clear). According to a media report, at this time Toronto police said investigators were ‘awaiting the results of a full autopsy and that the case was in its early stages.’ Five months later Warriner’s sister, Denise, was still awaiting information from the police. Then, finally, fully six months after the fact, in early December 2020, two guards were each charged with two counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of manslaughter.

Meanwhile, in the George Floyd case the wheels of justice turned comparatively swiftly. By April 2021, the officer who had directly contributed to Floyd’s death through the placement of a knee on his neck was found guilty in his Minnesota state criminal trial. He was sentenced to a custodial sentence of 22.5 years. Of the other three officers’ state criminal trials, two pled guilty and received custodial sentences of three years and 42 months respectively; and one, having waived his right to a jury trial, is awaiting the judge’s decision. Additionally, all four policemen were the subjects of Federal civil rights proceedings for abusing their positions as officers, depriving Floyd of his constitutional rights, and failing to give medical aid. By July 2022, all had either pled, or been found, guilty and received custodial sentences ranging from 2.5 years to 21 years, all of which run concurrently with their state sentences.

By contrast, Stephanie’s assailants have been treated with considerably greater leniency. In November, 2022, two and a half years after her death, an Ontario judge quashed the case against the two guards, due to finally come before a jury in May of this year, saying that there was “a lack of admissible evidence to support the findings necessary for making a placement order on both counts”. Subsequently, the Federal government declined to pursue further criminal action. This despite the coroner’s report and other evidence, such as the CCTV video and court documents submitted by the Crown for an earlier preliminary hearing which contain evidence that one of the guards lied in his deposition, having initially claimed that Stephanie had, “delivered several overhand and underhand punches to [Guard A’s] face and was kicking her feet.”, but then, ‘Later on, [Guard B] began sobbing and admitted he had not been truthful in the report, saying “I’m sorry. I would have never said the things I said in there if I knew there was a video.”’

Speaking of the CCTV video, over two minutes of the recording of what went on during the assault on Warriner has never been – and never will be – seen. During her interrogation and debasement the camera was intentionally moved to point elsewhere. The guard monitoring the CCTV from the security office claimed that he ‘suffers from anxiety’ and moved the camera because he was ‘anxious and concerned about the altercation and use of force between [Guard A] and Stephanie.’ In their civil suit, Warriner’s family make it clear that they believe the camera was moved to ‘shield the other defendant guards from any potential criminal liability’.

Even at the time of his death, it was clear just how ‘big of a deal’ was George Floyd’s death. Protests, both peaceful and ‘mostly peaceful’, were everywhere across the USA and the entire world. Movements such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) sprung up into the general public’s consciousness. People were ‘taking the knee’ and filling their social media profiles with BLM images. There were calls for police forces to be defunded. Floyd himself achieved something close to beatification, with statues and wall paintings appearing widely. Seemingly, you couldn’t switch on the TV or open a newspaper without seeing his photo.

But Stephanie Warriner? Nothing. Not a squeak. Because of a police and judicial embargo, It was barely a month ago that the public could even see the video and read about Stephanie’s demise. Those who were implicated in her death have walked free. And the health network that owns Toronto General and Toronto Western hospitals, where she suffered her injuries and subsequently died, still tells us on their website that, ‘In 2019, Toronto General Hospital was named among the world’s Top 10 Hospitals by Newsweek magazine’. They still tell us that amongst their ‘seven Essentials’ their priorities include being ‘Compassionate and Caring’ with a focus on ‘Quality and Safety’.

We are left to remember that Danielle Stephanie Warriner died, at the age of 43, for improperly wearing a COVID face mask. And this in the very same city of Toronto where nurses unions’ had twice – in 2015 and 2018 – won cases against hospitals seeking to mask them at work over influenza, with the evidence in favour of masking ruled ‘insufficient, inadequate and completely unpersuasive.’ As with so much harm that has been done to so many people in the name of ‘safety’ these past three years, it appears no one in authority questions this, much less cares.

Paul Stevens

The post Two Remarkably Similar Deaths, Two Completely Different Outcomes appeared first on Smile Free.

Some good news – kinda!

Care Minister Helen Whately has just announced masks won’t be required on staff in care homes in England… hopefully this is another nail in the coffin of widespread masking, though in typical Government fashion, Whately doesn’t have the guts to just bin the travesty of masking altogether and signal a clean break, but passes the buck down to individual employers.

Whately’s statement is quoted in The Express saying:

“For most people, Covid restrictions are a memory and life is back to normal – but not for those in care homes or being cared for at home.

For them, many of the people they see are still wearing masks.

It’s a barrier to communication. And it gets in the way of a smile that could brighten the day.

Masks make it hard to understand what people are saying. For deaf people, it makes it impossible to lip-read.

That’s about to change. Whether care workers have to wear masks will be the decision of the care home or care agency.”

So… lots of harms we’d all be better off without… but we’re gonna leave it up to individual care homes to keep doing it… based on how they feel on any given day… a full 998 days after the first lockdown. Gotcha.

It’s better than nothing of course, but just like with hospital and GP surgeries, we can now expect a “postcode lottery” with some care homes continuing to mask staff and presumably pushing them on visitors too. On which note…

Smile Free has been doing some digging, to find out exactly who is responsible when it comes to individual hospitals still insisting on masks – and we’d encourage you to read Paul Stevens’ research here.

Once you do, you’ll know who to put pressure on, if your hospital is still insisting on masking.

You’ll be shocked to the core to discover masking from hospital to hospital does not appear to be based on any kind of methodology, but rather on the personal whims of local individuals (exactly as we warned it would be, back in June when NHS guidance changed).

Last but by no means least – you are probably aware by now that one of the revelations in Matt Hancock’s new book is that English schoolkids were ordered masked in school just to avoid “a big spat with the Scots.”

We always knew mask mandates were dishonest, political decisions made for ‘nudge’ or PR reasons, but it’s good to have confirmation. 

UsForThem have also been doing sterling work on this issue and their digging via Freedom of Information request found this vile policy decision was not risk-assessed for 17 months.

Following the Science, eh? You gotta love it.

The post Official mask requirement for care home staff in England dropped – but watch out for “postcode lottery” appeared first on Smile Free.

Masking ‘requirements’ still have a foothold in the UK, in many healthcare settings. Even if this doesn’t affect you directly at the moment, it’s a problem because:

• it normalizes masking
• engrains it as a habit, and
• reinforces the fiction that widespread masking significantly reduces viral spread – and thereby helps the NHS.

All of which makes reintroduction of forced masking in other areas this winter much more likely.

Here’s a quick update on what Smile Free have been doing over the summer, to counter all this…

We sent our Open Letter, signed by around 9,000 people including over 2,000 Doctors and other medical professionals, to ditch the mask in healthcare settings to the heads of the NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland around the beginning of June.

We are still yet to receive replies from NHS England’s Amanda Pritchard, or Health Minister Robin Swann who has the responsibility in Northern Ireland. We have prompted them to reply again. However NHS England did change their guidance on 8 June. 

Effectively this left masking ‘requirements’ to the discretion of local healthcare sites. This was welcome in some ways but we warned that ‘by far the most likely outcome is that masking in English hospitals will now become a “postcode lottery” based on the whims of local staff,’ and so it has come to pass.

However NHS Scotland [here], and NHS Wales [here], did reply to our Open Letter. 

Smile Free’s Dr Gary Sidley summarised the issues with both responses in an article for The Critic, an excerpt of which is as follows:

Although the NHS Scotland reply contains some welcome elements — for example, endorsing the principle that no patients should be refused treatment (nor visitors refused access to loved ones) should they choose not to wear a face covering — both formal responses from the NHS executives contain three fundamental flaws in their attempts to justify the persistence of widespread masking in their clinical areas.

First, contrary to the evidence, there is an underlying assumption that masks are effective in reducing viral transmission. They defend this position by mostly citing reviews conducted by state-funded public health bodies, with insufficient weight given to independent researchers who have conducted randomised controlled trials in real-life settings and comprehensive evidence reviews that all conclude that masking healthy people achieves no appreciable benefits.

Second, it is likely that NHS directives regarding how staff can promote the wearing of face coverings — expressed as “politely encouraged”, “strongly encouraged”, “highlight the benefits” and “recommended” — will habitually morph into the harassment of those people opting not to follow this advice. Consequently, there is a risk of alienating a vulnerable subset of the general public (for example, the elderly, the previously traumatised and those with existing mental health problems), thereby discouraging them from both seeking medical help and visiting hospitalised loved ones.

Third, and most importantly, both responses from the NHS chief executives convey a blinkered perspective on risk. They focus almost exclusively on the threat associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, whilst disregarding the substantial non-COVID harms resulting from the expectation that everyone should wear masks in hospitals, GP practices and health centres. Some of these negative consequences of masking are especially problematic in healthcare settings, including: impaired communication between staff and service users; the aggravation of respiratory problems; the re-traumatising of those with histories of physical and sexual abuse; and the increased risk of falls for the elderly due to the restriction of lower peripheral vision. Apart from fleeting references to “glasses steaming up” and staff sometimes feeling “hot and uncomfortable”, the NHS executives fail to acknowledge the wide-ranging physical, social and psychological harms of masking.

By failing to consider many of the potential harms of face coverings, it is highly questionable whether the NHS is acting in the best interests of their service users. Furthermore, this neglect of the risks associated with masks may leave the NHS vulnerable to future complaints and litigation. How could the NHS defend itself against claims that their blanket masking policies were responsible for catastrophic outcomes? A hard-of-hearing man, for example, who accidentally overdosed on prescribed medication, after a mask rendered his doctor’s instructions inaudible? An elderly lady who died shortly after fracturing her femur in a fall after being pressured to wear a mask in an urgent care department?

(The issue of potential liability for harms caused by masking in healthcare is not theoretical – a coroner reported that a man died at Watford General Hospital, when ‘as a result of failure in verbal communication between the doctors, aggravated as both were masked, a dose of 15mg/kg was heard as 50mg/kg and an overdose was administered.’)

Smile Free was created to stop forced masking in the UK, and we’ll stick doggedly to that task. We’ve therefore written new replies to NHS Scotland (here) and NHS Wales (here), and we’re investigating different avenues including the possibility of legal action.

Over the summer, we also put together first hand video accounts from a range of healthcare professionals expressing the issues with masks in healthcare, to encourage hospitals and GP surgeries to #MoveOnFromMasks. 

In addition to encouraging pressure from users of healthcare services, and the huge numbers of well-qualified people who recognise the problems with ongoing masking, we want to help empower employees who are still affected to resist.

Do take a look at our informational webinar from last month (“Masks in the working environment: what does the law say?”) if this affects you, and share it if relevant with friends, family, colleagues.

The post Stopping forced masking this winter appeared first on Smile Free.

Watch the replay of “Masks in the Working Environment: What does the law say?” – recorded 11 August 2022

WITH RYAN KARTER, EMPLOYMENT ADVISOR FOR WORKERS OF ENGLAND UNION

Employer asking or ‘requiring’ you to wear a ‘Covid mask’ at work? Can they do that? How might it be challenged? What does the law actually say, and what defences are there for employees?

Please note: The information provided in this session is general in nature. It does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice. Instead, all information provided is for general informational purposes only. You should contact professional representation to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No one should act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

UPDATE SEP 2022: We noticed a small error – at one point Ryan says asbestos is 50 times smaller than SARS-CoV2 virus particles – of course, as the context indicates, he means the other way round.

RESOURCES USED IN THIS PRESENTATION (right click to download):

• Adverse effects of masks table
• Mask adverse physical effects diagram
• WHO tweet
• Approx 2 minute video of UK health ministers, advisers’ previous statements

The post “Masks in the Working Environment: What does the law say in UK?” Webinar Replay appeared first on Smile Free.

Professor of Microbiology Beny Spira wasn’t initially a mask sceptic.

It was only when mask mandates were announced in Brazil that the university of São Paulo academic became curious: what did the existing scientific research show about the effectiveness of masks?

“Turns out there were lots of studies,” he told Smile Free’s Dr Gary Sidley, “and the better the study, the lower the effect of masks observed. So I asked myself, ‘why the mandates?'”

Prof Spira has published a peer-reviewed study in the scientific journal Cureus looking at the correlation between the rate of mask-wearing in the population and the number of reported Sars-COV2 infections and deaths from October 2020 to March 2021 in 35 European countries.

His findings were striking – no correlation between mask wearing and infection levels (in other words, masks didn’t make a difference to infection levels) – but a moderate to strong POSITIVE correlation between deaths and mask usage (in other words, countries that masked more actually had more Covid deaths).

“Correlation is not causation,” Prof Spira points out. “But it warrants a serious investigation… perhaps masks are causing more harm than good (for Covid) – we don’t know.”

Watch the interview to discover:

• Two hypotheses for why mask wearing could actually increase Covid death rates
• Why the argument “but you might expect increased masking in places with a worse Covid situation” isn’t supported by the evidence
• Plus why vaccinations levels don’t explain the picture either
• Why masking has some characteristics of a pseudoscience

The post Study finds link between masking and INCREASED Covid deaths in Europe: Interview with Prof Beny Spira appeared first on Smile Free.

Some news since our Open Letter with over 8,850 signatures – including from over 2,000 Doctors and other healthcare professionals – went to the NHS Chief Executives to end the mask ‘requirement’ in healthcare settings:

NHS England has changed its mask guidance for healthcare settings – this IS progress – but not good enough, and here’s why…

Last week, NHS England issued further guidance regarding the use of face masks in clinical settings. It directs hospitals and other care settings to end the ‘requirement’ for staff, patients and visitors to wear face coverings in most wards and departments and – as such – is welcome news. 

There are, however, several aspects of this latest directive that indicate the war against masking in healthcare is not won, even in England.

Firstly, it is worrying that our national heath service – which should be all about evidence-based practice – perpetuates three flawed assumptions in this latest guidance:

1. Masks are effective – The real-world, more robust, evidence consistently concludes that face coverings achieve no meaningful reduction in the transmission of respiratory viruses.
    
2. Covid-19 deserves special treatment – Respiratory viruses have been on this earth longer than humans and there is now no justification for giving the SARS-CoV-2 virus special status; we must return to the pre-2020 mindset where mass masking was not even considered.
    
3. Masks are harmless interventions – There is a plethora of evidence that face coverings are associated with many physical, social and psychological harms, several of which are especially problematic in healthcare settings. Any ward or department considering imposing a mask requirement should always include these significant harms as a central part of their local risk assessments.

Secondly, the new guidance is shot through with woolly statements wide open to interpretation.

Ambiguous suggestions that mask requirements might be needed where there is a ‘local outbreak’, ‘suspected cluster transmission’ or the emergence of a ‘variant of concern’ seem designed to keep the way clear for future impositions of face coverings, and/or pass the buck to local hospitals.

Two years after the imposition of masking in English hospitals, it is most regrettable that NHS England and the authors of this latest guidance (Professor Stephen Powis and Duncan Barton) could not simply have signalled a clean break and consigned this unprecedented, poorly-evidenced, and ultimately failed policy to history.

Since they have chosen not to, by far the most likely outcome is that masking in English hospitals will now become a ‘postcode lottery’ based on the whims of local staff. 

Within hospitals themselves, we may well also get inter-departmental ‘caste systems,’ with higher status office workers mask-free but receptionists, security staff, porters, frontline workers and patients masked. 

Not only will all this further diminish the NHS’s reputation for scientific good sense, but it will create a pointless source of confrontation between staff and hospital users alike, just as masking has done on airlines.

The upshot is we must keep up the pressure to ensure that mass masking is permanently removed from our health services. 

You can help us do this by:

-→ Sending the UK Medical Freedom Alliance template letter to local hospitals, GP practices and health centres who are persisting with the mask ‘requirement,’ or to your local MP (see here and here)

-→ Looking out for Smile Free’s calls-to-action, which will include addressing the situation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, too

The post NHS England Changes Mask Guidance: Progress But Not Good Enough appeared first on Smile Free.

Here’s an “all-purpose” message or email to please send to any holdouts still “requiring” masks….

Airlines, airports, opticians… you can send this to just about any organisation still “requiring” masks though they are not legally obliged to, with a bit of tweaking if you are outside of England.

Yes: we know he’s changed his tune more times than a jukebox over the last 23 months, but that doesn’t matter to “normies,” most of whom still respect Chris Whitty… so here it is:

Dear [name]

I would like to express my disappointment with your continued requirement of forced masking.

We can all see that masks have totally failed to stop the spread of coronavirus for 18 months now, and masks are far from harmless. For many deaf or hard of hearing (1 in 5 people in the UK), sexual abuse victims, PTSD sufferers, the autistic and more, ‘masked society’ destroys quality of life.

Please could you explain why you believe yourself better qualified to judge whether forcing people to wear masks is still necessary, when the Chief Medical Officer of England, Chris Whitty, does not?

[signoff]

The post All-Purpose Message or Email To Organisations Still “Requiring” Masks appeared first on Smile Free.

Budget flight and package holidays operator Jet2, which flew 3 million passengers in 2020, has become the first UK airline to ditch compulsory face masks on their planes – at least in England and Northern Ireland.

According to its website, Jet2’s policy on face masks in flight for England and Northern Ireland as of today is:

“It’s no longer a legal requirement to wear a face mask at our airports or onboard our planes. However, as per UK Government guidance, we recommend that you continue to wear a face mask in these spaces, and you will need to wear one when you get to your overseas destination.”

Previously, Jet2’s policy throughout the UK had been that “Face masks must be worn by everyone aged six years and over at all our airports and onboard all our flights, even if you’re fully vaccinated.”

Scottish customers have longer to wait unfortunately: “It’s still a legal requirement for everyone aged six years and over to wear a face mask at our Scottish airports and onboard our planes travelling to and from those airports. This is the case even if you’re fully vaccinated.”

It is welcome news that Jet2 has changed its policy. Forcing plane passengers – who are in any case packed like sardines into a metal box together for hours on end – to wear a piece of cloth over their faces never made any logical sense, except perhaps as reassurance to the nervous. Even this was misguided as we know that psychological ‘coping mechanisms’ such as masks will prolong fear, rather than let it drain away. 

For many deaf or hard of hearing, abuse victims, PTSD sufferers, the autistic and more, mask mandates and ‘masked society’ present real problems. Hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise not have bothered flying masked will now be looking for flights and holidays with Jet2.

Other airlines must now do the right thing by ditching their mask requirements too.

The post Jet2 first UK airline to drop face mask requirement on planes appeared first on Smile Free.