Dec 29, 2022·edited Dec 29, 2022Liked by Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD

The point about Norway listening to children speaks to how alienating the last 3 years have been for so many countries. People with government titles continue to sit in their houses, issuing commands electronically and simply assuming they will be obeyed. There's no fabric connecting them to the people they're ordering about.

Expand full comment
Dec 29, 2022Liked by Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD

I’m pretty sure Sweden now has the lowest excess mortality in the world, just edging out Norway, using a 4 year average (what OWID relied on when measuring excess deaths prior to late 2021 when they switched to an unpublished model).

This is using data from mortality.org up through week 40 of 2022.

(Brilliant letter BTW, very proud of him)

Expand full comment

Pre-2020 most health care professionals knew masks to be "placebo masks." The industry's word for them. Meaning no medical efficacy, just a psychological pacifier for patients in their care to *feel* safe in big scary germ-filled places like hospitals.

With the exception of highly restricted airflow types, masks are, always have been and always will be psychological instruments. Chosen by epidemiologists trained in behavioral sciences for their psychological impact. Both pacifiers for the germophobes and visual symbols in community settings that evoke a fear response, similar to seeing snakes. Triggers the amygdala, fight, flight or freeze response. Science says so.

Follow The Science (TM). Specifically, the science of the pandemic has been Behavioral Science/Behavioral Economics/Behaviorism. Not medical science. The science of the effect of language, symbols, other psychological manipulation tools to effect a behavioral change desired by authorities. The Science (TM) is from a Dr. of Psychology, not a Dr. of Medicine. The "best" science we've been told we must follow is akin to allowing a psychologist to perform medical surgery on us

The specific tool/weapon of science chosen by authorities of pandemic NPI has been fear. Fear amplification:


This study link below explains why masked faces evoke fear in people (pre-pandemic used by bank robbers and plane hijackers for explicitly that reason.) Banned for that reason. Pre-pandemic. Here's the scientific background on the importance of faces, visible expressions, for a healthy society and healthy social interactions. A 2009 research study titled, "Of snakes and faces: An evolutionary perspective on the psychology of fear." This study supports the very same rationale the international courts upheld the burqa bans for (see next comment below this thread). A healthy society requires faces be seen. Not just eyes. Full facial expressions are an essential form of human communication and stabilizes society. And perhaps most importantly, human aggression is moderated by full faces. [Note: the use of "mask" in the study refers to non-revealing, neutral faces, not covered in cloth, a meaningless distinction as both involve the removal of facial visual cues]


"In 1972, Ekman published cross-cultural data that shifted the at the time accepted view that facial expression, like other social gestures, reflected mere cultural convention, into the Darwinian (Darwin, 1872/1998) tenet that expressions of emotion in the human face represent biologically evolved adaptations. Anger, for example, is a threat signal potentially related to harmful intent, whereas a smile is the opposite, a reassuring signal of friendly affiliation. Against this background, Öhman and Dimberg (1978) invoked the preparedness theory to predict that an angry face should be more easily conditioned to an aversive US than should a happy face."

"The survival premium of astute detection of subtle cues given off by predators shaped a highly sensitive visual system that later proved useful in the social arena with the expanding social life of anthropoid primates. For example, the sensitivity for danger cues promoted vigilance for early detection of stimuli that announced potential aggressive encounters in social conflicts. It is a fascinating fact that the forebrain structures that have expanded most in size during primate evolution not only include – as we all know – the prefrontal cortex, but also the amygdala. Furthermore, it appears that the enlargement of these two structures was linked, both of them driven by group size (Barton & Aggleton, 2000). The prefrontal link is important because it allows inhibitory modulation of the amygdala, thus promoting strategic cognitive control of the expression of fear..."

"The prefrontal influence on facial as well as other channels of emotional expression helps to maintain conflicts at a symbolic level, where the relative strength of the combatants can be evaluated from more or less convincing displays of power and submissiveness, which prevents escalating the conflict into an actual fight that might result in injuries to the participants.

A substantial part of the signaling action in conflicts between individuals centers on the faces of the parties measuring their relative strength. As recognized by Darwin (1872/1998), the design of the face suggests that it has evolved as a means of communication. The facial muscles are unique in their function by primarily moving dermal tissue rather than body limbs, producing coordinated changes in the visual appearance of the face. The basic human facial displays are similar to those of other primates, but the human face has a more complex musculature than that of other primates, with a more versatile neural innervation, suggesting that the human ability to communicate by the face is better developed than that of our primate relatives..."

Thing is, pre-2020 international law had recognized how dangerous to society it was to have masked people in public places...they even...banned them! For the same reasons the study above explains!!

See next comment for more!

Expand full comment

Perhaps a solution to ending the never-ending masquerade is to refer to international law upheld as recently as October, 2019, just months before the world saw masks mandated.

International Law (Pre-2020). Broadly known as the "Burqa Bans." But applied to all facial coverings, including masks. Unobstructed faces deemed especially important in public settings, like public transportation:



"Judges at the European court of human rights (ECHR) have upheld France's burqa ban, accepting Paris's argument that it encouraged citizens to "live together".

The law, introduced in 2010, makes it illegal for anyone to cover their face in a public place...the law was not aimed at the burqa or veil but any covering of the face in a public place...

...The European judges decided...that the preservation of a certain idea of "living together" was the "legitimate aim" of the French authorities.

Isabelle Niedlispacher, representing the Belgian government, which introduced a similar ban in 2011 and which was party to the French defence, declared both the burqa and niqab "incompatible" with the rule of law.

Aside from questions of security and equality, she added: "It's about social communication, the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing."

The French and Belgian laws were aimed at "helping everyone to integrate", Niedlispacher added."

2019 - Ruling just months before masks became mandatory.:


"On August 1, 2019, the “Act Partially Prohibiting Face-Covering Clothing,”also known as the “Burqa Ban,” entered into force in the Netherlands. The Act prohibits the wearing of clothing that completely or partially conceals the face in spaces where people are expected to communicate with each other. Thus, face-covering clothing is banned on public transportation and in educational, governmental, and nursing care institutions, but is still allowed in such public spaces as on train platforms. The ban applies to burqas, niqabs, full-face helmets, balaclavas, and masks, but not to headscarves."

Are masks harmful to society when worn in public, as the courts ruled in 2019? Or only a "de minimis impact" on wearers and society, as most courts have ruled since 2020?

Expand full comment

Masks are symbols, with a known behavioral science basis, chosen for their ability to amplify fear, resulting in desired-by-epidemiologists changes in behaviors reducing social interactions. And symbols are a form of speech, in fact, symbols are the oldest form of speech, understandable to even the illiterate, pre-language man.

And I submit for consideration that masks are speech that we are protected from being mandated we speak under the First Amendment in this nation. Covering all forms of speech, words and symbols alike. Like flags are, even burning flags. Symbolic speech. Protected.

It is a violation of our First Amendment rights to mandate speech, even if it's propaganda that authorities find useful to manipulate behaviors they desire. Mandating speech is simply the reverse side of prohibiting speech, censorship that authorities believe will contradict their policies if shared widely. To not wear a mask when they are mandated to amplify fear and provoke a behavior change authorities desire is to say, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" by displaying a full face. And symbols are inherently divisive, an Us vs. Them dynamic evolves. A Hook'em hand sign is met with upside-down Hook'ems wherever the UT Longhorns play. Symbols. Speech. Divisive. But our US Constitution protects speech, all speech. Authorities would have us believe that not wearing a mask is akin to shouting "Don't panic" in a crowded movie theater after someone else shouted, "Fire!" Because they wanted us to be sufficiently frightened to give up our civil liberties and rights if we weren't put into a State of Fear.

Masks should be challenged under our First Amendment protections. Because that's what they are in reality. They have never been supported by medical science. They are behavioral science manipulations of our perspectives, intended to "fix" us from our flawed "Optimism Bias" (an official behavioral science term cited when masks were promoted as NPI) we suffer from, since without them we won't take a risk as seriously as they believe we otherwise would. This argument against masks can be made, I believe in a compelling legal challenge to them.

Expand full comment

Hi Enrique,

I am very much against mask mandates.

I found this essay, by Anderson, to be very compelling and it might be of interest to you.


Expand full comment

Mask mandates should have never been implemented. It was around November of 2020 that the light came on for me about masks. They do nothing and have done nothing to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Mask mandates should never come back, and parents need to fight for their children. Just imagine if parents had stood up in March of 2020 and demanded that schools stay open. What if pastors and other religious leaders stood up and refused to close their places of worship? Things would have been much different.

Expand full comment

Welcome to Substack Tracy!

Expand full comment

Dear Tracy, masks, lockdowns, haccines, were never about science, just depopulation:


Expand full comment