Transcription – English – Chris Schaeffer

15. Chris Schaefer.mp4: Video automatically transcribed by Sonix

15. Chris Schaefer.mp4: this mp4 video file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Chris Shaefer:
I was invited to speak here today. And I think despite in considering the relevance of the issues with the masking that has been very predominant through this whole last two years, especially, is I wanted to come here today to offer some clarification to what is actually happening. So my qualification to do that is I am a 28 years in the career of occupational health and safety with a specialization and respirator fit testing and training. So anything to do with respirators for protection from airborne contaminants, from the very lowest level all the way to the highest level type of respirator. And for all kinds of clients, governments. I've been an advisor to University of Alberta faculties in medicine and dentistry. I have been an advisor and trainer for the military, emergency response departments and general industry. So I have the qualification. I'm also a court qualified as an expert witness on the topic of respiratory protection and a published author and recognized authority on the subject. So we're going to just clarify a couple of things here. This so this gets nipped in the bud and it doesn't ever come back again.

Trish Wood:
Okay.

Chris Shaefer:
It works like this. If you take a napkin and you put it over your mouth and nose, that is not a mask. And if you take that napkin and if you make it out of cloth and you attach a couple of strings to go around your ears, that is not a mask. In order to be a mask, it has to have visible, engineered breathing openings in front of mouth and nose so that air can easily flow in and easily flow out. So an example of a mask is this. This is a mask. Why is it has engineered breathing openings in front of nose and mouth that are visible in the air to easily flow in and out. Others. Examples of masks would be like a goalie mask. Any Halloween mask that's full face four for breathing holes, scuba mask, fencing mask, even a hockey goalie mask has vents for breathing, for air to flow easily in and out. So if it doesn't have if it doesn't have clearly visible openings in front of mouth and nose. Freer to flow in and out. It's not a mask at all. That's a fact. Now, if it's a respirator, masks that's going to protect against contaminants. It has to have, in addition to having visible breathing openings in front of mouth and nose, it has to have valves so that air can go in one way and out another way.

Chris Shaefer:
So, for instance, an example of a very basic respirator would be something like this, because here you have filters that are covered, the openings to filter air as it goes through. And in the middle. It has a big opening here, which is an exhalation valve that purges carbon dioxide, heat and moisture out of the mask with every exhalation. So the visible openings are actually there's a visible opening in the exhalation valve right here for air to be pushed out. And there's visible openings on the sides here that evolves that the filters are covering right here, that these valves allow for inhalation of clean air and exhalation of waste air. And if you just take a piece of cloth or a piece of paper or any one of these styles of devices which I classify as breathing barriers or otherwise instruments of breathing obstruction, that's exactly what these devices are. And the tragedy that's unfolding for people blocking airflow from mouth and nose, forced to re inhale their exhaled air. So oxygen and air, 21%. And if you exhale, everyone exhales continuously as they inhale. When we exhale, we exhale roughly 17% oxygen. There's a reason we exhale it.

Chris Shaefer:
If you had to inhale that air, you're going to cause yourself a very hypoxic situation. So I'll give you an example here. I have a gas monitor. It monitors gases in the air in real time. Showing 20.9 is good, good oxygen and air in the room that I am right now. Ideal oxygen and air. But as soon as I exhale. Sets off oxygen sensors right away, telling me that this is an immediate, immediately dangerous to life situation. So anything in an occupational code and safety, anything below 19.5 is considered immediately dangerous to life and health. Oxygen environment and these breathing barriers force you to re inhale your exhaled air, which is devoid of appropriate oxygen concentration and excess. Causes excess hypercapnea which is excess carbon dioxide. Very both. Very toxic for the body. But. I've done lots of testing on this as well. And I can tell you that oxygen concentrations with somebody wearing one of these breathing obstruction devices, whether it's made out of paper or whether it's made out of cloth, is irrelevant that these oxygen concentrations are often below 17%, like about 17 to 17 and a half percent, which is far below the 19.5% ideal age. And it's an absolute crime because they're not masks and they're not certainly not respirator masks.

Chris Shaefer:
They're breathing barriers and nobody should wear them for any reason. And and the confusion is this the confusion that they've created with these these mandates is they call something a mask. That's not so masks. Let me be clear. Masks are safe to wear because masks have engineered openings for air to flow in and airflow out so that you don't have a health hazard. These are not masks. These are hazardous for everyone, especially those with pre-existing medical conditions and children that require a much higher frequent rate of breathing than adults. And as a result, they're going to suffer even more immensely. And the suffering that I'm talking about may be immediate or it may be long term, but there's definitely consequences to existing and and and living in an oxygen functioning in an oxygen deficient atmosphere, especially on an ongoing basis and especially with increased physical activity. So there's immediate dangers to everybody to block your breathing. And that is why we as adults have told our children, do not put a bag over your head. And our parents taught us the same thing, because literally, if you're just taking a piece of cloth or paper and you're covering your mouth and nose, that's exactly that's exactly the effect that is happening.

Trish Wood:
We'd just written a story for some people whose daughter is quite ill, and it turns out she was practicing exercise that was with a lot of exertion for hours at a time wearing a mask. I mean, looking at it that way, it just it seems it seems crazy. The thing I just wanted to say to you was I interviewed someone like you, an American version of you. In other words, someone who was a mask expert from the OSHA side. Right. Occupational safety and health. And she said the same thing. I think you guys were kind of sitting on the sidelines saying these masks, these mask mandates with this type of product is ridiculous and absurd. Right.

Chris Shaefer:
Well, normally with any major, I would have been aware and if a consultant consulted on a national level for any rollout of actual respiratory hazard and protection. And and that never happened. We were never consulted.

Trish Wood:
Yeah. They never went. Yeah, they never went. I'll go to the panel on this.

Preston Manning:
Yeah, this is very helpful. Chris, to your knowledge, was there any impact assessments done or the decision to actually require masking by the the governments, I guess, particularly the federal government, but the provincial governments as well? What was there any formal assessment as to that decision? Is this the right thing to do? What constitutes a mask? What kind of a device are you going to recommend? What are the impacts if this is done or if it isn't done? Were there any studies or were you aware of anything like that?

Chris Shaefer:
Well, to the best of my knowledge, absolutely not. I mean, I think the results stand for themselves. If there had been, they would have tossed this idea even before it reached the decision table. What they're doing is tragic and they're forcing injury and disease on people. So not only do these breathing barriers cause hypoxic and hypercapnic atmospheres, but they also, by trapping heat and moisture, see an actual respirator has an exhalation valve in it to expel heat and moisture and expel carbon dioxide. So if you're if you're trapping heat and moisture in the cover, you're just going to breed bacteria and fungus because it's just going to stay warm and it's going to stay moist and you're going that's where you're breathing as well. So that's just another negative as well. These if you ever cut one of these, these what they call in 95 covers over open, you'll see that it's composed of minuscule little fibers that are sheathed between two areas of polypropylene plastic. And basically what happens is, is as you agitate this cover and you constantly inhale and exhale, it's going to cause a release of those minuscule fibers and dyes that were used to make it that will inadvertently cause the where to inhale those things. So a multiple hazards, no benefit, but only harm.

Preston Manning:
Well, in your field, is there some official regulatory body? Like if I invented a new mask or said I was going to call it a mask, and is there some authority where I'd have to get approval to have it recognized as official and safe? Is is there any body that could do that kind of adjudication?

Chris Shaefer:
Well, occupational health and safety bodies, as well as engineering safety bodies are supposed to be doing this. Yes. And and that is why that is why for even thinking things like viruses, that a piece of cloth or paper has never been recommended in prior history, because it is it is beyond ridiculous. It is not even close. It could not provide protection before and it can provide protection now, and it won't provide protection in the future. It will only cause harm. And calling something a mask that's an actually, by definition, a breathing obstruction device is really a crime. And so I'm working with groups and parents right across right around the world, but especially throughout North America the last two years, to helping them deal with these issues and legal challenges and things like that.

Preston Manning:
Thank you.

David Ross:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have you taken this information to government or health authorities? And if you have, what has been their response?

Chris Shaefer:
Excellent question. Well, actually, to speak of June 20th, 2020, I penned a open letter to Alberta's medical director, Dr. Deena Hinshaw. As an open letter and 23 other doctors in charge of public health. And I wrote a four page open letter to her and her other physicians in charge of public health on my concerns and the errors of her. At that time was just a recommendation that people wear these breathing obstruction devices and why that was all the different reasons why that was really wrong. And Dr. Hinshaw office sent me a read receipt, as well as some of the other doctors. Many independent media in the last two years have reached out to Dr. Hinshaw, his office, to get a formal reply. And I have never received a formal reply, because there's there's only two things that Dr. Hinshaw is office. There's only there's only really there's only two choices they had. They could either say, you know, we're liars and we're wrong and we don't know what we're talking about. Or they could ignore me and they chose to ignore me because this is my specialization and I know as much about respirators as anybody in the country.

David Ross:
Mr. Schaefer, would you be willing to provide us with a copy of the correspondence you sent to the government?

Chris Shaefer:
Sure. Is there a way that you can. Is there an email address or how should I get this to you?

David Ross:
Yes. Yes, there is. And Sonya Anderson, our coordinator, will connect with you.

Chris Shaefer:
Okay. Sounds good. I'd be more than happy to do it. And as well, if you want, if you just do a quick, I'll send you the formal letter. But if you want it to see like a to get it quickly, it's all over the internet. You could access my name as a respirator specialist and you'd see that it had been republished in many places. So. But I'll get you the formal, formal, original.

David Ross:
Thank you very much. Your testimony has been very helpful. Thank you.

Trish Wood:
Thank you. Thank you. I just had one quick one for you. Just we're running out of time. But I did want you to answer this if you can. People are starting to see epidemiologically bumps in harms caused by public health policy around COVID 19. Will we see, based on your warning about mass being dangerous, especially in children, see an uptick in something five years from now that we should be looking for as a result of them wearing these things in the way we force them to. In your view, what? Well.

Chris Shaefer:
Again, just to clarify, they're not masks, they're not respirators. They don't meet the definition and they're hazardous to wear for any length of time. So so masks are safe. These are not masks. Are we going to see negative effect by blocking people's breathing over time? Absolutely. These are going to be there's going to be catastrophic illnesses, chronic illnesses, potential for all serious ongoing health effects, as well as we've seen many immediate effects as a couple of other speakers had said as well. So it's really just what we hear about sometimes is just the just touching the surface, just the ice breaking the surface. We don't really have any idea what the consequences are going to be. What from just even if it all ended today, what those consequences, how they're going to affect people's health on an ongoing basis from now on. But even with ongoing with ongoing wearing of these breathing obstruction devices, it's going to be anybody's guess. But I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not hopeful about it.

Trish Wood:
Thank you very much for your evidence today. We're grateful. Thank you.

Chris Shaefer:
Thank you.