COVID-19 Infection via the Eyes and Mask Protection Misinformation


Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Irresponsible Failure of Health Authorities Regarding Need for Protective Goggles?


Airborne virus: The number of reported cases of COVID-19 infections continues to rise worldwide in a pandemic for which there is no end in sight. Other than lockdowns, social distancing and vaccinations, the major recommendation is masking to cover the nose and mouth. This is because COVID-19 is recognized to be an airborne virus, primarily leading to infection via respiration.

As an airborne virus, it is however appropriate to ask whether infection is possible via the eyes in some way. Little is said of this possibility and it may well have been dismissed by health authorities as of low probability. Will further research discover that such negligence is highly irresponsible? Why has it been assumed that covering the mouth and nose provides an adequate degree of protection?

Eye protection? The purpose in what follows is to indicate what research there is on the matter in order to assist those concerned with the possibility of achieving a higher degree of protection than is purportedly provided by the recommended masks. Should the eyes be covered, potentially with googles of some kind — or masks appropriate to biochemical warfare? Surgeons and dentists make use of greater protection. In response to COVID-19, front-line health workers wear face shields in addition to masks.

Do these suggest that there is an undeclared degree of suspicion that infection is possible by routes other than the nose and mouth? Beyond that earlier suspicion, as variously noted below, it has now been confirmed that this is the case (Ocular tissue can be infected by SARS CoV-2, Coronavius News Source, 30 April 2021).

Confirmation? The situation could be comparable to that regarding HIV infection by mosquitoes — a possibility long dismissed, despite the extensive preoccupation with “dirty needles”. Why is a mosquito bite in no way comparable with a “dirty needle”? Why has the matter not been more assiduously researched? Is there a correlation between dissemination of AIDS and the incidence of mosquitoes? Robert Strecker makes the point through proposing a challenge to sceptical researchers: Would you put your arm into a space filled with mosquitoes which had recently bitten someone infected with AIDS? (The Strecker Memorandum).

For those dubious of the probability of COVID infection via the eyes, a similar test might be readily undertaken. With only the mouth and nose covered by a high quality mask, would you willingly share a space with people known to be infected with COVID — if infection via the eyes was a possibility?

Ignoring another “Code Red”? Following infection, one symptom following infection by COVID-19 is conjunctivitis (“pink eye” or “red eye”). Infection via the eye is another matter. Given recommendations worldwide for the use of billions of masks to cover mouth and nose, it is appropriate to ask why the possibility of infection via the eyes has been ignored — and why warnings of that possibility have not been evident. With the “mysterious” increase in infection rates, especially following emergence of the Delta variant, does this not suggest a “Code Red” situation calling for extremely rapid response?

Also framed as a “Code Red”, there is some irony to the warning for global civilization in the recent publication of the new IPCC report on the predicted climate change catastrophe (Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, August 2021).

Irresponsibility? The vital question is whether health authorities have been totally irresponsible in failing to recommend masks appropriate to biochemical warfare. Is that what the challenge of airborne viral infection demands? There is little point in shutting the “doors” (mouth and nose) for protection — whilst leaving open the “window” (the eyes). Some clarity is offered by Daniel Wilks (Your Eyes Could Be the Window to COVID-19, Myhealth1st, 10 November 2020).

Viability? Clearly mask manufacturers are profiting considerably from recommendations for masking by authorities  — and presumably are assiduous in lobbying for the vital protective role that they perform. Have the manufacturers of safety goggles and eye-covering masks been lax in exploring and promoting the protective value of their products?


Tags: , , ,

Share this article:

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.