It is a long-established conclusion from the scientific world that face masks achieve no appreciable reduction in viral transmission. We knew this in 2015-16 with regard to surgeons and their patients (here and here). We knew this in 2020 from a gold-standard Cochrane review, an analysis of 14 studies on influenza and a healthcare investigation that concluded that masks “may paradoxically lead to more transmissions”. We knew this in 2021 based on the Danish mask study and two comprehensive evidence reviews (here and here). We knew this in 2022 in relation to primary schools and universities, and a debunking of premature pro-mask conclusions drawn from the Bangladesh study. And – as if more evidence was needed – at the start of 2023 we had the latest Cochrane review, yet again concluding that covering our faces with cloth and plastic does not significantly reduce the likelihood of contracting respiratory viral infections. Yet, despite this collective scream from the scientific community that the ‘MASKS DON’T WORK’, it seems that nothing will muzzle the strident protestations of the mask disciples, such as those at Independent SAGE.
A recent article in the Daily Mail led with the scary headline: ‘Scientists raise alarm over new Covid variant and call for return of face masks.’ Two of the scientists raising concerns were Professors Trish Greenhalgh and Stephen Griffin, the former announcing, “It’s, once again, time to mask up”, while the latter concurs – albeit more cryptically – with his recommendation of the re-imposition of a “mitigation-based approach”. Both Greenhalgh and Griffin are members of Independent SAGE.
When Independent SAGE was formed in May 2020, as an alternative to official SAGE, it claimed to be a group of multi-disciplinary experts whose mission was to offer the Government scientific advice on how to minimise deaths during the Covid crisis. In reality, it constituted a group of zero-Covid fanatics pushing extreme counter-pandemic measures: whatever non-evidenced, human-rights-infringing restrictions the Government proposed, Independent SAGE typically called for them to be longer and harsher.
A cursory inspection of the group’s membership explains a lot. The previously-mentioned Trish Greenhalgh is, undoubtedly, the most extreme spokesperson for the pro-mask cult, previously asserting that the search for rigorous scientific evidence was the “enemy of good policy“. The founding Chairman of the group, Professor David King, was the senior scientific advisor to the Government of Tony Blair, currently an influential advocate of globalist agendas promoting top-down control of the population. Another core participant is the lifelong member of the Communist party – Professor Susan ‘let’s-wear-a-mask-forever‘ Michie. Also, the current co-Chair of Independent SAGE is Anthony Costello, a Professor of Global Health and Sustainable Development at University College London and a former director at the World Health Organisation. Given the histories and affiliations of these group participants it was predictable that they would grasp the next available opportunity to call for the return of community masking.
Clearly, the use of the term ‘independent’ in relation to this group was a misnomer. In stark contrast, Dr. Ashley Croft – the independent expert commissioned by the Scottish Covid Inquiry – appears to be a much better fit for the role of supplier of impartial information, free from the shackles of groupthink and mainstream ideology. Dr. Croft is a Consultant Public Health Physician and Medical Epidemiologist. In his report he lists his conclusions about the physical measures taken against COVID-19 as follows (emphasis mine):
In 2020 there was scientific evidence to support the use of some of the physical measures (e.g. frequent handwashing, the use of PPE in hospital settings) adopted against COVID-19. For other measures (e.g. face mask mandates outside of healthcare settings, lockdowns, social distancing, test, trace and isolate measures) there was either insufficient evidence in 2020 to support their use – or alternatively, no evidence; the evidence base has not changed materially in the intervening three years.
It has been argued that the restrictive measures introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in individual, societal and economic harm that was avoidable and that should not have occurred.
This genuinely independent voice was not well-received in some quarters. Unused to the expression of viewpoints that deviate from the dominant Covid narrative, the mainstream media predictably squealed disapproval about Croft’s perspective and resorted to attempts to smear him for his “vaccine scepticism”. And no doubt those ideologues at Independent SAGE will – as I write – be doing likewise.
As the year advances, the evidence against mass masking continues to accumulate. In April, researchers at London’s St. George’s Hospital reported that a mask mandate in 2020-21 in their healthcare settings “made no discernible difference to reducing hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections”. And – lest we forget – we purportedly live in a free and open society where coercive restrictions should only be imposed where there is unequivocal proof of a pronounced and widespread benefit from adoption of the behaviour targeted; we are a million miles away from that scenario, and that is even before we consider the harms of community masking.
But will this quieten the pro-mask cult? It seems these perpetual advocates of face coverings are driven by some supra cognitive construct that trumps the empirical evidence. Mass concealment of human faces appears to signify something sacred to groups like Independent SAGE: is it equality, egalitarianism, altruism? Or could their persistent pushing of masks be simply due to cognitive dissonance: they have stridently trumpeted the practice for so long that it would now be too psychologically painful, and damaging to their status and self-image, to admit their previous energies have been woefully misplaced? Whatever the underlying reason, we can expect escalating appeals from the muzzle mafia over the coming months.
Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
We’re talking about the multi-millionaire communist Susan Michie, aren’t we?
The ultimate walking contradiction, lol.
I am still wondering whether this charming lady will ever become a dame. Hope not, but you never know.
Guaranteed
That money was just resting in her account.
Indeed we are.
“Stalin’s Nanny” as the comrades apparently called her.
How agreeable that she now features prominently on the WHO’s books, together with Jeremy Farrar. As such, not only a King’s ransom salary but exemption from taxation. Not to mention the opportunity to impose her “nudges” on “Governments” around the World.
How jolly!
It is neither group think nor cognitive dissonance that drives these wannabe autocrats to demand that everyone wear masks.
Can we not just accept that there is a proportion of the population, some of whom reach positions of power and or influence, who by their character and their nature have autocratic impulses?
There are people who just want to lord over and control other people and will use whatever device is at their disposal, be it face masks or climate policy diktats, or compelled speech.
Just like you have violent people in society or mean devious people, you have authoritarians. That is what these dangerous sickos are.
Now then, Stewart, be careful, authoritarian is a protected characteristic!
So true, unfortunately. They seem to be about 10-20% or so of the population, and their latent tendencies emerge under just the right circumstances.
Yep they’re all control freaks. The majority of whom seem to be of a leftist nature. They just love telling other people what to do. Simple.
Masks and their advocates are nothing to do with science. It’s ideological, philosophical, political. One reason why I prefer not getting into “masks don’t work” debates. They are a rabbit hole. I don’t care if they work or not. I won’t wear one.
Neither will I. But if they’re so magically effective, why should it matter to the masked-up Prof. Greenhalgh if I’m not wearing one?
That’s a good question. Even if it’s proved that me wearing one protects others, I won’t. I am not responsible for their health.
Indeed
They are magical pieces of cloth that only seem to work in one direction.
Oddly enough, like covid jabs.
They’re in this new and bizarre category of things that have the highly unusual property of protecting others but not you.
Conveniently they also happen to be the perfect devices for the sanctimonious authoritarian to torment people into doing as they are told.
“perfect devices for the sanctimonious authoritarian to torment people into doing as they are told”
Like the NHS – wear a mask and get jabbed so you don’t get Covid and become a burden on the NHS
Greenhaigh’s mask should be welded on her and thus spare us from hearing any more of her GangGreen twaddle.
Exactly. Their superior intelligence cannot fathom such simple conclusions. Same with the vaccine. If she’s had hers, why would she worry if nobody else has.
“Will Scientific Evidence Ever Silence the Pro-Mask Cult?”
No.
Just like the ‘science is settled’ warmists, as long as powerful people gain from masking then the masking scam will continue.
The simple solution is mass revolt.
Count me in.
No. Because it is comprised of corrupt officials and germaphobes.
‘It seems these perpetual advocates of face coverings are driven by some supra cognitive construct that trumps the empirical evidence. Mass concealment of human faces appears to signify something sacred to groups like Independent SAGE: is it equality, egalitarianism, altruism?’
They just want the West to be more like East Asia*, where, yes, masking has become tragically intertwined with collectivist cultural principles. They’re barking up the wrong tree though; for all its many. many, many faults, no such tendencies exist in the West so the mask hanger-ons were deranged to begin with. Let them hide their faces I say; I’d rather not have to look at all of them.
*except Vietnam, where I live. Viet people couldn’t wait to get rid of them, although many wear them for marginally more sensible air pollution reasons.
Will someone appropriately qualified who reads or contributes to Daily Sceptic write a rebuttal of this piece that appeared in the Grauniad today:-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/24/lockdowns-face-masks-unequivocally-cut-spread-covid-study-finds
I am eminently qualified.
1) Why is “reducing the spread of Covid” a desirable goal?
2) I place an extremely high value on living a normal life which includes not restricting my breathing or hiding my face, and being able to see other people’s faces. I will not wear a mask.
1): Because it might undermine the market for certain drugs, by disrupting the immune system of normal people? That could be a cynical view, but pretty close to the truth. Remember, a couple of centuries ago, many indigenous people across the pond fell ill on account of infections imported by the immigrants (the British, and others). The locals were not immune, whereas the immigrants had a degree of innate immunity.
“Innate immunity” being the key.
We have sufficient ´innate´ immunity that “the fatality rate from corona is commensurate with the common cold” [Prof John Ioannides, Stanford]
See my post at the “newest” end of the thread.
On the basis that the concept of the report was influenced by Sir Patrick Vallance, I am tempted to write it off as useless. From the introduction: –
‘The Royal Society is most grateful for early comments from the then UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, in helping the Society to refine the concept of this report and ensuring it has value for future science advisers and decision makers.’
However, the conclusion includes the following: –
‘Future assessments should also consider the costs as well as the benefits of NPIs, in terms of their impacts on livelihoods, economies, education, social cohesion, physical and mental wellbeing, and potentially other aspects.’ My emphasis.
This is the point Toby Young, Peter Hitchens and others were making back in March 2020. I liked Peter Hitchens metaphor of the measures as being like a man who burns down his house to get rid of a wasps nest.
There were no benefits to the NPIs.
The cost of depriving everyone of normal life for more than some small period of time – maybe a day or something – so large as to make any theoretical “benefit” irrelevant.
A truly deadly plague would require no NPIs.
Bang on tof.
I liked Peter Hitchens metaphor of the measures as being like a man who burns down his house to get rid of a wasps nest.
It’s more like a man burning his house down in order to get rid of small fruit flies in the kitchen.
The Cochrane report was pretty conclusive on masks.
Our broken economy was pretty conclusive on lockdowns.
The scientific evidence is not The Science™️.
And any scientific evidence you quote is inadmissible because you are not an ‘expert’ and anyone who is an expert and quotes scientific evidence is a swivel-eyed loon in the pay of Russia or Big Oil.
Masking enthusiasts Sir Jeremy Farrar and Prof Michie now comfortably ensconced at WHO, so I assume a world directive for mask wearing is already being drafted.
Indeed. Cochrane Review beats peer review beats pal review beats anecdote beats pulled it out of where the sun don’t shine.
Cochrane has been so effective that the government is going to stop funding it. It is to be brought in house in the NHS.
Painstaking research and debunking of poor science by Heneghan and Jefferson caused too many problems.
We all know what a success that healthcare system is!
Even a simpleton such as me has always wondered at the efficacy of breathing out carbon dioxide and then immediately breathing it back in.
Independent SAGE or Self important SAGE?
Sage group of experimental psycologists ane medically deficient idiots in it for the money?
The solution to this enigma to wrap another layers of cloth around Greenalgh’s head whenever she can again be heard saying: “MASK UP!” to anyone until this isn’t audible anymore. How she’ll then breathe is her problem. She had plenty of time to shut up on her own.
An eminently sensible idea.
I have a better idea, she should be force to wear a respirator system that has filtering of 100% at 10nm, forever! Then she would be immune from commenting because she would not be heard at all. Wonderful!
“All you zombies hide your faces, all you people in the street” comes to mind.
“Independent” SAGE is independent of what?
Certainly not of the Public Health© industry.
Public Health´s global outfit, the WHO, plans ´emergency´ health laws – that will override all others.
I wonder if the two are related?
And here is another study I found from Finland on the uselessness of masks.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.04.22272833v1
It isn’t difficult to see that the mask lovers are all carved from a certain block. Just look at their photographs. They look mentally on the verge of a major crisis and they look physically weak especially the men who look rather effeminate. As for all the big guy athletes who took the injection to stay on the team I would simply say that physical courage is quite common and can be conditioned or engendered. Moral courage has to come from somewhere else. You want to be careful about developing a lopsided sense of being.Some of these people can be taken out of their neurosis with just the fulfilment of a few basic human needs. Mattias Desmet quoted a worldwide survey which found that something like thirty or forty percent of people do not even have one meaningful relationship with another human being. We need to understand the totality of this picture if we are going to be able to do anything about it otherwise it will keep recurring perhaps different in form but always useful to the totalitarians.
“It is a long-established conclusion from the scientific world that face masks achieve no appreciable reduction in viral transmission”?
Have you checked with the experts?
The Chinese are the only credible authority on Covid protection.
They disagree and have the stats to back their conclusions.
If you believe that you will believe in a flat Earth and the Moon is made of cheese!
Rob Schneider on masks:
https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/1694462453420327194
From the moment Greenhalgh referred to women as ‘people with cervixes’ I knew to regard any further proclamations with the disdain they deserved.
Of course masks make no good difference and more probably a bad one. Many, and I , have been pointing this out since Covid was first mentioned. A bee and chain link fence is the best analogy, that surely anyone can understand. Then of course there is the other point that Covid has still not actually been isolated or electronmicrographed so that we can have some actuality in the situation. The jabs are extremely harmful, do not stop either infection or transmission, and cost us our economy. Are these people deaf, blind and stupid? I would love to be proved wrong, but the evidence is fully on my side!
Says it all!
Fauci explained it in an interview, and it ought to be obvious to everyone by now: the point of the masks (and the lockdowns and everything else) is to make people think there is a reason for these things; a reason to be afraid, and to get them to take the ‘vaccines’ to get out of the trap. That’s the only reason for any of this covid theatre. There was never anything to be scared of. It’s a hoax. It was engineered to get as many people as possible to have themselves repeatedly injected with poison.