• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Scientific Information on Masks Against COVID-19

by David Crowe
5 June 2020 1:40 PM

by David Crowe

Masks are being widely recommended as protection against the COVID-19 virus, both to protect the wearer from infection and to protect others from those who do not know that they are infected. The trouble is that most of the scientific evidence and recommendations are against the use of masks by the general public, and some harms from wearing masks have been documented. Despite this, they are increasingly mandated. In some places you can’t walk around outside without a mask, and in others you can’t go inside a public space without a mask. Workers are often mandated to wear them – and now airline passengers, no matter the length of their flight.

Evidence for the use of masks

The strongest evidence for the use of masks is a Cochrane Collaboration review entitled “Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses”. Seven studies were included in this review from the era of SARS. All of the studies that found mask wearing to be effective were case-control studies: a type of study that is subject to bias because the control arm is simply a representative group, with each “case” matched to a “control” by characteristics like age and sex, unlike in a placebo-controlled trial (which would admittedly be very difficult with masks). If the controls differ from the cases in characteristics that are not part of the matching – such as health or socio-economic status – differences may be found due to these uncontrolled variables, including in whether they chose to wear a mask.

Of the seven papers, five studied only healthcare workers, and I do not question whether healthcare workers should wear masks. This leaves only two papers concerning mask wearing by the general public. One provided no socio-economic or health data on the case-versus-control groups, leaving open the possibility that there were differences. The second study confirmed that the cases (who had been diagnosed with “probable” SARS; i.e., with symptoms and contact with another SARS victim, but without a SARS test) were significantly sicker than the controls. This makes sense because people who were diagnosed with SARS tended to have pre-existing health conditions, just as is found with COVID-19. Mask-wearing and hand-washing were more common in controls, resulting in the conclusion that they were protective. Attending farmers’ markets was also “protective” – but in reality probably just reflects the better health and therefore mobility of the control group. Really sick people may avoid the use of masks because it interferes with their breathing when they already have health problems or simply because they go out less. This possibility was not considered by either paper.

So, in conclusion, there are two papers that claim that wearing masks was protective against SARS, but one admits that the control group was significantly healthier than the case group, and the other paper is silent on this important source of bias.

There are also the hamsters, however. No, Hong Kong University did not find a source of hamster-sized surgical masks, but in an unpublished paper they describe putting a surgical mask over the air flow between a cage of RNA positive hamsters and a cage of RNA negative hamsters, and documenting that a higher proportion of the RNA-negative hamsters became RNA-positive when there was no mask over the airflow. It is not clear why the researchers believe their studies can be extrapolated directly to people. Although newspaper articles claim that the paper has been “released”, not even the Hong Kong University press release – the institution where the work was performed – provided any details about its location.

Evidence against the use of masks

A very recent review of the literature that was published in the CDC journal Emerging Infectious Diseases did not find evidence that masks (or hand-washing) were protective against influenza. Masks did not help infected people reduce their risk of infecting others, nor reduce the risk of uninfected people contracting influenza:

In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission. […] Hand hygiene is a widely used intervention and has been shown to effectively reduce the transmission of gastrointestinal infections and respiratory infections. However, in our systematic review, updating the findings of Wong et al., we did not find evidence of a major effect of hand hygiene on laboratory-confirmed influenza virus transmission. […] We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility. […] It is essential to note that the mechanisms of person-to-person transmission in the community have not been fully determined. Controversy remains over the role of transmission through fine-particle aerosols.

Xiao J et al., “Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings – Personal Protective and Environmental Measures”, Emerg Infect Dis., May 17th 2020; 26(5).

A Korean study put masks on COVID-19 infected people and did not reduce the transmission of droplets when patients coughed with a mask on:

Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.

Bae S et al., “Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2: A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients”, Ann Intern Med., April 6th 2020.

Adverse consequences of masks

Adverse consequences of masks are most obvious among healthcare workers, where use is more controlled; but members of the general public who voluntarily wear masks for extended periods of time may experience similar problems.

A study in the BMJ showed that people who were told to wear cloth masks for extended periods of time (for the purposes of the study) had higher rates of influenza-like illness (“ILI”) than other healthcare workers who could decide if and when to wear masks, and had higher rates of ILI than those wearing surgical masks:

The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm [13 times higher] compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm [workers who followed standard practice, which could sometimes include mask wearing]. An analysis by mask use showed ILI and laboratory-confirmed virus were significantly higher [6.64 times for ILI and 1.72 times higher for lab confirmed virus] in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.”

MacIntyre CR et al., “A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers”, BMJ Open, April 22nd 2015; 5(4): e006577.

A study from Singapore found an increased risk of headaches – indicative of oxygen deprivation – among healthcare workers. This may or may not apply to the general public, who generally wear masks that are less tight-fitting (and therefore less effective):

A total of 158 healthcare workers participated in the study. Majority [126/158 (77.8%)] were aged 21–35 years. Participants included nurses [102/158 (64.6%)], doctors [51/158 (32.3%)], and paramedical staff [5/158 (3.2%)]. Pre-existing primary headache diagnosis was present in about a third [46/158 (29.1%)] of respondents. Those based at the emergency department had higher average daily duration of combined PPE exposure compared to those working in isolation wards [7.0 vs 5.2 hours] or medical ICU [7.0 vs 2.2 hours]. Out of 158 respondents, 128 (81.0%) respondents developed de novo PPE-associated headaches. A pre-existing primary headache diagnosis (OR = 4.20 and combined PPE usage for >4 hours per day (OR 3.91) were independently associated with de novo PPE-associated headaches. Since COVID-19 outbreak, 42/46 (91.3%) of respondents with pre-existing headache diagnosis either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the increased PPE usage had affected the control of their background headaches, which affected their level of work performance.

Ong JJY et al., “Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID‐19”, Headache, May 2020; 60(5): 864-877.

Opinions against the use of masks

The WHO has stated that is no benefit to healthy people wearing masks in public, and there is only limited evidence that masks help when in contact with a sick person:

There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in the households or among contacts of a sick patient, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a preventive measure. However, there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.

“Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19”, WHO, April 6th 2020.

The University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) does not recommend that the public wears masks, because they do not work, they may reduce other preventive measures, and they risk the supply of masks for healthcare workers:

We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because: There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection. We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers.

Brosseau LM et al., “COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data”, CIDRAP, April 1st 2020.

Experts from the Chicago School of Public Health do not recommend that the general public wear masks, for similar reasons to CIDRAP:

We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because: (1) There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. (2) Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection. (3) We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers.

Brosseau L et al.. “Commentary: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 Not Based on Sound Data”, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, 2nd April 2020.

An experienced ER nurse (RN, MSN) examined the data when her grandchild’s pre-school decided that even toddlers need to wear masks, and her literature review produced a lot of information against mask wearing, and she showed that the seven papers by the CDC in support of mask wearing are irrelevant to the subject.

Conclusions

Evidence is largely against mask-wearing by the general public. It is generally seen as ineffective, may take attention away from other protective measures, will reduce the supply of masks for healthcare workers and may cause harm when worn for extended periods of time.

Stop Press: The Korean study (Bae et al) has been retracted due to the use of numbers below the “limit of detection” published for the test used. However, if this limit is set conservatively, the numbers might still be useful for comparative, experimental research. The fact that the editors refused to consider a resubmitted article to address this problem indicates the retraction is at least partly political, perhaps because the conclusions are contrary to the current pro-mask mood.

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Latest News

Next Post

Latest News

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

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.

37 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pandemonic
Pandemonic
4 years ago

I’m amazed that anyone believes more science will change anything. It’s obvious that the people calling the shots are making it up as they go along – because they can.

45
-3
Michael Hughes
Michael Hughes
4 years ago
Reply to  Pandemonic

Welcome to the Plantation.

2
-1
Karen bruce
Karen bruce
4 years ago

People still seem to be under the misapprehension that wearing a mask will protect them getting infected by others. The government should make it clear that this is not the case. Wearing them also it appears does not protect those around you. So why are they mandatory, it’s a personal choice.

28
-4
cass
cass
4 years ago
Reply to  Karen bruce

They’re subjecting you to obedience training. Like a dog. If we meekly submit they’ll get worse and worse. Part of the reason is gearing up to bullying you into having Bill Gates’ vaccine which I hear will be pulled out of a hat perhaps later this year . over which I have very grave misapprehensions; partly because of Gates/WHO vaccine track record (mainstream media never report damage done by vaccines in Africa and India.
I recommend youtubes “UK Column or “Amazing Polly”. for more information.
Also UK column website https://www.ukcolumn.org/coronavirus

20
-3
Joe Bloggs
Joe Bloggs
4 years ago

These are the best places to start for tons of footnotes, studies, etc.
 
Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data 
 
 
Literature review from 2016 on why masks don’t protect dentists. 
Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review
https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-revealing-review/
 
 
A very good overview by Forbes with a thorough examination of studies.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2020/04/01/should-everyone-wear-a-mask-in-public-maybe-but-its-complicated/#4aac2d0ca02f
 
 
 
The definitive study of masks and the 1918 Influenza
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.10.1.34 
Masks have not been proved efficient enough to warrant compulsory application for the checking of epidemics, according to Dr. Kellogg, who has conducted a painstaking investigation with gauzes. This investigation is scientific in character, omitting no one of the necessary factors. It ought to settle the much argued question of masks for the public.

6
-2
Jane Wilson
Jane Wilson
4 years ago
Reply to  Joe Bloggs

The OralHealthGroup link no longer works.

0
0
ilises
ilises
4 years ago
Reply to  Jane Wilson

https://web.archive.org/web/20200902123327/https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-revealing-review/

0
0
simon abbott
simon abbott
4 years ago
Reply to  ilises

The paper has also been removed from the Internet archive Wayback Machine ‘because the study was done in 2016 and is no longer relevant’. Yeah, sure…

1
0
Peter Fitt
Peter Fitt
4 years ago

Will look forward to getting on the train in my Lone Ranger mask. Just got to find Tonto first. Sorry, I know this is serious but the way they are treating us is like children and we all know what happens when you start treating people like children…….

8
-2
ANDY MANSELL
ANDY MANSELL
4 years ago
Reply to  Peter Fitt

I absolutely refuse to wear a mask. for a start, I suffer badly with hay fever which makes the whole exercise bloody pointless anyway, and there is ample evidence that they are a health hazard when worn for longer periods. My own experience of wearing them in car body shops backs this up- plus if you press the re-circulate cabin air button on your car when it’s full of people just watch how quickly the windows mist up and it becomes unpleasant, which is effectively like putting a mask on the car. I will not meekly go along with something which I know is not healthy just for someone’s political ends. When I see a healthy young person in a near- deserted car park wearing a mask I don’t know whether to laugh or cry- we really are living in the time of the ‘sheeple’!

20
-3
cass
cass
4 years ago
Reply to  ANDY MANSELL

I agree entirely. It says esewhere on this webside “that Simon Dolan’s advice
is , If you don’t feel comfortable wearing a mask on public transport, simply don’t wear it and if challenged say that under Part 1 Section 4 (a) of The Health Protection (CV, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) you are exempt as they cause you severe anxiety”. I dont know who Simon Dolan is and trying to find out more. I too have hay fever and for some reason have a horror of sleeping with a pillow; anything over my mouth gives me panic attacks.

4
-1
cass
cass
4 years ago
Reply to  cass

PS to Andy Mansell. Of course, I remember now; Simon Dolan is the entrepreneur who challenged the lockdown in a court case.

1
0
cass
cass
4 years ago
Reply to  cass

PS to Andy Mansell. I subsequently discussed this with a lawyer, who said: Simon Dolan lives in Monaco, and that it is all very well for him to suggest that people put themselves up as “sacrificial lambs” ie to be the first person to put their heads over the parapet in a “test case.” Because they WOULD be fined, and taken to court if they did not pay. And they almost certainly wouldn’t win as the legal profession is almost entirely in cahoots on the Govt’s side. Just thought I’d tell you since I do not want to pass on ill advised advice .

1
-2
cass
cass
4 years ago
Reply to  cass

Having said that, here is Dr Vernon Colemans view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6n8IXoDj5g

2
-1
Sir Patrick Vaccine
Sir Patrick Vaccine
4 years ago
Reply to  cass

Also think about the courts at the moment – they have such a backlog on other things, masks may never get a look in. People in a state in Germany won a case against face mask wearing so it is not all useless

1
0
Debby Wakeham
Debby Wakeham
4 years ago
Reply to  cass

Same here – I am severely claustrophobic and find hot, stuffy air very uncomfortable. If the air is very hot, I feel I am suffocating and can’t breathe. Even if this were not the case, and even if masks did not cause hypercapnia and hypoxia, i still would not wear one, on the grounds that I am neither a sheep nor a vicious dog.

10
0
Debby Wakeham
Debby Wakeham
4 years ago

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020You are here: 

  • UK Statutory Instruments2020 No. 592PART 2Regulation 4
  • Table of Contents
  • Content
  • Explanatory Memorandum
  • http://www.legislation.gov.uk/images/chrome/helpIcon.gif
  • More Resources
  • http://www.legislation.gov.uk/images/chrome/helpIcon.gif
  • Previous: Provision
  • Next: Provision
  • Plain ViewPrint Options

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/images/chrome/helpIcon.gif
What Version

  • Latest available (Revised)
  • Original (As made)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/images/chrome/helpIcon.gif
Opening OptionsExpand opening optionsMore ResourcesExpand PDF versionsStatus: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format.
Reasonable excuse

4.  For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where—

(a)
P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—
(i)
because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1)), or
(ii)
without severe distress;
(b)
P is travelling with, or providing assistance to, another person (“B”) and B relies on lip reading to communicate with P;
(c)
P removes their face covering to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to themselves or others;
(d)
P is travelling to avoid injury, or to escape a risk of harm, and does not have a face covering with them;
(e)
if it is reasonably necessary for P to eat or drink, P removes their face covering to eat or drink;
(f)
P has to remove their face covering to take medication;
(g)
a relevant person requests that P remove their face covering.

5
0
Jane Wilson
Jane Wilson
4 years ago

The acpjournals.org Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks… mentioned above now comes up with “this article has been retracted when “Article, Author & Disclosure Info” is clicked on. Oh sorry, I just saw you did point this out, but I can’t find a away to delete this.

Last edited 4 years ago by Jane Wilson
0
0
V M
V M
4 years ago

I didn’t see any note above on efficacy of N95 masks. There are studies on efficacy of N95 masks on viruses. Even though N95s are standardized for larger PM2.5 particles, they have been tested to do quite well on particles much smaller, even smaller than viruses. Please see here:
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/

0
-2
Susan Speicher
Susan Speicher
4 years ago
Reply to  V M

Nobody is out there wearing N95 respirators (which are different from N95 masks). The website link you provided is a company selling filters. I am suspicious of their reported results. There is no way a cloth mask is going to stop virus-sized particles. All they can do is block the droplets carrying the viruses. But all the fiddling with masks that people do negates any benefit anyway.

0
0
Michael R. Wilson
Michael R. Wilson
4 years ago

We live in tyranny in America. Here, in Massachusetts,we live as slaves. We cannot go to any building without Master Baker’s manumission pass on our faces. The Catholic Church was closed on Easter, and every Sunday since. The Catholic Church, the one founded by the Son of Man.This makes the church, as well as the other churches, wards of the state.Their tax exempt status should be removed. If they want money they can ask the government, as is done (I believe) in Germany. Or they can close. This was a glorious opportunity to learn if there were any saints in the church, if there was a Church Militant.This whole Un-American event was set up 14 years ago, begun by President Bush. I wonder if the Trump Presidency is why we are going through this. I and the wife did not vote for him or ‘that’ woman that year. We go shopping and have to listen to Chinese propaganda over the intercom, telling us how to live and behave. When does this “nonsense” (as one doctor told me over the phone two months ago) re: slavery, end?

3
0
raw987
raw987
4 years ago

I am extremely worried and skeptical about the new proposed laws to make mass compulsory in shops in the UK. although if you voice concerns as to not wearing a mask you are considered a terrible person with no respect for human life, WHY are they only being made mandatory 4 months into ‘lockdown’? the government are restricting liberty

1
0
Peter W
Peter W
4 years ago
Reply to  raw987

Goverment know this pandemic is as good as over but need be seen to do something so they can claim credit.
If I have to shop in England (I live in Wales who will probably follow “the Science”) I will also wear a tin foil to keep me really safe because aliens are a threat too you know!

1
0
wildboar
wildboar
4 years ago

In the UK we have already reached the Herd Immunity Threshold.
The maths in this post were sourced from:https://off-guardian.org/2020/07/07/second-wave-not-even-close/

IFR = infection fatality rate = the probability of dying for a person who is infected, which is now recognised as being 0.26%

HIT = herd immunity threshold = community immunity gained when a percentage of the population becomes infected with a disease.

Empirical evidence suggests that HIT for COVID-19 is between around 19% and that the other 81% or less of us have cross immunity because of pre-existing T-cell response brought on by exposure to the common cold or any other of the many corona viruses, see:https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-35331/v1

Equations
(1) divide deaths by the IFR and you know how many people have had corona virus;
(2) divide the number of people who have had the virus by the number of people in the community and you find the herd immunity threshold.
Take the UK
Deaths: 44,300
IFR: 0.26%
Population: 67000000
Maths: 44300/0.0026 = 17038461.5385
17038461.5385/67000000 = 0.2543053961
0.2543053961×100 = 25.430

The UK Herd Immunity Threshold is 25.430%
We have already reached it and no longer need a a lockdown or masks or vaccines.
(The UK’s HIT is higher than the usual 17% – 20% because total deaths have been higher than in some other countries, probably because of a much higher rate of care home deaths due to government policy.)

1
0
Peter W
Peter W
4 years ago
Reply to  wildboar

Or because numbers are not accurate and inflated when “with” covid or just dying of something else is counted.
Yes, hopefully we’re close to HIT and we should just get on with getting there BEFORE the winter brings its usual ailments.

0
0
Jamie Steel
Jamie Steel
4 years ago

It seems obvious to me that within a few months a significant rise in workplace illnesses will be detected in staff made to wear masks all day like in restaurants or public transport.

Then hopefully will we have yet another u-turn. These headless chickens in the govt. seem desperate to appear decisive that they don’t balance out the long term effects of their measures. Very disappointing.

2
0
Colleen Lloyd
Colleen Lloyd
4 years ago

Very interesting research: [Arthur Firstenberg is the author of *The Invisible Rainbow*].

Arthur Firstenberg on facial masks:
“As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries.

They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years.

And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks.

Their conclusion: ‘It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all’ and that wearing a mask during surgery ‘is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.’

I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease.

But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

• Ritter et al., in 1975, found that ‘the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.’

• Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. ‘Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.’

• Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. ‘No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,’ they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.

Last edited 4 years ago by Colleen Lloyd
3
0
Colleen Lloyd
Colleen Lloyd
4 years ago

• In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.

• A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that ‘The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.’

• Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that ‘surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.’

• Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.

• Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that ‘no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.’

• Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. ‘Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,’ wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.

• Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.

• Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found ‘no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.’ Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.

• Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that ‘none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.’

• Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that ‘there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.’

• Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that ‘there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.’

Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes — two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.

Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55.

All 13 states that have death rates higher than 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.

‘We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,’ writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.”

Arthur Firstenberg
August 11, 2020
Thank you Kalyani Ma Mukti for the original post

#wearethebreathofgod #masks #masksarebs

2
0
wantok87
wantok87
4 years ago
  1. Having spent 45 years as a surgeon and written about how ineffective Surgical Masks are at preventing transmission of bacteria, let alone aerosols in the controlled environment of the operating theatre, it is disappointing to observe the reaction of Governments ,supported by advisors, now demand for mask wearing in the general population. It is quite mystifying why The Royal Society and the Lancet support the mandate. “Chu DK et al. 2020 Physical distancing, face masks and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 395, P1973-1987.” The authors appear willing to accept the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of masks in any study, then openly accept a complicated method of reviewing multiple studies and extract Mask Wearing from the data as being of paramount use. They they seem to dismiss association rather than causation as being the reason that mask wearing appears effective in their conclusion.The authors do not comment on the WHO document indicating the potential problems for children https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC_Masks-Children-2020.1 the detrimental effect of mask wearing in young children The benefits of wearing masks in children for COVID-19 control should be weighed against potential harm associated with wearing masks, including feasibility and discomfort, as well as social and communication concerns”
  2. Do masks work?Having spent 6 weeks in Spain where mask wearing in mandatory, when walking, even along a beach, but is not needed if running or cycling and observing masks around chin,on elbows ,thrown on floor, placed on tables while eating -the function of masks was only to avoid incurring a fine.
  3. Finally ,having returned and now had to be forced to wear a mask on a flight while reading next to a man who was permitted to remove his mask when eating and drinking the complete absurdity of the current situation needs to be addressed. As a society we cannot permit politicians and chosen medical advisors to make criminals out of those of us who disagree with the data interpretation on which the laws have been made. Liberty is more important in any event than longevity but when loss of liberty is based on guesswork of Epidemiologists society need some form of redress.
5
-1
not given
not given
4 years ago

masks do not prevent viral transmissoon because: viruses are not contagious.

viruses are not what you have been told they are.

you have been lied to.

what they call infectious viruses are exosomes, part of the body’s natural process of expelling toxins. cells expel toxins to heal the body; exosomes are labelled dangerous viruses.

the body heals itself. the fake covid tests tell us we are infected and must be isolated.

the contagion myth has been weaponised against all humanity. we are the virus they are at war with. when they wish to eradicate covid, they wish to eradicate humanity.

check out Dr Stefan Lanka. Dr Tom Cowan.

the truth will prevail. may God open the eyes of all who read this.

2
-1
J Keepin
J Keepin
4 years ago

Soon after the débacle came about, I reviewed a British Standards Institution standard on PPE (https://www.bsigroup.com/globalassets/localfiles/en-gb/product-certification/personal-safety/bsi-guide-for-personal-safety-equipment-0520.pdf ), and came to the view that for the general public, such things are crap, not to put too fine a point on it. I’ve never used one, but have made use of the official guidelines for being exempt (not well advertised, but they exist).

2
-1
Pendle Witch
Pendle Witch
4 years ago

Stop wearing masks, they are both innefective against disease and cause lack of oxygen to the wearer and an intake of their own CO2. We were not designd with a mouth and nose for them to be covered. Stop following laws made by idiots.

0
-1
Sister Kristen
Sister Kristen
4 years ago

Masks are a satanic ritual- stop doing it!!! It is child abuse!!!! Are you too dumb to recognize that? Wow!!!!!

0
-1
Sven-Eric
Sven-Eric
4 years ago

Would like to see an update on these masks, if something has changed.

0
0
joy clayton
joy clayton
4 years ago

Pardon necessary gross language here. We excrete body liquid through peeing, solid through ‘pooping, food gas through ‘farming, and all OTHER waste through skin and BREATHING. We breathe out waste. We’d never recycle any other waste. The mask, a face DIAPER catches our waste which through nasal spray cling and clogs pores in cloth. A mask is also shown to prevent nothing.

1
0
sharath5665
sharath5665
3 years ago

I appreciated your kind way of knowledge. Great Stuff Here. I am happy to find such an informative post. I hope more will come. Also find out some health stuffs on Supplement Health Expert

0
0
Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
3 years ago

Twenty Fun Facts About Masks

1) In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf

2) The evidence for the efficacy of cloth face masks in the community is weak.
https://www.cato.org/working-paper/evidence-community-cloth-face-masking-limit-spread-sars-cov-2-critical-review

3) Masks apparently fail to protect those aged under 50 (i.e. they don’t work).
https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-masking-covid-19-cluster-randomized-trial-bangladesh

4) In the US neither making masks mandatory nor mask use was associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 spread.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385

5) Wearing masks compromises communication: speech becomes mumbled, smiles become hidden.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-020-03535-1

6) Lip-reading becomes impossible.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2683

7) Masks generally make us more docile and compliant.
https://thecritic.co.uk/face-masks-make-you-stupid/

8) The inside and outside of masks can become contaminated with bacteria and fungi.
https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2014.92

9) Masks cause hypoxia (a condition in which not enough oxygen makes it to the tissues of the body) and fatigue.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084344

10) Masks are only effective so long as they are dry, which could be for as little as 15 or 20 minutes.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/farce-mask-its-safe-for-only-20-minutes-20030427-gdgnyo.html

11) Wearing certain types of face masks for long periods of time could result in potentially hazardous chemicals and harmful microplastics being inhaled deep into human lungs.
https://www.ecotextile.com/2021040127603/dyes-chemicals-news/exclusive-chemical-cocktail-found-in-face-masks.html

12) Wearing a used mask could be more dangerous than not wearing one at all.
https://nypost.com/2020/12/16/wearing-a-used-mask-could-worse-than-no-mask-amid-covid-19-study/

13) Many masks become litter, so are bad for the environment.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/08/more-masks-than-jellyfish-coronavirus-waste-ends-up-in-ocean

14) When disposable face masks are exposed to water, they leach microparticles, nanoparticles and heavy metals.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117033

15) Masks have been put to good effect by criminals.
https://xtown.la/2020/11/23/criminals-wear-masks-covid/

16) Masks make identifying criminals more difficult.
https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/news/local/mandatory-masks-make-identifying-criminals-more-difficult-but-police-say-there-are-other-techniques-499102/

17) Masks make people, at least children, less honest.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.44.2.422

18) Masks appear to cause numerous real or perceived issues for children in particular (e.g. irritability, headache, difficulty concentrating, less happiness).
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-124394/v3

19) Masks worn by children have been found to have been contaminated with pneumonia-causing bacteria and meningitis-causing bacteria, among other pathogens.
https://rationalground.com/dangerous-pathogens-found-on-childrens-face-masks/

20) Masking children is tragic, unscientific and damaging.
https://www.aier.org/article/masking-children-tragic-unscientific-and-damaging/

0
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

In Episode 35 of the Sceptic: Andrew Doyle on Labour’s Grooming Gang Shame, Andrew Orlowski on the India-UK Trade Deal and Canada’s Ignored Covid Vaccine Injuries

by Richard Eldred
9 May 2025
1

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest

Sun-Dimming Quango has £800 Million of Taxpayer Money to Blow – and a CEO on £450k

8 May 2025

News Round-Up

9 May 2025

The Sugar Tax Sums Up Our Descent into Technocratic Dystopia

8 May 2025

BBC Quietly Edits Question Time After Wrongly ‘Correcting’ Richard Tice on Key Net Zero Claim

9 May 2025

UK “Shafted” by US Trade Deal

8 May 2025

News Round-Up

26

The Sugar Tax Sums Up Our Descent into Technocratic Dystopia

26

Electric Car Bursts into Flames on Driveway and Engulfs £550,000 Family Home

14

Sun-Dimming Quango has £800 Million of Taxpayer Money to Blow – and a CEO on £450k

28

What Does David Lammy Mean by a State?

11

BBC Quietly Edits Question Time After Wrongly ‘Correcting’ Richard Tice on Key Net Zero Claim

9 May 2025

Electric Car Bursts into Flames on Driveway and Engulfs £550,000 Family Home

9 May 2025

“I Was a Super Fit Cyclist Until I Had the Moderna Covid Vaccine. What Happened Next Left Me Wishing I Was Dead”

9 May 2025

Nature Paper Claims to Pin Liability for ‘Climate Damages’ on Oil Companies

9 May 2025

What Does David Lammy Mean by a State?

9 May 2025

POSTS BY DATE

June 2020
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
« May   Jul »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
wpDiscuz
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences