Surgeon Shows CDC Top Evidence On Why Wearing Masks Work

No study has every shown masks have any statistical significance on infection rates for respiratory viral infections NONE, EVER.

In the other hand, cloth masks worn for extended periods are good for growing all sorts of bacteria that you can breath into your lungs. That’s a plus.

Yeah we have that going for us.

Sadly, because Covid has become a religion complete with people expressing their piety through donning a face mask. A lot of faithful adherents, or Branch Covidians if you prefer.

And then there is Bill Nye the unscience guy doing idiocy like this, with Ms King almost swooning:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=detail&mid=90F340CC20557ED0A62C90F340CC20557ED0A62C&q=youtube

Hey Billy! Where do you think your exhaled breath went? 🙄🙄🙄

Curious if he would guarantee that they are 100.000% safe.

So how long before this doctor loses his job because, "blah, blah, blah,...he does not reflect our values and beliefs...blah, blah, blah" at whatever institution or hospital he is with?

He’s in the science department. I tried to read one of his papers on line and my head nearly exploded.

“He’s in the science department. I tried to read one of his papers on line and my head nearly exploded.”

Thanks. Yes it can be hard for people not in a field to understand a scientific paper in that field.

What kind of science does he do?

True. And it’s been known for years.

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help To Keep FR In The Battle !!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

I know you’re kidding but the fact is these viruses are so small they are aerosolized and move around the room with the flow of ventilation. In a building they can move from room to room.

There is no practical protection from this virus or any virus of that size other than a person’s natural immune system. I don’t include these experimental vaccines because they have not been tested for long term efficacy or side effects.

The only mask I can think of that actually would protect you very well from breathing in the virus particles ejected from others while at the same time protecting everyone around you from possibly becoming contaminated by you in case you have the coof is a positive-pressure filter system.

A somewhat heavy device carried on a shoulder strap that has two pumps, one pump pulls in air from your immediate surrounding and passes it through a very good filter that CAN capture all the virus particles and feeds the filtered, clean air under pressure to your full-face mask...clean air comes in when you inhale and cause a valve to switch to inward flow and when you exhale a valve sends your exhaled air back to the device that filters your exhaled air before it is ejected into the surrounding air.

No virus coming in, no virus going out and none leaking in or out from your mask which is very tightly fitted to your face.

While it might be possible to have a very tightly fitted full-face mask without the pumps but with valves that could perform the same function I think it might be difficult for some to suck in air through an adequate filter and then have to also force the air in the mask back out through another filter. It might be possible if the filters were quite large as generally the larger the filter the easier to push air through them... such a mask might find many customers given the current level of hysteria.

If you did not have to worry about putting your possibly contaminated exhaled air into your surroundings a system could be more easily constructed.

Some modern military vehicles use a positive pressure system that sucks air from the outside through a filter and keeps the inside air at all times at a high enough pressure that no external air can seep in through any cracks.. They do NOT have the problem of having to filter the inside air before ejecting it back outside. .. biological warfare systems...

Paper and cloth masks can have an effect on virus particles going in and out but are somewhat like standing on one side of a picket fence while someone on the other side with a hose tries to wet you down. Yes, you will be a bit less soaked... it seems to me that a paper or cloth mask might lower the amount of particles for someone if you were close to them and exhaling in their direction as your breath mostly seems to eject from the sides... if someones smokes and exhales through a cheap mask an awful lot of the smoke goes out the sides... the victim of your exhaled viral particles might wind up with a lesser viral load than if you just breathed on them at close range with no mask at all..

It’s not my place to guess if the effort and inconvenience of wearing paper masks and risking the bacteria that can build up in them is a sensible thing...

With the possibility of a serious viral pandemic always hanging over us all why hasn’t very extensive testing been done re the efficacy of cheap masks???

Level 4 labs feed air under pressure to a full-body protective suit that ensures no air from inside the lab reaches inside your suit. The air ejected from the level-4 areas of the lab is filtered before it reaches the outside air.

I got a mask that reads ‘This mask is as useless as Justin Trudeau.’ I can’t wear it at work, however.

Let me guess Professor of Binary and Transgender Studies?

Just in case anyone here want's to see the actual real scientific studies, here's a pretty good selection.

I intend this post to provide clear documented evidence for all to clearly understand the flaws in mask mandates, and effectively resist this tyrrany.

I'm looking at a lot of links about the science of mask effectiveness presented en-masse by grey_whiskers in another thread. What I see is quite clear scientific consensus that masks are NOT effective at preventing or even significantly inhibiting transmission of viruses such as influenza or Covid-19.

I have studied each link in order from the first, selected the key conclusions in each, and copied them from the article to this post, and added my translation of what that really means).

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v1.full

Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment

Conclusions Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges. Containment requires future research and implementation of existing efficacious strategies.

Translation: Masks don't work to significantly reduce virus transmission. More research needed.

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence.

A) Studies on the effectiveness of face masks
So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source)
A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. (Source)
A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS One, found that face masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.” (Source)
A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no high-quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of non-medical and medical face masks in the community. Furthermore, the European CDC advised against the use of FFP2/N95 masks by the general public. (Source)
A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)
A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. (Source)
An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). (Source)
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. (Source)
A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)
An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. (Source)
C) Effectiveness of N95/FFP2 mask mandates
In January 2021, the German state of Bavaria was one of the first places in the world to mandate N95/FFP2 masks in most public settings. A comparison with other German states, which required cloth or medical masks, indicates that even N95/FFP2 masks made no difference.
(AND THERE IS MUCH MORE RELATED TO DANGERS OF MASKS IN THIS LINK)

Translation: Masks don't work to significantly reduce virus transmission.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/

[Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance]

Results: Distance was not modified by the mask (P=0.99). Dyspnea variation was significantly higher with surgical mask (+5.6 vs. +4.6; P<0.001) and the difference was clinically relevant. No difference was found for the variation of other parameters.

Conclusion: Wearing a surgical mask modifies significantly and clinically dyspnea without influencing walked distance.

Translation: Even a simple surgical mask has a negative health impact on a healthy person when walking for 6 minutes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/

"Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil's sword?" - A physiological hypothesis

Exercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment, cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases. Further contrary to the earlier thought, no evidence exists to claim the facemasks during exercise offer additional protection from the droplet transfer of the virus. Hence, we recommend social distancing is better than facemasks during exercise and optimal utilization rather than exploitation of facemasks during exercise.

Translation: I personally experienced hypercapnic hypoxia (and nearly collapsed) after browsing 20 minutes in a grocery store wearing a simple surgical mask, and had to be helped outdoors and removing my mask. Even though I recovered quickly after removing the mask, this is very real for me. I now use an N95 ventilator with a battery powered filtered fan (available on Amazon and other places for around $50), which clears out the exhaled CO2 after each breath. With that, I can tolerate the mask for up to about 30 minutes

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/

The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease

Conclusion: Wearing an N95 mask for 4 hours during HD significantly reduced PaO2 and increased respiratory adverse effects in ESRD patients.

Translation: That aint good, folks!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/

Respiratory consequences of N95-type Mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers-a controlled clinical study

Conclusions: Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers, and this needs to be taken into consideration in guidelines for respirator use. The benefits of using N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage.

Translation: Wearing the mask may be more dangerous than Covid-19

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/

Contamination by respiratory viruses on outer surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers

Conclusion: Respiratory pathogens on the outer surface of the used medical masks may result in self-contamination. The risk is higher with longer duration of mask use (> 6 h) and with higher rates of clinical contact. Protocols on duration of mask use should specify a maximum time of continuous use, and should consider guidance in high contact settings. Viruses were isolated from the upper sections of around 10% samples, but other sections of masks may also be contaminated. HCWs should be aware of these risks in order to protect themselves and people around them.

Translation: Even though the mask does not catch all the virus particles, it does catch some, and then is unsafe to handle

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

Results
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 (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%
. Conclusions
This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

Translation: Cloth masks are even more usless than surgical masks

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1

Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: A rapid systematic review

Discussion Based on the RCTs we would conclude that wearing facemasks can be very slightly protective against primary infection from casual community contact, and modestly protective against household infections when both infected and uninfected members wear facemasks. However, the RCTs often suffered from poor compliance and controls using facemasks.

Translation: Seems a little like "getting slightly pregnant" Never mind how inconvenient it is...

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 - Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis

RESULTS We included 15 randomised trials investigating the effect of masks (14 trials) in healthcare workers and the general population and of quarantine (1 trial). We found no trials testing eye protection. Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05) or influenza (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95%CI 0.61-1.17) for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers (Risk Ratio 0.37, 95%CI 0.05 to 2.50). There was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators: for ILI (Risk Ratio 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.08), for influenza (Risk Ratio 1.02, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.43). Harms were poorly reported and limited to discomfort with lower compliance. The only trial testing quarantining workers with household ILI contacts found a reduction in ILI cases, but increased risk of quarantined workers contracting influenza. All trials were conducted during seasonal ILI activity.

Translation: No masks (neither surgical nor N95) worked to prevent infection. Quarantine worked somewhat, but with other risks for quarantined workers

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era

What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.

It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask.

Translation: A mask is not enough to prevent spread of infection (the public mask mandates will therefore not accomplish that goal)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel

Findings In this pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial involving 2862 health care personnel, there was no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among health care personnel with the use of N95 respirators (8.2%) vs medical masks (7.2%).

Translation: Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Conclusion
Although N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.

Translation: This was a very extensive and detailed study in 2016 that concluded no significant difference in respiratory infections with either mask

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/

The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence

In conclusion, there is a limited evidence base to support the use of masks and/or respirators in healthcare or community settings. Mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection, especially including hand hygiene in both home and healthcare settings. Early initiation and correct and consistent wearing of masks/respirators may improve their effectiveness. However, this remains a major challenge – both in the context of a formal study and in everyday practice.

Translation: This wasn't a "study", it was a long review of many other studies in many different environments. effectively says "we don't really know" (hint - probably looking for more funding in 2011)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial

Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

Translation: Masks don't significantly inhibit transmission of virus

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

Conclusions
This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

Translation: Cloth masks are actually WORSE than no mask

There's actually a lot more like the above, but it takes time to go through them in detail.

What is really notable, however, is that I have found NO studies like this that demonstrate ANY significant success for masks to significantly inhibit virus transmission.

Thank you for your work. You may appreciate this video

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oYEo4T6V25w&feature=youtu.be

Wow!

Outstanding and thank you!

Great job on all the research!

2 hairstylists?!

O.M.G.

Here’s what I wanna know: Why hasn’t Twitter banned this guy and sent his vuds down the memory hole....