Scientific Credibility and the File-Drawer Problem

Aha, I think I found the issue. You think that influenza and Covid are the same thing. They’re not!

You may not know this, but there are many different types of sickness that people can get. Flu and Covid are quite different types!

A study showing that masks don’t work for flu, but are great for SARS, is a pretty good one for why masks would be helpful in this pandemic.

*snerk*

You were the one who seized upon that study and said you were going to quote it.

Then when I easily shoved it up your Donkey, you backtracked and pretended another one of your mistakes, which I hadn't even pointed out, was mine.

You may not know this, but up yours.

It seems to be human nature (confirmation bias) to expect to see something, and when you think you have seen it to stop looking.

I'm looking at the same documents presented en-masse by grey_whiskers and What I see is quite different. This is what I see: (each link in order from the first, followed by the key conclusions copied from the article and 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

(Note: I'll continue going through the rest of grey_whiskers links and post more later)

Thanks RACPE.

Here are some more extracts from the links provided by grey_whiskers. This is what I see: (each link in order from the first, followed by the key conclusions copied from the article and my translation of what that really means).

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

The site was under maintenance probably can try later

Translation:

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 signiicasant 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

That's enough for tonite - I'll try to finish up tomorrow

Thanks!

They should have pointed out that “scientific consensus” has no meaning in a science context. It is a purely political term that is used by science ignoramuses.

When someone says the term it immediately tells you they are scientifically illiterate.

Thank you for being thorough.

Bkmk

nd finally, I am convinced there are a number of (maybe) real scientists (Dr. Anthony Fauci comes to mind) who may in fact have their own ideological agenda and willingness to misrepresent the whole truth, and thus perpetrate the misinformation.

So how do we determine truth? Can we ever completely know truth?

Is truth relative or absolute? Yes. Some truth is relative, we are all individuals Covid and other things affect us all differently. But govt wants one solution for all of us. To them we are all the same.

Is truth absolute? Yes some is. It is unknowable but yet we can chew on the edges and move close to truth.

The essence of science is seeking truth, but we want answers.

I remember clearly the first day of my first stastics class.

Statistics NEVER gives you an answer, at best, it give you another question.

I memorized my lifetime favorite quote from the author of my high school junior year physical science class textbook, Linus Pauling.

"Say not 'this is the truth' but 'so it seems to me to be, as I see this thing I think I see'."

However, we are always left with the preponderance of the evidence, and the ability to reach logical conclusions based on that evidence, but only if we care enough to actually reach those conclusions and take appropriate action.

In the case of mask mandates, (also vaccine mandates) I think the time for conclusions and corrective action is NOW!