[Da Coyote]

Un, howz about this one, written by a PhD Physicist (don’t get fooled, physics is where one really learns how to discern data from noise?

https://www.sott.net/article/434796-The-Science-is-Conclusive-Masks-and-Respirators-do-NOT-Prevent-Transmission-of-Viruses

I’ll take the physicist for $500.

OK, WSJ, you’ve been raised. What’s your next bet, mere journalists?

[Da Coyote]

Oops, question mark not intended. But, I’m just so pissed at “science” conducted by folks who should know better and then pushed by journalists who never will.

[Fungi]

bmk

[nanook]

I was going to post this one also but you beat me to it.

[jimnm]

Without getting into the mask effectiveness debate one way or the other, there are issues with this person's 'research'. Most of the citations he cited actually don't support his position. 2 of the 5 of the medical literature citations he selectively chose actually support the wearing of masks - both N95 and surgical masks in a health care setting - to protect the wearer from SARS (a coronavirus, covid-19 is SARS-CoV-2). The other 3 studies and literature reviews didn't look at SARS virus. So of the 2 he picked that did look at SARS, their findings supported the wearing of N95 and surgical masks by health care workers to prevent from getting infected by SARS. Worth pointing out that the physicist that wrote this was fired from his university 12 years ago after losing his marbles and blaming the Jews and the military-industrial complex for all of his problems. He apparently hasn't worked as a physicist since. He's into conspiracies and apparently didn't read what he was citing or he did and didn't report the issue that was actually relevant to what he was writing about (since he quoted from sentences directly before and after these SARS findings, but not the SARS findings themselves since they didn't support his position). None of these studies look at whether a mask is effective at blocking/reducing the distance of droplets that the wearer from spreads. This is what the WSJ article was about. I looked at the first 5 of his citations under 'Review of the Medical Literature' since these were the ones he said 'are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., "N95") does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness.' 1st study is surgical mask versus no surgical mask at work (not coming to and from work on public transport in Japan). There were 2464 subject days and in each group there was 1 cold in the period (77 days). Nothing can really be drawn from that. An equally plausible explanation is that the two health care workers contracted a cold on the train or bus on the way to work, or out at the store, etc. 2nd study was a literature review and concerned influenza. The findings were mixed, some showed support for masks some didn't. Not clear cut. 3rd study definitely doesn't support his conclusions: One household trial found that mask wearing coupled with hand sanitiser use reduced secondary transmission of upper respiratory infection ⁄ influenza-like illness ⁄ laboratory-confirmed influenza compared with education; hand sanitiser alone resulted in no reduction. One hospital-based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Coronavirus/COVID19 is a SARS-Cov-2 virus. That study says the opposite of what his conclusions are. According to this study, surgical masks and N95 masks protect the wearer against SARS, There was also a tendency to confuse N95 and surgical masks working equally well with the idea that meant that neither worked. This was an issue in some of the other studies as well. 5th citation: "Meta-analysis of observational studies provided evidence of a protective effect of masks (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03–0.62) and respirators (OR = 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06–0.26) against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). " Coronavirus/COVID-19 is SARS-CoV-2. So 5th citation and 3rd citation both say that surgical masks and N95 masks offer the wearers of the masks protection against SARS. Coronavirus/COVID19 is SARS-CoV-2. He didn't draw attention to this because it undermines his conclusions.