Mask Science- a Comprehensive Review

It’s been clearly evident for over 100 years that mask laws cause harm and have no positive effect on public health by no fault of that public, but let me start with the 9 quotes on the internet that matter, and sprinkle in 3 pictures, and after you read and think about this I hope you conclude, like I do, that mask policies only make the rich richer while the poor turn on each other like rats. Don’t turn on your fellow man, rich or poor, because we are all just afraid, and we all have suffered. Limiting suffering is the best course of action.

To be fair I must state clearly what the logic was that informed WHO’s change in policy, to endorse mask wearing. It was most directly lobbyist money, which the WHO has not denied.

July 18, 2020 – Quote 1
Author: Peter Hitchens
Quote: “Here is a clue. On July 12, Deborah Cohen, the medical correspondent of BBC2’s Newsnight, revealed an astonishing thing. The World Health Organisation (WHO) had reversed its advice on face masks, from ‘don’t wear them’ to ‘do wear them’…But the key fact was that it had not done so because of scientific information – the evidence had not backed the wearing of face coverings – but because of political lobbying…She revealed on Twitter that: ‘We had been told by various sources [that the] WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying.’ She said the BBC had then put this to the WHO, which did not deny it.”
Link: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8537489/PETER-HITCHENS-Face-masks-turn-voiceless-submissives.html

Proponents of this scheme use the following flawed logic, that a mechanism-based study can inform policy since we cannot wait for randomized-controlled studies, and if a randomized-controlled study differs it must be due to the influence of factors. Both of these logical presuppositions are flawed because the opposite is true of each. RCTs have occurred and taken time yes, but that is time the public is willing to wait before being told how to live their lives, and the RCT studies all so far conclude that masks do not work. If mechanistic-based studies differ from RCTs they are being influenced by other factors, and not the other way around. The following study advocates a pure lie and that is what is informing world policy- a lie.

Mar 25, 2021 – Quote 2
Author: Muller, S.
Quote: “In the second version of the WHO’s advice in March 2020 (WHO, 2020a) it stated that…A medical mask is not required for people who are not sick as there is no evidence of its usefulness in protecting them…Cloth (e.g. cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstances…However, by December 2020, the WHO recommended wearing of non-medical masks of various kind in certain community settings—subject to recommendations on how this is done. It did so, “Despite the limited evidence of protective efficacy of mask wearing in community settings” (WHO, 2020b)…Mechanism-based reasoning provides a justification for the stance ultimately advocated by the WHO and adopted by many countries: wearing a mask, even of a non-medical variety, constitutes a sensible precautionary measure that may mitigate the spread of SARS-Cov-2…

  1. SARS-Cov-2 is a virus that is transmitted from one person to another
  2. The main source of transmission is respiratory droplets, either in the air or on surfaces
  3. Holding other factors constant, anything that reduces the volume of such droplets from contagious individuals will reduce transmission rates
  4. Masks worn over the nose and mouth that are not overly porous will block transmission of some proportion of droplets
  5. Therefore masks should be worn.”

Link, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40656-021-00403-9

Now we must review the science behind this, to conclude for ourselves what is most likely true, in this realm of scientific uncertainty. If we do not dedicate ourselves to learning, we should certainly not be dictating to the lives of others either.

Oct 21, 2020 – Quote 3
Authors: Hiroshi Ueki, Yuri Furusawa, Kiyoko Iwatsuki-Horimoto, Masaki Imai, Hiroki Kabata, Hidekazu Nishimura, Yoshihiro Kawaoka –
Quote: “Airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks provide some protection from the transmission of infective SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols; however, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) could not completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when sealed.”
Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33087517/

Nov 19, 2020 – Quote 4
Author: Connor Boyd Assistant Health Editor For Mailonline
Quote: “The rationale has been that masks must be better than nothing because they block at least some virus being exhaled or inhaled by the wearer… But a randomized study published by scientists at Copenhagen University, thought to be the best of its kind so far, found no statistical evidence that they offer any protection whatsoever. Reacting to the finding in a column in The Spectator today, Oxford University’s Professor Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson said there had been ‘a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks and Covid-19’. There have only been three ‘real life’ studies comparing mask-wearers to non-mask-wearers — one in Guinea-Bissau, one in India and the new Denmark study. All have shown masks to have no benefit in preventing the disease.”
Link: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8966883/Masks-DONT-stop-spread-Covid-experts-criticise-troubling-lack-evidence.html

Nov 20, 2020 – Quote 5
Authors: Jefferson, T., et. al.
Quote: “The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID‐19 pandemic…There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated…There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.”
Link, https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full

Table 1 – Pros and Cons of Masks by Type

Jan 30, 2021 – Quote 6
Author: Ted Noel, MD
Quote: “The real question that has to be asked isn’t about mechanisms.  We have known for years that mask-wearing has no effect on the transmission of airborne diseases in the general population. The study I just cited has one key difference from the mechanistic studies we have been talking about.  It actually looked at whether mask-wearing reduced infections.  That is called epidemiology and is about biology. The others were physical science.  When the physical sciences demonstrate a difference, but the biological sciences don’t, whatever the physical scientists are measuring isn’t relevant.”
Link: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/02/enough_is_enough_time_to_finally_follow_the_science_on_masks.html

Mar 01, 2021 – Quote 7
Author: Stephen Schumacher, Mathematician, Harvard
Quote: “Neurosurgeon researcher Dr. Russell Blaylock warns that reduction in blood oxygenation from prolonged mask wearing is “associated with an impairment in immunity” with “an increased risk of infections … including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver”, as well as promoting “spread of cancers”, “cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.” Continually rebreathing moist respiratory wastes beneath a mask raises the concentration of any viruses in the lungs and nasal passages causing worse reactions. “Newer evidence suggests…by wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”
Link: https://www.porttownsendfreepress.com/2021/01/30/masks-dont-stop-viruses-and-could-harm-you-the-latest-research/

Chart 1 – The Coronavirus cases went up immediately following UK mask laws in 2020

Picture 1 – “Anti-Mask League” met in 1918 to protest “Unhealthy Mask Ordinance”

In 1918, victims of the ineffective policies of San Francisco were fined, arrested, and even at times shot at people. It was a complete loss, and in the end masks were shown to have led to an increase in the perception of safety, and resulted in worse consequences than if masks had not been enforced. The lives of people just over 100 years ago now were thrown into total disarray and the policy itself was a failure, while to this day trusted sources blame those who refused to mask as the true cause of San Francisco’s troubles, when underneath that rhetoric is the implication that non-compliance is the reason we’re unsure whether or not compliance works. These deceptive critics must remember that there has not once been strong evidence that masks reduce transmission of an aeresolized virus. They make such statements based on an implicit premise that masks are proven to help. This has not been validated by strong evidence even in our modern times. We must learn from history, and not repeat it.

May 12, 2020 – Quote 8
Author: Ewing, T.
Quote: “In 1919, Wilfred Kellogg’s study for the California State Board of Health concluded that mask ordinances “applied forcibly to entire communities” did not decrease cases and deaths, as confirmed by comparisons of cities with widely divergent policies on masking. Masks were used most frequently out in public, where they were least effective, whereas masks were removed when people went inside to work or socialize, where they were most likely to be infected. Kellogg found the evidence persuasive: “The case against the mask as a measure of compulsory application for the control of epidemics appears to be complete.”..In a comprehensive study published in 1921, Warren T. Vaughn declared “the efficacy of face masks is still open to question.” The problem was human behavior: Masks were used until they were filthy, worn in ways that offered little or no protection, and compulsory laws did not overcome the “failure of cooperation on the part of the public.” Vaughn’s sobering conclusion: “It is safe to say that the face mask as used was a failure.”
Link: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200508.769108/full/

The author of the above article makes the same logical leap many do today, which is that failure to wear masks is actually to blame. Evidence indicates people’s attitudes about closeness varied, and it may be that closeness was the real factor in the spread of the 1918 Spanish Flu. The fact remains that there is much uncertainty and little evidence of the effectiveness of mask mandates about 100 years ago.

May 1, 2007 – Quote 9
Author: Bootsma, M., and Ferguson, N.
Quote: “In line with theoretical arguments, we found the time-limited interventions used reduced total mortality only moderately (perhaps 10-30%), and that the impact was often very limited because of interventions being introduced too late and lifted too early…Our analysis also suggests that individuals reactively reduced their contact rates in response to high levels of mortality during the pandemic.”
Link, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17416677/

In light of modern random controlled studies, there is evidence and relative certainty that masks are not effective. It is still debated and relatively uncertain if masks are effective, and in this realm of uncertainty, the faculties of the mind’s rational process will enable us to understand a greater truth. Concluding based on the evidence at this time means masks are not effective at reducing the transmission of COVID-19.

Nobody is to blame for the suffering that is on us all, except for those who introduce more suffering. They are at least to blame for that suffering, when they learn of their err or especially if they already knew it. There are two kinds of people in this world- those who take advantage of the suffering of others, and those who suffer. This is why ancient people taught to embrace suffering. Modern theologians have remarked, ‘Embrace the Suck’.

If poor people have to embrace suffering while the rich live mostly free of it, then a massive power struggle will inevitably ensue. That is why most of all I beg the rich of this world to embrace the suck, and to stop taking advantage of the poor, so that great suffering can be relieved. To persist in such action as profiteering and manipulating perceptions of safety is cruel. The failed policy of the state having profit motive and the profiteering of companies from the pandemic is tantamount to murder, and must end immediately, or civil society will not survive. Justice and real equality under the law for this and future generations must be granted, or an eternal grudge will be held against those who knowingly promoted failed policies for profit. The WHO, President Biden and the Governors of States with mask mandates, such as Michigan, are hereby on notice for their crimes against humanity.

1 Comment

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s