Facemasks Don’t Work Against Viruses — And They Never Did
In late 2025, the specter of mask mandates has returned. In the UK, health officials are once again urging face coverings amid a surge of winter illness
The chief executive of NHS Providers cautioned that anyone “coughing and sneezing” but still out in public should don a mask on public transport, harkening back to habits from the Covid era.
Downing Street stopped short of issuing an official mandate, framing masking as a personal choice “people can consider” to limit viral spread.
Meanwhile across the Atlantic, parts of California have re-imposed mask requirements. In Sonoma County, for example, the health officer ordered that masks must be worn in certain indoor healthcare settings starting November 1, 2025, through March 31, 2026.
Officials justify these measures by pointing to a “winter surge” of COVID-19, influenza, and RSV, claiming masking will protect vulnerable patients and healthcare workers.
Such developments are déjà vu for a populace weary from nearly three years of contentious mask policies. Yet this revival comes at a time when a considerable body of scientific evidence has accumulated against the efficacy of community masking and in favor of its potential harms.
The public is once again caught between authorities insisting that “science shows that face coverings work” and a counter-narrative, grounded in peer-reviewed research, that masks failed to stop the virus and may have caused unintended damage.
It is therefore crucial to undertake a scientific and ethical reckoning: to examine what the data now say about masks, why early public health guidance in 2019–2020 actually opposed masking healthy people, how mask mandates conflict with personal health sovereignty, and how masks fit into a “poisoned, not infected” understanding of illness.
Part 1: The Scientific Evidence Against Mask Efficacy
From the outset of the pandemic, and increasingly as high-quality studies emerged, one fact became clear: face masks do not significantly prevent the spread of respiratory viruses.
There have been extensive randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and multiple meta-analyses over the past decade on masks for illnesses like influenza and SARS-CoV-2. Virtually all have come to the same conclusion.
As one comprehensive review summarized:
“Masks and respirators do not work… There have been extensive RCT studies, and meta-analysis reviews, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses.”¹
Randomized trials have failed to find a benefit for community masking. A notable example: in early 2020 the CDC’s own journal published a review of 10 randomized trials on face masks against flu-like illnesses.
Its verdict: wearing a mask made no statistically significant difference in infection risk.² Likewise, a 2010 systematic review in Epidemiology & Infection found “little evidence to support the effectiveness of face masks” in reducing influenza transmission in real-world settings.³
Even in healthcare workers, trials have been largely negative. A 2019 meta-analysis concluded that compared to no masks, “there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza… in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”⁴
In short, whether in community settings or hospitals, RCTs have not shown the reduction in viral infections that mask proponents hoped for.
In some studies, masks performed not just poorly but paradoxically. A 2020 rapid evidence review analyzed 11 RCTs and 10 observational studies on community mask use. It concluded bluntly:
“Available evidence from RCTs is equivocal as to whether or not wearing face masks in community settings results in a reduction in… viral respiratory infections.”
The researchers even highlighted an example where the masked group fared worse:
“One study found lower rates of [symptoms] in the [mask] intervention arm; however, in laboratory-confirmed infection, the rate of infection was less in the control arm than the intervention arm.”⁵
Crucially, cloth masks have shown even poorer outcomes. A randomized trial of cloth masks versus medical masks in healthcare workers (MacIntyre et al., 2015) found that cloth masks were associated with significantly higher infection rates.
The study cautioned that cloth masks’ moisture retention, reuse, and poor filtration may “result in increased risk of infection.”⁶
Historical data further calls into question the mask approach. In previous pandemics—1918’s influenza, 1957’s, 1968’s, even the 2003 SARS outbreak—masks in everyday use achieved no decisive success in curbing viral spread.
By 2009, scientific assessments during the H1N1 flu pandemic were already concluding that masks “do not show any significant effect” in real-world viral transmission scenarios.⁷
Given this weight of evidence, it is unsurprising that numerous experts spoke out against blanket masking in 2020. University of Iowa epidemiologist Prof. Eli Perencevich warned early on that masks “won’t protect the average person… There’s no evidence that wearing masks in healthy people will protect them,” and misuse could even increase risk by prompting face-touching.⁸
Part 2: Documented Harms of Masking
Physiological Strain and “Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome” (MIES)
If masks don’t deliver the promised benefits, what might be the harms? As it turns out, these harms are numerous and well-documented across physiology, immunology, and psychology.
Even at the pandemic’s start, some medical professionals were warning that mask mandates could do more harm than good. Retired neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock famously cautioned in May 2020 that face masks pose “serious risks to the healthy,” noting that enforced masking was a medical intervention being imposed with “little or no scientific support” for its safety.⁹
In early 2021, a German team conducted a first-of-its-kind meta-analysis of 65 studies on mask side effects, and coined the term “Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome” (MIES) to describe the constellation of adverse effects.
They confirmed that masks can significantly impair breathing and oxygen intake. The meta-analysis documented that mask-wearing commonly produces measurable drops in blood oxygen (O₂) levels accompanied by rises in carbon dioxide (CO₂) retention.
For instance, wearing an N95 respirator was found to cause CO₂ levels to increase in 82 percent of cases studied, and to reduce oxygen levels in 72 percent of cases.¹⁰
Multiple experimental studies back up these findings. Dead-space CO₂ buildup behind a mask can push inhaled CO₂ concentrations well above normal atmospheric levels. One test of N95 respirators found that the oxygen and CO₂ levels inside the mask would “not meet OSHA’s ambient workplace safety standards” for breathable air.¹¹
A 2023 study in Heliyon raised alarms about “possible toxicity of chronic carbon dioxide exposure” from mask-wearing, especially in vulnerable groups like pregnant women, children, and adolescents.¹²
In children, in particular, there is evidence that masks can cause CO₂ buildup rapidly. A study in JAMA Pediatrics measured CO₂ levels inside masks worn by children and found concentrations far exceeding healthy limits.¹³
Microbiological and Immunological Concerns
Beyond cardio-respiratory effects, masks may also interfere with healthy immune and microbial balance. A mask, especially when worn repeatedly without sanitization, becomes a warm, moist Petri dish strapped to your face.
Pathogens can accumulate on the inner and outer surfaces. Samples of used masks have found troubling contaminants: pathogenic bacteria, mold and fungus, even toxic particles shed from mask materials (like microplastics or chemicals).¹⁴
A 2020 study by the NYU Grossman School of Medicine discovered that when oral bacteria repeatedly enter the lungs, it triggers chronic inflammation and is linked to advanced-stage lung cancer.¹⁵
The GMI Research Group posed a provocative question: Could long-term mask-wearing “seed” the lungs with mouth bacteria, contributing to chronic disease?¹⁶
Psychological and Developmental Effects
Humans rely on faces for communication, emotional connection, and social bonding. Forcing people, including young children, to cover their faces for long periods undoubtedly had effects on mental health and development.
The German MIES analysis explicitly found evidence of “clear, scientifically recorded adverse effects… on a psychological… and social level” from masks. These include anxiety, reduced cognitive performance, and diminished social cohesion.¹⁷
Part 3: Regulatory Deception — Early Guidance vs. Pandemic U-Turns
It is an uncomfortable truth that the mask mandates of 2020 represented a sharp reversal—even a betrayal—of prior scientific guidance. Before Covid-19 politics took over, the established public health position was that widespread masking of healthy people was not recommended.
WHO’s 2019-2020 guidance was clear:
“The widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence.”
It further stated masks should not be mandated, given “no evidence” they prevent infection.¹⁸
The WHO warned that mask-wearing could create a “false sense of security” that distracts from more essential hygiene measures.
In the United States, the Surgeon General famously tweeted in February 2020, “Stop buying masks!” and reiterated that masks were not effective for general protection.
Dr. Anthony Fauci said on national television in March 2020 that Americans should NOT be wearing masks. These statements were all reversed by early April 2020.
What changed in that short span? Not the underlying science.
The change was driven by political and social pressure, as well as theoretical lab studies about droplet blocking that captured the public imagination despite being poor proxies for real-world conditions.
The German researchers of MIES put it diplomatically:
“Neither higher level institutions such as the WHO or ECDC nor national ones such as the CDC or RKI [Germany] substantiate with sound scientific data a positive effect of masks in the public.”¹⁹
Governor Gavin Newsom of California flatly declared “science shows that face coverings and masks work” in June 2020—an untrue statement according to the WHO’s own review at the time.
One might call that misinformation, if not an outright lie.
Part 4: The Ethics of Coercion — Mandates vs. Individual Health Sovereignty
Mask mandates did not merely fail scientifically; they also represented an unprecedented ethical breach in free societies. They forced individuals to cover their faces—to essentially undergo a continual medical intervention—regardless of personal choice, circumstances, or consent.
Stand for Health Freedom articulated this stance clearly:
“Wearing a mask should be an individual’s choice. Mandatory mask policies are an insult to constitutional rights.”²⁰
In the United States, the Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—all of which imply a right to make personal health decisions.
At the core of the issue is health sovereignty—the principle that each individual has the right to make decisions about their own body and health interventions. This principle is embedded in medical ethics (informed consent) and in international codes like the Nuremberg Code.
Mask mandates violated health sovereignty by removing choice.
UK political leader Kemi Badenoch reflected in 2025 that she was “still slightly traumatised by all the mask-wearing we had to do during Covid,” noting that masks became a “barrier to social interaction, social cohesion” and expressing firm opposition to any return of mask mandates.²¹
Part 5: “Poisoned, Not Infected” — Masks and the Toxic Pathways of Illness
The dominant narrative of the COVID era was purely germ-centered: a novel virus was the singular enemy. But many integrative and holistic health experts offered a different perspective, one encapsulated as “poisoned, not infected”.
This paradigm suggests that much of what we call “disease” is driven not solely by an external microbe, but by internal toxicity, poor terrain, and immune system dysregulation.
One immediate way masks connect to this lens is through the re-breathing of our own exhaled wastes. Exhalation is a critical route through which the body expels CO₂ and even certain volatile toxins.
By covering our mouth and nose, we partially trap waste products that the body is trying to eliminate.
The Stand for Health Freedom mask brief highlighted that we still don’t fully know the effects of rebreathing our own exhaled carbon dioxide or the long-term dangers of any toxic particles in masks.²²
Masks often contain synthetic fibers and chemicals. A 2023 study assessing common masks found they emit various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), some at levels that raised safety concerns.²³
In September 2023, an article in Environmental Pollution concluded that “specific regulations should be adopted to improve the chemical safety of face masks” after finding potentially hazardous compounds being breathed by mask users.²⁴
The “poisoned, not infected” perspective ultimately empowers individuals: it says, focus on cleaning up your terrain, and you won’t need a mask talisman. Each person is the steward of their terrain; outsiders have no right to impose an intervention like a mask that might pollute that terrain further.
Part 6: Stand for Health Freedom — From Origins to Renewed Resistance
When mask mandates first loomed in 2020, a new grassroots movement swiftly formed. Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) was founded in 2019, just months before COVID hit, with the mission of protecting informed consent, medical choice, and parental rights.
Since its inception in August 2019, SHF built a powerful platform that has empowered over 966,000 citizens to contact their officials—tallying more than 6.2 million advocacy messages in defense of health freedom.²⁵
One of SHF’s first campaigns was in April 2020, when GreenMedInfo published “FACE IT: The Evidence Proving the Effectiveness of Community Mask Wearing Doesn’t Exist; The WHO Agrees.”
That piece urged readers to “Take Action Now” through SHF:
“The decision to wear a mask is highly personal and should not be universally mandated.”²⁶
The timeline of SHF’s GreenMedInfo supported mask advocacy is a chronicle of pushback successes. In June 2020, Orange County, CA instituted a stringent mask order. SHF allied attorneys helped organize public outcry.
Within weeks, the county health officer resigned under pressure, and the mask mandate was rescinded.
By 2021, after a year of data showing mask failures, some states took the dramatic step of banning mask mandates altogether. Stand for Health Freedom noted that “after seeing the harms caused by masks, combined with lack of solid evidence that they work, some states made it unlawful to mandate masks in educational settings or even throughout the entire state.”²⁷
Health Freedom Defense Fund won a landmark case in April 2022 when a federal judge struck down the airline/train mask mandate as unconstitutional and beyond CDC’s authority.²⁸
Now, in late 2025, as murmurs of mask mandates return, SHF is again on the front lines. In a September 2023 campaign titled “Mask mandates won’t fly—tell your lawmakers we won’t comply,”
SHF bluntly stated that the reintroduction of mask rules is an insult to everything we’ve learned.²⁹
Conclusion: A Call to Action — Rejecting the Return of Failed, Harmful Interventions
The evidence is in, the ethics are clear, and the people have spoken once before. Mask mandates do not work, and they never did. To walk that road again in 2025, after all we’ve learned, would be to abandon science, reason, and fundamental principles of human dignity.
This comprehensive reckoning has shown that community masking was a pandemic policy blunder: it was unsupported by robust evidence of benefit, it came with a litany of well-documented harms, and it was pushed through by misleading claims and heavy-handed edicts.³⁰
In the process, society suffered—physically, psychologically, and morally. We must not let that happen again. As mask recommendations pop up anew in the UK and localized mandates emerge in California, we stand at a crossroads.
Will we heed the hard-won lessons of the past five years, or will we succumb to the same climate of fear and unquestioning compliance?
See more here substack.com
Header image: Die Welt
Some bold emphasis added
very old white guy
| #
Basic stuff that has known for sometime now. Bacteria incubators worn on the face are dangerous.
Reply