Top Medical Journal: Mask Wearing ‘Offers Little, if Any Protection’
As politicians and medical experts beclown themselves with their latest move to compel healthy citizens to mask up during the fake pandemic, the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) puts it into a neat nutshell: masks are not the answer. They offer “little, if any protection” says the journal.
The authors tell us:
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection.” [1]
-
- N95 FFR filter efficiency was greater than 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
- Medical masks – 55{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} efficiency
- General masks – 38{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} and
- Handkerchiefs – 2{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (one layer) to 13{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (four layers) efficiency.
- Conclusion: Wearing masks will not reduce SARS-CoV-2.
- N95 masks protect health care workers, but are not recommended for source control transmission.
- Surgical masks are better than cloth but not very efficient at preventing emissions from infected patients.
- Cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as personal protective equipment (PPE).
- Penetration of cloth masks by particles was 97{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} and medical masks 44{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}), 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}).
- Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection
- The virus may survive on the surface of the face- masks
- Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. A contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer.
- Cloth masks should not be recommended for health care workers, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the Center for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases chips in with this:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0131-2019-novel-coronavirus.html
“We don’t routinely recommend the use of face masks by the public to prevent respiratory illness,” said on January 31. “And we certainly are not recommending that at this time for this new virus.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/maskguidance.htm
“Masks are not usually recommended in non-healthcare settings; however, this guidance provides other strategies for limiting the spread of influenza viruses in the community:
-
cover their nose and mouth when coughing or sneezing,
-
use tissues to contain respiratory secretions and, after use, to dispose of them in the nearest waste receptacle, and
-
perform hand hygiene (e.g., handwashing with non-antimicrobial soap and water, and alcohol-based hand rub if soap and water are not available) after having contact with respiratory secretions and contaminated objects/materials.”
To demonstrate how ludicrous the mask mania has become just consider that the wearing of any mask, without eye protection to match, is a fool’s errand. We explained this in detail in ‘Why Are We Ignoring Virus Infection Risks Via Our Eyes?’ (June 30 2020).
The sad reality is that this is not about the science it is about mass control. We know that because the mainstream media and politicians are all for the empowerment of pro-abortionists with their mantra: ” my body, my choice.” But when the current death rate of COVID-19 has now fallen to no worse than an ordinary flu, the hypocrites change their tune. Keep the above in mind when the next ignorant fascist tells you to ‘mask up.’
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” FDR got that right.
[1] Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era.May 21, 2020 N Engl J Med 2020; 382:e63 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
- PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
E. Nichols
| #
Masks have become a symbol of fear and compliance, we were first told masks should not be worn. Then Dr. Fugazi contradicted himself. No we have the lying politicos telling us mask work, when virtually every study I have encountered says that masks will not prevent virus particles from becoming airborne. Unfortunately common sense has left the building and people where face masks as if this is a panacea. It is actually quite pathetic and reveals SARS-CoV-2 is not nearly as dangerous as government malfeasance.
Reply
Norman
| #
John O’Sullivan
Maybe evidence changed the minds of the CDC, actual empirical evidence. The CDC point came out in January and your other article was printed in May.
Here is some updated information of why masks are recommended (so far most authorities are trying to prevent forcing people to wear them which is good). Things change as more information comes in. Since you are a Science Writer you should know this. Science is a process of changing with the evidence. Scientists may think one thing initially then change as new evidence comes in. I believe the high speed mask tests came later. Also the virus lives on droplets that are larger than the virus is and the masks seem to do a good job of stopping the droplet spread.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent
Protecting eyes could be valuable to stop droplets getting in that route but the eyes will not release the virus airborne as would be done by the mouth.
I think it is a poor decision to make this a political thing and suggest wearing a mask is about control and not common sense. Not sure why you are taking this stand on the topic. Masks would be like seat belts (which people opposed initially but they do actually save lives in accidents). They are not totally effective but can lower the rate of spread. So why be so against the use? Why not encourage people to wear them. How is it harmful to you or anyone else if they actually are effective and limiting the spread of a virus?
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Norman, ‘Common sense’ means making a risk assessment on a personal level, weighing all relevant factors. As a sane and rational man who is well educated, knowledgeable on the facts and determining my personal risk to be extremely low, I therefore reject compulsory mask wearing. ‘My body, my choice.’
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Hi Norman,
It’s not often you’re right but you’re wrong again.
‘Maybe evidence changed the minds of the CDC’. I have to laugh. Years of scientific studies just ignored because someone comes out with an article saying previous work was wrong. All because of a ‘novel’ corona virus that can supposedly do what previous corona viruses couldn’t do.
You know when someone is taking the piss when they actually go to great lengths to hide previous evidence that contradicts their present conclusions. This article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200509053953/https:/www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-revealing-review/
Has been removed from the Oral health group website. Fortunately it has been archived.
The ‘masks are like seat belts’ analogy is fallacious and about as helpful saying ‘gloves are like seat belts’.
Sorry, Norman. The reasonable guy arguments don’t cut it.
Strange why the Burqa is still banned in France but a head scarf and a mask is classed as PPE.
Reply
Norman
| #
Finn McCool
I do know one thing for sure about masks as I wear the N-95 at work. I used to go into lime silos with fine lime dust and it did not bother me. After I had pneumonia I was sensitized to this dust and I could feel small quantities when not wearing a mask. With an N-95 the dust has not impact, does not get into my lungs. So masks do work on some things. I read some of your article.
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Hi Norman
The last time I was near a lime siilo the dust collector was broken down. I was spitting up blood and snot for a week!
Maybe 15 years ago.
Nasty stuff.
I decided then and there that full metal jacket was needed. Full dupont suit. Respirator with eye protection. Lung X-rays for operators every six months. Rubber gloves for the guys chipping the stuff off of the silo walls and emptying the big bags. The whole NEBOSH plus protection.
A N95 mask is to say the least, feckin useless.
The bag house dust is even more dangerous.
My adenoids still give me jip after 2 years at a coal screening plant.
Don’t believe a word the tossers tell you.
Ever sanded a piece of wood with goggles and a crappy face mask and still ended choked up on fine wood particles?
A coronavirus is 90 nano metres.
Think about it.
Reply
Tom O
| #
Norman, first let me touch on the meaning of the term N95.. When a mask is rated N95 that tells you something – that the mask is 95% efficient at blocking particles at its design size. The particulate size an N95 is designed to stop is much larger than a virus cell. It might stop a virus from penetrating to the wearer if the virus is in a droplet from a sneeze or cough, but not from its typical airborne nature. For a virus cell, then, the mask is as restrictive as an open door is to keeping a small child in the home. That happens to be the design limitation of the mask, and it is vastly better, as they say, at preventing viral transmission than a surgical mask, which is probably designed for the singular purpose of not having the surgeon “spray” an open wound with his contaminated spittle while talking.
Personally, I don’t see how this “randomized test” could possibly have found N95 masks allowing only .1% penetration for viruses when they aren’t that efficient at stopping particles far larger.
Reply
Norman
| #
Tom O
Why do you think a virus particle in typical fashion travels in air as an individual virus particle? They ride on larger droplets or aerosols (smaller than droplets).
Here is a test the skeptics can do (actual science)
https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investigates/do-face-masks-slow-the-spread-of-covid-19/531-96479b50-7041-4f95-a88c-e33e2355fa37
Here is someone who attempted to actually research the topic rather then fall into a belief well and refuse to consider anything other than preconceived notions.
https://phys.org/news/2020-04-video-effective-masks-coronavirus.html
Reply
Ddwieland
| #
I think Herb nailed the reason for the changed advice. By April I was noticing a growing enthusiasm for mask wearing on a couple of forums I follow and in the mass media. Understandably, people were freaked by the dire messaging and latched onto something that seemed protective. Over the following weeks and months, the social pressure increased, and finally the public health authorities, after initially basing their advice on science, caved. Things are a bit different in the US, but here in Canada both the federal Chief Medical Officer of Health and my local Ottawa Medical Officer of Health were pushed to this change. They gave some feeble “new studies” rationale, but those of us capable of skepticism (and cynical about government actions) weren’t surprised that the endorsements have been rather lukewarm. The politicians, however, are happy for the deflection from honest consideration of some of their other nutty and/or authoritarian actions.
Your links don’t provide relevant scientific evidence. The WTHR-reported test is interesting, but it’s only a demonstration of forward projection of bacteria through a fresh mask. It’s great for a TV show though.
Reply
Tom O
| #
Norman, a virus cell requires water molecules, true, and it wants, really, only enough to protect its surface. When there are that few, they stay airborne until they are inhaled or come to stick to some other surface. A droplet the size that an N95 mask would prevent from penetrating the mask would be so heavy it would be dragged to the ground is a short distance by gravity. That’s why they say a sneeze can carry the virus 6 feet or whatever. Gravity will pull that droplet to the ground.
On the other hand, while that droplet is stuck to your mask, the inflow and outflow will evaporate most of that water, and it might very well be possible that the virus cell could be drawn through the open weave of that mask and into your lungs. Again, the virus cell with its coat of water is smaller than the smallest particle that an N95 mask is designed to protect you from, and also remember, 95% effective means that 5% of those particles can be drawn through the mask and into your lungs. I have seen where the claim is that it really only takes A SINGLE virus cell to eventually create a full blown infection if it is successful.
I hope you continue to wear your mask if it makes you feel like you have a knight’s armor in a jousting tournament. Do not think you have the right to ask me to wear cotton batting in that same jousting tournament, because to me, that is all a mask is.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Tom O,
In addition to what you have said, we are talking about an RNA Virus. Apparently Norman does not realize just how small an RNA chain is. Think DNA, because that is exactly what it is. It is a DNA chain particle, extremely small, ranging from only 1.8kpg to 33.4kpg. Even the largest RNA is extremely small. COVID-19 is approximately 4kpg – 5kpg. At that size, even an N95 mask isn’t going to stop squat. It would be analogous to stopping a golf ball with the St. Louis Arch, literally!
As for riding on larger “droplets” or “aerosols”, while it is possible and even probable to a percentile degree, recall that RNA viruses are extremely delicate and break down very easily. After all, they are not a “living” micro-organism, they are a “particle” of DNA, precisely why they are so vulnerable to UV light (particular UV wavelengths break the chain bonds).
Simply put, no conventional masks that you can obtain will protect you or others around you from an RNA virus, period. This has been well known and documented for decades. The only PPE protection that would protect one from such viruses is fully aspirated level 4 PPE. The very same PPE that virus lab workers wear.
In laboratories that utilize N95 masks (high particle masks) it is not to protect the wearer from the environment, it is to protect the environment from the wearer to guard against environmental contamination of the laboratory work (skin cells, hair, fluids, etc).
Reply
Ddwieland
| #
“How is it harmful to you or anyone else if they actually are effective …?”
Well, for one thing, the effectiveness of any type of mask as good or better than N95 has not been demonstrated in any of numerous tests. So tell me how the now-mandated masks for the public are helpful? What’s the point of wearing a talisman, other than possibly to give false assurance to those still freaked out by the relentless dire messaging and thereby help economic revival a bit?
Mask mandates are directly harmful to
1) lip readers (~ 1 million deaf in the US, many of whom rely on lip and face reading) and
2) people who have breathing issues, claustrophobia, or some other condition that makes a mask problematic. A local woman with a serious eye condition was supposed to go to a hospital for special care but was turned away (from that and two other hospitals) for not wearing a mask. A claustrophobe, she had previously fainted after having a mask forced on her. There is supposed to be allowance for such conditions, but the relentless fearful messaging about COVID overrode such consideration for the entrance screeners.
While this isn’t a frequent occurrence, it’s an example of harm directly attributable to government action and failure to respect high-quality scientific studies.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The reason the “experts” have encouraged sand even mandated the wearing of masks is not to prevent the spread of the virus but to promote it in order to justify their idiocy.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Herb,
You are absolutely correct. That is why originally, rightfully so, they told people not to wear masks. But then someone within their power circle said “wait a second, you idiots, we can take advantage of this” .. and voila! .. now you have this new mask scare and forced mandates. This is purposeful and has nothing to do with protecting anyone other than those in power to keep or gain power. Period!
Don’t believe me? .. how concerned are our so-called “leaders” about the thousands of people that have needlessly died in nursing homes that the “leaders” forced infected patients into? No rational mind on Earth could have ever thought that to be a healthy choice or good idea. Nobody!
So, I would ask, do they really care about the “health” of people? .. if you say “yes”, then you are destined to become just another one of their “statistics” and a perfect “useful idiot”. Good luck with that!
Reply
Alan Stewart
| #
I have printed out a dozen copies of your post John and will start tomorrow handing them out to businesses in my community. Mad as hell.
Cheers
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Alan, I salute you!
Reply
Squidly
| #
I would like to thank you as well John. I work for a very large, multinational, and now “woke” company that has been propagating a lot of propaganda on this and other social issues as of late. Thanks to PSI I have been able to provide several of my coworkers with accurate and truthful information sources. They have appreciated it very much as they feel they are being lied to from every angle around them. They are relieved when they are presented with truthful and factual information, no matter what the conclusions of that information, they just want truth.
Thanks John!
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Squidly, gratifying to hear. Thank you!
Reply
Dev
| #
Thank you John. These masks are nothing but a symbol perpetuating the existence of something that is an infection at best, while reducing the amount of oxygen in the bloodstram on a cumulative basis esp for the elderly and infirm. Discrimination has headlined the rubbish media recently but no mention of the overt discrimination against the elderly who have suffered the most due to lockstep.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Cheers, Dev. We haven’t even yet touched on the subject of hypoxia and other related negative impacts of routine mouth coverings. It seems we may have to post more on the matter.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
N95 mask filtration is 330 nanometers, CV19 is 20 nanometers. A mask, catching virus in larger droplets, allows those viral particles to reenter the nasal passages and infect the olfactory nerves, leading directly to a fatal brain infection. This from Dr Andrew Kaufman, MD, Psychologist and advanced degree in Microbiology. The book burning fascists at FewTube have removed his videos, may find some on BitChute. Read “Plague of Corruption” by Dr Judy Mikovits at PlagueTheBook(.)com > avoid monopolist Amazon
Reply
Lori J Grinvalds
| #
Squidly
When there is conflicting information you can go to other empirical sources. One would be go to Nations that had the virus before us (as well as other coronavirus outbreaks). Japan, South Korea, China…many people wear masks. You can compare the rate of viral spread in those countries with the countries that think masks are not effective. There are ways to resolve conflicting information. In your post, what is the mechanism you believe that would allow the Coronavirus to leave an infected host as individual viral particles? It kind of latches on to human cells with the correct receptors, what is making it break free that it travels through the air as a tiny strand of RNA? I
Reply
tom0mason
| #
This requirement for face protection will never be taken seriously until the fashion industry is fully behind it. What could be better than the LVMH, Prada, Fendi, Palm Angels, and Marine Serre all supplying masks. A gold chiffon and diamond studded N95 Dior face-mask?
However these seem to be leading the way https://www.wibc.com/uncategorized/facewear-fashions-our-picks-for-2020s-hottest-trends-in-infectious-disease-inspired-face-masks/
with the “The Snuffleupagus” easily the best fashion accessory for the guy/girl/male/female (combined or individually) to be unseen in.
Reply
Josh
| #
You’ve misrepresented the AAPS study, which was about comparing cloth masks to medical masks. Broadly quoting their passages about how bad cloth masks are misses the point of their study, which really does not support your headline.
Reply
Tom O
| #
By the way, there are a number of different “types” of people. There are the true believers – the ones that will latch onto whatever lie you can give them if it has fear attached to it, and the more fear that is attached, the truer are their beliefs.
Then there are those that can learn when shown “truth” and in general, truth can’t be promoted by fear. It is something that only sets in through mental processes, if you will.
And then there are those that intuitively can tell the difference between a lie and the truth, even if it about something that they have never heard of before. The first and third groups you never have to be concerned about because you can’t explain against fear, and the third group already knows better.
We have only that second group to work on, and even though time may be running out on reaching “herd immunity” against the scamdemic and the climate scam as well, anger free, logical explanations made as simple as possible will help move the race towards the needed “mental herd immunity.”
Right now it may seem like the majority are in group 1, but they aren’t. they just make the most noise. The vast majority are in group 2, and though at the moment many may be leaning towards believing in the scamdemic, then can “learn” their way to reality. The ONLY way you can affect the people in group 1 is if and when the Main Scream Media sings a different song.
Reply