Unmasked: Revealing a Shocking Medical Truth
ARTHUR FIRSTENBERG ON FACIAL MASKS:
“As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries.
They wore no masks for six months and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years.
And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks.
Their conclusion:
‘It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all’ and that wearing a mask during surgery ‘is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.’
I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke, and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease.
But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.
Check the following citations and see for yourself:
- Ritter et al., in 1975, found that ‘the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.’
- Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. ‘Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.’
- Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. ‘No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,’ they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
- In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
- A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that ‘The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.’
- Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that ‘surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.’
- Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
- Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that ‘no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.’
- Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. ‘Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,’ wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
- Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries.
- Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found ‘no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.’ Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
- Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that ‘none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.’
- Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that ‘there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.’
- Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that ‘there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.
‘Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them.
It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes — two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.
Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have
mandated masks.
Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55.
All 13 states that have death rates higher than 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.
‘We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,’ writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.”
Read more at naturallyhealthynews.com
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.
Joseph Olson
| #
Principia Scientific International ~ leader in promoting Traditional Scientific Method
Reply
Daniel Knezacek
| #
This is amazing, and contrary to everything we have been taught. I have no reason to doubt its truthfulness, but I would like to see some links to the referenced studies. There are many who will not believe it unless there are links.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Daniel, Andy, You make valid points. Have now collected all the relevant references to back the citations and the links and screenshots are all now located in the article above. Thanks.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
I would like to use this as well, but like Daniel says above, there’s no evidence to cite.
Reply
Alicia
| #
Here’s all the references you could ever want and then some: https://themodelhealthshow.com/maskfacts/. Great video as well. Masks are nearly worthless and can cause harm.
The creator of the N95 mask with 30 years of experience in PPEs states they don’t work for COVID: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/08/17/ppe-developer-on-n95-masks-70-of-what-you-breathe-is-not-filtered/
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks, Alicia.
Reply
Brian James
| #
September 17, 2020 Selected Articles: Medical Doctors and Health Professionals: The Truth About COVID-19
We hope that by publishing diverse view points, submitted by journalists and experts dotted all over the world, the website can serve as a reminder that no matter what narrative we are presented with, things are rarely as cut and dry as they seem.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/selected-articles-medical-communities-speak-truth-about-covid-19/5724198
Sep 14, 2020 ‘Use of Face Masks to Enforce Conformity’ Was Predicted In Dystopian Book 88 Years Ago
Respected German author Ernst Jünger predicted the ubiquitousness of face masks to enforce conformity and uniformity in a dystopian future society in a novel called The Worker that was published nearly 90 years ago.
https://youtu.be/_hbGYRri1cM
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
So a dunce cap is more effective?
We need to convince liberals to wear one.
Reply
Ddwieland
| #
Now, now, Zoe. Let’s keep politics out of it. Isn’t the politicization of science what we’re challenging?
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Zoe,
Hey — dunce cap? — you got pretty close! However, the triple K cap style is the ultimate of protection. The most effective is the 3K2020 which comes as a one piece cover-all. You can order them in any color you wish, to confirm who’s life matters to you…
OTOH, even as I’m mask exempt, I am ordering Full Burka XXL from Afghanistan — as I think that’s the way to go to comply with airline and mass transit regulations!
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Ddwieland
| #
Yes, it’s too bad that the author didn’t list the precise references at least, but PubMed is searchable by everyone. I found the Webster et al. (2010) study at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575920/, but the search was tedious without having at least the first name initial of the lead author.
Reply
MichaelJames
| #
Please Think.
Scientists usually do NOT use language like “Check the following citations and see for yourself:”!
If a scientist communicates information refuting a hypothesis in a medium that supports linking and formula citations (this blog), he or she will use word links where appropriate, then post linked citations in the footer. I reserve further judgement but caution everyone to please invoke critical thinking when asked to pass judgement on a “hot” political topic in the most divisive period in modern history. Masks are a political topic as clearly noted in the brief post by @Zoe Phin.
The citations as noted are useless in the context of science and stated transparency. This post, when weighed in critical thought and simple due diligence falls in the realm of very likely propaganda. @Alicia drops some links claiming “all the references you would every want”. All these references are characteristic of health industry affiliate farms and spammers… see Domain information below:
https://www.domainiq.com/domain?TheModelHealthShow.com
” themodelhealthshow.com was registered on September 20, 2013 and is associated with Aiha, Anne Stevenson, [email protected]. It is registered at Godaddy. The registrant organization name is associated with 64 domains, and the registant name is associated with 16 domains. The registrant’s email address is associated with 5 domains. Combined, a total of 78 related domains were identified.
The domain is hosted on 67.225.176.52, located in US – MI – Lansing, which is the host for 9 domains.”
No scientific references exist. Think and always be skeptical…..The premise put forth in this post is very likely propaganda in line with political objectives.
Reply
MichaelJames
| #
A quick follow-up. There is a high degree of certainty regarding cO2 related issues with extended PPE, especially N95 masks. N95 masks are not designed to be worn for hours on end. 3 Ply surgical masks are not either, but they would not pose as much risk as the N95. Cloth/Fabric masks promoted as they are now are fine when used in context for short periods of time. NO face covering with the exception of a true respirators should be worn for extended periods of time. SCIENCE not POLITICS should lead in this face-mask issue. SCIENCE tells us that PPE, worn and used as directed, is helpful in controlling the spread of viral droplets. SCIENCE does not tell us or mandate the FULL TIME use of PPE. POLITICS has interjected it’s agenda based divisive spin. Everything about Covid is Political instead of Science based. Masks must play a part as well as Social Distancing and protecting at risk individuals, it’s that simple. How much of a part is under siege but to engage in outright denial and false claims is only about POLITICS.
Reply
Scouse Billy
| #
And science tells us the Germ Theory is just that, a theory – yet to be proven.
Reply
4TimesAYear
| #
Not true of cloth masks and viral aerosols. Cloth masks don’t stop them. They are too small, people fiddle with them, it is risky when they are taken off when not done right; they can actually spread more disease. I’d say it’s better to cough and sneeze into one’s elbow, which isn’t going to come into contact with anything else or be fiddled with. Most people don’t wear the masks correctly, said one dentist – including himself. When he was in the office, there were protocols to follow that couldn’t or weren’t being followed out of the office. Most people stuff their mask into their handbag or pockets to pull out for the appropriate time. That nobody is taking any instructions seriously is definitely a problem. Tell people what to do, and they won’t do it – deliberately or not. It’s not in human nature to allow themselves to be bossed around. They are usually good, though, at telling others what to do – and boy, are they EVER doing that, lol.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Michael, How exactly do you explain the real world results of places such as Denmark and Sweden, with no mask mandates, and their similar or lower virus infections/deaths? Are you even slightly curious?
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Michael James, Your idiotic claim that ” This post, when weighed in critical thought and simple due diligence falls in the realm of very likely propaganda” is now fully refuted by the fact that every citation in the article is now backed by a screenshot from the relevant peer-reviewed journal plus a hyperlink to the original paper. Your apology for your unsubstantiated slur on our organisation is now expected. Thanks.
Reply
4TimesAYear
| #
There was a paper by a dental group that has since been taken down as well. The reason dentists wear masks is to prevent picking up an illness from their patients; surgeons on the other hand, wear them to keep from dropping things like droplets and, I suppose facial hair into wound openings. The dental paper also came to the conclusion that dentists had nothing to lose by abandoning masks either – but when it comes to airborne diseases, I think it’s far better to let air currents disperse aerosols as far as possible, weakening the concentration. Not so sure that surgical and dental procedures would benefit the same way. If that’s what the study concluded, it would be worthwhile science to see if it the results could be repeated. That is what science is – demonstrable, repeatable results, right?
Reply