Mask Mandates are Ineffective & Unhealthy. Several Articles & Studies

[Animal]

Apparently someone else had the same idea I did, and compiled hundreds of articles about the ineffectiveness and negative effects of mask wearing.

https://brownstone.org/articles/more...ess-and-harms/

BROWNSTONEBROWNSTONE INSTITUTE ARTICLESMORE THAN 150 COMPARATIVE STUDIES AND ARTICLES ON MASK INEFFECTIVENESS AND HARMS

More than 150 Comparative Studies and Articles on Mask Ineffectiveness and Harms

BY PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER DECEMBER 20, 2021 MASKS, POLICY 67 MINUTE READSHARE | PRINT | EMAIL

It is not unreasonable to conclude that surgical and cloth masks, used as they currently are being used (without other forms of PPE protection), have no impact on controlling the transmission of Covid-19 virus. Current evidence implies that face masks can be actually harmful. The body of evidence indicates that face masks are largely ineffective.

My focus is on COVID face masks and the prevailing science that we have had for nearly 20 months. Yet I wish to address this mask topic at a 50,000-foot level on the lockdown restrictive policies in general. I build on the backs of the fine work done by Gupta, Kulldorff, and Bhattacharya on the Great Barrington Declaration (GBDcatastrophic consequences and not just educationally, of the deeply flawed school closure policy for decades to come (particularly our minority children

MASK-INEFFECTIVENESS

Continued on next post.

[Animal]

16) Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size rangeAerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks used in the health care industryDisposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgeryDisposable surgical face masks: a systematic reviewComparison of the Filter Efficiency of Medical Nonwoven Fabrics against Three Different Microbe Aerosols, ShimasakiThe use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence, Bin-RezaFacial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping reviewAssessment of Proficiency of N95 Mask Donning Among the General Public in Singapore5Evaluating the efficacy of cloth facemasks in reducing particulate matter exposureUse of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trialN95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel, Radonovich, 2019 Does Universal Mask Wearing Decrease or Increase the Spread of COVID-19?,Masking: A Careful Review of the Evidencemost of the time.

30) Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study, Hunter, 2020

Face masks in public was not associated with reduced incidence.

[Animal]

[Animal]

51) An outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) in a secondary care hospital in Finland, May 2021, , 2021

Reporting on a nosocomial hospital outbreakNosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021, Shitrit, 2021

In a hospital outbreak47 studies confirm ineffectiveness of masks for COVID and 32 more confirm their negative health effects,Are EUA Face Masks Effective in Slowing the Spread of a Viral Infection?, Dopp, 2021

The vast evidence shows that masks are ineffective.

[Animal]

66) How face masks and lockdowns failedCDC Releases School COVID Transmission Study But Buries One of the Most Damning PartsFace masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic reviewhouseholdsEffectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisN95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care PersonnelMore Than a Dozen Credible Medical Studies Prove Face Masks Do Not Work Even In Hospitals!,Does evidence based medicine support the effectiveness of surgical facemasks in preventing postoperative wound infections in elective surgeryPeritonitis prevention in CAPD: to mask or not?, FigueiredoThe operating room environment as affected by people and the surgical face mask, Wearing of caps and masks not necessary during cardiac catheterizationDo anaesthetists need to wear surgical masks in the operating theatre? A literature review with evidence-based recommendationsMask mandates for children are not backed by data,estimated 480 flu deaths among children during that period, with 46,000 hospitalizations. COVID-19, mercifully, is simply not as deadly for children. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, preliminary data from 45 states show that between 0.00%-0.03% of child COVID-19 cases resulted in death. When you combine these numbers with the CDC study The Downsides of Masking Young Students Are Real,Masks In Schools: Scientific American Fumbles Report On Childhood COVID Transmissionat the AtlanticcommentsAerosol penetration through surgical masksTransmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam, Chau, 2021

While not definitive in the LANCET publication, it can be inferred that the nurses were all masked up and had PPE etc. as was the case in Finland and Israel nosocomial outbreaks, indicating the failure of PPE and masks to constrain Delta spread.

[Animal]

[Animal]

MASK MANDATES

[Animal]

MASK HARMS

[Animal]

[Animal]

[Animal]

Author

• 
  Paul Elias Alexander
  Dr. Paul Alexander is an epidemiologist focusing on clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. He has a bachelor's in epidemiology from McMaster University, and a master's degree from Oxford University. He earned his PhD from McMaster's Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact. Paul is a former WHO Consultant and Senior Advisor to US Department of HHS in 2020 for the COVID-19 response.

[Animal]

Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence.

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

Updated: January 2022
First published: July 2020
Share on: Twitter / Facebook

Select LanguageChinese (Simplified)CzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebr ewHindiHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugu eseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkish
Powered by



An overview of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks.
Contents


A) Studies ? B) WHO review ? C) Real-world evidence ? D) N95/FFP2 masks ? E) Additional aspects ? F) The aerosol issue ? G) Contrary evidence ? H) Mask-related risks ? I) Conclusion ?
A) Studies on the effectiveness of face masks


So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.

1. A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source)
2. A WHO review of ten randomized controlled trials of face masks against influenza-like illness, published in September 2019, found no statistically significant benefit. (Source)
3. A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. (Source)
4. A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS OneSource)
5. A February 2021 review by the European CDCSource)
6. A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)
7. A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. (Source)
8. An August 2021 study published in the Int. Research Journal of Public HealthSource)
9. A July 2021 experimental study published by the American Institute of Physics found that face masks reduced indoor aerosols by at most 12% and even increased them locally. (Source)
10. A May 2020 article by researchers from Harvard Medical SchoolSource)
11. A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)
12. An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. (Source)

For a review of studies claiming face masks are effective, see section G) below.
B) WHO review of face mask trials (2019)


In September 2019, shortly before the coronavirus pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a comprehensive reportfollowing table shows, none of the trials found a statistically significant benefit of face masks.
WHO: 2019 review of face mask RCTs (WHO report/annex)

[Animal]

[There are a bunch of charts I can't post, but you can see them in the article:]

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

D) Effectiveness of N95/FFP2 mask mandates


In January 2021, the German state of Bavaria was one of the first places in the world to mandate N95/FFP2 masks in most public settings. A comparison with other German states, which required cloth or medical masks, indicates that even N95/FFP2 masks have made no difference.
Covid cases in the German state of Bavaria (FFP2/N95 mandate since 01/21) vs. Germany overall (RKI/ISC)
In January 2021, Austria was the first country in the world to introduce an N95/FFP2 mask mandate at the national level. The mandate was further expanded in September 2021. Nevertheless, by November 2021 Austria reported the highest infection rate in the world.
Austria: Interventions and infections (IanMSC)E) Additional aspects

1. There is increasing evidence that the novel coronavirus is transmitted, at least in indoor settings, not primarily by droplets but by much smaller aerosols. However, due to their large pore size and poor fit, most face masks cannot filter out aerosols (see video analysis below): over 90% of aerosols penetrate or bypass the mask and fill a medium-sized room within minutes.
2. The WHO admitted to the BBC that its June 2020 mask policy update was due not to new evidence but randomized controlled trial (RCT) on face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting found no statistically significant benefit (see above). However, three major journals refused to publish this study, delaying its publication by several months.
3. An analysis by the US CDC found that 85% of peopleinfectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 is just 300 virions (virus particles), whereas a single minute of normal speaking may generate more than 750,000 virions, making face masks unlikely to prevent infection.
4. Contrary to common belief, studies in hospitals found that the wearing of a medical mask by surgeons during operations post-operative bacterial wound infections in patients.
5. Many health authorities argued that face masks suppressed influenza; in reality, influenza was temporarily displaced by the more infectious coronavirus. Indeed, influenza disappeared even in states without masks, lockdowns and school closures (e.g. Sweden and Florida).
6. The initially low coronavirus infection rate in some Asian countries was not due to masks, but due to very rapid border controls. For instance, Japan, despite its widespread use of face masks, had experienced its most recent influenza epidemicargued that Czechiaone of the highest infection rates in the world.
7. During the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic, the use of face masks among the general population was widespread and in some places mandatory, but they made no difference.

[Animal]

F) The facemask aerosol issue


In the following video, Dr. Theodore Noel explains the facemask aerosol issue.

[See article]
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

G) Studies claiming face masks are effective

1. A meta-study in the journal Lancet, commissioned by the WHO, claimed thatnumerous flaws in the study. Professor Peter Jueni, epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, called the WHO study .
2. A study in the journal PNAS claimed that masks had led to a decrease in infections in three global hotspots (including New York City), but the study did not take into account the natural decrease in infections and other simultaneous measures. The study was so flawed that over 40 scientists recommended that the study be withdrawn.
3. A US study claimed that US counties with mask mandates had lower Covid infection and hospitalization rates, but the authors had to withdraw their study as infections and hospitalizations increased in many of these counties shortly after the study was published.
4. A German study claimed that the introduction of mandatory face masks in German cities had led to a significant decrease in infections. But the data did not support this claim: in some cities there was no change, in others a decrease, in others an increase in infections (see graph below). The city of Jenastrictest quarantine rules in Germany, but the study did not mention this.
5. A review by the University of Oxford claimed that face masks are effective, but it was based on studies about SARS-1 and in health care settings, not in community settings.
6. A review by members of the lobby group , published in the journal PNAS, claimed that masks are effective as a source control against aerosol transmission in the community, but the review provided no real-world evidence supporting this proposition.
7. A study published in Nature Communications in June 2021 claimed that masks reduced the risk of infection by 62%, but the study relied on self-reported online survey results and various modelling assumptions, not on actual measurements.
8. A large study run in Bangladesh claimed thataccording to one reviewer. A data analysis professor at UC Berkeley concludedBMJ claimed face masks reduced infections by 53%, but the meta-study was based on seven low-quality observational studies. In response, the BMJ published an editorialclaimed that N95/FFP2 masks are highly effective against coronavirus infections, but the study consisted only of a mathematical model without any real-world or lab data (see section D above).

[Animal]

Mandatory masks in German cities: no relevant impact. (IZA 2020)H) Risks associated with face masks


Wearing masks for a prolonged period of time may not be harmless, as the following evidence shows:

1. The WHO warns of various such as difficulty breathing and skin rashes.
2. Tests conducted by the University Hospital of Leipzig in Germany have shown that face masks significantly reduce the resilience and performance of healthy adults.
3. A German psychological study with about 1000 participants found due to the introduction of mandatory face masks in Germany.
4. The Hamburg Environmental Institute warned of the inhalation of chlorine compounds in polyester masks as well as problems in connection with face mask disposal.
5. The European rapid alert system RAPEX has already recalled over 100 mask modelsUniversity of Muenster in Germany found that on N95 (FFP2) masks, Sars-CoV-2 may remain infectious for several days, thus increasing the risk of self-contamination.
6. In China, several children who had to wear a mask during gym classes fainted and died; autopsies found a sudden cardiac arrest as the probable cause of death. In the US, a car driver wearing an N95 (FFP2) mask fainted and crashed due to CO2 intoxication.