The Actual Science Behind the Masks
As we know, most Americans are reusing their masks repeatedly. Many Americans store them on their rear-view mirrors, in their pockets, and even on the table that they’re eating on at restaurants.
According to studies wearing a used mask is statistically far worse than not wearing one at all.
Researchers looked at three-layer surgical masks, which are very common among healthcare professionals. They found that, when the masks are used, there is massive reduction in the filtering of tiny particles that linger in the air.
Outside of just using a mask that you have used before, it’s probably never a good idea to use your mask to pick up dog poop, and then put it on your face on again.
Mask down. Handle dog poo. Flip and mask on again💩pic.twitter.com/DDg0BBxbma
— Disclose.tv 🚨 (@disclosetv) December 18, 2020
Covid-19 infections commonly occur via aerosolized particles not just droplets. Masks and air filters can remove very small particles, such as bacteria and viruses but a single coronavirus particle size ranges from 70–90 nm. This is one hundred times smaller than a tenth of a micron.
The renowned UK science journal, The Lancet published paper concluding that “Small aerosol particles smaller than 5 μm in aerodynamic size are most likely to remain” following filtering of the air.
In a recent video, Dr. Scott Jenson concluded that “An N-95 mask filters out particulate matter larger than .3 microns… this idea of people doing anything particularly useful w…a mask is just looney tunes.”
This especially makes sense when you consider the fact that all the best scientific analyses show that masks are ineffective at preventing the spread of influenza, or any other respiratory illness.
The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is recognized as the most credible research design for clinical investigation. The goal of the RCT is to achieve valid comparison of the effects of an investigational treatment or treatments with the control treatment (standard of care) in the target patient population. Bias can be reduced by concealing the randomization sequence from the investigators at the time of obtaining consent from potential trial participants. Allocation concealment is a very simple maneuver that can be incorporated in the design of any trial and that can always be implemented.
This means that the only way to remove bias from scientific research in the medical field is with randomized clinical trials. Contrary to popular belief, every single RCT ever performed on mask usage and prevention of infection for laboratory-confirmed influenza, the common cold, or other respiratory viruses shows that masks are ineffective.
There is a sum total of zero randomized clinical trials showing that masks prevent any of the aforementioned illnesses. As you read through the following trial summaries and their conclusions, recall the damage we have already knowingly inflicted upon the population, and the health risks of the shutdowns that we have already consciously accepted in our quest to “trust the science.”
Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417–419.
N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.
Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833.
“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1–9.
“A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456.
None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.
Bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267.
“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”
Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016
“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”
Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, pages 1934–1942,
“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant.”
How Deadly Is the Virus Really?
Researchers have established that the effects of worldwide lockdowns will be far more deadly than the virus itself, but how deadly is the virus really?
According to the United States’ Center for Disease Control (CDC), the updated age-group survival rates for COVID-19 happen to be: Ages 0-19 (99.997 percent); 20-49 (99.98 percent); 50-69 (99.5 percent); and 70+ (94.6 percent). The mortality rates are only slightly higher than the human toll from seasonal flu and, in fact, are lower than they are for many other ailments for the same age cohorts.
Table 3 of the CDC’s data on deaths between February 2 and August 22, shows that only 6 percent of the 161,392 reported COVID deaths were listed as COVID-19 alone. All other U.S. deaths had on average, 2.6 additional medical conditions including influenza and cardiac arrest. Other conditions included sepsis, diabetes, renal failure, and Alzheimer’s disease.
Are they including all of the normal yearly influenza deaths in the COVID-19 death totals?
During the beginning of the year, nearly all major media outlets reported that the world was in store for possibly the worst flu season on record. On January 3, CNN reported that the United States was “on track for the worst flu season in decades.”
During the same month, Time covered Fauci’s appearance on CNN where he stated that “the current flu season is on track to be one of the worst in years.”
While Fauci was warning about one of the deadliest flu seasons in decades, the rest of the media were telling Americans not to worry about Coronavirus, and that the flu would be far more deadly this year. The Los Angeles Times advised not to fear the Coronavirus, because ”for Americans the flu is a much bigger threat and more widespread.” In early February, USA Today wrote that “the coronavirus is scary, but the flu is deadlier and more widespread.” During the same time, the Washington Post declared “Get a Grippe America, the Flu is a Much Bigger Threat Than Coronavirus.”
But how did the United States go from the start of the “worst flu season in decades,” to influenza cases and deaths nosediving by 98 percent across the globe?
The explanation that cases of influenza nosedived simply because much of the world’s population are now donning masks, while at the same time cases of the coronavirus surge, is completely inconsistent and a nonsensical conclusion, to say the least.
Back during the 2017-2018 flu season, Time Magazine reported that hospitals were so overwhelmed that doctors were having to treat patients outside in tents.
Despite the fact that hospitals were packed to the brim, no nationwide lockdown was apparently needed.
“We are pretty much at capacity, and the volume is certainly different from previous flu seasons,” says Dr. Alfred Tallia, professor and chair of family medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “I’ve been in practice for 30 years, and it’s been a good 15 or 20 years since I’ve seen a flu-related illness scenario like we’ve had this year.”