Masks – There is no evidence of help to evidence of harm that masks are effective.
The seminal study on “source control” for masks is Neil Orr’s from 1981; it stands
uncontroverted despite 40 years of attempts.25 This was a random controlled trial
in Operating Rooms where everyone involved was a trained professional. There is
no better evidence available than the removal of confounding factors such as
compliance with wearing and procedural factors. In addition Cochrane Review,
arguably the best medical minds in the world when it comes to meta-reviews, the
highest form of evidence available, found weak to no evidence of efficiency for
masks.26 What’s worse is that they found weak to no evidence even when the mask
in question was an N95 and the wearer was a medical worker. The CDC has a web
page up claiming otherwise which contains a bunch of anecdotes, observational
studies and even computer models; the latter does not qualify as scientific evidence of anything.
In addition on the CDC’s own page from May, prior to this being
politicized, a meta-review showed no material effect.28 That document is still
present.
The argument for masks, specifically cloth and paper masks is that the virus is
spread almost-exclusively in large respiratory “droplets.” This, however, is
contrary to moderate evidence that culturable virus was inversely correlated with
particle size (footnote 21) and the meatpacking plant super-spread event which had
every person in the building wearing masks – which were ineffective (footnote 22.)
Masking as a source-control strategy obviously is of no value to attenuate
fecal/oral spread which we have every reason to believe is part of the picture as a
matter of strong evidence (footnotes 19 and 20.)
Then there’s the Danish mask study specific to Covid-19 which multiple medical
journals tried to suppress. Annals finally published it, trying to gloss over the
results.29 The results were damning; there was no statistically significant
improvement in outcomes. Even worse, when the researchers applied retrospective
analysis to limit the examination to only those who were allegedly “highly
compliant” with protocol the relative risk ratio got worse rather than better,
strongly implying that mask use might be harmful rather than protective.
If that’s not enough there is the direct testimony of Robert Redfield, CDC Director
before US Congress. On July 14th the director said that with four, six or eight
weeks of mask-wearing we could bring this epidemic under control.30 Many states,
cities and counties have mandated masks and multiple people crowed about their
“success.” Those claims were premature; none have stood up over time and in fact
huge spikes in infection rates are now being seen all over the nation, including in
my county.
In addition in September that same CDC Director said in sworn testimony before
Congress that masks are superior to a vaccine.31 Given the spikes in cases we
have seen nationally and in individual states if Dr. Redfield’s statement is true then
exactly nobody should take the vaccine under any circumstance as it is clear that
mask mandates have not stopped the spread.
What is worse than worthless? When it comes to a vaccine you don’t want to
know since unlike a mask that can be removed you can’t un-take a shot.
Finally, if masks work why can’t you put one on – even an N95 – and go into your
mother’s nursing home or your spouse’s hospital room? They either work or they
don’t. If the highest-quality masks available are deemed insufficient to protect a
nursing home resident from you then they are also insufficient to protect the
resident from a worker who is wearing one and in addition they are insufficient to
protect others in the general public, especially when the mask in question is of
lower quality.
The obvious logical disconnect has no explanation other than that the people
making these pronouncements know the 40+ years of prior science proves masks
are worthless. In short they’re lying.