"The evidence that shows the comparison of cloth masks or n95s show clearly that they may increase your risk of infection." Dr, Heneghan, CEBM.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan.
“You can’t reason someone out of a position that they haven’t reasoned into.”
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define 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.” NEJM.
“…We agree that the data supporting the effectiveness of a cloth mask or face covering are very limited. We do, however, have data from laboratory studies that indicate cloth masks or face coverings offer very low filter collection efficiency for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission, particularly from pre- or asymptomatic individuals who are not coughing or sneezing. At the time we wrote this article, we were unable to locate any well-performed studies of cloth mask leakage when worn on the face — either inward or outward leakage. As far as we know, these data are still lacking.” CIDRAP.
“We are not aware of any single scientifically sound and undisputed article that would contradict the following:
1) There is no scientific evidence that symptom-free people without cough or fever spread the disease.
2) Simple masks do not and cannot stop the virus.
3) Masks do not and cannot protect from infection.
4) Non-medical face masks have very low filter efficiency.
5) Cotton surgical masks can be associated with a higher risk of penetration of micro-organisms (penetration 97%. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in an increased risk of infection. Dr. Reiss, Dr. Bhakdi. Corona False Alarm? Facts and Figures. p. 55.
“…Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” President Dwight Eisenhower (1961).
“It is easier to believe a lie that you have heard a thousand times than to believe a truth that you have only heard once.” Abraham Lincoln.
“Emergencies have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded.' Friedrich Hayek.
“You must trust and believe in people, or life becomes impossible.” Anton Chekhov.
"It is as useless to fight against the interpretations of ignorance as to whip the fog." George Elliot.
“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” Benjamin Franklin.
“…there are no solutions. Just trade-offs”. Thomas Sowell.
"Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly—and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence." Thomas Sowell.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, and his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” C.S. Lewis
“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire.
********
Purpose of the site: Present facts about ‘breathing barriers’ mislabelled as ‘masks’. No one can ever say “we didn’t know!’ and plead ignorance.
*******
Author Elias Canetti wrote decades ago, “…a little experience of the inflexibility of such unnatural ‘stoics’ (mask wearers) soon leads one to understand the general significance of the mask: it is a conclusion; into it flows all the ferment of the yet unclear and uncompleted metamorphoses which the natural human face so miraculously expresses, and there it ends. Once the mask is in position there can be no more beginnings, no groping towards something new. The mask is clear-cut; it expresses something quite definite, and neither more nor less than this. It is fixed; the thing it expresses cannot change…” Covid-19 and the Covid Predators: We are the Prey. Peter R. Breggin MD; Ginger Ross Breggin (2021), p.201.
Introduced in 1897, masks are part of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) that can be applied alongside social distancing.
The evidence for masks, to put it short, is ‘astonishingly weak’ as Sweden’s Dr. Tegnell asserted. Given they’ve been around for over 120 years - their main purpose was to mitigate against bacteria - one could reasonably ask what took us so long to learn to love them.
This site is merely a collection of randomized, controlled studies and some opinions focused on shedding light on mass mask usage. While we take no position on voluntary mask usage as people are free to conduct a personal risk assessment and trade-offs, we do question coerced usage through mandates. We argue the evidence does not back fines or imprisonment - or worse.
Moreover, data seems to show a correlation with a rise in infection at the point when mandates were initiated. For example, in 32 states and provinces in the United States and Canada, 19 saw cases increase (which also could be due to unreliable PCR testing), 5 saw a no-measurable difference and 8 saw declines however in most of those states, it had already been trending lower before mandates or were implemented at the peak of cases.
Its use may only accomplish keeping people in a state of fear while forming a false sense of security and false virtue. The latter leads people to view each other as threats.
Based on the clear evidence pointing to studies concluding its effectiveness is limited, it’s our position it’s a misapplication of the precautionary principle:
“….UNESCO states that "when human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm" (94). This is known as the "precautionary principle". The World Charter for Nature, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982, was the first international endorsement of the precautionary principle. It was implemented in an international treaty in the 1987 Montreal Protocol. The loss of life and economic destruction that has been seen already from COVID-19 is a "morally unacceptable harm". The positive impact of public mask-wearing on this is "scientifically plausible but uncertain".
“…decision-makers have a high level of discretion as to when and how to apply the precautionary principle" (Peterson 2006). The resultant inconsistent and unpredictable application of the principle creates a difficult environment for businesses to work in and grounds for legal challenges that likewise can lead to diverse interpretations (Peterson 2006). This aspect also leads to the danger of decision-makers using their political power to invoke the principle as a means to advance a course of action (such as having people invest in a particular "solution") that benefits the decision-makers or their friends.”
A bulletin from the WHO adds,“…The repeated pandemic health scares caused by an avian H5N1 and a new A(H1N1) human influenza virus are part of the culture of fear.1–3 Worst-case thinking replaced balanced risk assessment. Worst-case thinking is motivated by the belief that the danger we face is so overwhelmingly catastrophic that we must act immediately. Rather than wait for information, we need a pre-emptive strike. But if resources buy lives, wasting resources wastes lives. The precautionary stocking of largely useless antivirals and the irrational vaccination policies against an unusually benign H1N1 virus wasted many billions of euros and eroded the trust of the public in health officials.4–6 The pandemic policy was never informed by evidence, but by fear of worst-case scenarios.”
Governments have not consulted the data and nor have they considered the potentially harmful effects leading to unintended consequences alongside lockdowns. Lockdowns are also not rooted in science and will be covered here as well. Lockdowns were a result of faulty models and misinterpretation of data leading to a global panic from which governments have not been able to extricate themselves.
Lockdowns have led to an explosion in suicides, domestic child and spousal abuse, alcoholism, starvation, unemployment, bankruptcies, cybercrime, and people not seeking treatment for other health issues.
In addition, school closures threaten the well-being and social and intellectual development of children. The data and literature stipulate school closures of any kind are pernicious, harmful and unnecessary. Not a single child under 17 years old should be in a mask. Teacher’s unions have abandoned their sense of duty to the children.
Several studies indicate that infection levels tend to drop before mandated government lockdowns were implemented as this pre-print from Cornell examining the UK shows and another pre-print from Germany.
The impact of lockdowns will be far-reaching and will be felt for a few years to come.
We do take the position that governments insist on this pernicious and punitive action as cruel and unusual punishment.
*******
As it stands, the debate now centres around one by which the ‘suppression' strategy’ is employed through restrictions to ‘flatten the curve’ and ‘slow the spread’ without considering trade-offs, and the other espousing a path to herd immunity. Herd immunity is not, as Dr. Scott Atlas explained, a strategy but a simple reality of human biology.
Too often the consequences of lockdowns are framed in a manner where Covid-19 is blamed. For example, ‘Due to the coronavirus, the economy is struggling’. However, it’s not the virus that did this - although it did have an impact through the voluntary action of people who curbed their social activities - but our reactions to it. We chose to shut down our life and let the virus control us. Not the other way around is our contention.
This inevitably brings us to Sweden. The debate around Sweden is simple. When all is said and done, Sweden will have ‘performed’ (to the extent we can properly measure it) in line with nations in the West.
However, they will achieve getting through this pandemic without psychologically traumatizing and trampling the civil liberties of their citizens.
This is an achievement in human decency we must not overlook. Sweden is a model having followed 150 years of established science. Not a pariah to be scorned to install authoritarian and impractical draconian measures often involving law enforcement.
It is hoped this site can humbly help to reverse this mindset gripping governments in North America.
They say they ‘follow the science’. Well, here it is. Evidence-based data.
Will you follow science and evidence or will you follow orders?
****************
Mask Tidbits:
8 Industrial hygienists offer a 27-page rental to CDC’s mask stance.
Excellent post on bad mask studies at Healthy Skeptic.
BBC: No evidence shielding worked.
Ian Miller: Pathogenic bacteria and fungi on masks from Nature study.
Brownstone: Research from St. George’s Hospital reveal masks in hospitals had no impact.
Ian Miller and the ideology of masks.
See Everything: Powerful piece on the harms of masks.
Ian Miller: Boston mask study an ‘embarrassment’ to science’
Excellent run down on the damage done by the pseudoscience of mask-wearing.
Brownstone: Masks did not keep kids in school.
Dr. Heneghan interviews Dr. Tom Jefferson.
Becker: Jha: “No study in the world shows masks work”
The relative size of particles.
Brownstone: Not even N95 masks work.
Brownstone: Disastrous mask study.
Zero Hedge: Explosive study shows great harms to masking.
Kust: Masks and fake science that won’t die.
el gato malo: Mask compendium.
Peter Naylund Kust: Still no evidence for masks (2022).
Fauci always knew masks were ineffective.
Dr. Ted Noel demonstrates why masks don’t work.
World Council for Health: Seven reasons to end mask mandates.
Epidemiologist Dr. Bridle demonstrates how fives masks don’t block a virus.
Comprehensive run down from Swiss Policy Research (includes comparative geographic charts).
Run down of mask studies by Steve Kirsch.
Brownstone: Best mask study yet.
The challenges of mass mask usage.
Jeremy R. Hammond: How the CDC follows mask “science”.
Dr. Lee Merritt explains masks are purely pseudo-science.
Dr. Yeadon. Masks are the amulets of the Middle Ages.
Dr. Prasad: No cluster RCT was conducted by the CDC for masks.
Oxygen and carbon dioxide tests on various masks.
Rises in infection rates with masks in graphs.
Countries with no masks versus those within a graph.
Briggs: Bangladesh masks study faulty.
W.H.O.": People should not wear masks while exercising.
W.H.O. and 10 RCT studies conclude masks aren’t effective (also published in the blog).
Dr. Bridle: Stop masking children.
W..H.O. - (masks) “offers a false sense of security, leading to potentially less adherence to other preventive measures.”
Mask expert Chris Schaeffer's interview on The Iron Will Show.
CDC publishes junk studies on child masking.
Ian Miller: Despite irrefutable and undeniable evidence, masks persist.
Mandatory masks are not backed by science or law.
Masks don’t work reason 345664.
Masks mandates in Georgia in a single graph.
City Journal: Keeping fear alive.
Surgeon-General of Florida on masks.
Social Science Space: Magical thinking of masks.
Dr. Malone: Masks increase CFR.
In 1926, Dr. Warren T. Vaughan published in the American Journal of Hygiene (University of Chicago) ‘Influenza: An Epidemiological Study where he states about masks:
“…the efficacy of face masks is still open to question.” The problem was human behaviour: Masks were used until they were filthy, worn in ways that offered little or no protection, and compulsory laws did not overcome the “failure of cooperation on the part of the public.” Vaughn’s sobering conclusion: “It is safe to say that the face mask as used was a failure.”
Quebec’s Dr. Arruda correctly explains why masks don’t work. But like Dr. Fauci, he flipped opinions. Why? At the time of their ‘conversion,’ there weren’t studies that debunked the body of evidence. Other doctors weigh in on the ineffectiveness of masks in the link.
OSHA is the PPE authority. Not doctors or media. Not Dr. Fauci or Dr. Tam. Nor is the epidemiologist on your local network clamouring for lockdowns. OSHA. They do the training and are the experts.
Daily Sceptic on Cochrane review on masks.
Dr. Tom Woods interviewed Allen Stevo on how to deal with mask culture.
The Pulse on the safety of masks.
Mandatory masks endanger your health.
CJ: Maskaholics.
Tablet: The Mask Debacle.
Wildfire Newsletter. Another mask mandates failure.
CJ: Maskaholics.
Accuracy in Academia: The CDC doesn’t do science.
The Lancet (preprint): U of T: No correlation between mask mandates and cases among children.
Grist: Masks an environmental catastrophe.
All Facts Matter: Science Denialism.
Watts up with that: Survey of peer-reviewed studies.
No evidence for mask mandates by Denis Rancourt.
The Atlantic: The downside of masking children is real.
The Atlantic: The absurdity of masks.
A (free) face is vital to social life. (Scientific American).
Challenges for people with disability (UK).
Masks foster distrust and blame. (BMJ).
Masks highlight the messiness of science (CIDRAP).
Are masks a good long-term strategy? (BMJ).
A study from MedRxiv of nursing homes in Belgium shows masks aren’t effective.
Tablet: What they did to the kids (lockdowns and masks).
BBC: Evidence of face masks in schools inconclusive.
No nonsense explanation of masks.
Meta-analysis on RCT and observational studies. Still no clear evidence.
Infection Control Today. Masks are useless. Youtube version.
The psychological and behavioural impact of Covid-19 measures. (NCBI).
Oxygen levels drop in surgeons (NCBI).
Masks were useless during the 1918 Spanish Flu. (Washington Post).
Investigative journalist Deborah Cohen: WHO recommended masks after intense political pressure.
W.H.O. on masks is not necessary.
Dr. Osterholm on the nonsense that measures stopped the flu.
Townhall: Masks have no impact in Florida schools. (Unions don’t care).
Masks don’t work. A review of studies by Prof. Denis Rancourt.
Epic run down (and takedown) on masks.
The harmful impacts of long-term and persistent mask-wearing and more on the weak evidence of its use.
Short video revealing NPIs don’t work.
The price of panic - including loss of spirituality.
A study of 25 000 children in Germany shows physical, psychological and behaviourally masks impact children. Research is urgently needed. Unfortunately, the authors of the study still perplexingly contradict these findings by urging parents to not turn on masks.
Masks cause ‘make’ or yeast infection (candida).
Masks devastate the environment.
Masks devastating the….environment.
Mask not recommended during H1N1 Chicago Tribune.
Masks are not a sure bet against Swine flu Los Angeles Times.
Public health policy expert Dr. Scott Atlas speaks to Stanford Republicans on Covid-19 including masks and lockdowns.
Children should not wear masks. (I can’t believe I have to post this).
bioRxiv: Preprint on contamination concentrations. Findings: “…When RNA is detected on surfaces it does not directly indicate the presence of viable virus even at high CT values.”
Widely circulating studies supporting masks are badly flawed, and scientists demand a retraction.
Commissioned mask study from W.H.O. flawed.
An analysis showed mandates had 10 cases more per 100 000 than non-mandated places.
Phthalates are found in masks. An ‘everywhere’ chemical.
CBC: Toxic masks.
Epoch Times: Lack of evidence in support of masks.
NIH: Microfibers can embed in the lungs.
Independent: Toxic masks in Ireland.
Police raid the office of a German judge who ruled against masks. Masks are political and not scientific.
The Federalist: Rundown on masks.
Tablet: The CDC does not do science. It does politics.
FEE: Maskless Sweden has lower mortality than most of Europe.
Eugyppius: Most mask studies are garbage.
Epoch Times: Little evidence for masks.
WSJ: Masking children is abusive.
The Federalist: CDC finds overwhelming cases wearing masks.
Lifesite News: 47 mask studies showed ineffectiveness and 32 showed health effects.
Left Lockdown Skeptics: Rundown on masks.
Daily Sceptic: Can’t teach in masks.
Bloomberg Quint: Masks didn’t make a difference anyway.
CDC uses bad science for its mask policies.
City Journal: Do masks work?
NLM: Masks bad fit for risk reduction.
ABC: Masks caused a 364% increase in speech delays among children.
Panda: Infobank on mask studies.
NYT admits - sorta - restrictions didn’t work.
Reason: Science and data do not support CDC on universal masks for kids weak. Especially for kids.
Prasad (Substack): CDC mask studies reach a new low.
The latest mask performance charts of interest are here and here.
Psychiatrists will not tolerate the masking of children.
'I will no longer accept your ill-informed, foolish, immature rationalizations for the ongoing abuse of your children.“
Swiss Policy Research: Summary of mask studies and graphs.
National Post: Doctor done with masks.
***************
Articles on lockdowns and their impacts.
Toronto Sun: “lockdown may go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in Canada’s history.” A study by Simon Fraser's professor reveals the cost of lockdowns.
Lockdowns are a ‘monumental mistake’.
Troy Media: Did lockdowns worsen Covid-19 impact?
The Pulse: Lockdowns greatest public policy catastrophe in history.
Mises: Ending lockdowns would not have led to worse outcomes.
AIER: What they said about lockdowns before Covid.
NY Post/Telegraph: German study on latest lockdowns show no effect.
Forbes. Physicians: Lockdowns are mass casualty incidents.
Mises Institute: Lockdowns don’t work.
Interview with two Ontario doctors on the misguided policy of lockdowns.
Daily Wire: As per CDC, lockdowns take a deadly toll on young people.
Ratical.org (Dr. James Meehan): Masks are unnecessary and harmful.
ABC News: Worst to come due to measures according to UN.
Zero Hedge: 86% increase in prescriptions in 2020.
AIER: We need a principled anti-lockdown movement.
FEE: CDC sees no difference between mandates and optional mask usage in schools.
NY Post: Lockdowns huge mistake.
Covid Planning Tools: Excess deaths impacting the young.
Express UK: ‘Lockdowns mistake on a global scale’.
LinkedIn: Interesting perspective on lockdowns weakening the immune system potentially making the next pandemic worse.
Washington Examiner": Masks on children not justified.
Global poor devastated by lockdowns.
Daily Mail: Cancer surges in the UK.
Lockdowns have killed millions.
AP: Non-lockdown states lower unemployment.
The political economy of mass hysteria.
World Bank: Permanent loss of learning and trillions in lost earnings.
Fox: Southwest CEO questions masks.
AIER: Long-term impacts on youth.
Quillette: Lockdown skepticism was never a fringe viewpoint.
City-Journal: Death and lockdowns.
Sweden still looks good no matter how you slice it.
Lockdown’s biggest policy failure in Canadian history.
Epoch Times: Lockdowns fuelled a rise in gaming and addiction.
MedRxiv: Modest, non-restrictive policies are most effective.
“The benefit of lockdown, therefore, was the avoidance of this extra 22,333 years of lost life. However, the cost of lockdown, as noted, was 6,300,000 years of lost life.”
“Based on his lost-life calculation, lockdown measures have caused 282 times more harm than benefit to Canadian society over the long term, or 282 times more life-years lost than saved.”
Tablet: War on Reality.
Financial Post: Junk science lockdowns.
Lockdowns must be intellectually repelled and discredited.
Brownstone Institute: Over 400 studies on masks and lockdowns. Keep in mind some may overlap here.
Epoch Times: Young adults damaged by lockdowns. Who will pay for this travesty?
Spiked Online: The folly of lockdowns. Excess mortality shows measures had no impact:
TNC: Universite de Montreal report concludes Quebec measures were without evidence. Decision made choosing public safety over public health. In other words, the authorities chose politics over science. (Also reported in Epoch Times):
https://tnc.news/2022/03/13/study-finds-quebecs-harsh-covid-restrictions-unnecessarily-punishing/
Oxford Index reveals lockdowns had no effect:
https://www.extremelyamerican.com/post/oxford-university-index-lockdowns-were-a-disaster-they-achieved-nothing-in-terms-of-their-purpose
******************
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
The Rock: I didn’t wear a mask. I got Covid. Ergo wears a mask.
Trump: Didn’t wear a mask. Got Covid. Ergo wears a mask.
The evidence and fact are masks aren’t made to stop viruses. There is no way to prove not wearing a mask would have not resulted in contracting it. If this is the standard, you can be in a mask for the rest of your life if the authorities so desire.
It’s an assumption.
People are also committing other logical fallacies.
For example, they assume that they’re wearing a mask and didn’t get Covid-19 it’s because of the mask. Humans like to find patterns in things so it’s a neat equation to apply but causation is no correlation. Ie wearing the masks doesn’t mean you didn’t get Covid it’s because of the mask. One rebuttal to this is, well, this site and its material arguing masks are largely ineffective and may be causing harm. Two, a simple straight raw calculation reveals the statistical probability of getting Covid. Canada averages 7000 cases. Divide that into a rough population of 37.5 million and you get .019% of the population is a case - not necessarily infected. So the odds are you’re not going to get it.
The slight crinkle is the reality that eventually because it is a coronavirus strain likely to remain in circulation, we will all get it at some point.
Another one that’s popping up is ‘there’s no flu because we’re wearing masks. This one gets to the heart of why I set this site up and starkly shows science is deliberately overlooked. The mass body of evidence we have are studies on INFLUENZA.
It also, once again, distracts from other possible reasons. Can it be officials are simply shifting flu cases into Covid since we don’t generally test for flu? Is it a more likely reason for hand washing (which is backed by science)?
You can’t just insert your anecdotal assumption into this without EVIDENCE.
In any event, if masks work to stop the flu, then why hasn’t it done so for Covid?
*************
Masks and falsifiability.
One of the biggest hurdles now to overcome is reversing the burden of proof on whether masks are effective. The science and data are clear on this. However, politics and emotions have entered the realm and have discarded empirical RCT-supporting masks that aren’t effective.
For one to push a mandate that infringes on civil liberties under the guise of safety, one must provide extraordinary evidence. Instead, the precautionary principle has prevailed as noted already.
What is falsifiable logic? In a nutshell, it’s proving something is false. If I say the sky is green, you will rationally counter it is blue as it’s easily observable. The only way the sky is green is if the person making the assertion is unclear as to distinguish between green and blue. Or is living in an alternate reality? Or firmly believes, based on dogmatic belief, that God is their witness and the sky is green. No amount of facts or evidence will be enough to disprove this from the asserter.
In other words, falsifiability is pseudo-science.
Consider:
Covid cases go up: Based on the observable reality that can be backed by data, one will conclude masks aren’t working. However, the pseudo-science of falsifiability will argue that in fact, without masks the cases would be higher. There is no way to prove this. It’s an article of faith.
Here’s a great piece in The Guardian about causation and correlation.
Even if you ‘believe’ masks work, you ain’t cracking that causation/correlation reality.
Covid cases remain stable: Where we can observe, again, through simple logic and data, masks provide little to no benefit, a politician or medical doctor or person can counter-point it’s keeping cases stable. To believe this would mean suspending the belief other factors can - and likely are - at play.
Covid cases decrease: This would demand a careful examination considering at what point a mandate takes place and what trends were already in place. In most cases, what we have seen from the graphs is where jurisdictions saw decreases, the trend line had already shifted before a mandate. But in the world of falsifiability, public officials will claim it’s working.
As you can see, they can keep this pernicious behaviour going on indefinitely.
In short, where a person will defend this nonsense by employing the illogical tactic of calling those who question this ‘deniers’ thus exposing their dogma, we can see in the flesh what the Dark Ages were like. A time when superstition prevailed over reason.
The beauty in all this is since they've convinced people to buy into the lie of masks, if they do lead to bad outcomes, they can just say it's not the masks but something else.
Is it possible despite these studies, the same scientists would suggest wearing one?
Yes. It is.
Here’s another. Studies in support of masks say they can help stop transmission anywhere between 10%-25%. However, in all those studies masks don’t achieve this on their own. A ‘perfect storm’ of proper wearing, social distancing and hand hygiene must take place just to get to 25% - I would add weather given the virus is seasonal and endemic now according to experts. Given this, it’s not unreasonable to assume it’s closer to 10%. Better than nothing right? Well, considering we live in a world where every action has a reaction or one of the constant trade-offs we must consider the other side of the issue.
For example, if 1000 cases are reported that means, according to the assumption, it will be claimed masked ‘saved’ or prevented the cases from rising to 1100 cases (1000 x .10 = 100). Now we must consider the fact many people do not wear masks properly nor do we have what we can consider remotely a consistent standard of mask usage. People will inevitably touch the masks and their faces thus rendering the mask useless and increasing infection rates thus likely impacting the 100 ‘gain’ in preventing the spread by more than 100. Masks, in other words, are DOA.
FAQ:
Who should wear a mask?
No one. But if need be only infected people show symptoms. The idea that stops the spread from the asymptomatic spread is not supported by evidence.
Are there as many studies countering these?
In short, no. Prior, to 2020 the literature supporting masks was sparse and where there was favourable data tended to be bacterial rather than viral. While some studies showed some effectiveness against droplets, it was largely rendered ineffective with aerosols. They also tend to be on the level below RCT (ie observational and crude non-standardized). Here is a couple. Where masks can be beneficial for a short duration of time it must be early intervention, largely against droplets and be part of other measures notably hand hygiene. Masks one year into a health crisis have little to no practical impact. Masks could work when worn by symptomatic people.
On Canada’s Public Health Measures Annex site, it states:
“Public health measures studies conducted during and after the 2009 influenza pandemic produced many key findings that have informed Canada's public health measures strategy and are further discussed in Section 3.5. The key findings include:
Masks worn by ill individuals may protect uninfected individuals from virus transmission, but little evidence exists that mask use by well individuals avoids infection.”
“For masks to be effective, individuals must wear them consistently and correctly; these actions can be challenging. Masks must be worn only once, never shared and always changed when soiled or wet. If not used properly, masks may lead to a greater risk of pandemic influenza transmission because of contamination, or they may make the user overconfident and hence neglectful of other personal protective measures, such as hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette and self-isolation when ill measures that have been deemed important complementary actions to the use of masks for the reduction of disease transmission.
Finally, given that masks cannot be used when eating and drinking and may make communication difficult, wearing them for prolonged periods may be impractical and ineffective. It is important to present the limitations of mask use to the public.
Advice on proper disposal of used masks should accompany any recommendations for their use in the community setting.”
Bold mine. Public officials or media have not explained the limitations of masks.
Too often, studies that support masks start from a pre-determined result and input data into their models to reach the desired result. Using mannequins, hamsters and sleek setups in labs isn’t reliable and isn’t a substitute for real-world human activities and realities. Hence, RCT studies are the most logical.
The preponderance of evidence or burden of proof remains insufficient. While there are some studies showing masks can be effective to some degree, it’s not enough to overturn the body of evidence.
There are far more systematic, critically appraised and randomized controlled studies pointing to ineffectiveness than there is research arguing in favour.
We’re seeing this ineffectiveness play out in real-time right in front of us. See the post looking at states and provinces arguing mandates could lead to higher infection rates.
In some of the more popular studies cited, there always seem to be caveats or flaws (ie not considering realistic human behaviours). There have been studies where transmission could be reduced by as much as 50% but that’s if - and it’s a big if - there’s the proper handling of masks and other measures at the same time. This scenario is highly unlikely and we’re seeing data to support it.
More cautious studies have pegged it to closer to as low as 10% and as high as 30%. Here’s a mathematical study touching on this.
We’ve observed several studies concluding masks ‘may’ work as long as there’s mass compliance and social distancing. Hardly worth social engineering habits over.
Here’s a good explanation of the mechanics behind the virus and masks.
However, these marginal benefits support voluntary action and encouragement from public health authorities.
Not mandates under the threat of fines threatening civil liberties.
A microbiologist I came across on the Internet put it this way:
“….a doctor to say that a face covering impedes viral spread, is akin to an astronomer claiming the moon is made of green cheese…..in addition to valid studies, just the fact that they steam your glasses, tells any thinking person, everything they need to know about masks.”
Isn’t the evidence mounting?
We’ve yet to see any convincing studies that would suggest this. Most studies that support masks are usually hastily contrived flawed ones. Some are merely observational, others merely set up to prove they ‘work’ while others are conducted in controlled lab environments. All aren’t very helpful.
Oh, come on. It’s just a mask and a mild inconvenience! We have to work together and save lives and businesses!
The concern is a belief not backed solidly by evidence and science becomes a truth. The belief that masks save lives and businesses is a false assertion. If they did these things, why haven’t we been wearing them for the last 100 years? Hint: Because we followed actual data and science showing they didn’t.
What if they’re right?
This is the purpose of this site. They have to overturn the body of evidence. The pro-mask is rooted less in science and more in propaganda.
It’s only for a few months? Why waste your time?
Two reasons.
One, is because we need to follow science and data when considering extreme measures. Masks are an extreme measure. Not a benign one. It’s forced social engineering and erases civil liberties. They could be right but the data shows they won’t be.
Two, this is an experiment on humans that will likely end in officials abandoning it because the harmful effects are very serious. . It’s irresponsible and cavalier to force a mandate that millions of people can’t follow for medical reasons. Exemptions aren’t enough and only lead to resentment. You shouldn’t need a doctor’s note to be allowed to live.
Already we’re seeing the fallout of why this is impractical. In the UK, a child with an exemption was told he wasn’t allowed to speak in class because he had no mask.
This is a form of child abuse and is not rooted in any kind of sound judgment or science.
Now we’re starting to see murmurs from health authorities like Dr. Fauci and Dr. Tam saying we will likely wear masks even if there’s a vaccine despite masks clearly not working on a macro-societal level. Was this deal? Why would anyone consent to this which is why it’s imperative people inform themselves - fast. This is why we take the time to operate this blog. We think this is a serious matter.
Here are some considerations for people with ailments:
Masks expose asthmatics to hypoxia.
Masks make breathing difficult. This is not something to ‘get used’ to as officials irreverently assert.
If masks don’t work, why are they doing this?
It is our belief part of it is political. The public demanded it and politicians gave them what they wanted. But at some point, it will have to be revoked because there will likely be, as noted, health consequences associated with the long-term wearing of masks.
Flu and illnesses across North America are down. Didn’t the lockdowns work?
Incidences of various diseases are indeed down. At some daycares, there have been no reported cases of gastro and foot and mouth disease. No doubt this has to do with heightened hygienic practices (not masks) as well as keeping people apart through social distance policies. People are simply more careful. However, the question is what are the trade-offs? They come in the form of child and domestic abuse, suicides, starvation, an increase in depression and other mental illnesses, a rise in ADHD in children, cyber theft, bankruptcies, etc. The cost comes at a high price.
Doctors, nurses and dentists wear them all the time, all day long!
This is misleading. Few wear them 8-12 hours a day straight. Children in schools likely wear them longer (which goes to show the state of our irrational bearings). Community settings are not the same as a hospital or healthcare settings. More often than not, health practitioners are trained on how to use and dispose of masks. Air ventilation systems are generally adjusted to compensate for the loss of oxygen due to mask-wearing.
There are also several studies that have asserted masks may not be sufficient or effective in hospitals.
Above all, the general population is NOT health care practitioners.
They wear them in Asia!
We’re not Asia.
The main purpose of masks in Asia is to protect from pollution. Not viruses. It is our position this is not a social habit to form because science - both as a means to protect and prevent the spread as well as harmful health effects - does not support it.
What about goggles?
No comment.
Are there masks that work?
Yes. However, most are military grade and not intended for mass community setting use and therefore not practical. These include P-100 respirators, PAPRs and CAPRs, and 40mm NATO masks. All are expensive and would be a massive challenge to be mass-produced for wide distribution.
There’s a push for N-95 masks but are not recommended from a cost and practicality perspective. For example, they have to be changed regularly and have poor oxygen exchange.
Recall, the original belief was transmission was only via droplets. We now know the aerosolized transmission is the principled mode thus rendering cloth and medical masks (to say nothing of social distancing since aerosols travel and expand way past six feet) ineffective if not pointless.
In addition, be aware of studies that undermine their findings showing the lack of evidence for masks by adding qualifying declarations that masks are important - or some vacation thereof. This happens a lot. Here’s an example.
Masks are to stop the spread. They’re like seatbelts!
That’s a statement. But no. Masks have not been proven to stop the spread as this blog amply amplifies. As for the comparison to seatbelts, this is another logical fallacy among many. The shoddy logic here is masks can protect one or others from Covid when this has never been demonstrated, like seat belts save lives which have been shown to save lives. It’s a false equivalence. It also indirectly argues for putting into law wearing masks based on this bad comparison and weak logic and evidence.
Without lockdowns, things would have been worse!
As the data and studies show here on this site, this is simply not true. They made things worse overall.
Seen through a one-dimensional prism 'lockdowns' work if you apply the one metric of Covid to measures undertaken.
One could erect a case arguing lockdowns may have prevented higher hospitalizations and deaths. But that's not how public health works.
You have to consider all impacts on society and overall health whenever you consider such drastic measures. Which is, incidentally, precisely what Sweden and Florida did.
That you may not be impacted doesn't mean someone else - usually those worse off on the lower economic scale- won't.
If you ban driving for a period of time accidents will go down. Does that mean it worked? Of course not, once you realize the impact on the economy and quality of life of restrictive mobility. Curfews work in a similar vein. They can work for perhaps a week but then the laws of diminishing returns kick in. Both curfews and lockdowns, it should be noted, are usually reserved for Martial Law and in times of war. Not public health. Covid-19 was the first time in human history that such unproven strategies were imposed on such a large scale.
Covid lockdowns were borne less from science and more from panic. If you'd advocate for no more swimming to prevent drownings or restrict driving, not only are these absurdly impractical but point to a dubious state of mind where ethics and morality are concerned.
Who are you?
Alternate: Who do you think you are?
I’m a business owner currently in education. I worked in financial services and hold a bachelor’s degree in History. However, I’ve been a student and chronicler of history long before this and acquired an extensive and varied experience in research and knowledge. My goal is simple: Truth. The objective is to help people find confidence in their critical thinking skills.
Who do you think you are? You’re a sovereign individual with agency. Use it.
I currently live in Montreal, Canada.
***************
“The new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists’ puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects.
Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value. Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man.
… On just the same ground I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in’. It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science.” C.S. LEWIS.
**********
This is a collection of 193 selected studies (and 145 preprints, articles and videos of interest) from some of the world's top scientific agencies and organizations looking into the effectiveness of masks in both hospital and community settings. In addition, 62 studies on lockdowns (and 37 articles). One compilation of both masks and lockdowns (Brownstone).
Total: 255 studies/182/ articles and expert testimonies/ 2 compilations.
The value of this site will be in future years. It is hoped people will avoid making the same mistakes we did in 2020 and into 2021.
This is an ongoing list.
Note: Two studies have been retracted.
Research Gate, in addition to banning Prof. Denis Rancourt, removed another study.
JAMA Network retracted an RCT on masks and carbon dioxide. We published the text here.
**********
'...You think I'm f****n stupid, Hans?' John McClane (Die Hard)
Look! You fools! You’re in danger! Can’t you see? They’re after you! They’re after all of us! Our wives… our children… they’re here already! You’re next!” — Dr. Miles Bennell, (Invasion of the Body Snatchers)
“Ow. My eyes! The goggles do nothing!” Radioactive Man.
“I really hope this shit ends soon.” Hector. Link aid.
Last updated December 9, 2023 in the year of our Lord. All rights reserved. This site is dedicated to Justice Sotomayor and the Canadian government - a laggard in reason.