Frontiers in Public Health (No empirical evidence for masks)
*This is one of the largest meta-analysis to date.
“Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law.”
"In line with recent findings by Kisielinski et al. (14) and Sukul et al. (26), the present results clearly show that N95 masks lead to significantly more pronounced and unfavorable biochemical, physiological and psychological effects than surgical masks," the authors state. "Altogether, the results in blood oxygenation, discomfort, heart rate, CO2, exertion, humidity, blood pressure, VE, temperature, dyspnea, and itching etc. can be attributed to the larger (almost doubled) dead space and higher breathing resistance of the N95 mask. Compared to the surgical mask upon the short-term effects, N95 masks could impose elevated health risks under extended use."
"Nearly 40% of main long-COVID-19 symptoms overlap with mask related complaints and symptoms described by Kisielinski et al. as MIES like fatigue, dyspnea, confusion, anxiety, depression, tachycardia, dizziness, and headache, which we also detected in the qualitative and quantitative analysis of face mask effects in our systematic review. It is possible that some symptoms attributed to long-COVID-19 are predominantly mask-related."