The Unmasking Of The Mask Propaganda

I really didn’t want to write this article. It’s an exhausting topic that’s maybe more controversial than Trump. But there are some studies that really raise doubts as to the effectiveness of masks. As a physician I’m ASTOUNDED at how poor the medical community has been on nearly every aspect of Covid and continues to be! You could go into a hospital E.R., a walk-in clinic or your family doctor and get 3 completely different treatments or no treatment at all if you test positive. Ridiculous. After 18 months there should be SOME kind of consensus about testing, treatments and public health management. Instead there are renewed mask mandates covering schools, businesses, and entire cities!

So let’s talk about masks…….AGAIN. I tried posting something like this article on Facebook and I was quickly notified that I wasn’t allowed to and if I continued my account would be suspended or that my “audience” would be limited! Rand Paul was suspended from YouTube for suggesting that masks don’t work! But I WILL give you unbiased, objective information WITH references that MSM and anti-social media WON’T. Here we go: First of all the Center for Disease Confusion and Fauci change their opinion on masks nearly weekly. Almost all of their guidance comes from the results of OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES (OS’s). Real science has traditionally depended on RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS (RCT’s). In an OS the investigator makes conclusions based on observing individuals without any manipulation or intervention. For example the CDC literally drew conclusions about mask effectiveness in one case based on the observation of 2….yes 2 hairstylists and how many of their clients contracted Covid! Another CDC-highlighted study, by Rader et al., invited people across the country to answer a survey. The low (11 percent) response rate—including about twice as many women as men indicated that the mix of respondents was hardly random! Can you say BIAS?? RCT’s on the other hand are considered the “gold standard” in research. An RCT is a study in which people are allocated at random (by chance alone) to receive one of several clinical interventions. One of these interventions is the standard of comparison or control.  In this case the intervention was a MASK.

Let’s have a look at the outcomes of a dozen or so of these RCT’s that involved mask use.

• A 2016 study done in Beijing of all places showed that mask use to prevent illness were not statistically significant. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/12/e012330
• A 2010 study in France randomly placed sick people, or “index patients,” and their household contacts together into either a mask group or a no-mask control group.  Their finding? “In various sensitivity analyses, we did not identify any trend in the results suggesting effectiveness of facemasks.” https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013998
• A 2010 study looked at masks vs. hand washing to prevent disease. They found that those in the hand-hygiene group were less likely to develop any symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (42 percent experienced symptoms) than those in the mask-plus-hand-hygiene group (61 percent). This statistically significant finding suggests that wearing a mask actually undermines the benefits of hand hygiene!! Remember….your Mother always told you to wash your hands…..she never said anything about masks!! https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20297744/
• A 2009 study FUNDED BY THE CDC observed that the hands-only group generally did better than the mask-plus-hands group, but not to a statistically significant degree. Their conclusion? “no additional benefit was observed when facemask [use] was added to hand hygiene by comparison with hand hygiene alone.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
• A 2014 study of 164 Australian Hajj pilgrims staying in tents looked at mask vs. no mask use. Close quarters to be sure. They were looking at influenza like illness. Lab tests revealed twice as many participants having developed respiratory viruses in the mask group as in the control group but were not statistically significant. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25336079/
• A 2008 study observed that secondary attack rates, using the CDC’s definition of ILI, were twice as high in the mask group (8 percent) as in the hand hygiene (4 percent) or control (4 percent) groups, but these observed differences were not statistically significant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364646/
• A study in 2010 and 2012 concluded that “Masks alone did not provide a benefit.” They nevertheless recommended the combination of mask use and hand hygiene” https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029744
• A 2012 study in Germany found that combining the mask group and mask-plus-hands group produced a finding of significantly lower levels of lab-confirmed influenza (but not of in that combined group (but not in either group separately). https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-12-26
• A 2020 study was the only RCT to test mask-wearing’s specific effectiveness against Covid-19. This large (4,862 participants) RCT divided people between a mask-wearing group (providing “high-quality” three-layer surgical masks) and a control group. The study found that 1.8 percent of those in the mask group and 2.1 percent of those in the control group became infected with Covid-19 within a month, the 0.3-point difference was not statistically significant. Publication of this study met a great deal of resistance! After all…..it didn’t meet the MSM’s agenda pushing masks!! https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/
• There’s only been ONE study that looked at the effectiveness of CLOTH MASKS. A 2015 study looked at surgical mask use vs. cloth masks in 1100 health care workers. The study found that those in the DOUBLE cloth-mask group were 13 times more likely (2.28 percent to 0.17 percent) to develop an influenza-like illness than those in the surgical-mask group—a statistically significant difference. Specifically they found that “surgical masks were “poor” at preventing the penetration of particles—letting 44 percent through—cloth masks were “extremely poor,” letting 97 percent through. (N95 hospital respirators let 0.1 percent through.)” The author’s conclusion is actually pretty disturbing. Here’s what they had to say…..you’re not likely to find THIS from MSM: “wearing a cloth mask “may potentially increase the infection risk” for health-care workers. “The virus may survive on the surface of the face masks,” they explain, while “a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer,” which could lead to hand hygiene being “compromised.” As for double-masking, the authors write, “Observations during SARS suggested double-masking . . . increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention.” Absent further research, they conclude, “cloth masks should not be recommended.”………………YIKES!!

So there you have it, 14 RCT studies. Three of them MAY show that masks are helpful. The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless—whether compared with no masks or that they don’t add anything to HAND WASHING or were actually counterproductive. As for cloth masks…..the most common type that people are using on a long term basis, they were actually possibly harmful and could INCREASE transmission!

Masks were always employed by surgeons primarily to prevent contamination of the surgical field…..not to prevent infection to themselves FROM the patient. Clearly N-95 masks are superior in their function as a mask. I suppose I believe that if you are symptomatic, then wearing a quality mask may prevent spread to others. As for masks preventing the asymptomatic WEARER …….. the evidence simply isn’t there .