Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked February 13, 2023
VIDEO LINK: https://youtu.be/I5Xn7SeaUVI
PDF:https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2023/February/PDF/covid-mask-policy-pdf.pdf
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
· The Cochrane Library
recently updated its 2020 systematic review of physical interventions to reduce
respiratory illnesses. The update included an additional 11 randomized
controlled trials, bringing the total number of RCTs included to 78
· As in its 2020 review, they
found no evidence to support the use of surgical face masks or N95 respirators
to prevent influenza or COVID-19 infection
· The relative risk reduction
of using surgical masks in the general population (within hospitals and
communities at large) to reduce symptoms of flu-like/COVID-like illness (not
lab confirmed) was a statistically insignificant 0.95
· The same goes for reducing
laboratory-confirmed influenza and COVID. Here, the relative risk reduction was
1.01 with a confidence interval of 0.72 to 1.42. In other words, it’s a wash.
On average, it raises your risk of lab-confirmed infection by 1%. Range-wise,
it may lower your risk by 28% or raise it by as much as 42%
· The review also found “no
clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with
N95/P2 respirators”
The question of whether we should wear face masks
or not to prevent the spread of COVID-19 has been a hotly contested issue ever
since our so-called health authorities came out with the recommendation in
early 2020. Some of us were quick to point out the obvious, namely that masks
cannot filter out viruses due to the virus being far smaller than the holes in
the fabric.
Surgical masks have only ever been used to prevent
droplets of saliva to drip into open wounds during surgery, potentially causing
an infection. That's all they were ever designed to do.
Numerous studies looking at mask-wearing during
cold and flu season in years past came up empty, showing masks are not a viable
prevention method. Yet the narrative we were fed was that masks will somehow
prevent respiratory infection, and not wearing one meant you had no regard for
the health and safety of others.
Never mind the fact that a healthy person cannot
transmit disease in the first place. The asymptomatic
spread fallacy was still used to reinforce the idea that
everyone had to wear a mask, regardless of whether they were ill or not. You
couldn't even debate the issue. The propaganda angle was the only viewpoint
allowed to circulate.
Today, three years later, mask policies are
cropping up yet again, especially in schools,1 and health care facilities. In December 2022,
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) submitted a final rule
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and Office of Management and
Budget for review which, if approved and implemented, would make universal
masking in health care facilities a PERMANENT rule.
The largest nursing union in the U.S., National
Nurses United, is also pushing to include permanent rules for “screening and testing
of patients, visitors and staff, measures ensuring optimal PPE, exposure
notifications for healthcare workers and paid leave for those exposed or
infected with COVID-19,” according to Health Care Dive.2 All of this despite the fact that the
scientific underpinnings are now even shakier than they were in 2020.
The AARP (formerly the American Association of
Retired Persons) is even going so far as to claim mask wearing can help prevent
heart attacks!3 Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo had
the following to say about the AARP's attempt to invent benefits for mask
wearers:4
Gold-Standard Scientific Review Published
The latest of these studies is a meta-analysis and
systematic review by the Cochrane Library,5,6,7,8,9 an independent research organization that has
been reviewing the use of physical interventions to reduce respiratory
illnesses since 2010.10
Cochrane reviews have long been recognized as the
gold standard in evidence-based health care as their analyses look at the whole
body of published science, and every few years, reviews are updated to include
the latest research findings.
For example, reports on "Physical
Interventions to Interrupt or Reduce the Spread of Respiratory Viruses"
were published in 2010, 2011, 2020 and January 30, 2023.
In the video above, Dr. Vinay Prasad, a
hematologist-oncologist, health researcher and professor of epidemiology and
biostatistics at the University of California, reviews11 the latest Cochrane review, which added 11
new randomized controlled trials (RTCs) and cluster-RCTs to their previous 2020
analysis.
That brings the total number of RCTs included in
the systematic review to 78. Six of the 11 new RCTs were conducted during the
COVID pandemic and looked at the spread of COVID-19 specifically.
Still No Evidence to Back Surgical Mask
Recommendations
The Cochrane investigators concluded that, while
there's "uncertainty about the effects of face masks" due to trial
bias and low adherence by participants, the pooled results of randomized
controlled trials (RTCs) "did not show a clear reduction in respiratory
viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks." Here's an excerpt
from the review:12
"Medical
or surgical masks — Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in
healthcare workers.
Compared with
wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little
to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like
illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference
in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies;
13,919 people)."
The relative risk reduction of using surgical masks
in the general population (within hospitals and communities at large) to reduce
symptoms of flu-like/COVID-like illness (not lab confirmed) was 0.95.
A value below 1 indicates the intervention improved
outcomes, whereas a value above 1 shows it made it worse. So, here, surgical
masks was associated with a relative risk reduction of 5%.
However, it's not statistically significant, as the
confidence interval ranges from 0.84 to 1.09.13 So, it may lower your risk by as much as 16%
or raise it by 9%. As noted by Prasad, the most accurate way to describe this
finding is that "we have not proven there is an effect."
The same goes for reducing laboratory-confirmed
influenza and COVID. Here, the relative risk reduction was 1.01 with a
confidence interval of 0.72 to 1.42. In other words, it's a complete wash. On
average, it raises your risk of lab-confirmed infection by 1%. Range-wise, it
may lower your risk by 28% or raise it by as much as 42%.
So, masking really has no effect on confirmed
infection rates (which, by the way, is more important than reports of perceived
symptoms). As noted by the authors, the analysis "suggests that wearing a
medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference compared to not
wearing a mask for this outcome."
"This is
conclusive," Prasad says. "This is the reality …
You just don't have credible evidence [for masking], and I want to tell you
this: The science didn't change … This is what the science has always
shown."
N95 Masks Are Useless Too
The review also found "no clear differences
between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2
respirators." As detailed by the authors:14
"N95/P2
respirators — Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was
in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing
N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people
have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no
difference in how many people catch a flu‐like illness (5 studies; 8407
people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people)."
Public Health Experts Simply Lied
Video Link: https://youtu.be/mBFCopXrZfQ
So, in conclusion, none of the new studies that
were added made one iota of difference. Masks were unable to prevent influenza
transmission before the pandemic, and they still fail to prevent respiratory
infections, be it the flu or COVID.
But, if there was no evidence to back masking in
the first place, how did we end up with mask mandates? In short, our public
health authorities started lying. As noted by Prasad: "Anthony Fauci told
the truth on '60 Minutes' — the first time. The second time when he said you
have to wear a cloth mask … he was lying."
Yet somehow, they managed to convince everyone that
the truth was the lie and the lie was the truth.
A clip from Fauci's "60 Minutes"
appearance is featured in "The Jimmy Dore Show" video above, as are
some of his later public announcements where he suddenly promotes mask wearing
and defends mask mandates.
Population-Wide Mask Mandates 'Never Made Sense'
In a February 3, 2023, article in The Spectator,15 lead author Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan,
director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and
former editor-in-chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, explained why the 2020
Cochrane review was unable to influence public health policy on masking:
"This is
the second update of the review since the start of the pandemic. The first
update was delayed by seven months due to unexplained editorial decisions. It
was too late when it came out in November 2020 to make a difference to national
COVID policy; by then, activism, low-quality observational evidence and
government policy had set the agenda for mask mandates, and the damage had been
done.
Often these
government policies relied on observational studies on mask usage and the
spread of COVID. But there are lots of flaws in observational evidence.
For example, in
the absence of a study protocol setting out methods before the study is done,
it is possible to shift the dates of an observational analysis to suit the rise
and fall in infections. So if you time your analysis near the peak of
infections, the results will favor mask interventions as the infection rate
quickly decreases.
But when we
pointed out in November 202016 the troubling lack of
robust evidence on face masks and the problems with observational studies, we
were shouted down, removed from Facebook and put on the government's secret
watchlist …
Mandates that
affected the whole population never made sense … even in high adherence
populations such as Japan, they have not stemmed an inevitable rise in
infections. Part of the problem may be that during the pandemic the government
had to be seen to be doing something. Interventions like handwashing and
vaccines are invisible, but masks acted as a visible sign of compliance.
What we have
witnessed in this pandemic are strong beliefs about what works and what doesn't
… Several policies such as mask mandates, restrictions, and unproven
interventions now seem absurd in hindsight. And as the culture of fear has
lifted, the population has become all too aware of their detrimental effects.
We failed to
follow an evidence-based approach during the pandemic. We are now left with the
human, social and economic aftermath of evidence-free policies."
Public Health Agencies 'Steeped in Failure'
As noted by Prasad in an accompanying Substack
post:17
"Who
should we be angry with? Obviously there is a class of twitter expert that
doesn't understand how to read evidence. Some of them have even been promoted
to be deans for public health schools. So much for public health.
But the real
failure is NIAID [National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] and
CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. It is Tony Fauci.
Fauci
controlled NIAID budget. He could have run 10 RCTs of masking — different
masks, different ages, different settings. He chose to run zero. Instead he
went on TV 1,000 times and lied about effectiveness of cloth masks …
CDC and AAP
[American Academy of Pediatrics] are also steeped in failure. These agency
forced 2 year olds to mask. Against the advice of the World Health Organization
and UNICEF.
The Cochrane
review fails to identify any data that pertains to 2 year olds. The CDC should
be ashamed of themselves. Tens of thousands of people working from home, and no
one inside the organization with the ability to stop this policy."
Scientists Censored by Propagandists
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this masking
debacle has been the massive censorship and shutting down of healthy scientific
debate, not just among laypeople but among scientists themselves.
Only the yes-men were ever given room to air their
perfectly scripted views, while those who had concerns were silenced,
regardless of their credentials. YouTube even censored a roundtable discussion
with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and several medical experts. Why? Because in
multiple instances, the doctors said children didn't need to wear masks, and
this position violated YouTube's "COVID-19 medical misinformation"
policy.
In a February 6 Substack article, Jefferson describes
the propaganda effort to twist the findings of the 2023 Cochrane review on
masking and other physical interventions against COVID-19:18
"We, the
co-authors of the Cochrane review … have received several … 'can I please check
the main facts and, by the way, tell me what your review says because I cannot
be bothered to do my job' type of messages. However, we recently got another
query … This request comes from a very powerful press syndicate:
'I'm reaching
out because I've been seeing some posts [links redacted by TJ] spreading widely
on social media that seem to be misrepresenting the conclusions of your
recently published study on physical interventions and respiratory viruses.
Do you think it
is a misrepresentation to claim (as the tweets I link to above do) that your
study definitively proves that masks don't work in preventing the spread of
viruses such as COVID-19 and the flu? If so, I'd be interested in debunking
these claims to set the record straight and would love to speak with you more about
the study.'
The disturbing
aspect of this request is as follows: the stringer is making contact with one
of us. After exchanging pleasantries, he/she will ask a few superfluous
questions.
We have an
abstract, a plain language summary, TTE [Trust the Evidence] posts and a
podcast, and Carl and I have written a Spectator piece covering the review. If
you are a real masochist, you can read all the 300-plus pages of the review …
So there is
nothing to explain or fact-check. But the stringer is not really interested in
checking facts. What they want to do is to write truthfully that they have
spoken to one of us and then put the spin required in the release to ensure the
'misinterpretation' of twitterati is set straight. 'Debunking' is the term
used, and it will be actioned if the stringer thinks the Twitterati have
'misinterpreted' our findings …
What disturbs
me … is the idea of 'debunking' or 'normalization' of the information flow. We
have done the tough work over two decades, reporting results separately from
our interpretation, as in all Cochrane reviews. The studies' results are the
results reported by the authors of the single studies included in the reviews.
Our
interpretation is one you can — and should if you want — challenge. However,
successfully challenging our interpretation requires hard work, elbow grease,
graft, focus, and application. So picking up the phone and speaking to someone,
then deciding how to 'debunk' or normalize the message, is so much easier.
The reach of
this particular press syndicate is global and powerful. I wonder why the
stringer wanted to 'debunk' the interpretation of the twitterati mentioned in
the text. To ensure 'truth' triumphed? Or to ensure no more waves in the
official narratives were made by a bunch of academics or Twitter
dwellers?"
While Jefferson now avoids interactions with the
mainstream media, he did agree to an interview with investigative journalist
Maryanne Demasi, which you can read here.19 He also granted an interview with Paul D.
Thacker, which you can read on
Thacker's Substack.
Pro-Maskers Guilty of Creating Massive Pollution
Problem
In addition to the many health problems associated
with prolonged mask wearing, which I've addressed previously, mask policies
have also created a massive pollution problem. Ironically, many pro-mask
activists also claim to be environmentalists, yet they completely ignore the
environmental effects of mask mandates.
According to UNICEF, the world used and discarded
an estimated 2.4 billion masks in 2020.20 Another estimate, calculated by the
University of Southern Denmark,21 put that number at 129 billion face masks
EACH MONTH. As reported by Business Insider:22
"Since the
very first lockdowns of 2020, these plastic-based coverings have … been an
environmental disaster in the making … [The] rapid adoption of face masks … means
their waste can now be found everywhere …
Discarded masks
have seeped into every corner of our lives, from city sidewalks to solemn
niches of the internet.23 They've washed up on
the shores of Hong Kong's deserted Soko Islands and cloaked octopi off the
coast of France.
Scientists and
environmental advocates expressed alarm24 about this tsunami of
waste … They foresaw the dire ecological ramifications of our mask waste —
especially once those masks made their inevitable way into the earth's
waterways.
Elastic loops
pose entanglement hazards for turtles, birds, and other animals. Fish could eat
the plastic-fiber ribbons that unfurl from a discarded mask's body. Then, there
is the untold menace to human health that would likely present, at the
microscopic level, once masks began to disintegrate."
The global consumption of other single-use plastics
also increased by a whopping 300% in the last three years, further adding to
the problem of plastic pollution. You'd think governments that claim to be so
concerned about "saving the planet" would address the issue, but no.
As noted by Business Insider:25
"[W]orld
leaders have ignored the problem. And once the immediate public-health
emergency superseded ecological concerns — the heads of Big Plastic made sure
it stayed that way."
Medical Masks Are Hazardous Waste
Research26 from Swansea University in Wales reveals
single-use masks readily disintegrate when submerged in water, releasing both
micro- and nanoplastic particles, even after relatively brief periods of
submersion.27
As if that's not bad enough, the masks also release
nanoparticles of heavy metals like lead, cadmium, copper and arsenic. Not only
can this mask litter result in contaminated drinking water, but the particles
can also disrupt entire marine food chains.
Nanoparticles are particularly troublesome as they
can penetrate cell walls and damage DNA, and this is true not just in animals
and humans but also in plants. As reported by Business Insider:28
"Recent
research29 on silicon
nanoparticles, in particular, has shown that if a particle is very small in
nano scale, it can act almost as a tiny, carcinogenic bomb. Multiply that by a
minimum of several hundred per mask, at a rate of 50,000 masks disposed per
second, and the scope of the dilemma grows vivid."
According to research30 published in Science of the Total Environment
in September 2021, the polypropylene in medical face masks could be recycled
either by mechanical or thermal means, and biodegradable mask options are also
available. Yet no one in a position of power is advocating for these solutions.
High Time to Discard False Mask Narratives
It's time to put an end to the false narratives
that mask wearing lowers infection rates and/or that it "protects
others." They protect no one. Not the wearer and not those around the
wearer.
And, as noted by Prasad in the featured video, the
burden of proof lays on the proponent of a given intervention. In this case, those
claiming we should mask up to protect others are the ones who have the
responsibility to prove they're correct. The burden of proof is not on those
who object, based on logical and existing evidence.
Universal mask wearing is also resulting in environmental
pollution that is completely unnecessary and avoidable. So, please, just stop
wearing disposable masks. It's time. The record has been set straight. There
are no benefits, and plenty of risks and negative impacts.
- Sources
and References
·
1, 8, 10 Daily
Sceptic February 2, 2023
·
2 Health
Care Dive December 9, 2022
·
4 Twitter
Joseph Ladapo February 3, 2023
·
5, 12, 14 Cochrane
Library January 30, 2023
·
6 Daily
Mail February 2, 2023
·
7, 11, 17 Vinay
Prasad Substack February 1, 2023
·
9, 15 The
Spectator February 3, 2023
·
13 Cochrane Library January 30, 2023, Summary of findings
1
·
16 The
Spectator November 19, 2020
·
18 Tom
Jefferson Substack February 6, 2023
·
19 Maryanne
Demasi Substack February 5, 2023
·
21 Science
Daily March 10, 2021
·
22, 25, 27, 28 Business
Insider March 25, 2022
·
23 Covid
Litter
·
24 DW April
23, 2020
·
26 Water
Research May 15, 2021; 196: 117033
·
29 Carcinogenicity
and Mutagenicity of Nanoparticles
·
30 Science of the Total Environment September 10, 2021;
786: 147628
