“AAPS Statement: Mask Mandates Do Not Prevent Spread of Respiratory Viruses, They Cause Harm, and Violate the Right to Informed Consent” (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, 2023.09.12):
The AAPS statement of patients’ freedoms provides that patients have the right to be informed about the risks and benefits of any medical intervention, and have the right to refuse medical treatment.
The use of masks and other face coverings, as a public health measure or otherwise, are a type of medical intervention to which the above informed consent rights apply.
Government recommendations and mandates regarding face coverings have been contradictory, provided to the public as authoritative without evidence, are in conflict with the available data, and neglect to mention any potential harm from use of coverings or masks.
Requirements to wear surgical masks in a large London hospital during the first 10 months of omicron activity (December 2021 to September 2022) made no discernible difference to reducing hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections, according to new research being presented at this year's European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) in Copenhagen, Denmark (15–18 April).
Researchers found removing the mask policy in phase two did not produce a 'statistically significant change' in the hospital acquired Covid infection rate. Equally, they 'did not observe a delayed effect' in the Covid infection rate once the policy was removed, the study added
Those in high risk wards - the control group - who continued wearing masks, also 'found no immediate or delayed change in infection rate', the study said
In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69]). An unplanned subgroup analysis by country found that in the medical mask group versus the N95 respirator group RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 8 of 131 (6.11%) versus 3 of 135 (2.22%) in Canada (HR, 2.83 [CI, 0.75 to 10.72]), 6 of 17 (35.29%) versus 4 of 17 (23.53%) in Israel (HR, 1.54 [CI, 0.43 to 5.49]), 3 of 92 (3.26%) versus 2 of 94 (2.13%) in Pakistan (HR, 1.50 [CI, 0.25 to 8.98]), and 35 of 257 (13.62%) versus 38 of 261 (14.56%) in Egypt (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.60 to 1.50]). There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group.
Conclusion:
Among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks when compared with HRs of RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 for N95 respirators.
In plain English: The medical masks work AS WELL as N95 masks? Or rather, neither do anything!
We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).
The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.
A longer mask usage significantly increased the fungal colony numbers but not the bacterial colony numbers. Although most identified microbes were non-pathogenic in humans; Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Cladosporium, we found several pathogenic microbes; Bacillus cereus, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Aspergillus, and Microsporum. We also found no associations of mask-attached microbes with the transportation methods or gargling. We propose that immunocompromised people should avoid repeated use of masks to prevent microbial infection.
children clearly got much higher CO2 levels than adults and exceeded 5,000ppm in both mask categories
adults and elderly were under 5k for surgical masks (though 37.5% and 25% of each respectively exceeded it) but not by much
FFP2’s caused much higher CO2 than surgical masks and severely exceeded 5k in all age groups.
all masks in all ages resulted in at least a 10X rise in CO2 rate from ambient and some were nearly 30X.
”
“TSA mask mandate“ (Vinay Prasad, 2022.04.21): “The CDC failed you. It never ran a trial. It never generated knowledge. It kept us in the dark. It should be no surprise that it lost it's power and legitimacy. It proved it does not deserve the power it was was entrusted by the people. It failed to use science to reduce uncertainty. We should be ashamed of the organization. “
“Lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2 per cent, Johns Hopkins study finds” (National Post, 2022.02.02): “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” reads the paper, which is based on a review of 34 pre-existing COVID-19 studies. Given the “devastating effects” that lockdowns have caused, the authors recommended they be “rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.”
“Biden's ridiculous free N95 mask offer” (Steve Kirsch, 2022.01.31): “The Biden administration is giving out 400 million free N95 masks. Here’s what they aren’t telling you: an N95 respirator will “work” for around 2 hours in a hospital or similar setting with filtered air; an N95 respirator will “work” for around 30 min outdoors. So if 200M Americans receive two respirators each, they get around 4 hours of protection. And that only works if the respirators are fitted perfectly with no gaps and people are trained on their use.“
In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated).
12 of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts (39%) arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases.
Peak viral load did not differ by vaccination status or variant type
“Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE“ (2021.08.22): “This study has been used by members in the medical industry to stipulate that a face mask (not a respirator) can achieve a “fit factor” and protects the wearer. This research included a review of the published paper of the research along with the original report that had some important information that was omitted from the final paper. Not only was this study unnecessary because we already have the science and methods to determine if a face covering can be qualified as a respiratory protective piece, but this study significantly lowered the bar of standards the exposure science industry has long adhered to. This study encourages an uninformed, untrained public to engage in indiscriminate PPE construction and use, to attempt in achieving what is believe greater protection for themselves or their children, by means of any process or materials their imagination conjures. This study did not follow OSHA regulations to determine protection, proper use, or if their new guidelines for mask use were even safe.This is an example of evidence from the lowest form research in the hierarchy of evidence and should be removed from all reputable sources for scientific guidance. Finally, the CDC and publications must retract the claim that face masks protect the wearer. This study was that claim’s foundation and the fact that this mask study is voided, that claim of masks protecting the wearer too must be annulled and communicated to the public. This is due to the large amount of media attention this invalid research received (see Appendix H).“
