CDC guidance on masks has clearly stated that wearing a mask is intended to protect other people in case the mask wearer is infected. At no time has CDC guidance suggested that masks were intended to protect the wearers. -CDChttps://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/15/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-distorts-new-cdc-report-makes-false/
Cloth masks are little more than facial decorations. There’s no place for them in light of Omicron. – CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Leana Wenhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/12/24/health/cloth-mask-omicron-variant-wellness/index.html
Recently, the CDC upgraded it’s mask guidance for protection against the terrifying “Covid-19.” Rather than outright requiring the public to use N95 surgical masks (yet), something they have regularly refused to do amid concerns of shortages for healthcare workers, the CDC now says that people can wear N95 and KN95 masks as they offer the best “protection” over cloth masks:
CDC updates mask guidance, says N95s offer ‘highest protection’
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday updated its guidance on masks for the general public, now saying that people “may choose” to wear N95 and KN95 masks because they offer the best protection against Covid-19.”
“Previously, the CDC did not recommend that the general population wear N95 masks or KN95s, a similar type of mask made in China, fearing that a run on those higher-quality masks would impact the supply in health care settings. The CDC now says shortages are no longer a concern.
“When worn consistently and properly,” the agency wrote on its website, N95 respirators approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH, “provide the highest level of protection from particles, including the virus that causes Covid-19.”
“We really need to go a step further and say this is the standard we should be aiming for,” said Dr. Ranu Dhillon, a global health physician at the Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.”
“CDC should have come out in front of this two years ago,” he said. “The science was clear two years ago.”
The Science Was Clear…?
Did you catch that last part by Dr. Ranu Dhillon? He says the CDC should have made this N95 recommendation the standard from the beginning as “the science was clear two years ago.” However, is this a correct statement? Was the science actually clear two years ago? If it was clear, does the science support the argument for mask use? Let’s take a trip back to the early months of this “pandemic,” and see what the CDC and other agencies had to say on this matter, shall we?
“Concerns continue to increase here in the United States over the coronavirus. Many people are wearing face masks in public areas, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says wearing a mask to protect against this new coronavirus is unnecessary. In fact, wearing a mask is not even recommended for the general population during flu season because there is not much evidence it has any benefit.”
“CDC does not currently recommend the use of facemasks to help prevent novel #coronavirus. Take everyday preventive actions, like staying home when you are sick and washing hands with soap and water, to help slow the spread of respiratory illness.”
“Though health officials have warned Americans to prepare for the spread of the novel coronavirus in the U.S., people shouldn’t wear face masks to prevent the spread of the infectious illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. surgeon general.”
“In fact the U.S. surgeon general recently urged the public to “STOP BUYING MASKS!” “They are not effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!,” wrote Surgeon General Jerome Adams on Twitter TWTR
The CDC said last month it doesn’t recommend people use face masks, making the announcement on the same day that first case of person-to-person transmission of coronavirus was reported in the U.S.”
“The virus is not spreading in the general community,” Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the Center for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said in a Jan. 30 briefing. “We don’t routinely recommend the use of face masks by the public to prevent respiratory illness. and we certainly are not recommending that at this time for this new virus.”
“U.S. health authorities had discouraged healthy Americans from wearing facial coverings for weeks, saying they were likely to do more harm than good in the fight against the coronavirus — but now, as researchers have learned more about how the highly contagious virus spreads, officials have changed their recommendations.
U.S. health authorities have long maintained that face masks should be reserved only for medical professionals and patients suffering from COVID-19, the deadly disease caused by the coronavirus. The CDC had based this recommendation on the fact that such coverings offer little protection for wearers, and the need to conserve the country’s alarmingly sparse supplies of personal protective equipment.”
From the very beginning in January 2020, the CDC did not recommend face masks. It was stated that the masks aren’t even used during flu season as there is no evidence of benefit. In February, the CDC’s continued recommendation was that people should not wear face masks as they were unnecessary. In March, the CDC, the US Surgeon General, and the US Department of Health and Human Services all recommended against the use of face masks. The Surgeon General went as far as to tell everyone to stop buying masks as they were not effective. In April 2020, while the CDC finally changed its position and recommended cloth masks, they still considered that masks offered little protection for wearers. The same month the CDC changed it’s position without evidence, the WHO weighed in on the lack of science regarding mask use:
“There is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19,” WHO’s early April recommendation stated.
Then in June 2020 the WHO revised their guidelines and changed their position by recommending face masks while still admitting there was no evidence for the effectiveness of wearing a mask:
Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19
“At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
“There are currently no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of universal or targeted continuous mask use by health workers in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in
geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission.”
“The use of cloth masks (referred to as fabric masks in this document) as an alternative to medical masks is not considered appropriate for protection of health workers based on limited available evidence. One study that evaluated the use of cloth masks in a health care facility found that health care workers using cotton cloth masks were at increased risk of influenza like illness compared with those who wore medical masks.”
“At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.”
Thus, from the very start of this pandemic until the first change in stance by the CDC and reiterated by the WHO two months later, the science did not suddenly change showing masks were protective. In fact, it showed the exact opposite.
45+ Years of Ineffectiveness
If we were to look through the last 45+ years of studies on the effectiveness of surgical masks, what would we find out? Fortunately, we don’t have to ponder this question as Arthur Firstenberg, author of The Invisible Rainbow (a book I have yet to read but one that comes highly recommended), took it upon himself to break these studies down for us:
“As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”
I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.
- Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
- Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
- Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
- In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
- A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”
- Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”
- Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
- Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.”
- Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
- Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
- Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
- Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
- Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
- Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”
The above work by Firstenberg is an excellent line-up of numerous studies over the last few decades showing the absolute lack of effectiveness of face masks not only when it comes to protecting others from infection, but even protecting oneself from infection. In fact, in various instances, those without face masks were actually better off than those who wore them. Now while this is a great overview of the studies throughout the years showcasing mask ineffectiveness, there are some very important current studies left out that also help solidify the lack of evidence.
In 2015, a cluster randomized trial of cloth masks was published in the BMJ. The results and conclusions showed that not only were cloth masks ineffective, those wearing them had higher rates of influenza-like illness than those in the medical masks. Sadly, there was no control group wearing no mask but it does go to show that cloth masks were known to be ineffective:
A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
“Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.”
In a Cochrane review from April 2020, the authors found no protection from influenza-like illness between those who wore masks and those wearing no mask. They also found no differences between surgical or N95 masks:
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 – Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis
“Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05) or influenza (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95%CI 0.61-1.17) for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers (Risk Ratio 0.37, 95%CI 0.05 to 2.50). There was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators: for ILI (Risk Ratio 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.08), for influenza (Risk Ratio 1.02, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.43).”
In October 2020, the CDC published their own study showcasing the ineffectiveness of cloth masks even though they had previously recommended their use to the general public back in April 2020. The authors admit that protection recommendations are based on assumptions, that cloth masks are inferior “protection,” and that more research is needed as the current evidence was not favorable to their use:
Effectiveness of Cloth Masks for Protection Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
“Recommendations to wear masks to protect the wearer from droplet infections are based on the assumption that droplets travel short distances only, generally 1–2 m. However, of 10 studies of horizontal droplet distance, 8 showed that droplets travel >2 m, in some instances ≈8 m (22). A recent study also showed that SARS-CoV-2 may be transmitted up to 4 m (18). Therefore, ideally, all frontline healthcare workers should use a respirator.”
“During a pandemic, cloth masks may be the only option available; however, they should be used as a last resort when medical masks and respirators are not available (3). Cloth mask use should not be mandated for healthcare workers, but some may choose to use them if there are no alternatives (30). Protection is affected by proper mask use as well as by selection of fabric and design of the masks for water resistance, filtration, and fit.”
“The general public should be educated about mask use because cloth masks may give users a false sense of protection because of their limited protection against acquiring infection (16).”
“More research on cloth masks is needed to inform their use as an alternative to surgical masks/respirators in the event of shortage or high-demand situations. To our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial (4) has been conducted to examine the efficacy of cloth masks in healthcare settings, and the results do not favor use of cloth masks. More randomized controlled trials should be conducted in community settings to test the efficacy of cloth masks against respiratory infections. According to the US Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, more research on the engineering design of cloth masks to enhance their filtration and fit is needed (16). Moreover, various methods for decontaminating cloth masks should be tested.”
In November 2020 (and not published until March 2021 due to outrage from the “scientific” community as the “results” went against MSM narratives), a large Danish study was released which also highlighted the ineffectiveness of mask use. While there are several limitations (as there are with any study), it adds to the evidence that masks are a useless measure as there was no statistical difference in infections between those who wore a surgical mask and those who did not:
Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers
“In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation.”
“Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon.”
In May 2021, another review concluded that the evidence for the benefit of mask use for “SARS-COV-2” was lacking and that it required further study. The majority of previous research studying mask use was for influenza-like illnesses and they showed no significant benefit whatsoever:
Efficacy of surgical masks or cloth masks in the prevention of viral transmission: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposal for future trial
“Objective: Recommendations for widespread use of face mask, including suggested type, should reflect the current published evidence and concurrently be studied. This review evaluates the preclinical and clinical evidence on use of cloth and surgical face masks in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and proposes a trial to gather further evidence.”
“Results: Fourteen studies were included in this study. One preclinical and 1 observational cohort clinical study found significant benefit of masks in limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Eleven RCTs in a meta-analysis studying other respiratory illnesses found no significant benefit of masks (±hand hygiene) for influenza-like-illness symptoms nor laboratory confirmed viruses. One RCT found a significant benefit of surgical masks compared with cloth masks.
Conclusion: There is limited available preclinical and clinical evidence for face mask benefit in SARS-CoV-2. RCT evidence for other respiratory viral illnesses shows no significant benefit of masks in limiting transmission but is of poor quality and not SARS-CoV-2 specific. There is an urgent need for evidence from randomized controlled trials to investigate the efficacy of surgical and cloth masks on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and user reported outcomes such as comfort and compliance.”
If those examples didn’t make it abundantly clear that the evidence for the effectiveness of masks in preventing infections is non-existent, maybe the highlights from this review by the Swiss Policy Research may help to seal the deal:
Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence.
A) Studies on the effectiveness of face masks
So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
- A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source)
- A WHO review of ten randomized controlled trials of face masks against influenza-like illness, published in September 2019, found no statistically significant benefit. (Source)
- A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. (Source)
- A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS One, found that face masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.” (Source)
- A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no high-quality evidence in favor of face masks and recommended their use only based on the ‘precautionary principle’. (Source)
- A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)
- A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. (Source)
- An August 2021 study published in the Int. Research Journal of Public Health found “no association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states.” (Source)
- A July 2021 experimental study published by the American Institute of Physics found that face masks reduced indoor aerosols by at most 12% and even increased them locally. (Source)
- An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. (Source)
- A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)
- An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. (Source)
These studies are just the tip of the iceberg. There are various other examples of research that contradict the current recommendation and narrative by the medical establishment. Beyond these studies, there are numerous instances of organizations and medical experts who have either come out against face mask use or have admitted to their ineffectives.
Trust the “Experts?” Fauci on Face Masks.
Everyone’s favorite flip-flopping “Doctor” Anthony Fauci knew that face masks are useless and admitted as much several times at the beginning of this “pandemic.”
“A mask is much more appropriate for someone who is infected and you’re trying to prevent them from infecting other people than it is in protecting you against infection. If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn’t really do much to protect you. And for example, people start saying, should I start wearing a mask? Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask.”
“One thing Fauci says will not protect you from getting sick is wearing a face mask.
“I think there’s this misperception that wearing a mask, even if you were in an area where there was transmission, is going to absolutely protect you,” Fauci said. “A mask is more appropriate for someone who is infected to prevent them from infecting someone else.”
“Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading [an] infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection,” Fauci wrote to who is believed to be Obama-era Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell in February 2020.
Fauci, also the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, added: “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out [the] virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in [keeping] out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you.”
“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci told 60 Minutes.
While masks may block some droplets, Fauci said, they do not provide the level of protection people think they do. Wearing a mask may also have unintended consequences: People who wear masks tend to touch their face more often to adjust them, which can spread germs from their hands.”
Link to the March 2020 CBS interview with Fauci:
In May 2020, Fauci claimed that masking was largely symbolic:
Fauci says he wears mask as ‘symbol’ of good behavior
“I wear it for the reason that I believe it is effective,” Fauci told CNN. “It’s not 100 percent effective. I mean, it’s sort of respect for another person, and have that other person respect you. You wear a mask, they wear a mask, you protect each other.”
“But apart from wanting “to protect myself and protect others,” Fauci also said he chooses to wear a face covering “because I want to make it be a symbol for people to see that that’s the kind of thing you should be doing.”
In June 2020, Fauci tried to walk back his earlier statements claiming masks are symbolic and ineffective by saying that the circumstances (not the science) had changed:
Fauci said US government held off promoting face masks because it knew shortages were so bad that even doctors couldn’t get enough
“Now we have masks, and we know that you don’t need an N95 if you’re an ordinary person in the street,” he said. “We also know that simple cloth coverings that many people have can work as well as a mask in many cases.”
Fauci acknowledged the appearance of a contradiction in the government’s public-health advice but denied this was the case. “Actually the circumstances have changed,” he said. “That’s the reason why.”
Fauci also came out “unequivocally” in favor of wearing masks in public, even though they do not offer a guarantee.
“Masks are not 100% protective,” he said. “However, they certainly are better than not wearing a mask.”
Fortunately, there are many doctors, scientists, and other health professionals/institutions who have come out against the use of face masks. Unlike the CDC and WHO, they have provided plenty of evidence backing up their positions. I want to provide links to a few of them as resources to return to for further evidence against this entirely symbolic yet harmful practice:
1. Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review
By John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC
2. Why A Study on Mask Effectiveness Can’t be Trusted
By Dr. Tom Cowan
3. An Evidence Based Scientific Analysis of Why Masks are Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful
By Dr. James Meehan
4. Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy
By Dr. Russell Blaylock
5. Mask Facts
By The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons
6. COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data
By The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy
The Science is Clear.
As Dr. Ranu Dhillon stated, it turns out that the science has been clear not only 2 years ago but for at least the last 5 decades. Unfortunately for Dhillon, the science does not back up his nor the CDC’s position and has consistently shown masks to be ineffective, symbollic, and largely a practice of habit. This information was known prior to this “pandemic” as masks have been around for well over a century and have never been used as a successful preventive measure against disease. They failed during the 1918 Spanish flu just as they have proven to be ineffective today.
So how does the CDC/WHO/MSN get away with claiming masks are somehow suddenly effective? They do so largely based on observational and epidemiological studies, which are often considered weak evidence as they are low of the trustworthy scientific evidence totem pole. Observational studies are prone to bias and are unable to demonstrate causality while epidemiological studies produce less reliable data that is often difficult to interpret. It is also important to remember that any experimental study is only looking at how effective masks are at blocking particles of a certain size. The particles assumed to be “viruses” are much smaller than what even the “superior” N95 masks are capable of blocking. This was well known during the 2009 swine flu:
Do Surgical Masks Stop Swine Flu?
“Viruses, including the coronavirus that scientists believe may be the cause of SARS, are so tiny that they can easily pass through such barriers. Several studies even have shown that surgical masks fail to prevent transmission of the much larger mycobacterium tuberculosis, which causes TB. While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that people who have SARS wear these masks, they do not even recommend them for people in contact with those patients unless the infected person can’t wear one. Wearing surgical masks outdoors, where virus-laden particles easily disperse, has even less value.
CDC does advise health-care workers working with SARS patients to wear a special mask called an N-95 respirator. But even these masks offer limited protection from coronaviruses. The name of the mask says it all. The “95” means the mask, if properly fitted—and that “fit factor” presents a big if—can filter out particles down to .3 microns 95 percent of the time. (A human hair is roughly 100 microns in diameter.) Human coronaviruses measure between .1 and .2 microns, which is one to two times below the cutoff.
The University of Cincinnati’s Sergey Grinshpun has studied N-95 respirators and says it all comes down to “collection efficiency.” N-95s made by different manufacturers have different collection efficiencies below the .3 cutoff. In other words, one company’s mask, if properly fitted, might filter out 92 percent of coronaviruses, while another might catch only 50 percent”
The evidence against the effectiveness of face masks has been clear from day one of this “pandemic.” The medical institutions such as the CDC and the WHO knew about the vast array of studies showing this Ineffectiveness which is why they made their initial claims and recommendations against mask use. After decades of accumulated studies, the science did not suddenly change a few months later. As Fauci stated, circumstances changed. The narrative needed shifting. The pandemic needed a symbol of fear to keep the ignorant herd in check and compliant. There needed to be a constant reminder while moving about our daily lives that it was an invisible “virus” to blame for the drastic preventative measures and the further erosion of our freedoms and not those vying for power and control. The mask was the perfect tool and it has sadly been a success in terms of keeping this lie afloat. But at what cost? The conclusion of the aforementioned 2009 swine flu article provided a prescient warning that we unfortunately did not heed:
“Any mask clearly wards off one bug: fear. Confoundingly, the sight of so many people wearing masks also spreads fear. And there’s no measure of collection efficiency or fit factors that can help humans out of that pickle.”