Mar 8, 2021: After a full year of being misled by global health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and after a full year of being ‘baited & switched’ by spotlight-seeking bureaucrats like “Dr” Anthony Fauci, one thing remains true and clear about covid: Disposable masks are ineffective and do not qualify as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) based on the standards followed by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the CDC. This short article serves as a fact-based reminder that disposable masks are doing very little to stop or slow the spread of covid case counts (publicly available data bears this point very clearly). If the incriminating disclaimers provided on every box of disposable masks isn’t enough, consider the objective data and sources raised throughout this article regarding the efficacy of disposable masks. It will be shown that the false panacea of the disposable mask has many holes worth highlighting (pun intended).
According to OSHA and their official position, “Cloth face coverings and surgical masks are not considered personal protective equipment (PPE) and will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose-fits and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.” (The Healthy American; 2021 website) During a November 2020 update, OSHA made the following statement to explain why they do not consider cloth masks qualified for PPE designation,
“OSHA does not believe there is enough information currently available to determine whether any particular cloth face covering provides enough protection from coronavirus to be considered PPE under the agency’s standard. [Similarly], the CDC indicated that more research is needed to determine the blocking and filtration effectiveness of various [mask] materials. (EHS Daily Advisor - Guy Burdick; November 25, 2020)
Back in December, the CDC quietly updated their guidelines to say that masks do not work if you've come into close contact with someone for 15 minutes or more. Interestingly (and conveniently), the media and public health officials have ignored this official position of the CDC. According to the CDC December 2020 update,
“Exposure to:
(1) Persons with COVID-19 who have symptoms (in the period from 2 days before symptom onset until they meet criteria for discontinuing home isolation; can be laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness) or,
(2) Persons who have tested positive for COVID-19 (laboratory confirmed) but has not had any symptoms (in the 2 days before the date of specimen collection until they meet criteria for discontinuing home isolation).
remain a risk, irrespective of whether the person with COVID-19 or the contact was wearing a mask." (CDC December Update – Reported by John Paluska; December 26, 2020)
The most noteworthy mask-wearing study (involving 6,000 participants) was performed by Dr Bundgaard and a group of University of Copenhagen research experts. According to the New York Times, researchers in the Denmark study concluded that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in the large randomized clinical trial. Specifically, the NYT noted that the Danish researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask-wearing group, or 1.8 percent of those tracked got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent of those tracked got infected. This difference is so miniscule it is considered statistically insignificant. In the words of Dr Henning Bundgaard, “Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask - not a lot.” (Foundation for Economic Education – Jon Miltemore; November 20, 2020)
Dr Raincourt of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) stated, “By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle. Individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.” (OCLA – Dr Denis Raincourt; August 12, 2020) The OCLA offers sobering conclusions where mask efficacy is deemed ‘science fiction’ and the ‘chambers of operation’ for our government officials, mainstream media, and public health propagandists are deemed to be a ’deep scientific vacuum’.
Lisa Muir of The Federalist covered an extensive range of mask efficacy studies and firmly concluded that cloth masks do not stop viruses, including covid. Muir also determined that a thorough (but misleading) marketing campaign for the use of low-quality masks continues to run its course in America and worldwide. This campaign has convinced hundreds of millions of people that masks will reduce the spread of covid. Muir’s summarized her findings with these words,
“The only statistically significant data on preventing viral spread is for N95 masks worn indoors when one can socially distance, which is not the type of mask required nor typically worn by the general public. Abundant research demonstrates masks cannot prevent the spread of coronavirus, while much recent research in support of masks is weak and poorly designed. Frequent mask use by the general population increases bacteria and dust in our mouth and airways. A government mandating everyone to wear a mask based on such low-quality evidence is reckless and potentially harmful.” (The Federalist – Lisa Mair; November 23, 2020)
From the start, every bit of common sense should prevail for those with discerning and curious minds. How can cheap, poor-fitting, disposable masks protect anyone from a molecular-sized villain? How can someone use and re-use cloth masks and expect protective efficacy? Why have public health officials flip-flopped on their mask-wearing stances (the WHO and Fauci have been notoriously and repeatedly inconsistent in their statements and stances)? Why are masks not considered PPE by the ultimate health authorities OSHA and CDC, and why have media and public officials all but ignored this critical data point? Lastly, why have the disclaimers found on masks and mask boxes been ignored by those wearing masks? At some point, lets hope the mask zealots read the labels on their mask packaging and pay closer attention to health and safety agencies like OSHA. By: Extremely American Colin Wright
*** *** ***
CDC Reference: EID Journal May 2020 Policy Review (Volume 26, Number 5 – May 2020)
“Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures.” Published in: “Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol.26, No. 5, May 2020.”
Direct quotes extracted from Pages 970-972:
“Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in non-healthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning.”
“In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”
“Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids. There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
“In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission.”
“We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.”
Comments