So why were "experts" hailing the Bangladesh mask study as proof that masks work? Because they were so desperate to point to something to support their belief system--even a study that was worthless.
The woman in the interview, Sandy, advocates for masks that have three layers: hydrophobic outer layer, polypropylene middle layer and water absorbant inner layer.
Friend of mine posted me that article to convince me eventually that masks (cloth or surgical) DO WORK. Could someone find a critical review of this publication?
I didn't find a single 'mask simulation' study which would take a human, deprive it of ~20% of oxygen, add 10x more CO2 instead, every breath, and look at the expression of all the proteins related to the immune system of that person, at regular time intervals! In fact monitoring of all gene expressions would be essential.
I admit, it would be a strange study, almost simulating an Auschwitz torture...
Oh boy, it goes on this entire globe, for 2 years(!!!), and nobody collects the data!
And that would show that the masks not only do not work, on the contrary, they work, for the BAD of the humanity!
Fauci always had some grants, which deal with bacterial infections, maybe there are even some for the bugs which accumulate in the masks??
Are there any RCTs about real N-95s worn properly (by professionals who know what they are doing when they put them on) against airborne respiratory viruses? I have anecdotal data about N-95s working to prevent respiratory infections, including Covid, while other masks clearly cannot work. You've mentioned multiple times that N-95s also don't work but I don't see any references. Thanks.
Most of the studies that the maskers use to justify mandates were theoretical studies on mask materials using lab equipment. That's fine, but then they make their conclusions based on best-case scenarios. As Tyson Gabriel points out, having a mask is just part of the equation.
For real-world scenarios, Daniel Horowitz hit the nail on the head when he published "Why Masks Don't Work In The Real World" (blaze.com, 2021-04-20). The reason masks are useless in the real world is the seal, or lack thereof.
Horowitz references an article by Drewnick, et al (2020-08-28, Aerosol Science and Technology, 55-1) which tested materials in a laboratory setup, much like other studies, but mask efficacy was also tested with increasing leak sizes as a percentage of the overall filtration area (0% to 2%). Additionally, testing was done with particle sizes roughly corresponding to those of influenza viruses (0.03um -- 2.5um).
Figure 8 in Drewnick, et al, shows that while perfectly sealed surgical masks may be effective filters, even a leak as small as 1% (one percent) is enough to reduce the filtration efficacy by half. In his article, Horowitz takes Drewnick's Figure 8 and extends the curve to show that at a 3% leak is enough to reduce the efficacy TO NEAR ZERO.
Take one trip to your local grocer and estimate the leak size for the average customer. Let's assume that the filtration area of a typical mask is roughly a 3in circle. A 1% leak would be a circular hole a bit over 1/4 inch (~6mm) in diameter. I'm tall and in most cases, I can see down past the noses on masked people. I'd estimate the average mask at the local Safeway has leaks between 5% and 15%.
But surgical masks were never designed to seal-- they were designed to protect the user from fluid splatter (aka "ick-foo"), and to blow out past the ears if the user sneezes. So, game over unless you use N95 respirators.
But is that good enough? N95 respirators are rated for 0.3um particles, i.e. they will trap 95% of particles 0.3um and larger. If you are going to work with tuberculosis patients, great! Your N95 respirator will filter out 99.5% of tuberculosis bacteria.
To filter out coronaviruses, which range from 0.1um to 0.5um, you'll need something a bit better. Like a fitted, full face (you have to protect your eyes!) P100 respirator. And you guys will have to be clean-shaven to effect a seal.
Hi Steve & other followers, has anyone explored the “American PNAS study” as all the mask lovers are referring to it as the perfect scientific study to justify masks and I am not sure if anyone has reviewed it yet?
If it's the study I think you're referring to, the lead "author" is one Jeremy Howard of the WEF AI council. He's the one who publicized the absurd notion of homemade cloth masks, and initiated mask mandates with governments from the end of March.
Here's his website and see if you can spot the idiocy.
"About Us:
#Masks4All is an all-volunteer org that started and powered the movement for people and Governments to follow the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows we need to wear homemade masks in public to slow COVID-19.
Now that this is widely accepted as a fact by Government, news, and health leaders, we’re focused on getting masks to be required across the U.S. and the world."
Show me a physics study of the dynamics of masking showing that a 0.1 micron particle will be stopped from flowing on jets of air through 3 micron pores which you find in masks.
No, droplets don't count. Evaporation. In microseconds.
N95 masks use electrostatically-charged fibers and brownian motion to trap particles. Eventually, those methods fail as the particle numbers overwhelm them. I don't know how long it will take and haven't seen any studies that ask that question. So N95 masks likely work for some indeterminate period of time.
Sounds like something you want to stake your health on. Me, I prefer vitamin D and zinc supplementation.
This is something I have been thinking about a lot. As with everything else regarding public health responses to this thing, what they say you should do has the opposite effect of what they purport to do. People who think a mask will stop the spread of particles smaller than the pores on the mask would be observed putting up chicken wire fences around their houses to stop a cockroach infestation. Admittedly there will be some turbulence created which will interfere with smooth flow of air and associated exhalation products which is why it is harder to breathe with a mask on. This is a bad thing which I will explain here: The other day I was talking with someone outside on a sunny day and as they spoke they were side lit by the sun which made their mouth emanations visible as they spoke. Every plosive consonant resulted in a spray combination of bigger droplets which gravity immediately pulled down to the ground and a spray of visible stuff. With a mask on these bits would be stopped and trapped in the fibers. So you have a primordial soup of ickyness forming in the mask. You are now waterboarding yourself as these moist fibers swell and trying to breathe through the viscous mess is harder and harder work. If you are exhaling virus that is globbed onto spit particles without a mask on the virus goes on a ride that eventually carries it down to the floor. With the mask on these viral hitchhikers are now trapped in the mask and as you exhale with more and more force you create zones of lower pressure as the exhaled air goes around the fibers (bernoulli effect) which evaporates the water component nicely liberating the virus and creating an aerosol which will nicely float around and go where ever it goes. As you can tell this is just my own reasoning about it and is not scientifically supported at all. Btw, cats have been shown to carry covid; should we start putting masks on them? Should we be pcr testing our pets?
I don't know why we are surprised by garbage studies that support the narrative. You need only look at other areas in which "settled science" predicts grave catastrophe if we don't impoverish and enslave ourselves. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” HL Mencken
When I try to post this to Facebook the thumbnail says, "A rigorous study finds that surgical masks are highly protective but cloth masks fall short." That made me question the wisdom of posting it lest people just read that headline.
I live in Australia. Love your work . When you look in the mirror of life the guy looking back at you is doing a great job for humanity in all parts of the Globe. Take care Steve
Masks keep you from picking your own nose and self-inoculating pathogens from your own dirty fingers. That is how they "work" - they prevent nose-picking.
What do you think of this?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qgRv3_pp0FU
The woman in the interview, Sandy, advocates for masks that have three layers: hydrophobic outer layer, polypropylene middle layer and water absorbant inner layer.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2022/2/26/22951392/covid-mask-mandates-chicago-column-laura-washington This just came out, smh.
Friend of mine posted me that article to convince me eventually that masks (cloth or surgical) DO WORK. Could someone find a critical review of this publication?
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#ref-32
I didn't find a single 'mask simulation' study which would take a human, deprive it of ~20% of oxygen, add 10x more CO2 instead, every breath, and look at the expression of all the proteins related to the immune system of that person, at regular time intervals! In fact monitoring of all gene expressions would be essential.
I admit, it would be a strange study, almost simulating an Auschwitz torture...
Oh boy, it goes on this entire globe, for 2 years(!!!), and nobody collects the data!
And that would show that the masks not only do not work, on the contrary, they work, for the BAD of the humanity!
Fauci always had some grants, which deal with bacterial infections, maybe there are even some for the bugs which accumulate in the masks??
Are there any RCTs about real N-95s worn properly (by professionals who know what they are doing when they put them on) against airborne respiratory viruses? I have anecdotal data about N-95s working to prevent respiratory infections, including Covid, while other masks clearly cannot work. You've mentioned multiple times that N-95s also don't work but I don't see any references. Thanks.
Most of the studies that the maskers use to justify mandates were theoretical studies on mask materials using lab equipment. That's fine, but then they make their conclusions based on best-case scenarios. As Tyson Gabriel points out, having a mask is just part of the equation.
For real-world scenarios, Daniel Horowitz hit the nail on the head when he published "Why Masks Don't Work In The Real World" (blaze.com, 2021-04-20). The reason masks are useless in the real world is the seal, or lack thereof.
Horowitz references an article by Drewnick, et al (2020-08-28, Aerosol Science and Technology, 55-1) which tested materials in a laboratory setup, much like other studies, but mask efficacy was also tested with increasing leak sizes as a percentage of the overall filtration area (0% to 2%). Additionally, testing was done with particle sizes roughly corresponding to those of influenza viruses (0.03um -- 2.5um).
Figure 8 in Drewnick, et al, shows that while perfectly sealed surgical masks may be effective filters, even a leak as small as 1% (one percent) is enough to reduce the filtration efficacy by half. In his article, Horowitz takes Drewnick's Figure 8 and extends the curve to show that at a 3% leak is enough to reduce the efficacy TO NEAR ZERO.
Take one trip to your local grocer and estimate the leak size for the average customer. Let's assume that the filtration area of a typical mask is roughly a 3in circle. A 1% leak would be a circular hole a bit over 1/4 inch (~6mm) in diameter. I'm tall and in most cases, I can see down past the noses on masked people. I'd estimate the average mask at the local Safeway has leaks between 5% and 15%.
But surgical masks were never designed to seal-- they were designed to protect the user from fluid splatter (aka "ick-foo"), and to blow out past the ears if the user sneezes. So, game over unless you use N95 respirators.
But is that good enough? N95 respirators are rated for 0.3um particles, i.e. they will trap 95% of particles 0.3um and larger. If you are going to work with tuberculosis patients, great! Your N95 respirator will filter out 99.5% of tuberculosis bacteria.
To filter out coronaviruses, which range from 0.1um to 0.5um, you'll need something a bit better. Like a fitted, full face (you have to protect your eyes!) P100 respirator. And you guys will have to be clean-shaven to effect a seal.
So, like Steve said, masks don't work.
The other side shows up with this (https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/a-quick-note-on-masks-and-cdc-guidance). To me, it's gish-gallop, but it's a pain that the two sides aren't speaking to each other so we can't get clear answers.
Hi Steve & other followers, has anyone explored the “American PNAS study” as all the mask lovers are referring to it as the perfect scientific study to justify masks and I am not sure if anyone has reviewed it yet?
If it's the study I think you're referring to, the lead "author" is one Jeremy Howard of the WEF AI council. He's the one who publicized the absurd notion of homemade cloth masks, and initiated mask mandates with governments from the end of March.
Here's his website and see if you can spot the idiocy.
"About Us:
#Masks4All is an all-volunteer org that started and powered the movement for people and Governments to follow the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows we need to wear homemade masks in public to slow COVID-19.
Now that this is widely accepted as a fact by Government, news, and health leaders, we’re focused on getting masks to be required across the U.S. and the world."
https://masks4all.co/about-us/
It was all right here, as early as April, 2019. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
Show me a physics study of the dynamics of masking showing that a 0.1 micron particle will be stopped from flowing on jets of air through 3 micron pores which you find in masks.
No, droplets don't count. Evaporation. In microseconds.
Does this include n95 masks?
N95 masks use electrostatically-charged fibers and brownian motion to trap particles. Eventually, those methods fail as the particle numbers overwhelm them. I don't know how long it will take and haven't seen any studies that ask that question. So N95 masks likely work for some indeterminate period of time.
Sounds like something you want to stake your health on. Me, I prefer vitamin D and zinc supplementation.
This is something I have been thinking about a lot. As with everything else regarding public health responses to this thing, what they say you should do has the opposite effect of what they purport to do. People who think a mask will stop the spread of particles smaller than the pores on the mask would be observed putting up chicken wire fences around their houses to stop a cockroach infestation. Admittedly there will be some turbulence created which will interfere with smooth flow of air and associated exhalation products which is why it is harder to breathe with a mask on. This is a bad thing which I will explain here: The other day I was talking with someone outside on a sunny day and as they spoke they were side lit by the sun which made their mouth emanations visible as they spoke. Every plosive consonant resulted in a spray combination of bigger droplets which gravity immediately pulled down to the ground and a spray of visible stuff. With a mask on these bits would be stopped and trapped in the fibers. So you have a primordial soup of ickyness forming in the mask. You are now waterboarding yourself as these moist fibers swell and trying to breathe through the viscous mess is harder and harder work. If you are exhaling virus that is globbed onto spit particles without a mask on the virus goes on a ride that eventually carries it down to the floor. With the mask on these viral hitchhikers are now trapped in the mask and as you exhale with more and more force you create zones of lower pressure as the exhaled air goes around the fibers (bernoulli effect) which evaporates the water component nicely liberating the virus and creating an aerosol which will nicely float around and go where ever it goes. As you can tell this is just my own reasoning about it and is not scientifically supported at all. Btw, cats have been shown to carry covid; should we start putting masks on them? Should we be pcr testing our pets?
I don't know why we are surprised by garbage studies that support the narrative. You need only look at other areas in which "settled science" predicts grave catastrophe if we don't impoverish and enslave ourselves. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” HL Mencken
When I try to post this to Facebook the thumbnail says, "A rigorous study finds that surgical masks are highly protective but cloth masks fall short." That made me question the wisdom of posting it lest people just read that headline.
I live in Australia. Love your work . When you look in the mirror of life the guy looking back at you is doing a great job for humanity in all parts of the Globe. Take care Steve
Hilarious! Thank you.
Now the latest from CA
What they say: wear a mask indoors unless you are fully vaxxed and have been wearing a mask all this time.
Read my lips
No new lies
Same old insanity
But let's flip it over now and then toake A real whopper
Masks keep you from picking your own nose and self-inoculating pathogens from your own dirty fingers. That is how they "work" - they prevent nose-picking.
I have a pediatrician sending me this (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html) when I asked her for proof that masks work. I know Steve's article here focuses on the Bangladesh study but is there another source I can send her which maybe addresses the other studies on the page she sent me from the CDC?
I don't know if these are helpful. from monotti/ yeadon on telegram.
We know Masks are Useless and Harmful
30 links to use from published studies and resources that show the risks from masks and that they offer NO protection
Links on Masks:
1. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.full
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18500410/
4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/
5. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00173017
6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18331781/
7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35797-3
8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
9. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577#T1
10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/
11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28039289/
12. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long
13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20584862/
14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/
15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/
17. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29855107/
18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29678452/
19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25806411/
20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23108786/
21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25858901/
22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5333967/
23. https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/
25. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
26. https://vimeo.com/424254660
27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0t84p6H4XA
28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
29. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x
30. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/testing-the-efficacy-of-homemade-masks-would-they-protect-in-an-influenza-pandemic/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55
I would find a new pediatrician.
Ask her if randomized controlled trials take precedence over uncontrolled trials. Let me know what she says.
She's likely a protocol-follower and an abstract-skimmer. A cough-quack-cough.