Why Masks Don’t Work Against COVID-19

Masks and respirators do not work. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Review of the Medical Literature
Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial”,nAmerican Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review”, Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/facemasks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a systematicreview/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein. bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence”, Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive
relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza
infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016)

“Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“We identified 6 clinical studies … In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b)
influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”;

as per Fig. 2c therein: Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial”, JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in
no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

“A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Conclusion Regarding that Masks Do Not Work

No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public
(more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit. Masks and respirators do not work.

Precautionary Principle Turned on Its Head with Masks

In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks. In this case, public authorities would be
turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease and of Why Masks Do Not Work

In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and that is caused by viruses. For  example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017).

This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular. For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has

Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity,” here:

The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity (“viable decay”), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets (“physical loss”):

“Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical.”

The latter (“physical loss”) seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle / droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven “decay”.

Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A “virion” is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid.

The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet “viable decay” of a virion has not been explained or studied.

In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependent on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol / droplets. Shaman’s quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether “viable decay” or “physical loss”.

The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is

“the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible.”

The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19–1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid summer values of just larger than “1” and dry-winter values typically as large as “4” (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to  virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modelling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modelling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).
To put it simply, the “second wave” of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the “second wave” is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., “physical loss”), then Shaman’s work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):

“Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m−3. On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 µm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modelling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 × 105 genome copies m−3 air h−1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies m−2 h−1 by Brownian motion.

Over 1 hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission.”

Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of  N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks.

For example, see Balazy et al. (2006). Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case. Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:

• most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal
laboratory susceptibility
• it is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host
• the 50%-probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000
virions
• there are typically 103−107 virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm −10 μm
• the 50%-probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet
For further background:
• A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).
• Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the
action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.
• Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans,
“we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus
and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the
half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive
number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new
productive infections.”
• Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not
all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions),
nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving
unharmed.

All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).

Why There Can Never Be an Empirical Test of a Nation-Wide Mask-Wearing Policy

As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and biasfree results:

• Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.
• Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.
• Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviours; see Wada
(2012).
• The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.
• Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.
• Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large
errors.
• Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the
self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
• Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
• Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

Unknown Aspects of Mask Wearing
Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

•Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer
and others? 10
• Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would
otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
• Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable
components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
• What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
• How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols
captured on the mask?
• What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded
breathing?
• Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?
• Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based
behavioural modification?
• What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?
• Do the masks shed fibres or substances that are harmful when inhaled?

Conclusion

By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm.

The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad socialengineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, 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. Otherwise, what is the point of publicly funded science?

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Endnotes:
Baccam, P. et al. (2006) “Kinetics of Influenza A Virus Infection in Humans”, Journal of Virology
Jul 2006, 80 (15) 7590-7599; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01623-05
https://jvi.asm.org/content/80/15/7590
Balazy et al. (2006) “Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses,
and how adequate are surgical masks?”, American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 34,
Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 51-57. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.488.4644&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Biggerstaff, M. et al. (2014) “Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and
zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature”, BMC Infect Dis 14, 480 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-14-480
Brooke, C. B. et al. (2013) “Most Influenza A Virions Fail To Express at Least One Essential Viral
Protein”, Journal of Virology Feb 2013, 87 (6) 3155-3162; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02284-12
https://jvi.asm.org/content/87/6/3155
Coburn, B. J. et al. (2009) “Modeling influenza epidemics and pandemics: insights into the
future of swine flu (H1N1)”, BMC Med 7, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-7-30
Davies, A. et al. (2013) “Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an
Influenza Pandemic?”, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Available on CJO
2013 doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.43
http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1935789313000438
Despres, V. R. et al. (2012) “Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review”,
Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 64:1, 15598, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598
https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598
Dowell, S. F. (2001) “Seasonal variation in host susceptibility and cycles of certain infectious
diseases”, Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3):369–374. doi:10.3201/eid0703.010301
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631809/
Hammond, G. W. et al. (1989) “Impact of Atmospheric Dispersion and Transport of Viral
Aerosols on the Epidemiology of Influenza”, Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 11, Issue 3,
May 1989, Pages 494–497, https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/11.3.494
Haas, C.N. et al. (1993) “Risk Assessment of Virus in Drinking Water”, Risk Analysis, 13: 545-552.
doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x
12
HealthKnowlege-UK (2020) “Charter 1a – Epidemiology: Epidemic theory (effective & basic
reproduction numbers, epidemic thresholds) & techniques for analysis of infectious disease
data (construction & use of epidemic curves, generation numbers, exceptional reporting &
identification of significant clusters)”, HealthKnowledge.org.uk, accessed on 2020-04-10.
https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1aepidemiology/epidemic-theory
Lai, A. C. K. et al. (2012) “Effectiveness of facemasks to reduce exposure hazards for airborne
infections among general populations”, J. R. Soc. Interface. 9938–948
http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2011.0537
Leung, N.H.L. et al. (2020) “Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face
masks”, Nature Medicine (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2
Lowen, A. C. et al. (2007) “Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and
Temperature”, PLoS Pathog 3(10): e151. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.0030151
Paules, C. and Subbarao, S. (2017) “Influenza”, Lancet, Seminar| Volume 390, ISSUE 10095,
P697-708, August 12, 2017.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30129-0
Sande, van der, M. et al. (2008) “Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to
Respiratory Infections among the General Population”, PLoS ONE 3(7): e2618.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002618
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002618
Shaman, J. et al. (2010) “Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the
Continental United States”, PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000316
Tracht, S. M. et al. (2010) “Mathematical Modeling of the Effectiveness of Facemasks in
Reducing the Spread of Novel Influenza A (H1N1)”, PLoS ONE 5(2): e9018.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009018
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009018
Viboud C. et al. (2010) “Preliminary Estimates of Mortality and Years of Life Lost Associated
with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic in the US and Comparison with Past Influenza Seasons”, PLoS
Curr. 2010; 2:RRN1153. Published 2010 Mar 20. doi:10.1371/currents.rrn1153
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843747/
Wada, K. et al. (2012) “Wearing face masks in public during the influenza season may reflect
other positive hygiene practices in Japan”, BMC Public Health 12, 1065 (2012).
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-1065
Yang, W. et al. (2011) “Concentrations and size distributions of airborne influenza A viruses
measured indoors at a health centre, a day-care centre and on aeroplanes”, Journal of the Royal
Society, Interface. 2011 Aug;8(61):1176-1184. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0686.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2010.0686
Yezli, S., Otter, J.A. (2011) “Minimum Infective Dose of the Major Human Respiratory and
Enteric Viruses Transmitted Through Food and the Environment”, Food Environ Virol 3, 1–30.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12560-011-9056-7
Zwart, M. P. et al. (2009) “An experimental test of the independent action hypothesis in virus–
insect pathosystems”, Proc. R. Soc. B. 2762233–2242
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0064

Download the full PDF at www.researchgate.net


Showing 21 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-08-11 17:50:48 -0700 · Flag
    BF: Big difference between speed limits and mandatory face masks. 1. No one forces you to go less than the speed “limit”. Of course we see people with their mask half on and half off. People can elect to go faster than the limit, endangering themselves and others. Unlike masks which do not protect the individual nor others. And if they were effective, then mask wearers have nothing to fear from those who don’t wear a mask. 2. Speed limits are usually set by legislators (that’s where laws are made) and voted upon, then approved by governor, and adjudicated by the courts. The mask wearing “Order” comes from one or 2 people, like the governor and health secretary. For short-term emergency. Short term. Kings, monarchs, dictators issue “orders” or “edicts” and then the serfs obey.
    I say this is a test, because it is. Look at the events prior to this “plandemic”. Event 201 is one (numerous others). Why are “cures” hidden and removed from the internet. (whole another topic- if you want to engage). This plandemic is a primer for several things some of which are collapse the economy, prepare a path for unproven vaccines, and compliance of the masses.
    A side note, if masks are so effective, why is it taking so long for this virus to be done. 14 days is toted as being the duration, so one month should be more than enough time. But if you read the health orders from say, NM, where I reside, you will see back in May the governor stated that “this will be the norm until there is a proven vaccine, maybe 12 to 18 months”. So masks must not work. Also, look at South Dakota. They never shut down, never wore masks, no social distancing, nothing. They have the lowest cases, lowest mortality, and best economy. Why?
    Masks also remind people to be fearful. That in itself causes increase stress in the body, which increases cortisol, which increases inflammation and other compounds which also reduce your immunity. Everything they say to do, is harmful to us. Everything is opposite!
    Masks not only don’t help, they are harmful (unless worn for short period).
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-08-10 12:41:58 -0700 · Flag
    CA says that we should rise up “against this tyranny” of wearing a mask. I suppose next he will tell us to rise up “against this tyranny” of vehicular speed limits on our streets and highways.
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-08-10 11:46:31 -0700
    Sorry, folks for the delay. Out of town, now back and gardening galore. About the masks, I saved some current videos to save me repeating their words. These speakers are doctors, with a ton of experience in their professions. They are not speaking directly on masks, but it is in their content, as they speak of “why” this is going on. This is Dr. Dave Janda (29+yrs as surgeon) with guest speaker Dr. Peter Glidden, many years as a homeopathic MD.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcRc-CR6jZM

    Next, I have Dr. Vernon Coleman, (he refers to himself as “the old man in the chair”) who gives his England perspective. Pay attention to his info. Remember, he’s in England and EXACTLY to same script going on their.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCeKFIjhbBQ

    There is a scripture in the Old Testament that says to pay attention to the grey-haired man as he has wisdom in his words. Maybe we should heed their warnings!

    While reading the replies and comments here, I can’t help but think we cannot get lost in the forest because of the trees. We need to step out of the forest to see the forest. Get my drift. Step back and ask, “why is this taking place the same everywhere in the world?” There is an agenda. And this is only the beginning. This is a compliance test!

    If we don’t rise up and rebel against this tyranny, it will get much worse! There is a plan. And we are all pawns in their eyes. “Useless eaters” as some call us.
  • Ness Immersion
    commented 2020-08-08 03:36:11 -0700
    BF – I think KD is trying.to be polite.
    It is primarily contact / touch spread.
    Foecal contamination is an issue not normally mentioned in polite society.
    KD mentions:
    Singapores success once they prioritised traditional handwashing.
    Utter failure of trained medical staff wearing best of PPE to interrupt spread.
    Failure of high humidity to contain spread.
    Issue of foecal contamination in old peoples homes
    What he doesn’t mention is the slow shifting of the goalposts in the public narrative.
    Although the authorities are still full on maskfacist, there has been an increase in mentions of proper handwashing.

    Finally
    Masks stop covid in the same way that underpants stop fart smells.
  • Ness Immersion
    commented 2020-08-08 03:36:11 -0700
    BF – I think KD is trying.to be polite.
    It is primarily contact / touch spread.
    Foecal contamination is an issue not normally mentioned in polite society.
    KD mentions:
    Singapores success once they prioritised traditional handwashing.
    Utter failure of trained medical staff wearing best of PPE to interrupt spread.
    Failure of high humidity to contain spread.
    Issue of foecal contamination in old peoples homes
    What he doesn’t mention is the slow shifting of the goalposts in the public narrative.
    Although the authorities are still full on maskfacist, there has been an increase in mentions of proper handwashing.

    Finally
    Masks stop covid in the same way that underpants stop fart smells.
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-08-07 20:01:00 -0700 · Flag
    NI offers a link to an article by Karl D., in which KD asserts repeatedly that the virus literally “comes out your ass.” In other words, this respiratory disease virus is spread by farting! Yeah, right!
  • Ness Immersion
    commented 2020-08-07 01:27:41 -0700 · Flag
    Karl Denniger at the market ticker has an interesting take on why masks cannot work, backed up by a lot of physics and the real world example of Singapore reducing hispital acquired infections too statistical zero by March.
    https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=239747
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-08-06 21:03:08 -0700
    GS III is basically saying, “Blah, blah, and blah.” I repeat: It’s been reported that more than 150,000 Americans have died, due to COVID-19. If wearing a mask reduces transmission by just one percent, then more than 1500 lives could have been saved, if more people had worn masks. There seems to be a trade-off: More facial comfort versus more deaths.
  • Granville Sherman III
    commented 2020-08-06 20:29:34 -0700
    Still being the old lapsed STEM engineer (and they won’t let me toot the whistle), I have a vague inexact memory of Einstein doing “thought experiments” illustrating concepts he was proposing. I’m going to try a thought experiment about absolute humidity as the sole determiner of the infectiousness of viral respiratory diseases spread by aerosol droplets. Someone is going to have to refine or correct what I write because I neither know the absolute sizes nor the relative sizes of the particles I’m going to write about. So I’m going to bumble ahead with the thought experiment & let others correct it. I presume we are dealing with sizes in the range of the nano level.

    First let’s consider humid conditions more typical of spring & summer in temperate zones. There is an abundance of water molecules to associate with virions that can clump together in larger groups. Greater mass of these clumps leads to greater weight relative the main components of the lower atmosphere, greater gravitational pull, faster gravitational sedmentation & settling out of the virions & water molecules with greater likelyhood of lumps with less aerosol travel being caught in the fibers of masks or settling on horizontal surfaces. Relatively moderate viral aerosol transmission, R0 slightly greater than one, mildly infectous.

    Then let’s consider relatively dry absolute humidity more typical of fall & winter conditions in temperate zones. There are relatively few water molecules present to associate with virions. These virion & water molecule groups are going to be smaller, & the dryer it is the smaller the size. Closer to the mass of the components of the lower atmosphere, longer aerosol travel time, some of the smallest, dryest virion & water molecule groups approach the mass of nitrogen &,
  • Granville Sherman III
    commented 2020-07-31 10:45:50 -0700
    I am still the old lapsed STEM engineer with no training in biology nor healthcare or medicine. I have no competence as to whether or not the assertions & conclusions of this specific scientific article are true, valid, pertinent, or significant. I can read, comprehend, & focus on this specific article to a limited extent.

    Of the key triad of scientific articles presented here, the latest. Shaman et al. (2010), is relatively recent, especially for a quite possibly very significant seminal study which if true would seem to overturn the whole paradigm & therefore careers of powerful people who will fight back from a position of overwhelming power.

    Again, I don’t know but quite possibly this is the first or one of the first scientific articles to connect the dots on Shaman et al. (2010), Lowen et al. (2007) & Harper (1961). From graduate school almost two score years ago, a cult favorite among grad students was the book on how scientific revolutions really happen, which applies to any scientific advance. They are ugly, bloody, take no prisoners fight to the death affairs because careers, reputations, & MONEY are involved.

    Without the ability to judge, I wouldn’t be surprised if Rancourt (2020), Shaman et al. (2010), Lowen et al. (2007) & Harper (1961) could be such a significant tip of the scientific spear. I would rather focus on a scientific article citing dozens of other scientific articles from peer reviewed scientific journals rather than share my ignorance without cited peer reviewed scientific articles to back up assertions.
  • Granville Sherman III
    commented 2020-07-31 09:40:35 -0700
    I am the old lapsed STEM engineer with no training in biology nor healthcare or medicine who focused on pulling out a few scientific nuggets from this particular, specific scientific article, “Why Masks Don’t Work Against COVID-19” authored by Dr. Denis Rancourt, PHD OSC on July 08, 2020. Mine is one of the posts a.k.a. “reactions” listed after the scientific article. There are about fourteen sometimes long paragraphs, mostly direct quotes from the article & they oversimplify the article.

    Published, often peer reviewed scientific articles of necessity make very dense, difficult reading because of the requirements of science. In a Twitter world of messages totaling only 140 character spaces (or is it now 280?) that might be only 25 words, Attention & comprehension spans are short now days, & complex things often incomprehensible. Fast over simplicity is the order of the day.

    Answering Mr. Farmer in detail would involve recopying major portions of the fourteen paragraphs. I will not go over again the fundamental physics & biology on the nano level. I will quote from the first paragraph: “…the decision on mask or respirator use is a decision based on cultural, psychological, sociological, and political factors rather than scientifically validated randomized clinical trials (RCT).” Basically it’s the same reason Mr. Farmer wears a mask—an authority with enough perceived power to compel compliance requires it.
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-07-31 09:30:24 -0700 · Flag
    NI’s commentary does NOT refute the assertion that there exists a consensus among surgeons that masks are effective. Even if masks reduced transmission by just one percent, it means that more than 1500 lives would have been saved, so far, and that’s just in the United States.
  • Ness Immersion
    commented 2020-07-31 07:40:11 -0700 · Flag
    Mr Farmer.
    This is well known, it is thought to keep open wounds from being infected by bacteria from operating theatre staff / surgeons.
    Bacteria being a magnitude bigger than virions
  • Brian Farmer
    commented 2020-07-31 06:17:13 -0700
    If masks don’t work, then why do surgeons wear them in operating rooms?
  • Granville Sherman III
    commented 2020-07-22 09:08:55 -0700
    I am an old lapsed STEM engineer with no training in biology nor healthcare or medicine. I am focused on pulling out a few nuggets from this particular, specific scientific paper. For viral respiratory diseases transmitted by aerosol droplets in temperate climates, of which there are about two dozen of the coronavirus type including COVID-19, the PhD author purports to have done meta analysis on a number of sited scientific studies to the effect that no demonstrated benefit has been established for mask or respirator use versus no mask or respirator use. Not being an expert in this field, I merely mention the author’s assertion. Now I’m going to give a personal conclusion I draw from that information if it is true, significant & pertinent, of which I am not competent to judge. If that is true, the decision on mask or respirator use is a decision based on cultural, psychological, sociological, and political factors rather than scientifically validated randomized clinical trials (RCT).

    Now I am going to focus on possibly the key groundbreaking scientific assertion of the paper. It is several pages in with the bold type title “Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease and of Why Masks Do Not Work”. It seems to get down to root hog or die basic physics and biology at close to the nano level. It mentions the very regular seasonality in temperate climates of “established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.” Emphasis on “the temperate…extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and that is caused by viruses”.

    “In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.” It supports this by Lowen at al. (2007) & Harper (1961) discussions completing the scientific trifecta. Read the discussion.

    “The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked [or worse] in the current coronavirus pandemic.” “…Shaman’s work necessarily implies that…the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (RO-the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible) is highly or predominately dependent on ambient absolute humidity.”

    “…Shaman et al. showed that RO must be understood to seasonably vary between humid summer values of just larger than “1” (mildly contagious) and dry-winter values typically as large as “4” (virulently contagious)…due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration."

    “Therefore, all epidemiological mathematical modeling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent RO values, has a large likelihood of being of little value,,,” “…the ‘second wave’ is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness
    -driven many fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.”

    “…Shaman’s work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large RO) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.” "Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air [some by Brownian motion] of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes….viruses can …be physically transported over inter-continental distances….indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) of diameters smaller than 2.5 um (mu em).

    A study sited half of 16 samples were positive with many thousands of virions each, almost two thirds of the samples were smaller than 2.5 um & can remain suspended for hours. Over a page & a half it explains all the ins & outs of how N95 masks with average pore sizes of ~.03-.05 um with all there gaps & small virion sizes, & the fact that “a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections”

    “All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected.Masks cannot possibly work, it is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.”

    “Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above described features of the problem, are irrelevant….”

    A study of a surgeon in a short thirty minute operation showed oxygen depletion from surgical mask breathing restriction, to say nothing of increased rebreathing his own carbon dioxide. It’s worse for a nurse wearing a mask for an eight hour shift regularly, much less a double shift.

    So what does it take to absolutely stop everything as if your life depended on it? It takes your life depending on it. It takes a level 4 positive pressure suit that you would wear working in a bio-weapons lab, because your life would depend on it. Nothing less will do it.

    Back to the end of the first paragraph. The decision on mask or respirator use is a decision based on cultural, psychological, sociological or political factors rather than scientifically validated randomized clinical trials (RCT).

    What’s the take away? “…the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.” “…the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (RO) is highly or predominantly dependent on absolute humidity.” "…the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every tear go from being …mildly contagious (RO~1, humid) to virulently contagious (RO ~4, dry), due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration. Therefore this summer being humid, (RO~1) is intrinsically mildly contagious. This fall typically being dry (RO~4), will be virulently contagious, “…the ‘second wave’ is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.” It has repeated that pattern consistently in the past, and barring any major humidity changes can be expected to do it in future years. IT’S THE HUMIDITY, STUPID.
  • Dede Ramella
    commented 2020-07-15 22:18:04 -0700 · Flag
    I totally agree…I posted on Twitter the interview with Russell Blaylock…..this is all designed to control by fear…all a part of the plan ..Agenda 2030.
    Thank you for sending this article.
    Sincerely,
    Dede Ramella
  • Chuck Andreas
    commented 2020-07-15 22:07:31 -0700
    Ok, Joe Eshleman, you make a claim “that most research shows that they do work” concerning masks preventing infection. Back it up with references! Mr. Rancourt referenced sources.
    Off the top of my head I know one reference, Dr. Rashid Buttar (plus 7400 other doctors) say masks not only fail to prevent Covid, but actually lower your immunity by lowering your O2, yet increasing your CO2, which increases respiration rate, increases blood pressure, and raises your blood ph (all bad).

    I do know for a fact that staying inside lowers your vit D, which is an anti-microbial, (sunlight allows your body to produce Vit D), and indoor activity reduces immune system and increases exposure to household chemicals; all which lower your immunity.

    I also know that lack of social interaction also lowers your immunity. Plus add in the “fear factor”, all these above LOWER YOUR IMMUNITY. Ask yourself if these so called scientist actually want you to get sick. Sure sounds like it.

    Me, I will not wear a mask with all the info I have. Then throw in that this whole corona virus scandemic is planned, it’s designed to accomplish many goals. One of which is to fool the as many people as possible; pull the wool over their faces.

    Do your research! Event 201, Rockefeller Foundation “Lock Step”, Florida just reported with over 300 covid testing labs had a total 100% of all samples tested positive! Texas was almost as high with 98%. And I know an EMT who just informed me several MD’s in 2 towns had 100% of their samples tested positive. Problem with that is they were straight from the mfr and the MDs only dipped the swabs in sterile water. How can that be??

    Use your head! Think!! You’re being played as fools!!
  • Dede Ramella
    commented 2020-07-11 21:49:24 -0700
    Still waiting for my mask! I donated back in April and have not received it…:(
    D Ramella
  • Joe Eshleman
    commented 2020-07-11 18:57:36 -0700
    The problem is that most research shows that they do work. And I will believe the experts over the ideologues every time. The only people forwarding this idea are considered quacks in the medical community. When you are looking at empirical data, the story should come out about the same every time unlsee somebody is rigging their data or using a bad methodology. this was a very olng piece, and my assumption is that it was meant to confuse. I vote with the doctors, the epidemiologists and the virologist over this notion
  • Cheryl Palen
    commented 2020-07-10 19:28:19 -0700
    Well researched and results that should be shared with everyone currently in charge of making bad policies for many people.
  • Jennifer Young
    followed this page 2020-07-09 06:37:12 -0700