Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,050
Points
1,050
Warning, do not read this article if you are allergic to science research papers, of which about 28 presentations and published papers are listed by source in the article.

Principia Scientific International

Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

Published on July 6, 2020

Written by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Excerpt:

Masks and respirators will not work against COVID-19. 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:

LINK

=====

Lets see if leftists will ignore another batch of published masks research....
 

buttercup

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
4,237
Reaction score
2,226
Points
1,020
Location
Baja California, Mx
"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."

That is because it has never been about our health. It has been about control and continual fear-mongering, to manipulate people into going along with numerous globalist agendas.

This will ruffle a lot of feathers, but anyone who thinks that the corrupt, agenda-driven powers-that-be care about you is incredibly naive and unaware.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,277
Reaction score
848
Points
195
Warning, do not read this article if you are allergic to science research papers, of which about 28 presentations and published papers are listed by source in the article.

Principia Scientific International

Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

Published on July 6, 2020

Written by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Excerpt:

Masks and respirators will not work against COVID-19. 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:

LINK

=====

Lets see if leftists will ignore another batch of published masks research....
First study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
Second study.
There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission.
Third study.
One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS).

Fourth study
Transmission of acute respiratory infections occurs primarily by contact and droplet routes, and accordingly, the use of a surgical mask, eye protection, gown and gloves should be considered appropriate personal protective equipment when providing routine care for a patient with a transmissible acute respiratory infection.
Fifth study
With one exception [30], case-control studies consistently reported a protective effect of medical masks against SARS [31, 32, 34] (Appendix B, Table 2). Compared to “no rPPE” controls, N95 respirators conferred protection against confirmed SARS-CoV infection in 2 of 3 case-control studies [32, 33]; no protective effect against SARS was reported for disposable [29, 34], cotton [35], or paper [32] masks (Appendix B,
Sixt study
This just takes mask effectiveness as a given and is a comparison between surgical mask vs N95 respirators.
Seventh study
N95 respirators are used to prevent users from inhaling
small airborne particles and must fit tightly to the user’s face. Surgical
masks are designed to protect wearers from microorganism transmis-
sion and fit loosely to the user’s face.
5,6
Although surgical masks cannot
prevent inhalation of small airborne particles, both of them can protect
users from large droplets and sprays



I'm not allergic to reviewing a batch of mask research. I just read some. Seems NONE doubt they help.
 
Last edited:

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
12,358
Reaction score
4,208
Points
360
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
If you have a microscope, and just a little bit of relevant knowledge, and a dashof common sense, then you don't even need to count on any “experts” to tell you whether or not a mask, such as an N95, will protect anyone against viruses. Better to trust what you can see with your own eyes, then to trust what “experts” tell you.

This is an N95 mask, viewed through my microscope. I used my 10× objective, and my 15× eyepiece. The numbered scale is built into that eyepiece, and when used with this objective, the numbered ticks are 122 microns apart.

zPICT0001p1200.JPG


You cannot see it on the version that I can post here, but I scaled the original version of this image so that each pixel represented a size of 0.2 of a micron, and then colored one pixel red. I put a red circle around that dot, which you can see in this image, near the 5.75 point just above the scale. The #CoronaHoax2020 virus ranges in size from 0.05 to 0.2 of a micron, so that tiny dot, which you cannot see in this picture, would represent the largest size of the#CoronaHoax virus. That dot is beyond the actual resolution available with my microscope, anyway. My 10× objective has a Numerical Aperture (NA) of 0.2, which, over the wavelength range of visible light, gives it a theoretical resolution of 3.75 microns at the red end down to 1.9 microns at the violet end of the spectrum. My most powerful objective, an oil-immersion 100× objective with an NA of 1.25, can theoretically resolve down to about 0.3 to 0.6 of a micron, still too coarse to see a #CornoaHoax virus. I think that's pretty close to the limits of light-based microscopy.

When I added the red circle to this image, I didn't give much thought to its size, other than to be a size that would be visible on this whole image, scaled down to a reasonable size, and still be reasonable when zoomed in close enough to see the one red pixel representing the maximum size of a #CoronaHoax2020 virus. It turns out to be about 10 to 12 microns, which is around the upper end of eh range of size of the aerosolized drops that we expel when we sneeze or cough or breath or speak. I think it should be clear that even drops or particles that size, a pretty good portion would get through this mask unobstructed.

Here's a small part of the above image, scaled up so that you can see that one red dot, relative to the same circle that appears on the above image.

zPICT0001pHQ200to800Sq.JPG


A detail page for the first image, in it's full-sized form, is on Flicker at this link, and the actual image, 4444×4444 pixels, is at this link. You can more usefully get a sense of scale by downloading the full-sized image, loading it into a suitable image viewer or editor, and zooming in gradually on the circle and on the dot inside the circle.
 
Last edited:

midcan5

liberal / progressive
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
12,273
Reaction score
2,909
Points
260
Location
Philly, PA
It is a strange world when reality is what one wants to see due to political or other beliefs. You see it especially in Trump followers. Now Donnie wears a mask. I wonder if those sick wish they listened to real science. For the intelligent see book at bottom.

"I went out a couple of weeks ago ... because of my stupidity I put my mom and sisters and my family's health in jeopardy," he wrote. "This has been a very painful experience. This is no joke. If you have to go out, wear a mask, and practice social distancing. ... Hopefully with God's help, I'll be able to survive this."


'People who do not show COVID-19 symptoms can and do transmit it to others; physical distancing and face masks effectively reduce the risk of transmission'


Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: When and how to use masks


'These materials are regularly updated based on new scientific findings as the epidemic evolves. Last updated 19 June 2020'


'Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Killer Germs' by Michael T. Osterholm, Mark Olshaker


"Mother Nature is the greatest bioterrorist of them all, with no financial limitations or ethical compunctions."
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
28,444
Reaction score
14,114
Points
2,445
Location
Land of the sane.
ummmm....


Principia Scientific International (PSI)

Has this Media Source failed a fact check?LET US KNOW HERE.




Share:
Principia Scientific International - Conspiracy - Right Bias - Fake News - Not CrediblePrincipia Scientific International - Pseudoscience - Right Bias - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

  • Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.
Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: United Kingdom
World Press Freedom Rank: UK 33/180
History
Founded in 2010, Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI has also published a book, titled “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.” According to their about page “Principia Scientific International (PSI) is the only independent science body in the world that is legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method, as set out in the work of Karl Popper”. The founder and current CEO of Principia Scientific International is John O’Sullivan. For more background information on John O’Sullivan see here and here.

In November 2019, the PSI Facebook page was banned: Facebook Bans Principia Scientific International Without Explanation. As of 3/13/2020, it does not appear to have been restored.
[...]
Principia Scientific International (PSI) - Media Bias/Fact Check
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
28,444
Reaction score
14,114
Points
2,445
Location
Land of the sane.
It is a strange world when reality is what one wants to see due to political or other beliefs. You see it especially in Trump followers. Now Donnie wears a mask. I wonder if those sick wish they listened to real science. For the intelligent see book at bottom.

"I went out a couple of weeks ago ... because of my stupidity I put my mom and sisters and my family's health in jeopardy," he wrote. "This has been a very painful experience. This is no joke. If you have to go out, wear a mask, and practice social distancing. ... Hopefully with God's help, I'll be able to survive this."


'People who do not show COVID-19 symptoms can and do transmit it to others; physical distancing and face masks effectively reduce the risk of transmission'


Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: When and how to use masks


'These materials are regularly updated based on new scientific findings as the epidemic evolves. Last updated 19 June 2020'


'Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Killer Germs' by Michael T. Osterholm, Mark Olshaker


"Mother Nature is the greatest bioterrorist of them all, with no financial limitations or ethical compunctions."
30-year-old dies after attending 'COVID party' thinking virus was a 'hoax'
ELLA TORRES
July 11, 2020, 11:14 AM


"I think I made a mistake. I thought this was a hoax, but it's not."

Those were the final words of a 30-year-old patient who died at Methodist Hospital in San Antonio this week after attending a so-called "COVID party," according to the hospital.
[...]
30-year-old dies after attending 'COVID party' thinking virus was a 'hoax'
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
3,941
Reaction score
2,195
Points
893
Location
Area-51 sub level 28
Warning, do not read this article if you are allergic to science research papers, of which about 28 presentations and published papers are listed by source in the article.

Principia Scientific International

Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

Published on July 6, 2020

Written by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Excerpt:

Masks and respirators will not work against COVID-19. 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:

LINK

=====

Lets see if leftists will ignore another batch of published masks research....
Respirators were never claimed to prevent covid, they were used to push the disease deeper into the lung tissue causing death by respirator that was blamed on covid
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,050
Points
1,050
ummmm....


Principia Scientific International (PSI)

Has this Media Source failed a fact check?LET US KNOW HERE.




Share:
Principia Scientific International - Conspiracy - Right Bias - Fake News - Not CrediblePrincipia Scientific International - Pseudoscience - Right Bias - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

  • Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.
Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: United Kingdom
World Press Freedom Rank: UK 33/180
History
Founded in 2010, Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI has also published a book, titled “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.” According to their about page “Principia Scientific International (PSI) is the only independent science body in the world that is legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method, as set out in the work of Karl Popper”. The founder and current CEO of Principia Scientific International is John O’Sullivan. For more background information on John O’Sullivan see here and here.

In November 2019, the PSI Facebook page was banned: Facebook Bans Principia Scientific International Without Explanation. As of 3/13/2020, it does not appear to have been restored.
[...]
Principia Scientific International (PSI) - Media Bias/Fact Check
Classic attack the source, not the article on full display.

Article remains unchallenged.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,277
Reaction score
848
Points
195
ummmm....


Principia Scientific International (PSI)

Has this Media Source failed a fact check?LET US KNOW HERE.




Share:
Principia Scientific International - Conspiracy - Right Bias - Fake News - Not CrediblePrincipia Scientific International - Pseudoscience - Right Bias - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

  • Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.
Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: United Kingdom
World Press Freedom Rank: UK 33/180
History
Founded in 2010, Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI has also published a book, titled “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.” According to their about page “Principia Scientific International (PSI) is the only independent science body in the world that is legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method, as set out in the work of Karl Popper”. The founder and current CEO of Principia Scientific International is John O’Sullivan. For more background information on John O’Sullivan see here and here.

In November 2019, the PSI Facebook page was banned: Facebook Bans Principia Scientific International Without Explanation. As of 3/13/2020, it does not appear to have been restored.
[...]
Principia Scientific International (PSI) - Media Bias/Fact Check
Classic attack the source, not the article on full display.

Article remains unchallenged.
Oh, that's weird. I challenged the assertions made by the article by checking it's cited sources. They don't corroborate them.
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,050
Points
1,050
Warning, do not read this article if you are allergic to science research papers, of which about 28 presentations and published papers are listed by source in the article.

Principia Scientific International

Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

Published on July 6, 2020

Written by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Excerpt:

Masks and respirators will not work against COVID-19. 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:

LINK

=====

Lets see if leftists will ignore another batch of published masks research....
First study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
Second study.
There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission.
Third study.
One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS).

Fourth study
Transmission of acute respiratory infections occurs primarily by contact and droplet routes, and accordingly, the use of a surgical mask, eye protection, gown and gloves should be considered appropriate personal protective equipment when providing routine care for a patient with a transmissible acute respiratory infection.
Fifth study
With one exception [30], case-control studies consistently reported a protective effect of medical masks against SARS [31, 32, 34] (Appendix B, Table 2). Compared to “no rPPE” controls, N95 respirators conferred protection against confirmed SARS-CoV infection in 2 of 3 case-control studies [32, 33]; no protective effect against SARS was reported for disposable [29, 34], cotton [35], or paper [32] masks (Appendix B,
Sixt study
This just takes mask effectiveness as a given and is a comparison between surgical mask vs N95 respirators.
Seventh study
N95 respirators are used to prevent users from inhaling
small airborne particles and must fit tightly to the user’s face. Surgical
masks are designed to protect wearers from microorganism transmis-
sion and fit loosely to the user’s face.
5,6
Although surgical masks cannot
prevent inhalation of small airborne particles, both of them can protect
users from large droplets and sprays



I'm not allergic to reviewing a batch of mask research. I just read some. Seems NONE doubt they help.
Typically dishonest post, here is what the first study actually states:

doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.11.002. Epub 2009 Feb 12.
Use of Surgical Face Masks to Reduce the Incidence of the Common Cold Among Health Care Workers in Japan: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Joshua L Jacobs 1, Sachiko Ohde 2, Osamu Takahashi 3, Yasuharu Tokuda 3, Fumio Omata 3, Tsuguya Fukui 3
Affiliations expand
Abstract
Background: Health care workers outside surgical suites in Asia use surgical-type face masks commonly. Prevention of upper respiratory infection is one reason given, although evidence of effectiveness is lacking.
Methods: Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not. They provided information about demographics, health habits, and quality of life. Participants recorded symptoms daily for 77 consecutive days, starting in January 2008. Presence of a cold was determined based on a previously validated measure of self-reported symptoms. The number of colds between groups was compared, as were risk factors for experiencing cold symptoms.
Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

red bolding mine
=====

Second study, the 8 page PDF you never read:

REVIEW ARTICLE Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review B. J. COWL ING1 *, Y. ZHOU1 , D. K. M. IP1 , G. M. LEUNG1 AND A. E. A IELLO2 1 School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China 2 Department of Epidemiology, Center for Social Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (Accepted 16 December 2009; first published online 22 January 2010)

SUMMARY Influenza viruses circulate around the world every year. From time to time new strains emerge and cause global pandemics. Many national and international health agencies recommended the use of face masks during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. We reviewed the English-language literature on this subject to inform public health preparedness. There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected. Further studies in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

red bolding mine
=====

Third study:

There are limited data on the use of masks and respirators to
reduce transmission of influenza. A systematic review was
undertaken to help inform pandemic influenza guidance in the
United Kingdom. The initial review was performed in November
2009 and updated in June 2010 and January 2011. Inclusion
criteria included randomised controlled trials and quasi-
experimental and observational studies of humans published in
English with an outcome of laboratory-confirmed or clinically-
diagnosed influenza and other viral respiratory infections. There
were 17 eligible studies. Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators).
One household trial found that mask
wearing coupled with hand sanitiser use reduced secondary
transmission of upper respiratory infection ⁄ influenza-like
illness ⁄ laboratory-confirmed influenza compared with education;

hand sanitiser alone resulted in no reduction. One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS). Findings, however, may not be applicable to
influenza and many studies were suboptimal. None of the
studies established a conclusive relationship between
mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.

Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part
of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene. The
effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early,
consistent and correct usage.

Introduction
Personal protective equipment to help reduce transmission
of influenza is generally advised according to the risk of
exposure to the influenza virus and the degree of infectivity
and human pathogenicity of the virus. The paucity of sci-
entific evidence upon which to base guidance for the use of
masks and respirators in healthcare and community set-
tings has been a particularly vexing issue for policymakers.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) undertook a scien-
tific evidence-based review of the use of masks and respira-
tors in an influenza pandemic to inform relevant guidance
following the emergence of pandemic A (H1N1) 2009
influenza. The Department of Health commissioned the

HPA to update the review in support of the revision of the
United Kingdom (UK) influenza pandemic preparedness
strategy.

1The review was published on-line at: http://
www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/
documents/digitalasset/dh_125425.pdf. A further update of
the evidence base subsequently was performed in January
2011 and described herein

red boldings mine
=============

Don't need to continue here to show that you made a blatantly dishonest post.
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,050
Points
1,050
ummmm....


Principia Scientific International (PSI)

Has this Media Source failed a fact check?LET US KNOW HERE.




Share:
Principia Scientific International - Conspiracy - Right Bias - Fake News - Not CrediblePrincipia Scientific International - Pseudoscience - Right Bias - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

  • Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.
Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: United Kingdom
World Press Freedom Rank: UK 33/180
History
Founded in 2010, Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI has also published a book, titled “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.” According to their about page “Principia Scientific International (PSI) is the only independent science body in the world that is legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method, as set out in the work of Karl Popper”. The founder and current CEO of Principia Scientific International is John O’Sullivan. For more background information on John O’Sullivan see here and here.

In November 2019, the PSI Facebook page was banned: Facebook Bans Principia Scientific International Without Explanation. As of 3/13/2020, it does not appear to have been restored.
[...]
Principia Scientific International (PSI) - Media Bias/Fact Check
Classic attack the source, not the article on full display.

Article remains unchallenged.
Oh, that's weird. I challenged the assertions made by the article by checking it's cited sources. They don't corroborate them.
No, you made a dishonest post, I showed how you were dishonest with the first three studies.
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,050
Points
1,050
It is a strange world when reality is what one wants to see due to political or other beliefs. You see it especially in Trump followers. Now Donnie wears a mask. I wonder if those sick wish they listened to real science. For the intelligent see book at bottom.

"I went out a couple of weeks ago ... because of my stupidity I put my mom and sisters and my family's health in jeopardy," he wrote. "This has been a very painful experience. This is no joke. If you have to go out, wear a mask, and practice social distancing. ... Hopefully with God's help, I'll be able to survive this."


'People who do not show COVID-19 symptoms can and do transmit it to others; physical distancing and face masks effectively reduce the risk of transmission'


Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: When and how to use masks


'These materials are regularly updated based on new scientific findings as the epidemic evolves. Last updated 19 June 2020'


'Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Killer Germs' by Michael T. Osterholm, Mark Olshaker


"Mother Nature is the greatest bioterrorist of them all, with no financial limitations or ethical compunctions."
30-year-old dies after attending 'COVID party' thinking virus was a 'hoax'
ELLA TORRES
July 11, 2020, 11:14 AM


"I think I made a mistake. I thought this was a hoax, but it's not."

Those were the final words of a 30-year-old patient who died at Methodist Hospital in San Antonio this week after attending a so-called "COVID party," according to the hospital.
[...]
30-year-old dies after attending 'COVID party' thinking virus was a 'hoax'
Classic deflection effort.

Article remains unchallenged.
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,050
Points
1,050
It is a strange world when reality is what one wants to see due to political or other beliefs. You see it especially in Trump followers. Now Donnie wears a mask. I wonder if those sick wish they listened to real science. For the intelligent see book at bottom.

"I went out a couple of weeks ago ... because of my stupidity I put my mom and sisters and my family's health in jeopardy," he wrote. "This has been a very painful experience. This is no joke. If you have to go out, wear a mask, and practice social distancing. ... Hopefully with God's help, I'll be able to survive this."


'People who do not show COVID-19 symptoms can and do transmit it to others; physical distancing and face masks effectively reduce the risk of transmission'


Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: When and how to use masks


'These materials are regularly updated based on new scientific findings as the epidemic evolves. Last updated 19 June 2020'


'Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Killer Germs' by Michael T. Osterholm, Mark Olshaker


"Mother Nature is the greatest bioterrorist of them all, with no financial limitations or ethical compunctions."
The posted article remains unchallenged.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,277
Reaction score
848
Points
195
Warning, do not read this article if you are allergic to science research papers, of which about 28 presentations and published papers are listed by source in the article.

Principia Scientific International

Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

Published on July 6, 2020

Written by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Excerpt:

Masks and respirators will not work against COVID-19. 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:

LINK

=====

Lets see if leftists will ignore another batch of published masks research....
First study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
Second study.
There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission.
Third study.
One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS).

Fourth study
Transmission of acute respiratory infections occurs primarily by contact and droplet routes, and accordingly, the use of a surgical mask, eye protection, gown and gloves should be considered appropriate personal protective equipment when providing routine care for a patient with a transmissible acute respiratory infection.
Fifth study
With one exception [30], case-control studies consistently reported a protective effect of medical masks against SARS [31, 32, 34] (Appendix B, Table 2). Compared to “no rPPE” controls, N95 respirators conferred protection against confirmed SARS-CoV infection in 2 of 3 case-control studies [32, 33]; no protective effect against SARS was reported for disposable [29, 34], cotton [35], or paper [32] masks (Appendix B,
Sixt study
This just takes mask effectiveness as a given and is a comparison between surgical mask vs N95 respirators.
Seventh study
N95 respirators are used to prevent users from inhaling
small airborne particles and must fit tightly to the user’s face. Surgical
masks are designed to protect wearers from microorganism transmis-
sion and fit loosely to the user’s face.
5,6
Although surgical masks cannot
prevent inhalation of small airborne particles, both of them can protect
users from large droplets and sprays



I'm not allergic to reviewing a batch of mask research. I just read some. Seems NONE doubt they help.
Typically dishonest post, here is what the first study actually states:

doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.11.002. Epub 2009 Feb 12.
Use of Surgical Face Masks to Reduce the Incidence of the Common Cold Among Health Care Workers in Japan: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Joshua L Jacobs 1, Sachiko Ohde 2, Osamu Takahashi 3, Yasuharu Tokuda 3, Fumio Omata 3, Tsuguya Fukui 3
Affiliations expand
Abstract
Background: Health care workers outside surgical suites in Asia use surgical-type face masks commonly. Prevention of upper respiratory infection is one reason given, although evidence of effectiveness is lacking.
Methods: Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not. They provided information about demographics, health habits, and quality of life. Participants recorded symptoms daily for 77 consecutive days, starting in January 2008. Presence of a cold was determined based on a previously validated measure of self-reported symptoms. The number of colds between groups was compared, as were risk factors for experiencing cold symptoms.
Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

red bolding mine
=====

Second study, the 8 page PDF you never read:

REVIEW ARTICLE Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review B. J. COWL ING1 *, Y. ZHOU1 , D. K. M. IP1 , G. M. LEUNG1 AND A. E. A IELLO2 1 School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China 2 Department of Epidemiology, Center for Social Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (Accepted 16 December 2009; first published online 22 January 2010)

SUMMARY Influenza viruses circulate around the world every year. From time to time new strains emerge and cause global pandemics. Many national and international health agencies recommended the use of face masks during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. We reviewed the English-language literature on this subject to inform public health preparedness. There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected. Further studies in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

red bolding mine
=====

Third study:

There are limited data on the use of masks and respirators to
reduce transmission of influenza. A systematic review was
undertaken to help inform pandemic influenza guidance in the
United Kingdom. The initial review was performed in November
2009 and updated in June 2010 and January 2011. Inclusion
criteria included randomised controlled trials and quasi-
experimental and observational studies of humans published in
English with an outcome of laboratory-confirmed or clinically-
diagnosed influenza and other viral respiratory infections. There
were 17 eligible studies. Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators).
One household trial found that mask
wearing coupled with hand sanitiser use reduced secondary
transmission of upper respiratory infection ⁄ influenza-like
illness ⁄ laboratory-confirmed influenza compared with education;

hand sanitiser alone resulted in no reduction. One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS). Findings, however, may not be applicable to
influenza and many studies were suboptimal. None of the
studies established a conclusive relationship between
mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.

Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part
of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene. The
effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early,
consistent and correct usage.

Introduction
Personal protective equipment to help reduce transmission
of influenza is generally advised according to the risk of
exposure to the influenza virus and the degree of infectivity
and human pathogenicity of the virus. The paucity of sci-
entific evidence upon which to base guidance for the use of
masks and respirators in healthcare and community set-
tings has been a particularly vexing issue for policymakers.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) undertook a scien-
tific evidence-based review of the use of masks and respira-
tors in an influenza pandemic to inform relevant guidance
following the emergence of pandemic A (H1N1) 2009
influenza. The Department of Health commissioned the

HPA to update the review in support of the revision of the
United Kingdom (UK) influenza pandemic preparedness
strategy.

1The review was published on-line at: http://
www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/
documents/digitalasset/dh_125425.pdf. A further update of
the evidence base subsequently was performed in January
2011 and described herein

red boldings mine
=============

Don't need to continue here to show that you made a blatantly dishonest post.
What's dishonest about it? The first study categorically states that results aren't conclusive considering the limited data
A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
Second study catigorically states that wearing masks may help reduce the risk of transmission.But questioned the study because of the conditions
There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission.
Third one just said it works.
Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS).
If your article states that masks don't work and the sources cited claim at the very worst that it's inconclusive and quite a few catagorically states that they do. Who's exactly being dishonest?

What's funny is that I'm able to use the sources cited in your article to challenge the exact article that cites them. If that's the evidence for not wearing masks it really has to be bad.
 
Last edited:

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,277
Reaction score
848
Points
195
Warning, do not read this article if you are allergic to science research papers, of which about 28 presentations and published papers are listed by source in the article.

Principia Scientific International

Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

Published on July 6, 2020

Written by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Excerpt:

Masks and respirators will not work against COVID-19. 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:

LINK

=====

Lets see if leftists will ignore another batch of published masks research....
Here's some more studies this time not some website you came across but the New England Journal of medicine. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800
Nature. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks
health Affairs (I admit I don't know them.) https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,050
Points
1,050
First Study Specifically states:

"Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not."

"There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group."

"Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds."

======

Second study specifically states:

There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected. Further studies in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

bolding mine

Go look at TABLE 1 on the PDF link you didn't see.

Table 1. Studies conducted in healthcare settings
Example:

Al-Asmary et al. [11] Medical personnel in two Hajj mission hospitals, Saudi Arabia, 2004 250 medical personnel Cross-sectional Vaccination, face masks, hand hygiene Self-reported acute respiratory illness No significant protective effect of face masks

bolding mine

PDF LINK

======

The THIRD study specifically states:

"Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators)"

======

You are one very dishonest person!
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,277
Reaction score
848
Points
195
First Study Specifically states:

"Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not."

"There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group."

"Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds."

======

Second study specifically states:

There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected. Further studies in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

bolding mine

Go look at TABLE 1 on the PDF link you didn't see.

Table 1. Studies conducted in healthcare settings
Example:

Al-Asmary et al. [11] Medical personnel in two Hajj mission hospitals, Saudi Arabia, 2004 250 medical personnel Cross-sectional Vaccination, face masks, hand hygiene Self-reported acute respiratory illness No significant protective effect of face masks

bolding mine

PDF LINK

======

The THIRD study specifically states:

"Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators)"

======

You are one very dishonest person!
You can bold all you want. They call that quote mining. Read the paragraphs coming out of those same studies. Quote mining, but directly refuting the central assertion of the article. If I'm dishonest you suffer from the exact same ailment. So by the way does the author of the article.

I've offered studies. PUBLISHED, PEER REVIEWED articles in highly reputable scientific journals, speaking up for the effectiveness of masks. So so far we have one article you found, on a questionable website, making assertions and citing sources that are at the very least NOT completely supportive of those assertions. Which of these 2 circumstances bears the larger scientific accuracy?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,000
Reaction score
664
Points
155
Masks help prevent COVID-19 as people who have it have a harder time expelling it on you. For defensive purposes, it helps when it is harder to social distance and when you are talking or you have a cough or have to sneeze. One man was at Costco and he removed his mask once he got inside. He was reported on and had to leave the store. They would not ring up his items and I suppose he could've been arrested. I guess I don't have much patience for selfish people like that.
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
24,599
Reaction score
9,137
Points
980
Gee is there any hard data on how many maskers and unmasked have died......
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top