What’s the truth below the surface on masks?
Universal mask wearing, like the lock downs, has no basis in science. On the contrary, the available scientific evidence near-conclusively shows that mask wearing does not reduce infection rates. CDC data reveals 85% of Covid-19 patients had “always” or “often” worn a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness.
The WHO encourages universal cloth mask use, not because it’s been proven to work, but rather to encourage “cultural expression” and “offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities.” Infection control is nowhere on the list of justifications for universal mask use given by the WHO.
Pandemic planners appear to have overlooked the most important part of planning, namely researching and identifying the most effective response measures. Instead, pandemic preparedness exercises largely focused around how to censor “misinformation” about the pandemic and how to ensure compliance with whatever measures were dictated by them.
Aside from the wholly unscientific strategy of isolating healthy, productive individuals for months on end, and closing the doors to small businesses, one of the most controversial response measures has been the mandating of mask wearing. This measure like the lock downs, has actually no basis in science.
Most studies have focused on the influenza virus which is twice the size of the coronavirus. If a mask cannot prevent the spread of influenza, it makes no sense to assume it can prevent the spread of a much smaller coronavirus, especially if it is airborne.
Fauci has been flip-flopping on the mask message the entire time. On March 8, last year, Fauci said that masks are “important for someone who is infected to prevent them from infecting someone else, but right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks. There is no reason to walk around with a mask.”
He also noted that wearing a mask may make you feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet, but is not providing the protection that most people think it is. And he pointed out that there are unintended consequences of mask wearing that can increase your infection risk, things like touching your mask and then touching your face.
His message in March was that masks should be reserved for healthcare workers. Only a couple weeks later, in early April, he suddenly did a radical about-face and changed the message, urging people to wear cloth masks in public unless they could maintain a 6 foot distance from others.
In June when pressed about his turnabout on masks, he stated that he had initially downplayed the benefits of face masks due to concerns about personal protective equipment shortages. The clear subtext was that “I lied to you because I thought it was for the greater good.” Think about it. If he was willing to lie about this, how can he possibly be trusted about other recommendations?
Bach in March, he accurately confirmed that masks are ineffective and offer a false sense of security. And then when he did recommend mask wearing, he recommended wearing the least effective mask available-cloth mask for which there are no standards at all.
In October he suddenly announced his support for a federal mask mandates to ensure nationwide compliance. Why?
Not only has the science not changed. It still showed that masks do not decrease infection rates, but that a federal mandate fails to take into account the threat level of various individual states or cities. Some areas of the country had been doing quite well in terms of infection rates, hospitalizations, and deaths. Why should people in those areas be forced to wear a mask even in the absence of a significant threat? And that’s supposing masks worked in the first place.
In September, he stated that “a national mandate probably would not work.” In October he said, “If people are not wearing masks, maybe we should be mandating it. Mask mandates may be tricky to enforce but it might be time to call for them. I think that it would be a great idea to have everybody do it uniformly.”
Ironically, Fauci said that, “The data on face masks speaks for itself.” Now, if we agree that the data does not speak for itself, then there would be no mask mandates because the data clearly does not support this measure for the public at large.
Even research published by the CDC found no significant effect of face masks on the transmission of influenza (which is twice as large as the coronavirus.) And research published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May noted that, “We know that wearing a mask outside healthcare facilities offers little, if any protection from infection. The chance of catching Covid-19, from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic. It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, but they also increase a perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in hospitals. Although these reactions are not necessary logical, we are subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than a questionably beneficial mask.
Quite a few experts in various fields have now spoken out about the lack of evidence to support universal mask mandates. Among them is Stanley Young, PhD, an applied statistician who currently serves on the environmental protection agencies scientific advisory board. He said, “If public health officials and politicians continue with mask mandates, then informed citizens might question if current policy is intended more to scare them than to follow the science,” I considered the Covid data that our health experts were giving us. If masks were so effective, why were we not seeing improvement in the numbers? I studied the studies and found one dealing with influenza. The peer-reviewed meta-analysis looked at flu viral transmission. The study showed that the results are consistent with pure chance. The researcher characterized their results. The evidence from randomized controlled trials suggested that the use of face masks either by infected persons or by uninfected persons does not have a substantial effect on viral transmission. Those infected while wearing a mask was 4.46% and those infected while not wearing a mask was 5.23%. The results were consistent with chance.”
Danish researchers recently conducted a randomized trial in an effort to prove the usefulness of face masks against Covid-19 infection, but ended up proving just the opposite. Peer-reviewed journals refused to accept the paper. Why? Was it because it did not align with the narrative that supports universal mask recommendations?
Look for an upcoming podcast (www.freedomfromaddiction.libsyn.com) talking about undisclosed mask dangers to the health of people wearing them.