Great work and very science-based. I’m gonna repost this comment, credit to u/TrumpAwakens2020, in case anybody needs ammo to fire at shills on this topic.
....I compiled a list of studies I found over the last 45 years showing the ineffectiveness of surgical and n95 masks. Note these are links to actual studies, not news sites, with a summary conclusion statement. Copy / Paste this where ever you see fit. It's sorted chronologically starting with oldest first.
-> Ritter et al in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1157412/
-> Ha’eri and Wiley in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
https://europepmc.org/article/med/7379387
-> Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ccd.1810170306
-> In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736
-> A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0310057X0102900402
-> Lahme et al.,in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable
https://europepmc.org/article/med/11760479
-> Figueiredo et al. in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn
http://www.advancesinpd.com/adv01/21Figueiredo.htm
-> Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20524498/
-> Bahli in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/113/6/1447/9572/Is-Routine-Use-of-a-Face-Mask-Necessary-in-the
->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" 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.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
-> Surgeons at the Karolinska Institutein 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.05200.x
-> 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. "There were 17 eligible studies. [...] None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x
In a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.
https://europepmc.org/article/med/25294675
-> Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0141076815583167
A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
->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://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
-> 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 "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."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214
-> 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. "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."
https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381
-> A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
-> A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
-> An April 2020 review by the Norwich School of Medicine (preprint) found that “the evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks”, but supports the use of masks by “particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1
-> The Canadian Medical Association Journal published a Meta-analysis that identified 6 clinical trials and 23 surrogate studies that looked at the effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: They "found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection".
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
And finally, a new study out about how mandatory masks are effecting children:
By 26.10.2020 the registry had been used by 20,353 people. In this publication we report the results from the parents, who entered data on a total of 25,930 children. The average wearing time of the mask was 270 minutes per day. Impairments caused by wearing the mask were reported by 68% of the parents. These included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%) impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).
Yes, only in this insane irrational world do we need a study to demonstrate that slowly suffocating your children with a face cloth has negative consequences for their health and well being.
The last study is a fascinating one because a big one of the "long term effects" of covid are described as "brain fog", which is basically a summary of the entire list of effects. And I'd make a bet that the study coming to the "brain fog" conclusion did not double-blind their study against people WITHOUT covid to compare/contrast how many of them were also "brain fogged". After all, they were seeking long-term effects of the illness, why search out and interview perfectly healthy people who've always been so? CLEARLY healthy people aren't being "brain fogged", so no need to test a baseline, because nothing significant changed in society during the 'rona restrictions, right?
Great work and very science-based. I’m gonna repost this comment, credit to u/TrumpAwakens2020, in case anybody needs ammo to fire at shills on this topic.
....I compiled a list of studies I found over the last 45 years showing the ineffectiveness of surgical and n95 masks. Note these are links to actual studies, not news sites, with a summary conclusion statement. Copy / Paste this where ever you see fit. It's sorted chronologically starting with oldest first.
-> Ritter et al in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1157412/
-> Ha’eri and Wiley in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.” https://europepmc.org/article/med/7379387
-> Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ccd.1810170306
-> In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5% https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736
-> A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0310057X0102900402
-> Lahme et al.,in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable https://europepmc.org/article/med/11760479
-> Figueiredo et al. in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn http://www.advancesinpd.com/adv01/21Figueiredo.htm
-> Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20524498/
-> Bahli in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden. https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/113/6/1447/9572/Is-Routine-Use-of-a-Face-Mask-Necessary-in-the
->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" 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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
-> Cowling, B. et al. (2010) "Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review", Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. 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. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05
-> Surgeons at the Karolinska Institutein 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.05200.x
-> 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. "There were 17 eligible studies. [...] None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x
-> Lopp & Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub2/full
In a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not. https://europepmc.org/article/med/25294675
-> Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Abstract/2014/09030/Surgical_Attire_and_the_Operating_Room__Role_in.11.aspx
-> Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0141076815583167
A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
->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://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
-> 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 "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." https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214
-> 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. "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." https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381
-> A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
-> A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
-> A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth masks against virus infection or transmission https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
-> A May 2020 cross-country study by the University of East Anglia (preprint) found that a mask requirement was of no benefit and could even increase the risk of infection. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260v1.full.pdf
-> An April 2020 review by the Norwich School of Medicine (preprint) found that “the evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks”, but supports the use of masks by “particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.” https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1
-> An April 2020 Cochrane review (preprint) found that face masks didn’t reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2
-> The Canadian Medical Association Journal published a Meta-analysis that identified 6 clinical trials and 23 surrogate studies that looked at the effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: They "found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection". https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
And finally, a new study out about how mandatory masks are effecting children: By 26.10.2020 the registry had been used by 20,353 people. In this publication we report the results from the parents, who entered data on a total of 25,930 children. The average wearing time of the mask was 270 minutes per day. Impairments caused by wearing the mask were reported by 68% of the parents. These included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%) impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%). Yes, only in this insane irrational world do we need a study to demonstrate that slowly suffocating your children with a face cloth has negative consequences for their health and well being.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-124394/v1
The last study is a fascinating one because a big one of the "long term effects" of covid are described as "brain fog", which is basically a summary of the entire list of effects. And I'd make a bet that the study coming to the "brain fog" conclusion did not double-blind their study against people WITHOUT covid to compare/contrast how many of them were also "brain fogged". After all, they were seeking long-term effects of the illness, why search out and interview perfectly healthy people who've always been so? CLEARLY healthy people aren't being "brain fogged", so no need to test a baseline, because nothing significant changed in society during the 'rona restrictions, right?