Published by Cochrane Library, the review dug into the findings of 78 randomized controlled trials to determine whether “physical interventions” — including face masks and hand-washing — lessened the spread of respiratory viruses.
When comparing the use of medical/surgical masks to wearing no masks, the review found that “wearing
a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (nine studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (six studies; 13,919 people).”
Next, the review compared medical/surgical masks to N95 respirators (or P2 respirators, which are used in Europe).
It found that “wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (five studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (five studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (three studies; 7799 people).”
The 78 studies looked at participants from countries of all income levels.
Data was gathered during the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009, non-epidemic flu seasons, epidemic flu seasons up to 2016 and the COVID-19 pandemic, the study authors wrote.
A new scientific review raises additional questions over the science behind the mask mandates imposed on the population for years. The new scientific review by 12 researchers from leading universities found little support for the claims that masks reduced Covid exposures. My interest in the story, as usual, focuses on free speech. Numerous experts were suspended or banned for challenging these very claims and the media labeled any such critics as dangerous or fringe figures. Regardless of your ultimate conclusions on the efficacy of masks, there was clearly a scientific basis to challenge the mask policies. Yet, many people were routinely censored on Twitter and other platforms for daring to challenge the official position on masks.
The Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) initially rejected the use of a mask mandate. However, the issue became a political weapon as politicians and the press claimed that questioning masks was anti-science and even unhinged. In April 2020, the CDC reversed its position and called for the masking of the entire population, including children as young as 2 years old. The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children.
The
closing of schools and businesses was also challenged by some critics as unnecessary. Many of those critics were also censored. It now appears that they may have been right. Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid. However, we are now facing alarming drops in testing scores and alarming rises in medical illness among the young.
Masks became a major social and political dividing line in politics and the media. Maskless people were chased from stores and denounced in Congress. Then-CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said during a Senate hearing that “face masks are the most important powerful health tool we have.”
However, the new publication reaffirms earlier studies and states that “a new scientific review suggests that widespread masking may have done little to nothing to curb the transmission of COVID.” It added that “wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (nine studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (six studies; 13,919 people).”
It also found little evidence of a difference from wearing better masks and that “wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (five studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (five studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (three studies; 7799 people).”
Again, I expect that these studies will be debated for years. That is a good thing. There are questions raised over the types of studies used and whether randomized studies are sufficient. The point is only that there were countervailing indicators on mask efficacy and a basis to question the mandates. Yet, there was no real debate because of the censorship supported by many Democratic leaders in social media. To question such mandates was declared a public health threat.
The head of the World Health Organization even supported censorship to combat what he called an “infodemic.”
A lawsuit was filed by Missouri and Louisiana and joined by leading experts, including Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Stanford University) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University).
Bhattacharya previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.
Did Fauci say he ‘made up’ COVID-19 rules on social distancing, masks? Let’s look at the transcript.
What Fauci said about 6-foot social distancing
Starting on Page 183 of a 246-page
transcript of Fauci’s second day of testimony, he said he was not aware of studies that supported the 6-foot social distancing guidelines that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention instituted
early in the pandemic.
Committee Staff Director Mitch Benzine asked Fauci whether he recalled when discussions about a 6-foot threshold began.
“You know,” Fauci replied, “I don’t recall. It sort of just appeared. I don’t recall, like, a discussion of whether it should be 5 or 6 or whatever. It was just that 6-foot is — ”
“Did you see any studies that supported 6 feet?” Benzine asked.
“I was not aware of studies that — in fact, that would be a very difficult study to do,” Fauci said.
After some back and forth, Fauci said the decision was “empiric,” which
in medical terms means a determination based on experience rather than a precise understanding of the cause of something.
“I think it would fall under the category of empiric,” Fauci said. “Just an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data or even data that could be accomplished. But I’m thinking hard as I’m talking to you. … I don’t recall, like, a discussion of, ‘Now, it’s going to be’ — it sort of just appeared, that 6 feet is going to be the distance.”
[clip]
“What I meant by no science behind it, is that there wasn’t a controlled trial that said compare 6 foot with 3 feet with 10 feet,” he said.
[clip]
At one point in the hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R.-Ga., held up an enlarged copy of the Daily Mail headline and said, “Mr. Fauci, you also represent the type of science where you confessed that you made up the COVID rules, including 6-feet social distancing and masking of children.”
“I never said I made anything up,” Fauci said.
“You admitted that you made up, that you made it up as you went,” Greene said.
“I didn’t say I made it up,” Fauci said.
“So, are you saying this is fake news, Mr. Fauci?” Greene asked.
“I didn’t say I made anything up,” Fauci said.
“What did you say?” Greene asked.
“I said that it is not based in science and it just appeared,” Fauci said.