Face masks – “14 randomized controlled trials did not support a substantial effect on transmission”

The above quote is from the CDC. And look at this graph showing the difference between South Dakota (no mask mandate) vs Montana (mask mandate)

 

I don’t see much difference, do you?

“MASK MANDATES : So glad to see we are following the peer-reviewed science and the evidence on masks,” 🧐 says Craig Kelly.

“Why is it that those that most loudly campaign against Ivermectin & HCQ + Zinc, claiming there is ‘’not enough evidence’’, are the biggest supporters of mask mandates despite the lack of evidence to support them ?”

In case you can’t read the highlighted portion of the above paper, it says, “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Thanks to Patricia Harris and Craig Kelly for this link


15 thoughts on “Face masks – “14 randomized controlled trials did not support a substantial effect on transmission””

  1. Ah, but somehow or other SARS-CoV2 is entirely different to influenza virus in how it is transmitted.

    1. Although it is a virus, it’s size is entirely different.
    2. Although it replicates in similar cell types to influenza, it’s mode of transmission is entirely different.
    3. Because it is SARS-CoV2 and not influenza, everything is assumed to be occurring until proven otherwise, rather than nothing is assumed to be occurring until proven otherwise.

    I think the days when logical, rigorous following of science was a means to counter the global terrorist movement are long gone.

    All appeals now must be based on three approaches:

    1. Appeal to emotion.
    2. Threat to human safety.
    3. Declaration of Global Terrorist status.

    Declaring Biden et al to be Global Terrorists is entirely timely and apposite, as they are about to declare you and many others to be ‘domestic terrorists’.

    First rule of law is that no-one can be tried in a court of law for any offence by those who have committed offences 100 times worse, even 10 times worse.

    That excludes 95%+ of all Congressfolk/Senators claiming that they can instigate domestic terrorism legislation, since they have committed crimes of global genocide by proxy, having voted through illegal wars of aggression time and time again.

    In short, stop treating Biden et al as anything but the global criminals that they are.

    Reply
    • 1. Although it is a virus, it’s size is entirely different.

      Size of a virus has no effect on transmissivity. With but a singular exception, all viruses are 10x-1000x times smaller than a bacteria, which is what masks were designed to help protect against. The lie that masks will help is just that—a lie.

      Reply
  2. Many years ago when Swedish car maker Volvo started introducing driver and passenger protection I read that Volvo drivers took more risks because they thought they were protected. Same thing here?

    Reply
    • When the UK made seat belt use mandatory there was a rise in pedestrian and bicycle collisions at intersections. Drivers felt safer so they were taking turns faster.

      Reply
    • Risk homeostasis as it is known. Better brakes? You can stop from a higher speed. Anti-skid on corners? You can take the corner faster. Build your car with a crash cage and airbags and get ‘volvo driver syndrome’ – drive really badly as you will always come off best.

      Reply
  3. A properly fitted respirator, fitting the face properly, using HEPA filters is 99.87% efficient on particles down to .3 microns. The virus we are looking at is .128 microns. So, even wearing a properly fitted respirator, it is quite likely that a virus could get through. THe N95 face mask is 95% efficient on a particle size of 1 micron. Even if it were possible to get a proper seal on the face (not possible), the coronavirus can sail through quite easily. The cheaper and more common paper and cloth masks to not even approach a seal on the face and do nothing to slow particles up around 10 microns. Wearing masks is no more than a mark of submission and of virtue signaling. A note should be added here: IF one were to be entering an actually hazardous atmosphere, one would wear and SCBA or be on supplied air dragging a hose. Level B PPE would be the MINIMUM required.

    Reply
    • I have read in a couple of places that wearing one of these paper masks to keep the virus out makes as much sense as putting up a chain-link fence to keep mosquitos out.

      Reply
    • I don’t think so, since here the problem is to stop the saliva particles inside which lies the virial material. If you wear an FFP3 mask inside and a chirurgical mask outside, the latter dispersed with a 1000:358 sodium chloride solution, this will destroy any biological material deposit; then, an eventually survived virus should travel outside of the saliva and penetrate the first mask barrier and then the air in between and then the five strata of the second FFP3 mask

      Reply
  4. Thanks for posting this as it makes for interesting reading. My only concern is that they talk about ‘influenza pandemic’ whereas this is SARS-CoV-2 we are experiencing. The graph is pretty damning on masks and would appear to support the Danish study which found no difference in their 2 groups. Supporters of face anppies then had to fall back on ‘ah, but they didn’t test transmission to other people from exhaling’. This is hard to test but there was a youtube video – probably censored by now – of a demonstration of masks and exhaling using vaping. The basis was the vape particles mirrored Covid and with every mask the vape came out or through.

    The paper looks at the hand washing ritual too. A former public health inspector and PhD holder says that Covid is non-fomite so the washing won’t work and is not necessary, possibly even doing more harm than good if your skin cracks open with the constant drying with alcohol. However, it would work with influenza and there have been comments from who come into contact with the big spreaders, school children, that they have not had any colds so far this year and speculate that the hand washing and masks have brought this about. Food for thought as they say.

    Reply
  5. I did say this elsewhere: I don’t mind the masks because while they will NOT prevent exposure to any disease, they are a really big help when I clean up the cat boxes. The mask keeps cat litter dust, which is omnipresent despite claims to the contrary, out of my nose and throat, and since I do not want silicosis (dust lung disease during the drought in the Depression), I’m happy to wear them
    Otherwise, they are kind of like a lame joke, in my view. Three local doctors interviewed on the news have said they won’t keep you from getting the disease.

    Reply
  6. The mask of obedience is for control, not stopping viruses or controlling a pre-planned scamdemic.

    The best N-95 mask “holes” or weave is measured in microns while a virus is measured in nanometers. That is magnitude difference which is why the presented graph shows no effect.

    A visual of the uselessness of masks in stopping a virus is like a chain like fence stopping gnats or mosquitoes.

    Since millions of scientists know this, then why on earth are we playing this game of pretend? Are there no adults left on planet earth?

    Reply
    • Since millions of scientists know this, then why on earth are we playing this game of pretend?

      Because it’s in their interest to be part of the controllers rather than the controlled. Power only seeks more power.

      Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.