NewTube

NewTube

Sign In



Gimbalsaw's House Of Info

14

0

The Absolute SCIENCE Behind MASKS PROOF THEY DON’T WORK

  - 27:34

Wearing a mask may soon be mandatory depending on where you live and this is causing a debate about whether or not masks are actually effective when it comes to protecting your health during a pandemic. Multiple studies have now concluded that masks are not only ineffective but they in fact offer a disadvantage to those who choose to wear them. In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth speaks with Denis Rancourt a PHD and former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa about a paper he wrote titled “Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy” to discuss the science behind masks, why they don’t work and how society should handle this highly contentious issue moving forward. Sources: http://ocla.ca/ocla-letter-who/ http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/202... https://www.researchgate.net/publicat... cause_mortality_during_COVID-19_No_plague_and_a_likely_signature_


0

0

0

0

1

Share on TwitterShare on Twitter


2,988 Views

Uploaded 2 years ago  

July 8th 2020  

File Size: 97 MB

Category: Technology & Science







5 Comments

Squidly

- a year ago  

Not only are NOT effective, they pose additional risk! .. people continuously shovel particles and bacteria into their face with their hands.

THEY

- 2 years ago  

Masks actually catch pathogens. They do not repel them. So where does those pathogens go? Plus, shouldn't these masks be treated as biohazard waste? Just an observation.

Clementina

- 2 years ago  

Thanks for the vedio and your truth

74Gee

- 2 years ago  

The paper asserts: Extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness. ------------------ The function of the mask, as worn by doctors for 100 years is not for protection against pathogens, the purpose is to reduce the spread of droplets from the mouth and nose. This 'paper' has focused on the efficacy of wearing a face-mask to protect 'against' airborne pathogens and comparisons between various mask types. As such this paper has asserted nothing of value or relevance. It is as significant as a paper refuting eye strain in people watching a television from the rear.

Squidly

- a year ago  

Well, perhaps one of these other studies will suit your taste? It is indisputable scientific fact: Masks and respirators will not work against COVID-19. 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. https://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://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Does-evidence-based-medicine-support-the-of-in-in-Bahli/751acd427c20c8dc7d1fbc1b45eead104286f481?p2df Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute 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 Webster et al., in 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. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.05200.x Lipp and 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.’ Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub3/full Carøe, 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 face masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination. 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. See: ‘Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy.’ https://principia-scientific.org/masks-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covid-19-social-policy/ 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,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002 Summary: 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. 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 Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 Summary: 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. 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 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. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x Summary: “There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.” 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 Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 Summary: “We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.” 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 Summary: “Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; 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/ 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. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214 Summary: “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.” 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,’ they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ccd.1810170306 https://europepmc.org/article/med/11924291 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. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381 Summary: “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.” (October 1, 2020) "Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2", Hiroshi Ueki, Yuri Furusawa, Kiyoko Iwatsuki-Horimoto, Masaki Imai, Hiroki Kabata, Hidekazu Nishimura, Yoshihiro Kawaoka This research was supported by Japan Program for Infectious Diseases Research and Infrastructure from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) https://msphere.asm.org/content/5/5/e00637-20 Summary: Airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks provide some protection from the transmission of infective SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols; however, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) could not completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when sealed. (October 18, 2016) - Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review, John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC https://web.archive.org/web/20170512002228/https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-revealing-review/ Summary: The primary reason for mandating the wearing of face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are incapable of providing such a level of protection. (May 15, 2015) - Unmasking the evidence,NZNO principal researcher, Dr Léonie Walker https://blog.nzno.org.nz/2015/05/15/unmasking-the-evidence/ Summary: Health care workers have long relied heavily on surgical masks to provide protection against influenza and other infections. Yet there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection. The masks we use are not designed for such purposes, and when tested, they have proved to vary widely in filtration capability, allowing penetration of aerosol particles ranging from 4 to 90% Summary: The primary reason for mandating the wearing of face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are incapable of providing such a level of protection. Conclusions: No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit. Masks and respirators do not work.