The Failure of Masks: The Cochran Review By Mrs Vera West

The Cochran Review is a highly respected publication, giving evidence-based examinations of numerous health issues. Since 2010, it has been undertaking a review of the literature dealing with various physical interventions, such as masks, to stop the spread of viruses. Here is what was concluded about masks in general, explicitly addressing the Covid-19 issue: “There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results … did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when … laboratory‐confirmed influenza was analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes.”

The mask mandate was implemented without adequate scientific testing, using one study which was subject to criticism. Listed below, after the following extract, is a tweet by a doctor, giving references to the past literature indicating that even in surgical settings, masks are quite limited in preventing the passage of viruses, and mainly stop particles being spread. This is highly relevant since at any point the mask mandate could be rolled back into force, and since people accepted it, unlike the mass rejection done during the 1918 Spanish (really Chinese) flu.

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-2023-cochran-review-on-physical

“The Cochran Library has been reviewing the use of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses since 2010. By physical interventions, they mean masks, shields, gowns, hand-washing, etc.

Background

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID‐19 pandemic.

Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect.

The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

This large group of international researchers reviewed dozens of rigorously correct, randomized clinical trials of "physical interventions" against respiratory diseases. These diseases included influenza and COVID-19 during the pandemic, and these researchers failed to find even a “modest effect” on infection or illness rates from any type of mask.

Furthermore, the effects that masking is having on health, childhood development, speech development, etc. are unknown and are under-investigated. Ergo - governments aren’t funding this research. Without government funding, the answer to the damage done will never be answered.

So, here we are in 2023. Why does this matter? Mask mandates are gone, right?

You think this is over?

Not for our children and grandchildren. The damage done is ongoing and real.

In blue states, such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington and California, masks in schools are still often required - Daily Mail.

The CDC is still recommends masking in areas with "high" transmission levels and also recommends indoor masking to protect high-risk contacts in "medium" counties. Currently, that means 27% of all counties in the USA.”

The evidence, available since 1975, indicates that even in surgical procedures, surgeons wear mask, or in the past wore them, to keep out particulate matter out of the wound field. The series of lengthy tweets made by this doctor, gives articles from 1975, showing the limitations of masks in mainstream surgical practice, let alone for ordinary people, wearing their masks all day.

https://twitter.com/Fynnderella1/status/1620470557409157120?s=20&t=tnFlV-trDfp6XzZaoeR7jw&utm