Sometimes You Just Don’t Remember…

COVID19: Three Bits of Science That CDC, Fauci and FDA Forgot, and One They Would Like to Forget

ONE OF THE MOST FRUSTRATING ASPECTS of how academic science conducts itself in the US is high reliance to SELECTIVE ATTENTION to information that suits one’s particular viewpoint in science. Graduate students writing theses or dissertations are expected to provide a reasonable approximation of a background of the foundations upon which their thesis is built. Somewhere along the way, some scientists have forgotten the ethics of the moral responsibility of providing an unbiased representation of the state of knowledge upon which they base their positions. To seek only confirming instances that match one’s own viewpoint is positivistic – and it is the essential driver of confirmation bias. CDC and Fauci’s reliance of the Selective Attention Bias is monumental is size and historically destructive in scope.

Here I outline a few rather important facts that CDC and Fauci (and thus the rest of public health and most of the US medical system) have forgotten. The result is a public health policy response in the US that is full of … holes, at immense cost to the well-being of society.

When I read headlines like “Scientists discover” X, Y or Z about Coronavirus”, I almost always groan. “We ALREADY KNOW that about coronviruses” is my response, and so off to Pubmed I go.

Here are some things we already know that are being forgotten, or ignored, in public health policy in the US (and elsewhere) on the COVID-19 response.

(1) Coronavirus antibodies don’t last. Based on a non-peer-reviewed study preprint of a King’s College Study that monitored SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels for three months, the media represents this as new because the researchers who have presented the data failed to provide a thorough representation of past studies – and the media failed to pick up on the reality of what we already know. We’ve known that the antibody response to coronaviruses in humans is shorter than that, say, for human rhinoviruses (the common cold) since 1990.

Here’s the study on coronviruses (1990):

“After preliminary trials, the detailed changes in the concentration of specific circulating and local antibodies were followed in 15 volunteers inoculated with coronavirus 229E. Ten of them, who had significantly lower concentrations of preexisting antibody than the rest, became infected and eight of these developed colds. A limited investigation of circulating lymphocyte populations showed some lymphocytopenia in infected volunteers. In this group, antibody concentrations started to increase 1 week after inoculation and reached a maximum about 1 week later. Thereafter antibody titres slowly declined. Although concentrations were still slightly raised 1 year later, this did not always prevent reinfection when volunteers were then challenged with the homologous virus. However, the period of virus shedding was shorter than before and none developed a cold. All of the uninfected group were infected on re-challenge although they also appeared to show some resistance to disease and in the extent of infection. These results are discussed with reference to natural infections with coronavirus and with other infections, such as rhinovirus infections.

And here’s the study on rhinoviruses (1989):

The specific humoral immune response of 17 volunteers to infection with human rhinovirus type 2 (HRV-2) has been measured both by neutralization and by ELISA. Six volunteers who had HRV-2-specific antibodies in either serum or nasal secretions before HRV-2 inoculation were resistant to infection and illness. Of the remaining 11 volunteers who had little pre-existing HRV-2-specific antibody, one was immune but 10 became infected and displayed increases in HRV-2-specific antibodies. These antibodies first increased 1-2 weeks after infection and reached a maximum at 5 weeks. All six resistant volunteers who had high pre-existing antibody and eight of the volunteers who became infected maintained their HRV-2-specific antibody for at least 1 year. At this time they were protected against reinfection. Two volunteers showed decreases in HRV-2-specific antibodies from either serum or nasal secretions. They became infected but not ill after HRV-2 inoculation 1 year later.

So, people infected with coronaviruses have short-lived active antibodies compared to rhinovirus, but have a mild infection a year later if re-exposed. To be fair to the authors of the study, they referenced the coronavirus study from 1990, as well as length of antibody responses in SARS and MERS. But it’s still a fair question to ask:

Why then are we reading headlines such as


The high profile emphasis is followed by proclamations that natural immunity from infections might not prove to be”enough”, begging the question of definition of “enough” – Fauci and others (like Paul Offit) have already presaged that an untested vaccine might only make the infection less severe, and not prevent infection or transmission. So this high emphasis and follow-on claim that natural herd immunity might not be enough is a type of distortion used to convince the public that they may have to wait for a vaccine to save society. Of course.

2. Masks Don’t Really Work Outside of Healthcare Systems.

A meta-analysis on masks concluded that masks should work in the healthcare setting, but the three studies that focused on the utility of masks to protect the wearer outside of the healthcare system? Two of three studies say “no effect” – and the one that is significant is only marginally significant, and oh, also (like all of the other studies) only focused on the ability of masks to protect the wearer.

And, for good measure, N95 does NOT mean they stop 95% of droplets, as incorrectly reported by “Ask Ethan” on Forbes – it means they can block viruses no smaller than 5 microns. SARS-CoV-2 is 30 times smaller than N95.

In a BSL3 laboratory, workers must wear much more effective equipment that an N95 mask, or a handkerchief, or a shirt collar, to block viruses the size of coronaviruses. Clearly we are being socially conditioned to submit to pressure to conform to an agenda to accept the spate of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as the living Savior of society. Oh, if only that could even be theoretically true. Unfortuantely, CDC, Fauci and apparently FDA also forgot that

There is a good reason why a huge number of scientists are calling upon Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for retraction of a bullshit study that claimed to show that masks are critical for reducing community transmission. There is actually a ton of science that shows that they do not.

“Objective The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.

Setting 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Participants 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.

Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.

Main outcome measure Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.

Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.”

From Ref #2


Respiratory infection is much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks compared to medical masks, research shows. Cloth masks should not be used by workers in any healthcare setting, authors of the new study say.”

C. R. MacIntyre, H. Seale, T. C. Dung, N. T. Hien, P. T. Nga, A. A. Chughtai, B. Rahman, D. E. Dwyer, Q. Wang. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open, 2015; 5 (4): e006577 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577

Even Medpage today published an article that concluded that some politicians are pushing masks for fear mongers, not toward evidence-based medical purposes.

(See Medpage Today: Mask Hysteria: Are We Going Too Far? — Kevin Campbell believes media and politicians use masking as a way to fear monger )

3. Coronavirus Vaccines Cause Pathogenic Priming… and Therefore Require Phase 1 Animal Studies to Detect Disease Enhancement

This has been covered in my blog before as suggested reading, but I’ll put those findings again right here for those expecting more from our regulatory agencies. In March 2020, FDA allowed Fauci, I mean, Moderna, to skip the critical Phase 1 animal studies that led to a halth to human studies for SARS and MERS vaccines. That was a LONG time ago now (5 months). How many times over could Moderna (I mean, Fauci) have conducted the animal studies to detect pathogenic priming by now? Maybe they have! Certainly we would have head of the results if they showed no disease enhancement. Come on, we may be – collectively- stupid, but we’re not dead. Yet.

Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus. “Lung mononuclear infiltrates occurred in all groups after virus challenge but with increased infiltrates that contained eosinophils and increases in the eosinophil promoting IL-5 and IL-13 cytokines only in the vaccine groups. Inactivated MERS-CoV vaccine appears to carry a hypersensitive-type lung pathology risk from MERS-CoV infection that is similar to that found with inactivated SARS-CoV vaccines from SARS-CoV infection.”

Vaccine efficacy in senescent mice challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV bearing epidemic and zoonotic spike variants.“VRP-N vaccines not only failed to protect from homologous or heterologous challenge, but resulted in enhanced immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates within the lungs of SARS-CoV-challenged mice. VRP-N-induced pathology presented at day 4, peaked around day 7, and persisted through day 14, and was likely mediated by cellular immune responses.”

Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets “Immunized ferrets developed a more rapid and vigorous neutralizing antibody response than control animals after challenge with SARS-CoV; however, they also exhibited strong inflammatory responses in liver tissue.”

Animal Models for SARS and MERS coronaviruses. “The concern that is extrapolated from the FIPV vaccine experience to human SARS-CoV vaccines is whether vaccine recipients will develop more severe disease if they are exposed to or infected with SARS-CoV after neutralizing antibody titers decline. The second concern is whether recipients of a SARSCoV vaccine would be at risk of developing pulmonary immunopathology following infection with an unrelated human coronavirus e.g. 229E, OC43, HKU1 or NL63 that usually causes mild, self limited disease. Although findings from preclinical evaluation have revealed these concerns, studies in animal models may not be able to provide data to confirm or allay these concerns.”

Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate “…a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice…”

There are many other bits of Science that CDC, Fauci, and the FDA have forgotten – such as how to accurately count deaths, how to design an accurate PCR test. And there will no doubt be some science they would like to forget . They seem hell bent on holding society hostage with lock-downs, and mask mandates, and destruction of small businesses, depletion of retirement accounts.

We won’t forget that the disaster is largely man-made, stemming first from CDC’s flawed PCR test, fumbled attempts to contain by early contact tracing, and made much worse by a lock-down that was supposed to last two weeks. We have not forgotten that we never signed up for lock-downs of long duration that destroy our means of making a living, feeding and housing ourselves and our children. But there is a bright light coming out of the tunnel BEFORE the untested vaccines.

A Bit of Science CDC and Fauci Would Like To Ignore

Here’s a bit of Science I want YOU to help make certain NO ONE forgets. Please share Dr. Brownstein’s case series study on his protocol used on 107 COVID-19 patients with zero deaths – and only 1 hospitalization on the core protocol – with every ND, DO, DC, nurse, geriatric specialist, nursing home employee, public health official, friend, neigbor, and family member you know. Share my editorial, too.

If this virus can be so easily treated, why are we destroying America?

Brownstein, D, R Ng, R Rowen, J-D Drummond, T Eason, H Brownstein and J Brownstein. 2020. A Novel Approach to Treating COVID-19 Using Nutritional and Oxidative Therapies. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law 2:4-22.

Selling Epidemics

This article is based on my study and investigation of so-called epidemics over the past 30 years.

In the case of COVID-19, I’ve written at least one piece covering, in detail, each main element of the illusion. Here, I’m laying out the pattern. It is the same for each fake epidemic.

ONE: Through many meetings, exercises, planning sessions, a structure is welded in place to promote and launch the IDEA of an epidemic. World Health Organization, CDC, influential public health officials attached to governments around the world, etc.

TWO: There is a purported incident. An outbreak. The most obvious cause is intentionally overlooked. For example, horrendous air pollution, or the grotesque feces and urine pollution on a giant commercial pig factory-farm. Instead, the world is told a new virus has been found. Local researchers, if any, are augmented by researchers from CDC, WHO.

THREE: There is no air-tight chain of evidence explaining exactly how the purported new virus was discovered. From details released, there is NO proof of discovery by convincing methods, no proper unified study of MANY supposed epidemic patients.

FOUR: But WHO/CDC tells the world this is an epidemic in the making, caused by the new virus. The promotion and propaganda/media apparatus moves into high gear. Ominous pronouncements.

FIVE: Diagnostic tests for the unproven new virus are rolled out. They spit out false “proof” of “infection” like coins from a jackpot slot machine. These false-positives are an inherent feature of the tests.

SIX: Thus, all case numbers and death numbers, which are based on the tests, are rendered meaningless. And…they were already meaningless, because the supposed new virus “being tested for” was never properly discovered in the first place.

SEVEN: Nevertheless, these tests (plus useless eyeball diagnosis) are used to build official reports on case numbers. For the duration of the “epidemic,” reports keep coming, and escalating numbers are trumpeted. Within the basically meaningless structure of these reports, there is fiddling with totals, to make them more impressive and frightening.

EIGHT: Real people are really getting sick and dying, but for the most part, they are people who are dying from traditional and long-standing conditions—flu-like illness, pneumonia, other lung infections, etc. These people are “re-packaged” under the new epidemic label—e.g., “COVID”. The official description of the “new epidemic disease”—the clinical symptoms—is sufficiently general to easily allow this re-packaging.

NINE: If there is new illness, it can be explained by causes having nothing to do with the purported new virus. For example, a toxic vaccine campaign. A highly destructive drug. Highly toxic pesticides.

TEN: Over time, the definition of the epidemic is arbitrarily widened to include more symptoms and clinical features, in order to inflate case numbers.

ELEVEN: Control of information about the “epidemic” is hardened at the top. The talking heads, from the press and public health agencies, know as much about actual science as rabbits know about drone strikes. But they are “in charge.” Dissident information is attacked and censored.

TWELVE: Medical drugs and procedures (e.g., ventilators) used to treat patients are quite harmful. If a vaccine is rolled out, it, too, is toxic. Illness and death resulting from these and other medical attacks are counted as “epidemic cases caused by the virus.”

THIRTEEN: ABOVE ALL OTHER ILLUSIONS, the main deception is: “the epidemic is one disease or syndrome caused by one germ.” This is sold with unceasing propaganda. Most people fall for it. They will even argue among themselves about which “it” is the single cause of the “it” disease. There is no “it” cause or disease.

FOURTEEN: The public is sold lie after lie about contagion and the “spread” of the “it.”

FIFTEEN: The public chants (as if no one has ever died before), “People are dying, it must be the virus.”

SIXTEEN: The virus fairy tale always functions as a cover story for government or corporate or medical crimes. It obscures and hides these crimes. For example, a large factory is spewing horrendous pollution into the ground and water of an area, and people are getting sick and dying? Wait, the researchers say, the cause is actually a new virus no one has ever seen before.

As I wrote at the outset of the COVID illusion, the only difference this time, in 2020, is the weight of the lies—because they led to the lockdowns and the economic devastation. This is West Nile, SARS, Swine Flu, Zika, writ large.

Needless to say, the persons and groups responsible for launching these illusion-operations must hide their crimes.

The criminals have their weapons, of course. Among their most powerful: control of the press, and arcane technical language which pretends to relevance. This language is so dense, the uninitiated stand no chance of penetrating it.

For instance, researchers can babble for hours about their vaunted diagnostic test, the PCR. However, the simple truth is, the test has never been vetted. The test has never been tested in the real world outside the lab.

I have written about this extensively. Using a little guideline called SCIENCE, you would “test the test” by lining up, say, a thousand patients, some healthy, some sick from a supposed virus. Any virus. Tissue samples would be taken from each patient.

PCR mavens would run these samples through their equipment, reporting which patients show what they call high “viral load.”

This means: these particular patients have millions and millions of virus actively replicating in their bodies, and they will be unmistakably and visibly sick.

The PCR princes would then announce, “Patients 3,45,65,76,132…are all definitely sick.”

Now we un-blind the study and see what’s what and who’s who. Are these designated patients ill or are they running marathons? That’s called simple scientific method. Not technical gobbledygook.

This chunk of research has never been done. It never will be done. It’s too real. Too naked. Proponents of the PCR would have too much to lose, if their assessments of who are healthy and who are sick turned out to be absurdly wrong, and their arcane technical rhetoric about the PCR ended up being useless gibberish.

I include this illustration to indicate there are, indeed, ways of exposing professional liars, if you change the venue on them, if you use common sense, if you stand outside their self-appointed temples of mystical pretense and observe what their lies look like when you boil them down to human terms…

Here is another study of the PCR test that has never been done and never will be done, in the real world: line up a thousand patients, take tissues samples from them and send the samples to 40 different labs. Have the labs run their PCRs and announce their specific findings. Compare the results. You can bet the farm the labs will come up with contrary results.

This is part of a pattern: keep “scientific details” close to the vest; keep them “in-house”; don’t permit large-scale independent studies that will either confirm or deny basic tenets of official research.

COVID is a fraud from top to bottom. From beginning to end.


To Mask or Not To Mask?

Scientific Information on Masks Against COVID-19

David Crowe
June 5, 2020
Version 4

Masks are being widely recommended as protection against the COVID-19 virus, both to protect the wearer from infection, and to protect others from wearers who do not know that they are infected. Trouble is, most of the scientific evidence and recommendations are against the use of masks by the general public. Despite this they are increasingly mandated. In some places you cannot walk around outside without a mask, in others you cannot go inside a public space without a mask. Workers are often mandated to wear them. And now airline passengers, no matter the length of their flight.

Evidence for the use of Masks

The strongest evidence for the use of masks is a Cochrane Collaboration review. Seven studies from the era of SARS found that mask-wearing was highly effective in case-control studies, although this type of study is subject to bias because the control arm is simply a representative group, unlike in a placebo controlled trial (very difficult with masks). For example, if the cases are sicker than the controls, they may behave differently, including in wearing a mask.

Of the seven papers, five studied only health-care workers, and this article does not question whether health care workers should wear masks. This leaves only two papers. One provided no socio-economic or health data on the case versus control groups, leaving open the possibility that there were significant differences. The last study confirmed this, the cases (who had been diagnosed with ‘probable’ SARS, i.e. without a SARS test) were significantly sicker before SARS than the controls, which makes sense because people who were diagnosed with SARS tended to have pre-existing health conditions, just as is found with COVID-19. Mask wearing and hand washing were more common in controls, resulting in the conclusion that they were protective. But attending farmer’s markets was also ‘protective’. In reality this probably just reflects the better health of the control group. Really sick people may avoid the use of masks because it interferes with their breathing when they already have problems. This possibility was not considered by either paper.

So, in conclusion there are two papers in this review that claimed that wearing masks was protective against SARS, but one admits that the control group was significantly healthier than the case group, and the other paper is silent on this important source of bias.

Jefferson T et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 06; (7)CD006207.

There are also the hamsters, however. No, Hong Kong University did not find a source of hamster sized surgical masks, but in an unpublished paper, they describe putting a surgical mask over the air flow between a cage of RNA positive hamsters and a cage of RNA negative hamsters, and documenting that a higher proportion of the RNA-negative hamsters became RNA-positive when there was no mask over the airflow. It is not clear why the researchers believe their studies can be extrapolated directly to people. Although newspaper articles claim that the paper has been released, not even the Hong Kong University press release, the institution where the work was performed, provided any details about its location.

HKU hamster research shows masks effective in preventing Covid-19 transmission. HKU. 2020 May 18.

More recently a paper in Lancet identified 172 observational studies (not randomized trials) that they claimed supported social distancing or mask wearing. Of the 44 they examined in detail, 35 studied health care workers, 8 studied close contacts (e.g. a household with an ill person, traced contacts of a person with a positive test) and only 3 studied public spaces (one studied all three, hence the numeric discrepancy). Of those 3 papers one studied distance versus infection risk on airplanes, and another was included in the Cochrane study, above. The third paper, as yet not peer-reviewed and published, was focussed on contact tracing, but did note that of two couples discovered to be both positive through contact tracing (out of 404 close contacts of 9 COVID-19 cases), one took a lot of precautions (mask, separate bedroom, separate bathroom) while the other did not, lending no clarity to the mask debate.

Chu DK et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020 Jun 01.

A heavily promoted paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ads on Twitter paid for by McMaster University in Canada) claims in the title that “Cloth Masks May Prevent Transmission of COVID-19”. They admit that, “cloth does not stop isolated virions”, but claim that since virus particles are always attached to droplets, that research on transmission of bacteria can be useful. Many of the masks tested in experiments they referenced had 3 to 6 layers of cloth. They also admit that the only randomized trial (discussed below) showed that cloth masks increased influenza-like illnesses in health care workers who wore them for long periods of time. They ignore the Korean research (also discussed below) that concluded that, “Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients”. Finally they conclude their promotion of cotton masks by admitting that, “Whether wearing a mask of any sort in a community context protects oneself or others is unknown”. Maybe this paper should be in a section of its own, “Papers that want masks to work but cannot prove it”.

Clase CM et al. Cloth Masks May Prevent Transmission of COVID-19: An Evidence-Based, Risk-Based Approach. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 22.

Evidence against the use of Masks

A very recent review of the literature that was published in the CDC journal, “Emerging Infectious Diseases” did not find evidence that handwashing or masks were protective against influenza. Masks did not help infected people reduce their risk of infecting others, nor reduce the risk of uninfected people contracting influenza.

“In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission…Hand hygiene is a widely used intervention and has been shown to effectively reduce the transmission of gastrointestinal infections and respiratory infections. However, in our systematic review, updating the findings of Wong et al., we did not find evidence of a major effect of hand hygiene on laboratory-confirmed influenza virus transmission…We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility…It is essential to note that the mechanisms of person-to-person transmission in the community have not been fully determined. Controversy remains over the role of transmission through fine-particle aerosols.”
Xiao J et al. Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings-Personal Protective and Environmental Measures. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 May 17; 26(5).

A Korean study put masks on COVID-19 infected people and did not reduce the transmission of viral RNA when patients coughed with a mask on.

“Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.”
Bae S et al. Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2: A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 6.

Adverse Consequences of Masks

Adverse consequences of masks are most obvious among health-care workers, where use is more controlled, but members of the general public who voluntarily wear masks for extended periods of time may experience similar problems.

A study in BMJ showed that people who were told to wear cloth masks for extended period of time (for purposes of this study) had higher rates of influenza-like illness than other health care workers but could decide if and when to wear masks, and higher rates than those wearing surgical masks. Even among health care workers, mask wearing could be counter-productive.

“The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI [influenza-like illness] statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm [workers who followed standard practice, which could sometimes include mask wearing]. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.”
MacIntyre CR et al. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 22; 5(4): e006577.

A study from Singapore found an increased risk of headaches, indicative of oxygen deprivation, among health care workers. This may or may not apply to the general public who generally wear masks that are less tight fitting (and therefore less effective).

“A total of 158 healthcare workers participated in the study. Majority [126/158 (77.8%)] were aged 21-35 years. Participants included nurses [102/158 (64.6%)], doctors [51/158 (32.3%)], and paramedical staff [5/158 (3.2%)]. Pre-existing primary headache diagnosis was present in about a third [46/158 (29.1%)] of respondents. Those based at the emergency department had higher average daily duration of combined PPE exposure compared to those working in isolation wards [7.0 vs 5.2 hours] or medical ICU [7.0 vs 2.2 hours]. Out of 158 respondents, 128 (81.0%) respondents developed de novo PPE-associated headaches. A pre-existing primary headache diagnosis (OR = 4.20 and combined PPE usage for >4 hours per day (OR 3.91) were independently associated with de novo PPE-associated headaches. Since COVID-19 outbreak, 42/46 (91.3%) of respondents with pre-existing headache diagnosis either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the increased PPE usage had affected the control of their background headaches, which affected their level of work performance.”
Ong JJY et al. Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID‐19. Headache. 2020 05; 60(5): 864-877.

Opinions against the use of Masks

WHO has stated that is no benefit to healthy people wearing masks in public, and there is only limited evidence that masks help when in contact with a sick person.

“There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in the households or among contacts of a sick patient, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a preventive measure. However, there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19. WHO. 2020 Apr 6.

Dr Jenny Harries, a Deputy Chief Medical Officer from the UK, warns that because most members of the public use one mask for an extended period of time, when they take it off at home and put it on a non-sterile surface it becomes contaminated.

“What tends to happen is people will have one mask. They won’t wear it all the time, they will take it off when they get home, they will put it down on a surface they haven’t cleaned. Or they will be out and they haven’t washed their hands, they will have a cup of coffee somewhere, they half hook it off, they wipe something over it. In fact, you can actually trap the virus in the mask and start breathing it in. Because of these behavioural issues, people can adversely put themselves at more risk than less.”
Baynes C. Coronavirus: Face masks could increase risk of infection, medical chief warns. The Independent. 2020 Mar 12.

Jake Dunning, head of emerging infections and zoonoses (animal to human transmission of disease) at Public Health England added that,

“[there is] very little evidence of a widespread benefit [from wearing masks]…Face masks must be worn correctly, changed frequently, removed properly, disposed of safely and used in combination with good universal hygiene behaviour in order for them to be effective.”
Baynes C. Coronavirus: Face masks could increase risk of infection, medical chief warns. The Independent. 2020 Mar 12.

The University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) does not recommend that the public wears masks, because they do not work, they may reduce other preventive measures, and they risk the supply of masks for healthcare workers.

“We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because: There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers.”
Brosseau LM et al. COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data. CIDRAP. 2020 Apr 1.

An experienced ER nurse (RN, MSN) examined the data when her grandchild’s pre-school decided that even toddlers need to wear masks, and her literature review produced a lot of information against mask wearing, and she showed that the seven papers by the CDC in support of mask wearing are irrelevant to the subject.

Neuenschwander P. Healthy People Wearing Masks to Stop Corona Not Supported by Science. Jennifer Margulis. 2020 May 13.


Evidence is largely against mask-wearing by the general public. It is generally seen as ineffective, may take attention away from other protective measures, will reduce the supply of masks for healthcare workers, and may cause harm when worn for extended periods of time.

© Copyright July 7, 2020. David Crowe