Read on Twitter
Detailed thread on best science on efficacy of masks.
Please read, comment and follow if you learned something.
Unfortunately the data show that Masks donât work. I wish they did. I would wear one.
#FollowTheScience
#MasksDontWork
#CovidTruth
@AlexBerenson
@aginnt
Please read, comment and follow if you learned something.
Unfortunately the data show that Masks donât work. I wish they did. I would wear one.
#FollowTheScience
#MasksDontWork
#CovidTruth
@AlexBerenson
@aginnt
The âgold standard of all clinical research, including medical interventions, is a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) using lab-verified results (or a systematic review of ALL previous RCTs).
A proper RCT removes bias by having control groups (each using a different intervention) and verified outcomes. Other types of studies (observational, mechanical studies, expert opinion, models) are used to develop hypotheses while RCTs are used to test the hypotheses.
All RCTs have weaknesses. One weakness of a mask-related RCT is mask compliance. Since these studies are outside of a lab there is no way to ensure 100% compliance. This is why RCTs in a healthcare setting are also important.
Fortunately for us, a systemic review of all relevant RCTs funded by the HHSâs Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality entitled âMasks for Prevention of Viral Respiratory Infection among Healthcare Workers and the Publicâ was completed in June 2020.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-3213
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-3213
The conclusion of the systematic review of ALL mask-related RCTs was unambiguous:
This review included 2 RCTs involving 1700 people tested whether a surgical mask reduces the risk of transmission.
Conclusion was that there are no discernable differences in lab-confirmed influenza cases between the group that wore masks and the group that did not.
Conclusion was that there are no discernable differences in lab-confirmed influenza cases between the group that wore masks and the group that did not.
This review included 7 RCTs involving 4000 people testing whether surgical masks reduce transmission home with sick family member.
Conclusion was that there are no discernable differences in lab-confirmed cases between the group that wore masks and the group that didn't.
Conclusion was that there are no discernable differences in lab-confirmed cases between the group that wore masks and the group that didn't.
This review included 5 RCTs involving 8800 healthcare workers testing the differences in efficacy between cloth, surgical and N95 masks.
Conclusion was that there are no discernable differences in lab-confirmed cases between efficacy of the different types of masks.
Conclusion was that there are no discernable differences in lab-confirmed cases between efficacy of the different types of masks.
Each RCT comes to the same conclusion:
There is no evidence of any discernable difference in lab confirmed transmission rates for those that wear and do not wear a mask (regardless of the type of mask).
In other words, MASKS DONâT WORK.
There is no evidence of any discernable difference in lab confirmed transmission rates for those that wear and do not wear a mask (regardless of the type of mask).
In other words, MASKS DONâT WORK.
So why are we being told that masks work? What would we have to believe in order to believe that mask do in fact work?
First, the maskers would have you believe, without scientific basis or explanation, that Covid is somehow so different from all other viral respiratory illnesses that ALL prior RCTs (the gold standard for data) are irrelevant and thus should be ignored from any review.
Then they replace this unbiased RCT science with expert opinion, models, mechanical analyses and other less scientifically reliable data.
None of these alternatives even attempt to measure actual disease transmission.
None of these alternatives even attempt to measure actual disease transmission.
For example, studies showing that droplets get captured in a mask might seem important unless you are knowledgeable enough to know that the implicit assumption that droplet capture results in reduced disease transmission has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN FALSE by all prior RCTs.
Despite their admonition to ignore all pre-
Covid RCTs, the maskers cherry pick data (by both time, sub-groups or non-measured outcomes) from RCTs that concluded that there was NO evidence for mask efficacy and try to tell us that these same studies MIGHT support mask efficacy.
Covid RCTs, the maskers cherry pick data (by both time, sub-groups or non-measured outcomes) from RCTs that concluded that there was NO evidence for mask efficacy and try to tell us that these same studies MIGHT support mask efficacy.
Attached is an April 2020 evidence review (not a systematic RCT review) that is a terrific example of pseudo-science. It strongly concludes that masks are effective and necessary by employing all of the scientific malpractice described above. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3
In March 2020, the authorities told us it was not necessary to wear masks. They were following non-political, scientific consensus with this recommendation.
There have been ZERO additional RCTs produced to change this medical recommendation.
There have been ZERO additional RCTs produced to change this medical recommendation.
Denmark releases results of a large RCT performed during Covid in September 2020.
If it shows a meaningful reduction in transmission, it will be the first RCT ever to do so.
If it shows what all prior RCTs have shown, it should end the debate.
Odds are it will be ignored.
If it shows a meaningful reduction in transmission, it will be the first RCT ever to do so.
If it shows what all prior RCTs have shown, it should end the debate.
Odds are it will be ignored.
Mask mandates by politicians (both R and D) seem to give them political cover to avoid worse interventions, like shutdowns, and may improve confidence and get economies moving again.
But ignoring science for political convenience sets a dangerous precedent.
But ignoring science for political convenience sets a dangerous precedent.
Next time a politician says âFollow the Scienceâ be sure to think twice before giving up your freedoms.
#FollowTheScience
#MasksDontWork
#CovidTruth
END OF THREAD
#FollowTheScience
#MasksDontWork
#CovidTruth
END OF THREAD
THREAD APPENDIX: Below is a list and link to each of the RCT trials referenced above, including the conclusions made by the authors:
Aiello 2010 (RCT, N=1437, Community Setting) âNeither face mask use and hand hygiene nor face mask use alone was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ILI (transmission).â https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20088690/
Alfelali 2019 (RCT, N=7,687, Community Setting)
âFacemask use does not prevent clinical or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims.â
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3349234
âFacemask use does not prevent clinical or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims.â
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3349234
Barasheed 2011 (RCT, N=164, Community Setting)
âLab results did not show any difference between the two groupsâ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25336079/
âLab results did not show any difference between the two groupsâ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25336079/
Canini 2010 (RCT, N=306, Household Setting)
âIn various sensitivity analyses, we did not identify any trend in the results suggesting effectiveness of facemasks.â https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984432/
âIn various sensitivity analyses, we did not identify any trend in the results suggesting effectiveness of facemasks.â https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984432/
Cowling 2008 (RCT, N=198, Household Setting)
âThe laboratory-based or clinical secondary attack ratios did not significantly differ across the intervention arms.â https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364646/
âThe laboratory-based or clinical secondary attack ratios did not significantly differ across the intervention arms.â https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364646/
Cowling 2009 (RCT, N=1201, Household Setting)
âHand hygiene with or without facemasks seemed to reduce influenza transmission, but the differences compared with the control group were not significant.â https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19652172/
âHand hygiene with or without facemasks seemed to reduce influenza transmission, but the differences compared with the control group were not significant.â https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19652172/
Larson 2010 (RCT, N=509, Household Setting)
âThere were no significant differences in rates of infection by intervention group.â https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20297744/
âThere were no significant differences in rates of infection by intervention group.â https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20297744/
Loeb 2009 (RCT, N=446,Healthcare Setting)
âUse of a surgical mask compared with an N95 respirator resulted in noninferior rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19797474/
âUse of a surgical mask compared with an N95 respirator resulted in noninferior rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19797474/
MacIntyre 2009 (RCT, N=286, Household Setting)
âIntent-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the relative risk of ILI in the mask use groups compared with the control group.â https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/
âIntent-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the relative risk of ILI in the mask use groups compared with the control group.â https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/
MacIntyre 2015 (RCT, N=1607, Healthcare Setting)
âThis study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masksâŠwhich should not be recommended for HCWs.â https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
âThis study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masksâŠwhich should not be recommended for HCWs.â https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
MacIntyre 2011 (RCT, N=1441, Healthcare Setting)
"There wereâno significant outcomesâ related to lab-confirmed influenza/viral infection transmissions found when comparing N95s and surgical masks in a hospital setting." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/
"There wereâno significant outcomesâ related to lab-confirmed influenza/viral infection transmissions found when comparing N95s and surgical masks in a hospital setting." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/
MacIntyre 2016 (RCT, N=245, Healthcare Setting)
âA post hoc comparison between the mask versus no-mask groups showed ⊠no protective effect against ILI and laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections.â https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28039289/
âA post hoc comparison between the mask versus no-mask groups showed ⊠no protective effect against ILI and laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections.â https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28039289/
Radonovich 2019 (RCT, N=2862, Healthcare Setting)
âN95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.â https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
âN95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.â https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
Simmerman 2011 (RCT, N=1592, Household Setting) âInfluenza transmission was not reduced by interventions to promote hand washing and face mask use.â https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00205.x
Seuss 2012 (RCT, N=84, Household Setting)
âThere was no statistically significant effect of the Mask and Mask/Handwashing interventions on secondary infections.â https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/
âThere was no statistically significant effect of the Mask and Mask/Handwashing interventions on secondary infections.â https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/
Watch the masker misdirection carefully as it falls into five categories and was predicted in the thread. In each RCT the conclusion that matters is whether or not they found a statistically significant reduction in lab-verified viral respiratory infections:
1-Attack. Yes, the studies have weaknesses including compliance. But one canât ignore their firm conclusions and then magically claim the opposite conclusion with no data to support. If you think mask compliance isnât an issue in general populations, you may need to up your game.
2-Make stuff up. Contrary to masker claims, there are most definitely studies in the group that have the sick person wearing the mask and the health family members do not. Droplet capture or viral load are not new concepts that were discovered in April 2020.
3-Ignore the main conclusions based on the most science. Not one masker has acknowledged that the strongest conclusion in each paper is that there are no discernable reductions in lab-verified viral respiratory infections due to masks. I wonder why not?
4-Replace strong conclusions with weak ones (cherry picking). One study references reductions in respiratory illness. A casual reader might not understand, but this refers to self-reported runny noses and colds, not viral respiratory infections. This is irrelevant.
5-Irresponsible extrapolation. Using studies they attempt to discredit that show that there might be a small impact on self-reported runny noses, conclude that WE SHOULD MANDATE MASKS ON 8 BILLION PEOPLE to prevent viral respiratory infection transmission.
Note that I acknowledged up front in my thread that there were weaknesses in the studies due to compliance and the fact that others referenced other data from these studies, incorrectly in my view, to argue for masks. Why am I the only one that points out both sides?
Say it with me again. There is no RCT ever conducted that concludes that mask wearing makes a discernable difference on reducing lab-verified respiratory viral infections. If this were a pharmaceutical drug, there is no way that further clinical trials would be conducted.
ADDENDUM #2: We have another systematic RCT review published Aug 2020 by MacIntyre, the author of several underlying mask RCTs. Surprise â she concludes that masks work and offer all kinds of benefits to healthcare workers and community members. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748920301139
At least she uses the RCTs to reach this conclusion instead of ignoring them altogether. But she is guilty of ignoring that strongest, lab confirmed conclusions of ALL studies while focusing in on cherry picked subsets of data and making huge assumptions.
This is exactly what others, including the CDC, have done. This type of analysis reeks of a conclusion in search of the data instead of a balanced review. The medical profession is desperate to prove that masks work so they can force them upon you.
Regardless of her conclusions, the underlying facts have not changed: THERE ISNâT A SINGLE RCT THAT SHOWS A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN LAB-CONFIRMED VIRAL RESPIRATORY TRANSMISSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO MASK USAGE. GAME. SET. MATCH
There is hope. The Netherlands isnât recommending masks because the Minister of Medical Care says that âTHERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A MEDICAL EFFECT OF WEARING FACE MASKSâ.
They are reading the same science I have provided and came to the same conclusion. https://www.newsweek.com/netherlands-mask-policy-1522917
They are reading the same science I have provided and came to the same conclusion. https://www.newsweek.com/netherlands-mask-policy-1522917
If you think the data suggests more study is warranted, fair enough.
If you think that the existing data supports mandating masks for 8 BILLION PEOPLE including children for whom the flu is 5-10x more lethal, then you are a certifiable lunatic.
If you think that the existing data supports mandating masks for 8 BILLION PEOPLE including children for whom the flu is 5-10x more lethal, then you are a certifiable lunatic.
Open up the studies and read them. They arenât perfect because real science is complicated. We looked for the benefit and cannot find it. Focus on actual verifiable outcomes, ignore the cherry picking and never trust another MD or politician that says âFollow the Scienceâ.
More sanity coming from Europe on the real science behind masks. I guess these folks are all crazy right wing nutjobs for Trump who don't care about human lives as well https://fee.org/articles/europes-top-health-officials-say-masks-arent-helpful-in-beating-covid-19/
