Nice try at creating your own f**e news. Did you even read this document, which is a compilation of several studies that tested whether N-95 or surgical masks were better at stopping medical professionals from getting the flu or a cold from patients when the patients were not wearing masks. What the studies showed is that there is not a big difference in the protection afforded the wearer from getting the v***s from unmasked patients between an N-95 mask and a surgical mask.

None of these studies support that masks do not work. None of the studies, except for one, were studies between medical professionals with one group wearing masks and the second not wearing them. The one study that looked at mask versus no-mask indeed showed a very large difference, proving that masks do work.

And none of these studies even looked at how effective masks were when worn by the patient. All these studies were of health care workers in clinical settings seeing multiple sick patients daily. None of them dealt with mask use by the public and in public. Although one does clearly state that masks provide protection by limiting the ability of infected people to spread that infection to others.

So you just quoted a bogus paper that quotes multiple studies, none of which support what this quack doctor wrote about, but which do support that masks do help stop the spread of colds and the flu, exactly the opposite of what you are trying to claim. Go back and read the seven studies quoted in the paper and see for yourself.

Actually, I pulled them for you.

Wanna try again to say that masks do not work? Maybe find some studies that actually support your position instead of ones like these that actually say the exact opposite of your position.

Here ya go, ENJOY!

Study 1:
Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study.

Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

Study 2: There is evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza v***s t***smission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.

Study 3:
Although N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against t***smissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.

Study 4: We identified 6 clinical studies (3 RCTs, 1 cohort study and 2 case–control studies) and 23 surrogate exposure studies. In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of getting laboratory-confirmed respiratory infections from their patients.

Study 5: Continuous Respiratory Personal Protective Equipment Use vs No Respiratory Personal Protective Equipment: Two RCTs compared respiratory infection risk in HCWs wearing rPPE continuously to convenience-selected controls wearing no rPPE [24] or following routine care [23]. Wearing a medical mask or N95 respirator throughout the work shift conferred significant protection against self-reported clinical respiratory illness (CRI) (RR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.46–0.77) (Figure 2A) and influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.14–0.82) (Figure 2B). Meta-analysis suggested a protective, but nonstatistically significant, effect against laboratory-confirmed v***l infections (VRI) (RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.47–1.03) (Figure 2C).

Study 6: While laboratory studies designed to achieve 100% intervention adherence have shown that N95 filtering facepiece respirators are more efficacious than medical masks at reducing exposure to aerosols,5 comparative clinical effectiveness studies have been inconclusive.3,4,6 Some experts argue that N95 respirators and medical masks are equivalent in clinical settings.

Study 7: The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a
lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be rec-
ommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff that are not in close contact with
influenza patients or suspected patients.

I quote from the article:

Masks and respirators do not work.

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 t***smitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about v***l respiratory diseases: The main t***smission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests – kind of like you Wildlandfirefighter. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Conclusion Regarding That Masks Do Not Work
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 (more on this below).

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.

Precautionary Principle Turned on Its Head with Masks
In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic, and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks. In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

Then the article goes into a scientific explanation of the Physics and Biology of V***l Respiratory Disease and of Why Masks Do Not Work in order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, all of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results [because]:

• Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.
• Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.
• Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).
• The results would not be t***sferable, because of differing cultural habits.
• Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.
• Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.
• Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
• Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
• Several different pathogens (v***ses and strains of v***ses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a v***l respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.

Otherwise, what is the point of publicly funded science?

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Ridiculous, nothing in what you copied form his paper is even supported in any of the studies he used, so it is all BS. He has a PhD in Physics, not medicine, and he is a crackpot.

Not one single thing that he states in this information you copied above is even analyzed in the seven scientific studies he uses. Read them yourself again, its all unsupported BS. Tons of studies have shown the exact opposite and we see the results all around the world. The main thing the good doctor has been famous for has been his crazy c*****e c****e denier theories. He is about as trustworthy as Trumpy.

Did you know that yesterday the state of Texas with a population of 29 million had more new c****-** cases than populations of Asian countries that use masks religiously that totals 2.6 billion. That means by using masks and social distancing, these countries are getting one new case for every 90 new cases that Texas gets. That 2.6 billion is also getting one new case for every 600 new cases we are getting here in the US.

Yeah, there is plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence that throws all of this out the window. How much do you think hospitals spend of masks and other protective clothing each year. Gee whiz, if indeed masks don't work, do you think the hospitals, which are nearly all for profit businesses, would still be buying them........LUDICROUS.

Stop the lies, they won't help us get out of this mess.

From USA Today and the AZ Republic News:

Snarky signs aren't anything new for Phoenix vintage shop Antique Sugar, but a recent notice asking customers to wear a mask hit a nerve online.

A photo of the sign ricocheted around the internet, racking up thousands of shares in just one day after Antique Sugar owner Sarah Bingham posted it to her personal Facebook account Monday morning.

She'd typed out the requirement in bold typeface on four sheets of printer paper, respectfully asking patrons to wear a mask or postpone their visit.

"We'll be happy to debate the efficacy of masks with you when this is all over and you come in to sell your dead grandmother's clothes," it said.

Lol you like that little fella line don't ya hah. I laugh every time I see it.

You know that in a herd, the weakest, dumbest and those that are asleep are always the preferred and easiest prey. Those are the ones that Trump has been able to catch and con.

So tell be oh wise one, If you think Biden is so bad, and you don't agree with Trump, just who are you planning to v**e for.

Cause if you are planning to v**e for Trump everything you had said in this conversation has been a lie and you continue to be dishonest.

If you are supporting Trump, regardless of if its because you love him or because you h**e Biden, it doesn't really matter now does it. Bottom line is you will be v****g for Trump. So how about having the courage to just come out and say it.

If I am wrong, please do tell who you are going to v**e for, or are you just going to stay home and let the chips fall as they may?

Really, help me stop being "thick" and let your se******n out of the bag. Its totally non-binding. You can change your mind before November. Who are you for in this race?

You seem to be kinda straddling the fence right now. That's OK too, just come out and say it and clear the air.

So what's the t***h Rose?

Lol you like that little fella line don't ya hah. I laugh every time I see it.

You know that in a herd, the weakest, dumbest and those that are asleep are always the preferred and easiest prey. Those are the ones that Trump has been able to catch and con.

So tell be oh wise one, If you think Biden is so bad, and you don't agree with Trump, just who are you planning to v**e for.

Cause if you are planning to v**e for Trump everything you had said in this conversation has been a lie and you continue to be dishonest.

Ridiculous, nothing in what you copied form his paper is even supported in any of the studies he used, so it is all BS. He has a PhD in Physics, not medicine, and he is a crackpot.

Not one single thing that he states in this information you copied above is even analyzed in the seven scientific studies he uses. Read them yourself again, its all unsupported BS. Tons of studies have shown the exact opposite and we see the results all around the world. The main thing the good doctor has been famous for has been his crazy c*****e c****e denier theories. He is about as trustworthy as Trumpy.

Did you know that yesterday the state of Texas with a population of 29 million had more new c****-** cases than populations of Asian countries that use masks religiously that totals 2.6 billion. That means by using masks and social distancing, these countries are getting one new case for every 90 new cases that Texas gets. That 2.6 billion is also getting one new case for every 600 new cases we are getting here in the US.

Yeah, there is plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence that throws all of this out the window. How much do you think hospitals spend of masks and other protective clothing each year. Gee whiz, if indeed masks don't work, do you think the hospitals, which are nearly all for profit businesses, would still be buying them........LUDICROUS.

Stop the lies, they won't help us get out of this mess.

From USA Today and the AZ Republic News:

Snarky signs aren't anything new for Phoenix vintage shop Antique Sugar, but a recent notice asking customers to wear a mask hit a nerve online.

A photo of the sign ricocheted around the internet, racking up thousands of shares in just one day after Antique Sugar owner Sarah Bingham posted it to her personal Facebook account Monday morning.

She'd typed out the requirement in bold typeface on four sheets of printer paper, respectfully asking patrons to wear a mask or postpone their visit.

"We'll be happy to debate the efficacy of masks with you when this is all over and you come in to sell your dead grandmother's clothes," it said.