Report in CDC Publication: Face Masks Don't Work – WFFJ-TV News –

July 29, 2020


WFFJ-TV Home     Fort Fairfield Journal      Local Weather     MP3 Audio Files     Advertising     Contact Us


This Video Sponsored By:


Report in CDC Publication:

Face Masks Don’t Work



By:  David Deschesne

Fort Fairfield Journal, July 29, 2020


   The U.S. Centers for Disease Control published a report in their May, 2020 publication, Emerging Infectious Diseases that showed there is little evidence for face mask use or even hand washing and surface cleaning in prevention of viral transmission of influenza or, by extension, the now infamous COVID-19 coronavirus.  The report, which is entitled “Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings - Personal Protective Environmental Measures1 from the University of Hong Kong, looked at all of the available studies from 1946 through 2018, focusing on peer reviewed Randomized Control Trials (RCTs).

   The authors found 10 studies on face masks being tested for controlling viral transmission.  After reviewing the studies, the report authors stated, “Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect against accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids.  There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.  Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

   While the studies cited looked at influenza viruses, the COVID-19 coronavirus has been found to be much more infectious than influenza so face masks would even be less likely to stop its transmission.

   The CDC report summarized face mask effectiveness by stating, “In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”

   The CDC report also looked at 12 published reports on hand hygiene (frequent hand washing) and found, “Results from our meta-analysis on RCTs did not provide evidence to support a protective effect of hand hygiene against transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”  They also found  6 studies in household settings examining the effect of hand hygiene with or without face masks, “but overall pooled effect was not statistically significant.”

   The CDC researchers looked into “respiratory etiquette” (coughing or sneezing into your sleeve or elbow) as a means of reducing disease transmission.  They reported, “there is a lack of scientific evidence to support this measure.”

   The CDC also looked into excessive cleaning and disinfecting of surfaces and objects and found, “this intervention was not significant in reducing detection of influenza virus, and it had no major protective effect on acute respiratory illness.” Though, it did find some benefits in reducing transmission of gastrointestinal illness.  They also reported, “A cross-sectional study found that passive contact with bleach was associated with a major increase in self-reported influenza.”

   Amidst all this data, it is important to note that governments, and their surrogates in the media, are attempting to set up a “new normal” with a psychological warfare operation against society designed to badger people into wearing these ineffective face masks, for what some people believe will be, forever.  This fear-based habit training, similar in function to Pavlovian dog training, is the precursor to mandatory vaccination programs that are expected to be forced on the public in the near future using the same tactics.

    But, like the failure of flu vaccines to prevent people from catching the flu, are the paper and cloth face masks - and the homemade bandana masks - even effective at stopping the spread of viruses in a community setting to begin with? 

   The science continually says, “No.”

   There are at least two modern peer-reviewed reports published in reputable medical journals - and a report from the World Health Organization - which all agree with the US CDC’s findings: most face masks mandated for use in the public are largely ineffective at “stopping the spread” of viruses. Those reports, and their website links, are footnoted at the end of this story.

   While advanced respirators with N95 rating have been found to be moderately successful at filtering out virus particles, those masks are in short supply due to the fear and hype generated by hysterical theatrical media reporting on a continual basis.  Hospital workers, who are exposed to much greater viral loads in the air they breathe than a typical grocery store shopper, are finding short supply on the N95 respirators.  The CDC and WHO advise against the use of N95 for the general public in order to preserve those limited supplies for the healthcare workers who need them most.

   What most of society is being encouraged to wear under state-level mask mandates are the pleated paper, disposable surgical masks, cloth masks or homemade bandanas.  Studies have shown those masks have far less filtration than the N95 respirators and that filtration gets progressively worse from surgical to cloth, on down to bandana masks made out of handkerchiefs, which have nearly no filtration capacity at all in either direction.

   A study published in the Annals of Internal medicine in April, 2020, led by researchers in South Korea, found cloth face masks to be ineffective at stopping the spread of viruses.  In the study, patients coughed into a Petri dish without masks, while wearing disposable surgical masks and again wearing a 100% cotton mask.   According to a summary at, “Neither mask meaningfully decreased the viral load coughed onto Petri dishes.  The study also returned the odd result that most swabs from the outside of patient masks were positive for coronavirus and most from the inside were negative...The bottom line, experts say, is that masks might help keep people with COVID-19 from unknowingly passing along the virus.  But, the evidence for the efficacy of surgical or homemade masks is limited, and masks aren’t the most important protection against the coronavirus.”2

   However, that report was withdrawn by the authors soon after it was published likely due to political pressure from pro-face mask groups in government and the media.

   Surgical and cloth face masks not only do not filter out particles very efficiently, they have a lot of leakage around their sides since they don’t seal perfectly against the face.   “All of this leakage in surgical and fabric masks are why public health officials generally don’t believe that wearing a mask prevents anyone from catching a virus that is already floating around in the environment.  Airflow follows the path of least resistance,” said Rachael Jones, Associate Professor of Family and Preventative Medicine at the University of Utah, who was not associated with the research.  “If viral particles are nearby, they have an easy path around a surgical or fabric mask.  And in the case of a fabric mask, wearers may well be wafting in particles small enough to flow right through the fabric.”

   In an April, 2015 study - done 5 years before the political pressure to conform to face mask usage society-wide - researchers found similar results.

   The peer-reviewed report, entitled “A Cluster Randomized Trial of Cloth Masks Compared with Medical Masks in Healthcare Workers” and published in the medical journal, BMJ Open3 studied health care workers in 14 hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam who wore masks their entire shift to see what the differences in protection were between medical masks and cotton-based, reusable cloth masks.

   According to the authors of the report, “The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of Influenza Like Illnesses (ILI) statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm compared with the medical mask arm.  Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm.  [The control arm was healthcare workers using their normal masking protocols which may be masks or no masks throughout their shift]  An analysis by mask use showed ILI and laboratory confirmed virus 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%.”

   The researchers went on, “This study is the first Randomized Control Test (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 healthcare workers, particularly in high risk situations and guidelines need to be updated.”

   The study also found, “The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks, and modeling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks.  Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible.  For example, a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer.  We also showed that filtration was extremely poor (almost 0%) for the cloth masks...Further, the filtration of the medical mask used in this trial was poor, making extremely high efficacy of medical masks unlikely, particularly given the predominant pathogen was rhinovirus, which spreads by the airborne route.  Given the obligations to healthcare workers occupational health and safety, it is important to consider the potential risk of using cloth masks.”

   A more recent report, published in May, 2020, entitled, “Respiratory Virus Shedding in Exhaled Breath and Efficacy of Face Masks” in the journal Nature Medicine4 examined the shedding of virus particles while breathing.

   The report authors said of face masks, “Most of the existing evidence on the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro experiments with non-biological particles which may not be generizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets.  There is little information on the efficacy of face masks  in filtering respiratory viruses and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections, and most research has focused on influenza.”

   The report showed that surgical masks can reduce the emission of droplets into the environment, but not aerosols.  “There was a significant reduction by wearing face masks to 1 of 27 in detection of influenza virus in respiratory droplets, but no significant reduction in detection in aerosols.”

   These researchers also found that it was particularly difficult to capture shed virus particles from exhaling either droplets or aerosols in non-mask wearers.  “Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols...For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low.”

   Dr. Jeff Barker M.D., a board certified primary care physician in practice for over 30 years said in a recent interview on PragerU that in his personal opinion, masks have very little utility in preventing the spread of viruses.

   “The data shows clearly, if you are ill with the virus and you sneeze or cough directly into [somebody's] face, that's how they're going to get the virus,” said Dr. Barker. “There's little data to support asymptomatic spreading, meaning that you've got the virus, you have no symptoms and this visual of people walking around crop-dusting the population because you have the virus, but don't know it, just isn't accurate.”

   Other studies previously cited herein have shown masks don't work very well on influenza and cold viruses.  But,  “nobody's done studies on Covid yet but we're speculating if you wear a mask it may offer some protection,” said Dr. Barker.  “There's some false sense of security by having a mask over our face, even though there's very little scientific evidence to support that.” 

   “Aside from people who are exposed on the frontlines, there is no evidence that masks make any difference,” said Tom Jefferson, from the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University.  “But what’s even more extraordinary is the uncertainty: we don’t know if these things make any difference.”

   Carl Heneghan, also from the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, suggests mask mandates are not backed up by actual scientific data.   “By all means people can wear masks but they can’t say it’s an evidence-based decision… there is a real separation between an evidence-based decision and the opaque term that ‘we are being led by the science,’ which isn’t the evidence.”

   In a June 5, 2020 report issued by the World Health Organization entitled, “Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19”5 some very poignant facts about surgical and cloth face masks were revealed that go against the mainstream media narrative and government mask mandates.

   The report stated, “Meta-analysis in systematic literature reviews have reported that the use of N95 respirators compared with the use of medical masks is not associated with any statistically significant lower risk of the clinical respiratory illness outcomes or laboratory-confirmed influenza or viral infections.”

   As for mandating healthy people wear masks to “stop the spread” of COVI9-19, the WHO report said, “There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure of preventing transmission...At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies of COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

   The WHO report goes on to say, “Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public.  At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence.”

   The WHO reports several potential harms/damages of long-term face mask use as:

- potential for increased risk of self-contamination due to manipulation of the mask

- potential self-contamination when masks are not changed when wet or soiled

- potential headache and breathing difficulties

- potential development of face lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne

- difficulty with communicating clearly

- potential discomfort

- a false sense of security leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventative measures.

- waste management issues of proper disposal of contaminated masks

   Inadequacies in filtration of medical and cloth face masks aside, there are some legal issues arising from government mandates which attempt to force people to wear these ineffective devices while in public.

   Responding to his governor’s recent mask mandate - which is similar to many others across the U.S. - Louisiana Attorney General, Jeff Landry wrote in a legal opinion dated July 15, 2020, “I urge all law enforcement (including the Fire Marshal and other individuals acting under color of law) to exercise extreme caution when responding to calls related to violations of facemask orders.  While face coverings may be recommended, the mask mandate cannot be enforced with criminal or financial sanctions.  Furthermore, threats to a business’ occupational license or other forms of threats to the business (cutting off water or sewer service, for example) also would violate basic due process and could expose the government actor to civil liability.”

   AG Landry goes on to say, “To the extent that the order purports to deputize business owners to interrogate their customers and make on-the-spot compliance enforcement determinations, the business owners may be found to have been acting under color of state law and themselves be subjected to civil rights and/or private tort liability, spawning a significant amount of costly and distracting litigation for which hard-pressed businesses are neither prepared nor insured...The upshot of these fatally ambiguous and legally unauthorized provisions is potentially lethal.  It exposes law-abiding individuals to confrontational encounters with business owners (who fear enforcement against their own businesses) as well as encounters with police (who have been called to deal with mask-less individuals), even though the individual may be fully compliant with the order.  It exposes individuals to unlawful searches and seizures, as well as burdens them with exposing potentially sensitive personal health information and having it exposed to others in a public and disputatious setting.”

   With all of the scientific evidence on the ineffectiveness of cloth and surgical masks in community settings; and the legal ramifications of attempting to enforce illegal mask mandates, government and the mainstream theatrical media are continuing to plod along in lockstep with each other to buffalo the population into complying with mask mandate orders for what appears to be more for social programming than actual prevention of spread of any particular type of virus.

   This social programming command and control structure is likely being designed to train the population, using fear and coercion, to accept the next step in population culling and control: mandatory acceptance of toxic and potentially devastating vaccines.








See List of All Videos