clinical trials that are peer reviewed that prove masks work?

Watch this video... THIS, is reality... and the reality is, while trying to prove that face masks DO WORK, the subject of the video proves face masks DO NOT WORK.

EVERY SINGLE PARTICLE OF MOISTURE in the breath vapor, has the capacity to carry scores of SARS Cov2 virus within it. The masks might be a close proximity shield for interactions of a few seconds, but THEY DO NOT STOP THOUSANDS OF VIRUS PARTICLES FROM FORMING A CLOUD AROUND A LIVING HUMAN BEING.

Water Vapor Depiction of Face Mask Efficacy

Oh, I'm sure you can find a ton of correlative date, but no actual clinical trials.

There are a few categories of "Evidence", but no proper peer reviewed experimental studies

1. There are reviews of data (not a true study) collected in uncontrolled environments that have no controls for how/when/who washed vs. distances vs. masked nor the environment where it took place.

2. There are experiments that do show definitive reduction in certain sized particles at certain discharges with a new mask. In no way will any credible data scientist go on record as saying this means covid transmission is also reduced (the data says otherwise). We know it is aerosolized, so basically it doesn't care.

3. There are other experiments that show an aerosolization process happen when the masks are loaded that actually increase micro particle discharge

4. There is an impossible (yes impossible) task of trying to decouple the effects of distancing, hand washing, sanitizer, and masks rendering any "conclusions" to the state of guesses. In fact the one major review (not study) showed that distancing is the main factor by about a third more than masks.

5. The resultant data from getting the disease is tracked -- deaths and hospitalizations. There does not appear to be any correlation in any data suggesting areas with high mask use have a lower transmission rate than those that don't.

The simple answer is they make some people feel safe. If they were told there isn't a lot you can do about getting it, they would be despondent and/or panic.

The reality is the virus doesn't care about your mask. If it is your time, you ARE getting it even if you stay home in your bubble. It will sneak in on your prescription bottle that the pharmacist forgot to wipe down.

originally posted by: Skooter_NB

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: bastion
...
The Lancet study and meta-analysis of 216 trials

Never forget. The NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) did the same thing, as did the organization known as VA (Veteran Affairs):

The NEJM and their lying marketing activities are alluded to by Dr. Raoult in the video I shared in my previous comment in this thread.

The multitudes of videos from the same people just talking into a camera without any backup from the medical community. I don't know why people continue to believe someone just talking to a camera.

Masks work if done properly. Most people don't do masks properly.

You missed the point. I hope it wasn't deliberate. I wasn't making a point about masks by sharing those videos. I was responding to someone using a link to a Lancet publication without a proper disclaimer concerning their (scientific) integrity and the integrity of their editors who give their stamp of approval on marketing reports/attempts posing as scientific publications (often wrongly viewed as 'peer review'). I am speaking of course about the publication discussed in the first video, retracted later by the Lancet after the marketing and political purposes of that publication were already accomplished (and the media already ran with it, giving their audience the impression that this was a reliable scientific paper, reliable information; often emphasizing the prestige and reputation of The Lancet journal).

I agree with you that masks work. Thus I don't even disagree with the general message about masks presented in the publication that was linked by the one I was responding to. I wasn't even insinuating that this particular publication is untrustworthy or more akin to a marketing report/attempt. I just feel that the Lancet should not get away with what they've done concerning the topic of HCQ, they should not come away scot-free, with people posting links to their publications as if nothing ever happened concerning their (scientific) integrity; as if their prestige in the scientific community is completely untarnished.

That's what my remark about "never forget" was all about. Don't forget what kind of source this truly is and where their priorities lie when push comes to shove (in marketing, not true science). When a choice needs to be made between the science, and whatever picture financially influential parties may want to paint on the science, and want to see published, pulling the strings behind the scenes by shaping the research and accompanying public opinion (especially the public opinion within the community of medical researchers, who can easily be influenced by their collegues in Big Pharma and Big Health Care with succesful careers because they follow the party line of those financially influential parties in the entire health sector).

Trying to denigrate Dr. Raoult's medical expertise by including him in your description of "people just talking into a camera without any backup from the medical community" is a bit lame anyway. Dr. Raoult has a lot of backup from the medical community in his area. He is possibly France's foremost expert on infectuous diseases after all. And he's in charge of his own little medical community as head of the team working on the Corona problem at IHU Marseille (his hospital), including the treatment of thousands of Corona patients. The 1st video I was referring to in my 2nd comment, which can be found in my 1st comment on page 1, mentions:

"His laboratory employs more than 200 people, including 86 researchers who publish between 250 and 350 papers per year..."

The playlist I linked on page 1, also includes videos from Dr. Mobeen encouraging the use of masks as part of a larger approach to tackling the Corona problem (also including the use of HCQ, Azithromycin, zinc, vitamin C and D3*; minus the azithromycin if we're talking about a prophylactic/preventive treatment. *: which is the main subject of that playlist and its factual results in the field).

Here it is (the mask-thing is mentioned after 2:10):

In context:

COVID-19 Hydroxychloroquine Mechanism of Action, Functions & Effects as an immune system enhancer (playlist)

a reply to: Brassmonkey

CDC Summer 2020 Study: 8 out of 10 people in the hospital with Covid-19 say they wore a mask most or all the time masking was required.

Source: californiaglobe.com...

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
The playlist I linked on page 1, also includes videos from Dr. Mobeen encouraging the use of masks as part of a larger approach to tackling the Corona problem (also including the use of HCQ, Azithromycin, zinc, vitamin C and D3*; minus the azithromycin if we're talking about a prophylactic/preventive treatment. *: which is the main subject of that playlist and its factual results in the field).

Here it is (the mask-thing is mentioned after 2:10):

In context:

COVID-19 Hydroxychloroquine Mechanism of Action, Functions & Effects as an immune system enhancer (playlist)

edit: Perhaps it's a good thing anyway to see my 2nd comment in this thread in light of my 1st comment (concerning what I said about masks and how exactly I tied it into the subject of HCQ).

originally posted by: flice

Åndedræts- værn = Mouth guard, like the ones you get at a hardware store.
Stofmasker = Cloth masks
Stof, 3 lag, polyester og bomuld = Cloth, 3 layers, polyester and cotton

Interestingly enough, it shows that the 3-layered cotton mask was the worst for fine particles and 2nd worst for large particles.

CE marked masks performed best and interestingly the FFP masks were as good and sometimes better than the surgical masks. However they cost a fortune over here...

So how does a "stofmasker" (dust mask in Dutch) from the hardware store with a CE label saying FFP3 fit in? That's the one I managed to buy back in April (the only type left), long before masks became mandatory in my country and when our Fauci and all the so-called "experts" were pretty much arguing against the use of masks for the general public (a position most of them maintained all the way to December, when they made it mandatory, and even then our Fauci was still arguing against it by means of agnostically motivated reasoning, as if it isn't clear); when I figured that was bad and deceitful advice for the general public, especially since that advice extended to nursing homes leading to nurses who wanted to wear a mask getting in trouble with their bosses and the policy of not wearing masks for the rest of the staff (even going as far as telling them they weren't even allowed to wear masks; wonderful policy you're promoting there 'experts', on whose side are you? The public and the vulnerable or Corona? What kind of Faucian/Faustian bargain you've got going on here? ).

originally posted by: and14263
It's not really as simple or black and white as your request.

The performance of a mask may be assessed in a couple of ways. Whether the mask is to protect the wearer from particles or the mask is used to stop particles spreading from the wearer, the tests for validity are the same.

But bear in mind that a peer reviewed paper on such a topic may not exist, but certified test reports held by the manufacturers of the products DO exist in any CE/European country.

The mask fabric is tested for particle filtration efficiency and bacterial filtration efficiency. Down to around 0.3um the fabric is tested to see if it keeps out particles of such size under air pressure, and also tested to see if it keeps at bay Staphlococcus aureus bacteria (0.1um).

The current coronavirus is about 0.12um - so are these tests effective to identify if the masks provide adequate protection? Maybe not.

Do all masks need testing? This depends on the claim the manufacturer is making.

So you need to look at the relevant tests each individual type of mask has been subjected to, the claims the manufacturer is making and also the fabric used for the mask.


On the subject of 'double masks'. The theory is good. You are adding extra layers of filtering fabric, so increasing the level of protection/filtration, but it may be cumbersome.


At the end of the day, after all this is said, we must not forget that Covid-19 is not AIDS, cancer, etc it is a survivable condition which effects a VERY SPECIFIC portion of the community. Focus should be on protecting the effected members of the community and focus shouldn't be diverted from this.

No it’s really black and white. Wearing the mask does or does not stop the virus. All evidence shows it’s a placebo.

a reply to: Brassmonkey
Thank you for posting.
I think that the whole clinical trial system is a mess. Time to find another approval system.
Peer reviewed? I don't believe in it. It is mainly bureaucracy and doing business ...
Face masks? I think no one knows for sure if they work. Maybe they work because they do remind us not to touch our face all the time ... Or ... a sudden thought ... maybe they just urge us to touch our nose and face because they tickle :-)

a reply to: Rob808

Your comprehension is lacking.

The question of finding peer reviewed papers is not black and white. Peer reviewed papers do not exist for every single claim, instead, for PPE, in the main, a series of tests and inspection is used to verify claims.

You are claiming wearing a mask is a placebo? If anything, wearing a mask is to strengthen psychological control over the wearers. I don't agree that it is a placebo, something which makes the wearer benefit/not become ill.

But let's go back to your simplistic view:

Wearing the mask does or does not stop the virus.

In the multiple posts here we have already discussed how your opinion is wrong. There are multiple factors which effect whether a mask will protect or not.

Airflow
A person may wear a mask but the mask may encourage airflow through gaps, this means that when they cough, rather than the mask stopping their droplets being released into the atmosphere, it promotes the release and pushes the droplets through the gaps round the mask.

Fitment
Similar to the above point but deserves a special mention, because a mask too large, too small, too loose or placed over a beard will not be as effective as a tight fitting mask.

Layers
Not all masks are equal. A cloth mask is different from a plastic polymer mask. A double layer polymer mask is different to a four layer polymer mask.

SO to state that 'wearing a mask does or does not stop the virus' is a very simplistic view and shows a complete lack of understanding of not only physics, but I would probably go so far as to say a complete lack of understanding of how the entire world works.

a reply to: and14263

Yea well. Do we really need to tell them why surgeons wear masks during surgery when they cut you open.

a reply to: cenpuppie
Many would believe it is to protect the surgeon. But this is all down to education and the sometimes confusing topic of protecting the wearer/protecting the patient. (It is of course to protect the patient).

I do however believe that with correct hygiene (handwashing, not touching face) and correct measures (reasonable social distancing, vulnerable people stay home), there is little need for a face mask with regards to Covid-19.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Skooter_NB

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: bastion
...
The Lancet study and meta-analysis of 216 trials

Never forget. The NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) did the same thing, as did the organization known as VA (Veteran Affairs):

The NEJM and their lying marketing activities are alluded to by Dr. Raoult in the video I shared in my previous comment in this thread.

The multitudes of videos from the same people just talking into a camera without any backup from the medical community. I don't know why people continue to believe someone just talking to a camera.

Masks work if done properly. Most people don't do masks properly.

You missed the point. I hope it wasn't deliberate. I wasn't making a point about masks by sharing those videos. I was responding to someone using a link to a Lancet publication without a proper disclaimer concerning their (scientific) integrity and the integrity of their editors who give their stamp of approval on marketing reports/attempts posing as scientific publications (often wrongly viewed as 'peer review'). I am speaking of course about the publication discussed in the first video, retracted later by the Lancet after the marketing and political purposes of that publication were already accomplished (and the media already ran with it, giving their audience the impression that this was a reliable scientific paper, reliable information; often emphasizing the prestige and reputation of The Lancet journal).

I agree with you that masks work. Thus I don't even disagree with the general message about masks presented in the publication that was linked by the one I was responding to. I wasn't even insinuating that this particular publication is untrustworthy or more akin to a marketing report/attempt. I just feel that the Lancet should not get away with what they've done concerning the topic of HCQ, they should not come away scot-free, with people posting links to their publications as if nothing ever happened concerning their (scientific) integrity; as if their prestige in the scientific community is completely untarnished.

That's what my remark about "never forget" was all about. Don't forget what kind of source this truly is and where their priorities lie when push comes to shove (in marketing, not true science). When a choice needs to be made between the science, and whatever picture financially influential parties may want to paint on the science, and want to see published, pulling the strings behind the scenes by shaping the research and accompanying public opinion (especially the public opinion within the community of medical researchers, who can easily be influenced by their collegues in Big Pharma and Big Health Care with succesful careers because they follow the party line of those financially influential parties in the entire health sector).

Trying to denigrate Dr. Raoult's medical expertise by including him in your description of "people just talking into a camera without any backup from the medical community" is a bit lame anyway. Dr. Raoult has a lot of backup from the medical community in his area. He is possibly France's foremost expert on infectuous diseases after all. And he's in charge of his own little medical community as head of the team working on the Corona problem at IHU Marseille (his hospital), including the treatment of thousands of Corona patients. The 1st video I was referring to in my 2nd comment, which can be found in my 1st comment on page 1, mentions:

"His laboratory employs more than 200 people, including 86 researchers who publish between 250 and 350 papers per year..."

The playlist I linked on page 1, also includes videos from Dr. Mobeen encouraging the use of masks as part of a larger approach to tackling the Corona problem (also including the use of HCQ, Azithromycin, zinc, vitamin C and D3*; minus the azithromycin if we're talking about a prophylactic/preventive treatment. *: which is the main subject of that playlist and its factual results in the field).

Here it is (the mask-thing is mentioned after 2:10):

In context:

COVID-19 Hydroxychloroquine Mechanism of Action, Functions & Effects as an immune system enhancer (playlist)

Thanks for this full write up of where you are coming from, and what your intent was with these. I think the context was lacking, which then made me also reacting hastily.

I just have many doubts about the HCQ treatments and research (I actually take it daily for years, which had me researching quite a lot when I couldn't get it at my pharmacy because of the run on it) and believe that a lot of this research into other methods of attacking Covid is circumstantial as, with a novel virus, we need targeting attacks. Additionally, I know Raoult's got an impressive and extensive medical research history, but he jumped the gun on this and unfortunately, and again this is my opinion, didn't follow through with his research thoroughly, ending it prematurely and including discrepancies and errors in his journal report, and therefore discredited his research in my eyes.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
originally posted by: Brassmonkey
"Hey ATSers! I heard a little birdie that told me a rumor
That there NO Clinical trials that are peer reviewed that prove that masks are effective in spreading specifically the
Coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

If they exist please post the link to the actual clinical trial or study and also IT HAS TO BE PEER REVIEWED AND DUPLICATED BY OTHER SCIENTISTS."

Here you go.

www.pnas.org...

Thanks! So, as we all knew, none whatsoever...

From your linky:

"Direct Epidemiological Evidence.
Cochrane (7) and the World Health Organization (8) both point out that, for population health measures, we should not generally expect to be able to find controlled trials, due to logistical and ethical reasons, and should therefore instead seek a wider evidence base. This issue has been identified for studying community use of masks for COVID-19 in particular (9). Therefore, we should not be surprised to find that there is no RCT for the impact of masks on community transmission of any respiratory infection in a pandemic."