One-Year-Old Study Claiming Ineffectiveness of COVID 'Masking' No Longer Disputed

P. Gardner Goldsmith | June 21, 2024
DONATE
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

I recall writing about the ineffectiveness of masks back in July, of 2020, even as the censorship, shadow-banning, reach-restriction and more from Big Tech and in pop media, began to clamp down on truthful, fact-based, reporting.

At the time, I noted what many others were trying to explain:

“…(T)he popular N95 mask is made to block 95 percent of particles that are .3 microns or larger in size. COVID19 is .1. As some who have been critical of mask-wearing have said, ‘Wearing an N95 to stop COVID19 is like using a chain-length fence to stop mosquitos.’ However, the mask could provide some protection against aerosolized, virus-carrying water droplets, so people continue to debate. Even the great Doctor Love of the US government, Anthony Fauci, has flipped positions on the utility of wearing masks.

There is also debate as to whether mask-wearing can increase CO2 levels in the blood. Ohio State Rep Nino Vitale (R) tested masks for oxygen levels just outside the mouth and nose, and found that all of the suggested masks reduce oxygen for those wearing them to levels lower than ‘OSHA safe’.

Dr. P. Raghu Ram, President of The Association of Surgeons of India, has explicitly warned people NOT to wear masks when exercising.”

That was nearly four years ago. Many of you likely fought mask mandates, avoided shops that conformed to masking mandates, and saw the absurd, cult-like, behavior of many people trying to navigate the absurd “mask rules,” such as wearing a mask from the door of a restaurant to the table, then being able to take off the mask to eat – all while knowing that, on the box of an N-95 mask brand, the maker explicitly tells people it is not to be used as protection against COVID-19.

While many people acted like slaves – some of us kept fighting, and one such person was Dr. Tom Jefferson.

Though sharing a name with the Founding Father, the contemporary Jefferson is not American, he is an epidemiologist, senior associate tutor at the University of Oxford, and is the lead author of a January, 2023, meta-analysis for Cochrane Collaborative Review showing that mask-use offered little to no benefit in stopping the virus.

The January release was, in fact, an update from a November, 2020 review of data, data that offered similar lessons.

But Dr. Jefferson and his colleagues were – of course – attacked. In fact, the Cochrane Editor-in-Chief not only kowtowed to the harridan harangues,  but contributed to the unwarranted slights of Dr. Jefferson.

But now, the editor and others are backing-off. How strange…

Steve Piper reports for Just the News:

“Fifteen months after caving to pro-mask public figures by applying a scarlet letter to its research questioning the effectiveness of masks against influenza and COVID-19 – over the strident objections of its authors, whose critics declared victory – a U.K.-based international research collaborative funded by American taxpayers has reached an anticlimactic conclusion.

The collaborative, Cochrane, said it will not require the authors of ‘Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses,’ an ongoing 18-year systematic review last updated in January 2023, to revise the ‘plain language summary and abstract’ despite Editor-in-Chief Karla Soares-Weiser claiming the study had been ‘widely misinterpreted’ as ‘masks don't work.’"

Now, after appearing to question the meta-study, Soares-Weiser and the Cochran publishing arm will allow it to stand, as published.

Related: Fauci Emails Suggest He and NIH Director Collins Coordinated Attack On Dissenting Scientists | MRCTV

But the damage has been done.

Not only is the reputation of the Cochran collaborative in shambles because of its needless claim that the authors would be required to “revise” their work – when the revisions were not necessary – but also, Dr. Jefferson already has pointed out that these kinds of politically-pressed delays and needless attacks slowed the flow of useful information and gave it the dark patina of being incorrect or dangerous.

In a February, 2023, interview with The Brownstone Institute, Dr. Jefferson offered details concerning the delays, and why they were harmful to people.

“Governments had bad advisors from the very beginning… They were convinced by non-randomised studies, flawed observational studies. A lot of it had to do with appearing as if they were ‘doing something.’ 

In early 2020, when the pandemic was ramping up, we had just updated our Cochrane review ready to publish…but Cochrane held it up for 7 months before it was finally published in November 2020.

Those 7 months were crucial. During that time, it was when policy about masks was being formed. Our review was important, and it should have been out there.”

This should not be forgotten, because it not only pertains to the mask mandates, it also sheds light on the increased risk presented to society by politically-pushed false notions and efforts to censor scientific claims that differ from them.

Such faulty information can inspire people to engage in riskier behavior than they might have if they were fully informed about mask effectiveness and studies regarding COVID-19.

This “end” of the conflict at Cochran not only redeems Dr. Jefferson, it sheds light on the importance of getting political pressures out of science and setting media free, allowing us to share, debate, and investigate information as we see fit.

Follow MRCTV on X!