Wir sind mitten im Zerfallsprozess

Sharing is caring:

Wenn Wissenschaftler kleinlaut ihre Angst gestehen, bevor sie ihre seriöse Arbeit auf einer renommierten Wissenschaftsplattform veröffentlichen, wird klar: die Lage ist ernst.

Es ist zwar noch nicht alles verloren, aber die Hoffnung schwindet zusehends, wenn die Gesellschaft nicht bald aufwacht aus der Illusion, dass schon alles seinen richtigen Gang nimmt. Hier die Übersetzung der Einführung einer Zusammenstellung von 8 Peer Reviews von Pubmed.gov, veröffentlicht auf globalresearch.ca

Wie seltsam es auch scheinen mag: wir sind nervös, diesen Bericht zu schreiben. Nervös, Google, Twitter, Facebook etc. könnten unsere Website als “weniger vertrauenswürdig” oder ähnliches betrachten. Nervös, weil wir sehr wohl Opfer der Internet-Zensur werden könnten, die von Technologiegiganten wie Google et al. verübt wurde, weil sie ein so heißes Thema mit einem Hauch von Skepsis berührt haben. Wir sind nervös, weil wir bevorstehende Angriffe der sogenannten “Faktenprüfer” befürchten. Angriffe auf unseren guten Namen, weil wir uns weigern, die Faktenlage zu diesem Thema von akutem öffentlichen Interesse zu verwässern. In der Tat leben wir in einer seltsamen Zeit, in der offene Diskussionen über äußerst wichtige Fragen der öffentlichen Gesundheit tabu wurden. Die autoritäre Zensur wurde zu unserer neuen Normalität. Während Behörden auf der ganzen Welt Gesichtsmasken vorschreiben, ist es uns weiterhin untersagt, ihre Vor- und Nachteile zu erörtern. Daher verzichten wir in diesem Artikel darauf, unsere eigenen “nicht sachkundigen” Meinungen in diese Debatte einzubeziehen. Wir vermeiden es, den sogenannten Experten für Mainstream-Medien mit eigenen Gesichtspunkten entgegenzutreten. Stattdessen präsentieren wir einfach 8 von Experten begutachtete akademische Studien zu chirurgischen und Stoffmasken, die auf PubMed.gov veröffentlicht wurden. und lassen Sie den Leser Ihre eigenen Schlussfolgerungen ziehen.

Rez Karim, Global Research, 2020

The studies are:

1. PMID: 19216002


Objective: Health care workers outside surgical suites in Asia use surgical-type face masks commonly. Prevention of upper respiratory infection is one reason given, although evidence of effectiveness is lacking.

Results: 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).

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.

2. PMID: 20092668

Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review

Objective: Many national and international health agencies recommended the use of face masks during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. We reviewed the English-language literature on this subject to inform public health preparedness.

Results: There is some 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 virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.

Conclusion: Further studies in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

3. PMID: 22188875


Objective: There are limited data on the use of masks and respirators to reduhce transmission of influenza. A systematic review was undertaken to help inform pandemic influenza guidance in the United Kingdom.

Results: Six of eight randomised controlled trials found no significant differences between control and intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene; N95/P2 respirators)…. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies found that mask and/or respirator use was independently associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)….however, these estimates were derived from the analyses of six SARS studies whose methodology was problematic.

Conclusion: None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection…. There is a limited evidence base to support the use of masks and/or respirators in healthcare or community settings.

4. PMID: 15340662


Objective: This study investigated the physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis (HD) on patients with ESRD.Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence

Results: Thirty nine patients (23 men; mean age, 57.2 years) were recruited for participation in the study. Seventy percent of the patients showed a reduction in partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), and 19% developed various degrees of hypoxemia.

Conclusion: Wearing an N95 mask for 4 hours during HD significantly reduced PaO2 and increased respiratory adverse effects in ESRD patients.

5. PMID: 32406064

Short-term skin reactions following use of N95 respirators and medical masks

Objective: To analyze the short-term effects of N95 respirators and medical masks, respectively, on skin physiological properties and to report adverse skin reactions caused by the protective equipment.

Results: Skin hydration, TEWL, and pH increased significantly with wearing the protective equipment. Erythema values increased from baseline. Sebum secretion increased both on the covered and uncovered skin with equipment-wearing.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that skin biophysical characters change as a result of wearing a mask or respirator. N95 respirators were associated with more skin reactions than medical masks.

6. PMID: 32285928 (full Paper on ViaMedica Journals)

Cloth masks versus medical masks for COVID-19 protection

Objective: Global shortage of medical masks is a real and expanding problem. In turn, there is growing availability on the market of cloth masks. This is a study on the comparison of the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in the context of viral infections.

Results: Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%). A consequence of the above penetration is also a higher risk of critical care illness, the influenza- -like illness is more significant in the cloth mask group than in the medical mask. Moreover, the rate of confirmation of laboratory-confirmed viruses was also much higher for cloth masks than for medi- cal masks or groups that did not wear any mask.

Conclusion: Cloth masks don’t protect as well as medical masks. Moreover, the physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk, since, as it indicated by Osterholm et al. [7] the virus may survive on the surface of the face- masks. In this context self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention [8].

7. PMID: 25903751



Results: The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm…. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.


8. PMID: 32513410

A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers

Objective: It is debatable whether asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carriers are contagious. We report here a case of the asymptomatic patient and present clinical characteristics of 455 contacts, which aims to study the infectivity of asymptomatic carriers.

Results: The median contact time for patients was four days and that for family members was five days…. The blood counts in most contacts were within a normal range. All CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test.

Conclusion: In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.


So, do masks work? Well, as shown in studies #1#2 and #3 above, the claim ‘masks prevent viral infections’ remains far from settled. All three papers point to a lack of conclusive studies demonstrating the effectiveness of face masks in preventing viral infections. It’s also important to note that studies #2 and #3 specifically examine all available peer reviewed papers on face masks efficacies; and they both unanimously state that no study established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against viral infections.

Moreover, as we can see from studies #1#4 and #5, negative and harmful side effects of mask usage remain undeniable. From headaches, skin reactions to hypoxemia, prolonged use of masks carries inescapable harmful consequences.

Furthermore, authorities around the world recommend we use cloth masks. On its face, considering the potential shortage of surgical and N95 masks, this recommendation seems reasonable. However, when we examine studies done specifically on cloth masks, we quickly realize not only do cloth masks offer almost no conclusive benefits against viral spreads (upto 97% particles penetration), usage of cloth masks may also introduce considerable risk of doing more harm than good. As demonstrated in studies #6 and #7, using cloth masks can actually make it more likely that someone would catch viral infections.

Besides, the entire premise of mask mandates rests upon the notion of ‘spread by asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers’; that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers can and do spread the virus. Yet, we can see from study #8 that infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers appears anything but certain. In fact, the study could not find a single infection occurring among 455 contacts of asymptomatic COVID19 patients.

So, do masks really work? Should we all wear them? Well, this article didn’t set out to make any recommendations for or against using face masks. However, judging from the peer-reviewed science documented above, no one in their right mind should make bold recommendations to use face masks; specially not cloth masks and definitely not for prolonged periods of time. And therefore, making them mandatory would simply seem insane to any sane person. Yet, all mainstream media outlets zealously recommend face masks and cloth masks with prophetic confidence. And due to surgical and N95 masks shortage, authorities, in essence, mandate cloth masks for millions around the world.

Even a large portion of the general public have been conditioned so effectively by the mainstream media and the medical authorities, that they often display a form of panic driven hysteria upon seeing someone not wearing a mask. Yet, anyone following legitimate published science can easily come to a very logical – and sensible – conclusion to not wear masks to prevent viral infections.

Therefore, instead of asking: do masks work? perhaps we should be asking: should masks be mandatory?



Author Rez Karim is an Electrical Engineer and Chief Editor at VitalColumns.com where this article was originally published.

Sharing is caring:

Schreibe den ersten Kommentar

Schreibe einen Kommentar
