Masks revisited

Public Forum
1

Last year I asked for the best evidence of whether masks were at all effective. I was sent to the 2023 Cochrane review which is supposed to be the gold standard. This review did not find a benefit to masking, but also says:

  • “There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to
    moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect
    estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the
    observed estimate of the effect… There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the
    effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and
    populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness,
    especially in those most at risk of ARIs.” *

Notably they also found no harm to wearing them, despite what I’ve heard elsewhere.

The data used is based on population studies, not individuals. I still have been unable to find anything about whether an individual person might be helped by wearing one themselves, or by their close friends or relatives wearing one when sick and in proximity.

Cochrane and The Brownstone Institute do state that if there is any benefit it is most likely only with a well-fitted N95 mask, which most people don’t use. Very valid point.

So far my conclusion would be that there might be a benefit to wearing the right mask, not for population control of viral spread, but for an individual. And that for an immune compromised individual that might be worth doing. Or if a more deadly virus comes along, it might be worth doing. Does anyone have information to refute this? I’m trying to get past the dogmatic/political positions that many have taken either for or against masks and focus only on the known science. (Which may not be enough to answer the question.)

2

Always good to look at the science when there is a new push for masks. I suppose we all have our own comfort level of risk. Exploring at alternatives like nasal sprays can also be helpful.

A starting point is this link to a previous discussion with some links https://imahealth.org/forums/groups/public-forum/forum/discussion/masks/

3

The only “respirator’ mask that I know qualifies as used in the medical field in the 3M N95 mask that has been cleared to use as a surgical mask. Using cloths masks, socks, news papers ski masks, etc have no effect on viruses. In addition the N95 respirator biological filtration certification:

Meets CDC guidelines for Mycobacterium Tuberculosis exposure control (Nothing else is mentioned on the 3M Manufacture website).

If using a filtration mask was useful in preventing exposure, then why does the CDC where $1,000.00+++ suits when investigating an outbreak? Why not use a $10 mask? So, here is what we know about Mask Filtration.

Detailed Report: Size of COVID-19 Virus and Mask Filtration Efficacy

1. Size of SARS-CoV-2 Viral Particles

The SARS-CoV-2 virus measures between 60–140 nanometers (nm) in diameter, or 0.06–0.14 microns (µm) . For context:

  • 1 micron (µm) = 1,000 nanometers (nm).

  • Most respiratory droplets expelled during coughing or speaking range from 5–10 microns .

  • Aerosols, which remain suspended in air longer, are 100 µm) but fail against aerosols:
    4 out of 5 tested surgical masks allowed ≥15% of 0.1–1 µm particles to penetrate .

  • Two brands permitted >50% penetration of virus-sized particles .

  • Moisture retention from prolonged use reduces efficacy and may increase contamination risk

C. Cloth Masks

  • Near-zero efficacy against particles ≤0.3 µm .
  • 97% particle penetration due to pore sizes vastly exceeding viral dimensions .
  • 2015 RCT: Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks had 13× higher infection rates than surgical mask users .

D. Real-World Performance

  • Danish RCT (2020): No significant reduction in COVID-19 transmission among mask wearers .
  • WHO (2020): “No direct evidence” that masks prevent viral infection in healthy individuals .
  • CDC (2023): Admitted cloth masks fail to block wildfire smoke particles (10 µm), which are 100× larger than SARS-CoV-2 .

3. Scientific and Ethical Concerns

  • Hypoxia & Toxicity: Prolonged mask use can lead to O₂ deprivation (↓17.1–18.1% under masks vs. 20.9% ambient) and CO₂ buildup (>5,000 ppm, OSHA hazard threshold) .
  • False Security: Masks may increase face-touching and improper disposal, elevating infection risk .
  • Pathogen Retention: Reused masks accumulate bacteria/viruses, with outer surfaces testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 post-coughing .

REFERENCES:

(Note: Most documents in this collection were archived via OCR. Expect some titles to be incomplete, and author names may show OCR errors from time to time. This is an unavoidable artifact of using archived knowledge.)

Science Papers:

  • “Preparation of ultrafine PZT powders by ultrasonic spray combustion synthesis (USCS)” by Sangjin Lee Byungsei Jun∗ (Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2004)
  • “Unknown” by Asif Ali Tahir, K.G.U. Wijayantha, Muhammad Mazhar, Vickie McKee (Journal of Materials Chemistry B 7(39) 2009)
  • “Production of Polystyrene Particles via Aerosolization” by SOMCHINTANA NORASETTHEKUL, AHMED M. GADALLA, and HARRY J. PLOEHNZ (Journal of Materials Science)
  • “Atmospheric deposition of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on the Lake Balaton, Hungary” by Eszter Bodna´r Jo´zsef Hlavay (Atmospheric Environment 40 (2006) 5789-5798)
  • “STUDY ON MODELS FOR MEAN DIAMETER OF AEROSOL PARTICLE FOR ANALYSIS OF RADIONUCLIDE BEHAVOUR INSIDE CONTAINMENT” by J. S. BAEK J. Y. HUH N. H. LEE J. H. JEONG J. H. CHOI (Ann. Nucl. Energy Vol. 23, No. 13, pp. 107-1090, 1996)
  • “Quantitative Morphometric Analysis of Pulmonary Deposition of Aerosol Particles Inhaled Via Intratracheal Nebulization, Intratracheal Instillation or Nose-only Inhalation in Rats” by B. K. J. Leong, J. K. Coombs, C. P. Sabaitis, D. A. Rop and C. S. Aaron (J. Appl. Toxicol. 18, 149–160 (1998))
  • “Simulation of a spray scrubber performance with Eulerian/Lagrangian approach in the aerosol removing process” by Y. Bozorgi P. Keshavarz M. Taheri J. Fathikaljahi ∗ (Journal of Hazardous Materials B137 (2006))

Books:

  • “Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns Combined Parts 1-3 Death Counts Lockdowns Alex Berenson” (author unknown)
  • “Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns Combined Parts 1-3 Death Counts Lockdowns and Masks” by Alex Berenson
  • “COVID 19 and the Agendas to Come Red Pilled” by James Perloff
  • “The Case Against Masks” by Judy Mikovits
  • “Trends-Journal-2020-07-28” (author unknown)

Articles:

4

There is a great SME on masks: Dr. Philip Buckler DDS. He is in the IMA groups, and other chats. I have some expertise too. Unless you go with N100 masks, there is little /no benefit. N95 when fitted right protect from TB bacteria for a short time. And ‘Fit’ and proper wearing is not done well DIY. Nice for people to wear any covering to cut down on the fomites they cough and sneeze out, but protecting themselves short of N100 from viruses… not helpful. Amazon.com

5

Despite some of the persuasive evidence to the contrary, I believe that a really good fitting K95 mask (with a very pliant silicone rubber seal all around the chin and cheeks and nose and under the eyes) fitted with a lab-tested insertable filter, would give protection far greater than what the typical masks that were tested in the studies that were done to “prove” ineffectiveness. I learned that a tiny pinhole in a mask would reduce its effectiveness at least by 50%. So anything that introduces a “hole” in a mask, no matter how great the mask was, such as leak under the eyes or along one’s cheeks, or if the wearer pulls her mask down under her nose, would obliterate any benefit of using that mask for protection against airborne pathogens.

6

First “N95 Truth” post followed a second post “Real Prevention” that includes the use of N95 “masks”. reduction of viral load is the goal

N95 Truth 1) scientific truth 2) real world mask testing truth 3) real world use in infected air truth

  1. “scientific” N95 Truth

A comparison of face mask and respirator filtration test methods

Samy Rengasamy,a Ronald Shaffer,a Brandon Williams,b and Sarah Smitb

“filtration efficiencies of “N95 FFRs” including six N95 FFR models and three surgical N95 FFR models, and three SM models were measured using the NIOSH NaCl aerosol test method, and FDA required particulate filtration efficiency (PFE) and bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) methods, and viral filtration efficiency (VFE) method”

“Results showed that the efficiencies measured by the NIOSH NaCl method for “N95 FFRs” were from 98.15–99.68% compared to 99.74–99.99% for PFE, 99.62–99.9% for BFE, and 99.8–99.9% for VFE methods.”

Please note; “99.8–99.9% for VFE” " viral filtration efficiency (VFE) method"

  1. the real time mask testing on a real person truth. Aaron Collins puts the mask on, simply adjusts the mask a bit for fit and tests

"Aaron Collins real time mask testing videos on you tube allow those who chose to see the Truth to see Aaron Collins put on a N95 “real category” mask and watch the reduction in total infiltration, through the mask and around the mask, in the range above 99% of the inhalation of salt test particles an average?/mean? of ~64 nanometers in diameter, in the mix of particles those 10 times smaller and twice larger. from wickedpedia "Each SARS-CoV-2 virion is 60–140 nanometres (2.4×10−6–5.5×10−6 in) in diameter

for instance - on the N95 that fits the most people the 3M 9205+ Aura mask I bought at home depot. test # 644 8/8/22 3M 9205+ Aura N95, Boat type mask, As Worn, White, Headband, 21,820 particles per cc outside the mask at the start of the test 21,720 particles per cc outside the mask at the end of the test, 70 particles per cc inside the mask for a 99.68% reduction. note the weak straps on the Aura 9205+ easily break at the staple but can be re-stapled - the Aura 9210+ has break resistant, imo better, stronger straps

also see a 99.80% reduction for the 3M 8210 Plus N95 mask, which I have been using for decades, which is very quick to put on and quickly adjust a bit for fit (if it does fit your face) just before entering potentially infectious indoor “shared air”. . There is test data / results for many other masks such as Aaron Collins’ “new favorite”, for its breathability, the 3M VFlex 9100 Series Particulate Respirators - low cost , small and standard sizes, may not be available in smaller quantities ? yet?. Aaron Collins youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/@coll0412 Data can be found here: Master Mask Testing Data Set - Google Sheets

  1. the real world British hospital system truth - showing the effectiveness of real FFP3 masks, worn by real people, in an environment with real sars-cov2 virus. note: these FFP3 are respirator grade masks. FFP3 is a european standard, it is in the N95 and better category of “real” respirator grade masks.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1663

Covid-19: Upgrading to FFP3 respirators cuts infection risk, research finds

BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1663 (Published 29 June 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n1663

"Study author Chris Illingworth from the MRC Biostatistics Unit at the University of Cambridge, said, “Before the face masks were upgraded, the majority of infections among healthcare workers on the covid-19 wards were likely because of direct exposure to patients with covid-19. Once FFP3 respirators were introduced, the number of cases attributed to exposure on covid-19 wards dropped dramatically—in fact, our model suggests that FFP3 respirators may have cut ward based infection to zero.”

Please note; " FFP3 respirators may have cut ward based infection to zero.”

https://www.authorea.com/users/421653/articles/527590-ffp3-respirators-protect-healthcare-workers-against-infection-with-sars-cov-2

“Taken together, these results suggest that the majority of cases among HCWs on green wards were caused by community-acquired infection, whereas cases among HCWs on red wards were caused by both community-acquired infection and direct, ward-based infection from patients with COVID-19, effectively mitigated by the use of FFP3 respirators.”

Please note; " effectively mitigated by the use of FFP3 respirators."

7

So far “Basic Prevention” has worked for me and kept the respiratory evils at bay.

First higher vitamin D3 levels in the 50 ng/mL to 90 ng/mL range and avoidance / isolation. Then, for instance, Before entry into infectious “shared air” - home mixed antiviral sprays. First, to inhibit viral binding, 12% xylitol best in plain filtered boiled water (a scant 1 tsp xylitol per 30 mL nasal spray bottle) sprayed into nose and mouth to saturation and need to blow your nose, then, to kill the damn virus, 0.5% povidone-iodine best in normal alkalized saline (1.5 mL of “povidone-iodine solution, 10%” per 30 mL spray bottle)- a few sprays into each nostril and mouth, inhaling deeply (repeated every ~2.5 hours?), and (you decide) a spray or two on to open eyes from a distance aiming at bridge of nose, then eyeglasses and Real 3M N95 “masks” to keep most all of “it” out. note: I have considered adding 0.1 % povidone-iodine to the plain water/xylitol spray mix as a preservative (0.3 mL of “povidone-iodine solution, 10%” per 30 mL spray bottle) but have not done so to date. In my experience it is necessary to bleach spray bottle units including cap and then rinse with sterile water before refilling to control mold growth particularly with the xylitol / plain water mix if use is less frequent between refills or weather is warm. I have not noticed any mold growth with the povidone-iodine mix but on general principles as it is quick and easy to put a tsp of bleach and a few tsp of water in the bottle screw on the spray unit and shake then and put the cap on its nozzle ajar and pump the spray to disinfect the pump, inside of the cap and outside of the nozzle.

As 2 or 3 or more volume of the xylitol spray is used - so long as no visible mold appears inside the cap or unless there is the slightest off taste I keep refilling without bleaching until the povidone-iodine mix is near empty then bleach both bottles and mix another bottle of each. note:Xylitol is also good for oral health and reduction of tooth decay and it is so easy to refill - just use a small funnel to put in the scant tsp of xylitol, and boil a bit of filtered water let it cool till warm and near fill the bottle, let it sit for a time and shake a bit to fully dissolve before spraying to prevent a clog I use birch xylitol, is it better than corn based xylitol? I do not know .

When back home - depending on perceived level of exposure - 1% regular Johnson’s baby shampoo in a normal concentration alkalized saline (1 tsp/5mL baby shampoo per 500 mL alkalized saline) for an antiviral eye wash, mouthwash and nasal flush, then nebulize a few mL of regular vodka and a few more home mixed antiviral sprays - again depending on perceived level of exposure to infectious “shared air”.

Humming at or mantra, if so inclined, given at the correct (120 to 140 hertz? (128?)) frequency to greatly increase antiviral nitric oxide production in the nasal passages.

note: NeilMed alkalized saline premixed saline mix packets are approximately 75% salt and 25% baking soda and measure about 1/2 tsp each which is added to 8 fluid ounces of water to make their “normal” concentration saline - 2 packets for hypertonic saline - heat changes baking soda - NeilMed recommends to first boil water to sterilize it then let it cool down before adding the contents of their saline mix packet. I approximate with 1/4 tsp baking soda and 3 each 1/4 teaspoons of salt added to 16 ounces of boiled water to make normal concentration alkalized saline. Baking soda raises PH. How much? PH above 6.8 inhibits viral binding to the cell. Hypertonic saline above 1.5% raises sodium concentration in the cell to the point which causes the cell to use its available energy to re-establish proper sodium balance which limits available cell energy for viral replication in the cell. Science is needed to best establish the practical ways to utilize these 2 research findings.

Two obvious applications are sufficient baking soda in a nasal spray to raise nasal PH above 6.8 to stop viral binding and nebulization of hypertonic saline to stop viral replication inside of cells throughout the respiratory system Perhaps best done after nebulization of a few mL of regular vodka to kill the accessible virus contacted by the ethanol in the vodka.

Remember to wash hands and face with soap and water after exposure to infectious “shared air”.

upon request I will post "N95 Truth 1) scientific truth 2) rea

imo BASIC PREVENTION with early treatment backup can stop pandemics within a willing, informed population - boiled water, salt, baking soda, povidone-iodine solution 10%, Johnson’s regular baby shampoo, xylitol, vodka etc. - nasal spray bottles such as Snout brand which have been reliable and a NeilMed 8 oz nasal flush bottle, a good jet nebulizer compressor nebulizer system with both child and adult size clear plastic masks to enable breathing in through both nose and mouth, eyeglasses (best with some side shielding), 3M N95’s.

note: the plug in the wall compressor of a jet nebulizer system is a bit noisy but the better ones put out a high volume and may handle a wider variety of solutions than other types of nebulizers. Perhaps a consideration when converting 1 or 2 or 3 200mg Hydroxychloroquine tablets into a nebulizer solution for immediate effect in the respiratory system vs a week to reach therapeutic levels when using pills with the use of 9.5 times less HCQ then when taking pills eliminating most all side effects.

I will post effectiveness Information from Dr Zelenko and “how to” make you own at home from David Scheim PhD as a reply here upon request.

8

For what it’s worth, and not scientific at all, Japanese and Korean people wear masks in public when they themselves are sick so as to prevent contamination of others, not to protect themselves. I suspect it helps a little.

9

This is helpful, thanks. And I wasn’t asking about Covid in particular, but all types of potential infections that an immunocompromised person has higher risk from. Those would have a wide range of particle sizes, some of which would be caught more easily than others. But it seems reasonable that some infections could be prevented.

10

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/cmr.00124-23
Conduct of Scientific Research Review 22 May 2024
Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review

Hmm… This review claims they do work, with caveats.

First, the claim that masks don’t work is demonstrably incorrect, and appears to be based on a combination of flawed assumptions, flawed meta-analysis methods, errors of reasoning, failure to understand (or refusal to acknowledge) mechanistic evidence, and limitations in critical appraisal and evidence synthesis. Masks and respirators work if and to the extent that they are well-designed (e.g., made of high-filtration materials), well-fitting and actually worn. The heterogeneity of available mask RCTs does not appear to have been fully understood by some researchers who have conducted high-profile meta-analyses of the same. It is time for the research community to move on from addressing the binary question “do masks work?” through unidisciplinary and epistemologically exclusionary study designs and pursue more nuanced and multi-faceted questions via interdisciplinary designs.

A fruitful avenue for future research, for example, would be the combination of experimental, observational and modeling data to refine our understanding of when universal masking should be introduced during respiratory epidemics and how best * to promote and support masking policies in different situations and settings, and especially for groups at increased risk, during such outbreaks. *

11

The Cochrane Collection is intellectually and morally bankrupt. See essays by Peter Gotzsche, M. D., who was a founded and who was expelled for telling the truth.