Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthles

[SAN compnerd]

The diapers most of us are wearing on our face most of the time apparently have no effect at stopping Covid-19. This explains a lot.

Conclusion
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

https://americanconservativemovement.com/2021/04/17/stanford-study-quietly-published-at-nih-gov-proves-face-masks-are-absolutely-worthless-against-covid/

[as_rocketman]

Dupe.

The "study" is worthless. Also the article you cited is incorrect -- it was not peer-reviewed. The publication it appears in is specifically set up without peer-review on purpose. Even the slightest bit of background would have found this.

So, not impressed.

[Creampuff]

Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid

Stating that the study was published at the NIH, is like saying the local government endorses the Bible because there is a Bible at the library. NCBI/Pubmed is a journal repository.

Anticipating - oh no Duenor junior comments. The irony is I believe there is a government overreaction. I also believe paths are being created that will allow for greater socialist control of our society because of what has transpired over the past year. I also believe there should be some questions posed. What exactly are the transmission rate of Covid in symptomatic mask/mask, no mask/no mask, and mask/no mask? What exactly are the transmission rate of covid with vaccinated no mask/no mask and mask /mask etc? Plenty of questions. Question everything.

BUT Don't use bad articles to back up ideas.

[SPUTTER]

Just utilizing a little redneck common sense would tell you the mask is a joke but this is California were the brain don't function.

[SAN compnerd]

Dupe.

The "study" is worthless. Also the article you cited is incorrect -- it was not peer-reviewed. The publication it appears in is specifically set up without peer-review on purpose. Even the slightest bit of background would have found this.

So, not impressed.

I understand you are not talking aout the NCBI government website since the paper looks to have been published by Elsevier Public Health Emergency Collection.

On the Elfevier website under the Guide for Authors section it says the following:

Papers submitted to Public Health are carefully reviewed in the first instance by one of the Editors. Papers that do not meet editorial needs; are methodically flawed; or lack originality will be rejected. We will also reject papers that fail to provide sufficient ethical approval where required (see section 9.3) and we shall refer papers back for revision prior to any review if they do not comply with Journal style.

Papers which pass the Editorial review will be sent out to peer-review and will be reviewed by at least two external reviewers (short communications will only be sent to one reviewer). Reviewers are asked to consider whether the paper: contains new research findings or information; is relevant to public health practice, is technically sound; and is suitably presented.

Not sure I understand what it is that you are trying to say. Please expand on what you have said and perhaps provide a source.

[LBDamned]

Just utilizing a little redneck common sense would tell you the mask is a joke but this is California were the brain don't function.

This.

[as_rocketman]

I understand you are not talking aout the NCBI government website since the paper looks to have been published by Elsevier Public Health Emergency Collection.

Before I answer in detail I should clarify that peer review is a process, not a guarantee -- the fact a paper is peer reviewed does not mean it is correct, and a paper that isn't peer reviewed might still be of high quality and accuracy. In these benighted times I have often referred to preprints, subjected to but not yet passing such review.

As shown in the other thread, this paper is unarguably wrong regardless of how it was reviewed. But I wanted to point out that the paper's provenance was presented in a misleading fashion as well.

The communication in question was sent to Elsevier's "Medical Hypotheses" Open Journal, which is somewhat infamous in science for its "non-traditional" review. The result was a shocking array of low-quality articles, as documented in Nature. They had promised to change that after 2010 but as anyone can see it was ineffective. If you dig a little deeper you will find they position the imprint as "not conventionally peer reviewed." This is not the same as peer reviewed.

I had hoped this sort of quackery had been stomped out -- but Elsevier is particularly bad in this respect. About once every couple of months I receive professional invitations to join their "editorial staff" of one of these, which is really nothing more than a pyramid scheme, as such "journals" work on pay-to-publish models, offering discounts for becoming an editor. Perhaps the worst of all offenders was the Bentham Open Journals, which I only knew of because -- apart from extending several such "offers" to me -- they became prominent in 9/11 denial.

Anyway, it is probably more correct to state that Medical Hypotheses claims it is peer reviewed, and lazy reprinters such as the website you cited fell for it -- this is understandable, I guess.

I have no problem with Elsevier publishing this, but I have a lot of problem with them blurring the edges of peer review, and I will heap scorn upon them for producing such a shoddy and attention-grabbing article. It is not hard to find problems with it.

ETA: Here is a much longer article advocating for "editorial review," as practiced here. I can respect their opinions and I am not pro-censorship. But I am pro-honesty. Elsevier should do a better job explaining exactly what sort of article they're offering here.

[Creampuff]

OK, I'm multitasking now, and while I am waiting for the so called "paint to dry" I had a chance to read this article. Here are just 5 errors so far. And I've only gone through one section.

Vainshelboim is the author of this hypothesis
Error 1

According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)]

But it is very well established that viruses do not survive naked. They have to be in droplet or aerosol form. It is not exactly clear whether Sars-Cov2 is droplet or aerosol. 2020 has made us rethink this principle. It is probably a little of everything, droplet at close distance but there may be some aerosol component. For simplicity sake let's say the droplet is 5 um.

The very article, Vainshelboim cites, actually states this (citation #25). His own citation contradicts his claim that masks cannot filter out the droplet size.

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0195-6701%2821%2900007-4

We find that cotton, natural silk, and chiffon can provide good protection, typically above 50% in the entire 10 nm to 6.0 μm range,provided they have a tight weave. Higher threads per inch cotton with tighter weaves resulted in better filtration efficiencies.

Error 2

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2

Citation #26, does not make that claim. The reason virus was not detected was not due to mask/no masks, it was because they did not allow enough sampling duration. Furthermore their conclusion contradicts Vanshelboim

The major limitation of our study was the large proportion of participants with undetectable viral shedding in exhaled breath for each of the viruses studied. We could have increased the sampling duration beyond 30min to increase the viral shedding being captured, at the cost of acceptability in some participants

Our findings indicate that surgical masks can efficaciously reduce the emission of influenza virus particles into the environment in respiratory droplets, but not in aerosols12. Both the previous and current study used a bioaerosol collecting device, the Gesundheit-II (G-II)12,15,19, to capture exhaled breath particles and differentiated them into two size fractions, where exhaled breath coarse particles >5 μm (respiratory droplets) were collected by impaction with a 5-μm slit inertial Teflon impactor and the remaining fine particles ≤5 μm (aerosols) were collected by condensation in buffer. We also demonstrated the efficacy of surgical masks to reduce coronavirus detection and viral copies in large respiratory droplets and in
aerosols (Table 1b). This has important implications for control of COVID-19, suggesting that surgical face masks could be used by ill people to reduce onward transmission.

Error 3

A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs

Citation #28

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

This article makes no such claim. They simply state that an n95 wasn't more effective than a surgical mask for influenza like illness, this was a 2016 article. That brings up a good question. Is there a difference in response to n95 vs surgical? But Vanshelboim does not ask that. He only states masks make no difference. The reference does not claim that.

Error 4

recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings

Citation 29

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.7326/M20-3213

The article never claims the above. Rather that the limitation of their study is there is data lacking for Sar Cov2.

Here is their real claim:

Limitations:
There were few SARS-CoV-2 studies, observational studies have methodological limitations, and the review was done by using streamlined methods.
Conclusion:
Evidence on mask effectiveness for respiratory infection prevention is stronger in health care than community settings. N95 respirators might reduce SARS-CoV-1 risk versus surgical masks in health care settings, but applicability to SARS-CoV-2 is uncertain.

Error 5

The meta-analytic results were based on only one COVID-19, one MERS and 8 SARS studies, resulting in high selection bias of the studies and contaminationof the results between different viruses. Based on four COVID-19 studies, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate risk reduction of facemasks for COVID-19 transmission, where the authors reported that the results of meta-analysis have low certainty and are inconclusive

Citation 30:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311429

The article never stated the results are low certain and inconclusive. It was that the sample size was too small and there needed to be more trials involving Sar Cov2

[tsmithson]