Scientific Trial Deals Massive Blow to N95 & Surgical Masks as Way to ‘Stop C-19’

Scientific Trial Deals Massive Blow to N95 & Surgical Masks as Way to ‘Stop C-19’

‘Gold Standard’ taken Down


A Randomized Control Trial (RCT), the gold standard for scientific evidence in the medical community, was released on Tuesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The results from the RCT study deal a major blow to advocates of N95 and surgical masks as effective means to “stop Covid.”

As the study details, 1009 health care workers in four countries who provided direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were given either N95 respirators or medical masks and tracked over the course of 9 weeks. The study was not able to “blind” the participants due to the visible differences in the masks.

It should be noted that two of these medical settings experienced no major reported outbreaks of Covid-19, which may skew the perceived efficacy of the masks.

The most critical and surprising finding from the study is that N95 respirators did not significantly outperform “medical masks.” The results were based on PCR test for Covid-19 infection and testing for nucleocapsid antibodies (which reveals exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus). This is a vital point for reasons that will be discussed below.

In this chart of “cumulative hazard,” which is based on a Cox Proportional-Hazards model that displays calculated risk over time, the masks performed similarly.

Beyond the cumulative hazard model, a statistical breakdown of the results are provided below.

The RT-PCR confirmed Covid-19 infections are charted above. Canada: 6.1% with medical mask, 2.2% with N95. Israel: 35.3% with Medical Mask, 23.5% with N95. Pakistan: 3.2% with medical mask, 2.1% with N95. Egypt: 35% with medical mask, 38% with N95. All sites: 10.46% with medical mask, 9.27% with N95. The disparity in reported cumulative hazard rates can be visualized below.

Beyond the results showing no substantial difference between medical masks and N95 masks, there are a few confounding issues. First, there is tremendous variation in reported Covid outbreaks at the sites, which throws into question the perception of overall reduction in hazard from wearing either medical masks or N95 respirators.

In Canada, 23 units had “no outbreaks.” In Israel, there were outbreaks reported in both facilities. In Pakistan, there were “no clusters or outbreaks reported.” And at 6 hospital sites in Egypt, outbreaks were reported over five weeks.

In addition to the limited number of outbreaks at these facilities, distorting the efficacy of mask and respirator wearing in higher transmission settings, the participants self-reported very few contacts with Covid-19 positive family and community members.

The second confounding issue is universal masking. Masks may plausibly impair the transmission of droplet-spread SARS-CoV-2 for a limited period of exposure time. But when the virus is aerosolized, masks are not designed to keep the virus from being exhaled through a mask or from penetrating a mask.

Thus, the “solution” of forcing everyone to wear N95 respirators becomes extremely problematic. N95 respirators are not designed to be worn for long hours each day by the general public. As can be seen from the supplement to the study, there were a number of Adverse Events reported for both medical mask and N95 respirator wearers.

There were Adverse Events reported for 11% of all medical mask wearers and 13.6% for all N95 respirator wearers. These AEs included: Discomfort, skin irritation, and headaches.

The researchers’ conclusion about the study is that the reduction in Covid exposure risk by wearing medical masks or N95 masks is equivocal.

“Among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks when compared with HRs of RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 for N95 respirators,” the researchers concluded. “The subgroup results varied by country, and the overall estimates may not be applicable to individual countries because of treatment effect heterogeneity.”

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a Pfizer board member and former FDA Chief, earlier admitted that cloth masks don’t work.

“Cloth masks aren’t going to provide a lot of protection, that’s the bottom line,” he said. “This is an airborne illness. We now understand that. And a cloth mask is not going to protect you from a virus that spreads through airborne transmission. It could protect better through droplet transmission, something like the flu, but not this coronavirus.”

When confronted with the data that the cloth masks don’t work, one expert, CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen argued that people be forced to wear surgical masks.

“Leana Wen, public health professor at George Washington University and an emergency physician, has urged the public to wear high-quality masks and described cloth masks as, ‘little more than facial decorations’,” the Hill reported. “She said cloth masks should not be considered an acceptable form of face covering and that the U.S. should require and distribute medical-grade surgical masks.”

When Dr. Wen’s advice was exposed as misleading, she moved on without missing a beat to argue everyone should wear N95 masks.

However, we now know the efficacy of N95 masks, especially when worn by the general public, has been grossly exaggerated.

This was not the only Randomized Control Trial to test masks. A famous Danish study eventually published in March 2021 at the same journal, the Annals of Internal Medicine, showed that there was no statistically significant difference in Covid risk between wearing a mask and not wearing a mask.

The critical thing to note about both studies is that they used antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a gauge for mask efficacy. As reported earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Infection (CDC) tracks the seroprevalence of nucleocapsid antibodies that are an indicator of SARS-CoV-2 exposure on its serohub.

Serohub shows that as of July 2022, 97% of the American public had been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

This means that it did not matter whether one wore a mask or did not wear a mask, whether one was vaccinated or not vaccinated, whether one socially distanced or did not socially distance, whether one was in a lockdown or wasn’t in a lockdown, virtually everyone was exposed to the coronavirus during the pandemic….

At the end of the day, the Covid-19 pandemic will have a 99.9% survival rate.



The Mainstream Media Finally Admit: Mask Mandates Don’t Really Do Anything Against Covid


(TLB) published this article from Becker News as compiled and written by Kyle Becker

Header featured image (edited) credit:  Mask/orginal BN article

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors



Stay tuned to …


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.