Can’t you just tell me where do I can read it? Was it on this forum or somewhere else? Give me a clue, what keywords can I use to find your post if you don’t want to look it up yourself. I know what your opinion is. I’m interested in the article that drove your opinion. edit: is this what you’re talking about? https://visionlaunch.com/more-than-...ove-face-masks-do-not-work-even-in-hospitals/
On this forum several times. I do not know if the posts remained visible or not. Yes>Note the RESULTS of not wearing masks, almost always if not always > quote: They wore no masks for six months and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.” I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke, and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses. The operating room environment as affected by people and the surgical face mask: Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.” Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.” Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002. ======================================================================== End quote, Dozens if not hundreds or thousands of results available showing not wearing masks is better, less harmful, less infection if anything, than wearing masks caused.
I have nothing to back it up but I would hope if a member of the surgical team coughed or sneezed that they would be wearing a mask. They discovered the danger of contamination by 'germs', probably bacteria, by a doctor cutting his hand and then sticking it in a cadaver. Days later, he died. So many women died after childbirth before doctors learned to wash their hands. The doctors of the day didn't listen to him so the hero proved in a way that would get their attention.
None of this information can make wearing masks have anything to do with reducing infections. When the doctors and surgeons and nurses wear masks in surgery, there were more infections, this was the direct results published. The whole method of trying to reason otherwise has been standard, thus medical practice always included wearing masks, UNTIL they learned it actually increases infections. That is the RESULTS. wearing masks increased infections , even in hospitals and surgery.
The idea of wearing cloth masks for the coronavirus was ridiculous, but it's just as ridiculous, in my opinion, to suggest that appropriate masks are never appropriate. Are there downsides to wearing a mask? Absolutely, but medical people use them to protect their patients from the things that masks can protect them from, and appropriate masks, used correctly, can protect the mask wearer. That's not at all what we saw during Dr. Fauci's virus conspiracy. The Dr. Fauci method of covering your mouth and nose with a piece of cloth did more harm than good, but that doesn't mean that there's no possible benefit to wearing an appropriate mask appropriately.
Appropriate masks are much different than standard medical practices/ masking has been. The results of doctors and surgeons wearing masks in hospitals and in er and in surgery resulted in increased infections, ofter two or three or more times as many infections as not masking at all did. That is the results of actually not wearing masks vs wearing masks, and the infections that followed being more in mask wearing than in not mask wearing. Very simply results, published in many of the reviews of are masks effective or not .
From The National Library Of Medicine (noting that COVID is an aerosol pathogen): Abstract Background: Surgical masks are used in hospitals to reduce postoperative infection in patients. The presence of aerosols containing pathogens makes it desirable to protect the medical staff as well. Methods: The collection efficiencies of surgical masks measured with two aerosol-size spectrometers. The flow rates through the masks were varied from 5 to 100 L/min to study the flow dependency. For comparison, several industrial-type respirators were also tested. Results: A surgical mask consisting of filter material performed better than did a surgical mask consisting only of a shell with a coarse pore structure. The latter passed 80% of submicrometer-sized aerosols with little flow dependency, whereas the penetration of submicrometer-sized aerosols through the mask made of filter material ranged from 25% at a flow rate of 5 L/min to 70% at 100 L/min. Conclusions: The mask that has the highest collection efficiency is not necessarily the best mask from the perspective of the filter-quality factor, which considers not only the capture efficiency but also the air resistance. Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the submicrometer-size aerosols containing pathogens to which these health care workers are potentially exposed.
The standard, long standing, official information about masks, masking , and so forth, has long been known and proven to be wrong.
The bottom line, I believe, is quite simple: Masks cannot filter out aerosol pathogens and the rate/.amount that will get through vary.
Why is that the bottom line ? I thought, no matter what they do and do not filter, no matter what they are made of, or the size of the holes in the masks, or how they are worn, the fact that they do not decrease the infection rate, and instead double, triple , or more the infection rate, and maybe the death rate, that that would be what doctors, nurses, and people would want to know, even though their own family and their own doctor and their own hospital might laugh at them and even kick them out ..... The truth is so important, I don't like it when it is overthrown by specialists , authorites, corporations, or governments, daily... Censorship is so rampant for years now, finding the truth online is like a duck shoot.
It appears the porosity was not measured while someone was wearing it. That is a critical factor. Only the porosity was measured, not the efficiency of wearer protection. I still am something of a believer in "free viruses" which is no longer held to be valid in scientific circles, although I have never read any data disproving it. The rigmarole that they go through to come up with a way that viruses are denatured when the aerosol evaporates is quite stupid in my opinion and is theoretical only as far as I can determine.
If one is serious about guaranteed protection from a virus, they do what workers in BSL4 labs do. Everything else is a step down from that and can influence numbers but is not an absolute preventative. Very little in biology is 100% anything.
https://theconversation.com/fifty-n...ns-only-a-quarter-score-high-on-safety-161777 -------------------------- "But far from all of these labs score well on safety and security. The Global Health Security Index, which measures whether countries have legislation, regulations, oversight agencies, policies and training on biosafety and biosecurity, is instructive. Led by the US-based Nuclear Threat Initiative, the index shows that only about one-quarter of countries with BSL4 labs received high scores for biosafety and biosecurity. " --------------------------- "Known as biosafety level 4 (BSL4) labs, these are designed and built so that researchers can safely work with the most dangerous pathogens on the planet – ones that can cause serious disease and for which no treatment or vaccines exist. Researchers are required to wear full-body pressurised suits with independent oxygen."
I read one report that said that although the Wuhan lab was supposed to be a level 4 facility, the practices when audited came to be a level 2, the same as many hospital labs in the U.S.
The preventative measures work, but only when people using them are properly trained. It’s like anything else, using a gun, driving a car, there are rules to follow that make a huge difference in safety. My job took me into such labs. I declined to enter BSL4 labs but worked in several BSL3 labs. Getting dressed and undressed in the gowns etc. had to follow strict procedures and methods. For instance (this was awkward) you had to de-gown in a precise order and in a precise way, while in the containment vestibule. As you freed various body parts of the gown, gloves, booties, etc. you could cross the vestibule threshold with that part of the body. It felt like those movies scenes where you’re performing yoga across laser beams. Ha! You remove your outer glove, using the outer glove you’re wearing with your other hand but you turn it inside out so that you can use the inside of that glove to remove the other, etc. Anyway, details, details, details. I have no doubt at all that there are labs, especially in other countries, that skimp. First of all it’s expensive as hell. A high end confocal microscope can be close to $1,000,000. I know locally here, Ft. Detrick has one in a BSL4 lab and there was a huge discussion about how to handle service, parts replacement, etc. Basically, the whole instrument had to be considered as a disposable because rules were clear, once anything entered the inner chamber, it left only through the autoclave. So basically it was destroyed if it had to leave that room.