FACE MASK STUDIES PROVE THEIR INEFFECTIVENESS
This page contains 47 studies about the effectiveness of wearing masks to prevent viral transmission and infection.
Each study reference below includes the title of the study, a brief summary of the study findings, links to the original source of the study and where possible a button to download the study in PDF format directly from this site. The link icon under each study number is a permalink to that specific study. You can copy and share the permalink and it will open this page and scroll directly to the specific study number.
The US Center for Disease Control performed a study which showed that 85 percent of those who contracted Covid-19 during July 2020 were mask wearers. Just 3.9 percent of the study participants never wore a mask.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf
DOWNLOAD PDF
Erratum. correction:
The correction consists of this contact email change..."on page 1262, the e-mail for contact information has been updated to eocevent101@cdc.gov"
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6938a7.htm?s_cid=mm6938a7_w
DOWNLOAD PDF
This study used 5462 peer-reviewed articles and 41 grey literature records.
“Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to critical shortages of medical-grade PPE. Alternative forms of
facial protection offer inferior protection. More robust evidence is required on different types of medical-grade
facial protection. As research on COVID-19 advances, investigators should continue to examine the impact on
alternatives of medical-grade facial protection”
So how is your cloth and surgical mask working again if EVEN medical grade alternatives are failing?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7228486/
DOWNLOAD PDF
“There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33215698/
Full study: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full
DOWNLOAD PDF
“We included three trials, involving a total of 2106 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27115326/
Full study: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub3/full
DOWNLOAD PDF
Two randomized controlled trials were included involving a total of 1453 patients. In a small trial there was a trend towards masks being associated with fewer infections, whereas in a large trial there was no difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group.
“Our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles<2.5μm”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/
Full study (behind paywall): https://www.nature.com/articles/jes201642
“The filtration efficiency of the filter materials was good, over 95%, for particles above 5 micron in diameter but great variation existed for smaller particles. Coronavirus is 0.125 microns. therefore these masks wouldn’t protect you from the virus”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4014006/
Full study (behind paywall): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15298668591394879
“The filter efficiencies against influenza virus particles were the lowest”
“We conclude that the filter efficiency test using the phi-X174 phage aerosol may overestimate the protective performance of nonwoven fabrics with filter structure compared to that against real pathogens such as the influenza virus”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29910210/
Full study: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_article
DOWNLOAD PDF
“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 sub-micrometer size aerosols containing pathogens”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1524265/
Full study: https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(05)80143-9/pdf
DOWNLOAD PDF
“We found that 60 GSM face mask had particle capture efficiency of 94% for total particles greater than 0.3 microns”
How big is the virus again? 0.125 microns.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33052962/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7556527/
DOWNLOAD PDF
Erratum. correction:
This correction consists of a corrected version of Table 1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8158988/
DOWNLOAD PDF
This study states that “alternatives” like silk and gauze etc could possibly be good options in the pandemic. It’s done on starch particles. Does not state how big they are either, but they can still get through the material and my research points that starch particles are “big” much bigger than most viruses.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32503823/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8378030/
DOWNLOAD PDF
“The laser mask provided significantly less protection than the FFP2 respirator (P=0.02), and only marginally more protection than the surgical mask. The continued use of laser masks for respiratory protection is questionable. Taping masks to the face only provided a small improvement in protection”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16920222/
Full study (behind paywall): https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(06)00324-0/fulltext
“Worn as designed, both commercial surgical masks and cloth masks had widely varying effectiveness (53 – 75 percent and 28 – 91 percent particle removal efficiency, respectively)”
Different brand, different results and only when they applied a “nylon layers” did the “efficiency” improve. Synthetic fibers do not breathe, so this will inevitably affect your breathing.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32838296/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7346791/
DOWNLOAD PDF
“Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escaped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound”
Human albumin cells, aka aborted fetal tissue, is much larger than the virus and still escaped the mask.
“Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals”
So why has the government suggested you make your own when they are not effective?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7108646/
DOWNLOAD PDF
“Increasing the filtration level of a particle respirator does not increase the respirator’s ability to reduce a user’s exposure to contaminants”
The site is full of studies proving masks dont work for coronavirus or the flu.
https://www.citizensforfreespeech.org/why_masks_don_t_work_against_covid_19
This is full of studies proving mask protection is negligible for coronavirus, flu etc.
“There are fewer data to support the use of face masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/
Full study: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05
DOWNLOAD PDF
“no evidence exists to claim the facemasks during exercise offer additional protection from the droplet transfer of the virus”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7306735/
DOWNLOAD PDF
"Surgical site infection rates did not increase when non-scrubbed personnel did not wear face masks."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575920/
Full study (behind paywall): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.05200.x
"When the wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary."
“Wearing multi layer operating room masks for every visit had no effect on nose and throat carriage rates.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2873176/
Full study (behind paywall): https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(86)90080-0/pdf
The protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous sub-mirconometer sized aerosols.
“Conclusion: We conclude that the protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous submicrometer-sized aerosols”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8239046/
Full study: https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/0196-6553(93)90027-2/pdf
DOWNLOAD PDF
Meta analysis review that says there is limited evidence to suggest that the use of masks may reduce the risk of spreading viral respiratory infections.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32675098/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365162/
DOWNLOAD PDF
Evidence to suggest that transmission probability is strongly driven by indoor air quality, followed by patient effectiveness and the least by respiratory protection via mask use. So this could explain “second waves” and has nothing to do with hand shaking, or not wearing a mask.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32614681/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7444020/
DOWNLOAD PDF
“Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
“We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility”
SO MASKS DON’T PROTECT YOU FROM ME, AND VICE VERSA.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32027586/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/
DOWNLOAD PDF
Meta analyses suggest that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protective effect over face masks and their insignificant protection.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28487207/
Full study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436516300858
DOWNLOAD PDF
Use of N95 respirators compared to surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory confirmed influenza.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32167245/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7228345/
DOWNLOAD PDF
Face masks surfaces can become contamination sources. People are storing them in their pockets, bags, putting them on tables, people are reusing them etc. This is why this study is relevant.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32582579/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7296276/
DOWNLOAD PDF
Loosely folded face masks and “bandana style” face coverings provide minimum stopping capability for the smallest aerosolized droplets. This applies to anyone who folds or shoves a mask into their pockets or bad. It also applies to cloth and homemade cloth masks.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32624649/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327717/
DOWNLOAD PDF
Face mask use in healthcare workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of colds symptoms or getting colds.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
Full study (behind paywall): https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(08)00909-7/fulltext
Penetration of cloth masks by influenza particles was almost 97 percent and medical masks 44 percent. So cloth masks are essentially useless, and “medical grade” masks don’t provide adequate protection.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
DOWNLOAD PDF
Cloth masks and other fabric materials tested in the study had 40-90 percent instantaneous penetration levels against polydisperse NaCl aerosols. “Results obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles, including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20584862/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314261/
DOWNLOAD PDF
“The study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses. An exhalation valve on the N95 respirator does not affect the respiratory protection”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18326870/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539566/
DOWNLOAD PDF
The N95 filtering respirators may not provide expected protection level against small virons
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16490606/
Full study (behind paywall): https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(05)00911-9/fulltext
An N95 mask if properly fitted—and that “fit factor” presents a big if—can filter out particles down to 0.3 microns 95 percent of the time. (A human hair is roughly 100 microns in diameter.) Human coronaviruses measure between 0.1 and 0.2 microns.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/coronavirus-surgical-masks-china.html
This study states that an N95, depending on the brand, can range from 0.1-0.3 microns. however, most people cannot buy an N95 with a micron smaller than 0.3 micron because they are expensive and not readily available on the public market.
“N95 respirators made by different companies were found to have different filtration efficiencies for the most penetrating particle size (0.1 to 0.3 micron)”
”Above the most penetrating particle size the filtration efficiency increases with size; it reaches approximately 99.5% or higher at about 0.75 micron”
”Meta-analyses suggest that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protective effect (OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.52-0.73; I2=0%), and facemask use provided a non-significant protective effect (OR=0.53; 95% CI 0.16-1.71; I2=48%) against 2009 pandemic influenza infection”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28487207/
Full study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28487207/
DOWNLOAD PDF
“The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for the general public, neither non high-risk medical staff who are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients”
N95 masks did show a positive effect for BACTERIA but not viruses.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32167245/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7228345/
DOWNLOAD PDF
This study used dye to show if masks were contaminated. “As a result, masks surface become a contamination source. In the contact experiment, ten adults were requested to don and doff a surgical mask while doing a word processing task. The extended contamination areas were recorded and identified by image analysis”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32582579/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7296276/
DOWNLOAD PDF
“Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period”
“Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
Full study (behind paywall): https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(08)00909-7/fulltext
“The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50 percent in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7707213/
DOWNLOAD PDF
“An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95 percent CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95 percent CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97 percent and medical masks 44 percent”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
DOWNLOAD PDF
Coronavirus is 0.125 micron, as you can read in this study, it states that most N95 masks can only filter particles as small as 0.75 microns. This is too big to trap this virus. that is a fact.
And even with an efficiency of 95 percent (depending on brand, so filtration may be lower) IF the virus can be trapped… it’s still missing 5 percent and maybe more based on an N95 that has 0.1 microns.
CORONAVIRUSES ARE 0.125 MICRON. SO THE BEST N95 ON THE MARKET WOULD DO NOTHING.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9487666/
Full study (behind paywall): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15428119891010389
A chinese study that proves that an airborne coronavirus particle (0.125 micron) can pass directly through an N95 mask.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31978945/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7092803/
DOWNLOAD PDF
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/airborne-coronavirus-particle
“None of the paper masks, except the ProMask, nor the Aseptex mask provide goos protection for the patient, and none gives good protection of the wearer; the wearer of a ProMask breathes unfiltered air.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7440756/
Full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1146341/
DOWNLOAD PDF