1/n
On 3/8, Dr. Fauci said we don’t need to be walking around in facemasks. Then on April 3rd, he changed course and said we should wear masks to help slow the spread.
What changed?
New emails released by Judicial Watch give us a clue (p. 298)
judicialwatch.org/wp-content/upl…
2/n
In this message on 3/25, Canadian Dr., Gary Kobinger, one of the the members of the WHO STAG-IN task force, we may have our answer.
3/n
Dr. Kobinger suggests cloth masks might work b/c mask-wearing countries in East Asia seemed to have lower transmission vs. the rest of the world. He explicitly notes that data shows they DON’T work for flu or rhinoviruses--and DIDN’T work for SARS
smh.com.au/national/farce…
4/n
The facileness of this thinking is almost breathtaking… They don’t work for flu or SARS-CoV1, but just MIGHT work for SARS-CoV-2, b/c Asian countries are "maskier" ?
Something about this virus, makes it more likely to avoid the laws of physics than other viruses?
5/n
There is no discussion of other, potentially far greater differences, like say, prior exposure and cross-reactivity to other coronaviruses—most of which arise in Asia.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668444/
6/n
He does at least note an N-95 would reduce it by 95%--only if worn correctly (fit-tested); as you can see from the study linked below, even N-95s are only 12% effective with even a 1% gap. He fails to mention that you can’t fit-test a cloth mask.
7/n
He notes that distancing and physical barriers “seem to work,” assuming droplet transmission. Quite a leap when flu researchers note “we don’t know how flu is transmitted.” Spoiler alert: looks like it’s aerosols <1 micron. CDC still says droplets
cdc.gov/flu/about/dise…
8/n
The same study found in 2013 that aerosols less than 5 microns had 8.8x more virus than large droplets. It also notes that surgical masks were effective at stopping aerosols larger than 5 microns—but useless below.
journals.plos.org/plospathogens/…
9/n
Unfortunately, a significant amount of work has been done since that shows that most of the virus-carrying particles are less than 4.7 microns. 87% below 1 micron--well below that 5 micron threshold. & NOT created during aerosol-generating procedures
academic.oup.com/jid/article/20…
10/n
Subsequent studies beyond that have shown a significant amount of virus-carrying aerosols are in the 0.1-0.5 micron range. Well below the level that is filtered by surgical masks—and actually N-95’s too.
liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ja…
12/n
Part of the problem, is that a) the CDC continues to insist even flu is spread by large droplets and b) that these aerosols are so small that they cannot be picked up by the instruments used to measure.
13/n
We’ll assume that Dr. Kobinger was not aware of all this work when he suggested this. After all, he studies Ebola. And he did at least have the good sense to suggest that we try to get some real research to see if masks REALLY were the reason for the difference in east Asia
14/n
But Dr. Fauci didn’t wait for the research to make the announcement—1 week later, he went all-in, telling people to wear masks to stop the spread. pbs.org/newshour/show/…
15/n
That kicked off a raft of terrible studies, many of which have now been retracted (like this one) medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
16/n
While some at the CDC started working on those terrible studies, others decided to actually look at the data, and found that, not surprisingly, community masking (or hand washing) has no significant impact on viral transmission. wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26…
17/n
Others have found the same thing (even with N-95s--which argues that a lot of those aerosols are indeed in that <0.1 micron range).
biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
18/n
And of course we have the grand experiment of the fall, when masking, nationally was at roughly 90%--just like those good Asian nations--and as it increases, cases increased.
19/n
We have the matched pairs of California with the tightest restrictions in the country, and Fl, with the 4th loosest. The fall came, deaths in CA floored despite masks, while FL remained much lower.
20/n
And yet with all this science telling us what a pointless intervention this was, we continue. Why? Because politicians (and now doctors) have a bias towards action. Instead of "Do no harm.." The hippocratic oath has been jettisoned for “Why not? What’s the harm?"
21/n
There is harm. First, there is harm in Dr. Fauci explicitly blaming people who don’t mask.
Second, looking below, while masks DON’T reduce COVID, they DO result in closed schools—b/c they reinforce the myth that we can, and must *STOP* COVID.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.