Thread by @EmilyVBurns

1/
It's now acknowledged that COVID-19 is primarily transmitted by tiny aerosols generated through NORMAL breathing—not coughing, or flying spit globules.
Based on what we already KNEW about these respiratory aerosols, this should have meant MASKS OUT.

thesmileproject.global/post/airborne-…

2/
This is because we know that these aerosols are nearly identical in size to cigarette smoke (see last tweet). Cigarette smoke, and by extension, the respiratory aerosols carrying COVID are NOT STOPPED by masks, or caught. They are redirected—see video.

3/
And yet, we have this kind of dishonesty from people like Bill Nye. He talks about “stopping the flow of air.” Yet he, just as everyone else who has worn a mask, must have felt the air escaping out the top of the mask--fluttering his eye lashes--during this demonstration.

4/
Almost everything you have seen published, by the CDC and elsewhere, exploits two facts to claim “masks work.” They either:

-Look at particles much larger than the known range for respiratory aerosols

- Ignore the importance of gaps

- Or measure volume "caught"

5/
Now to examples. The MIT study pointing out that the “6-foot rule” was useless, b/c the virus is carried in aerosols ~0.5 microns, ALSO said masks work.

How? They capture filtration efficiency via a “Penetration Factor” —BUT COMPLETELY IGNORE GAPS.

pnas.org/content/118/17…

6/
Now, there is a lot of very complex math in this paper. Why would they eliminate such an important, KNOWN, variable?

B/c it would show masks DON’T work. W/just a 3.2% gap (appx what we see in normal wear), masks are rendered virtually useless.
theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz…

7/
This is why N-95’s are fit-tested, b/c they offer virtually NO protection with even a 1% gap—as noted in this paper from the American Chemistry Society. But recall, N-95’s are not intended to stop transmission. Hence the leakage in the videos above. pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac…

8/
This is why modeling studies such as this do not even make it only the evidence hierarchy. They are hugely impacted by the inputs the authors choose to put in the model. Ignoring gaps shows an incredible bias on the part of the authors.

9/
Now let’s take a look at the famous duke visualizations of the “Stay Healthy People” videos. Watching the no-mask trial, it's clear the camera is not picking up ANY of the breath aerosols—only spit. The screen is completely black till talking starts

advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/e…

10/
Indeed, the article notes the camera’s sensitivity is 120 microns—so those are quite large droplets indeed (note that there are some of this size that appear, shockingly, that escape the N-95).

11/
The article notes that it ought to be able to count—but not identify—all particles above 0.5 microns. However, as seen below, this means that even this theoretical resolution misses 70%+ of all particles, and particularly the most infectious.
advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/e…

12/
Additionally, the experimental set-up is such that given that masks redirect airflow UP, whatever particles WERE distinguishable would not likely pass through the slit that was measuring the particles--but escape out the top (see videos earlier)
advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/e…

13/
Let’s turn to the CDC’s double-mask study. This uses not 1, but 2 tricks to show “masks work.” Despite the very narrow range of respiratory aerosols (0.1 – 1.1 micron, w/a few 2+ micron particles), they use a range from 0.1 – 7 microns.

cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…

14/
Then, they use the mass that is caught by each mask to measure. Now, remember, a 7 micron particle has a volume/mass 12,000 times that of a 0.3 micron particle—the most common size. 1 would be ~= in volume to all expected aerosols.

15/
It is possible that the CDC is just mis-informed, in fact, in the article they note that most virus is carried in particles under 10 microns.

16/
This again though, while technically true, masks the truth. In fact, 87% of virus (at least) is known to be carried in particles <1 micron (and the study that found that didn’t even LOOK at those <0.3 microns). <0.1% are 5 micron+. (never mind 10)
journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…

17/
Even after acknowledging that COVID & other respiratory viruses are spread via respiratory aerosols, they pretend those aerosols are MUCH larger than they have known to be since the 80’s. Here is an "AEROSOL scientist" claiming most are ~2 microns.

Willfully uninformed?

18/
Just a quick reminder. Even coughing and talking generate practically nothing over 1 micron. (note, the figure on the right did not look at aerosols <0.3 micron, which are known to be the most numerous, per graph on left).

19/
Once again, this is not “new science.” As early as 2017 if was known that sneezing was not associated with aerosolization, and coughing was not necessary for them—that breathing was enough.

pnas.org/content/pnas/1…

20/
Scientists desperately WANT the particles to be bigger—b/c masks WORK for them

This excerpt is incredible. He notes the majority of virus is in aerosols NOT captured by masks. But says we should STILL use them, b/c they stop the other particles' <0.1%.journals.plos.org/plospathogens/…

21/
Please note, Dr. Milton was one of the researchers who DISCOVERED THIS IN 2008:

journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…

22/
Why though do scientists and the CDC so desperately want to pretend masks work? Why do they churn out paper after paper of shoddy, low quality evidence to continue to back it up? Why are they lying?

23/
I believe it is because masks are NOT harmless. The scientific community has gone so all-in on them, that they CAN’T allow anyone to study the harm. But IT. IS. THERE.

thesmileproject.global/post/masks-wha…

24/
Masking—far more than other restrictions—is TIGHTLY linked to low-levels of access to in-person education, and high levels of unemployment. It is not linked to a decrease in deaths or cases.

thesmileproject.global/post/masks-wha…

25/
Team Reality are no longer the only group saying this. A recent pre-print does a similar, and much more thorough analysis and comes to the same conclusion about the linkage between masking and deaths—i.e. that it does not exist.

26/
Others are also noting the linkage between the restrictions—of which masks are the most potent—and unemployment.

27/
But high unemployment and low access to in-person education are NOT the only harms. They are tightly linked to Fear of getting illness, isolating yourself from others, and feelings of isolation. thesmileproject.global/post/masks-wha…

28/
Certainly Public Health Officials will be thrilled that places with high masking, are also not seeing each other. But sadly, it has ZERO impact on deaths or cases a few weeks down the line.
thesmileproject.global/post/masks-wha…

29/
But are masks REALLY political? Yes, they are. If the strong Blue/Red divide weren’t enough to convince you, the very tight alignment with support for BLM ought to convince you.
thesmileproject.global/post/masks-wha…

30/
But what about the fact that masks are linked to high rates of low in-person education, and high unemployment? Might that this politicization is harming the people people whom BLM supporters claim to care about?

thesmileproject.global/post/masks-wha…

31/
The answer is absolutely. Not only do “Biden states” have far lower levels of in-person and far higher levels of virtual learning—those differences skew negatively towards minorities—where there is no pattern for “Trump states.” @ProfEmilyOster

thesmileproject.global/post/masks-wha…

32/
The picture over time is even more embarrassing as Trump states converge on all races having the same level of access to in-person education (the cities are why it is stuck at 90%), where Biden states see white students pulling ahead. @ProfEmilyOster

33/
Nor is unemployment a burden that is shared evenly. Unemployment amongst blacks at 9.7% is nearly twice as high as the 5.3% for whites. The level of unemployment above Feb. 2020 levels remains nearly 2x that in Trump states.
thesmileproject.global/post/masks-wha…

34/
Some will say but this was necessary, because COVID hits minorities harder than whites. The data tell a different story. When public health policies drive the infection to the poor, minorities die at higher rates. When policies relax, deaths converge
thesmileproject.global/post/masks-wha…

35/
Nowhere is this more apparent than in FL and CA. While FL followed the CDC’s “infect the poor, protect the rich” policies, minority deaths remained higher. When restrictions were removed, they equalized. CA minority deaths remain elevated.

36/
Nor was is this unexpected or unknown in public health. As early as 2009, Marc Lipsitch noted that harsh infection controls make matters worse.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

38/
The question remains as to “why” masks were politicized. Things don’t get politicized accidentally—they are politicized for a reason. And masks were politicized by the only people who could have politicized them—the public health community.

39/
I submit that the total abandonment of the existing pandemic plan, which resulted in spring’s accidental genocide was the reason. You see there was a plan, and this was NOT it. And it had disastrous results.
cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/6…

40/
But rather than acknowledge the mistake, and move on, it was easier to yell “racism” and double-down on the most racist/classist/elitist public health policy enacted since Jim Crow--harming more minorities. rationalground.com/lockdowns-syst…

This is exactly what was done. It was a full-frontal assault by the Medical Scholastic Industrial Complex to brand those quesitoning the CDC, as racist, white supremacists. Despite the CDC's own policies being @ the root of such racially-divergent harm

arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07993…

42/
And brand they did.

43/
In an example of high hypocrisy that might make even
@CDCDirector Dr. Walensky blush, the man who ordered outdoor mask mandates extended in Brookline, MA—despite living in Orlando--attended un-masked gatherings while they were still in force…

44/
You may not be surprised that this was after having in June made a direct connection between racism and masks, saying in a June facebook post, we must

"...wear a mask together to overcome this infectious disease of systemic racism"

45/
But if masks are political, who are they helping—politically—beyond the CDC? We have seen that masks drive fear, and that fear has helped teachers’ unions get support for NOT returning to school in-person.

46/
They have likewise used the CDC-induced genocide to push the systemic racism as a reason NOT to send kids back to school. Despite what will certainly be racially lop-sided outcomes of those policies.

47/
Masks have been a masterful diversion, as much of blue-state America has been apoplectic over mask mandates falling in states they will never visit, rather than focusing on shamefully low in-person schooling in their own states.

48/
In terms of unemployment, there is almost no doubt that masks have been used as a tool to keep unemployment high, the services sector on its knees.

49/
This appears to have been done to re-jigger the allocation of relief funds to benefit blue states. Where the initial stimulus plan was population-adjusted, under pres. Biden it was altered to be based on level of unemployment. governor.sc.gov/news/2021-02/2…

50/
Thus, masks were used to keep blue-state population unemployment high, and children out of school, in order to drive federal funds to those states who had hurt their citizens the most.

thesmileproject.global/post/masks-wha…

51/
It is hard to see it is coincidental that only days after a shockingly bad jobs number, the CDC did a complete about face on masks. The day after, most blue states and business dropped their mask mandates.

52/
The next months' jobs numbers will tell how far unemployment was being depressed by masks.

53/
Of course, we mustn’t forget the other great political force driving the CDC's masking guidance—the Pharma lobby.

Truly, Dr. Walensky stands on the shoulders of giants, the Pharma lobby and the Teachers’ Unions.

54/
Now in the end game, we see these two forces working together. The teachers’ unions feign concern for children, saying they must stay masked until they get vaccinated—massively expanding the Total Available Market for the vaxes.

55/
This of course ignores copious amounts of data that show that masking children in school has no effect on outcomes for COVID.

56/
And of course it cannot, given the kind of masks, and in which children wear them—i.e. with massive gaps.

thesmileproject.global/post/un-maskin…

57/
It also ignores children’s relative risk from COVID--LITERALLY half what it is from flu. The vax trials were wildly under-powered, testing just 2000 children. Given that ~1 in 100K children die of COVID, they would have needed 200K

thesmileproject.global/post/un-maskin…

58/
But in truth, it would have needed to be even higher, as no children who were not "profoundly ill" have died of COVID. Thus, to quantify risk, the trials would have had to be even larger.

The CDC chooses not to disclose this information us.

59/
No doubt next year, the scientific community will return the favor to the teachers’ unions, & gin up some "science" explaining why children must be masked into perpetuity—they DO spread flu...

In reality, it will be b/c the golden silence masks bring, must not be broken.

60/
Oh, and if you’re still under the impression that while the masks did NOT stop COVID, but did stop flu--they didn’t. Flu went away due to a well-documented, but poorly understood phenomenon called viral interference.

@threadreaderapp unroll