AIHA, beware your association with OSHA and the CDC
They have degraded your once great science. Just look at these mask health studies.
I know to you it sounds like that title is out of left field, but that's because I know for a fact You, nor OSHA, or any of the Industrial hygiene and safety engineering organizations have never actually read the mask science studies in their entirety.
Recently I've noticed some collaborations between the American Industrial Hygiene Association and other agencies, with OSHA and the CDC.
I was thus inspired to write this article.
Oh and for the record I wasn't engaging in hyperbole with my opening claim.
I know it, because no self respecting industrial hygienist, or safety engineer would support the garbage mask science put on display by the CDC.
The only reason your going along with the science is because you have no idea whats in the science.
We shouldn't even be calling it science.
No one in authority has been operating in science...they've been operating in “assumptions” ...ASS U ME ING the CDC did their job correctly.
You see, real science has a method to its greatness. A path that it is supposed to follow, which is specifically designed to eliminate assumptions.
With covid, we have seen the complete removal of the principles of the hierarchy of evidence. It is a thing that no longer exists in any covid related issue.
“Yeah but it was an emergency” you might argue.
Yeah well...it’s been three damn years and we still haven't gotten back to it (HoE) There's no excuse now.
One thing you will notice about all of the CDC mask science, including those I point out in this article.
They are all low level studies. Starting points to further build upon.
The problem is, you get authority agencies treating it likes its highly refined, top level science.
Here is a sample FAQ statement from the OSHA.gov website coronavirus section; which often and routinely defers to the CDC as its source of information on masks.
“Does wearing a medical/surgical mask or cloth face covering cause unsafe oxygen levels or harmful carbon dioxide levels to the wearer?
No. Medical masks, including surgical masks, are routinely worn by healthcare workers throughout the day as part of their personal protective equipment (PPE) ensembles and do not compromise their oxygen levels or cause carbon dioxide buildup. They are designed to be breathed through and can protect against respiratory droplets, which are typically much larger than tiny carbon dioxide molecules. Consequently, most carbon dioxide molecules will either go through the mask or escape along the mask's loose-fitting perimeter. Some carbon dioxide might collect between the mask and the wearer's face, but not at unsafe levels.”
Now, would Ya'll like to see the CDC mask science that gave fuel to that statement, and others like it?
Here ya go...
The CDC lists 90 mask related studies on its website here: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/112337
In this article I give a quick look at numbers 61 through 89, which deal with mask health related issues.
Keep in mind that CDC mask studies are about how a “specific tool” decreases exposure to risk.
So, were any of these studies litmus tested against actual exposure science principles?
No, but while we are taking a gander at the generally poor quality....of everything about them....you'll notice that when we DO observe them with exposure science principles in mind, it becomes clear just how much the masks results were “gamed” to look good.
#61 The effects of wearing facemasks on oxygenation and ventilation at rest and during physical activity
In the section describing the test set up we notice this:
“Inclusion criteria were age 18–65 years old and ability to walk briskly for 10 minutes. Subjects unable to wear a facemask due to an underlying medical condition were not eligible. “
...due to an underlying medical condition?....too bad people in the general public aren't afforded this consideration.
The set up of the study was...
“The study consisted of six 10-minute phases, with measurements of all three parameters occurring at the conclusion of each phase.”
“each subject had a 10 minute period of rest (sitting) before each walking phase during which their heart rate returned to baseline, so it is unlikely that the slight increase in heart rate observed with surgical masks was due to subject fatigue”
So clearly this experiment has nothing in common with the parameters of universal public masking, where people wear masks for several hours on end, and would be experiencing fatigue both from work or activities and the mask.
Yet it concludes: “The risk of pathologic gas exchange impairment with cloth masks and surgical masks is near-zero in the general adult population”
Yep, thats a HUGE leap in logic, I know
But, that's the part the media and rule makers see.
The part that nobody ever sees is “future studies may consider a longer duration and/or higher intensity of physical activity”
With that comment the study is literally admitting it has nothing to do with the parameters of universal public masking.
So even when the studies themselves acknowledge that they are low level science, they still get treated like the word of God. Thats just the magic of CDC mask science.
The study establishes some baseline claims to support its work...this study it reference is also listed on the CDC (#62)
“Among 25 elderly volunteers, cloth masks did not cause significant hypoxemia during usual daily activities in one recent study”
Now, we are supposed to take these kind of claims at face value and assume they are correct, as it relates to the current study we are reading.
But lets not do the “assume” thing, which is how normal peer review is done.... lets do something even better...and actually check the other study to see if what is claimed about it is actually true.
...well one way to accomplish that is to remove test candidates who ARE prone to hypoxemia...take a look at that referenced study.
“We included individuals aged 65 years or older and excluded those who had comorbid cardiac or respiratory conditions that could lead to dyspnea or hypoxia at rest or who were unable to remove the mask without assistance.”
(That would be known as Elimination on the Hierarchy of Controls)
Here's what the experiment did...
”Participants were instructed to self-monitor and record Spo2 3 times 20 minutes apart for 1 hour before, 1 hour while, and 1 hour after wearing the mask while they were at rest or performing usual activities of daily living at home”
So the average age of participants was 75 years old. They were in an assisted living retirement home....now, remind me again... what do old people in retirement homes do all day?
The study concluded: “Limitations included the exclusion of patients who were unable to wear a mask for medical reasons, investigation of 1 type of mask only, Spo2 measurements during minimal physical activity, and a small sample size. These results do not support claims that wearing nonmedical face masks in community settings is unsafe.
Well that was a huge leap FROM acknowledging the limited spectrum of your experiment, TO saying your results are applicable to the general public. The other important point they made is that there are in fact “medical reasons” to not wear masks.
In this study ( #63) Effect of Face Masks on Gas Exchange in Healthy Persons and Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Its important to understand what they did here...”At 5 and 30 minutes, no major changes in end-tidal CO2 or oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry of clinical significance were noted at any time point in either group at rest “
The person walked for 6 minutes, then rested. After 5 minutes of rest, they were tested, then tested again after 30 minutes...of rest.
The strange thing here is that this is an industry standard 6 minute lung test...and they have a pulsometer on them during the 6 minutes. Here is the procedure: ( found on a lung testing website)
During the Test
Monitor the patient for untoward signs and symptoms.
Use the following standard encouragements during the test6:
1 min “You are doing well. You have 5 minutes to go.”
2 min “Keep up the good work. You have 4 minutes to go.”
3 min “You are doing well. You are halfway.”
4 min “Keep up the good work. You have only 2 minutes left.”
5 min “You are doing well. You have only 1 minute to go.”
6 min “Please stop where you are.”
….There's no reason why the numbers couldn't have been recorded in real time and would have given a much more robust picture of what is happening.
It would have been much more useful to see what the numbers were at the exact 6 minute mark, instead of 30 minutes later.
Also, out in the real world people at work and school don't get a 30 minute rest every time they do something hard. They don't even get 5 minutes.
It is quite revealing though, that those with substandard lung conditions were still as low as -19 drop in oxygen saturation after 30 minutes of rest.
Probably should have excluded them, like the other experiments did.
In its Discussion section it reveals “An ideal setting would have been to allow these individuals to walk without a mask; however, because of the current epidemic, this was not allowed in our institution at the time of the evaluation”
….In other words they had no control group. This immediately invalidates this study. It is nothing more than anecdotal observation. Yet the CDC has listed it in its studies in which public policy and corporate rules are based off of.
( #64 ) Face Masks and the Cardiorespiratory Response to Physical Activity in Health and Disease
This is a review of several health related studies dealing with exercise and the cardiopulmonary system, and related functions including blood oxygen and organs. While it covers masks somewhat, the studies it reviews are primarily anatomy related, but from settings and situations that have no relevance to real world public mask practice. At its essence this study is saying that minimal fluctuations in gas exchange or brain oxygen use, etc. etc. don't have much effect on human anatomy ...and simultaneously assuming that masks, aren't the cause of any of these things.
( #65) Effects of Wearing Facemasks During Brisk Walks: A COVID-19 Dilemma
In this study they tested gas exchange.
...points of interest:
In this controlled trial, we demonstrated that wearing a facemask during a 5-minute walk has mild effects on respiratory parameters, causing EtCO2 to increase more profoundly than walking without a mask. In addition, oxygen saturation decreases while walking briskly with a facemask.
Most values remained within normal limits, but a subset of participants reached abnormal levels. The consequences and clinical significance of these minor gas exchange abnormalities are unclear, yet several participants reported shortness of breath and dizziness while walking briskly with a mask. The relationship between these phenomena has to be further investigated. Notably, our evaluation tested healthy volunteers and lasted only 5 minutes in an air-conditioned room.
Ok, so even after 5 minutes, there IS some effect from the mask. Even though authorities insist there isn't.
In the chart they provided, the numbers were still rising at the 5 minute mark.
I wonder what those numbers would be in the realistic conditions my kids were put through at school?
Summary
Wearing masks is safe and important to prevent viral spread. That said, we demonstrated that wearing a surgical mask causes a mild, yet statistically significant, increase in EtCO2, as well as mild O2 desaturation, in healthy adults performing a brisk 5-minute walk in a comfortable setting.
While the abnormalities in our study may not be clinically significant, these statistically significant changes should encourage further evaluation of whether masks may cause additional gas exchange abnormalities during longer activity, especially in older people and those with comorbidities
This is the only part of the study anybody read “Wearing masks is safe and important to prevent viral spread.” even though, the study, like the others, points out that there are exceptions that need to be made. An idea that was never...not once ever...put forth to the public.
“Conclusion: While important to prevent viral spread, wearing facemasks during brisk 5-minute walks might be associated with mild hypercarbia and desaturation. The clinical significance of these minor gas exchange abnormalities is unclear and should be further investigated.”
(#66) Absence of consequential changes in physiological, thermal and subjective responses from wearing a surgical mask
This study is behind a paywall on the journal its published on. Not freely accessible to the general public, even though it gives power to the policies that effect them.
This is not acceptable.
My personal opinion is that either the authors forfeit their ability to monetize a study once it is used for government purposes, or more appropriately...the government should give them a payout for its use in government policy.
(#67) Return to training in the COVID-19 era: The physiological effects of face masks during exercise
The study population consisted of healthy, non-smoking young adult male volunteers (age >18 years) who participate in regular recreational aerobic activity
Well, already this study has no correlation to universal public masking where most of the worlds population is unhealthy, have unfit bodies, and are not athletic.
Hierarchy of Controls: Elimination....
Subjects were excluded if they were soldiers, inmates or had any known medical condition that may be exacerbated by strenuous physical activity, including diabetes mellitus, any chronic respiratory or cardiovascular disease, or acute respiratory illness (ie, pneumonia or upper respiratory tract disease)
...sadly none of those kinds of people get to be excluded from mask mandates, or exempt from losing their jobs if they don't comply.
The minimal time interval between the tests was 24 hours. Strenuous physical activity was prohibited during the 24 hours preceding the test, and a night sleep of at least 6 hours was mandated.
Interpretation and generalization of our results should be cautious at this point as we tested the physiological effect of applying a mask during exercise only on healthy non-smoking volunteers. The small but significant increase in EtCO2 may be much more pronounced in subjects with obstructive lung disease and the increased respiratory muscle effort may be much more crucial in subjects with heart disease and reduced cardiac output. The safety of face masks should be evaluated in specifically designed studies before considering physical activity with a respirator in these unique populations.
This study is making a crystal clear observation about the need for situational adjustments.
Study Limitations
Second, different mask models and designs may have different effects on different physiological parameters.
oh..you mean like homemade masks, double masking, and masks with nylon and rubber bands wrapped around them?
And again in this study we see emphasis on exceptions.
Subjects with obstructive lung diseases such as asthma or COPD and heart diseases should undergo meticulous evaluation before attempting physical activity with a mask.
(#68) The impact of face masks on performance and physiological outcomes during exercise: a systematic review and meta-analysis
This is a systematic review. It is noteworthy that in a high level analysis, how the criteria are defined can have a significant effect on where the conclusion ends up. In this study, the supplemental data indicates that their database search gathered 2658 articles/papers. Then “Records excluded after title/abstract screening (n =2579 “. Leaving 79 items for review. This was inexplicably narrowed to 22 items in the final analysis. So, from 2658 to 22. The problem with narrowing your criteria to a specific tunnel of vision, is that, there is still valuable information in the periphery, if strong enough, can indicate or more robust picture of what is happening overall.
In the final selection of 22 studies, you find the same things....small time limit on tests, unhealthy people excluded, and favorable conditions provided. And as always....expressing the need for situational adjustments, and the need for more and better studies.
They did include one study with COPD participants. 7 of the 97 couldn't finish the test, which was a 6 minute walk. I have to wonder if the authors simply went off of written generalized conclusions, rather than the actual data from these studies.
(#69) Effect of a Warm-Up Protocol with and without Facemask-Use against COVID-19 on Cognitive Function: A Pilot, Randomized Counterbalanced, Cross-Sectional Study
In this study:
Seventeen healthy (9 males and 8 females), non-smoking, physical education students (age = 17.6 years, height = 1.71 m, and body mass = 69.7 kg) volunteered to participate in this study after being informed of the nature and of the possible risks associated with the experiment.
ok...what exactly were the risks they were informed of? That would be interesting to know.
Out in public, the only risks we were informed of was the risk of losing your job if you didn't put the mask on.
In this randomized counterbalanced, cross-sectional study, participants performed 15-min of warm-up exercises
in the discussion we find...
Facemask-use confers protection against SARS-CoV-2, and, together with other implemented NPIs, it has contributed to curbing the burden imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, exercising with protective facemasks may be accompanied by physiopathological side-effects that could significantly counteract the beneficial impact of the mask itself. Carbon dioxide exchange could indeed be impaired due to the potential decrease in available oxygen and the increase in air trapping. This would result in hypercapnic hypoxia, which in turn, may lead to an increased acidic environment, anaerobic metabolism, and cardiac and renal overload [26]. From a motor-cognitive perspective, this is expected to impact cognitive functions [27]. However, some empirical studies seem to disconfirm the hypothesis of the hypercapnic hypoxia. For example, in a sample of 50 adults (one-third of which has an underlying co-morbidity), no episodes of hypoxemia or hypercarbia occurred. No differences in CO2 or oxygen saturation (SpO2) could be detected between baseline values and those measured while exercising (walking briskly for ten minutes) when wearing a mask [28].
reference 26: COVID-19: Electrophysiological mechanisms underlying sudden cardiac death during exercise with facemasks
This referenced study discusses important nuances such as persistent arrythmias and increased oxidative stress, among its observations are this; “Whilst this may be tolerated in healthy individuals, where the flexible arteries are able to blunt the hypoxia-induced increased cardiac preload, arrhythmia may be aggravated in those with underlying pathology”
In its conclusion; “Given the interplay of multiple variables contributing to the increased arrhythmic risk, we advise avoidance of a facemask during high intensity exercise, or if wearing of a mask is mandatory, exercise intensity should remain low to avoid precipitation of lethal arrhythmias. However, we cannot exclude the possibility of an arrhythmic substrate even with low intensity exercise especially in those with established chronic cardiovascular disease in whom baseline electrophysiological abnormalities may be found”
Reference 27: Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword?
From its Highlights section:
“Highlights
The study demonstrates potential complications associated with facemasks during exercises.
N95 respirators induces acidic environment which in turn affects the immune and metabolic systems.
Facemasks during exercise may exacerbate the pathology of underlying chronic diseases.
Further depression, anxiety induced by poor oxygenation and vasodilatory status when exercising with facemasks.
The social exercisers should socially distance during exercise rather than wearing masks.”
Reference 28: The effects of wearingfacemasks on oxygenation and ventilation at rest and during physical activity This one is also #61 on the CDC list, previously discussed above.
Finally, #69 concludes with...
“Our main results revealed the positive effect of the facemask use when practicing a warm-up on concentration performance. These data suggest that wearing a cloth facemask during warm-up may stimulate the cognitive function. More studies on masks’ material for sports practice are crucial for warm-up activities and specific sports practice. Future research should investigate the effect of acute exercise, as studies exploring different frequency and intensity on cognitive function are highly needed.”
Its interesting that it wants to give credit to masks even though in the body of the study itself if acknowledges that just doing warm up exercises in general, improve performance.
The warm-up aims to favor a smooth transition of the athlete from a state of rest to a state of exercise, while reducing residual fatigue. Therefore, it is not surprising that 79% of studies investigating the effects of warm-up practices on subsequent physical performance had observed improvements, in terms of performance outcomes
(#70) Effects of surgical face masks on exercise performance and perceived exertion of exercise in well-trained healthy boys.
In this study they performed a 3 minute treadmill test which slowly increased intensity over the duration. They did another one 7 days later.
In conclusion...
Limitations of this study are the small study collective as well as the absence of female subjects. In summary, these observations suggest that the use of an "everyday surgical" MNS for children is also possible from a physiological point of view during sports activities, especially as long as the loads are primarily carried out in the aerobic intensity range. However, it should be borne in mind that maximum performance in children can be negatively affected by MNS. Future, further studies should include larger groups of subjects and different childhood age cohorts, including female subjects.
(#71) Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance
Unfortunately this study is behind a paywall and is not freely accessible to the general public. But based on its title alone its a safe bet it has nothing in common with the actual reality of universal public masking.
It is noteworthy however that in the brief abstract that is visible, There were some negative effects observed....once again, we see exceptions to masking revealed.
Results: Distance was not modified by the mask (P=0.99). Dyspnea variation was significantly higher with surgical mask (+5.6 vs. +4.6; P<0.001) and the difference was clinically relevant. No difference was found for the variation of other parameters.
Conclusion: Wearing a surgical mask modifies significantly and clinically dyspnea without influencing walked distance.
(#72) Effects of wearing a cloth face mask on performance, physiological and perceptual responses during a graded treadmill running exercise test
They used Bruce treadmill protocol ….the treadmill is increased every three minutes through 7 stages ( 21 minutes total)
Conclusion Cloth face masks led to a 14% reduction in exercise time and 29% decrease in VO2max, attributed to perceived discomfort associated with mask-wearing. Compared with no mask, participants reported feeling increasingly short of breath and claustrophobic at higher exercise intensities while wearing a cloth face mask. Coaches, trainers and athletes should consider modifying the frequency, intensity, time and type of exercise when wearing a cloth face mask.
I don't recall any public messaging to coaches or athletes about the need for situational modifications. I do remember all the kids in our local high school being forced to wear masks while they played basketball games though.
Is it “Follow the science”? or is it really just “Do what we say”?
Inquisitive minds, are starting to see the truth.
(#73) Effects of surgical face masks on cardiopulmonary parameters during steady state exercise
Their testing was quite elaborate. Pre-examination: informed consent, medical history, body plethysmography, DIET double incremental cycle ergometer test to detect the lactate minimum, Constant-load-test with and without mask: in randomized order, impedance cardiography, blood pressure, ergo-spirometry and blood lactate concentration.
While this study, like the others should only be considered an early level steeping stone to better studies,
The study group was small and consisted of healthy men. Therefore, the data cannot be transferred to other populations. Thus, an assessment of the effect of face masks in older people and in patients with lung and heart diseases is limited.
Its observations are still interesting to look at.
The set up:
The study comprised 14 active and healthy men (age: 25.7 ± 3.5 years; height: 183.8 ± 8.4 cm; weight: 83.6 ± 8.4 kg; BMI, 24.7 2.6. All participants trained for at least 4 h per week. Exclusion criteria were cardiac, pulmonary, or inflammatory diseases, sports inactivity, or any other medical contraindication at the time of the examination. Participants did not perform any physical exercise 24 h before the examinations. The subjects were advised to consume a defined amount of carbohydrates (men 10 g per kg BW) within 24 h prior all tests to ensure that glycogen conditions remained stable.
Discussion
The main finding of this randomized crossover study was that the use of Sms ( Surgical Masks) during constant exercise was associated with significant changes in the values of the pulmonary and cardiac parameters as compared without the use of face masks (Figs. 3 and 4). Body plethysmography revealed a two-fold higher RAW when masks were used. However, the VO2
and avDO2 was reduced when SMs were used.
Conclusion
In the healthy young men (age, 25.7 ± 3.5 years) in this study, the use of surgical face masks was associated with a significant increase in airway resistance, reduced oxygen uptake, and increased heart rate during continuous exercise. Despite these changes, the endurance performance and perceived stress remained unchanged as compared with the performance without a SM. These data are useful for the assessment of the effects of SMs in occupational and sports settings.
(#74) Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity
12 active and healthy male volunteers were recruited from medical staff. Subjects with cardiac, pulmonary or inflammatory diseases or any other medical contraindications were not included.
Discussion
This first randomized cross-over study assessing the effects of surgical masks and FFP2/N95 masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity yields clear results. Both masks have a marked negative impact on exercise parameters such as maximum power output (Pmax) and the maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max/kg). FFP2/N95 masks show consistently more pronounced negative effects compared to surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduce pulmonary parameters at rest (FVC, FEV1, PEF) and at maximum load (VE, BF, TV). Furthermore, wearing the masks was perceived as very uncomfortable with a marked effect on subjective breathing resistance with the FFP2/N95 mask.
Conclusion
Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.
(#75) Adverse skin reactions due to use of face masks: a prospective survey during the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea
A pretty straight forward study. This was an detailed online survey of 303 people.
“In our study, people with pre-existing dermatoses had a significantly higher incidence of mask-related dermatitis. Moreover, individuals with a history of atopic dermatitis, rosacea and contact dermatitis were found to be susceptible to dermatitis induced by masks.”
The last sentence in the study;
“Physicians need to educate the general population with a history of pre-existing dermatosis regarding their susceptibility to mask-induced dermatitis.”
Yeah that never happened.
(#76) Adverse skin reactions following different types of mask usage during the COVID-19 pandemic
A detailed survey of 1231 people about their mask usage and skin irritation. 63% of them reported a wide range of skin issues.
So yeah, pretty clear that masks can induce skin problems. This skin issue seems to be the one crack in the armor the CDC is willing to take the easy hit on.
(#77) Skin adverse events related to personal protective equipment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
“In conclusion, the rate of cutaneous adverse events related to PPE use is high. A longer duration of PPE wearing was the most common risk factor.”
(#78) The Effects of the Face Mask on the Skin Underneath: A Prospective Survey During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Yes more skin problems here too. I did find it interesting in the survey data it shows 43% of participants (out of 833) said they changed their mask every 2-3 days, or used it longer than 3 days ( 33%+10%) Can you imagine all the new points of risk exposure that is introducing to the playing field?
(#79) Impacts of Blood Gas Concentration, Heart Rate, Emotional State, And Memory in School-Age Children with And without The Use of Facial Coverings in School during The COVID-19 Pandemic
This one was about oxygen levels and learning.
“We concluded that though there were no apparent adverse biological (heart rate and peripheral oxygen saturation) effects on elementary school children while wearing a cloth face covering in the classroom for 30 consecutive minutes of instructional time”
Yep.
(#80) Assessment of Respiratory Function in Infants and Young Children Wearing Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic
“In this cohort study of 47 infants and young children in Italy, wearing surgical face masks for 30 minutes was not associated with changes in respiratory parameters or clinical signs of respiratory distress.”
...no connection to real life.
“Then, doctors educated the parents about the correct way for the children to wear and take off the mask. After that, to achieve the best compliance from the child, parents encouraged the children to wear the mask at home as a game for short periods. Parents also showed children a promotional video sponsored by the Italian Society of Pediatric Emergency and Urgent Medicine and produced by the Italian Emergency Health Society to help children to get accustomed to surgical face masks.35 On the evaluation day, parents and doctors also wore surgical masks to help obtain maximal compliance from the children.”
had to chuckle when I read that because it reminded me of that scene in the movie “Sully” where They are in the Aviation event trial watching other pilots run the incident in the simulators, and finally Sully
(Tom Hanks) says “Can we get serious now?...ask them how many times they got to practice that run before today”
Yeah I'm sure these were probably necessary things to get toddlers to work through it...but again, that just goes to show you...these studies are built to give masks the best chance of looking good.
(#81) Investigating the Effects of Protective Face Masks on the Respiratory Parameters of Children in the Postanesthesia Care Unit During the COVID-19 Pandemic
This study was about children laying in a bed recovering from surgery and receiving supplemental oxygen. They tested a facemask both under and over the oxygen mask.
Go figure....oxygen being pumped into them and their O2 levels didn't go down.
This study, quite literally, has nothing to do with universal public masking in real world settings. This space could have better served the public by supplying a chicken casserolle recipe.
The last little chunk of studies have to do with Behaviors and Learning.
The information they provide are certainly valid starting points for further studies to build upon.
However, understand their context. The studies on this list are being used as “proof” to support public policy.
That is a critical distinction to make when examining the CDC approved studies.
(#82) Perceptions towards mask use in school children during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: the Ciao Corona Study
Well for starters, this is still a pre-print.
“This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.”
So, that gives us a clue as to the integrity level of the CDC science integrity department...which is who approves these studies.
This study explored the perception of the usefulness of masks at school and in public among 265 children and adolescents from randomly selected schools enrolled in the Ciao Corona study.
Essentially two thirds perceived masks to be useful and necessary.
(#83) Masking Emotions: Face Masks Impair How We Read Emotions
“To conclude, here, we showed that mask use influences our ability to infer facial expressions at any age. Furthermore, we showed that the human capacity to read emotions from facial configurations when a face mask is present becomes particularly reduced in toddlers.”
(#84) Children’s emotion inferences from masked faces: Implications for social interactions during COVID-19
“children became more accurate with each emotion as the images became less obscured”
(#85) Infants recognize words spoken through opaque masks but not through clear masks
“The authors concluded that children readily adapt to the varying ways in which emotion is conveyed in natural discourse and when specific cues are inaccessible, children harness other available cues to identify emotions.”
“Eighteen monosyllabic and imageable test words served as targets (bear, bird, boat, book, cake, car, chair, cheese, door, fork, keys, milk, shoe, sock, soup, spoon, star, train). All target words were early-acquired words in English monolingual infants”
(#86) Telehealth mask wearing training for children with autism during the COVID-19 pandemic
In essence this study was about techniques they experimented with to get children with Autism to wear a mask.
(#87) Tolerance of face coverings for children with autism spectrum disorder
Another study about attempts to get children with severe behavior issues to wear a mask.
(#88) Increasing passive compliance to wearing a facemask in children with autism spectrum disorder
...and another one.
“All participants' treatment goals included increasing passive compliance to wearing a facemask and decreasing mask removal behaviors.”
What I find ironic, is the the entire population of humans had no proper compliance, and poor mask removal behaviors. Yet the CDC seemingly only recognizes this problem in ASD populations.
In all of the CDC “case studies” on masks, the results are predicated on the assumption of proper mask use. Ill be writing about those here soon.
(#89) The Role of Face Masks in the Recognition of Emotions by Preschool Children
276 day care aged children participated in static image participation test lasting an average of 7 minutes.
“Overall, participants in this study, who had been exposed to face masks for nearly a year, recognized emotions on pictures better than has been reported in previous research, even with face masks.”
Aside from the studies that the CDC decides to endorse, there are numerous studies that the CDC ignores.
I'll be writing about some of them soon, but in the meantime, here is a recent one relating to mask health.
( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023013245 ) ...it’s recent but it references numerous previously existing mask related health studies...that were also ignored.
At least 78 of which were produced during Covid. If you're not quite sold on the idea that the CDC cherry picks its science, you will be after this.
But it requires you to put the work in. You have to actually read the stuff...all the way through, carefully and with comprehension…and with the hierarchy of controls on the forefront of your mind.
Mask science is, after all, an exposure science issue.
We are now in the year 2023, and there has been very little, if any progress in the CDC approved science. Most of those studies have been up there a long long time. Many from the very beginning.
Meanwhile, we’ve had studies by others, informing us of potential dangers to masks; microplastics, contamination with other pathogens, gas exchanges etc. I’ll dive into those soon as well.
My trouble here is….aren’t you industrial hygienists supposed to be experts at anticipating collateral risks?
I see an awful lot of you endorsing the “source control” idea. Yeah I know that’s what looks like how it should work…but…you apparently didn’t read the CDC mask experiment studies either.
Here’s another fun statement from the OSHA Corona FAQ;
Since the CDC has determined that some cloth face coverings may both serve as source control and provide some personal protection to the wearer, will OSHA consider them to be personal protective equipment under 29 CFR 1910.132 or 29 CFR 1926.95 (Construction)?
Not at this time.
Ok, so you’ve got an N95, and a mask, performing the exact same job.
A person talks, breathes, or coughs into it. It catches droplets, thus your “source control”
The N95 however, is regulated. It requires donning and doffing. It requires a time frame to be switched out.
And why is that?…because it has a limited time of functionality. There is a recognized point at which it transforms from a source control role, to a risk/hazard role.
So, how come none of this applies to common masks doing the exact same job for the exact same pathogen?
It’s the same surface area, same contamination, same amount of time said contamination is being held over an opening to the inside of the body. Same risks, same potential risks, same everything.
So why is OSHA just letting this risk just wander off and do whatever it wants.
( Hint: It’s because OSHA got snookered by the CDC science )
Here’s a question none of the fancy “how masks work” brochures have ever answered.
How long is it source control?
oh..and just as important;
What are the things that will cause it to stop being source control, and transform into risk?
If you don’t have any regulations in place to define that turning point, then you are telling us its source control the entire time. You are telling us that it never transitions to a risk the entire time.
Yeah, just whatever your ‘entire time” needs to be.
By OSHA’s logic, they should really stop classifying N95’s as PPE too, so they can be elevated to engineering control like common masks, where the human behavior portion of its functionality is removed.
Put them on the face, power on, they work the entire time. Take them off, they power down. Place them on car mirror for easy access. Or your pocket if your car is too far away.
Viola’ portable engineering control.
Am I wrong? ( hint: no )
All the videos and brochures on “How Masks Work”….it’s the same thing. “you cough your droplets into the mask and it catches it”
Yay!
Ok?…what happens 10 seconds after that? or 2 hours, or 7 hours.? I’m not asking a hypothetical question there…you have to literally answer it.
but. be .careful .how .you .answer
…if you haven’t actually read the CDC mask science you are about to reach for.
Cuz…it’s going to bite you in the ASSume.
Please consider subscribing or following, to get notifications, as my quest to get science back on the high bar where it belongs, continues.