So you want to run a Randomized Control Trial (RCT) to prove masks don't work.

Ok, then you need to figure out how your RCT is going to be different than what everyone else has already tried 100 times.

This article is a draft and is a work in progress. ( if I post it then maybe I’ll get it done quicker haha)

So you want to do an RCT on masking?

Well, details are important.

I take it you aren’t satisfied with the methodology of all those other mask studies where they tried to determine masks ability to reduce infection.

Then what are you going to do different?

One thing I know you can do different…that literally no other study has done, and that is to actually address the most basic question that any proper study, Of ANY KIND should answer;

How do you know what’s producing your data? What mechanics have you interacted with that definitively answer that basic question.

Just because the title of your paper has the word “mask” in it doesn’t mean the masks are doing the work.

I know its easy to think its the masks because they …well they just look like they are doing something.

Sure, but…

It looks like the magician saws the lady in half too.

See here’s the problem you didn’t know you had. There is established science…”exposure science”, which has already determined the order of strength of every kind of risk mitigation.

In other words….we already can determine which things are doing more of the work, and which things are doing less.

Everything “safety”, that effects you, and exists in the world is built from this specific science fundamental.

And guess what. None of the new covid mask studies applied this science to their work.

They simply attributed all of the data to the masks.

Problem with that is…for 50 years masks have been on the bottom of that list.

Literally inferior to every other kind of mitigation you can thinlk of.

The reason that suddenly changed is because we were told that new mask experiments have been done and that masks work as “source control”.

…and these case studies show real world proof of this source control.

Ok then….here’s the logic…if it can be determined that the lab experiments actually showed that masks do not work as source control….that means they aren’t performing source control out in the case studies.

which means….its not the masks producing the data. It’s something else.

Before you start explaining your RCT to me, let me introduce an idea to your thought process.

What if “reducing infections” isn’t the right end point?

Here’s why I say that.

When I hear people call for doing “proper RCT’s” on masks, I see the exposure science aspect integrated into the question.

The problem we are trying to solve has more layers to it than what we are used to seeing.

It isnt just about reducing a pathogen….and that is the ONLY thing people have focues on.

It’s also about simultaneously reducing the exposure to risk. That means reducing the number of exposure points.

So to me it sounds like…

(using an analogy)

“We need to run RCT’s to show that re-using our old band-aids on new cuts is the best thing we can do to reduce finger infections from cuts.”

Think about that.

Facemasks, during covid, were the most contaminated object in existence. Not only collecting gunk directly from your mouth, but also collecting from everyone else.

…and we kept these things directly over an opening to the inside of our body all day long.

So. if you are going to run an RCT…you dam well better make sure you account for the contamination factor.

“yeah but those tests just automatically account for the downside of masks…its measuring the net result”

oh really?

How can you possibly know that when you don’t even know what they are?

and if you don’t know what they are, then you really don’t know how often they hit, or how strong they are.

“there’s no downside to wearing a mask”….remember that?

A more accurate focal point of a mask RCT

Contamination not infection

You can’t make a determination about infection prevention when previous studies have never even bothered to factor in all of the other simultaneous mitigations.

Just blanket assumptions across the board that the masks were doing all or most of the work

Well,sorry but the Hierarchy of Controls, is the science that tells us the comparative strength of all those other mitigations.

I explain that in lengthy detail over here

Long story short….pretty much everything you can think of, has more effect on infection reduction than facemasks do.

You so much as open a door to a room…and you are effecting the mask. So good luck trying to make your RCT work.

You can’t have a proper mask study while ignoring exposure science principles.

If you want to show that masks don’t work.

Then demonstrate the contamination.

Doing it the way we’ve been doing it is just as much a waste of time.

You are trying to explain to people that a used band-aid will work because it has padding and absorbs the infection.

Explain and explore the trail of contamination.

You will find suddenly, that getting your point across about masks is as easy as understanding that a used, puss and blood stained band-aid will make things worse, not better if you put it on a fresh cut.

You know what would have been really useful ( to us, not the CDC and Fauci)….is if they had put as much effort in displaying the science that explains where they got these ideas from…

They’ve been telling you from the start, that there is a point in time, or circumstance, when a mask transitions from protection to a hazard.

It’s right there plain as day. Number one, that masks transition to risk, and number two, these are points when it occurs.

So to you who believe masks are source control…ok then….HOW LONG are they source control.

Answer found on the graphic above.

oh yes….you believe that the case studies are about the net result and already natually account for that.

ok so that puts masks at either +1 for protection, or 0 for human messing up the protection

( on a side note…if every human being did the things on that graphic, every day, like all day…then doesnt that make all masks 0 ?)

Here’s an even better question…..How far does the risk go before it stops….I mean…if it never gets to a point of actual danger…then why even post that graphic with “Don’t do these things” all over it??

If it didn’t matter then why on earth would they even put it up there, it just detracts from their whole message of trying to get us to wear masks.

Beause it IS important and there IS danger that occurs. Thats why.

You have no idea how long or how far it goes….because the CDC conveniently didn’t post any science to support it up there for us to see. They just posted the graphic.

But it tells us there’s another component

Thats -1 for danger

Every case study skipped factoring this into the data.

ALL mask case studies factor masks as always effective, and effective the whole entire time they are on.

( yes mrs. industrial hygienist, that does sound exactly like an engineering control)

The CDC refrained from showing you the science about contamination and danger

They didn’t want you to think too deeply about this stuff otherwise you would fully understood that everything you are doing with your mask all day long is negating the minimal benefit from it.

…and no one would be wearing masks

Because it would feel just as stupid as putting a used band-aid on a new cut…or reusing a tampon…or using a poopy diaper for a dinner napkin.

Putting an object that is saturated with Covid, the deadliest pandemic pathogen in 100 years, over your breathing hole, for hours and days on end.

is. exactly. that. stupid.

oh wait I forgot…also put it over your car mirrors, your tables, in your pocket next to your phone, on your chin, and then back over your breathing hole again for more hours.

That’s why all of the studies on the CDC were only talking about the DO’s diagram.

They didn’t want you understanding the whole picture, of how this mechanism called a mask, actually works

Ultimately here is the thing to understand, if you are just going to insist that ‘reducing infections” be the proper end point to a mask RCT.

You have to acknowledge and CALCULATE the contribution of every other mitigation in play that are also trying to reduce infections.

Otherwise your study is bunk.

At this point you might be thinking….”yeah but….but source control” Surely there is at least some benefit of the mask.

Ok..then what is it?

but then also…how long before the risk/harms surpass the benefits?

How quickly does that happen?, how often? and how far does that harm go before it stops?

You have to answer all of these questions in your RCT.

As far as all the mask case studies and RCT’s that are already out there that produced mask data beause masks work as source control

Here’s where you can read how that’s impossible…

My summary of the CDC sanctioned source control science right here