Not Even N95 Masks Work To Stop Covid

The ‘Experts’ have repeatedly tried to deflect from the failure of their policies with misdirection.

The reason lockdowns didn’t work in the United States or the United Kingdom is because they weren’t strict enough, according to many in the expert community.

Of course, their excuses have been conveniently ignored as China’s repressive zero COVID lockdowns have continued, with horrific consequences.

Now that mass protests have broken out in the country that “The Experts” revered for their COVID handling, there’s a massive effort to disregard their own previous advocacy.

This is perhaps best exemplified by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who clearly used authoritarian measures to suppress the protests in his own country, while now supporting Chinese demonstrations.

The bewildering lack of awareness of their own hypocrisy seems to be a feature of COVID-obsessed politicians and public health authorities.

Another similar, oft-repeated assertion is that the failure of universal masking can be explained by the type of masks being used by the public.

Even though the CDC and Dr. Fauci explicitly claimed that wearing anything to cover your face would be effective at preventing transmission, many have now quietly dismissed that messaging.

Fauci specifically said that “cloth coverings work,” not just surgical or N95s. Former Surgeon General Jerome Adams famously suggested that rolling up a t-shirt in front of your face would be effective protection.

Yet public health departments and the media are now highlighting the importance of “high quality,” “well-fitted” masks. 

Their desperation to justify masking has led to remarkably poor studies being released to support their anti-science messaging.

There is new research that has been released showing that masks are ineffective, regardless of type.

And it’s not just new research, it’s high quality research.

The Annals of Internal Medicine just published a randomized controlled trial comparing the ability of medical masks to prevent COVID infection to fit-tested N95s.

Importantly, this trial was conducted on healthcare workers who would be most likely to use masks appropriately.

To determine whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care.

That trial design was also important as it was meant to determine whether or not N95 respirators were superior to “regular” surgical masks.

They examined 29 different health care facilities on multiple continents, from North America to Asia and Africa.

The percentage of healthcare workers testing positive for COVID in each group was tracked to determine how effective or ineffective higher-quality masking was in preventing infection.

Unsurprisingly, the results confirmed that there is essentially zero difference between surgical or N95 respirators when it comes to tests results.

52 of 497 participants who wore medical masks got COVID-19, and 47 of 507 in the N95 group got COVID-19. 

No matter how “high quality” your mask is, it’s entirely irrelevant.

The researchers also took pains to ensure that the control and treatment groups shared as many similarities as possible.

They excluded workers who could not pass a fit test, had laboratory-confirmed COVID, or “had received 1 or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine with greater than 50% efficacy for the circulating strain.”

Yet none of that mattered; there was no difference in outcomes between the medical and N95 level masks.

The N95s in use were even specifically fit tested and approved respirators, far from the KN95s commonly used by the general public.

“Health care workers randomly assigned to the N95 respirator group were instructed to use a fit-tested National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health–approved N95 respirator when providing routine care to patients with COVID-19 or suspected COVID-19.”

It didn’t matter.

Even more importantly, these disappointing results were from facilities with universal masking policies in place.

Everyone, in each health care facility, “for all activities,” was required to wear masks. 

The intervention included universal masking, which was the policy implemented at each site. This refers to the use of a mask when in the health care facility for all activities, whether patient related or not, including in workrooms, meetings, and treating persons that were not suspected or known to be positive for COVID-19.

It still didn’t work.

They even tracked potential exposure points, whether at home, in the community or in hospital exposures.

There was no difference.

What’s even more impressive about the futility of masking is that outside of Egypt, the observed results occurred before the more contagious Omicron variant emerged.

There were substantial differences in results between countries, which indicates the impact of N95s might have been further muted had it covered the Omicron period.

.. ..

Results Show Expert Incompetence

This is yet another randomized controlled trial to show that masks do not work.

It also confirms the DANMASK study conducted earlier in the pandemic, which proved there was no benefit from masking in COVID prevention.

Even the Bangladeshi study, comparing villages, showed there was no benefit to masking at a population level. They used statistical misdirection and purposeful p-hacking to try and generate a positive result, and still could only get to a ~10% reduction for those over 50.

No matter the quality, no matter the compliance, masks are entirely ineffective at preventing transmission or infection.

The participants in this examination lived and worked in environments where universal masking was a requirement.

It didn’t matter.

This also examined health care workers, who, in theory, would be using and disposing of medical or N95 level masks properly. 

There was no difference. 

Now imagine how much worse the results would look for mask fanatics if it examined the Fauci-approved cloth coverings. 

If “The Experts” actually cared about following “the science,” or “the evidence,” this would once again be the nail in the coffin for masking.

More like the 40th nail in the coffin.

We have observational evidence through population-level comparisons that masks do not prevent the spread of COVID.

We also now have multiple randomized controlled trials confirming that masks do not prevent the spread of COVID.

And we have extremely well done comparisons of neighboring jurisdictions confirming it.

All the mask fanatics have is politically motivated wishful thinking, desperate advocacy from disproven CDC “studies,” and a commitment to avoiding reality.

Fauci and his health authority allies have lied to the public repeatedly about masking. The obsession with credentialism and appeals to authority within the media has resulted in tremendous, unjustified harm.

You’d hope that results like these would finally end their ridiculous posturing, but it’s abundantly clear they’re too dug in to ever relent.

But thankfully those paying attention now have even more ammunition in the fight for the inarguable scientific reality that masks do not work.

More at:

REVEALED: Feds met ‘regularly’ with Twitter ahead of Hunter Biden laptop censorship

New information has emerged in the case of Twitter’s censorship and suppression of the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop in the lead up to the 2020 US presidential election.

In a disclosure to the FEC, it was revealed that Twitter had weekly meetings with federal law enforcement, and that it was during one of these meetings that Twitter was told to watch out for a Russian disinformation drop.

Former head of Twitter Trust and Safety Yoel Roth submitted a disclosure to the FEC saying that the company had been warned by the FBI of a forthcoming Russian disinformation dump, and they assumed the New York Post’s reporting was it. Federal law enforcement planted the seed in Twitter’s collective mind, and Twitter used that intelligence to suppress the Post’s report.

“These expectations of hack-and-leak operations were discussed throughout 2020. I also learned in these meetings that there were rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.”

The FBI had been aware of the laptop, having been contacted by the owner of the Delaware repair shop where the younger Biden had left his laptop in 2019. By the time the New York Post was on the verge of making their reporting on the contents of that laptop public, the FBI was aware of the laptop. 

The repair shop owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, said that he contacted the FBI about the laptop, and that they met with him at the end of 2019. At that point, he allegedly told them what happened. The FBI came back with a warrant, and seized the laptop and an external hard drive. Isaac, however, had already made a copy. 

In an FEC disclosure signed by Roth, it reads: “Since 2018, I have had regular meetings with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Securtiy, the FBI, and industry peers regarding election security.”

“During these weekly meetings,” the disclosure signed by Roth reads, “the federal law enforcement agencies communicated that they expected ‘hack-and-leak operations’ by state actors might occur in the period shortly before the 2020 presidential election, likely in October.

“I was told in these meeting,” Roth went on, “that the intelligence community expected that individuals associated with political campaigns would be subject to hacking attacks and that the material obtained through those hacking attacks would likely be dissemintated over social media platofrms, including Twitter. These expectations of hack-and-leak operations were discussed throughout 2020. I also learned in these meetings that there were rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.”

Roth more recently told an audience “We didn’t know what to believe” in an attempt to explain the Twitter censorship.

An FBI agent who was accused of suppressing the investigation into the laptop after it was seized from the repair shop resigned in August, and was escorted out of the building. He came under fire by Congressional GOP after it was revealed that his social media was full of anti-Trump content in the lead up to the 2020 election, during which time he was supposed to be helping to direct the investigation of Hunter Biden.

Senate Judiciary ranking member Chuck Grassley said in a July letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland “As you are aware, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Tim Thibault is not the only politically biased FBI agent at the Washington Field Office,” adding that “the FBI answers to Congress and the American people.”

“Mr. Thibault’s blatant partisanship undermined the work and reputation of the FBI. This type of bias in high-profile investigations casts a shadow over all of the bureau’s work that he was involved in, which ranged from opening an investigation into Trump based on liberal news articles to shutting down investigative activity into Hunter Biden that was based on verified information,” Grassley continued.

More at:

FBI Official Admits Agency Colluded Weekly With Facebook To Flag, Take Down Posts

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) met weekly with large social media platforms to collaborate on moderating content, according to a deposition this week from FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan.

Chan, who was one of the two FBI agents who contacted Facebook ahead of its censoring of the Hunter Biden laptop warning of potential Russian disinformation operations, said that the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) officials met weekly with social media companies to remove specific accounts ahead of the 2020 presidential election, according to his deposition cited by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt. The deposition was part of a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration for allegedly censoring Americans’ speech in the name of “misinformation” led by Schmitt and Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana.

BREAKING: In our deposition of FBI agent Elvis Chan on Tuesday, we found that the FBI plays a big role in working with social media companies to censor speech – from weekly meetings with social media companies ahead of the 2020 election to asks for account takedowns.

— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) December 2, 2022

“Since filing our lawsuit, we’ve uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive censorship enterprise,” Schmitt told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Now we’re deposing top government officials, and we’re one of the first to get a look under the hood – the information we’ve uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least.”

The two AGs filed their lawsuit against the Biden administration in May and discovery was granted in July to allow the Republicans to gather documents from the Biden administration and social media companies. Deposition requests were approved in October.

Dr. Anthony Fauci was deposed on Nov. 23 and reportedly claimed to not recall key details about his role in helping social media companies censor content about COVID-19.

Chan reportedly stated that the meetings were once held quarterly, but increased as the election neared to be headed “monthly” and then “weekly.” He also claimed that there “could potentially be a Russian ‘hack and leak’ operation shortly before the election.”

Chan, the FBI’s FITF, and senior CISA officials had meetings with social media companies in the lead-up to the 2020 election, in which Chan personally told the social media companies that there could potentially be a Russian “hack and leak” operation shortly before the election.

— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) December 2, 2022

The FBI also allegedly sent a list of social media accounts to remove for posting “disinformation” and labeled them as “malign foreign influence operations.” They would then follow-up if the accounts had been de-platformed or the posts had been removed. 

Chan stated that the FBI regularly sent social media companies lists of URLs and social media accounts that should be taken down because they were disinformation from “malign foreign influence operations.” The FBI then inquired whether the platforms have taken down the content.

— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) December 2, 2022

“It’s clear from Tuesday’s deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech,” Schmitt said. “Stay tuned.”

Landry told the DCNF that “Americans should be angered that during the 2020 election cycle, federal agencies peddled information that has since been disproven.”

“This case is just one of the many steps we have taken to stand up for the First Amendment rights of our citizens,” he continued. “No American should be censored by the government.”

Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki and former Senior COVID-19 Advisor Andrew Slavitt are also expected to testify.

Chan, the FBI and CISA did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. The FBI could not be reached for comment.

More at:

FBI ‘pre-bunked’ Hunter Biden laptop story by ‘seeding’ lie to big tech: Miranda Devine