Posted on 06/27/2020 8:34:23 AM PDT by ransomnote
Yesterday’s Scientific Dogma is Today’s Discarded Fable
Introduction
The above quotation is ascribed to Justice Archie Campbell author of Canada’s SARS Commission Final Report. 1 It is a stark reminder that scientific knowledge is constantly changing as new discoveries contradict established beliefs. For at least three decades a face mask has been deemed an essential component of the personal protective equipment worn by dental personnel. A current article, “Face Mask Performance: Are You Protected” gives the impression that masks are capable of providing an acceptable level of protection from airborne pathogens. 2 Studies of recent diseases such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the Ebola Crisis combined with those of seasonal influenza and drug resistant tuberculosis have promoted a better understanding of how respiratory diseases are transmitted. Concurrently, with this appreciation, there have been a number of clinical investigations into the efficacy of protective devices such as face masks. This article will describe how the findings of such studies lead to a rethinking of the benefits of wearing a mask during the practice of dentistry. It will begin by describing new concepts relating to infection control especially personal protective equipment (PPE).
Trends in Infection Control
For the past three decades there has been minimal opposition to what have become seemingly established and accepted infection control recommendations. In 2009, infection control specialist Dr. D. Diekema questioned the validity of these by asking what actual, front-line hospital-based infection control experiences were available to such authoritative organization as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 3 In the same year, while commenting on guidelines for face masks, Dr. M. Rupp of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America noted that some of the practices relating to infection control that have been in place for decades, ”haven’t been subjected to the same strenuous investigation that, for instance, a new medicine might be subjected.” 4 He opined that perhaps it is the relative cheapness and apparent safety of face masks that has prevented them from undergoing the extensive studies that should be required for any quality improvement device. 4 More recently, Dr. R. MacIntyre, a prolific investigator of face masks, has forcefully stated that the historical reliance on theoretical assumptions for recommending PPEs should be replaced by rigorously acquired clinical data. 5 She noted that most studies on face masks have been based on laboratory simulated tests which quite simply have limited clinical applicability as they cannot account for such human factors as compliance, coughing and talking. 5
Covering the nose and mouth for infection control started in the early 1900s when the German physician Carl Flugge discovered that exhaled droplets could transmit tuberculosis. 4 The science regarding the aerosol transmission of infectious diseases has, for years, been based on what is now appreciated to be “very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the data.” 6 Modern studies are employing sensitive instruments and interpretative techniques to better understand the size and distribution of potentially infectious aerosol particles. 6 Such knowledge is paramount to appreciating the limitations of face masks. Nevertheless, it is the historical understanding of droplet and airborne transmission that has driven the longstanding and continuing tradition of mask wearing among health professionals. In 2014, the nursing profession was implored to “stop using practice interventions that are based on tradition” but instead adopt protocols that are based on critical evaluations of the available evidence. 7
A December 2015 article in the National Post seems to ascribe to Dr. Gardam, Director of Infection Prevention and Control, Toronto University Health Network the quote, “I need to choose which stupid, arbitrary infection control rules I’m going to push.” 8 In a communication with the author, Dr. Gardam explained that this was not a personal belief but that it did reflect the views of some infection control practitioners. In her 2014 article, “Germs and the Pseudoscience of Quality Improvement”, Dr. K Sibert, an anaesthetist with an interest in infection control, is of the opinion that many infection control rules are indeed arbitrary, not justified by the available evidence or subjected to controlled follow-up studies, but are devised, often under pressure, to give the appearance of doing something. 9
The above illustrate the developing concerns that many infection control measures have been adopted with minimal supporting evidence. To address this fault, the authors of a 2007 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article eloquently argue that all safety and quality improvement recommendations must be subjected to the same rigorous testing as would any new clinical intervention. 10 Dr. R. MacIntyre, a proponent of this trend in infection control, has used her research findings to boldly state that, “it would not seem justifiable to ask healthcare workers to wear surgical masks.” 4 To understand this conclusion it is necessary to appreciate the current concepts relating to airborne transmissions.
MORE AT LINK
How about, wear a mask because it is working in countries like Taiwan, Korea, and Japan.
If one is wearing a mask . . why six foot distance?
If one is six feet away , , , why wear a mask?
Where is airborne data?
We know several folks who are required to ‘mask up’ at work. No extra breaks to get some unrestricted O2. All of them agree it makes work a LOT more difficult. I feel bad for them but, they need their jobs.
Of course not. ‘They’ will claim you don’t care if you cause granny to die. :-)
Notice the rioters masks don’t stop the huge tear gas droplets?
Think of how easily a Virus riding on a tiny droplet gets through.
Masks are dangerous for healthy people.
I copied the title from the Youtube post. This is supposed to help prevent duplicate posts - we’d all be using the same title.
Our government(s) lie to us on a daily basis. The lies about masks are just more examples of their insidious lying.
JoMa
Your degrees are impressive enough, but are not scientifically based.
Let’s talk physics.
CCP virus particle size is 0.125 microns, or 1/8th of one millionth of a meter. The virus is an aerosol, not merely a fomite or droplet - which masks do help in stopping. See that huge gap between the sides of your nose and your cheeks? Is it smaller than a micron???? Hell no it’s not.
CCP virus is known - and proven - to attach to ACE2receptors in ocular tissues, initially presenting as conjunctivitis. Along with your mask, are you wearing swim goggles? Ignorance or hypocrisy, take your pick.
I’ve used this example frequently, but you Karen’s still don’t get it:
1. Put on your mask of choice - even an N95.
2. Peel an orange.
3. Did you smell the orange? (Yes, you did.)
4. Congratulations, your mask failed to stop an aerosol particle larger than CCP virus.
This is more about virtue signaling submission than actual science. And you, specifically with your ties to China should understand this quite well. My family in Shanghai and Zhenjiang wear theirs daily only because the CCP and WuJing will punish them if they do not.
Stop trying to bring Chinese style submission to America.
Oh - the only respiratory protection allowed in labs handling this virus are supplied air with full face and body protection. That is why so many healthcare workers become infected, as N95s allow viral passage.
Everything about the government’s response to the pandemic is a viral load of crapola.
Bkmk
Good question, and one that I have yet to find an authoritative answer for.
One of the dilemmas is competing and overlapping authorities - who is right? The “experts” are saying different contradictory things, even in the same day. So who to believe? Plus they make statements asserting something only to take some of all of it back via disclaimers. So who to trust?
Legally, the ADA wields a fairly big stick. But I have not found any guidance on statutes governing face shields and masks that deal specifically with NOT wearing them. It’s unplowed ground as far as I can tell.
I too have lung damage, in my case due to smoke inhalation, which occasionally triggers a rasping cough. I literally cannot breathe and function with a mask on.
So I will not wear one.
Right. I meant that the source article has the wrong headline, not that you pasted the wrong headline.
My point is that just about every article these days has a headline that is amped up so much for clicks that it no longer accurately reflects the article.
If this article actually featured some evidence that face masks don’t work, the headline probably would have been “Why wearing a mask will make your head fall off.”
This.
how about 12 hr shifts, required to wear the mask all day long?...
do you think I can sue for reparations after all this is done?
My favorite personally-known medical resource person (who is not my doctor, BTW) has set up what is for her family a sufficient compromise. When necessary to interact with strangers (e.g. in a store) they wear Cambridge Mask which is pretty much an everything-filter, except that they ordered the masks back in March and now the masks are so backordered that by the time you could get one the situation will probably be over. Otherwise, outside, at church, and at home, no mask.
It boggles my mind that people continue with magical thinking that an improvised or other face mask will do anything to prevent a viral infection
You’ll have to forgive me, since my initial reaction to the picture was, “If you want to shoot, shoot, don’t talk!”
Any elected official compelling you to wear a mask should be arrested and jailed for medical malpractice.
Until that happens, print, cut to size and laminate (optional) this card to present to the employee or manager or owner of a business (if confronted) and simply telling them you have a medical condition that prevents you from wearing a mask. Offer the card if simply stating you have a medical condition doesn't suffice. Don't offer up your medical condition. It's illegal for them to ask for it under ADA and HIPAA.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/88/11/31/881131b584efccae8a74f6fe25c2739e.jpg
I have plans for a new calling card based upon Paladin's stating “Have Gun Will Shop” but we are not quite far enough down the tyranny road yet.
I think that, among other things, it demonstrates that technology changes but humans stay the same. The masses are reacting to COVID-19 in the same ways, and in similar percentages, as the masses reacted to the Plague of Justinian and the Black Death and later iterations of bubonic plague. In the latter, the rich quarantined, the common people did what they were told regardless of whether it worked or not, fanatics rioted, and the few people who knew what worked but didn't always know why (e.g. Nostradamus using rose hips, HCO/zpak/zinc today) were ridiculed by the supposedly knowledgeable--and a significant minority decided to go all-out decadent because "we're all going to die anyway."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.