Hi
I wrote to my MP, slightly amending the KBF template to include that I had told local shops that I would not be using them if they enforced mask wearing. Have just got this reply - it has a lot of words in it:) Am wondering whether she read her job description!
'Dear
Thank you for taking the time to write to xxxx MP with regard to the Government’s decision to mandate the wearing of face coverings in certain situations, and to raise your more general concern over government powers.
xxx has read your email with interest and has asked me to respond to you on her behalf.
With regard to Government powers – xxx would not support any government that unilaterally handed itself powers and is clear that any response to a global pandemic, particularly one involving a novel virus to which there is no known vaccine and no known treatment demanded that action be taken. Parliament retains its rights of scrutiny through its elected representatives, the House of Lords and the activities of a range of powerful committees. The decisions taken by the Government have each been considered and expert advice taken throughout – which xxx believes is precisely as it should. xxx makes her voice heard on behalf of all of her constituents both in Parliament and via the other channels she has available to her and will continue to do so.
With regard to the mandatory wearing of face coverings – xxx is clear that there is a need to balance the competing demands of protecting civil liberties and controlling the spread of the virus whilst enabling the restoration of economic and social life. xx’s colleagues in Government have made a judgement that the best way to balance these things is to enable people to go out and about, and to see and socialise with friends and family, but to require that, if they choose to do so, they take additional measures to restrict the spread of this virus by wearing face coverings in limited situations.
The science in this area has evolved during the outbreak, and the body of scientific evidence that has now built up shows that the risk of transmission is made lower by wearing a face covering.
The UK’s Royal Society, for example, recently reviewed all the evidence and came to the conclusion that face coverings are effective for protecting the wearer of the face covering as well as those around them, though note the covering needs to be of a certain standard.
Significantly, recently the World Health Organisation changed their advice, (WHO), by saying that whilst the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets, under some circumstance airborne transmission might occur, the WHO go on to advise the use of fabric masks, (face coverings), to reduce the spread of infection.
This increasing evidence, but also the new evidence that sales and retail staff were being more severely affected by the virus than the general population, supported the decision that from 24 July it became mandatory to wear a face covering when visiting a shop or supermarket. Previously this requirement was advisory. There are of course some exceptions, for example the rules do not apply to children under 11.
The full guidance on the wearing of face coverings can be found here.
There will be a wide spread public health communications campaign within which it will be made clear that social distancing, good hygiene and isolating when infected or having symptoms, also remain important mitigating actions.
Your point that this decision will reduce the number of people going out is not a view that is shared by those advising the Government. Perhaps more importantly people need to go shopping and for those who are most at risk it is quite right that steps are taken to protect them, and also to reassure them that they can be safe when they go out.
xxx recognises that this decision is not one you welcome, but she is confident that there is now enough evidence to suggest that the wearing of face coverings in certain situations will help stop those with the virus from giving it to others, and for that reason she supports this decision. The Government has noted that it will keep all guidelines under constant review to ensure that any restrictions in place are worthwhile measures – where that is shown not to be the case the measure will be considered and potentially changed.
Thank you again for raising these important matters with xxx, with regard to face coverings, she will stay abreast of the latest evidence so that she can raise local concerns with her colleagues as appropriate.
I hope you remain safe and well at this very difficult time.
With kind regards'
No joy there then. Just a regurgitating of the official absurdities.
MPs won't do their own research into anything it seems. They don't serve us or what little conscience they may have left, they only serve their masters.
Career politician. Should be ashamed of herself in my view, but would put money on her not being. Worth taking her to task?
Hi Hollbsma. HELL YES, take her to task. It makes me mad reading such bull - my MP is trying to fob me off in the same way and I will not let him. Forgive me but it's fired me up to write some suggested replies. A good tactic is to repeat each paragraph and pull it apart. They hate that. So here's my suggestions - you might well have other points to add or change bits. Sorry it's a bit long:
With regard to the mandatory wearing of face coverings – xxx is clear that there is a need to balance the competing demands of protecting civil liberties and controlling the spread of the virus whilst enabling the restoration of economic and social life. xx’s colleagues in Government have made a judgement that the best way to balance these things is to enable people to go out and about, and to see and socialise with friends and family, but to require that, if they choose to do so, they take additional measures to restrict the spread of this virus by wearing face coverings in limited situations.
I understand. Could you please inform me of specific scientific evidence on which xxx and her colleagues in Government made the judgement that face coverings ‘in limited situations’ are effective as an additional measure in restricting the spread of the virus. I have fully researched this matter and can find no quality evidence that supports this.
The science in this area has evolved during the outbreak, and the body of scientific evidence that has now built up shows that the risk of transmission is made lower by wearing a face covering.
As you are aware, up until July 24th, face coverings were not mandatory – indeed the previous advice from Matt Hancock and the Government’s scientific advisors was that coverings do not affect restriction of the spread of the virus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XkOIesmFXg
The Government informed us they were ‘following the science’ regarding this. Could you specify the ‘body of scientific evidence' which evolved during the outbreak to support this change in the guidelines.
The UK’s Royal Society, for example, recently reviewed all the evidence and came to the conclusion that face coverings are effective for protecting the wearer of the face covering as well as those around them, though note the covering needs to be of a certain standard.
I have consulted the UK Royal Society’s Delve review of the evidence you refer to:
https://rs-delve.github.io/addenda/2020/07/07/masks-update.html
I invite you to consult this paper and apply the principles of ‘Levels of Evidence’ (eg Packett et al) which dictates the quality of research in order to ascertain whether the findings are ‘gold standard’, strong or weak recommendations or merely opinion.
Having consulted the findings, it clear this study is not quality research and falls far short of the ‘gold standards’ required for strong recommendations.
The research is based on observation and modelling studies, which are considered inferior to Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) or the systematic review of RCTs. I include excerpts from the paper to support this:
Evidence continues to accrue that masks, including cloth masks, prevent onward transmission of infection. This is based on observational and modeling data in humans, on the effectiveness of masks in intercepting droplets and aerosols and on controlled studies of experimental animals. Evidence is also accumulating that masks may additionally protect the wearer.
There are no human controlled trials on the efficacy of universal mask use in stemming SARS-CoV2 transmission. It is inherently problematic to conduct such a trial on a practice that all must adhere to for it to be efficacious. Nevertheless, the cumulative multifaceted evidence on mask efficacy provides strong support for their use. Several accepted medical and public health practices to reduce the transmission of other infections are based on similar types of evidence and not on the results of randomized clinical trials.
I refer you to references commenting on the validity of Observational and Modelling studies:
Observational Studies – worthwhile or worthless?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6302806/
Reporting guidelines for modelling studies
https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-12-168
I further refer you to Level 1 research, which finds masks and respirators do not prevent the transmission of viruses and asks serious questions regarding the negative effects:
https://www.sott.net/article/434796-The-Science-is-Conclusive-Masks-and-Respirators-do-NOT-Prevent-Transmission-of-Viruses?fbclid=IwAR06QiUKhsOAlfzQZJ6ZxUgXXEAV7rDrKOvYL3SQW8qFAp_yDuBPpzCF7Ao
Clearly an evaluation of the evidence is important. If any face covering is ineffective, then there is no point in wearing it. You rightly point out any face covering needs to be of a certain standard to be effective.
Could you advise me why the Government is basing important decisions on poor research and ignoring quality research? Alternatively, can you point me to any quality research which finds face coverings are effective.
Significantly, recently the World Health Organisation changed their advice, (WHO), by saying that whilst the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets, under some circumstance airborne transmission might occur, the WHO go on to advise the use of fabric masks, (face coverings), to reduce the spread of infection.
I think you will find the WHO changed its advice for political rather than scientific reasons. I would be grateful if you could refer me to the specific scientific research on which the WHO based its advice and inform me where it is published.
This increasing evidence, but also the new evidence that sales and retail staff were being more severely affected by the virus than the general population, supported the decision that from 24 July it became mandatory to wear a face covering when visiting a shop or supermarket. Previously this requirement was advisory. There are of course some exceptions, for example the rules do not apply to children under 11.
The full guidance on the wearing of face coverings can be found here.
Thank you for the link regarding full guidance on the wearing of face coverings. Again I would respectfully request you specify the ‘increasing evidence’ you refer to in the above paragraph.
There will be a wide spread public health communications campaign within which it will be made clear that social distancing, good hygiene and isolating when infected or having symptoms, also remain important mitigating actions.
Thank you, I look forward to hearing about it. Can you confirm that all advice regarding ‘mitigating actions’ will be fully backed up by scientific research. I would ask that the Government actually publish and make known the findings on which all advice is based.
Your point that this decision will reduce the number of people going out is not a view that is shared by those advising the Government. Perhaps more importantly people need to go shopping and for those who are most at risk it is quite right that steps are taken to protect them, and also to reassure them that they can be safe when they go out.
Of course, people need to go shopping and the vulnerable need to be protected. However, I and many others in your Constituency are not reassured by the contradictory and confusing advice given by the Government. Furthermore, if you speak to your Constituents you will find that many people do not want to go out because they are scared and face coverings are making it worse.
xxx recognises that this decision is not one you welcome, but she is confident that there is now enough evidence to suggest that the wearing of face coverings in certain situations will help stop those with the virus from giving it to others, and for that reason she supports this decision. The Government has noted that it will keep all guidelines under constant review to ensure that any restrictions in place are worthwhile measures – where that is shown not to be the case the measure will be considered and potentially changed.
It is not about whether I welcome the decision or not – it is purely about the evidence the decision is based on – and indeed whether, as you say, the mandatory measures are ‘worthwhile’. I would respectfully ask you once again to advise me of the specific scientific evidence xxx refers to. It is not enough to point me to one poor quality study, I and my family, friends and neighbours in your Constituency would like to know exactly why we are being required to wear face coverings.
I look forward to hearing from you with the information I have asked for etc etc
@LivvyB Thanks for drafting this. Will get back onto her. Completely agree we should keep on at the bu**ers, just have only so much energy to go round so very much appreciate your input!
Insidious that they are getting away with pretending there is not a preventative/cure when the evidence of hydroxychloroquine (ideally + azithromycin + zinc) is overwhelming. There has been a coordinated campaign to discredit HCQ, despite its widespread use for 65 years, originally as anti-malarial now also as lupus & rheumatoid arthritis treatment.
Warroom Pandemic Episode 293:
https://pandemic.warroom.org/2020/07/22/ep-293-pandemic-hydroxy-moxie-w-dr-risch-dr-oskoui-dr-vliet-and-ira-stoll/
Dr H. Risch: Yale Professor of Chronic Disease & Epidemiology, School of Health: quote 'Early outpatient treatment of sympotamatic, high risk patients should be ramped up immediately', he concludes HCQ, ideally with Azithromycin & Zinc is safe and effective, reiterating 66% risk hazard reduction from early treatment.
Dr Ramine Oskoui: CEO Foxhall Cardiology: HCQ effectiveness and safety in early treatment fully demonstrated, delayed treatment shows mixed /ineffective due to progress of damage done. Deaths much lower in countries where HCQ was used early (eg. Turkey, India, Malaysia, South Korea) compared to where it is banned as in UK, see graph below, from C19study.com which provides daily updates from HCQ studies.
Dr Elizabeth Vliet: Specialist in Preventative Medicine, Witholding of HCQ treatments: 'Unconscionable what is being done to American public', political prohibition of prescribing by doctors has never happened before. Slams Fauci/CDC /politicians for contributing to people dying unnecessarily by preventing HCQ early use.
https://c19study.com : provides daily updates on HCQ studies: the graph is compelling (I can't get it to paste in here, sorry)
Comprehensive analysis of HCQ effectiveness & political & scientific manipulation to prevent its adoption:
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-hydroxychloroquine-scandal
Recent developments include:
1. New International Journal of Infectious Disease peer-reviewed Henry Ford Study recently confirmed the effectiveness of HCQ treatment of cov19, 'Hydroxychloroquine provided a 66% hazard ratio reduction, and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin 71% compared to neither treatment':
2. Switzerland returned to using HCQ after suspending use in response to the media campaign against it. The graph clearly show the fatality increase after its withdrawal and the reduction in fatality after they returned to using it: ' Media Should Do a Mea Culpa as French Analysis Offers a Stunning Observation About Hydroxychloroquine Use' https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/07/15/media-should-do-a-mea-culpa-as-french-analysis-offers-a-stunning-observation-about-hydroxychloroquine-use-n643181
Thank you ZJ, info and references much appreciated😀
"The science in this area has evolved." My arse it has! She may as well have said "we changed the science to fit our agenda." I have always, always been dissatisfied with responses from my MP. The last one I wrote to was about HS2 and of course I was just brushed off. I might try with this and see what he says.
Thanks Rosie!. Must admit I thought much the same so your comment made me smile!
OFF-MESSAGE:
Deputy Chief Medical Officer says Masks can increase risk of viral contamination, reported in the Independent & Daily Mail: I saw it here:
https://principia-scientific.com/deputy-chief-medical-officer-for-england-masks-not-a-good-idea/
they aren't using then in Sweden nor are the dutcb
I've just read that reply and it is most telling.
Now we know who the enemy is.
It seems all MPs, all Councils (note I didn't say councillors) and probably the Police and Armed Forces.
It seems there has been a coup d'etat by a certain group without one shot being fired. The rest of the letter was just drivel. A 'novel virus' - yes, one that doesn't exist and is 'supported by the science'. It really tells you who will be hanging from the lamp-posts when the time comes. If they think that the excuse at their trial will be.......'well the scientific advisors told us so', they will be in for a shock. They have murdered old people, they have caused the suicides of many young people and they have destroyed people's lives, relationships, their means of employment and homes. Do not forget that. Hold on to that image. What worries me most in all this....... the vast majority of them knew EXACTLY what they were doing and CONTINUE to do. I had to laugh at the bit about 'shop workers have been adversely affected by this'.......not the ones I've asked. It makes Tony Blair's '45 minutes to Armageddon speech' a prophecy by comparison.
This is going to get nasty......and very ugly, quicker than people think.
Heres what Im playing with according to setting my law as a woman:
notice i: a woman; going by the name of jane doe; say i write this notice to you: a man; going by the name of matt hancock; and acting as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, UK; i, state that you did send me correspondence dated 22 June 2020; i, state that you, did place my name on the Shielded Patient List; i, state today (aug 9th 2020) that i, do not consent to having my name on said List; i, state all herein to be true and will verify at open court; i, require that you, remove my name from the Shielded Patient List; i, further require that you, send no more documentation to my address; or authorise calls/texts to my phone; or authorise or advise trespass on my property by any man or woman, acting as an Agent for the State, with regard to CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19); i, ask is it your intent to do wrong to i, by way of trespass; i, ask that you, by way of remedy, acknowledge this notice; and that you, acknowledge you, did take the action of removing my name from the Shielded Patients List; and that you, acknowledge you, or any Agents for the State acting on your behalf, desist from trespassing on my property in any way, including disturbing my peace, with regard to CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19); i, state that if you, provide remedy, by way of the acknowledgements stated, within 21 days of this notice, remedy will be given. signed by i: jane doe
(i'm still working on it)
Just to go back to the lack of intelligent responses from our so-called MPs - and yes, I also wrote to my local councillor - no response there either! Is there any way that MPs salaries can be stopped? They are not doing the job they were voted in to do and they appear to have broken their oath of allegence to the Queen - treason? There must be a way that they call feel the hurt that everyone else has been forced to endure. Anybody know the legal route to take? I feel sure we could get a class action going on this basis. We have been sold down the river and are now living in a dictatorial police state! How did we ever get to this - our democracy has gone - can we get it back?
my keyboard is going haywire - I meant to say "there must be a way that they can all feel the hurt" etc.
Hi
Am just putting together a reply to MP's response & need some help regarding this section.... is what I'm saying about Statutory Instruments correct? and is the example any good given the timing of it at end July when the MPs had all gone on their hols? The first bit is the MP reply wording & the bold is my suggested response:
From MP ‘The decisions taken by the Government have each been considered and expert advice taken throughout – which xxx believes is precisely as it should. xxx makes her voice heard on behalf of all of her constituents both in Parliament and via the other channels she has available to her and will continue to do so.’
My response 'I understand that Statutory Instruments (which I specifically referred to in my letter) are delegated legislation and can therefore be introduced with minimal parliamentary input. In these instances MPs have no opportunity to make their voices heard on behalf of their constituents because there is no facility to amend the contents. However, I am interested in learning how this works in practice. Therefore, using this as an example https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/822/made?fbclid=IwAR05jDHCcCj6QwEq4aucqvirM-m65OVv2-YVmsCE241LnHBz8VwfiQzd9zg please provide details of the expert advice taken and the input from MPs.'
Comments, corrections etc gratefully received.
Ta
Hi Hollbsma. I think your reply to the first bit is good and you've asked a pertinent question. I like it. I've just looked at the cruddy Royal Society research and will amend my original post above to include a critique of it. I did it quite quickly so if there are any mistakes or things that don't make sense - let me know.
Well done for persevering with this. I think it is very important to ask difficult questions.
I was not able to amend the previous post. Here's the amended response:
With regard to the mandatory wearing of face coverings – xxx is clear that there is a need to balance the competing demands of protecting civil liberties and controlling the spread of the virus whilst enabling the restoration of economic and social life. xx’s colleagues in Government have made a judgement that the best way to balance these things is to enable people to go out and about, and to see and socialise with friends and family, but to require that, if they choose to do so, they take additional measures to restrict the spread of this virus by wearing face coverings in limited situations.
I understand. Could you please inform me of specific quality scientific evidence on which xxx and her colleagues in Government made the judgement that face coverings ‘in limited situations’ are effective as an additional measure in restricting the spread of the virus. I have fully researched this matter and can find no quality evidence that supports this.
The science in this area has evolved during the outbreak, and the body of scientific evidence that has now built up shows that the risk of transmission is made lower by wearing a face covering.
As you are aware, up until July 24th, face coverings were not mandatory – indeed the previous advice from Matt Hancock and the Government’s scientific advisors was that coverings do not affect restriction of the spread of the virus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XkOIesmFXg
The Government informed us they were ‘following the science’ regarding this. Could you specify the ‘body of scientific evidence' which evolved during the outbreak to support this change in the guidelines.
The UK’s Royal Society, for example, recently reviewed all the evidence and came to the conclusion that face coverings are effective for protecting the wearer of the face covering as well as those around them, though note the covering needs to be of a certain standard.
I have consulted the UK Royal Society’s Delve review of the evidence:
https://rs-delve.github.io/addenda/2020/07/07/masks-update.html
I invite you to consult this paper and apply the principles of ‘Levels of Evidence’ (eg Sackett et al) which dictates the quality of research in order to ascertain whether the findings are ‘gold standard’, strong or weak recommendations or merely opinion.
Having consulted the findings, it clear this study is not quality research and falls far short of the ‘gold standards’ required for strong recommendations.
The research is based on observation and modelling studies, which are considered inferior to Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) or the systematic review of RCTs. I include excerpts from the paper admitting this:
"Evidence continues to accrue that masks, including cloth masks, prevent onward transmission of infection. This is based on observational and modeling data in humans, on the effectiveness of masks in intercepting droplets and aerosols and on controlled studies of experimental animals. Evidence is also accumulating that masks may additionally protect the wearer.
It is inherently problematic to conduct such a trial on a practice that all must adhere to for it to be efficacious. Nevertheless, the cumulative multifaceted evidence on mask efficacy provides strong support for their use. Several accepted medical and public health practices to reduce the transmission of other infections are based on similar types of evidence and not on the results of randomized clinical trials."
I refer you to references commenting on the validity of Observational and Modelling studies:
Observational Studies – worthwhile or worthless?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6302806/
Reporting guidelines for modelling studies
https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-12-168
I further refer you to Level 1 research, which finds masks and respirators do not prevent the transmission of viruses and asks serious questions regarding the negative effects:
https://www.sott.net/article/434796-The-Science-is-Conclusive-Masks-and-Respirators-do-NOT-Prevent-Transmission-of-Viruses?fbclid=IwAR06QiUKhsOAlfzQZJ6ZxUgXXEAV7rDrKOvYL3SQW8qFAp_yDuBPpzCF7Ao
Clearly an evaluation of the evidence is important. If any face covering is ineffective, then there is no point in wearing it. You rightly point out any face covering needs to be of a certain standard to be effective.
Could you advise me why the Government is basing important decisions on poor research and ignoring quality research? Alternatively, can you point me to any quality research which finds face coverings are effective.
Significantly, recently the World Health Organisation changed their advice, (WHO), by saying that whilst the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets, under some circumstance airborne transmission might occur, the WHO go on to advise the use of fabric masks, (face coverings), to reduce the spread of infection.
I think you will find the WHO changed its advice for political rather than scientific reasons. I would be grateful if you could refer me to the specific scientific research on which the WHO based its advice and inform me where it is published.
This increasing evidence, but also the new evidence that sales and retail staff were being more severely affected by the virus than the general population, supported the decision that from 24 July it became mandatory to wear a face covering when visiting a shop or supermarket. Previously this requirement was advisory. There are of course some exceptions, for example the rules do not apply to children under 11.
The full guidance on the wearing of face coverings can be found here.
Thank you for the link regarding full guidance on the wearing of face coverings. Again I would respectfully request you specify the ‘increasing evidence’ you refer to in the above paragraph.
There will be a wide spread public health communications campaign within which it will be made clear that social distancing, good hygiene and isolating when infected or having symptoms, also remain important mitigating actions.
Thank you, I look forward to hearing about it. Can you confirm that all advice regarding ‘mitigating actions’ will be fully backed up by quality scientific research. I would ask that the Government actually publish and make known the findings on which all advice is based.
Your point that this decision will reduce the number of people going out is not a view that is shared by those advising the Government. Perhaps more importantly people need to go shopping and for those who are most at risk it is quite right that steps are taken to protect them, and also to reassure them that they can be safe when they go out.
Of course, people need to go shopping and the vulnerable need to be protected. However, I and many others in your Constituency are not reassured by the contradictory and confusing advice given by the Government. Furthermore, if you speak to your Constituents you will find that many people do not want to go out because they are scared and face coverings are making it worse.
xxx recognises that this decision is not one you welcome, but she is confident that there is now enough evidence to suggest that the wearing of face coverings in certain situations will help stop those with the virus from giving it to others, and for that reason she supports this decision. The Government has noted that it will keep all guidelines under constant review to ensure that any restrictions in place are worthwhile measures – where that is shown not to be the case the measure will be considered and potentially changed.
It is not about whether I welcome the decision or not – it is purely about the evidence the decision is based on – and indeed whether, as you say, the mandatory measures are ‘worthwhile’. I would respectfully ask you once again to advise me of the specific scientific evidence xxx refers to. It is not enough to point me to one poor quality study, I and my family, friends and neighbours in your Constituency would like to know exactly why we are being required to wear face coverings.
I look forward to hearing from you with the information I have asked for etc etc
@LivvyB
Thank you for this. What's the Packett et al reference please? Duckduck go'd it and couldn't find anything. If you've time, obviously. You're making a lot of effort with this & much appreciated.
Job description to be an MP is to spout forth a bucket load of diarrhoea, have the ability to self isolate, forget how the phone and social media works, and get yourself a little treasure as a researcher that doubles as a minder, do we really need a government, especially the one we have got.
very funny
Strange that supposed evidence shows retail workers higher risk. Agreed the risk should technically be higher, although my aunty and cousin have both worked in the local supermarket asda for years, my aunty working in hr, and throughout this whole charade from march(through it's worst), they don't know a single person in their store, or any other store they deal with, having been off with this covid 19. NOT ONE. Dealing with thousands of people a week. I asked that question at the hieght to alot of shop assistants at the time and no one had a story of anyone off from it and when pointed out agreed it was strange. Why the masks now.. No thanks.
I’m on Arthur Firstenberg’s email list (author of The Invisible Rainbow) and today his email included a list of studies on how masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.
If you need any more ammunition on masks, he cites the following studies:
Dr Neil Orr’s study, 1981. Surgeons and staff in the surgical unit did not wear masks during surgeries for six months and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. They discovered that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”
Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”
Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”
Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.”
Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”
Thanks Di, this is a really useful list. I might start a new thread with resources like this people can refer to. I didn't include these in the response letter because the MP talks about 'new evidence' supporting their change of mind on July 24th.
The Invisible Rainbow is an excellent and fascinating book. Particularly relevant today.
And Arthur's email goes on to say:
Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes -- two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.
Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.
“We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,” writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature. _____________
After decidiing not to name my local MP - out of respect really & I hate the modern retoric of ....well making a noise.
He's ignored my last email about concerns so - my local MP is Sir Mike Penning, I don't like being ignored mr PEnning.
He is obliged to respond Marko. Write and ask why your letter has been ignored. If he doesn't respond then, write another chase letter 10 days later, then another, then another. OK, some people say it's a waste of time but if we all do that they can't ignore it. I really think writing to MPs is VERY important. If anyone gives up and accepts being fobbed off, they have won. Don't let them.
Remind im of a simple fact of law called 'Misconduct of public office' . The whole government and NHS are guilty of this too....
Just to add to this - the amount of people I've contacted & I'd say only a few have answered, my Doctor surgey has ignored my concerns - so what the heck!!!
I emialed a few MPs in my local areas weeks back, only 1 git back directly via email & agreed with my concerns, he said the problem is the givernemnt will bow down to so called experts or peer pressure IE the opublic &/or media.
Refrwshing to hear that really - he added just do my own thing & ride it out, he predicted it'd all come to carshing halt by xmas.
so I thank him for being honest ----- a honest MP jeez the world is becoming a changed place.
Keep on at them - it's a good form of activism and everyone can do it. Don't be put off my being ignored. It shows you're right.
You are lucky if you have got an MP who behaves as he should, a pathetic few I am afraid. Most are watching their own backs, but hopefully any future elections may just make a few wish they hadn't, and chosen to do what we elected them for. Remember us! you are nothing without us, we can make or break you.
Yes you are lucky. Mine still hasn't replied, nor has the councillor or the local vicar. I thought a man of God might be interested in doing God's work - seemingly not! There is an excellent open letter to Boris Johnson on 5Gexposed.com. It states all the facts, references and quotes from various people, including the conflict of interests of Chris Whitty and Matt Hancock. I might be a good idea to copy it and send it to all MPs, local councillors and whomever else we can think of. According to today's newletter on mercola.com there will be a psychological campaign to get everyone in the US to get the vaccine and it will probably be tried here. We have to stand firm and also get legal help to prevent mandatory vaccination as Matt Hancock would like. There are references in the open letter which should be prevent this, but who knows what laws are being passed at the moment! no democracy at the moment. I will keep hammering away - just so many non-believers it is just not true.11.11
Hi
Yes, so many non-believers. Was putting leaflets through letterboxes yesterday and got chatting to a man who said 'Nobody's to blame, it's a virus.' Once we got talking he said he was waiting for a hospital appointment that had now been moved to January, then only a telephone one, which wouldn't help. But he was better off than some because it wasn't a life-threatening condition like cancer. His grandchild really needed to be back in school, etc etc. 'But what can we do about it', like it's all beyond us to speak up & take some action. So, like you, I will keep hammering away. But I wonder just how much some people will take before getting cross. I've been cross for ages but perhaps I'm more naturally grumpy!
Salsa - don't be fobbed off. Write and ask why your letters have been ignored. If they don't reply write again after 10 days and ask again. And again after another 10 days. They want you to stop - don't let them.