Dozens of distorted studies have created a lie about harmful face masks

“Muzzles do not protect against viruses, but they are still multifunctional: they increase the risk of infection, cause hypoxia and hypercapnia, which in turn further reduce cognitive function and suppress immunity,” the Facebook post said.

This week, several thousand Facebook users shared this type of record and links to “tests”. The registry aims to show that the use of masks not only does not reduce the spread of COVID-19, but is also harmful to health.

The post is accompanied by nearly 30 links to a variety of sources. We focus on sources to substantiate claims of mask damage. References that provide information on hypercapnia are associated with elevated CO2 levels in the blood, and we do not check for disease without wearing masks.

We were also unable to verify the allegations that are based on the entry of inoperative or incorrectly recorded references that should have led to an explanatory investigation.

Outdated information

The registry begins with the statement that healthy people should not wear masks because there is no evidence that the masks used by healthy people are effective in protecting people from disease.

The test will include a reference to March 4 published in the medical journal Jama general guidelines for wearing masks that really express that idea.

However, that evidence already exists at this time. In the prestigious scientific journalAn analysis of 172 studies published by The Lancet in June showedthat the use of masks significantly reduced the probability of contracting COVID-19, SARS or MERS infections in the vicinity of the wearer.

Last week opinion based on research The benefits of wearing masks were also presented by Robert Redfield, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who said there is ample evidence that wearing masks can reduce the spread of the disease. disease.

According to research, the benefits of wearing masks to stop the spread of COVID-19 representatives of the institutions of our country were also convinced. In other words, the authors of the publication are relying on outdated information.

Default details

The second test is the notice. published in the Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health. The registry uses only part of the message that says: “There is no evidence that masks protect against infectious respiratory infections, including COVID-19.”

The publication adds that “the lack of proof of effectiveness does not mean that there is no effect.” The post goes on to explain that improperly worn masks are harmful, and material masks are designed to protect those who do not wear them, bystanders, who may unknowingly be carriers of the disease.

The third link leads The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) April 1. published publication, which examines the benefits of wearing masks in health centers. It should be noted that this is not a study of academics, but an opinion placed in a dedicated section of the journal.

Based on the new information at the time, the authors state that the likelihood of a bystander transmitting COVID-19 is minimal, and therefore the universal wearing of masks in response to fear of a pandemic.

However, upon reading further, academics note that masks can be beneficial when it comes to asymptomatic cases. It should be noted that, for example, The European Center for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC) only recommended the use of oral and nasal masks on April 8., the opinion of the academics appeared a week after the NEJM.

Distorted words

Fourth link leads to 2012 investigation, which evaluated the benefits of masks and respirators in reducing the spread of influenza. The authors of the publication purposely chose one phrase: “None of these studies demonstrated a link between masks and respiratory viruses.”

However, academics who reviewed 17 studies on the effectiveness of masks said that part of the study was not adequate to assess the effectiveness of masks in fighting the flu, and some of the studies reviewed cast doubt on the quality .

As a result, scholars note, there is no access to the end (ang. conclusive) about the benefits of masks. However, in the next sentence, it is noted that there is evidence that masks can be useful when hygiene rules are followed and masks are used correctly.

The fifth reference, which seeks to demonstrate that “wearing a mask, exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and concentrate in the nasal cavity, enter the olfactory nerve and travel to the brain,” leads to a pseudoscience website. technocracynews.com.

The author of the publication, Russell Baylock, is a skeptic of vaccines. Warning about the dangers of masks, the man provides links to posts that investigate the spread of the virus and do not mention the masks. The man also uses the analysis of 17 studies described above, in which, as the authors of a roaming record in Lithuania, he only sees one sentence.

In other words, the publication does not provide academic evidence to find a link between exhaled air and the penetration of the virus into the brain. This is Baylock’s interpretation.

Wrong interpretation

The sixth argument against the use of masks is that “COVID-19 attacks the central nervous system (wearing a mask increases the risk of the virus entering the brain).”

As evidence the reference provided leads to a study by Pakistani scientists, which looks at how the virus that causes COVID-19 affects the central nervous system. The use of masks and the damage they cause is not mentioned.

On the seventh and eighth Evidence of mask damage includes references to two other studies that have explained the spread of the coronavirus in humans. No one talks about face masks or their benefits or harms.

The authors of the publication aim to show that after exhaling the air, the virus particles remain in the mask and can then travel to the internal organs through the nose and settle there. However, it ignores the fact that if we breathe out the virus with the air, it is already in our body. And this is to prevent the virus from spreading to those who carry it, and the goal is to use nasal and mouth-covering devices.

The file goes on to say that “most of those infected were among those wearing cloth masks.” Reference is made to 2015. study published, in which Chinese, Australian and Vietnamese researchers compared the effectiveness of medical and cloth masks when used by medical professionals.

The phrase mentioned in the post was significantly distorted by its authors. Yes, it is observed that there were more cases when using material masks, but this result is compared with those using medical masks. In other words, the study’s finding that medical masks help prevent disease contradicts the post.

The other three references present the same study just described and published in other sources. It seeks to substantiate the claims: “The results warn that their use (masks – automatic paste) is harmful” and “cloth masks can even increase the risk of infection”.

In fact, the study claims that the effectiveness of cloth masks is lower compared to medical masks. The study authors caution medical personnel to use cloth masks more carefully. However, it is noted that “more research is needed to better understand the use of cloth masks.”

However, it should be noted that the study did not look at how cloth masks would look compared to a group of people who do not wear masks at all. Neither has it been studied how cloth masks would work to combat the massive spread of the virus.

In response to information released on their behalf, the authors of this year’s study March 30 circulated a message, in which they stated that their publication could not be interpreted in the context of COVID-19 or in relation to the widespread use of cloth masks.

Research Leader Raina McIntyre factcheck.org told reportersthat the use of masks can limit the spread of the virus by creating a physical barrier between the human respiratory tract and those around them.

Incomparable circumstances

The following Facebook post aims to show that face masks can cause headaches. It is said that “wearing masks reduces oxygen and raises carbon dioxide levels to dangerous levels.”

The goal is to prove the claim. 2005 publication, whose objective was to elucidate the psychological effects of the use of masks in medical personnel. The study looks at N95-type masks for non-human use masks or medical masks for hours.

The study authors found that after surgeries lasting more than 3 hours, some surgeons had lower arterial pulse oxygen levels than before or after surgery. The study was carried out with an oximeter.

“It is important to emphasize that the results of this preliminary study should not be used in general. To know the changes in blood gas, more tests are needed, in which blood samples would be taken every year and the number of subjects would be greater” states the study.

The study is applied to a specific group of people who perform specific tasks in a specific environment. As with previous studies in the registry, they are not applicable to the general population.

The entry continues with the phrase “Wearing an N95 mask significantly reduced the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood.” The claim is proven net Three investigation.

The first study was conducted in 2004 and found that the negative effects of N95-type masks were seen when worn for more than 4 hours without a break. The second study found that medical and N95-type masks inhibited the spread of influenza in the same way.

The third study found that there was insufficient data to accurately assess whether type N95 respirators were superior to medical masks in protecting medical personnel from infectious diseases. Both the second and third studies suggest that masks help reduce the number of infections.

15 minutes According to the evaluation, the statements made in the Facebook post that the masks “increase the risk of infection, cause hypoxia and hypercapnia” are misleading. At least the data provided by the authors of the registry do not allow to draw such conclusions.

The record contains scholarly articles, distorted, only the parts of the narrative that are suitable to support the anti-mask narrative are selected. Frequent testing is not related to COVID-19 or disease control. Part of the research is designed to investigate specific conditions of medical personnel that ordinary people do not need to face.

Reliable sources

Representatives of the country’s information space monitoring authorities and the SAM advise against the use of social networks as the sole source of information and are particularly skeptical about any information published in the comments.

It calls for the collection of data from official authorities and close monitoring of the origin of the information. The outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic has sparked a wave of misleading information, sometimes deliberately promoted by foreign countries.

Official information on COVID-19 is provided by Ministry of Health (SAM), Center for Communicable Diseases and AIDS (ULAC), World Health Organization (WHO), National Center for Public Health, European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

Post was prepared in 15 minutes in collaboration with Facebook a program to stop the spread of misleading news on the social network. More about the program and its rules – here.