by Dr. Joseph Mercola
December 03, 2020
first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000
individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face
masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not
statistically significantly reduce the incidence of
Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for
SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they
removed the people who did not adhere to proper mask
use, the results remained the same - 1.8%, which
suggests adherence makes no significant difference
Among those who reported wearing their face mask
"exactly as instructed," 2% tested positive for
SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls
tested positive for antibodies at the end of the
month-long study compared to 1.8% of controls
in the mask group and 0.6% tested positive for one or
more respiratory viruses other than SARS-CoV-2
The first randomized controlled trial 1,2 to assess the
effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection
specifically - which journals initially refused to publish - is
finally seeing the light of day.
The so-called "Danmask-19 Trial," published November 18, 2020, in
the Annals of Internal Medicine, 3 included 3,030
individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked
Of them, 80.7% completed the study.
To qualify, participants had to spend at least three hours per day
outside the home and not be required to wear a mask during their
daily work. At the end of the study, participants reported having
spent a median of 4.5 hours per day outside the home.
For one month, participants in the mask group were instructed to
wear a mask whenever they were outside their home. Surgical face
masks with a filtration rate of 98% were supplied.
with recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO),
participants were instructed to change their mask after eight hours.
Antibody testing was performed before the outset and at the end of
the study period.
At the end of the month, they also submitted a
nasal swab sample
for PCR testing.
Danmask-19 Trial Found
The primary outcome was a positive PCR test, a positive antibody
test result (IgM or IgG) during the study period, or a
hospital-based diagnosis of COVID-19.
Secondary end points included PCR evidence of infection with other respiratory viruses.
Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always
wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and
7% failed to follow recommendations.
So, what did they find?
As you might expect,
there's a reason why the researchers had such a hard time getting
this study published:
wearers, 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive
for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. When
they removed the people who reported not adhering to the
recommendations for use, the results remained the same -
1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no
participants) tested positive for antibodies compared to
1.8% (44) of controls.
Among those who
reported wearing their face mask "exactly as instructed," 2%
(22 participants) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to
2.1% (53) of the controls.
in the mask group and 39 in the control group reported
COVID-19 in their household. Of these, two participants in
the mask group and one in the control group developed
SARS-CoV-2 infection - a finding that suggests "the source
of most observed infections was outside the home."
participants) in the mask group and 0.6% (11 individuals)
tested positive for one or more respiratory viruses other
than SARS-CoV-2 (secondary outcome).
Lower, or Raise, Infection Risk
All in all, this landmark COVID-19-specific study failed to deliver
good news to those who insist face masks are a crucial component of
the pandemic response.
Masks may reduce your
risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may increase
your risk by 23%. In other words, the preponderance of evidence
still shows that masks have virtually no impact on viral
Another take-home point that you get from this study, which
Bigtree points out in The Highwire video report
far below, is
that the vast majority - 97.9% of those who didn't wear masks, and
98.2% of those who did - remained infection free.
So, we are destroying economies and lives around the world,
To protect a small
minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed
in "Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic' Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,"
means little to nothing.
As reported by the
statistically significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 incidence was
observed, the 95% CIs are compatible with a possible 46%
reduction to 23% increase in infection among mask wearers.
These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection
mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not
wearing masks and where other public health measures, including
social distancing, are in effect...
SARS-CoV-2 may take place through multiple
It has been argued that for the primary route of
SARS-CoV-2 spread - that is, via droplets - face masks would be
considered effective, whereas masks would not be effective
against spread via aerosols, which might penetrate or
circumnavigate a face mask.
Thus, spread of
SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols would at least partially explain the
The present findings are compatible with the findings of a
review of randomized controlled trials of the efficacy of face
masks for prevention (as personal protective equipment) against
Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical
mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at
conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence
of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where
social distancing and other public health measures were in
effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and
community use of masks was uncommon."
Tyrants Double Down on Mask Mandates
The researchers point out that results could potentially turn out
differently if everyone were wearing a mask.
At the time of the study,
Danish authorities did not recommend universal mask use and most
Danes did not wear them.
exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks."
however, is a big "if," and not sufficient to mandate universal mask
Any claim to such effect
is nothing but a wholly unscientific guess. Despite that, many local
leaders are now doubling down on mask mandates, some even requiring
them to be worn inside your own home when anyone outside the family
is present and even if physical distancing can be maintained. 5
As an example of extremes, a June 2020 Harvard University paper
6,7 even suggested couples should wear face masks during sex.
Others are tripling down
on masks, recommending you wear two or even three at the same time.
Former Food and Drug
Administration commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb is urging
Americans to wear N95 surgical masks whenever possible. 9
Missing entirely from most recommendations is common-sense health
guidance known to improve your immune function and lower your
infection risk naturally, such as supplementing with,
As noted by Angela
Rasmussen, a virologist and affiliate of the Georgetown Center for
Global Health Science and Security, in a November 15, 2020, op-ed in
The Guardian, 10 our immune systems know how to
handle the virus:
it's our politicians who have failed to cope with
She writes: 11
"Most of the evidence
in both COVID-19 patients and animal models shows that the
immune response to this is quite typical for an acute viral
Initially, the body
ramps up high levels of IgG antibodies, but after the infection
is cleared, those antibodies drop to a baseline level, which may
be below the limit of detection of some serological tests.
Antibodies are produced by B-cells, a specialized type of immune
cell that recognizes a specific antigen, or viral target.
When an infection is
cleared, B-cells producing antibodies convert from being plasma
cells, which are specialized to pump out massive quantities of
SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, to being memory B-cells.
These cells produce lower levels of IgG antibody; but,
importantly they persist in the body for years. If they are
re-exposed to SARS-CoV-2, they rapidly convert to plasma cells
and begin producing high levels of antibody again.
There is no indication that most COVID-19 patients are not
developing immune memory, and animals experimentally infected
with SARS-CoV-2 are protected against rechallenge with high
doses of virus.
Furthermore, antibodies are not the only important part of the
T-cells are also a
key component to the immune response. They come in two flavors:
helper T-cells, which coordinate immune responses and facilitate
immunological memory, and killer T-cells, which kill infected
Previous studies have
shown that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces robust T-cell
As noted by Rasmussen, the data collected on the responses of
T-cells to SARS-CoV-2 infection "underscore that SARS-CoV-2 is
not an anomalous virus capable of miraculous feats of immune
No matter how
strictly mask laws are enforced
nor the level of
mask compliance the population follows,
cases all fall
and rise around the same time.
In other words, provided your immune function is normal, the virus
is as vulnerable as any other virus and you're not destined to die
just because you develop symptoms.
So, the reason we're in
the situation we're now in, Rasmussen says, is not because
SARS-CoV-2 is somehow different or more lethal than anything that
has come before.
We're in this situation
due to political failures.
Have Had No Impact on Infection Trends
Other data analyses that add support to the Danish study's results
include Yinon Weiss' work presented in his article, 12
"These 12 Graphs Show
Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID."
In it, he shows that
states' mask rules appear to have had nothing to do with infection
rates, which is what you'd expect if masks don't work.
Weiss points out that,
"No matter how
strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance
the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same
To see all of the graphs,
check out Weiss' article 13 or Twitter thread. 14
Here are just a select
few to bring home the point:
Inevitable Acceptance of COVID-19 Reality
What everyone needs to come to terms with is that we have a new
respiratory virus in town - one that may stay with us indefinitely.
The question then
Just how long do we
lock ourselves in our homes and shun all social relationships?
How long do we neglect our children's education and social
development by keeping schools closed?
How long do we leave
our elderly family members to languish in isolation?
A better part of the
global population has essentially stopped living altogether, and
For fear of an illness
that 99.7% of people recover from 15 - an illness that is
as likely to kill you as the seasonal influenza if you're under 60.
Data clearly show that COVID-19 has not resulted in excess
mortality, meaning the same number of people who die in any given
year, on average, have died in this year of the pandemic. 17,18
19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26 also suggest immunity against
SARS-CoV-2 infection is far more widespread than anyone imagined.
In an October 28, 2020, Wall Street Journal opinion piece, 27
Joseph Ladapo, an associate professor at UCLA's David Geffen
School of Medicine, points out that we really must accept reality
and move on with life, unpredictable as it may be.
"By paying outsize
and scientifically unjustified attention to masking, mask
mandates have the unintended consequence of delaying public
acceptance of the unavoidable truth.
In countries with active community transmission and no herd
immunity, nothing short of inhumane lockdowns can stop the
spread of COVID-19, so the most sensible and sustainable path
forward is to learn to live with the virus.
Shifting focus away from mask mandates and toward the reality of
respiratory viral spread will free up time and resources to
protect the most vulnerable Americans...
Until the reality of viral spread in the U.S... is accepted,
political leaders will continue to feel justified in keeping
schools and businesses closed, robbing young people of the
opportunity to invest in their futures, and restricting
activities that make life worthwhile."
Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself
Hopefully, if you've been reading this newsletter, you're no longer
incapacitated with fear and are capable of making more level-headed
decisions based on the data at hand rather than the fear porn
published in the daily papers.
Everything really points to this pandemic being overblown and
prolonged for purposes that have nothing to do with saving lives and
everything to do with "resetting" the global financial and power
structures - none of which will benefit us.
The lockdowns are essentially just conditioning you to accept a
radically new way of life - one in which we have limited ability to
travel or work, one in which we're conditioned to being partially or
wholly dependent on a government handout, one in which we must
submit to being tracked and surveilled with little or no right to
privacy, one in which the government dictates how you can spend your
time, where you can go, who you can spend time with and for how
Eventually, once the global economies are in irreparable shambles,
the central banks will roll out a debt erasure program to solve all
The price will be your
humanity, your freedom.
Will you pay it...?
Or will you resist
the whole deviled scheme while you still can...?
Masks are Ineffective - Covid-19
Sources and References
of Internal Medicine November 18, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-6817
2 - Spectator
November 19, 2020
4 - Annals
of Internal Medicine November 18, 2020 DOI:
5 - Philly
Voice November 17, 2020
6 - Annals
of Internal Medicine 2020 May 8 : M20-2004
7 - New
York Post June 2, 2020
8 - NPR
November 3, 2020
9 - Daily
Mail November 23, 2020
Guardian November 15, 2020
Federalist October 29, 2020
14 - Twitter
Yinon Weiss October 27, 2020
of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
17 - YouTube,
SARS-CoV-2 and the rise of medical technocracy, Lee Merritt,
MD, aprox 8 minutes in (Lie No. 1: Death Risk)
18 - Technical
Report June 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.24350.77125
Cell June 25, 2020; 181(7):
20 - Wall
Street Journal June 12, 2020 (Archived)
21 - Nature
Immunology September 30, 2020 DOI:
22 - The
Lancet Microbe September 4, 2020 DOI:
23 - UPI
September 4, 2020
24 - Nature
July 15, 2020; 584: 457-462
25 - Daily
Mail June 12, 2020
26 - Science
Times June 12, 2020
27 - WSJ
Opinion October 28, 2020 (Archived)