One of the multiple orthodoxies being used by the pro-lockdown left in "controlling" the spread of the coronavirus is that masks should be worn at all times, because they supposedly work at preventing the transmission of the virus. This is in spite of the CDC saying that faces maks should only be worn by those caring for sick people or if they themselves were sick, and even the Worhtless Health Organization saying the same thing for even longer. Even Fauci was famous for saying on 60 Minutes that wearing masks would not help.

However, that has not stopped those in the government - such as Kate Brown - from mandating mask wearing for everyone, making it a political hot button, and to me, more about control than preventing virus spread. What they refuse to look at is the fact that even with mask mandates, cases still continue to rise, but that would require honesty.

Leftist politics is all about controlling the message and suppressing any evidence that refutes a leftist position, and this has been demonstrated when it comes to masks. As documented by Jenin Younes at the American Institute for Economic Research:

A prime example is the Institute of Health Metrics Evaluation’s (“IHME”) rather astounding claim, published in the journal Nature-Medicine and echoed in countless articles afterward, that the lives of 130,000 people could be saved with a nationwide mask mandate.

As my colleague Phil Magness pointed out in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the IHME model was predicated upon faulty data: it assumed that 49% of Americans were wearing masks based on a survey conducted between April and June, while claiming that statistic represented the number of Americans wearing masks as of September 21. In fact, by the summer, around 80% of Americans were regularly wearing them. (Ironically, had Dr. Fauci and the Surgeon General not bungled the message in March, mask use probably would have reached much higher rates much earlier on).

This called into question the accuracy of the 130,000 figure, since many more people habitually used masks than the study presumed.

Although Magness contacted Nature-Medicine to point out the problem, after stalling for nearly two weeks, the journal declined to address it. Needless to say, the damage had been done: newspapers such as the New York Times undoubtedly would fail to correct the error and any retractions certainly would be placed far from the front page, where the initial article touting the IHME figure appeared. Thus, as expected, the unfounded claim that 130,000 lives could be saved with a nationwide mask-mandate continues to be repeated, including by president-elect Joe Biden and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins.

That the science behind mask-wearing is questionable at best is further exemplified by a letter to the editor written in response to Magness’s article. Dr. Christopher Murray acknowledged that rates of mask-wearing have steadily increased, but then concluded that masks should be used because they are “our first line of defense against the pandemic” and current IHME modeling indicates that “if 95% of U.S. residents were to wear masks when leaving home, we could prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans” because “masks work,” and “much deeper pain is ahead if we refuse to wear them.”

None of this accounts for the failure of either Nature-Medicine or the IHME modelers to recognize and correct the error. Moreover, neither the IHME modelers nor Dr. Murray provide any evidence that masks work. They assume masks are extremely effective at preventing spread of the coronavirus, and then claim that the model is correct for that reason. This sort of circular reasoning is all-too typical of those who so vociferously insist that masks are effective without going to the trouble of substantiating that contention – or differentiating what is likely a modest benefit from mask-wearing in specific indoor locations and around high-risk individuals from the media-driven tendency to depict masks as a silver bullet for stopping the virus in all circumstances.

Coverage of a recent mask study conducted in Denmark likewise epitomizes the failure of the scientific community to rigorously engage with results that do not fit the prevailing masks-as-a-panacea narrative. The first randomized and controlled study of its kind (another appeared in May but it pertained to flu and had similar results), it found an absence of empirical evidence that masks provide protection to people wearing them, although it apparently did not assess whether they prevent infection of those who encounter the wearer. The report was covered in a New York Times article bearing the patronizing headline, “A New Study Questions Whether Masks Protect Wearers. You Need to Wear Them Anyway.”

Noting that the results “conflict with those from a number of other studies,” primarily “laboratory examinations of the particles blocked by materials of various types,” the author remarked that, therefore, this research “is not likely to alter public health recommendations in the United States.” Notably, laboratory examinations, as opposed to the Danish study, do not account for the realities of everyday mask usage by non-medical professionals.

The author then quotes Susan Ellenberg, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, who claims that the study indicates a trend: “‘in the direction of benefit’ even if the results were not statistically significant. ‘Nothing in this study suggests . . . that it is useless to wear a mask,’” according to Dr. Ellenberg.

Nor does anything in this study suggest that it is useful to wear a mask, a fact that Dr. Ellenberg (and the headline) conveniently ignores. Furthermore, if a result is statistically insignificant, it should not be used to make the case for any proposition — as even I, a layperson, know.

Scientists ought to dispassionately analyze data that contradicts their biases and assumptions, and be open to changing their beliefs accordingly. That the results of the only randomized, controlled study were and continue to be automatically discounted demonstrates that, when it comes to the subject of masks, anything approximating the scientific method has gone out the window. That is all the more evident given the lack of interest that mask proponents have shown in conducting a randomized, controlled study themselves.

An article in the Los Angeles Times went even further: it twisted the findings of the Danish study to argue, incomprehensibly, that the research demonstrated more mask-wearing is warranted. The author cited, as supposedly compelling evidence that masks work, the low Covid-19 death rates in Singapore, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Indeed, according to the latest YouGov poll, administered in mid-November, 83% of Americans now wear masks in public, higher rates than Vietnam (77%) and Taiwan (82%).

The IHME is already known for their worthless data modeling that claimed that 2 million people would die from COVID (and was based on faulty assumptions), but they seem to figure it doesn't hurt to keep trying the same thing. But the thing to note with the DAnish study was that the main objections was that it went against the prevailing narrative, so it should be discounted. Any scientist worth anything at all will tell you that in correctly done science, you follow the evidence where it leads, even if it goes against the prevailing narrative. However, because leftists know they usually can't win an argument on merits, they try to shut down any inquiry at all.

Writing at MedPage Today, Dr. Vinay Prasad made this point:

What does the trial show exactly? The Danish trial shows that this specific mask recommendation (plus a box of masks) made during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with background rates of 2% PCR acquisition, failed to show that mask wearing reduces risk by 50%. In places where there is modest SARS-CoV-2 transmission (like Denmark during these months), there is insufficient evidence to suggest wearing a mask as you go about daily errands will protect you from infection. That is good to know!

What doesn't the trial show? The trial is not able to assess the claim, "My mask protects you, not me." The way to test this claim would be to randomize clusters or groups of people. Perhaps by city or county, and ask if mask mandates slow spread across all folks who live in that area. To my knowledge there has never been such a study, and while this message is popular and plausible, we should be willing to say, "I don't know for sure if it is true." By the way, we have done so many cluster randomized controlled trials in medicine, that a colleague and I studied them here.

What the trial really means? Above all else, the Danish trial shows randomized trials are possible, and desperately needed. We need these studies now more than ever. Let's be honest. Masks have become a hot-button political issue. They are increasingly a badge symbolizing who one voted for. This is a terrible consequence of bad leadership and caustic, polarized social media posts -- yes, unfortunately, by both proponents and opponents of masks.

The trials we need right now are cluster randomized trials to test messaging strategies. Is SARS-CoV-2 transmission slowed in counties/cities where we (a) advise people to wear a cloth mask because it's the patriot thing to do (b) advise them to wear a cloth mask because it may protect others (c) advise people to wear surgical masks and distribute households a box (d) advise masks indoors only, but no need to wear a mask outdoors, or (e) no additional comments made by officials. There are many important testable questions.

Should the trial have been published? Some have turned to social media to ask why a trial that may diminish enthusiasm for masks and may be misinterpreted was published in a top medical journal. Woah! First, of all, I am prepared to die on the hill that science means publishing the results of truthful experiments no matter what they show. We can acknowledge limits, but we can never suppress results. Second, in today's environment of rampant conspiracy theories, watching doctors openly discuss not publishing results seems to be ... I can't think of a polite word.

Don't make masks more political than they have become! Experts on twitter do not realize what they are doing. The more one's social media feed becomes a mix of posts claiming Trump is stupid, Biden is great, and masks are awesome, the more those become wedded together, as a single package deal. If one wishes to be a public health expert for all Americans, one cannot be a naked political actor online.

Back in July, while the Danish study was still in progress, the Center For Evidence-Based Medicine wrote about Masking lack of evidence with Politics

The increasing polarised and politicised views 1 on whether to wear masks in public during the current COVID-19 crisis hides a bitter truth on the state of contemporary research and the value we pose on clinical evidence to guide our decisions.

In 2010, at the end of the last influenza pandemic, there were six published randomised controlled trials with 4,147 participants focusing on the benefits of different types of masks. 2 Two were done in healthcare workers and four in family or student clusters. The face mask trials for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported poor compliance, rarely reported harms and revealed the pressing need for future trials.

Despite the clear requirement to carry out further large, pragmatic trials a decade later, only six had been published: five in healthcare workers and one in pilgrims. 3 This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.

After evaluating six different studies of masks, they conclude:

What do scientists do in the face of uncertainty on the value of global interventions? Usually, they seek an answer with adequately designed and swiftly implemented clinical studies as has been partly achieved with pharmaceuticals. We consider it is unwise to infer causation based on regional geographical observations as several proponents of masks have done. Spikes in cases can easily refute correlations, compliance with masks and other measures is often variable, and confounders cannot be accounted for in such observational research.

A search of the COVID trials tracker reveals nine registered trials of which five are currently recruiting participants and one enrolling participants by invitation. 7 In Denmark, where masks are advised for those who break self-isolation to go out to take a test, a randomised trial including 6,000 participants is assessing reductions in COVID-19 Infection Using Surgical Facial Masks Outside the Healthcare System. In Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, the Bandim Health Project is leading a 66,000 person trial – although not yet recruiting – on cloth face masks.

The small number of trials and lateness in the pandemic cycle is unlikely to give us reasonably clear answers and guide decision-makers. This abandonment of the scientific modus operandi and lack of foresight has left the field wide open for the play of opinions, radical views and political influence.

As noted above the key issue is the abandonment of the scientific modus operandi; following the evidence, whereever it leads,regardless of how it may prove the prevailing narrative wrong.

Against this backdrop, we come to the case of Dr. Steven LaTulippe, a physician from Dallas, OR. In a video from a Stop the Steal rally in Salem on November 7th, Dr. LaTulippe said that neither he nor his staff wears masks in their clinic. He said that he has treated abot 80patients for COVID-19, but he does ask patients who have suspected cases of COVID-19 to wear a mask in his clinic. He said he treats them after other patients have left for the day, and in a back room that is disinfected before and after use.

As a result of this, the Oregon Medical Board indefinitely suspended his medical license. According to the Board's statement, "the suspension was issued “due to the board’s concern for the safety and welfare of licensee’s current and future patients.”

So even though the value of masks is highly questionable at best, it is leftist orthodoxy now, and so daring to question that orthodoxy can cost you your career. In the past when we were a free country, patients would be free to choose to go to another doctor if they wish. Now, you obey, or lose your job.