Remember When The Media Told Us Not To Even Question COVID Policies?

Masks do not work. They do not stop respiratory viruses. They do prevent infections, protect individuals, or slow onward transmission. Masks don't work. 

Which is why the most heavily masked countries on earth saw tremendous increases in infections, regardless of their level of compliance. South Korea, for example, has the highest confirmed cumulative COVID case rate on earth. One rolling survey from the University of Maryland conducted during the pandemic found that 99% of respondents had been wearing masks, a few short weeks before cases exploded to record highs.

It's much the same story in Japan, or even in heavily masked US jurisdictions like Los Angeles, New York City, or Chicago. Beyond the obvious results clearly demonstrating the failure of masking, it's worth and was worth asking questions of the "experts" like Anthony Fauci and politicians like former President Joe Biden who either demanded mandates or enacted them. 

Well, unless you're on the Editorial Board of one of the country's largest and most important newspapers. Then, you shouldn't question or trust anything that doesn't support or uphold what their preferred ideology believes.

Former President Joe Biden in 2020. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The Washington Post Told Us Not To Trust Accurate Information

"Do not trust a study questioning face masks during the pandemic," an article published by the Editorial Board of the Washington Post said in 2023. Imagine. "Do not trust a study" that demonstrates masks may not be as effective as the "experts" said they were. Why should we not trust it? Because it contradicts what the media wanted us to believe.

What was this dangerous, untrustworthy study, you might be wondering? 

Well, it was the Cochrane Library's Systematic Review of evidence on masking and physical interventions to stop respiratory viruses. The same study, conducted by researchers from the University of Oxford, passed peer-review, and incorporated evidence from studies and reviews published examining the effect of masks against COVID. 

They quoted Tom Jefferson, one of the study's lead authors, saying: "There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop," as some sort of questionable 

"Not so fast," the article says. Why? Because the editorial board has no idea what they're talking about, mischaracterizing the study, misinterpreting evidence, and defending inaccurate statements from incompetent "experts."

"First, definitions. A face mask or surgical face mask has gaps at the sides, and the filter materials vary widely, so they do not provide full protection," they write. "A surgical mask might prevent droplets from reaching the nose or mouth, but it cannot protect well against smaller airborne particles. Respirators, such as the N95, have a tight fit against the face and far more efficient filtration that can stop smaller particles, so they are far more protective."

There are several problems with this paragraph, starting with the fact that a face mask or surgical face mask is what the global public was told to wear. The literal Surgeon General of the United States told the public to roll up a T-shirt and put it in front of their face. Anthony Fauci told the public to wear anything, that any face mask would prevent transmission. Another problem? The Cochrane Library found that there's no evidence N95's stop respiratory infections either. They ignored this, instead pushing an inaccuracy in order to cast doubt on legitimate research and its findings.

They kept going, explaining in great detail how incompetent they are.

"When the COVID-19 pandemic began, it was feared the virus spread in larger droplets when people coughed, sneezed or sang in a choir," the article claims. "This was the reasoning behind social distancing — the droplets should fall to the ground within six feet. But we now know that COVID particles can be much smaller and hover in the air for an hour or more. Through gaps in a surgical mask, they can reach the nose or mouth. But a respirator is more likely to stop them from being breathed in or out."

This is, of course, not true. Only fit tested respirators are more likely to stop airborne particles, and nobody in the general public is getting their N95 masks fit tested. That's not an opinion, it's an established scientific fact. For example, here's a quote from the 2011 pandemic preparedness guide from the United Kingdom about N95 masks. 

"It is a legal requirement that anyone who might be required to wear a respirator be fit-tested to ensure that an adequate seal can be achieved to provide the best level of protection and that training in use be provided." 

Anyone in the public getting fit-tested and trained to use N95's correctly? Of course not. Here's the very next paragraph, again, dismantling the entire case for masking…in 2011. 

"Although there is a perception that the wearing of facemasks by the public in the community and household setting may be beneficial, there is in fact very little evidence of widespread benefit from their use in this setting. Facemasks must be worn correctly, changed frequently, removed properly, disposed of safely and used in combination with good respiratory, hand, and home hygiene behaviour in order for them to achieve the intended benefit. Research also shows that compliance with these recommended behaviours when wearing facemasks for prolonged periods reduces over time."

What about aerosols? After all, that's what the article uses to defend masking. Well, here's what the UK's top scientific researchers said about masks stopping aerosols in 2011: "If fitted properly, and used and changed in accordance with manufacturers instructions, they provide a physical barrier to large droplets but will not provide full respiratory protection against smaller particles such as aerosols." 

So the Post's entire argument to justify masking is that masks stop aerosols, and yet even properly tested ones don't. Whoops. We knew this 10 years before the start of the pandemic. Then the media, led by papers like the Washington Post, ignored it, downplayed it, and argued against scientific reality.

They weren't done there.

"Here is the bottom line: Loose-fitting face masks and surgical masks have a purpose, but when it comes to covid transmission, they are like wearing goggles with holes. Respirators are far superior in a viral pandemic, given what is now clear about airborne particles and the role that asymptomatic infection has played in transmission. Wearing face masks — but especially respirators — in crowded public enclosed spaces with poor ventilation is undoubtedly better than nothing."

There is no evidence that this is true. None whatsoever. The Post tries to reference a "study" from the CDC as proof of this claim. Except that study was thoroughly discredited and unreliable. Instead of actual trial data, it instead relied on phone survey questions from a few hundred people in California, then reported a result that was "not statistically significant." This is the best the Post could do.

This is how they close: "The pandemic has shown that the transmission route from one person to another is the air we breathe. Effective methods to block the virus, particularly respirators, are widely available. It is just a matter of using them."

It's astonishing how inaccurate this is. How inaccurate their article is. And how many millions of people were permanently misled by incompetent writers, broken by political ideology, and incapable of doing five to seven seconds of research before printing false statements. All while demanding nobody question the policies they support, or trust high-quality research that undermines their political allies. 

If you're wondering why nobody trusts the media or our public health community anymore, this is a great place to start.