Since late 2016 we have entered the age of disclosures! Fasten your mental safety belt and enjoy the ride! Heretic

Friday, November 13, 2020

Not wearing surgical masks reduced infections by a half

.

This is reposted from facebook,
Raphaelle O'NeilStop 5G NOLA~ URGENT Human Health Hazard!!
rtSaptcAuogeusaitn su1roh4red ·

https://www.facebook.com/nolabutterfly

--------

Instead of acknowledging the harm from radio waves, society is tearing its fabric apart by instituting measures that are protecting no one and are instead sickening and killing people. I will mention just one of those measures here: facial masks. As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks 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. And they discovered, to their amazement, 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.”

I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses. Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1157412/

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.”

https://europepmc.org/article/med/7379387

1981 | Author: Neil W M Orr MD | Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (I98I) vol. 63 | Surgeon’s medical mask study concludes, “minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre?”

https://jdfor2020.com/.../1981-surgeons-medical-mask... contamination-can-best-be-achieved-by-not-wearing-a-mask-at-all/

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.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../10.1002/ccd.1810170306
https://europepmc.org/article/med/11924291

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%.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736

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.”

https://journals.sagepub.com/.../10.1177/0310057X0102900402

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.”

https://europepmc.org/article/med/11760479

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.

http://www.advancesinpd.com/adv01/21Figueiredo.htm

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.”

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/.../cd427c20c8dc7d1fbc1b...

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.

https://anesthesiology.pubs.asahq.org/article.aspx...

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.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../j.1445-2197.2009.05200.x

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.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27115326/

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.”

https://europepmc.org/article/med/11924291

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.”

https://journals.lww.com/.../Surgical_Attire_and_the...

Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

https://journals.sagepub.com/.../10.1177/0141076815583167

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.

___________________
* from Christopher Fry, A Sleep of Prisoners, 1951.
Arthur Firstenberg
August 11, 2020

4 comments :

MP said...

Interesting! How do we reconcile these with what is learned from the below two videos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Tp0zB904Mc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npXP5wqNzaI

Bob said...

It really is remarkable, isn't it? The videos MP linked look to be so sure of the benefits, and then you read some of the literature on surgery and masks...

One of the great benefits of the internet is that information like this, which used to be accessible only to a relatively few people, is now available to anyone with online access.

Peering into the controversies of science -- especially medical science -- is a very sobering experience.

Stan Bleszynski said...

Hi Bob, Hi MP,

MP - thanks for the videos, it is very illuminating to watch them and then confront what they speak about with the published papers and studies.

Bob - absolutely! This allows us to easily confront one evidence against the other or one opinion against the other, and what is more important - we are now able assert the quality of each.

Until now there was no easy way judging a quality of one study against the other. There was only a textbook knowledge and that was it. That's why the pharmaceutical corporations and their allies in the governments were able to falsify diet, nutrition and promote fake cholesterol-heart disease theories for 60 years!

Bob said...

Hi, Stan,

I'm looking at this, or trying to anyway, as a conflict between two rights, not necessarily a good study / bad study thing. Of course, that may certainly be the case.

The question then is, Why does something that seems intuitive (masks are protective) often show little benefit? I've not read in-depth the literature during the current unpleasantness, but I'm aware it's controversial as hell. And both sides claim "proof" of their position.

From the videos it seems pretty reasonable that masks restrict a "frontal projection" of droplets. And some masks do this better than others. Speculating, but in the interest of generating hypotheses, maybe it's a combination of

-- leaks from the sides (exhalations have to go somewhere
-- infected droplets dry out and infectious particles attached to masks may hang in the air
-- indoor, poorly ventilated environments allow these particles to build up and reach a threshold that becomes problematic for susceptible people
-- even the Petri dishes in the masked-subjects test showed evidence of contamination, just less than for the unmasked subjects.

Outdoors none of this matters because the particles are constantly blown around unrestricted, even with gentle breezes. And in sunlight they lose their potency pretty quickly.

Of course, the surgery-and-masks studies really force you to rethink what "infectious" means.