Letter to the editor: Look at the range of science on face masks
Do we dare question the authority of those governors who demand their subjects wear masks? What does the science report?
The British Medical Journal in April 2015 reported rates of infection of health care workers wearing cloth masks were 97%, compared to rates of 49% in those wearing medical masks. They cautioned against using cloth masks.
The WHO on its website in June 2020 reported no direct evidence on the effect of masks to prevent the infection of viruses: “masks on their own will not protect you from covid-19.”
The journal Nature, of May 27, 2020, could not measure any difference in viral shedding between those wearing masks and those not wearing masks.
Denis G. Rancourt, Ph.D., in the June 11 River Cities’ Reader, lists many more scientific articles in medical journals and concluded that “none of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”
On page A7 of the July 8 edition of the Tribune- Review, there was an ad for the R95 face mask that claimed it stops 95% of airborne particles over 0.3 microns.
According to Wikipedia, the size of the coronavirus is 0.1 micron (one-third the size of the pores of the R95 mask).
Should we subjugate our freedom to the arbitrary dictates of our governor, or should we be allowed to exercise our freedom to decide for ourselves what to wear based on our own judgment and reason?
Joel I. Last, M.D.
Greensburg
Remove the ads from your TribLIVE reading experience but still support the journalists who create the content with TribLIVE Ad-Free.