Debunking the CDC’s best study used to qualify their support for masks

The CDC, the media and state and local health agencies have often pointed to the randomized control trial done in Bangladesh by Stanford and Yale University researchers on the efficacy of masks in preventing Covid19 infections.  Before Covid19 over a dozen RCT were produced on the efficacy of masks in preventing viral respiratory infections with no study showing noticeable advantage to using a mask.

Studies like these had even led some hospitals to begin trials in mask protocol changes to reduce and eliminate masking in many situations like surgical suites.  Ventilation proves to be the best mitigator.

Since the media has characterized this Bangladesh study with headlines like “Face masks for COVID pass their largest test yet”, Nature, “Massive randomized study is proof that surgical masks limit coronavirus spread, authors say” Washington Post, “Largest mask study yet details their importance for fighting Covid-19″ NBC News, critics of masking have examined this study very closely.  Their findings show that the study’s abstract and headlines were all misleading to fraudulent.

Steve Kirsh recently convinced the lead researcher on the study to be interviewed and to answer questions that critics have about what the data truly shows about mask use in protecting against the Sars-CoV-2 virus.  Kirsh asked PA’s James Lyons-Wieler to interview the lead author Yale professor Jason Abaluck.  The story from Kirsh’s Substack is here and the interview is below.

Critics have also pointed to the Israeli Ministry of Health that has stated the mask’s primary value is signaling and psychological and are not useful for infection preventions.  You can read this determinations here.

For further details on masking you may consider viewing industrial hygienist Stephen Petty in his testimony for the New Hampshire Senate.