Horowitz: Why don’t masks work in the real world?

There is not a single place on earth where masks appear to have slowed even the spread of the virus, which seems to have sunk to cut off all populations until the herd’s immunity threshold is met. None of this should have surprised us.

How many people do you know who always wear masks completely attached to their face like a respirator? Well, there are very few people who can afford to waste themselves after a few hours of oxygen deprivation. Therefore, in a nutshell, the mandates of the masks are useless against a virus, even before examining the fact that the pores of the mask fibers are much larger than the virus itself.

Stephen Petty, one of the most experienced certified industrial hygienists and exposure experts in the country, sent me the following chart based on new research on mask filtration (Drewnick, et al.). Prove that if only 3.2% of the mask space is open, the mask efficiency is reduced to zero!

As you can see, with only 2% of the mask area open, 80% of the particles less than 2.5 microns will escape. According to this study, Petty extrapolates that masks will be 100% ineffective at blocking such small particles when the open area reaches 3.2%.

What people forget is that apart from the size of the pores of the fabric, very few people wear masks the way they are tested in labs or mannequins. As Petty points out, based on a new study on the filtration of leaks in masks of 44 different materials, most of the leaks come out from the sides because the molecules always travel the path of least resistance.

“Measures with defined leaks showed that already a small fractional area of ​​1% to 2% can severely deteriorate the total FE,” the German study published last October in Aerosol Science and Technology concluded. “This is especially the case for particles less than 5mm in diameter, where the FE dropped by 50% or even two-thirds.”

The study explains that because “surgical and hand masks never have a perfect fit on the face,” it is “one of the main reasons why in studies investigating the filter efficiency of masks in actual conditions for surgical masks’ effectiveness is “significantly lower” than we see with shape-adjusted N95s. It is also likely that the reason why filtration studies in a laboratory show a certain degree of efficacy, but not a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) has demonstrated the efficacy of these masks against viruses, including 10 RCTs of the flu and the use of masks. Danish study of the use of masks for COVID. Humans are not laboratory mannequins.

As Megan Mansell, an EPP expert on dangerous surroundings, explained to me:

This is what everyone was wrong from day one, or maybe what Fauci and others originally got it right. The COVID conversation should have started with a minimum viable particle size under pressure, which for COVID size particles is 0.06 microns. 90% of expired particles are within the range of radically behaving particles / particle transmissions.

What this means is that once the particles are much smaller than 1 micron (smaller than most bacteria), they easily pass through and around the mask, remain suspended in the air for a long time, and they travel inland far beyond six feet. Once we learned that this virus was airborne and so small, it is simply impossible to mask and make six meters to change the difference inside.

Multiple virions can make up a single cluster of particles and are still well below that threshold. Therefore, even if everyone wore masks properly, they would still escape enough virions to make wearing masks nothing more than theater, and so we find no real-world evidence of masking that helps, since that cases increase Michigan and will drop to one-year lows in Texas and Mississippi.

My friend Emily Burns proves it in a real life example by exhaling cigarette smoke under a mask that was pretty tight. As noted on Twitter, cigarette smoke is less than 1 micron, the same size or more than 99% of virus-carrying aerosols.

In fact, new research has shown that 90% of virions in this virus are less than 0.3 microns. There are 100 times more aerosols at less than 1 micron (most significantly smaller) than more than 1 micron. This is much smaller than the pores of surgical masks, let alone fabric masks, not to mention the gaps around the masks.

In addition, the same study shows that at the maximum contagion around the seventh day of symptoms, with inflammation of the alveoli, the number of particles less than 0.3 microns multiplies by ten, while the largest decrease. This probably explains why asymptomatic individuals barely spread and why masks are worthless when people are the most contagious.

An illogical premise disguised as science has been sold: that in some way masks do not protect you from inhaling another person’s virus, but they do protect others from your exhalation. This is the excuse given to force people who don’t like masks to wear them, even though people worried about the virus are free to wear them if they think they work. However, even though masks do not work against such a small virus in both directions, in any case, they are even less likely to stop the exhalation of the virus than on inhalation. As Emily Burns demonstrated in her video, with a KN95, which makes you feel like you’re drowning when you inhale, the exhalation seems to flow easily through the gaps.

This is why masking can aerosolize particles even more than people who unmask. Which could explain why almost all analyzes show more diffusion in places with mask mandates. As Megan Mansell explained:

Exhalation is the plosive release to the outside of respiratory gases and excretions of mucous membranes that line the airways. Expiration pressure fluctuates depending on a person’s overall health and level of physical exertion, as well as environmental oxygen saturation. The most extreme changes in external pressure accompany plosive events that generate strength (sneezing, screaming, coughing, blowing, blowing raspberries) that come with changes in facial features such as mouth opening and cheek tension affecting external pressure. The more equipped a device is around the mouth and nose, the greater will be the release of pressure during general breathing and the events generating plosive force. Approximately 90% of respiratory emissions are within the range of radically behaving particles, which also includes the range of COVID virion particles. The more pressure there is on the plosive activity, the more force there is behind the plume.

Therefore, masking is a problem. Either the virions come out directly from the sides and the center or, in the case of narrower masks, the plosive force creates a greater pressure behind the escape of small particles, which are even more likely to travel greater distances and remain suspended for hours. That’s why, while N95s seem to perform well in mechanistic lab studies, they don’t seem to stop the transmission of someone infecting the real world.

Certainly, forcing medical quality masks has not worked for Germany or Chile:

Stephen Petty sent me a chart of his presentation on mask filtration showing that the vast majority of virions are the size they have the ability to suspend in the air for days.

Remember, the big drops that politicians and the media talk about tend to fall to the ground immediately and don’t travel far. There is no way they can explain this ubiquitous degree of worldwide transmission. It must be the micro-particles, which travel far into the unventilated inner chambers and remain suspended for days, that cause the rapid spread. No mask has any effectiveness against these particles.

It is important to note that it is the small particles that are most likely to enter the deep lungs, not the larger drops, which are more likely to get trapped in the saliva or throat and be ingested instead of inhaled. In addition, wearing masks tends to force more people to breathe through their mouths instead of breathing their nasals in shallow water, making them even more likely to inhale particles that inevitably pass through their masks.

A lie has been sold to the public about avoiding the virus by wearing a mask and staying six meters away inside. The reality is that we should have focused on dilution and filtration systems for a fraction of the funding we spent destroying the economy. We should also have focused on early and preventive treatment with inexpensive medications such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine mixed with vitamin and zinc supplements. Again, this was never about science or saving lives. It was about controlling our lives and making us servile puppies to the ruling elite. The mask is the last symbol and reminder that we no longer control our own bodies.

Editor’s note: in the original version of this article, the paragraph that begins “That’s what everyone was wrong about from day one … “Megan Mansell was not blamed. This error has been fixed.