Big Science Pushed Anti-Science Agenda on Masks
Science’s Reputation Tarnished:
Scientific Research Fails to Support the
COVID-19 Pandemic Mask Mandate
by Jerry Bergman, PhD
A powerful selling point for everything from commercial products to ideas, even ideology, has been to pin the word ‘science’ on the product. The claim that an idea, or a conclusion, is based on science is often a game-changer. The comparison to Darwinism is clear. The consensus narrative is “evolution is a fact” based on science, and anyone who doubts it is a pseudoscientist. Darwinism is often sold to the public with the claim that science ‘facts’ (such as the fossil record), have ‘proven’ evolution, ending the debate. As a result, saying that “science proves” a claim ends the conversation. The media runs with it uncritically and, in the end, can cause great harm both to science and society.
An example is the mask mandates for children. COVID-19 is generally a very mild disease in children, including infants. Only 0.06 percent of all COVID deaths have been in children 18 and under. A new JAMA Pediatrics study on masks completed in Germany and Poland began by noting “Many governments have made nose and mouth covering or face masks compulsory for schoolchildren. The evidence base for this is weak.”[1]
The JAMA study measured CO2 content in inhaled air with and without two types of nose and mouth coverings in a well-controlled, counter-balanced experimental study of volunteer children in good health. The CO2 content of ambient air was always kept well under 0.1% by volume through multiple ventilation systems.
The JAMA Pediatrics study has found within three minutes, the respiratory level of carbon dioxide (CO2) was as much as six times higher than normal: 25,000 ppm, twice the level considered hazardous for adults.[2] The medical upper limit is the average concentration for adults; for an eight-hour period, it should not exceed 10,000 ppm. Higher levels of CO2 causes hypercapnia, a reduced proportion of oxygen in the inhaled air, producing a deficiency in the person’s required oxygen level. Elevated CO2 has been reported to result in hemodynamic changes in the intracranial arteries. The condition contributes to discomfort, fatigue, dizziness, headache, shortness of breath, generalized weakness, lethargy, drowsiness, confusion and, in extreme cases, loss of consciousness and asphyxiation.[3]
Details of the JAMA Pediatrics Study
The sequence of masks was randomized, and the randomization was both blinded (unknown by the volunteer) and stratified by age. Data was analyzed using a linear model for repeated measurements with P < 0.05 as the significance probability threshold. Results showed that the dead-space mask volume rapidly collects exhaled CO2 which mixes with fresh air, elevating the CO2 level of inhaled air. Subjects had breathing impairments due to high levels of CO2 causing hypercapnia. Most of the negative effects reported in the study were likely a result of the consequences of elevated CO2.
The researchers measured between 13,120 (384) and 13,910 (374) ppm of CO2 in inhaled air under surgical and filtering face piece masks. This is six times higher than what is considered unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office where the study was done. The dangerous level was reached after only three minutes.
Children under normal conditions in schools wear masks for a mean of 270 minutes (i.e., the interquartile range, 120-390 minutes). The value of the child with the lowest carbon dioxide level was three-fold greater than the limit of 0.2% by volume. Surprisingly, the youngest children had the highest values. One 7-year-old child’s CO2 level measured 25,000 ppm. Limitations of the study include the short-term laboratory setting used and the possibility that some of the children may have been apprehensive when taking part in the experiment.
Another German Study
One large-scale German survey on the adverse effects in parents and children collected data on 25,930 children. They found that 68% of the participating children experienced problems from wearing nose and mouth coverings.[4] The normal content of CO2 in the open air is about 0.04% by volume (i.e., 400 ppm). A level of 0.2% by volume (2,000 ppm) is the limit for closed rooms according to the German Federal Environmental Office. Anything above this level is unacceptable.4
The Kisielinski Review
Another project reviewed 44 experimental studies and 65 publications. The researchers concluded that ample evidence exists for adverse effects of wearing masks. They labeled the consequence Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome, characterized by changes in respiratory physiology that correlated with O2 drop (p < 0.05). The clustered co-occurrence of respiratory impairment included O2 drop and a concurrent CO2 rise (82%) causing headaches (60%), fatigue and temperature rises (88%). Lastly, as expected, they found a temperature rise and high levels of moisture (100%) under the masks. They concluded that children should not be forced to wear face masks.[5]
The Xiao Study
In a literature survey, Xiao et al. reviewed the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical personal protective measures (i.e., masks) on influenza transmission. They evaluated environmental hygiene measures in non-healthcare settings. Their work supported the effectiveness of hand hygiene. However, the 14 randomized controlled trials in the survey did not support the position that face masks reduce transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza virus. Specifically, they identified ten randomized controlled trials that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks, to see if they succeeded in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community. These studies were published in journals between 1946 to July 27, 2018. The pooled analysis found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.[6]
Research Ignored
Ignoring this research, children in many government schools were forced to wear masks for 8 hours a day for a year! It appears that nobody in the media bothered to fact-check “the science” to determine if masks were effective, or investigated the downside of mask wearing for children. A headline in The Week magazine reviewed the evidence, concluding that “mask confusion” existed according to the cover story.[7] The news reported one teacher fired for not enforcing the mask rule for outdoor high school sports. Likely other teachers were terminated for the same reason. One mask-wearing girl passed out at the race finish line, reportedly due to a lack of oxygen. Many teachers are demanding all students be vaccinated as a condition of returning to the classroom this fall.
Summary
What little evidence exists indicates that, for healthy young persons, wearing masks probably will not help much to prevent catching the virus, and may adversely affect health, given the concern over hypercapnia. Leaders who order mask mandates no doubt mean well, but to claim that the mandate is based on ‘science’ is inappropriate. The fact is, from what we know now, the scientific consensus for children was likely wrong, and teachers and governors uncritically followed it. Even for adults, “additional research has generally supported the notion that face masks can reduce transmission of the virus, although proof is still lacking.[8] This article adds “Some experts remain skeptical that masks… have much effect on transmission of SARS-CoV-2.[9] Dr. Anthony Fauci evolved “from mask skeptic to mask acolyte.” In 2020, WHO and Dr. Fauci were telling everybody, from the very young to the very old, to wear masks for most of 2020 in the name of “science.” Yet, in spite of pushing his idea as science, Dr. Anthony Fauci changed his opinion several times on how effective the use of masks are for the American public.[10] Nonetheless, Dr. Fauci said recently that anybody who criticized him was criticizing “science.”[11] Big Science is not immune to political bias, money, special interests and philosophical bias. This is further evidence that, although Darwinism is consensus science, it should not be trusted on that basis alone.
I have a Masters of Public Health (MPH) degree from Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio; University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio). Hypercapnia was a clear concern covered in my class work. From my background, my unspoken perception based on my education was, the best approach to deal with the pandemic was to protect the vulnerable, and allow herd immunity to provide protection for the rest of us until a vaccine was developed. It turns out some of my thoughts may prove valid. Conversely, one should err on the side of caution. Nonetheless, a careful exhaustive review of the literature is required to make the best decision, a step that was evidently not taken in the case of face masks for those below age 18.
References
[1] Walach et al., 2021. See also Xiao J., E.Y.C. Shiu, H. Gao, et al. 2020. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings —personal protective and environmental measures. Emergency Infect Disease 26(5):967-975. doi:10.3201/eid2605.190994 and Matuschek, C., F. Moll, H. Fangerau, et al. 2020. Face masks: Benefits and risks during the COVID-19 crisis. European Journal of Medical Research 25(1):32. doi:10.1186/s40001-020-00430-5.
[2] Walach, Harald, and 8 other scientists. 2021. Experimental assessment of carbon dioxide content in inhaled air with or without face masks in healthy children: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, June 30.
[3] Rhee, Michelle, et al. 2021.Carbon dioxide increases with face masks but remains below short-term NIOSH limits. BMC Infectious Diseases Volume 21, Article number: 354.
[4] Schwarz, S., E. Jenetzky H. Krafft, T. Maurer, and D. Martin. 2021. Corona children studies “Co-Ki”: First results of a Germany-wide registry on mouth and nose covering (mask) in children. Research Square.
[5] Kisielinski, K., P. Giboni, A. Prescher, et al. 2021. Is a mask that covers the mouth and nose free from undesirable side effects in everyday use and free of potential hazards? International Journal of Environmental Research in Public Health 18(8):4344. DOI:10.3390/ijerph18084344.
[6] Xiao, J., E.Y.C. Shiu, H. Gao, et al. 2020. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings —personal protective and environmental measures. Emerging Infectious Diseases 26(5):967-975. doi:10.3201/eid2605.190994.
[7] CDC lifts mask rules for vaccinated Americans. p.5 of The Week Magazine. May 28, 2021. 21(1029): 5.
[8] McDonald, Jessica. 2021. The Evolving Science of Face Masks and COVID-19, FactCheck.org, March.
[9] McDonald, 2021.
[10] Chamberlain, Samuel. 2021. Fauci’s emails show him flip-flopping on wearing masks to fight COVID. New York Post, June 3.
[11] Schuster-BruceFauci, Catherine. 20201. Fauci brushes off GOP criticism and says attacks on him are ‘attacks on science’ he can debunk ‘immediately.’ Business Insider, June.
Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology for over 40 years at several colleges and universities including Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,300 publications in 12 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored are in over 1,500 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 40 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.