> The researchers found that 97% of particles penetrated through cotton masks. Why would a ‘review of the evidence’ neglect this key finding? This statement in

> The researchers found that 97% of particles penetrated through cotton masks. Why would a ‘review of the evidence’ neglect this key finding? This statement in the article is completely disingenuous. The study in question[1] was looking at whether wearing a mask protects the wearer from getting infected. The primary purpose of wearing the mask is to prevent the wearer from infecting others. These are unrelated! [1] Text of the study: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.full https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.full