4 ms·

I'm also going to use this post to highlight how historical revisionism and censorship of opposing viewpoints is occurring regarding masking. http://web.archiv

I'm also going to use this post to highlight how historical revisionism and censorship of opposing viewpoints is occurring regarding masking. http://web.archive.org/web/20200625094522/https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-revealing-review/ http://web.archive.org/web/20200625094522/https://www.oralhe... The article is called "Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review", published October 18, 2016. This is the webpage as of early July 2020: https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-revealing-review/ https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-wor... "If you are looking for “Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review” by John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC, it has been removed. The content was published in 2016 and is no longer relevant in our current climate." "No longer relevant in our current climate."

dandelany 6y ago
The original paper was asking the question: Do surgical masks provide adequate protection against disease transmission for dentists and patients in a clinical context? And their conclusion was: no. This is an entirely separate question from: Do masks provide enough protection against disease transmission to be worth wearing/recommending in public places during a global pandemic, despite their imperfections? The answer to that, from many other studies, seems to be clearly yes. I can imagine that anti-mask folks started using this article as ammunition, due to the catchy headline ("see, this article says face masks don't work!"), and the publishers felt it was doing more harm than good and took it down for that reason.
- waterheater 6y ago
  >the publishers felt it was doing more harm than good and took it down for that reason. Then the publishers should come out and say so by putting a tagline or disclaimer at the top of the article. Pulling the whole article to "supervise[] conduct and morals" [1] is textbook censorship. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring
  - dandelany 6y ago
    /shrug It’s self-censorship. Publications commonly unpublish bad articles for a wide variety of reasons. Should one not supervise one’s own conduct and morals?
- ketamine__ 6y ago
  > Do masks provide enough protection against disease transmission to be worth wearing/recommending in public places during a global pandemic, despite their imperfections? The answer to that, from many other studies, seems to be clearly yes. A randomized trial with surgical masks during Covid-19 will be published soon. Here are some quotes and commentary: > “All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions based on new studies,” Bundgaard said in an interview in Copenhagen. > He says there’s evidence to suggest that the only effective face covering might be a visor, because the virus can spread through all mucous membranes, including via the eyes. He worries a cloth covering that only protects the nose and mouth provides a “false sense of security.” > Bundgaard says the simple rules that currently exist in Denmark -- hand-washing, social distancing, self-isolating if you’re sick -- are effective because they’re easy to remember. He worries that using face masks might lead people to be “sloppy” in following the other guidelines. > Bundgaard’s study on masks is due to be published next month. In the meantime, he says he hopes they don’t become mandatory in Denmark. https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/face-mask-photo-op-adds-to-bewilderment-over-non-use-in-denmark https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/face-mask-photo-op-adds... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32829745/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32829745/
  - Jommi 6y ago
    So negative effect of masks seems to only be a social effect, that can be combatted by proper messaging and PR. Seems like an easy problem to deal with.
    - bonchicbongenre 6y ago
      Agree with your first sentence. Unless you're being sarcastic (apologies if so, and no mean to offend if not), I take the opposite conclusion though, which seems borne out by reality. Public messaging and for social cohesion in service of the greater good is the hardest problem affecting any large-scale coordinated response, especially with propaganda, doublethink, and flat-out unwillingness to learn being so common. I gather that the article the previous commenter mentioned was removed so that such propagandists couldn't willingly misinterpret it to pass on to their sycophants.
misanthropian00 6y ago
https://www.wired.com/story/how-masks-went-from-dont-wear-to-must-have/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-masks-went-from-dont-wear-to... This is also a good article on the subject. The revisionists claim that WHO and the CDC changed their mask recommendations based on new evidence but they never actually cite the studies which presumably were published just before the policy changes. I think that may have something to do with the fact that the recommendations were not evidence based.

dandelany 6y ago

The original paper was asking the question: Do surgical masks provide adequate protection against disease transmission for dentists and patients in a clinical context? And their conclusion was: no. This is an entirely separate question from: Do masks provide enough protection against disease transmission to be worth wearing/recommending in public places during a global pandemic, despite their imperfections? The answer to that, from many other studies, seems to be clearly yes. I can imagine that anti-mask folks started using this article as ammunition, due to the catchy headline ("see, this article says face masks don't work!"), and the publishers felt it was doing more harm than good and took it down for that reason.

waterheater 6y ago
>the publishers felt it was doing more harm than good and took it down for that reason. Then the publishers should come out and say so by putting a tagline or disclaimer at the top of the article. Pulling the whole article to "supervise[] conduct and morals" [1] is textbook censorship. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring
- dandelany 6y ago
  /shrug It’s self-censorship. Publications commonly unpublish bad articles for a wide variety of reasons. Should one not supervise one’s own conduct and morals?
ketamine__ 6y ago
> Do masks provide enough protection against disease transmission to be worth wearing/recommending in public places during a global pandemic, despite their imperfections? The answer to that, from many other studies, seems to be clearly yes. A randomized trial with surgical masks during Covid-19 will be published soon. Here are some quotes and commentary: > “All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions based on new studies,” Bundgaard said in an interview in Copenhagen. > He says there’s evidence to suggest that the only effective face covering might be a visor, because the virus can spread through all mucous membranes, including via the eyes. He worries a cloth covering that only protects the nose and mouth provides a “false sense of security.” > Bundgaard says the simple rules that currently exist in Denmark -- hand-washing, social distancing, self-isolating if you’re sick -- are effective because they’re easy to remember. He worries that using face masks might lead people to be “sloppy” in following the other guidelines. > Bundgaard’s study on masks is due to be published next month. In the meantime, he says he hopes they don’t become mandatory in Denmark. https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/face-mask-photo-op-adds-to-bewilderment-over-non-use-in-denmark https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/face-mask-photo-op-adds... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32829745/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32829745/
- Jommi 6y ago
  So negative effect of masks seems to only be a social effect, that can be combatted by proper messaging and PR. Seems like an easy problem to deal with.
  - bonchicbongenre 6y ago
    Agree with your first sentence. Unless you're being sarcastic (apologies if so, and no mean to offend if not), I take the opposite conclusion though, which seems borne out by reality. Public messaging and for social cohesion in service of the greater good is the hardest problem affecting any large-scale coordinated response, especially with propaganda, doublethink, and flat-out unwillingness to learn being so common. I gather that the article the previous commenter mentioned was removed so that such propagandists couldn't willingly misinterpret it to pass on to their sycophants.

misanthropian00 6y ago

https://www.wired.com/story/how-masks-went-from-dont-wear-to-must-have/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-masks-went-from-dont-wear-to... This is also a good article on the subject. The revisionists claim that WHO and the CDC changed their mask recommendations based on new evidence but they never actually cite the studies which presumably were published just before the policy changes. I think that may have something to do with the fact that the recommendations were not evidence based.