Pima County Supervisor Steve Christy cited a bogus study making its way around right-wing websites when he made a run at lifting Pima County’s mask ordinance at last week’s board meeting.
Christy’s motion died for lack of a second.
In justifying his push to lift the ordinance that requires Pima County residents to wear face masks in public when they can’t physically distance from other people (and also requiring businesses to ask customers to wear masks), Christy cited a study he said was from “the Medical Center at Stanford University” that purported to show that wearing masks did nothing to stop the spread of COVID and could in fact be hazardous to people’s health.
Christy asked Dr. Francisco Garcia, the county’s chief medical officer, if he was familiar with the study.
Garcia said he was aware of that study and “the variety of different studies that come to different conclusions.” Garcia added that the Arizona Department of Health Services has advised that wearing marks is an effective “mitigation strategy against the coronavirus.”
“I guess these Stanford guys don’t know what they’re talking about,” Christy responded.
But as it turns out, Christy appears to have been hoodwinked by the alleged Stanford study, which has been making the rounds on right-wing websites and social media.
An AP fact check reveals that the study is bogus.
“In reality, the study is not affiliated with Stanford and is based on debunked claims about face masks, including the false notion that wearing a face covering decreases oxygen levels and increases carbon dioxide levels,” AP reported.
Titled “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis,” the study was first published in the medical journal “Medical Hypotheses.” One doctor who blogs about medical misinformation told AP that the journal published “fringe science and hypotheses.”
The study’s author, Barach
Vainshelboim, claimed to be affiliated with Veterans Affair Palo Alto Health Care System, but a spokesman for the agency told AP no one with that name worked there. Likewise, a Stanford spokesman told AP that Vainshelboim had never been employed by the university, although in 2015, “he was a visiting scholar at Stanford for a year, on matters unrelated to this paper.”
Likewise, PolitiFact said the “paper about mask wearing was not from Stanford and makes false claims.”
Asked about the paper, Christy said he thought it was legitimate because it was published on the website of National Center for Biotechnological Information website, which is a branch of the National Institute of Health.
“The study was sent to us,” Christy said. “We found no reason to doubt something published on the NIH website.”
After Christy’s motion to lift the mask mandate failed, Supervisor Matt Heinz said Christy was right about most face masks not stopping viral particles, but pointed out that the masks do block many of the respiratory droplets that the virus will catch a ride on.
“You’re not worried about the virus itself flying around,” said Heinz, a medical doctor. “That’s not how this virus is really transmitted. It’s transmitted via respiratory droplets—these itty bitty droplets of respiratory water that people exhale when they cough or they sneeze.”
After the meeting, Heinz said “junk science” studies like the one Christy cited add to the public’s confusion.
“It really highlights the problem with convincing people who to trust and then getting that trusted information out there,” Heinz said. “And then the problem is, sometimes when you get the correct information out there from a trusted source, there’s just so much other contamination, like this junk science study that was cited, that it makes it very, very difficult for people.”
Heinz said he believes medical misinformation about the dangers of vaccines was responsible for vaccine hesitancy in the community, which in turn made it harder to reach herd immunity and further reduce the spread of the virus.
Heinz said he could understand how Christy could have fallen for the bogus study.
“It could trick anybody,” Heinz said. “It could especially trick people who don’t have a background in health care. But that’s why it’s incumbent on us as public officials to make sure that kind of information is solid and supported.”
Pima County officials say the mask mandate will remain in place until the county reaches less than 10 new cases per 100,000 residents for two consecutive weeks. As of the week ending April 18, new cases were being diagnosed at a rate of 55 per 100,000, according to UA epidemiologist Joe Gerald.
This article appears in Apr 29 – May 5, 2021.
The masks are now a farce.
Fauci is a bogus study.
Did we not talk about this already?
You touch my effen mask and you get your effen head dented!
Fact checking, like good hygiene, mental health and literacy, is vastly overrated. Just believe what ya wanta’ believe and find some fringe website to confirm your beliefs. Who needs science, logic and facts?
Please view this video and post your thoughts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu5_YiEvNlw
Yes parents have had enough of this farce.
https://kvoa.com/news/top-stories/2021/04/28/tanque-verde-cancels-school-board-meeting-amid-reports-of-anti-mask-protest/
In my opinion, Pima County Supervisor Steve Christy, is correct and the mask mandates should end, in fact, the mask mandates should have been ended a long time ago.
COVID-19 is less deadly than the flu for those under age 70, and COVID-19 has a 99% plus survival rate and masks are ineffective at stopping/preventing COVID-19.
The COVID-19 virus is tiny and most masks are ineffective at stopping the virus because the diameter of coronavirus is 0.13 microns (a micron is 1,000 times smaller than a millimeter). The best N95 standard mask filters down to 0.3 microns. Wearing a mask is like putting up a chain link fence to keep out mosquitos. Even the CDC said masks make no statistical difference (0.9-1.9) in preventing transmission/protection from COVID.
The work/study Christy cited is attributed to Baruch Vainshelboim, who works in the Cardiology Division at Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. Stanford has responded to clarify that Vainshelboim is not a current employee and he is not working on behalf of the University in publishing this study, though he was a visiting scholar to the University in 2015.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/ – link to the mask study from the NIH. This is a US government agency and they have not refuted the study/research/evidence. The only thing that was refuted was the Stanford connection not the underlying research and evidence. The Stanford connection is irrelevant.
According to the study, the existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.
The states and countries without mask mandates have done much better than the states and countries with mask mandates.
More information/research proving the ineffectiveness of masks
Studies of Surgical Masks Efficacy: Masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease (even during surgery)
https://jamesfetzer.org/2020/08/studies-of-surgical-masks-efficacy-masks-are-useless-in-preventing-the-spread-of-disease/
Studies on the effectiveness of face masks
So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing To Stop COVID
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/
The CDC and Mask Mandates: Unmasking the Truth
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/coronavirus/cdc-and-mask-mandates-unmasking-truth-183755
One Of The Lockdowns Greatest Casualties Could Be Science
https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/18/one-of-the-lockdowns-greatest-casualties-could-be-science/
Landmark Danish study finds no significant effect for facemask wearers
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-
Why does anyone want to continue to keep people masked up, locked down, uneducated, fearful, etc., when COVID has a 99% plus survival rate and is less deadly than the flu for those under age 70? And, our immune systems (99% plus survival rate) are better than vaccines at preventing/surviving COVID especially for those under age 70.
Instead of masks and lockdowns we should discuss prevention especially for those over the age of 70, by drinking tonic water with quinine and taking vitamin D3, vitamin C, and zinc as well as eating right, exercising, and keeping your weight in check.
How did mask and lockdown policies happen in our “free” society and why does someones sickness mean everyone has to lockdown, quit working, quit traveling, quit going to school, quit going to movies, quit going to church, quit meeting with friends, social distance, wear masks, etc. especially for a virus that is less deadly than the flu for those under age 70. (92% of the “COVID deaths” were/are people over the age of 80, with underlying health conditions.)
End the unconstitutional mask and lockdown mandates now!
Truth be told masks are for the timid. They are driven into hiding by those promoting fear. Much like those screaming racist. They are the scared and they are the racists.
Stop living your life in fear. You punish the rest of us. That’s what happens when you have power hungry mongrels in office.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/
RETRACTED: Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis
Baruch Vainshelboim∗
Abstract
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal).
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.
Medical Hypotheses serves as a forum for innovative and often disruptive ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences. However, our strict editorial policy is that we do not publish misleading or inaccurate citations to advance any hypotheses.
The Editorial Committee concluded that the author’s hypothesis is misleading on the following basis:
1. A broader review of existing scientific evidence clearly shows that approved masks with correct certification, and worn in compliance with guidelines, are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission.
2. The manuscript misquotes and selectively cites published papers. References #16, 17, 25 and 26 are all misquoted.
3. Table 1. Physiological and Psychological Effects of Wearing Facemask and Their Potential Health Consequences, generated by the author. All data in the table is unverified, and there are several speculative statements.
4. The author submitted that he is currently affiliated to Stanford University, and VA Palo Alto Health Care System. However, both institutions have confirmed that Dr Vainshelboim ended his connection with them in 2016.
A subsequent internal investigation by the Editor-in-Chief and the Publisher have determined that this article was externally peer reviewed but not with our customary standards of rigor prior to publication. The journal has re-designed its editorial and review workflow to ensure that this will not happen again in future.
The Editor-in-Chief and the Publisher would like to apologize to the readers of The Journal for difficulties this issue has caused.
How about the MIT covid study that says masks do nothing if you maintain 6 or 60ft of social distancing?
Or that maskless states are doing better than mask mandated states?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/23/mit-researchers-say-youre-no-safer-from-covid-indoors-at-6-feet-or-60-feet-in-new-study.html
@ozzy It has NBC in the link name. Come on…