Articles on Masks

[cholas]

Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid

The diapers most of us are wearing on our face most of the time apparently have no effect at stopping Covid-19. This explains a lot. Did you hear about the peer-reviewed study done by Stanford University that demonstrates beyond a reasonable...

www.sott.net

And a similar article posted days later:

New study on face-masks highlights problems with safety and efficacy

A new study on face masks highlight their inefficacy, lack of safety and ability to cause physiological, psychological and long-term health problems, which may culminate in immune suppression, worsened chronic disease, accelerated aging and...

www.sott.net

Though Baruch Vainshelboim did write a compelling hypothesis about the dangers of mask-wearing, calling it a "Standford study" is misleading. I don't see that Standford was involved in this published paper at all, only that the author was apparently employed there.

It is also not a "new study" as it was originally published 11/22/2020.

Here:

Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis​

NCBI - WWW Error Blocked Diagnostic

Seems many alt-media sites jumped on the bandwagon and reposted without checking the source? Naturally "fact-checkers" then easily "debunk" it. Though some I read claimed they "called the Uni and he was never employed there".

Makes this article interesting:

Exercise May Help Prevent This Deadly COVID Complication, Study Finds​

"Cardiovascular exercise can also play a role in "training" the lungs, similar to respiratory therapy, adds Baruch Vainshelboim, Ph.D., of Stanford University, a researcher who found that fitness can also help prevent certain cancers."

Exercise May Help Prevent This Deadly COVID Complication, Study Finds

New research suggests that exercising regularly may be the ticket to lowering your risk of suffering from one of the most severe COVID complications.

www.eatthis.com

He has published nearly 60 papers.

 

[Noctu]

Is it more beneficial to wear respirator masks such as the 3M Respirator Mask P2 8822 than to not wear them while in a city with a lot of pollutants?

What I could think of is that you reduce oxygen intake and increase CO² intake and other waste intake because of breathing in your own recycled exhaled air.

Any leads to some decent research on this?

 

[nicklebleu]

Is it more beneficial to wear respirator masks such as the 3M Respirator Mask P2 8822 than to not wear them while in a city with a lot of pollutants?

What I could think of is that you reduce oxygen intake and increase CO² intake and other waste intake because of breathing in your own recycled exhaled air.

Any leads to some decent research on this?

My suspicion - without any evidence to support that - is that like in the case of Covid, masks would be useless against air pollution, as most of the pollutants would not be effectively filtered out. Like in the case of Covid, you would need to wear a tight-fitting (and well-fitted) N100 mask, or even better, a personal respirator with active charcoal filter.

I am not sure if you would really get any benefit from that - my hunch would be that the negatives would at least compensate for any benefit, if not worse.

But - just in case, I asked Grok - her is its answer to the question: “Is there any benefit in wearing a mask (P2 or better) against urban air pollution. Can you cite any evidence pro or contra?”

Wearing a mask, such as a P2 (or N95 equivalent) or better, can offer some protection against urban air pollution, particularly from particulate matter (PM) like PM2.5 and PM10, which are tiny particles that can penetrate deep into the lungs and even enter the bloodstream. The effectiveness depends on the mask’s filtration capabilities, fit, and the specific pollutants you're exposed to. Let’s break it down and look at the evidence.

### Potential Benefits
P2/N95 masks are designed to filter out at least 94-95% of airborne particles down to 0.3 microns in size, which includes many of the harmful particulates found in urban air pollution (e.g., from vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, or construction dust). Studies have shown they can reduce exposure to these pollutants, potentially lowering health risks like respiratory irritation, asthma exacerbation, or cardiovascular issues.

- **Evidence in Favor**: A 2019 study published in *Environmental Health Perspectives* tested N95 masks in Beijing, a city with high pollution levels. It found that wearing N95 masks reduced systolic blood pressure and heart rate variability in healthy volunteers exposed to PM2.5, suggesting a protective cardiovascular effect (Morishita et al., 2019). Another study in *The Lancet Planetary Health* (2018) showed that N95 masks reduced respiratory symptoms in people with chronic respiratory conditions during high-pollution days in China (Shi et al., 2018).
- **Real-World Context**: During wildfire smoke events (which share similarities with urban PM pollution), the CDC and WHO recommend N95 or P2 masks to reduce inhalation of fine particles, supported by lab tests showing significant filtration efficiency.

### Limitations and Contra Points
However, masks aren’t a silver bullet. Their effectiveness depends on proper fit—air leaks around the edges can let pollutants in. They also don’t protect against gaseous pollutants like ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), or carbon monoxide (CO), which are common in urban environments and can still harm health. Plus, wearing a mask for long periods can be uncomfortable, potentially discouraging consistent use.

- **Evidence Against Full Protection**: A 2016 study in *Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology* found that while N95 masks reduced PM2.5 exposure by 63-91% in lab conditions, real-world reductions were lower (around 40-50%) due to imperfect fit and user behavior (Steinle et al., 2016). Another review in *Environmental Research* (2020) noted that masks offer little defense against gaseous pollutants, meaning they only address part of the urban pollution mix (Pacitto et al., 2020).
- **Practicality**: Some researchers argue the benefits may be modest for healthy individuals in moderately polluted cities, as the body can often handle low-to-mid PM levels without immediate harm—though long-term exposure remains a concern.

### Conclusion
Yes, there’s a benefit to wearing a P2 or better mask against urban air pollution, especially for PM2.5, with evidence showing reduced exposure and some health improvements, particularly for vulnerable groups (e.g., those with asthma or heart conditions). However, it’s not a complete shield—gaseous pollutants slip through, and fit matters a lot. If you’re in a heavily polluted city or have health risks, it’s likely worth it, especially on bad air days. For milder pollution, the benefit might be less pronounced but still exists as a preventative measure.

If you’d like, I can dig deeper into specific studies or pollution levels in a particular city—just let me know!

I for one would rather get out of a polluted city than wear a mask!

 

[Noctu]

My suspicion - without any evidence to support that - is that like in the case of Covid, masks would be useless against air pollution, as most of the pollutants would not be effectively filtered out. Like in the case of Covid, you would need to wear a tight-fitting (and well-fitted) N100 mask, or even better, a personal respirator with active charcoal filter.

I am not sure if you would really get any benefit from that - my hunch would be that the negatives would at least compensate for any benefit, if not worse.

But - just in case, I asked Grok - her is its answer to the question: “Is there any benefit in wearing a mask (P2 or better) against urban air pollution. Can you cite any evidence pro or contra?”



I for one would rather get out of a polluted city than wear a mask!

Thank you for your answer, nicklebleu.

Yes, it's just that I am on an island right now with a lot of motor bikes and scooters and it's actually the exhaust fumes that I want to filter mostly but also people burning all kinds of waste here and there, and probably other pollutants. Most of the island is actually rain forest.