I've seen several studies on masks about many other things, including dust particles, mask particles, and hamster studies. They all seem to avoid the obvious. But is there any scientific study showing that masks prevent transmission of COVID-19 from one human to another with a sample size larger than 30?


Snopes fact check:
The efficacy of face masks against the spread of COVID-19 is unknown.

Good for Snopes for being honest on this.

"The bottom line, experts say, is that masks might help keep people with COVID-19 from unknowingly passing along the virus. But the evidence for the efficacy of surgical or homemade masks is limited, and masks aren?t the most important protection against the coronavirus."



CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks

"A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 ?case-patients,? who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from health care facilities who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite ?always? wearing a mask."

Despite new scientific information to the contrary, "the CDC, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci, and many political authorities are still encouraging people to wear masks."

And that statement is something I can agree with!
More of nothing is still nothing.

Here's a list of several studies showing masks don't work for the flu and other diseases.
https://www.technocracy.news/censor...ial-policy-and-why-face-masks-dont-work/

But can anyone find even one study showing masks prevent transmission of COVID-19?

Perhaps you want to restate this premise, given that I destroyed your "vaccines have never prevented any disease" theory:
The website quoted, and which I read, demonstrates an obvious and heavy bias towards the author's point of view, and as such amounts to little more than a rant disguised as a "scientific study." Whoever rejected this "paper" for publication was correct in doing so.
Besides bias, it also displays internal inconsistencies, in that the author rejects the medical and scientific support of mask use, but appeals to medical and scientific support for his view. ("In light of the medical research, therefore,..." "...we must review established knowledge..." etc.)
If you do a little research on BOTH SIDES of the question you will soon learn that there are too many other factors in the vector equation to categorically state that "masks do not work." Some of these factors include type, material and construction of the mask, methodology of mask use, hand washing, and, yes, climatic and humidity conditions.

But if masks don't work, why do surgeons wear masks in surgery? Why do you cover your mouth when you sneeze or cough?

Last point, perhaps you should review Romans 13:1-5...

If you are referring to "Censored: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy And Why Face Masks Don?t Work", as being a rejected paper, you may want to re-read what is being censored.

But here's a scientific paper:

Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27115326/
At the bottom is a full text link.
http://europepmc.org/article/MED/27115326

If you notice, it has an abstract, with a background review, objectives, methods of study, analysis, results, discussion, and conclusions. Does that compare favorably to what a scientific paper consists of and with what Dedication listed?

It analysed a total of 2106 participants from the three studies. While not a direct experiment, it reviewed other study trials, some randomised, some quasi-randomised. You could go to those studies and make sure Vincent or Edwards isn't misleading you. References can be found at the bottom of the page. For instance, you can click on Tunevall and find the study included 3,088 patients, 1,537 surgery operations with face masks, and 1,551 without face masks. They found the difference in wound infections (4.7% with masks, 3.5% without masks) was not statistically different.

The study told the types of data, how the data was analysed, assessed the risk of bias, the types of surgery, and how infection was determined. In the discussion you read that research into facemasks "remains surprisingly neglected" resulting in limited data for analysis.
"Both national and international guidelines acknowledge the controversy surrounding the use of disposable surgical face masks and yet continue to recommend their use. We found no other reviews in this area and the limited number of trials in this review make it unsafe to draw definitive conclusions about the effect of surgical face masks on reducing surgical wound infection in clean surgery."

Vincent and Edwards conclude from the limited results that it is unclear whether there is a reduction of infection by wearing masks.


See Nadi, that is an example of what I was asking for.

Now you give it a try. Find an example from one of your "PAGES of scientific studies", (of which I cannot seem to find), and likewise show how it fits with the scientific method, comparing it to the list which Dedication gave. Look at the methods, consider if it was randomized, has a control, has a large number of participants. Look at the funding sources. Think critically.

Masks do catch large droplets that one ejects when coughing, sneezing, and projecting the voice in talking and singing. That much has been scientifically proven. That's why it's good to cover your mouth when coughing or sneezing. But does that stop the spread of the disease in any big way? Those droplets, even without a mask don't travel that far but fall to the ground.

When you wear a mask, those trapped droplets, leave their garbage in the mask, and if you wear that mask for an hour or many hours, you breath this accumulating garbage back in, plus you are constantly breathing in all the other accumulating stuff that attaches itself to the mask. Thus when you wear a mask, it does NOT benefit you, but can make you sick.

Another big problem is that viruses and other germs aren't "large droplets".
Most masks do NOT stop these tiny substances, aerosol, from traveling through.
Even your "large droplets" once in your mask can break down, and the tiny viruses and germs are then free to travel through your mask with the force of your breath. OR they travel into your lungs where they are now much more efficient to damage you, then they were when encased in a droplet.

The "scientists" recognized this and started to say -- "wear the three layer masks"-- not just a simple mask.
BUT
experiments showed aerosols can still travel through a three layer non-surgical mask.
Prof. William Keevil, who teaches environmental healthcare at the University of Southampton, noted that ?Cloth masks and poor quality surgical face masks will not filter fine respiratory droplets,"

SO what do we find in the Canadian news November 5, 2020

Canada?s health leaders say it?s time to upgrade our cloth face masks.
Dr. Theresa Tam, the country?s chief public health officer, said in Tuesday?s news conference that the new guidelines don?t necessarily mean we have to throw out all of our current cloth masks and replace them with new ones. Just add a "filter" like -- paper towel, coffee filters, a dried out baby wipe, or non-woven propylene materials like craft fabric.

So now experts are saying add some Paper towel, dry baby wipes to work as filter in 3-layer masks:

Also, they say mandates for wearing masks INDOORS at home, should be upgraded.


Sorry, but to me this sounds like depriving people of good quality air, not about saving people from infection.
Many of the filters have chemicals in them and dust particles, and who knows what else. Think of all the bacteria in and on them, sticking to them as you breath, plus carried to them because of people touching them, taking them off and putting them back on, and breathing in them for any length of time.

That's why every controlled scientific study on mask wearing have shown, that wearing non surgical masks INCREASE infection rates, -- they are more likely to be infected than those wearing no mask at all. Surgical masks rated a bit better, but Kland is right -- there is no study that shows this mask mandate is effective.



I'll take her word above these modern scientists-- even though I know some will disagree.

I hear nothing but crickets.....

Still just crickets.

Maybe Nadi is still busy doing a literature search.

In the meantime...

Imagine a disease so severe and deadly that the only way you can determine if you have it is to do a test for it.

If masks are to prevent asymptomatic people from spreading the disease, then would not a study of asymptomatic carriers show evidence of how rampant the disease is spread?

A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers.

Yep, 100% not infected would indeed lead to the conclusion that infectivity "might be weak".

Still crickets....

Must be similar to when a 5 year old is confronted with there is not santa clause. There just certainly must be, despite the facts to the contrary.

Crickets or no crickets, I prefer to err on the side of wearing masks when I am in close proximity to other people as in grocery stores, etc.