No you didn't. You did a cut & paste from a BS social media post that has been floating around:
A a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. The debate is not whether or not face masks are effective at protecting people from viruses,That debate is scientifically illegitimate in the first place for two reasons. The “Virus” is not proven to exist, and the concept of “contagion” is proven an impossibility, by science. the debate is the use of facemasks to dehumanize the population, to eliminate human identities and uniqueness. This is the greatest threat posed by facemasks. When identity is removed a feeling of anonymity takes over and loss of empathy quickly follows.
If there is a force within our society that wishes to make us into slaves than the best way to do this is to delete our identity and facemasks are a powerful psychological tool that is being used to achieve this sick goal. “
Medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.
Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries.
They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years.
And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks.
Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”
• Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
• Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
• Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
• In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
• A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”
• Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”
• Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
• Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.”
• Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
• Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
• Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
• Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
• Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
• Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”
Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes -- two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.
Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks.
Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them. Masks lead to bacterial lung infections, and unfortunately, hospitals , (for financial reasons) count those cases as “Covid” too, while they are legionnaires disease in most cases.So the masks in fact makes things worse, not better, medically. We can only explain the reason for these draconian irrational dictates with political contribution to world tyranny.
The foundation for this post was a paper on Researchgate by Dennis Rancourt entitled "Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy.” The paper was taken by Researchgate because it was filled with errors of fact or misconstrued the results of studies by mischaracterizing their aims or findings.
A complete debunking of the Rancourt scam paper can be found here:
A (Complete) Debunking of Denis Rancourt’s Argument That “Masks Don’t Work.”
The reference to China banning mask because it was killing school children is an interesting example. For the record, China reported 2 deaths (teenagers having heart attacks while running during PE classes while wearing N95 masks). That sounds completely terrible and damning except when you consider that China has 200 million school children so do the % math 2/200 million. So, other factors could have easily been the cause since 2 out of 200 million could have had faulty heart values, etc. but China did ban N95 mask in schools. N95 masks are an entirely different entity though than a typical paper medical mask or cloth mask.
Student deaths stir controversy over face mask rule in PE classes - Global Times
But good try and keep spreading the disinfo, the grim reaper awaits.....
And for the record, mask are not magic bullets. Double lined cloth masks create a better barrier than single lined ones (or those made out of synthetic polyester materials). If worn properly, they reduce the amount of aerosols exhaled by about 70% (so again they are primarily a means to reduce the risk of person A spreading the virus to persons b,c, d, e....). Conversely, a double lined cotton mask reduces your inhalation of aerosols (again if worn properly) by about 30%, which is why social distancing is a good idea even when wearing a mask).
Thus, if you are wearing a mask and come into contact with covid carrier and they are not Wearing a mask, you are still at an elevated risk.
This point can't be emphasized enough; you wear a mask (properly) primarily for the benefit of others but if we all cooperate, you also receive those benefits. It is funny anti-maskers are all pro-herd immunity and totally fine accept the serious illnesses and deaths that will require but find it appalling to think we can accomplish much the same outcome by all wearing mask, without the carnage.
Covid is a highly contagious disease and it will spread even with social distancing and mask wearning but the goal is TO SLOW the spread. Analogy - even you are wearing seatbelt, you can still be injured if you are in a serious enough car wreck but the seat belt reduced your injuries by keeping you from slamming into the steering wheel or being thrown the window of the car and so on. Oh yeah, back in the day some people (and maybe some still are) that seat belts did not reduce risk of injury and were a communist plot to impede on FREEDOM!! and so it goes and goes.
