Since 2020, one of the topics that attracted the most attention in the dichotomy (more political than sanitary) of the COVID-19 pandemic was that of masks. On the one hand, we had those who fiercely defended the irrefutable effectiveness of using the device that disfigured the faces of so many people and that was the reason for the most diverse types of coercion and reprisals for those who did not faithfully follow this new science.
On the other side, we had those who fought to try to bring coherence and debate within the despotic “recommendations” of the rulers, explaining what many were already saying and what their own eyes were seeing: the masks, the way they were imposed and sold by the their modern science, didn’t work.
In fact, it was very common to see people who swore on their feet that the use of masks was extremely effective and useful for managing the pandemic, they used it dogmatically, but, one way or another, they ended up contracting the virus.
Also, very common, not to say hypocritical, was seeing politicians and authorities using masks for official photos and recordings, while removing them in the next second of the day. marketing and health political propaganda. Just search the internet for the title “political leaders remove mask after official photo” (political leaders remove masks after official photo) which you will see as an example of these scenes taking place.
Either the disease could be transmitted only by droplets (as the WHO argued), or there was the possibility of transmission by aerosol (as argued by independent doctors and scientists who warned about the uselessness of masks, given this possibility)
And what was the main debate? Whether masks – of all types, including non-professional ones – were capable of protecting people from contracting the virus (and consequently the disease). As the months and years of the pandemic passed, the debate escalated at the same rate, including the discovery of “leaked” emails from Dr. Anthony Fauci, a scientist who was dictating health rules in the USA and around the world, saying masks were ineffective.
It got to the point where certain authorities, including doctors, followed the reasoning and argued that there really wasn’t very positive evidence about the effect of masks, but, interestingly, there wasn’t any negative evidence either, so in an “obvious” way. , any protection was better than none (and they called it science).
What was at the heart of the issue concerned these two hypotheses: either the disease could be transmitted only by droplets (as advocated by the WHO, various health agencies and government officials), or there was the possibility of transmission via aerosol (as advocated by doctors and independent scientists who warned about the uselessness of masks, given this possibility).
One of the turning points was the study by Katherine Randall and Linsay Marr, which called into question this entire discussion – and recommendation of masks –, since they concluded that Covid-19 was indeed transmitted by aerosols. In fact, even before the study, the authors, together with physicists and chemists specializing in the atmosphere, in addition to 230 other scientists, were already in a distant discussion, or better said, monologue, with the WHO, since January 2020, in an attempt to make them turn their attention to this characteristic of the virus’s spread.
However, as for many, when it concerns them, it is necessary to have the definitive approval of their superior entity, which holds all the information about our health and well-being, the Organization only spoke out almost a year later, but without having had any major repercussions. nor the focus of the media and authorities. As there was no public statement, no interview, journalists and authorities did not pay attention and the thing was only noticed by those who looked at the issue closely. However, despite this lack of publicity, the WHO assumed that aerosols played an important role in the spread of the disease and that promoting ventilation and use of masks in a closed place would be ideal, with the possibility of reviewing the concepts and definitions for this type of disease. transmission.
Well, on April 18th, the WHO launched, together with the main agencies and “experts” in the world, an update of the terminology for pathogens that are transmitted through the air.
Of course, at no point is there an admission that they were wrong in their previous recommendations, nor is there anything written along the lines of “masks don’t work”. In fact, they stated that during the pandemic there was confusion in communicating how the disease was transmitted through the air – this confusion, apparently, went so far as to silence and discredit independent scientists and doctors. However, coincidentally, the updates made and the new terminologies and understandings say the things that many people have been censored and judged as unscientific for spreading fake newsincluding Linsay Marr’s own opinion and study.
Now, according to this new document, it is no longer recommended to make the distinctions that were previously well-defined, that droplets are particles that are larger than 5 micrometers in size, while aerosols are smaller than 5 micrometers in size. From this new opinion, all particles spread through the air are considered within a large group called infectious respiratory particles (IRPs in English), of which the SARS-CoV-2
(the COVID-19 virus) is part of it.
The Organization only spoke out almost a year later, but without major repercussions or focus from the media and authorities. Journalists and authorities paid no attention and the thing was only noticed by those who looked closely at the issue.
Thus, they now say that IRPs exist in a continuous spectrum of sizes, from submicrons to millimeters, and that “no single cutoff point should be applied to distinguish smaller particles from larger particles, which allows us to move away from the dichotomy of earlier terms known as ‘aerosols’ (generally smaller particles) and ‘droplets’ (generally larger particles)”.
But what does this mean in practice in relation to masks? There is an admission by the WHO that the specific size of the particle does not matter in the transmission of the disease, as they exist in a wide range of sizes. Intrinsically, with such a statement, they also end up confirming that the type of mask influences the ability to protect or filter these particles. And as only in certain environments, situations and types of products do masks really become effective in preventing certain diseases, the indiscriminate use of them, including professional (surgical) and non-professional ones (those made of other types of fabrics made at home or without being hospital products), and which were imposed on the entire society, were not and are not effective in preventing COVID-19.
Not only that, but other things were also taken into deeper consideration in the document and which were reasons for debate (and censorship) at the time, such as ambient air temperature, the incidence of sunlight (UV), the humidity present on site, the air flow, occupancy and use of the space where the particles were expelled, which directly and indirectly affect the infectivity, duration, transmission speed and distance traveled by the virus or viral particles. And guess what? This should also be taken into account when carrying out “effective and appropriate public health measures”.
So, there was a very big difference between wearing a mask if you have symptoms, isolated at home, in closed environments – as was always done before 2020 – and obliging everyone to use them when leaving home, in an open, ventilated and ventilated environment. with sunlight, for example, much less if you were not experiencing symptoms.
Not only that, but with this information about aerosol transmission, in other words, infectious respiratory particles which have a wide continuous spectrum of sizes, of which “there are generally more smaller particles, compared to larger ones” one can also infer how their distorted science influenced the fight against the disease through the inconceivable and draconian measures of lockdownas was seen for months during the pandemic.
But and now? Can we openly confirm the ineffectiveness of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic? Will this new opinion and update be made public and will be announced by the various national health entities? Or will this be hidden again and practically restricted to a small group of people who end up seeing and reading these things?
We know the answer, because history repeats itself. We can glimpse what still happens today in relation to the concealment of the truth and manipulation of information that concerns our health by the main bodies and state agencies and traditional media (for example, the increase in the number of dengue cases, with vaccines for the disease about to overcome, but without any scandal or mention of genocide, as occurred in the covid-19 pandemic), just as we also know about the lack of courage and interest in apologizing and showing the mistakes made in the recent past, given that To date, none of this has been done by any of them in relation to the lockdownsprohibition of early treatment, ineffective use of masks and vaccines.
In fact, our health and well-being have never been the main target of these bodies and people. And what the pandemic revealed to us – and which is still present today – is the interest of certain groups, both nationally and internationally, in dictating what is or is not good for us, at the moment and in the way they want. They want. The truth, meanwhile, remains tied up and glimpsed by the few who seek it and try to bring it to light.
Renato Jimenez Gomez He has a master’s degree in health sciences from Universidade Santo Amaro and a nurse specialist in healthcare-related infections from Centro Universitário São Camilo.
