THE EFFICACY OF MASKS

A Review of the Literature

+
How to Understand It

Stephanie Young BSc, DC

KEY POINTS

Must understand hierarchy of evidence - not all

research is created equal.

Must search for conflicts of interests and

questionable funding or involvement.

To date there is no policy-grade evidence to

support masking the general population and the
in fact encourages against it.

There is also not a "growing body of evidence."

There are no new randomized controlled trials
that conclude masks are effective as a
protective measure to reduce transmission of
infection for the general public.

Filtration studies do not measure the efficacy of

a mask intervention on viral transmission. They
measure one variable, filtration, that's it.

There are thousands of doctors, scientists and

professionals who urge against the use of these
measures as they are not only NOT effective,
they harm.

2
THE HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE

Gold standard
studies

Non experimental
observational
studies

“Clinical experience or observational studies should never

be used as the sole basis for assessment of intervention
effects - randomized clinical trials are always needed."

Janus Christian Jakobsen, MD

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Nov 21;14:120. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-120.

Randomization reduces bias and provides a rigorous tool to

examine cause-effect relationships between an intervention
and outcome. This is not possible with any other study
design.

BJOG. 2018 Dec ; 125(13): 1716. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15199.

3
BUT THE "EXPERTS"

Recall that expert opinions are the lowest on the hierarchy.

Their opinion may or may not be evidence informed which is
why "listening to the experts" is not only disregarding high
level evidence but also a dangerous thing to do.

The strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to

which we can, across the range of patients for whom the
recommendations are intended, be confident that desirable
effects of a management strategy outweigh undesirable
effects.

Translation: The cure can't be worse than the disease.

Guideline development using GRADE www.CDC.gov

4
CHERRY PICKING

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy

of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to
individual cases or data that seem to confirm a
particular position while ignoring a significant portion
of related and similar cases or data that may
contradict that position. This fallacy is a major
problem in public debate."

Gary Klass
Department of Politics and Government
Illinois State University

“Politicians and governments are suppressing

science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to
accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments.
They do so to support innovation, to bring products
to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these
reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions
are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying
behaviour is troubling.”

Kamran Abbasi, MD
British Medical Journal
Department of Primary Care and Public Health Executive
Editor of the British Medical Journal

5
THE META-ANALYSES &
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
Highest level of research

6
 YEAR: 2009
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGH
SETTING: COMMUNITY & HEALTHCARE

Conclusion
While there is some experimental evidence that masks
should be able to reduce infectiousness under
controlled conditions, there is even less evidence on
whether this translates to effectiveness in natural
settings. There is little evidence to support the
effectiveness of face masks to reduce the risk of
infection.

Epidemiol Infect. 2010 Apr;138(4):449-56. doi: 10.1017/S0950268809991658. 7

Table 1.
All the studies reviewed in healthcare settings

RCT (randomized No significant difference

controlled trial) is between N95 & surgical
the gold standard masks.
we look for.
No significant differences
between mask group and
control group

Cross-sectional /
observational studies don't
have the power to adequately
measure interventional
outcomes, but they also found
no overall protective effects of
face masks.

Table 2. No significant difference

overall for masking in
All the studies reviewed in community community settings in
these reviewed RCTs.

8
Epidemiol Infect. 2010 Apr;138(4):449-56. doi: 10.1017/S0950268809991658.
 YEAR: 2020
META-ANALYSIS EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGHEST
SETTING: COMMUNITY

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza

in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and
Environmental Measures
This
Meta
on t
he C -Analys
DC's is
web curren
site tly

Results & Discussion:

We identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the
effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-
confirmed influenza virus infections in the community
from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In
pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in
influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR
0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25).

We did not find evidence to support a protective effect

of personal protective measures or environmental
measures in reducing influenza transmission.

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings

—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures. Emerging Infectious 9
Diseases. 2020;26(5):967-975. doi:10.3201/eid2605.190994
 YEAR: 2020
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGH
SETTING: COMMUNITY & HEALTHCARE

Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among

health care workers and the public
PEER umbrella systematic review

Results & Discussion:

From these 11 systematic reviews, 18 unique RCTs were
identified, including a total of 26,444 participants.
No additional RCTs published in 2020 were found.

The use of masks in community settings in general did

not reduce the risk of confirmed influenza (RR = 0.97;
95% CI 0.75 to 1.25; I2 = 0%) or confirmed viral
respiratory infection (RR = 1.28; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.89; I2 =
0%).

Results were not statistically significant in any

subgroup analysis (masks worn by all, just the sick
person, or just the healthy family members at home).
The use of masks in community settings did not result
in a significant risk reduction of influenza like illness.

10
Canadian Family Physician July 2020, 66 (7) 509-517;
 YEAR: 2012
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGH
SETTING: COMMUNITY & HEALTHCARE

The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of

influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence

Discussion:
None of the studies we reviewed established a
conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use
and protection against inuenza infection.

Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2012 Jul;6(4):257-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307

11
 YEAR: 2016
META-ANALYSIS EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGHEST
SETTING: HEALTHCARE

Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical

wound infection in clean surgery

Results:
We included three trials, involving a total of 2106
participants. There was no statistically significant
difference in infection rates between the masked and
unmasked group in any of the trials.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 26;4(4):CD002929. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002929.

12
 YEAR: 2015
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGH
SETTING: HEALTHCARE

Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use

of facemasks in surgery

Conclusion:
Examination of the literature revealed much of the
published work on the matter to be quite dated and
often studies had poorly elucidated methodologies.

As a result, we recommend caution in extrapolating

their findings to contemporary surgical practice.

However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence

to support claims that face masks protect either patient
or surgeon from infectious contamination.

J R Soc Med. 2015 Jun; 108(6): 223–228. doi: 10.1177/0141076815583167.

13
 YEAR: 2009
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGH
SETTING: HEALTHCARE

Does evidence based medicine support the effectiveness of

surgical facemasks in preventing postoperative wound
infections in elective surgery?

Results:
No significance difference in the incidence of
postoperative wound infection was observed between
masks group and groups operated with no masks (1.34,
95% CI, 0.58-3.07). There was no increase in infection
rate in 1980 when masks were discarded. In fact there
was significant decrease in infection rate (p < 0.05).

J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. Apr-Jun 2009;21(2):166-70. 14

 YEAR: 2016
META-ANALYSIS EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGHEST
SETTING: HEALTHCARE

Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in

protecting health care workers from acute respiratory
infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
This
analy
versu sis lo
oks a
not m s surgic t N95
ask v al ma
ersus sk
no m s
ask.

Results:
In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no
significant difference between N95 respirators and
surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-
confirmed respiratory infection.

CMAJ. 2016 May 17;188(8):567-574. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.150835.

15
 YEAR: 2020
META-ANALYSIS EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGHEST
SETTING: HEALTHCARE

Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks

against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This
ana
versu lysis looks
not m s surgica at N
ask v l mas 95
ersus ks
no m
ask.

Results:
A total of six RCTs involving 9171 participants were
included. There were not statistically significant
differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed
influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral
infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection
and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and
surgical masks.

The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical

masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-
confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators
should not be recommended for general public and non
high-risk medical staff those are not in close contact
withinfluenza patients or suspected patients

J Evid Based Med. 2020 May;13(2):93-101. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381. 16

 YEAR: 2020
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EVIDENCE QUALITY: PRE-PRINT
SETTING: COMMUNITY & HEALTHCARE

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of

respiratory viruses. Part 1 - Face masks, eye protection and
person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis

Results
Our results show that masks alone have no significant
effect in interrupting spread of ILI or influenza in the all
populations analysis. Our findings are similar for ILI in
healthcare workers RR 0.37 (95% CIs 0.05 to 2.50) and
for the comparisons between N95 respirators and
surgical masks: for clinical respiratory illness, and
influenza.

Despite the lack of evidence, we would still recommend

using facial barriers in the setting of
epidemic and pandemic viral respiratory infections, but
there does not appear to be a difference
between surgical and full respirator wear. Despite the
methodological concerns, our review of the
available studies demonstrates consistency in the
finding of no difference between surgical and N95
or equivalent masks as a physical intervention to
interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory
viruses, mainly influenza.
17
J Evid Based Med. 2020 May;13(2):93-101. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381.
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS
There are dozens which have already been reviewed
in the analyses above, here are a few for reference.

18
 YEAR: 2015
Randomized Controlled Trial EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGH
SETTING: HEALTHCARE

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared

with medical masks in healthcare workers

Results
Cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of
infection than medical masks, and also performed
worse than the control arm.

There was no significant difference between the medical

mask and control arms.

When we analysed all mask-wearers including controls,

the higher risk of cloth masks was seen for laboratory-
confirmed respiratory viral infection.

The physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the

frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased
moisture retention, may potentially increase the
infection risk for HCWs (health care worker).

We also showed that filtration was extremely poor

(almost 0%) for the cloth masks.

BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 22;5(4):e006577. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577. 19

 YEAR: 2020
Randomized Controlled Trial EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGH
SETTING: COMMUNITY

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to

Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2
Infection in Danish Mask Wearers

Results
Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a
surgical mask when outside the home among others did
not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical
significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in
mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and
other public health measures were in effect, mask
recommendations were not among those measures, and
community use of masks was uncommon.

Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 18. doi: 10.7326/M20-6817. 20

 YEAR: 2016
Randomized Controlled Trial EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGH
SETTING: HEALTHCARE & COMMUNITY

Cluster randomised controlled trial to examine

medical mask use as source control for people with
respiratory illness

Results
Rates of clinical respiratory illness (relative risk (RR)
0.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.13), ILI (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to
3.13) and laboratory-confirmed viral infections (RR 0.97,
95% CI 0.06 to 15.54) were not statistically significant
between the the mask arm compared with control.

BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 30;6(12):e012330. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012330. 21

 YEAR: 2019
Randomized Controlled Trial EVIDENCE QUALITY: HIGH
SETTING: COMMUNITY

Facemask versus No Facemask in Preventing Viral

Respiratory Infections During Hajj:
Cluster Randomised Open Label Trial

Findings & Conclusions

7,687 adult participants from 318 tents were randomised
to facemasks or no facemasks.

In intention-to-treat analysis, facemask use was neither

effective against laboratory-confirmed vRTIs (OR 1.35,
95% CI 0.88-2.07) nor against CRI (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.88-
1.39), not even in per-protocol analysis

Facemask use does not prevent clinical or laboratory-

confirmed viral respiratory infections.

J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2015 Jun;5(2):181-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jegh.2014.08.002.

22
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

23
THIS IS A TYPICAL CITY'S WEBSITE
EXPLAINING 'WHY MASKS WORK'

Let's break down each point of their

"evidence."

jeffco.us/4056/Mask-Guidance 24
 THEY CLAIM THE FACT
Masks appear to help keep Filtration studies cannot
the person wearing the mask access if masking the
from spreading COVID-19 to general public will in-fact
others by reducing the reduce viral transmission,
amount and distance only a Randomized Control
infectious particles can Trial that measures efficacy
spread through partial of interventions can
filtering of said particles. appropriately do this.

New evidence also suggests New evidence? The paper

masks may also partially they linked is not even a
protect the wearer, especially published study. This is a
from severe infection, by manuscript. Absolutely
potentially reducing viral absurd to cite this as a
inoculation dose and/or face source of "evidence."
touching.

Individuals are thought to Zero evidence for this

be best protected when both statement, which is why they
they and most others in their don't list any source.
community wear masks.

A seafood processing plant This is NOT a legitimate

in Oregon that implemented scientific source. It was a
universal mask-wearing had facility's written statement of
a 95% asymptomatic rate their operations and attempt
among 124 infected workers. to measure outcomes. It
offers zero clarity in the
scope of quality science.

jeffco.us/4056/Mask-Guidance 25
 THEY CLAIM THE FACT
In yet another instance, two This is a REPORT on the
infected hair salon CDC's owned Morbidity and
employees in Missouri did not Mortality Weekly Report
transmit any apparent website. It is a not a peer
infections to any of their 139 reviewed scientific study.
clients in the setting of mask
use by them and nearly all of
their clients.

Additionally, at a pediatric This study is a low level study

hemodialysis unit in Indiana as a case series, but what's
which required universal more is that it has no
masking, exposure to one relevance on if masks stop
symptomatic patient with transmission of viruses in
COVID-19 likely resulted in the general population,
marked asymptomatic or again only a well designed
mildly symptomatic RCT can measure this.
seroconversion among other
patients (23%) and staff
(44%).

Hamsters simulated to wear A simulation, an animal

masks had less severe model not a clinical trial.
COVID-19 infection than Again, not an appropriate
hamsters who were not study for measuring an
simulated to wear masks intervention in human
when exposed to the virus. populations in community.

A recent meta-analysis This analysis looked ONLY at

suggests mask use may observational studies (weak
reduce infection rates by evidence) and ZERO RCTs.
nearly 65%. (high level evidence)

jeffco.us/4056/Mask-Guidance 26
Why do they omit ALL the randomized
controlled trials & the
meta-analyses we have on this?

Instead they reference the weakest and

entirely inappropriate sources.

For any those who understand the

structure of science, this is not only
absurd, it is fraudulent.

27
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN
EDITORIAL
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

"Face masks should be used only by individuals who

have symptoms of respiratory infection such as
coughing, sneezing, or, in some cases, fever. Face
masks should also be worn by health care workers, by
individuals who are taking care of or are in close
contact with people who have respiratory infections, or
otherwise as directed by a doctor.

Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals

to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory
infection because there is no evidence to suggest that
face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in
preventing people from becoming ill."

JAMA. 2020;323(15):1517–1518. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2331 28

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN
JAMA ARTICLE EDITORIAL
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

JAMA. 2020;323(15):1517–1518. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2331

29
JAMA HEALTH
WORLD ARTICLE
ORGANIZATION

World Health Organization on Masks

"At the present time, the widespread use of

masks by healthy people in the community setting
is not yet supported by high quality or direct
scientific evidence and there are potential benefits
and harms to consider.

...A growing compendium of observational

evidence on the use of masks by the general
public in several countries, individual values and
preferences, as well as the difficulty of physical
distancing in many contexts, WHO has updated
its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19
transmission effectively in areas of
community transmission, governments should
encourage the general public to wear masks..."

Remember observational studies are weaker

studies - why do they not mention all
the RCTs we have? Perhaps because they
conclude masks aren't effective?

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-
community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-
novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak 30
JAMA HEALTH
WORLD ARTICLE
ORGANIZATION

Know anyone using these guidelines when using

a mask? Not only is it not effective regardless,
poor mask handling increases risk.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-
care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak
31
 THOUSANDS OF
PROFESSIONALS SPEAK OUT

32
"As for the scientific support for the use of face masks, a recent
careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies
were analyzed, concluded that, “None of the studies established a
conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and
protection against influenza infection.

Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that

either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission
of the COVID-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be
based on studies of influenza virus transmission. The fact is, there
is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus
transmission."

Russell Blaylock, MD

"As a physician and former medical journal editor, I've carefully

read the scientific literature regarding the use of face masks to
mitigate viral transmission. I believe the public health experts have
community wearing of masks all wrong. What follows are the key
issues that should inform the public against wearing medical face
masks during the CoVID-19 pandemic, as well as all future
respiratory disease pandemics."

Jim Meehan, MD

“Face masks in public places are not necessary, based on all the
current evidence. There is no benefit and there may even be
negative impact.”

Coen Berends
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment

33
"We know that wearing a mask outside healthcare facilities offers
little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities
define a significant exposure to CoVID-19 as face-to-face contact
within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic CoVID-19 that is
sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10
minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching CoVID-19
from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In
many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive
reaction to anxiety over the pandemic."

Michael Klompas, MD
Charles A. Morris, MD
Julia Sinclair, MBA
Madelyn Pearson, DNP
Erica S. Shenoy, MD

"From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical

effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a
national obligation."

Tamara van Ark

Medical Care Minister Netherlands

"Face masks should not be seen as a magic bullet that halts the
spread."

Christian Hoebe
Professor of infectious diseases

34
"Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—
will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the
widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province,
China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission
experience earlier this year...

Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be

ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether
worn as source control or as PPE. Surgical masks likely have
some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus
dispersal to another person) from a symptomatic patient in a
healthcare setting to stop the spread of large cough particles
and limit the lateral dispersion of cough particles..."

Lisa Brosseau, ScD

National expert infectious diseases
University of Illinois at Chicago

"The University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease

Research & Policy calls out CDC for using bogus sources to
support its revised cloth mask-wearing policy because the
sources “employ very crude, non-standardized methods” and
“are not relevant to cloth face coverings because they evaluate
respirators or surgical masks.”

University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease

Research & Policy

"It’s not science that seems to be leading what's going on with

COVID, it’s public opinion and politics.”

Annie Janvier, PhD

35
"The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the
vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk
group also survive, from an infectious disease and
epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through
the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level
rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a
return next winter. During this time, we need to protect the at-
risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their
immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in
general, care for them.One should not attack and insult those
who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest
that is the wise choice to make."

Russell Blaylock, MD
Neuroseurgon

"Given the fact that there is no peered reviewed research

published in a reputable medical journal that scientifically and
conclusively shows that healthy people wearing face masks
slows the spread of disease, it is illogical and potentially
detrimental for a healthy person to be wearing a mask."

Gabriel Cousens, MD

"Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching.

Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed.
Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from
home. Restaurants and other businesses should open.”

Martin Kulldorff, PhD - Harvard epidemiologist

Sunetra Gupta, PhD - Oxford epidemiologist
Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD - Stanford public health expert
36
"I want to state that we do not have a medical pandemic or
epidemic. We also state that COVID-19 should not be on list A
for any longer, because we now know that it is a normal flu
virus.

We are also starting a lawsuit to the State of the Netherlands to

bring this in with a large group of doctors and a really large
group of nurses also, because we have contact with 87,000
nurses that do not want the vaccine that is being prepared for
us.

The panic is caused by these false positive PCR tests. 89 to 94%

of these PCR tests are false positive. They don’t test for the
COVID-19. Medical doctors need to stop looking at those tests.
Let’s go back to the clinics and the facts."

Elke De Klerk, MD
Founder of Doctors for Truth

37
THE GREAT BARRINGTON
DECLARATION

MISSION
"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health
scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging
physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing
COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call
Focused Protection."

Over 12,000 scientists and over 35,000 medical

practitioners do not agree with the unscientific and
destructive mandates for the general public.

These scientists urge that, "The most compassionate

approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching
herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of
death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the
virus through natural infection, while better protecting
those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused
Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable
should be the central aim of public health responses to
COVID-19."

gbdeclaration.org 38
WORLD DOCTORS
ALLIANCE

MISSION
An independent non-profit alliance of doctors, nurses,
healthcare professionals and staff around the world who
have united in the wake of the Covid-19 response chapter
to share experiences with a view to ending all lockdowns
and related damaging measures and to re-establish
universal health determinance of psychological and
physical wellbeing for all humanity.

Most importantly covid deaths are at an all-time low. It is

clear that these ‘cases’ are in fact not ‘cases’ but rather
they are normal healthy people. So-called asymptomatic
cases have never in the history of respiratory disease
been the driver for spread of infection. Rather it is
symptomatic people who spread respiratory infections -
not asymptomatic people. (2)

It is also abundantly clear that the ‘pandemic’ is basically

over and has been since June 2020. (3) We have very
highly likely reached herd immunity and therefore have
no need for a vaccine.

We have safe and very effective treatments and

preventative treatments for covid, we therefore call for
an immediate end to all lockdown measures, social
distancing, mask wearing, testing of healthy individuals,
track and trace, immunity passports, the vaccination
program and so on.

There has been a catalogue of unscientific, non-sensical

policies enacted which infringe our inalienable rights,
such as - freedom of movement, freedom of speech and
freedom of assembly. These draconian totalitarian
measures must never be repeated.
39
worlddoctorsalliance.com
COVID MEDICAL
NETWORK

MISSION
The Victorian government’s response to the SARS-CoV-2
virus is now doing more harm than good. These measures
will cause more deaths and result in far more negative
health effects than the virus itself. Left unchecked, the
Victorian government risks creating the state’s worst ever
public health crisis.

Many Australian doctors and other health professionals

consider the lockdown measures to be disproportionate,
unscientific, excessively authoritarian and the cause of
widespread suffering for many Victorians.Thereby, we
Australian Doctors and Health Professionals, in solidarity
with thousands of international doctors, call for the
cessation of all disproportionate measures that
contravene the International Siracusa Principles.

These policies seriously compromise the health of

individuals and the wider community by imposing
curfews, local travel restrictions, reduced exercise and
outdoor activities, imposed isolation and the
quarantining of the healthy, enforced mask wearing in
open spaces, the denial of children’s play, the denial of
socialisation and education with friends and peers and
the disruption of family relationships. These policies are
contrary to common-sense and the arbitrary application
of laws enforcing these policies has created unnecessary
disquiet in our community and a growing loss of
confidence in those responsible for such decisions

Evidence does not support these measures. The limited

virulence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus for the vast majority of
the population is now well established from the latest
international data sets.

covidmedicalnetwork.com
40
Non Exhaustive List of Professionals That Do
Not Support Mandates for the General Public
Dr. Alexander Walker, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard
Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert
Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics
Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor clinical microbiology and immunology
Dr. Boris Kotchoubey, Institute for Medical Psychology
Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, vaccine development
Dr. David Katz, founder Yale Prevention Research Center
Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease
Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine
Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist
Dr. Florian Limbourg, physician and researcher
Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying epidemiology
Dr. Gerhard Krönke, physician and professor
Dr. Gesine Weckmann, professor of health education and prevention
Dr. Günter Kampf, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine
Dr. Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics epidemiology
Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor
Dr. Karol Sikora, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine
Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences
Dr. Lisa White, professor of modeling and epidemiology, Oxford
Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor
Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician & professor of medicine
Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow
Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist, recipient 2013 Nobel Prize Chemistry
Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography
Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology
Dr. Partha P. Majumder, National Institute of Biomedical Genomics
Dr. Paul McKeigue, professor of epidemiology and public health
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert
41
Non Exhaustive List of Professionals That Do
Not Support Mandates for the General Public
Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist
Dr. Salmaan Keshavjee, professor Harvard Medical School
Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician
Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor
Dr. Stephen Bremner, professor of medical statistics
Dr. Sylvia Fogel, instructor Harvard Medical School
Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology
Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, professor and expert in virology, immunology
Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant
Andrew Kaufman, MD Josh Henk, DC
Scott Jensen, MD Jay Komarek, DC
Eddie Weller, DC Josh Howe, DC
Allison Lucas, Esq Jocobey Mark, DC
Gabriel Cousens, MD Joseph Mercola, DO
Eric Nepune, DC Cassie Huckaby, ND
Jessica Peatross, MD Ben Lynch, ND
Josheph Arena, DC Morgan Towles, DC
Liam Schubel, DC Alex Lee, DC
Daniel Knowles, DC Rashid Buttar, DO
Kelly Brogan, MD Edith Chan, DAOM
Suzan Tenpenny, MD Tyna Moore, DC, ND
Tom Cowen, MD Suneil Jane, NMD
Tommy John, DC Ashton Joyce, NMD
Joseph Audie, PhD Jo Yi, MD
Denis Rancourt, PhD Melanie Joy, PhD
Zev Myerowitz, DC Melissa Sell, DC
Seth Gerlach, DC Christiane Northrup, MD
Ben Tapper, DC Zack Bush, MD
Lauren Keller, APRN Michael Christian, DHSc, CMS
Sarah Carnes, ND Shiva Ayyadurai, PhD

THOUSANDS MORE 42