HomeMy WebLinkAbout02152021_Huenke_double maskingFrom:Annette Huenke
To:Public Comments
Cc:Board of Health; Tom Locke
Subject:comment, Feb. 16/17 BOCC meeting
Date:Monday, February 15, 2021 12:38:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
At last week’s BOCC meeting, Dr. Locke said that “there is a lot of evidence” to support double-masking. I wrote to ask for that evidence. I received a pdf of a 4-page paper and a
brief reply that ended with “no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.”
For ten months now a handful of concerned citizen researchers have been highlighting bona
fide studies from reputable sources to broaden the perspective of local policy makers. Those sources include the CDC, WHO and top universities and scientists around the globe. Are
those premiere virologists, pathologists and epidemiologists pseudoscientists because they’ve arrived at different conclusions than Dr. Locke about the crisis that is consuming us? Are we
sociopaths because we consider the research and opinions of those experts?
What Dr. Locke called “a lot of evidence" for double-masking is actually several small mechanistic experiments conducted with manikins, reported in a NIH ‘commentary’ that
summarizes studies which clearly support the goals of its funders while ignoring the plethora of research that does not. It was not peer reviewed. It is data-deficient.
During a fireside chat on January 28th, Anthony Fauci said "There’s no data that indicates that
that [2 masks] is going to make a difference. And that is why the CDC has not changed their recommendation.” He’d advised double-masking shortly before that, surely aware that this
NIH paper was in its final stages.
In a recent interview, Dr. Michael Osterholm, a top health adviser to President Biden, warned that double-masking could be counterproductive and harmful. “If you put more of it on, all it
does is it impedes the air coming through and it makes it blow in and out along the sides. The fit becomes even less effective," he said. "Double masking could be a detriment to your
protection."
Legitimate research we’ve supplied that report known harms from masking has been categorically rejected. There has been scant attention paid to the near-universal improper use
and care of masks, which has been proven to increase risk of infection. And now, based on experiments with manikins, we’re being told to wear two masks, which will further reduce our
oxygen supply and increase our own carbon dioxide intake.
A true cost/benefit analysis of these extreme masking policies has not yet been conducted. Neither has the rigorous scientific research required to support them.
Annette Huenke