Two weeks ago I was on vacation in New York. The city is bursting with beautiful places and impressive sights, but one thing immediately struck me: the number of people who were still wearing a face mask. In the metro, in museums, in theaters and even on the street or in the park. Young and old, mothers with prams. It seemed to affect everyone. In the Netherlands you can usually recognize a tourist by wearing a face mask, but in New York ordinary New Yorkers walked around with them. In one theater, even all the staff wore masks, as if it were mandatory.
It actually makes sense why face masks are still so popular in New York. The city votes predominantly Democratic, and during the corona period, face masks acquired a clear political connotation. By wearing a mask, you not only showed that you wanted to protect your fellow man, but also that you had confidence in science. Deviating ideas came mainly from Republicans. Anyone who wanted to “appear” as a Democrat faithfully wore a face mask. That willingness to wear a mask has been huge in New York during the pandemic.
But those who have been told for years that a face mask is necessary because "science" says so, often stick to it even after the pandemic. Because why would you check what the scientific basis actually was?
During conversations with Americans, I noticed that many people are still not well informed about the scientific facts surrounding face masks. This probably also applies to many Europeans outside the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, propaganda about face masks during the corona period was relatively limited compared to other countries. Because I had studied this subject extensively at the time, I thought it would be useful to refresh my knowledge and write it down.
So here we go: an overview of the scientific evidence surrounding the wearing of face masks by the public as protection against respiratory viruses.
1. What the evidence showed before COVID
Before 2020, decades of randomized controlled trials of influenza and other respiratory viruses consistently found that the use of face masks in community settings provided little to no measurable benefit. These were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), high-quality studies and the type of evidence considered the gold standard.
That's why health authorities worldwide (including Fauci in the US) advised against wearing face masks in public at the beginning of the pandemic. That recommendation was not arbitrary, but consistent with the best available evidence.
2. What changed during the pandemic
However, at the end of March 2020, public reporting changed drastically. Suddenly, the use of face masks was presented as the means to combat the pandemic, including the adage “my mask protects you, your mask protects me” to enforce compliance. However, the scientific basis had not changed at that time.
From then on, a wave of observational studies appeared, many of which were extensively reported in the media. Observational studies can be useful, but they are also very sensitive to confounding factors: ventilation, crowding, compliance and behavior all influence the results. Several high-profile examples, including the CDC study of two hairdressers1The Face Masked Hairdressers (CDC): https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm, were used to support wearing face masks, even though the data was far too weak to draw those conclusions. The CDC study itself actually made a strong argument for good ventilation, which is present in hair salons because of the chemicals they use, and is known to greatly reduce the risk of infection with respiratory diseases (which is why the risk of these types of infections while walking outside, even in very busy areas, is zero). Instead, they chose to focus on mask use, indicating how eager they were to find scientific support for their new direction.
When randomized trials were conducted during COVID, results were mixed or did not show a statistically significant benefit. The large Danish study by Bundgaard et al. 2Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation…: Bundgaard et al. is an example of that. Another major study in Bangladesh3The Impact of Community Masking on COVID‑19 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069 initially suggested a modest reduction, but was later reanalyzed and found to have methodological problems4Reanalysis Bangla Desh Study: https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-022-06704-z. Adjusted, this study also found no statistically significant benefit.
3. The 2023 Cochrane Review
In 2023, the Cochrane Institute published an update to their paper “Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses”5Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses:https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/epdf/full. This review of physical interventions summarized all available high-quality evidence to date.
The Cochrane Collaboration is recognized worldwide as one of the most reliable sources for solid and well-researched evidence. What makes Cochrane so special is its strict methodology, transparency and commitment to avoiding bias as much as possible. Their systematic reviews are often used to guide everything from clinical guidelines to health policy and research choices. Because these reviews are updated regularly, the recommendations are always based on the most recent and reliable data. In this way, Cochrane helps doctors, researchers and policy makers to make decisions that are truly based on evidence and contributes to better healthcare worldwide.
Their conclusion in the article was that all the new scientific research into the use of face masks had not led to a different recommendation than previous updates: wearing face masks in society has not provided a clear or consistent benefit in reducing the spread of respiratory viruses.
That conclusion was not really a surprise, but since many health organizations and scientists had invested heavily in the new face mask policy, the criticism was as fierce as it was predictable. The political pressure was so great that the editor-in-chief of Cochrane, without consulting the authors of the review, felt the need to publicly state that the review did not mean that face masks do not work. This was condemned by the scientific community as it indicated a lack of scientific integrity. The lead authors themselves, Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan, explained in a public interview that their review well meant that the policy recommending the use of face masks by the public as a means of treating respiratory diseases was not scientifically based6Interview with Jefferson and Heneghan:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_JTBftjQuA.
4. Why doctors and nurses wear face masks
There is also confusion about medical environments.
Surgical face masks are mainly used to:
- to prevent bacteria from the mouth/nose of a doctor or nurse from entering wounds
- protect doctors and nurses from splashes of bodily fluids
They are not used to prevent the transmission of viruses through the air.
For airborne viruses, healthcare workers rely on N95/FFP2/FFP3 respirators, which must be tested for fit (not leaking through the edges) and used under controlled conditions. If there is even the smallest leak, the filtering will not work as intended. These conditions do not apply to use outside controlled environments, making these masks no better than surgical masks when used by the public.
5. Disadvantages and risks
Every intervention has potential advantages and disadvantages, including face masks.
Effects on the wearer
Research shows that:
- Long-term use of respirators can affect breathing comfort and measurable physiological parameters7Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks… https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y
- some disposable masks release micro- or nanoparticles, which have been linked to damage to lung tissue. Also by the RIVM8Nanomaterials in face masks: https://www.rivm.nl/nanotechnologie/consumentenproducten/Zijn-niet-medische-mondkapjes-met-nanomaterialen-veilig 9Face masks and chemical safety: https://www.rivm.nl/publicaties/chemische-veiligheid-mondkapjes
- prolonged use and reuse of masks is associated with higher bacterial contamination10Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y
Effects on interactions
Masks can affect communication, especially:
- young children who rely on facial expressions. The use of masks by caregivers hinders the development of these children11The effect of face mask wearing on language processing… https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9637007/
- people with dementia who need facial reassurance. The use of masks by caregivers has led to frightening situations for people with dementia and problems with face-to-face therapies.
This was widely recognized even during the pandemic, although often downplayed.
Environmental consequences
This is an area where the evidence is very clear: disposable masks have caused significant environmental pollution, including microplastic pollution. Examples:
- Used disposable masks are a major source of microplastics in the environment12Chen et al.: Used disposable face masks are significant sources of microplastics to environment https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34087638/
- Disposable masks release microplastics into the aquatic environment, which is further enhanced by natural weathering13Mater: Disposable masks release microplastics… https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34015713/
- Environmental hazard of polypropylene microplastics from disposable medical face masks: acute toxicity to Daphnia magna and current knowledge about other polypropylene microplastics14Environmental hazard of polypropylene microplastics https://microplastics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43591-021-00020-0
- Effects of discarded face masks on marine microorganisms during the COVID-19 pandemic15Effects of Discarded Masks… https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/10/8/426
This led to this article in The Guardian, warning us about the chemical time bomb we have created:
“Disposable masks used during Covid left behind a chemical time bomb, study finds”
Kop in The Guardian16Disposable face masks used during Covid have left chemical timebomb, research suggests https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/08/disposable-face-masks-covid-chemical-timebomb
Finally
I didn't write this to downplay intentions. Nearly everyone who embraced wearing masks did so because he or she wanted to protect themselves or others. But now that we've stepped back and have more extensive evidence, I think it's important that we look at the full scientific picture rather than the simplified version that dominated early reporting.
I hope this piece helps to clarify the scientific view on wearing face masks in society. These can be summarized as: Given the benefits of the use of face masks in society that can hardly be measured and the disadvantages that are clearly present, the use of face masks should never be encouraged for the general public.
References
- 1The Face Masked Hairdressers (CDC): https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm
- 2Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation…: Bundgaard et al.
- 3The Impact of Community Masking on COVID‑19 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
- 4Reanalysis Bangla Desh Study: https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-022-06704-z
- 5Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses:https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/epdf/full
- 6Interview with Jefferson and Heneghan:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_JTBftjQuA
- 7Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks… https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y
- 8Nanomaterials in face masks: https://www.rivm.nl/nanotechnologie/consumentenproducten/Zijn-niet-medische-mondkapjes-met-nanomaterialen-veilig
- 9Face masks and chemical safety: https://www.rivm.nl/publicaties/chemische-veiligheid-mondkapjes
- 10Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y
- 11The effect of face mask wearing on language processing… https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9637007/
- 12Chen et al.: Used disposable face masks are significant sources of microplastics to environment https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34087638/
- 13Mater: Disposable masks release microplastics… https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34015713/
- 14Environmental hazard of polypropylene microplastics
- 15Effects of Discarded Masks… https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/10/8/426
- 16Disposable face masks used during Covid have left chemical timebomb, research suggests https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/08/disposable-face-masks-covid-chemical-timebomb
Good piece Martijn. Keep hammering it. You write this as a fait accompli:
“Surgical face masks are mainly used to:
– prevent bacteria from the mouth/nose of a doctor or nurse from entering wounds
– protect doctors and nurses against splashes of bodily fluids”
Even that's probably not true. It seems mainly theater. See this:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4480558/
Nice article!
You may just wonder why all kinds of 'evidence' suddenly emerged in March 2020 that wearing face masks would be useful after all.
That is highly remarkable, but in line with all the other absurdities that were forced upon us.
Psyop instead of medical science
New York, New York, was also the epicenter of the panic wave during the 'outbreak'. If you could let it erupt there, it could erupt anywhere.
Nasal face masks (Yes, they must also be worn over the nose, Rutte emphasized it.), as explained above, Martijn, have no effect whatsoever on a pandemic.
However, they are great for use in psychological warfare.
Especially if, on the one hand, it is known that they do not work (in this case Van Dissel adhered neatly to evidence-based science) and they still had to be worn despite the fact that they were proven not to work. Even by him, outside (a camera crew can film Dissel when he comes to the meeting outside wearing a nose mask). See here a characteristic of a psyop: confuse and conquer.
You could distinguish yourself with it as a Democrat and you could even wear two of them as extra support for that party (Fauci).
You could have people check each other with it (It also has to be over the nose, sir) and you could emphasize the seriousness of the situation with it (so that people outside would better observe the, also nonsensical, necessary distance. I believe it was also investigated in Amsterdam. All may cost something. After all, it is a matter of life and death. This is a very serious matter! Do you still believe it? Confusing for sure!).
And of course last but not least: they contributed nicely to the collection of annoying measures from which we would be freed if we took the non-working vaccine en masse.
And yes, a lot of money should certainly be made available at European level to combat the consequences of the corona epidemic (if you can't spend it, put it into combating climate change (read: CO2).
Another, fueled fear with the same goal: centralizing power and increasing citizen control (the expanding population is like a cancer on the environment). You can't trust these guys.
(Sorry, just had to get this out)
PsyOp indeed. You had to be strong not to doubt yourself, so often you came across absurd measures.
I will never forget a bike ride on a beautiful clear day, during which I wanted to climb a radar tower (beautiful view at about 30 m height - https://uitkijktorens.nl/uitkijktorens/radartoren-ossenisse/ ) and found it locked with chains, with a sign (due to Covid-19 blah blah...). If it's windy somewhere, it's in Zeeland and if it's really windy somewhere, it's around a tower like that. But no, you would just hit one virus particle that bypasses your face mask if you meet someone on that tower!
Two weeks ago I saw a young man walking with one of those in front of his face at an event. Fortunately, it hardly happens here anymore, but this young man shows how psychologically destroyed people are. I thought it was criminal.
I think the worst (in my immediate environment) are the general practitioners and their assistants here. Fortunately, I hardly ever have to go there, but last year they still wore face masks there in the winter. And in practice, plastic screens hang between the patient and assistants at the reception. Really bizarre.
Face masks are actually counterproductive because they provide a false sense of security. Because people who are sick or have tested positive think that they cannot infect others if they wear a mask. People who visit infected people think that they are sufficiently protected if they wear a mask themselves.
The same goes for vaccinated people.
They may or may not be in danger now because they think they are much less contagious, while this has never been proven.
The best/shortest argument against wearing face masks to prevent virus infections that I ever read is: if you want to avoid mosquito bites, wrap yourself in chicken wire.
Good story, and nicely illustrates the absurdity. This way you can actually examine each action/measure one by one. A small selection:
-Number 1: the PCR tests. In my opinion one of the engines behind the 'pandemic'. With more than 80% 'false positivity' you can generate a 'pandemic' in any given winter.
-The modified protocols that are the real cause of most deaths, especially in nursing homes and hospitals. See this article by Hart: https://hartuk.substack.com/p/c-19-inquiry-a-whitewash-its-up-to
-The excessive predictions and scaremongering of the modelers such as Neil Ferguson, copied by Jacco Wallinga in the Netherlands.
-The IFR and CFR calculations ultimately came out close to a normal flu, but were used to further incite fear.
-Washing hands, splash guards, curfews, you name it.
All of the above convinced the population (those who allowed themselves to be manipulated) that there was a deadly virus going around. Every item above was intended to instill fear, including the face masks. Medically speaking, complete nonsense, but it does look like something is really going on. Fear is consciously incited. See the statement by Matt Hancock in the UK (frighten the pants off them) and the WOO requests by Cees vd Bos, which clearly showed that the masks had a deterrent effect, and that was their only function.
All this to prepare the souls for the 'vaccines'? Or is that too conspiratorial?
Quite nice in this context.
Fear and panic ruled and did their damaging work. The question remains who was fearful and who were consciously, in their own interest, spreaders of fear. (In the UK they are now being freed by a baroness through a flight forward: the lockdown was: too little too late).
You can expect the medical world to keep a cool head to prevent unnecessary excess mortality. Most, with fatal consequences, did not do this.
There were some exceptions. Van Dissel initially did this with regard to face masks and the danger of 'the virus', but was symbolically muzzled with regard to face masks by appearing politically and publicly outside with a face mask on and was overruled in terms of 'danger' by WHO and 'Safety' organizations.
https://open.substack.com/pub/sanityunleashed/p/nocebo-effects-during-the-covid-event?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1lysl7
The medical freaks will now huddle together in the hope that their failure will go unnoticed.
I wonder who in the Netherlands will allow them to maintain their innocence through the inquiry committee. (Is Master Pieter van Vollenhoven still alive?).
One thing is certain: MK will widely spread and support such a declaration of innocence. Maybe, to his pride, he will make it onto the front page of his newspaper again.
Visited former friends, but in advance we were asked whether we wanted to stay at home with “corona-like complaints”. No problems so we visited. The couple had come up with fun plans, so we went to a crowded pub where almost all the staff had a bad cold. We noticed it but we didn't say anything because we don't care. Just before we went home, my friend looked at his phone and panicked, “drones over the airport!” And some other incidents, including about the climate, while they themselves do not live according to it (which does not matter to us) but they do not seem to realize the contradiction of any measures. The worst part is our self-censorship which makes this friendship so fragile. We also sometimes feel pity. The equality has disappeared. We feel like their concerned parents...
Recognizable! Striking incident.
Very recognizable. There are even people who test themselves for Covid. Are completely stuck in 2020. I fear that most people still believe the Mark&Hugo story. "I have no symptoms yet and have been vaccinated." Sigh.
Hilarious piece by Mattias de Smet about those drones on Linkedin, by the way.
Lots of things happen. CDC has completely changed its strong statement that vaccinations have nothing to do with autism. Saw a Cleveland study on flu vaccinations that showed that in a survey of 53,000 employees, the risk of flu is 27% higher if... you have been vaccinated against flu. And of course a debunker has already been set up. Del Bigtree's film (an inconsistent study) is also worth watching. And so a German study makes complete mincemeat of the PCR tests. By comparing PCR test results with blood tests.
From skepticism about mRNA vaccines, I gradually became suspicious of many other things...
Aanvullende info
https://open.substack.com/pub/drclarecraig/p/how-the-masks-work-claim-is-propped?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1lysl7
Dank je voor de link!
Een citaat, want het kan altijd nog absurder (dan je dacht te weten):
“Trish Greenhalgh, Professor of Primary Care at Oxford University, (…) had been a vocal advocate of masking with some extreme suggestions. She went from suggesting people wear panty liners in their masks (which have an unbreathable waterproof plastic layer) to advocating for wearing a pair of nylon tights over the head to improve the fit.”
Aanvullende info
https://open.substack.com/pub/drclarecraig/p/how-the-masks-work-claim-is-propped?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1lysl7