Karyn Gattermann: Writer misrepresented research to claim masks don't work

Rather than counter research to disprove Denis Rancourt’s assertion that science shows masks to be ineffective, I instead show that Rancourt misrepresented the research he cited and the science does not show masks to be ineffective.

I followed each of the links and reviewed the articles he cited. Only one of the studies involving 32 health care workers was about whether wearing a mask or not reduced the risk of contracting an illness. One person in the mask-wearing group caught a cold and one person in the non-mask-wearing group caught a cold. The study indicated that whether or not the worker caught a cold seemed to have more to do with whether they lived with children vs. wearing a mask or not at work. The researchers specifically stated “Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use. “ The researchers weren’t going to conclude not wearing a mask was equal to wearing a mask based on their study.

As it relates to the other 6 studies, all were about whether an N95 mask was more effective than a surgical/medical mask in protecting a healthcare worker from infection. Rancourt selectively cited a part of the scientific article in a way that misrepresented what the article stated. I am including just one example.

https://bit.ly/32PhxDd

What Rancourt published:

“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:

What the paragraph above Figures 2 A, B, C actually said:

Two RCTs compared respiratory infection risk in HCWs wearing rPPE continuously to convenience-selected controls wearing no rPPE [24] or following routine care [23]. Wearing a medical mask or N95 respirator throughout the work shift conferred significant protection against self-reported clinical respiratory illness (CRI) (RR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.46–0.77) (Figure 2A) and influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.14–0.82) (Figure 2B). Meta-analysis suggested a protective, but nonstatistically significant, effect against laboratory-confirmed viral infections (VRI) (RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.47–1.03) (Figure 2C).

Rancourt made it appear that his article quoted the scientific article, which it did not. The scientific article, as you can see, actually told a very different story.

These are quotes from the article:

“This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of respiratory protection.”

“RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials) conducted in community settings have demonstrated protective effects of medical masks in combination with hand-hygiene and other infection control interventions [53].”

None of the articles “establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:” as Rancourt asserts. Thus he must have been hoping that no one would actually read the articles themselves and figure this out.

Karyn Gattermann

New Hampton