COVID-19
“I want to apologize for advocating for the use of masks” – Spread of respiratory illnesses not slowed down by mask use

The study examines the effectiveness of masks and of following a hand hygiene program in reducing the likelihood of acquiring respiratory virus infections such as COVID-19.
British Health Researcher Dr. John Campbell shares the disappointing results in this presentation:
From Dr. John Campbell
From the Cochrane Library
What did we do?
We searched for randomised controlled studies that looked at physical measures to stop people acquiring a respiratory virus infection.
We were interested in how many people in the studies caught a respiratory virus infection, and whether the physical measures had any unwanted effects.
What did we find?
We identified 78 relevant studies. They took place in low‐, middle‐, and high‐income countries worldwide: in hospitals, schools, homes, offices, childcare centres, and communities during non‐epidemic influenza periods, the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016, and during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We identified five ongoing, unpublished studies; two of them evaluate masks in COVID‐19. Five trials were funded by government and pharmaceutical companies, and nine trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies.
We assessed the effects of:
· medical or surgical masks;
· N95/P2 respirators (close‐fitting masks that filter the air breathed in, more commonly used by healthcare workers than the general public); and
· hand hygiene (hand‐washing and using hand sanitiser).
We obtained the following results:
Medical or surgical masks
Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.
N95/P2 respirators
Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu‐like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well‐reported; discomfort was mentioned.
Hand hygiene
Following a hand hygiene programme may reduce the number of people who catch a respiratory or flu‐like illness, or have confirmed flu, compared with people not following such a programme (19 studies; 71,210 people), although this effect was not confirmed as statistically significant reduction when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed ILI were analysed separately. Few studies measured unwanted effects; skin irritation in people using hand sanitiser was mentioned.
Dr. John Campbells presentation notes with links:
RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks.
There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers, when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.
Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/…
Evidence published up to October 2022.
Background Influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020.
We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Main results 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs n = 610,872
Bringing the total number of RCTs to 78
Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks
Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness
wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness
Risk ratio (RR) 0.95, (0.84 to 1.09) 9 trials, n = 276,917 participants
Moderate-certainty evidence.
Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 RR 1.01, (CI 0.72 to 1.42)
6 trials, n = 13,919 Moderate-certainty evidence
Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence).
N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks
We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks
We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness
Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness, or respiratory illness.
Confirmed influenza RR 0.70, (0.45 to 1.10) N = 7,779 Very low-certainty evidence
Influenza like illness N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI RR 0.82 N= 8,407 Low-certainty evidence
The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks
Probably makes little or no difference for laboratory-confirmed influenza infection RR 1.10 N = 8,407 Moderate-certainty evidence
Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings.
Harms were poorly measured and reported
Discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies
Very low-certainty evidence
One new RCT Medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators N = 1,009 healthcare workers in four countries, providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.
COVID-19
Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’

From LifeSiteNews
The director of National Intelligence revealed gain-of-function ties to US funding, which could indicate that the US helped bankroll the supposed COVID lab leak.
In this segment of a remarkable interview by Megyn Kelly, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard discusses the current Intelligence Community (IC) research into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (aka, COVID-19).
Gabbard talks about the U.S. government funding of “gain-of-function” research, which is a soft sounding phrase to describe the weaponization of biological agents.
Gabbard notes the gain-of-function research taking place in the Wuhan lab was coordinated and funded by the United States government, and the IC is close to making a direct link between the research and the release of the COVID-19 virus.
Additionally, Gabbard explains the concern of other biolabs around the world and then gets very close to the line of admitting the IC itself is politically weaponized (which it is but would be stunning to admit).
COVID-19
Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

From LifeSiteNews
A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna
A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.
The study titled “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:
Study Overview
- Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
- Intervention: Two doses of either:
- BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
- mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
- Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
- Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
- Main Outcomes:
- All-cause mortality
- Cardiovascular mortality
- COVID-19 mortality
- Non-COVID-19 mortality
All-cause mortality
Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.
- Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)
Cardiovascular mortality
Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)
COVID-19 mortality
Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)
Non-COVID-19 mortality
Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)
Biological explanations
The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:
The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:
- Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
- Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions
Final conclusion
Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.
Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.
As the authors conclude:
These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.
-
Crime1 day ago
Canada Blocked DEA Request to Investigate Massive Toronto Carfentanil Seizure for Terror Links
-
International14 hours ago
Pentagon Salivates Over ‘Expensive’ Weapons While China Races Into Future With Iron Grip Over Cheap Drone Tech
-
Business23 hours ago
Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
The Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power
-
Alberta15 hours ago
Pierre Poilievre will run to represent Camrose, Stettler, Hanna, and Drumheller in Central Alberta by-election
-
Business2 days ago
Canada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste
-
Business2 days ago
Trump says he expects ‘great relationship’ with Carney, who ‘hated’ him less than Poilievre
-
COVID-1923 hours ago
Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’