Proof That the NHS Was Just Making it Up On Face Masks
For two years we’ve been told by senior NHS operatives that the responsibility for assessing the need for masks to be worn in health care settings has been ‘delegated’ to individual NHS Trusts. Decisions would be made based on the local prevalence of respiratory infections and their associated risks.
Work carried out by anti-mask campaign group, Smile Free, has found this to be a falsehood. NHS staff and service users continue to be subjected to the undocumented whims of unaccountable mask mavens; people who appear also to feel that legislation aimed at fostering a culture of openness in public life does not apply to them.
Ever since 2020, when the ‘health service’ portion of the Medical-Industrial Complex – a.k.a the NHS – and its co-collaborators, the Government, flip-flopped on the question of mask efficacy, we, the public, have been sold the sham that a piece of ill-fitting cloth can insulate us from a respiratory infection.
What we know, with absolute clarity and certainty, is that face masks serve only two possible purposes:
- As a comforter and pacifier for the frightened;
- As a means of creating compliance and conformity amongst those wearing them.
The entire schtick of mutual support and care, encapsulated in the psychological nudgers’ weasel words, “I wear mine to protect you”, is founded on a lie. As opposed to the nonsense espoused by Followers of The ScienceTM, real scientific evidence, found in real evidence-based research, has confirmed that the only contribution masks make is to increase harmful effects amongst long-term wearers.
What has the NHS’s institutional response to the facts been?
During these past three years, Smile Free has campaigned vigorously against masks. Twice, in the summers of 2022 and 2023, we wrote open letters to the NHS Chief Executives of the four home countries, co-signed by thousands of doctors, scientists, medical professionals and members of the public. We asked first that they fall into line with other community settings and remove routine ‘requirements’ for mask wearing, and latterly that they issue new guidance explicitly discouraging masking in healthcare settings.
When, or if, we received a reply, the message from the likes of NHS England’s Chief Nursing Officer, Dame Ruth May, was that masking and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were a matter of “local discretion” and may be used “depending on local prevalence and risk assessment”, a feature of the masking system we called the postcode lottery.
(‘Risk assessment’ – a decision-making tool for systematically identifying hazards and associated risks – is one component of an overall three-pronged risk analysis process, the others being ‘risk management’ and ‘risk communication’.)
Call us sceptical, but we harboured doubts about the objectivity of a bureaucratic process that relied on the overweening influence and power of Infection Control Teams. Often under the direction of a pettifogger, we suspected the activation of safety theatre that left thousands of staff and service users badgered to wear the useless face rags might lack the rigour we would have hoped for.
What did we do?
We decided to put the claims of the NHS ‘higher ups’ to the test: we set out to review measurement of local prevalence and assessment of risks arising from respiratory infections in general, and COVID-19 in particular. During the period between September 2023 and February 2024 we identified seven NHS Trusts (Barnsley, East Suffolk & North Essex, Sheffield, Sherwood Forest, South Warwickshire, United Lincolnshire, University Hospital Southampton) that had restarted the mandated wearing of masks across at least some of their estates.
These trusts were chosen because they decided – and announced – that COVID-19 infection levels were “soaring“, and because they think that masks “prevent further spread and protect patients“. (Why they think these things, we have no idea. We think there is zero evidence to support either assertion.)
Via Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, we raised with each trust these questions:
- Within the geographical boundaries covered or served by your trust, what were COVID-19 case numbers (per 100,000 people), by month, since October 2022 until the present day?
- What was the most recent date that these mask measures were subject to risk assessment and updated?
- What was the latest risk assessment document used to determine that it is necessary for you to reintroduce face masks?
- What were any and all risk assessments that have been used since March 2020 to determine that it is necessary for you to mandate the wearing of face masks?
What were the results of our FOIs?
All trusts failed to offer any statistics on community COVID-19 prevalence within their catchment service areas. Two, Southampton and South Warwickshire, were able to provide some data about COVID-19 rates amongst admitted patients; but not one collected, retained or even appeared to analyse case data from across their entire geographic field of operation. All (bar East Suffolk and North Essex, who flatly stated that “we do not have that data”) pointed at the UKHSA as holder of the information. None were able to show how they had used these actual numbers as part of a risk analysis process.
This prompts the question that if these trusts don’t record or analyse these numbers over time, how can they ever know whether COVID-19 prevalence is changing within their service area, or whether changes are suggesting increasing or decreasing health hazards and associated risks? How were they able to make any scientific decisions on mandating, or even just recommending, the wearing of face coverings as ‘protection’ against a respiratory infection?
Just as worrying is the reality that none of the trusts were able to provide evidence of formal documented risk assessments – let alone risk analysis processes – for all parts of their estates. (One, Barnsley, provided a risk assessment template that it said was used to “inform” discussions about mask wearing within its Emergency Department.)
Within this context, three FOI responses, from Southampton, Sheffield and South Warwickshire, are most illuminating, both for their candour and as a realistic representation of what has been happening across the NHS after the ‘top down’ mandates disappeared and were ‘replaced’ by local protocols in 2022.
Firstly, in answering the questions related to documented risk assessments, Southampton stated that these were:
Not held. Use of face masks would have been reviewed at meetings and we do not have a record of these.
Sheffield’s response followed the same form with its admission:
We do not have a formal risk assessment. However Covid prevalence is monitored by a trust-wide expert group who review and agree all actions required depending on the Covid prevalence level.
South Warwickshire went further and replied that:
Mask wearing was implemented in line with the national requirements to wear masks throughout the Covid pandemic, however we did step up to universal mask wearing approximately one week before it was mandated in April 2020. When the national universal masking requirement was stepped down, we did not then undertake formal risk assessments. Instead, local epidemiology, Covid incidence within the hospital, staff sickness and ward outbreaks are closely monitored and discussed each day at ‘Silver Command’. Masking is stepped up or down in line with this picture, erring on the side of caution. This continues to be reviewed on a regular basis at Silver Command. In addition, we have always supported mask wearing (either FRSM or FFP3) through personal choice.
The major takeaway from these responses is that the idea of formal local risk assessments being undertaken is a bogus one. Based only on a disproven axiom that ‘masks work’ and an unwillingness to acknowledge the real evidence about mask efficacy, there was:
- No systematic risk analysis methodology applied;
- No formal risk assessment carried out;
- No evidence of formal risk management procedures;
- No official documentation related to a risk analysis process created, stored and updated over time;
- No consideration of scientific evidence on the comparative benefits and harms conferred by masks to their wearers.
Instead, what happened is that people who believe masking makes sense imposed – and continue to impose – their views on the rest of us. Why? Because they feel no need to ever re-evaluate or challenge their pseudo-religious beliefs; and because, in the words of South Warwickshire NHS Trust, they want to “err on the side of caution”.
But that’s not all, folks
As concerning as the lack of any rigorous, data-led, local measurement and evaluation of risk from respiratory infections might be, there is a second aspect of our work that is more worrying. And that is the seeming lack of respect exhibited by some NHS Trusts for the regulations that underpin the FOI legislative framework.
Of the seven trusts that we directed our FOIs towards, three (Sheffield, Sherwood Forest and United Lincolnshire) failed, by a considerable margin, to respond within the stipulated timeframe. The worst laggard was United Lincolnshire, which was overdue with its response by more than two months!
According to the law, an FOI response must be created within 20 business days. Despite numerous nudges of our own to these trusts, they failed to comply. In the end, in the form of formal complaints, we escalated these delinquencies to the Information Commissioners Office (the ICO) who then gave the trusts a final ‘10 day’ ultimatum to respond.
Why were they so late? We can guess, but we couldn’t possibly speculate. Suffice to say the excuses given were in essence a variety of the ‘dog ate my homework’ type. Intermediate responses cited problems locating the information and the difficulty of finding a suitable senior manager to sign-off the response.
Our conclusion
We began this exercise with the notion in our minds that, when it comes to face-masking, the NHS has spent the past four years simply making it up. We feel no different now, except that we’ve now got confirmation of this inkling.
Everything we’ve heard from these NHS Trusts speaks to an unchallenged over-reliance on models, non-existent data and a Pollyanna-like mentality where being seen to ‘do something’ is better than following the well-established Precautionary Principle and waiting until we understand and, even better, have evaluated properly the facts.
It seems to us to be a disgrace that the ‘national treasure’ which is the NHS can act in such a cavalier and unaccountable manner.
Paul Stevens is a member of Smile Free which campaigns for the end of mask mandates and masking.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Great effort, for which many thanks…..but, oh look at what those bears have been up to in the woods!
Anything run by a socialist fascist government (and that is all we have had since 1997, Blair’s Britain) inclines towards socialist fascism.
The IEA paper, ‘Universal Healthcare Without the NHS’ tells us exactly what we need to do.
But this government simply has not done what it was voted into power to do.
A colleague was wearing one on a zoom call earlier, which she took from her home. Presumably she’s trying to protect her family. She’s highly intelligent, but this really makes you wonder about people. Many things do recently.
Most of the people I work and socialise with are degree or degree level plus educated. Most, if not all were masktards. I now find it very difficult not to consider them phenomenally stupid. I seriously do consider my intelligence to be greater or is it perhaps more deep seated than theirs. To me masktards who seem intelligent are in reality only skin deep intelligent. They sort of wear their intelligence, it is not really part of them.
This random philosophising probably makes little sense and perhaps better minds than mine can provide a more coherent explanation.
Mass psychosis will not suffice.
“Most of the people I work and socialise with are degree or degree level plus educated. Most, if not all were masktards.”
Same here. I am not sure I would say I now think they are stupid, but I certainly think the way they look at the world is deeply flawed. Almost all vaxxed too.
“Almost all vaxxed too.”
Yep, all vaxxed. I forgot that bit tof.
Thanks 👍
It’s not necessarily stupidity, but something similar to the “excellent sheep” ideas from William Deresiewicz. The university educated middle classes who are on the corporate or senior public servant treadmill have been conditioned first to perform all the thoughts and behaviours needed to get into top universities, and subsequently to perform all the thoughts and behaviours needed to fit in and advance in their professional lives. They are effectively trained not to be able to (a) relate to people outside of the flock and (b) to accept the narratives that comfort the flock. You can call it stupidity if you like, but it’s probably much worse than that.
Thanks for this.
I’ve never equated academic qualifications with intelligence. Indeed, I’ve always maintained that some of the thickest people I’ve ever met was while at university, and some of the brightest had no quals & were in ‘menial’ jobs. There was an early study on covid compliance which showed that, in general, Masters grads were the most compliant (your Deresiewicz ‘smart sheep’ fully identified and aligned with TPTB), street-smart plebs and PhDs the least compliant. The plebs because they don’t trust authority, the Fuds because they had the Critical Thinking Disease. Both of which more people could do with.
In my business, I’m lucky enough to deal with “normal” people all the time. It’s striking how much your perspective gets realigned when you get out of the urban middle class bubble. These are people who want to make a good living, take care of their families, generally do the right thing for those around them and society as a whole, and absolutely do not need the government telling them how to do the right thing, or what the right thing is. They have a moral compass, a strong work ethic, not to mention humour and humility. It’s tragic that they are also mostly utterly despised or belittled by the metropolitan elite. How did we get to a state where the most productive and positive members of society are demonized?
I think many people wore masks because they did not want to rock the boat. It isn’t easy for a lot of people to walk into a surgery hospital or restaurant with no mask on when 98% of other people have one on. A friend of mine did that and point blank refused to wear one. I suspect if there is another “pandemic” the number will fall from 98% way down to 50 or 60%. ——“Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”.
Intelligent idiots!
The difference between learned (indoctrinated?) intelligence, and wisdom, or if you prefer common sense.
It seems to me most University educated people have a severe lack of common sense, or ability at critical thinking.
It is common sense to question what you are told by government or any talking head media “celebrity”, but the vast majority (~90% I’d say) just don’t.
Highly intelligent?
During the height of the madness I was invited onto a work Teams call but informed I must wear a mask (I was at home) as someone on the call was afraid of seeing unmasked faces!!! I declined the call, saying I refuse to wear a mask – period!
I was required on the call, so it was rescheduled minus the mask moron.
Sometimes you just have to stick to your principles, if everyone had principles and stuck to them the world would be a much better and safer place.
Personally, I hate the site of masks (except in clinical settings), it repulses me, and was I think the most hideous manifestation of the whole Scamdemic era.
Someone I played Squash with from time to time was arranging a match in 2021, I told him I will not go into the Leisure Centre with the mask mandate. I hope he realises now why I had a point.
There are some people who are not idiots or sheep, who just want an easy life, are not prepared to rock the boat, go along to get along and follow the path of least resistance. This is probably the largest group I would say!
I know quite a few people who didn’t want the “vax” but wanted to go on holiday and do the things they threatened the unvaxxed with being banned from! I figured (and hoped) those things would come back without having to risk compromising my health and immune system.
To a degree I get their point, but they were not just taking a decades old well tested treatment, they had no idea what they were taking, or the effect it might have!
Regards masks, no way, except to scuba dive or something like a dust mask when needed, otherwise they can f**k off if they think I’ll wear one!
All of these techniques were issued with a mod and a wink to the intelligent – yes we know it’s nonsense but given the political and economic realities we just have to pretend. Of course this is monstrous. The wearing of masks naturally induced a state of panic in large numbers of people who would then go on to take the stab just in order to allay their fears. It was the same with the delaration of pandemic in Western countries. The elite made it clear to each other that this was in effect to postpone the massive financial crash that started in late 2019. And once this situation caught fire you had a huge reaction on social media begging for the disease to be taken more seriously. At that point it was a slow motion fait accompli.
No doubt the NHS process (at best) somewhat mirrors the masking risk assessment in my church back in 2020. Our Health and Safety Officer produced a nice document on a standard template, but in fact simply followed the recommendations of the Baptist Union. As the only qualified doctor in the church at that time, I was not consulted, and my pleas for an evidence base fell foul of the ubiquitous fear narrative.
When I enquired from the Baptist Union, they said their Health and Safety Dept’s risk assessment recommendations were based on the recommendations from central government. They had no medically or scientifically trained people providing expert input.
And as we know, central government didn’t do any proper risk assessment at all.
Leaving aside the obvious absurdities in physics of cloth masks the way in which there was complete indifference as to how masks should used – how long do they last, which is the best type etc. And then someone wearing a mask for a couple of sweaty hours and then shoving it in their pocket and then putting it back on when they had to. This is supposed to be an infection control measure? It didn’t even hide its theatrical nature and yet so many didn’t even seem to notice. Certainly a valuable lesson if you are interested in gleaning the state of public consciousness and I’m sure they took copious notes.
Good job, well done. However, the item not mentioned is the fact that a branch of the civil service published all the bumf needed to make your own exemption lanyards, which I did, and never wore the junk at all. Not only that, they avoided using the term “mask”, to avoid falling foul of the definition.
There was also a BSI document, that more or less did the same analysis, bsi-guide-for-personal-safety-equipment-0520.
It is just the sway of political realities in the sense that people were frightened and they wanted to be granted a talisman. And then once your wore the talisman that opened up a while new mythology about the non-wearers. From the point of view of a power structure this is manna from heaven. But then if none of this had happened you would have far fewer people starting to question their accustomed reality. I have faith enough to believe that this event was necessary for the purpose of revelation because without it we would be ill-equipped to deal with the horror to come.
They did worse things than this in terms of raw deception. Like being instructed to drive around in ambulances with the sirens on just to instil a feeling of alarm. If I was an ambulance driver and I got an instruction like that I would tell them where to go regardless of the impact on my career. You don’t tell me to lie. That is a red line. It should be for any self-respecting human being.
Interesting that you should mention ambulances unnecessarily driving around with sirens turned on. My wife and I felt that when the 2020 narrative was starting to gain traction all of a sudden we we were hearing ambulance sirens at about double the normal incidence. We wondered at the time whether we were imagining it!
Same thing happened in Oldham. Bloody nee-naws all day in early 2020. Rarely here them now.
So many lies, like ‘overwhelmed’ hospitals while gurning hospital staff were prancing around like yaying infants making puerile tik tok videos….
Most people trust the NHS which enjoys a God like status.
So it’s a very useful propaganda machine, sames as BBC, Guardian etc..
That is how they got away with democide, with a state broadcaster doing civilized shows about gardening, it gives people the illusion that all is fine and dandy.
NHS surgeon…
Don’t forget we were told to wear ‘face coverings’ so any bit of snotty rag would do. Follow the science, yeah right
Why don’t we all realise that governments now must always be seen to be doing something to justify their existence. They pretend they can solve all and every problem, even all the non problems, and I learned a very long time ago that the best governments are the ones that govern the least. But what we have today is governments that govern the MOST. They cannot leave anything alone, because they fear the opposition will come along with their 5 point or 6 point or 10 point plane to usurp them. ——–I remember in the film Amadeus, that a friend of the great composer wanted him to listen to one of his compositions and see what he thought. ——-Mozart had a listen and then said to his friend “Too many notes, chop a few” ———-Today we have too many governments, let’s CHOP a FEW
For those who are still on this thread, here is a collection of academic studies on clinical mask use that predated the so called ‘pandemic’. Case closed I would have thought!…… Neil Orr study 1981. Found that infection rate went up on wearing masks in theatre. This was an unexpected outcome and a surprise to the staff who participated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf • Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.” • Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.” • Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002. • In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound… Read more »