Mask Usage and Excess Mortality in Europe During COVID-19
A new study found a significant positive correlation between mask usage and excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A recent study published in BMC Public Health, titled "Does mask usage correlate with excess mortality? Findings from 24 European countries," investigates the correlation between mask usage and excess mortality across 24 European nations during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research sought to evaluate the effectiveness of population-level mask-wearing as a public health intervention, a topic that has sparked significant debate due to varying evidence on mask efficacy.
Study Methodology
The study encompassed a diverse set of European countries, including Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Researchers collected data from reputable sources such as the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Our World in Data, the World Bank, and the CIA World Factbook. Additional datasets included the Global Settlement Layer and a Zenodo archive.
To analyze the relationship between mask usage and excess mortality, the study employed both bivariate and multivariate regression analyses, adjusting for confounders such as vaccination rates, socioeconomic indicators, and the intensity of COVID-19 waves. Statistical analyses were performed using R (version 4.1.0) and JASP, ensuring robust and transparent data processing. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted to confirm the consistency of the findings, enhancing the reliability of the results.
Key Findings
The study’s results revealed a significant positive correlation between mask usage and excess mortality. Countries with higher mask-wearing rates experienced elevated levels of age-adjusted excess mortality, as indicated by the bivariate Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.477 (p = 0.018) and the multivariate standardized coefficient of 0.52 (p = 0.0012).
Notably, the study found no significant association between mask usage and COVID-19 case rates (bivariate Spearman coefficient = -0.108), challenging the assumption that masks effectively reduce viral transmission at the population level. These findings were consistent across various sensitivity analyses, reinforcing the study’s conclusions.
Discussion, Hypotheses, and Limitations
The study aligns with prior research, such as a systematic review by Jefferson et al., which found no clear evidence that masks significantly reduce the risk of viral infections. The researchers propose several hypotheses to explain the positive correlation between mask usage and excess mortality. One theory suggests that prolonged mask-wearing may lead to adverse effects, such as the re-inhalation of viral particles or other physiological impacts. Other potential explanations include socioeconomic factors, healthcare system disparities, or the varying severity of COVID-19 waves across countries.
The authors emphasize the limitations of the observational study design, which precludes establishing causality. Unknown confounders, such as differences in public compliance with other non-pharmaceutical interventions or variations in testing protocols, may have influenced the results. This acknowledgment underscores the complexity of interpreting population-level data in public health research.
Why It’s Important to Study Excess Mortality
This study is particularly noteworthy for its use of excess mortality as an endpoint, which provides a broader measure of the pandemic’s impact compared to COVID-19-specific mortality rates. Excess mortality accounts for both direct and indirect deaths related to the pandemic, offering a more comprehensive perspective on public health outcomes. This approach highlights the study’s contribution to understanding the multifaceted effects of public health interventions during a global crisis.
Conclusion and Going Forward
In conclusion, despite what public health “experts” and policymakers recommended to the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic, the study suggests that mask usage did not prevent COVID-19 transmission at the population level and may be associated with adverse health effects, as evidenced by the correlation with excess mortality. These researchers advocate for further randomized controlled trials to elucidate the impact of mask-wearing on public health outcomes and to inform evidence-based policymaking. This work underscores the complex relationship between mask usage and excess mortality, emphasizing the need for rigorous scientific inquiry to guide future public health strategies.
I've been posting this correlation on Twitter & Substack since late 2023 BEGGING tagged Barrington Declaration researchers/clinicians to look into this. Why? Because I've had cancer twice. And in reading over 500 peer-reviewed articles including Euro ones not banned by Deep State Big Science, it's clear that INTERMITTENT HYPOXIA (SUCH AS FROM SLEEP APNEA) HAS LONG DOCUMENTED, ROBUST ASSOCIATION WITH TUMORIGENESIS, CONSISTENT AS WELL W/ WARBURG HYPOTHESIS ABOUT CANCER CELLS.
Euro Respiratory Study in 2023 on harms of wearing masks (retracted by journal) conducted study on VOCs & metabolic consequences of just 30 mins to 1 hr wearing medical & normal masks on older & more vulnerable pops & found clear effects. In fact, they couldn't study more b/c it would have violated HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW. Mask wearing induced HYPOXIA. They didn't make connection to cancer, but I have for 18 months and BEGGED PEOPLE TO LOOK INTO THIS! (Sorry I'm screaming but this is so frustrating).
I raised millions as research developer before disability and have general doctoral methodological training so I know how to review literature. We exposed hundreds of millions of people of all ages to 2-10 DAILY WAKING HOURS OF INTERMITTENT HYPOXIA OVER 18 MONTHS. And yet NO ONE HAS MADE CANCER CONNECTION.
In fact, at my major medical supposedly prestigious cancer institute, they still require masks in the center--as if to protect cancer patients--and yet this is likely PROMOTING RECURRENCE & METASTASIS. I can't wear masks due to severe dysautonomia & oxygen loss & so had to get special permission from my oncologist not to wear one when getting blood draws--and yet experienced ongoing harassment by nurses certain that our restricting our oxygen intake was somehow the only way to improve health.
Once again, more iatrogenic harm. Dr. Thomas Seyfried et al's amazing press/pulse therapies for glioblastomas & other cancers--based on modified Warburg hypothesis and metabolic paradigm for final common pathway for cancers--uses high oxygen treatment, plus heat, plus sugar/carb & time restricted diets to kill cancers, because like single-celled organisms, they thrive on sugar, low oxygen, stable temps, & ongoing stimulation of the liver. Advanced organisms like humans can survive temporary fasting, low sugar/carbs, high protein & fat, & more extreme temps.
It's the 8 x 365 x 1.5 hours of waking intermittent hypoxia to which even infants were subjected that I believe has, in conjunction VOC inhalation, high carb even "Mediterranean" dietary factors, well-documented sclerosis-inducing harms of vax & COVID itself, induced emotional stress & social isolation, & other ongoing iatrogenic factors, led to otherwise occasional cell mutations accelerating into turbo-charged, well-supported (low O2 high sugar) tumors even in o/w healthy young people.
Sorry for shouting via caps. I'm on X at WinstonWordsmith and here on Substack if you want the citations and copies of my various DMs & posts begging Malone and others to look into this.
Thanks again for all you do--am another heterodox lifelong rad feminist fed up w/ NeoParty corruption.
It was written and stated by the WHO, our 10 year flu pandemic respose leaflet, Tony Fauci, the White House spokesman, all saying they didn't work, some stating it caused health problems, didn't stop abything etc., before and during the re-named flu seasonal outbreak. Al there on screen, videos, interviews, they cannot say they didn't. Also "banned" experts. It comes as no surprise to those of us who are "awake". They need to be held to account.