Science journal withheld study showing masks ineffective, says researcher

A prominent researcher this month revealed that Cochrane, an international provider of quality medical reviews, withheld his study on face masks from publication in 2020 because it found them ineffective. 

Oxford University Senior Associate Tutor Dr. Tom Jefferson, MD is the lead author of a large-scale study recently published by Cochrane which concluded that surgical masks and even N95 or P2 respirators offer little protection against COVID-19, if at all.

He and a team of researchers reviewed 78 global studies involving 610,000 participants. Significantly, the studies they reviewed were randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, which are considered to be high-quality research and the scientific optimum. 

The research was an update from a study conducted by Dr. Jefferson in 2020 which had come to the same conclusion. 

But at that time — just as discussion surrounding masks began to take shape which ultimately turned into mandates — Cochrane held back on publishing Dr. Jefferson’s research.

“In early 2020, when the pandemic was ramping up, we had just updated our Cochrane review ready to publish . . . but Cochrane held it up for 7 months before it was finally published in November 2020,” Dr. Jefferson told reporter Maryanne Demasi in an interview earlier this month. “Those 7 months were crucial. During that time, it was when policy about masks was being formed. Our review was important, and it should have been out there.”

Cochrane made Jefferson and his team jump through hoops to delay publication, such as demanding the study go through an extra peer-review.

“And then they forced us to insert unnecessary text phrases in the review like ‘this review doesn't contain any COVID-19 trials,’ when it was obvious to anyone reading the study that the cut-off date was January 2020,” Jefferson said.

He added that during the seven months the study was withheld, other researchers at Cochrane were allowed to publish “unacceptable pieces of work” because they had the “right answer”—which was that mask-wearing is effective.

Then, after the seven-month delay, Cochrane published Jefferson’s research. But they attached an editorial to undermine his work.

“The main message of that editorial was that you can't sit on your hands, you’ve got to do something, you can't wait for good evidence. . . . [I]t's a complete subversion of the ‘precautionary principle’ which states that you should do nothing unless you have reasonable evidence that benefits outweigh the harms.”

During the interview, Demasi asked Dr. Jefferson what he thinks of people who wear masks as an act of altruism, claiming it’s not to protect themselves, but to protect others.

“Ah yes. Wonderful. They get the Albert Schweitzer prize for Humanitarianism,” Dr. Jefferson said wryly. “Here’s what I think. Your overnight experts know nothing.

“There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop. My job, our job as a review team, was to look at the evidence, we have done that. Not just for masks. We looked at hand washing, sterilisation, goggles etcetera . . .”

Dr. Jefferson shared that according to his findings, sanitation with antiseptics is the best way to stave off a viral infection, and that hand-washing shows benefit, particularly for small children.

But hand-washing was never mandated by the government because it can’t be seen, and governments wanted to show they were taking action, which they were able to do through mask mandates.

“Masking became a ‘visible’ political gesture, which is a point we make over and over again now.  Washing hands and sanitation and vaccination are not overtly visible, but wearing a mask is,” said Dr. Jefferson.