Health Expert Says There's No Evidence For N95 Masks, Significant Side Effects

On top of the many, many, MANY inexcusable mistakes made during the pandemic, a compounding "mistake" is a refusal to admit wrongdoing or misinterpretation.

That’s obvious in any number of areas, including the CDC, where the outgoing director recently explained profusely that the nation’s leading public health agency intends to learn nothing from its failures and prolific mishandling of the pandemic.

READ: CDC Director Proves That 'Experts' Have Learned Nothing From COVID

However, there are, blissfully, some glimmers of hope. A few intellectually honest "experts" and government officials have been willing to open up on the lack of evidence supporting universal masks.

If only someone would tell the administrators bringing mask mandates back in 2025.

Kyle McAlister, co-founder of The Maskeeters, shows off of the companies two masks. The Maskeeters designed their masks to be more comfortable than the traditional N95 mask. (© Chris Fulton/The Baxter Bulletin via Imagn Content Services, LLC)

No Good Evidence Supporting N95 Masks, Government Official Admits

The United Kingdom has been conducting an inquiry into their country’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has created a, well, mixed bag of outcomes.

Some participants have admitted that the government panicked and put the public through untested lockdowns based on nothing. But others have tried to defend the government’s actions, like disgraced former health secretary Matt Hancock, who ignored his own rules during the pandemic, only to say afterwards that a harsher lockdown would have saved more lives.

But one positive outcome resulting from this inquiry came from Professor Susan Hopkins, who is the chief medical adviser at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

Hopkins told the inquiry that there can be "significant harms" from wearing N95 that include "blisters and breathing difficulties," among other issues. And importantly, that those "significant harms" come without any proven benefits at reducing respiratory virus infections.

Per the BBC, Hopkins also told the inquiry that there was no evidence that the N95 level masks prevented infections or protected people better at an individual level than other masks, the UKHSA would have recommended them.

"If the evidence was strong that FFP3s really protected people, and we saw a definitive reduction [in infections], they would have been recommended," Hopkins continued.

In real world situations, Hopkins said that there’s "weak evidence," at best, to justify N95 masks in real world situations. Though Hopkins hedged by comparing N95’s to surgical grade masks.

"Where we looked at it, and repeatedly looked at it and are still looking at it, the evidence is weak that FFP3s protected more than fluid-resistant surgical masks," she said.

It’s encouraging to hear from a credentialed expert who’s part of the United Kingdom’s top health agency that there’s no evidence that high grade masks are necessary or more effective than other masks. Because that’s the truth, regardless of what other ideologically motivated "experts" in the US and elsewhere claim.

But it’s still frustrating that she won’t go further and just admit that there’s no evidence any masks prevent respiratory virus infections, even a little. Because that’s what an overwhelming amount of data and the gold standard evidence review confirms.

Hopkins said that the UK correctly assessed in March 2020 that there were too many risks to justify recommending that the general public wear higher-grade, fitted masks for extended period of times.

"At the outset, in March 2020, the risks were that we had never asked people to wear FFP3 masks for prolonged periods," she explained.

"We saw them get ulcers on their faces and having challenges breathing and challenges in being hydrated."

So there are extreme side effects to N95’s, including breathing issues and blisters, and no evidence showing a benefit for those looking to protect themselves from COVID. Sounds exactly like something that the CDC and other public health departments would recommend wearing.

And what do you know? That’s exactly what they do.

Here’s what the CDC website on masks currently says, in January 2025.

"Cloth masks generally offer lower levels of protection to wearers, surgical/disposable masks usually offer more protection, international filtering facepiece respirators (like KN95 respirators) offer even more, and the most protective respirators are NIOSH Approved® filtering facepiece respirators (like N95® respirators)."

They’re still recommending masks that have no benefits and significant harms. Perfect.

This is what groupthink and ideological, partisan thinking create: organizations and individuals who claim to "follow the science," while ignoring what it actually says. And the science, as Susan Hopkins explains, shows that masks don't work.