Safety profile of masks.

Bartholomeus Lakeman made this Freedom of Information request to NHS National Services Scotland

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

The request was refused by NHS National Services Scotland.

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear NHS National Services Scotland,
Your “aim is to maximise the impact of national specialist services to improve the health of the population”. Which assumes that when it is advised or imposed to wear a mask for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2; that you, out of the precaution principle have assessed the safety profile and effectivity of each type of masks to wear.

Under said assumption and FOIA 2002 I am asking whether your assessment did include or consider the evidences of the safety profile and effectivity of the following types of masks:
1) The Packaged blue mask is "sterilized" with Ethylene Oxide: a neurotoxic and carcinogenic substance (https:/ /n.neurology.org/content/46/4/992). When repeatedly inhaling this substance by wearing said mask for extended periods during the Lockdown period: why would this not increase the risk of Cancer?
2) The Filter in commercial masks are made with PTFE (which along with other chemicals makes up Teflon). When repeatedly inhaling PTFE for extended periods during the Lockdown period: why would this not lead to lung cancer?
3) The repetitive use of a cloth mask causes the Re-breathing of one’s own viral debris and carbon dioxide. Why would this not increase the risks for facial, throat, lung infections, and a positive PCR test?
4) Operating rooms, to compensate for the reduction in oxygen flow from mask wearing are supplied with extra oxygen. Repetitive use, for longer periods of a Mask can cause stress, anxiety, the reduction of cognitive functions, organ failure or damage. Then why would wearing a mask repetitively for more than 3 hours a day be safe?
5) Medical grade masks can be effective against bacteria as their average size is 0.5 to 2.0 microns. Yet the maximum size of SARS-VoC-2 virus is between 0.06 and 0.14 microns. Then how can it be that wearing a mask stops the spreading of said virus?
6) For a person to advise or impose the wearing of a mask: Does such person need an indemnity insurance? Or if not: Why not?

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

nss foi, NHS National Services Scotland

Dear Mr. Lakeman

 

Freedom of Information Reference: FOI-2020-000421

 

I refer to your freedom of information request which we received on 20^th
November 2020 requesting the following information:

 

Under said assumption and FOIA 2002 I am asking whether your assessment
did include or consider the evidences of the safety profile and
effectivity of the following types of masks:

1) The Packaged blue mask is "sterilized" with Ethylene Oxide: a
neurotoxic and carcinogenic substance (https:/
/n.neurology.org/content/46/4/992). When repeatedly inhaling this
substance by wearing said mask for extended periods during the Lockdown
period: why would this not increase the risk of Cancer?

2) The Filter in commercial masks are made with PTFE (which along with
other chemicals makes up Teflon). When repeatedly inhaling PTFE for
extended periods during the Lockdown period: why would this not lead to
lung cancer?

3) The repetitive use of a cloth mask causes the Re-breathing of one’s own
viral debris and carbon dioxide. Why would this not increase the risks for
facial, throat, lung infections, and a positive PCR test?

4) Operating rooms, to compensate for the reduction in oxygen flow from
mask wearing are supplied with extra oxygen. Repetitive use, for longer
periods of a Mask can cause stress, anxiety, the reduction of cognitive
functions, organ failure or damage. Then why would wearing a mask
repetitively for more than 3 hours a day be safe?

5) Medical grade masks can be effective against bacteria as their average
size is 0.5 to 2.0 microns. Yet the maximum size of SARS-VoC-2 virus is
between 0.06 and 0.14 microns. Then how can it be that wearing a mask
stops the spreading of said virus?

6) For a person to advise or impose the wearing of a mask: Does such
person need an indemnity insurance? Or if not: Why not?

I confirm that under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland)
Act 2002, a response to your information request will be sent within 20
working days of receipt, i.e. no later than 18^th December 2020. 

 

Kind regards,

 

Alan

 

 

Please note our new email address: [1][NHS National Services Scotland request email]

 

Alan Scott

Business Support Administrator

Strategy, Performance and Service Transformation

 

NHS National Services Scotland

Gyle Square

1 South Gyle Crescent

Edinburgh, EH12 9EB

 

Email: [2][NHS National Services Scotland request email]

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received
it by mistake,
please (i) contact the sender by email reply; (ii) delete the email from
your system; .
and (iii) do not copy the email or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[NHS National Services Scotland request email]
2. mailto:[NHS National Services Scotland request email]

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear NHS National Services Scotland,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of NHS National Services Scotland's handling of my FOI request 'Safety profile of masks.'
The findings of the Danmask-19 Trial show that Masks do not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection. Which obliges the Govt to provide the risk profile of its policy on mask wearing; as asked in this FOI (which information cannot be supplied by National Services Scotland and ARHAI).

“Danmask-19 Trial,” published Nov. 18, 2020 in the Annals of Internal Medicine (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/...) included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study*. This randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection; found that:
(i) Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed the people, who did not adhere to proper mask use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference;
(ii) Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls;
(iii) 1.4% tested positive for antibodies at the end of the month-long study compared to 1.8% of controls;
(iv) 0.5% in the mask group and 0.6% in the control group tested positive for one or more respiratory viruses other than SARS-CoV-2;
(v) the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect;
(vi) the Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is mainly spread via aerosols, which might penetrate or circumnavigate a face mask, may take place through multiple routes. Which contradicts the Govt' argument that the primary route of SARS-CoV-2 spread is via droplets.

Above findings are compatible with the findings of a review of randomized controlled trials of the efficacy of face masks for prevention (as PPE) against influenza virus. Other data analyses that add support to the Danish study’s results include Yinon Weiss’ work: comparing the effects of different mask policies in 12 countries. Weiss points out that “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.” (https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/)

*To qualify in the Danmask-19 Trial; participants had to spend at least three hours per day outside the home and not be required to wear a mask during their daily work. At the end of the study, participants reported having spent a median of 4.5 hours per day outside the home.
For one month, participants in the mask group were instructed to wear a mask whenever they were outside their home. Surgical face masks with a filtration rate of 98% were supplied. In accordance with recommendations from the WHO, participants were instructed to change their mask after eight hours.
Antibody testing was performed before the outset and at the end of the study period. At the end of the month, they also submitted a nasal swab sample for PCR testing.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

nss foi, NHS National Services Scotland

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. Lakeman,

 

Freedom of Information Reference: FOI-2020-000421

 

Thank you for contacting NHS National Services Scotland (NSS) in which you
have requested that we formally process the following Freedom of
Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) request for internal review:

 

Your "aim is to maximise the impact of national specialist services to
improve the health of the population". Which assumes that when it is
advised or imposed to wear a mask for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2;
that you, out of the precaution principle have assessed the safety profile
and effectivity of each type of masks to wear.

 

Under said assumption and FOIA 2002 I am asking whether your assessment
did include or consider the evidences of the safety profile and
effectivity of the following types of masks:

1)    The Packaged blue mask is "sterilized" with Ethylene Oxide: a
neurotoxic and carcinogenic substance (https:/
/n.neurology.org/content/46/4/992). When repeatedly inhaling this
substance by wearing said mask for extended periods during the Lockdown
period: why would this not increase the risk of Cancer? 

2)    The Filter in commercial masks are made with PTFE (which along with
other chemicals makes up Teflon). When repeatedly inhaling PTFE for
extended periods during the Lockdown period: why would this not lead to
lung cancer? 

3)    The repetitive use of a cloth mask causes the Re-breathing of one's
own viral debris and carbon dioxide. Why would this not increase the risks
for facial, throat, lung infections, and a positive PCR test?

4)    Operating rooms, to compensate for the reduction in oxygen flow from
mask wearing are supplied with extra oxygen. Repetitive use, for longer
periods of a Mask can cause stress, anxiety, the reduction of cognitive
functions, organ failure or damage. Then why would wearing a mask
repetitively for more than 3 hours a day be safe?

5)    Medical grade masks can be effective against bacteria as their
average size is 0.5 to 2.0 microns. Yet the maximum size of SARS-VoC-2
virus is between 0.06 and 0.14 microns. Then how can it be that wearing a
mask stops the spreading of said virus?

6)    For a person to advise or impose the wearing of a mask: Does such
person need an indemnity insurance? Or if not: Why not?

 

As the statutory 20 working day response timeline set out under FOISA for
responding to your request has not been breached we are still preparing
our response to you.  When we acknowledged the receipt of your request
with you on 20^th November 2020 we advised that NSS would provide a
response to you no later than the 18^th December 2020.

 

If you are still unhappy with how NSS have dealt with your request once we
have formally responded to your request within the statutory 20 working
day timeline please make representations to us asking for a formal review
of how we have handled your request by writing to the Associate Director,
Information Security and Governance at the email address
[1][NHS National Services Scotland request email] within 40 working days of the date of our formal
response to your request.

 

If after a review you are still unhappy, you also have the right to apply
to the Scottish Information Commissioner, who can be contacted at Kinburn
Castle, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9DS, or via their [2]online Appeal form.

 

Best wishes,

 

Roddy

 

 

Roddy Mitchell

Organisational Lead for Corporate Records & FOI

 

NHS National Services Scotland

Gyle Square

1 South Gyle Crescent

Edinburgh, EH12 9EB

 

[3][IMG]

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

NHS National Services Scotland is the common name for the Common Services
Agency for the Scottish Health Service [4]www.nhsnss.org

 

From: Bartholomeus Lakeman <[FOI #707650 email]>
Sent: 03 December 2020 19:09
To: nss foi <[NHS National Services Scotland request email]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Safety
profile of masks.

 

Dear NHS National Services Scotland,

 

 

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information
reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of NHS National Services
Scotland's handling of my FOI request 'Safety profile of masks.'

The findings of the Danmask-19 Trial show that Masks do not statistically
significantly reduce the incidence of infection. Which obliges the Govt to
provide the risk profile of its policy on mask wearing; as asked in this
FOI (which information cannot be supplied by National Services Scotland
and ARHAI).

 

 

“Danmask-19 Trial,” published Nov. 18, 2020 in the Annals of Internal
Medicine ([5]https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/...) included
3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked
controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study*. This randomized controlled
trial to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against
SARS-CoV-2 infection; found that:

(i) Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2,
compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed the people, who did not
adhere to proper mask use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which
suggests adherence makes no significant difference;

(ii) Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as
instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the
controls;

(iii) 1.4% tested positive for antibodies at the end of the month-long
study compared to 1.8% of controls;

(iv) 0.5% in the mask group and 0.6% in the control group tested positive
for one or more respiratory viruses other than SARS-CoV-2;

(v) the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among
others did not reduce, of statistical significance, the incidence of
SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing
and other public health measures were in effect;

(vi) the Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is mainly spread via aerosols, which
might penetrate or circumnavigate a face mask, may take place through
multiple routes. Which contradicts the Govt' argument that the primary
route of SARS-CoV-2 spread is via droplets.

 

 

Above findings are compatible with the findings of a review of randomized
controlled trials of the efficacy of face masks for prevention (as PPE)
against influenza virus. Other data analyses that add support to the
Danish study’s results include Yinon Weiss’ work: comparing the effects of
different mask policies in 12 countries. Weiss points out that “No matter
how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the
population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.”
([6]https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/)

 

 

*To qualify in the Danmask-19 Trial; participants had to spend at least
three hours per day outside the home and not be required to wear a mask
during their daily work. At the end of the study, participants reported
having spent a median of 4.5 hours per day outside the home.

For one month, participants in the mask group were instructed to wear a
mask whenever they were outside their home. Surgical face masks with a
filtration rate of 98% were supplied. In accordance with recommendations
from the WHO, participants were instructed to change their mask after
eight hours.

Antibody testing was performed before the outset and at the end of the
study period. At the end of the month, they also submitted a nasal swab
sample for PCR testing.

 

 

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

 

 

Yours faithfully,

Bartholomeus Lakeman

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[8][FOI #707650 email]

 

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

 

 

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:

[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

 

 

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

 

 

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received
it by mistake,
please (i) contact the sender by email reply; (ii) delete the email from
your system; .
and (iii) do not copy the email or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[NHS National Services Scotland request email]
2. http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/Appeal
3. http://www.scotblood.co.uk/
4. http://www.nhsnss.org/
5. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/...
6. https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/
7. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
8. mailto:[FOI #707650 email]
9. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
10. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

nss pcf-foi, NHS National Services Scotland

13 Attachments

Dear Mr Lakeman
Please find attached our response to your recent Freedom of Information
Request regarding safety assessments of PPE/masks.

I trust you will find this of assistance.
Kind Regards
David Steel

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received
it by mistake,
please (i) contact the sender by email reply; (ii) delete the email from
your system; .
and (iii) do not copy the email or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear NHS National Services Scotland,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of NHS National Services Scotland's handling of my FOI request 'Safety profile of masks.'

NHS National Services Scotland’ aim is to maximise the impact of national specialist services to improve the health of the population. This promise assumes that when it is advising to impose the wearing of a mask to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2; that this service, out of the precaution principle has assessed the safety profile and effectivity of each type of masks to wear: It assumes that this service is proactive in reviewing all the available studies regarding the pro and cons of the various masks in use: It assumes that this service has formed an opinion on the risks of what it has advised to be imposed.

In view of this NHS service’ aim and promise and the consequences of it advises to be imposed; it does not matter whether this FOI is formulated as an opinion- or a data- request. If an NHS doctor gives an advice; he is responsible for it. This FOI requests NHS National Services Scotland to prove what it promises. Yet by it using FOIA Section 17 this service is eschewing to fulfil its promise. By using S. 17 NHS National Services Scotland confesses that it has failed to conduct the necessary reviews and the formulation of an opinion on what it has advised and imposed. This failing includes that this service has imposed on the public to breath in the toxicities from the various masks: risks with a potentially a long-term negative effect.

This service and the ARHAI Scotland did not fully provide the legislative requirements for the use of surgical face masks as PPE for SARS-CoV-2 infection control purposes. ARHAI selected only one grade 1 Cluster Randomised-Control Trial: “MacIntyre CR, Seale H, Dung TC, et al. BMJ Volume5(4) 2015. It compares cloth masks with medical masks in healthcare workers. Its laboratory test show that the penetration of particles in a cloth mask (97%) was 2X higher than that found in medical masks (44%). ARHAI uses this study in the assumption that the viral spreading is by droplets which are stopped by a mask. However, the Danish study as several Chinese studies do show that the virus spread is predominately by aerosols which are not stopped by a medical mask; https://www.acpjournals.org/

The ARHAI also failed to include other Randomised-Control Trial which showed that Medical mask do not stop the penetrations of viruses; Trial outcomes which formed the opinions of well-known scientists e.g., Dr. Carl Heneghan, University of Oxford, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and editor in chief of British Medical Journal Evidence-Based Medicine: ‘It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks’ (https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-la... b) The WHO ‘The widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider’ (http://bitly.ws/afUm); c) The CDC: ‘Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.’ (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/1... d) Cases exploded even with mask mandates: https://t.co/1hRFHsxe59

The ARHAI and NHS National Services Scotland, by only including the pro articles and excluding the contra articles for wearing a mask, is using science as a political commodity: is forming a consensus science for social engineering.
Just as that Courts have to follow a due process of law; the ARHAI and NHS National Services Scotland has to review both sides of the arguments; they are under a duty to consider the contra arguments; they are under a duty to formulate an opinion on the risks of what it advised to be imposed e.g., infections, positive PCR test, and cancer due to wearing a mask.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

nss foi, NHS National Services Scotland

Dear Mr. Lakeman,

 

Request for Review of Freedom of Information Reference: FOI-2020-000421

 

I refer to your email which we received on 15^th December 2020 requesting
an internal review of you Freedom of Information request:
FOI-2020-000421. 

 

I confirm that under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland)
Act 2002, a response to your request for internal review will be sent no
later than 15^th January 2021.   

 

Kind regards,

 

Alan

 

 

Please note our new email address: [1][NHS National Services Scotland request email]

 

Alan Scott

Business Support Administrator

Strategy, Performance and Service Transformation

 

NHS National Services Scotland

Gyle Square

1 South Gyle Crescent

Edinburgh, EH12 9EB

 

Email: [2][NHS National Services Scotland request email]

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received
it by mistake,
please (i) contact the sender by email reply; (ii) delete the email from
your system; .
and (iii) do not copy the email or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[NHS National Services Scotland request email]
2. mailto:[NHS National Services Scotland request email]

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear nss foi,
There are sufficient studies showing that wearing a mask causes harm instead of protection.

Studies show that loose particulate are on each type of mask. Also, tight and loose fibers were seen on each type of mask. If even a small portion of mask fibers is detachable by inspiratory airflow, or if there is debris in mask manufacture or packaging or handling, then there is the possibility of not only entry of foreign material to the airways, but also entry to deep lung tissue, and potential pathological consequences of foreign bodies in the lungs … Further concerns of macrophage response and other immune and inflammatory and fibroblast response to such inhaled particles specifically from facemasks should be the subject of more research. If widespread masking continues, then the potential for inhaling mask fibers and environmental and biological debris continues on a daily basis for hundreds of millions of people. This should be alarming for physicians and epidemiologists knowledgeable in occupational hazards. (Researchgate, Masks, false safety and real dangers, Part 1: Friable mask particulate and lung vulnerability, Reddit October 3, 2020, Thomasnet.com How Surgical Masks Are Made).

Another potential concern is related to the plastics used. For example, surgical masks are made of polypropylene, a known asthma trigger (The Lung Association, Ontario, All About Asthma Triggers (PDF) If you have asthma, wearing a surgical mask could potentially worsen your condition.

“Mask mouth” — tooth decay, gum line recession and potent bad breath — is another effect dentists around the world have raised alarm about. Dr. Rob Ramondi, a dentist and cofounder of One Manhattan Dental told (New York Post August 5, 2020 ) “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before. About 50% of our patients are being impacted by this, [so] we decided to name it ‘mask mouth’ …”
Other common complaints associated with extensive mask wearing include fatigue, headaches, shortness of breath and anxiety, likely due to hypoxia (reduced blood oxygenation)(Breitbart August 1, 2020
Global Research October 14, 2020). According to Dr. Russel Blaylock, face masks “pose serious risks to the healthy,” as the mask can lead to a concentration of viruses in the nasal passages where they can “enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.” (Global Research October 14, 2020) “It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness.” What’s worse, hypoxia is also associated with impairment of immune function: “Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs.” Mask wearing causes brain damage; a study in Berlin shows. they’re also more likely to cause hypoxia when worn for hours on end.

Mask Mandates Seem to Make CCP Virus Infection Rates Climb, Study in Florida Shows.
A CDC report revealed that, of the symptomatic adults with COVID-19, 70.6% always wore a mask, compared to 7.8% for those who rarely or never wore a mask. Even research published in the CDC’s own journal found no significant effect of face masks on the transmission of influenza, and research published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2020 noted that: “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic …
According to the WHO, there's no direct evidence that universal masking of healthy people is an effective intervention against respiratory illnesses.
The results of the Danmask-191 trial1—which, by conventional interpretation, showed that wearing masks had no effect on the prevention of covid-19 spread— see your Reference: 202000116017

As noted by Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., a former full professor of physics and researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association in Canada, all of the well-designed studies that have been published so far have failed to find a statistically significant advantage to wearing a mask versus not wearing one.

Yours sincerely,

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Eilidh McLaughlin, NHS National Services Scotland

1 Attachment

 

Dear Mr Lakeman

 

Please find attached the response to your request for internal review.

 

Kind regards

Eilidh McLaughlin

 

 

From: nss foi <[NHS National Services Scotland request email]>
Sent: 17 December 2020 13:36
To: [FOI #707650 email]
Cc: nss foi <[NHS National Services Scotland request email]>
Subject: Request for Review of Freedom of Information Reference:
FOI-2020-000421

 

Dear Mr. Lakeman,

 

Request for Review of Freedom of Information Reference: FOI-2020-000421

 

I refer to your email which we received on 15^th December 2020 requesting
an internal review of you Freedom of Information request:
FOI-2020-000421. 

 

I confirm that under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland)
Act 2002, a response to your request for internal review will be sent no
later than 15^th January 2021.   

 

Kind regards,

 

Alan

 

 

Please note our new email address: [1][NHS National Services Scotland request email]

 

Alan Scott

Business Support Administrator

Strategy, Performance and Service Transformation

 

NHS National Services Scotland

Gyle Square

1 South Gyle Crescent

Edinburgh, EH12 9EB

 

Email: [2][NHS National Services Scotland request email]

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received
it by mistake,
please (i) contact the sender by email reply; (ii) delete the email from
your system; .
and (iii) do not copy the email or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[NHS National Services Scotland request email]
2. mailto:[NHS National Services Scotland request email]