The Daily Signal - What Corporate Media, Health 'Experts' Don't Want You to Know About COVID-19 Mask Mandates

Episode Date: February 16, 2022

Masks have become a flashpoint in the global response to COVID-19. But what the corporate media doesn’t want you to know is: They don’t work. "I think it's one of the most consistent things we can see across locations, is that there's been really no impact from masking," Ian Miller, the author of the new book "Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates," says. "The data's publicly accessible. It's all from [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] or The New York Times or Johns Hopkins [University] or the World Health Organization. ... [People] are getting their information exclusively from either the experts like [Dr.] Anthony Fauci, who have been provably wrong over and over again, or from mainstream media outlets that have just done a really poor job of covering this and presenting the data." Miller joins the show to discuss why masks and mask mandates didn’t work, and in fact, might have made things worse. We also cover these stories: President Joe Biden says he still wants diplomacy to prevail in the Ukraine-Russia crisis, but adds that the U.S. is prepared to impose severe sanctions against Russia if it invades its neighbor. Former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann demands that the "factual background" section in special counsel John Durham’s most recent filing be removed from the record. The Senate votes 50-46 to confirm Robert Califf as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, February 16th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Doug Blair. Masks have become a flashpoint in the global response to COVID-19. But the secret the corporate media doesn't want you to know is that they don't work. Ian Miller is the author of the new book Unmasked, the global failure of COVID-Mask mandates. He joins the show to discuss why mask mandates didn't work and, in fact, might have made things worse. But before we get to Doug's conversation with Ian Miller, let's hit you.

our top stories of the day. As a Russian invasion of Ukraine looks increasingly likely, President Joe Biden outlined Tuesday the U.S. response via C-SPAN. While I will not send American servicemen to fight in Ukraine, we have supplied the Ukrainian military with equipment to help them defend themselves. We provided training and advice and intelligence for the same purpose. And make no mistake, the United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with a full force of American power. An attack against one NATO country is attack against all of us. The United States' commitment to Article 5 is sacrosanct.

Already, in response to Russia's buildup of troops, I've sent additional U.S. forces to bolster NATO's eastern flank. Several allies have also announced they'll add forces and capabilities to ensure deterrence and defense along NATO. eastern flank. We will also continue to conduct military exercises with our allies and partners to enhance defensive readiness. And if Russia invades, we'll take further steps to reinforce our presence in NATO, reassures our for our allies, and deter further aggression. To be clear, if Russia decides to invade, that would also have consequences here at home. But the American

people understand that defending democracy and liberty is never without cost. This is a cause the United States Republicans and Democrats, and I want to thank the leaders and members of Congress of both parties who've forcibly spoken out in defense of our most basic, most bipartisan, most American principles. I will not pretend this will be painless. There could be impact on our energy prices. So we are taking active steps to alleviate the pressure on our own energy market. and offset raising prices. We're coordinating with major energy consumers and producers.

We're prepared to deploy all the tools and authority at our disposal to provide relief at the gas pump. And I'll work with Congress on additional measures to help protect consumers and address the impact of prices at the pump. We are not seeking direct confrontation with Russia, though I've been clear that if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond for us.

we will respond forcefully. And if Russia attacks the United States or our allies through asymmetric means, like disruptive cyber attacks against our companies or critical infrastructure, we are prepared to respond. But we're moving in lockstep with our NATO allies and partners to deepen our collective defense against threats in cyberspace. Two paths are still open. For the sake of historic responsibility,

Russia and the United States share for global stability, for the sake of our common future to choose diplomacy. But let there be no doubt. If Russia commits this breach by invaded Ukraine, responsible nations around the world will not hesitate to respond. We do not stand for freedom where it is at risk today will surely pay a steeper price tomorrow. Former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman has demanded that the factual background section of special counsel John Durham's most recent report be struck from the record. Sussman has been indicted by a grand jury for lying to the FBI.

Per Fred Lucas of the Daily Signal, recent court filings by Durham related to the case against Sussman, who faces charges of lying to the FBI, alleged that Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign hired a technology company to access information from computer servers used by Donald Trump's business headquarters at Trump Tower in New York City. Additionally, Durham alleges that the same technology company was hired to access servers inside the White House after Trump assumed the presidency in January 2017. Susman has pleaded not guilty and alleges the factual background section of Durham's filing

will taint the jury pool and his upcoming trial and inflame media coverage. Per Fox News, lawyers representing Sussman have asked the court to strike the section, pursuant to the court's ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process. Senator Pat Toomey, ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, ensured that six nominees for the Federal Reserve couldn't move forward by not attending, along with all other committee Republicans, a vote on their nominations. That move prevented there being a quorum, which is necessary for their decision. to be a vote. Toomey said he was willing to allow a vote on five of the six nominees, but had grave

concerns about Sarah Bloom Raskin, who is nominated to serve as the vice chair for supervision at the Federal Reserve. Via C-SPAN, here's what Toomey had to say. The fact that Sarah Raskin has repeatedly, publicly and forcefully advocated for the Fed to use its supervisory powers as a way to allocate capital away from carbon-intensive industries. That's more than sufficient reason to oppose for a nomination, in my view. But that is not the reason that Republicans are unlikely to provide a quorum this afternoon. The reason we're not providing a quorum is because we can't get straight answers to simple questions. Just as a reminder, Reserve Trust is a fintech company based in Colorado.

They applied for a very, very valuable master account at the Fed, and they were turned down. Sarah Raskin went on their board, called the Fed, and months later, the Fed did 180-degree reversal, and granted them what I believe is the only FinTech master account in America. We've simply asked questions about how and why did the Fed make 180-degree reversal. What role did Sarah Raskin play in that? And we are getting stonewalled. It is not acceptable to provide no answers for the committee that is evaluating her fitness to go back on the Fed. Senator Sherrod Brown, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, criticized Republicans for preventing the vote of Bloom Raskin and others, including Jerome Powell, who had been re-nominated to serve as chair of the Federal Reserve.

Also via C-SPAN, here's what Brown had to say. But instead of showing up to work to do their jobs, Republicans have walked out on the American people. people. My Republican colleagues claim it's because they haven't gotten the information they've requested from one of the nominees. Let me be clear. Ms. Brunneraskin has been the subject of an unrelenting smear campaign in fear-mongering by the ranking member and Republicans, something that's become all too common. They've distorted her words. They've painted her as some sort of radical, as we've heard during her nomination hearing, in her own words, Ms. Bloom-Raskin is a mainstream economic thinker, been confirmed twice by unanimous votes in this Senate.

Robert Caliph is officially the new leader of the FDA. After a 5046 Senate vote on Tuesday, Caliph was confirmed to the position. Caleb formerly served in the same role back in 2016 when he was nominated by then-President Barack Obama. Caliph faced opposition from both Democrats and Republicans over his stances on abortion and opioids. Democratic senators Joe Manchin, Ed Markey, Richard Blumenthal, Maggie Hassan, and independent Bernie Sanders, all voted against confirming Caliph, as did most Republicans. However, Republican senators Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney,

and Patrick Toomey broke ranks with their party to pass the nomination. Caliph's work on the abortion drug Mitha Preston drew fire from Republicans. In an open letter to senators, a senator, Spearheaded by anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, 49 pro-life leaders wrote, with a track record of rubber-stamping abortion industry demands and with permanent authorization of unsafe mail-order abortion hanging in the balance, Caliph is the wrong choice for FDA commissioner.

We urge you to vote no on his nomination. Democrats, meanwhile, had issues with Caliph's pharmaceutical industry connections and the FDA's approval of opioids during his tenure. Caliph replaces acting lead Janet Woodcock. Now stay tuned for my conversation with Ian Miller as we discuss the failure of masks to fight COVID-19. As conservatives, sometimes it feels like we're constantly on defense against bad ideas. Bad philosophy, revisionist history, junk science, and divisive politics. But here's something I've come to understand.

When faced with bad ideas, it's not enough to just defend. If we want to save this country, then it's time to go. go on offense. Conservative principles are ideas that work, individual responsibility, strong local communities, and belief in the American dream. As a former college professor and current president of the Heritage Foundation, my life's mission is to learn, educate, and take action. My podcast, the Kevin Roberts Show, is my opportunity to share that journey with you. I'll be diving into the critical issues that plague our nation, having deep conversations with high-profile guests, some of whom may surprise you. And I want to ensure freedom for

the next generation. Find the Kevin Roberts Show wherever you get your podcast. My guest today is Ian Miller, author of the new book Unmasked, the global failure of COVID mask mandates available now wherever books are sold. Ian, welcome to the show.

Thanks very much for having me on. What an important topic to talk about. Masks are all over the news these days, but let's start by getting our bearings here. How effective have mask mandates been during this pandemic? The short answer is completely ineffective.

The long answer is a lot more complicated than that, and that's obviously what I go into in the book. But one of the most consistent things that you can look at with COVID, and there's not very many consistent things, but one of the most consistent is you can go and look at states, at cities, at counties, at countries, compare different locations, and nearly everywhere you go, there is no effect from putting in a mask mandate and having good outcomes, you know, whether that's in a couple of weeks, generally. or down the road as well. And there's a lot of great examples of areas that were specifically credited with wearing masks that, you know, saw their numbers immediately rise afterwards. Just off top of my head one example is Israel, where there was a Wall Street Journal article, November of 2020 saying the masks had brought their curve down, brought the wave down, and then immediately afterwards, cases broke all the records again.

And anyway, so I think it's one of the most consistent things we can see across locations is that there's been really no impact from masking. So the efficacy of masks is shown by the data that we have to, like, not really pan out. Yeah, the data on it. And to be fair, I mean, this is exactly what we should have expected. And I go into this in the book as well because all of the studies, the scientific studies on masks to prevent respiratory viruses, pre-COVID all said this, that it wouldn't really work. So it shouldn't have been surprising that it hasn't worked.

But I think there's been a dramatic shift in terms of, you know, the political climate in the last couple of years. And unfortunately, just masks became this kind of politicized issue. But, yeah, all the data that we've seen from all over the world has been very consistent that there's no impact from it. I do want to go into the politicization of masks because that seems to be the more pressing topic. But the new guidance from the CDC indicates that cloth masks aren't very useful, but maybe N95s are. Is that an honest statement that certain masks are better than other masks? In theory, N95s would be better. In practice, the actual N95 respirators, which is the ones that are being distributed right now,

require fit testing in order to work properly. So it's not just like, oh, you put on an N95 and you're protected forever. It needs to be fitted properly to your face. And it needs to be, you know, if you have, for example, you have facial hair, it's going to be very hard to get that to fit properly. They're also incredibly uncomfortable to wear for any extended period of time. They need to be obviously discarded after individual uses or every couple or two uses, and people don't use it that way. So in theory, if you were using 995s properly and they were fit tested and they were disposed of after every use or maybe one or two uses, it could provide some protection.

But in practice, that's not how reality works. So it doesn't really matter. And we actually have a real old example of this already. for example, in Germany, there are a couple of states that have mandated N95 level masks, and a number of other states haven't. And the states that have the N95 mandates have actually done worse. So in reality, we've already tried to do this experiment, and it didn't work, which is unsurprising, given how it's impossible to use these properly. Now, Ian, I'm going to ask a very difficult question here. As a bearded man myself, would I just be better off not wearing a mask at all?

Yeah, I mean, there's no protection from it. So yes, you would be better off not wearing a mask at all. It's one of those things where this was kind of established science for a very long period of time, which is why for every pandemic that happened throughout the 20th century and after the 1918 pandemic, obviously. But there were other pandemics that happened in the 20th century and masking was never recommended. All the evidence showed it wouldn't be effective in large part due to aerosol transmission. You know, aerosols just go right through. mask fibers and once they're in the air, if you're in the room and you're susceptible, you're very likely going to get infected. And, you know, aerosol transmission is become kind of accepted as the dominant route for COVID. And on studies, I referenced one in the book from the United Kingdom where their health agency specifically says masks don't stop aerosols. So nothing about that changed from like 2018, 2019 into 2020, that never changed. Mass didn't suddenly become better at stopping aerosols. So you're not really getting any protection from wearing it.

It's not helping prevent the transmission of it because it's just the aerosols just go right through and they get into the air and that's it. Now, we kind of approach this topic at the beginning that masks have become a political statement. I remember a tweet by David Hogg a couple of months ago where he said, you know, I don't know about these masks, but I don't want people to think I'm some kind of Republican or conservative, so I'm just going to keep wearing it. That's sort of indicated where we're at, right? that masks are now a statement of where your political allegiance is like.

How did we get to that point? It's a great question. I think it kind of stems from a broader societal issue where I like to call it the believe in science crowd. And I'm sure everybody's seen these yard signs that people put up in front of their homes like this in this house we believe in science. And it's become this kind of like mantra of allegiance to the correct set of ideologies and opinions that you're supposed to have in modern.

in society. And I think there's this kind of universal trust among, you know, a large subset of the population in anybody that considers themselves an expert or a scientist and who appears on TV with a credential that says that they're a scientist. And it's led down this kind of destructive path during COVID where the people who are supposed to be experts who are supposed to be scientists have just been completely wrong about almost everything during the entirety of the pandemic. And but they kind of still get this this loyalty and this allegiance because it's all connected to this whole like well they're the science they're literally what anthony fauchy says i am i am science i am i am representing science so you know if you if you claim to be representing science and you have a yard sign in front of your house that says i believe in science well you kind of have to follow along with whatever anthony fouchy says and i think that that's that's what we've seen um over the last couple of years and there really isn't any evidence or data behind it it's just this kind of adherence to an overarching set of political principles, unfortunately.

So to follow up on that, is that why we still have these mask mandates in place is the reason why I can't go into a grocery store without putting a piece of cloth on my face because there's this political kind of messaging? It seems like we have all this data. I don't understand how we can have that data and then still kind of have these, it's almost like theater. Yeah. Well, you've hit it a lot of major issues.

there. And there's a couple different ways to answer that. I think one of the biggest problems is the lack of media coverage. And in the book, I do this where, and this is kind of what I've been doing on Twitter, and I write a substack as well, and all doing, and all of these things, which is just showing, okay, we put the mask mandate in here at this particular area, at this time. If it was so effective, what would you expect to see? Or you can compare two states that are next to each other and say this state mandated masks and this one didn't, which one would you think would do better? If I don't put a label on for which state is which, could you guess which state had the mask mandate and which didn't? And if you can't, well, that kind of destroys the whole point of putting in a mask mandate, right?

Because if the mask is so ineffective that you can't tell the difference, why are you doing it? So the point of that is, it's very simple to do this. It's not hard. The data is publicly accessible. It's all from, you know, CDC or the New York Times or Johns Hopkins or any world health organization. And yet nobody in the media is doing this. You know, nobody that on CNN or any of these, you know, New York Times or Washington Post, these mainstream media outlets are doing this.

They don't go through and show people what the results have been. I think that's one of the biggest problems is that the people who make decisions, especially in cities like Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, New York, they are getting their information exclusively from either the experts like Anthony Fauci, who have been provably wrong over. and over again or from mainstream media outlets that have just done a really poor job of covering this and presenting the data. So I think there's a lot of ignorance. I think there's a lot of kind of purposeful hiding of the data because I'm sure they all know it, but it's not fitting with

what they want to do. And I think they realize that these measures are in large part fairly popular with their base, with the kind of believe in science crowd. People want to feel like they are contributing and that it gives them this kind of superiority over those who refuse to wear a mask, for example. And you mentioned that their base is very on board with the idea of mask mandates. And I have friends who are liberals who feel more comfortable when mask mandates are in place. And even if they're allowed to wear a mask, it's not like they're forced to. They still choose to do it.

How does the general public feel about mask mandates and things like that? I think over time the percentages have really changed. I think hopefully there's been more willingness to engage in these conversations. And we've seen a little bit of the breaking of the dam, you know, a couple weeks ago, a CNN medical contributor who has really done a terrible job throughout COVID, but finally said cloth masks are essentially facial decorations. So I think when people hear that, they're kind of saying to themselves, well, wait a second, for a year and a half,

I was told this was the most important thing to do that I was going to be, you know, killing an elderly family member if I didn't wear a mask. And, you know, you see people getting yelled at and fined and escorted out of businesses and all these things for not wearing a cloth mask. And now, oh, wait a second,

they were useless and they always have been. So hopefully this conversation is shifting. I think the general public has, I think there's a large percentage of people, you know, maybe half that just kind of comply. because they don't want to get in trouble, and there's maybe 20 to 30 percent that really believe it doesn't work and no, it doesn't work. And then there's the other side that maybe 20 percent or whatever it is that are very

dedicated to it. And unfortunately, that 20 percent that are dedicated to it are making public policy or impacting public policy. And they're the ones who corporations and politicians want to appeal to. They don't care about offending people who don't want to wear a mask. They only care about offending those who feel scared and only feel safe if they have a mask owner, if everybody else around them does too. You kind of talked about this point a little bit where the rhetoric we've gotten has shifted

from, you know, masks don't work, don't use them, to masks are mandatory, you have to wear them to go inside, to cloth masks don't work, we're going to use these masks. It feels like there's a constantly shifting kind of treadmill of information about how masks work. How does this shift in guidance and change in guidance affect trust in the public health authorities that are supposed to be, you know, keeping us safe? That's a great question. That's a really good question.

I think it should be destroying it. I think it has for a lot of people. I think a lot of people have started to realize that the contradictions are, it's not about, quote, you know, following the science, as they like to say. It's just that they really don't have a lot of ideas what to do. And so they've just kind of thrown everything at the wall and to see what sticks. And unfortunately, none of it sticks because it's basically impossible to stop the spread of a highly infectious respiratory virus.

And it's an unfortunate thing because in a lot of ways, it is very important to have trust in public health and have trust in science and expertise. But it has to be based on evidence and data and not just based off of wishful thinking. And, well, you know, we have to do something because we need to be seen as doing something. You know, I think the trust problem has gotten progressively worse. And I keep feeling like at every moment when you go from, you know, wear anything, wear a cloth mask to, oh, actually, now you need two masks. to, you know, now you need the two masks isn't good enough. You need a surgical and an N95 or an, I mean, it just, it kind of feels like, to use an entertainment term, jumping the shark every time where they kind of, as the guidance gets

progressively less evidence-based and more just like theoretical of like, where, two masks makes more sense. So do that. That's basically what Fauci said. You know, I think that it really has diminished trust in public health. And it's going to have long reaching consequences down the road in terms of. of other illnesses and diseases where people don't take their advice anymore because they don't trust them. I'm really glad you mentioned the two masks instead of one mask because I remember very distinctly

when that guidance came out and kind of just like this visceral reaction of really? That seems so surreal to me. And we were talking a little bit before the show about my home state of Oregon that used to have an outdoor mask mandate, long after the science was settled that this thing doesn't really spread around outside all that much. Does your book go into some other examples of we're just doing this because it's something, it's some of other ridiculous mask mandates? The outdoor mandates I cover a lot. Los Angeles has had outdoor mask mandates for a long time.

Believe it or not, they still have an outdoor mask mandate for large events where anything more than 5,000 people still requires outdoor masking. So, yeah, I go through a lot of these examples of areas. I mean, just random example was Chile, the country of Chile. where the president of the country was fined, I think it was something like $5,000 for taking a selfie on the beach without a mask. So, you know, a person ran up to him, he's on the beach, and they take a picture together and he's maskless, and he was fined for that. And that was the president of the country. And it was meant to show this is how seriously we're taking this.

We masks are so important that everybody be wearing them on a beach outside that we're going to find the president of the country to show nobody's above this mask law. And then, of course, cases in Chile go skyrocketing up. just a couple of weeks later, a couple months later anyway. Yeah, there's a lot of examples of this kind of over the precautionary principle run wild. And that's really the biggest issue is that it was all based off of this theory that it might work. So we have to pretend like it does work and mandate it and use it harder. And the less it works, the worse our policies get. And that's been a very consistent infuriating pattern, I think, throughout the pandemic. It's fascinating that you mentioned that the president of Chile was fine because I'm looking back to America.

And of course, in the news now is Gavin Newsom and Eric Garcetti, who were photographed maskless. Eric Garcetti apparently tried to justify it by saying he was holding his breath when he removed his mask. So that's impressive. But I guess my question is, why is it acceptable for it almost feels like the political class at times to not mask up, whereas it almost feels like there's these different set of requirements for other people to mask up. Right. And there's been a ton of famous kind of infamous images where, for example, it was a Nancy Pelosi fundraiser where there was a bunch of wealthy elite people that were donating to her campaign. And all of the people serving them food were all masked up and they're sitting there completely unmasked.

And this is still a problem in a lot of areas that don't have mask mandates where you see employees have to wear masks. and those people being served don't. It's become fairly obvious that a lot of these politicians don't actually take these rules very seriously. I don't think that they really don't think that they matter very much, but they view it, I think, is a tool to show people we're still in a pandemic and you need to be taking this seriously and you should be scared.

It is really impressive how often the people that push these rules the hardest are the most willing to, to, you know, not comply with their own mandates. I mean, obviously, Gavin Newsom had this happen in, I think it was 2020 when he had that dinner at the Napa Valley restaurant and was photographed, you know, without a mask on standing up and talking to people. We've seen that happen now with the U.K. Where Boris Johnson and all of those people are, you know, I've been in hot water now because of all the parties they were supposedly having during lockdowns and people couldn't go to funerals or have weddings or anything. And so it's, it's really, it's been a very consistent part of it. of this. And if you take them at their word at the logical conclusion of this, it's pretty

obvious that they don't take this very seriously and that they don't really view these measures as being that important, that it's much more about encouraging compliance and others with what they say and not with what they do. So I hope that that continues to erode trust in these politicians as well, because they definitely deserve it. We've mentioned a couple of foreign examples of mask shenanigans, if you will. What are other countries around the world doing regarding masks? Do we see that a lot of countries still have mandates in place? Do we see that they're more strict than America, less strict than America? What are we seeing abroad? It's widely varied. If you look at Europe, for example, I believe Spain and Italy and a couple

other countries brought back outdoor masks as well in this latest winter surge. And they, I mean, obviously, there's been no impact from that, the cases of skyrocketed anyway. You know, it's very, it's very different. You can go and look at like Wales and Scotland and England, for example. Those are great examples that are also close and they've had different rules at different times and yet the numbers go up and down regardless. So like, you know, Wales has had a consecutive mass made. It never ended. Whereas England had a mass mandate that kind of ended earlier on and the numbers were the same anyway. And England, I think, did better at a certain times. So it's a very kind of, again, it's a very similar pattern to hear what we've seen in the United States where you can compare areas with and without mandates and

the areas without mandates are often doing better. Sweden is the kind of the gold standard example where hardly anybody has used masks there at any point. And I measure, I think in the book I referenced like Germany and Sweden where you have Sweden with hardly anybody wearing masks is like 2% compliance and Germany with 90% compliance. And they're very close to each other. And Germany had a higher death rate for basically all of 2021 and into 2022 than Sweden. And Sweden's numbers now, cumulatively, I think, are around 60th in the world in death rate.

So it's very average, and they've outperforming the rest of the European Union. So the rules are different depending on the country, and yet the results have been fairly consistent that the areas with the least amount of masking are either doing the same or better. So one of the new battlefields regarding mask mandates is in the field of education, right? We're talking about whether or not kids should be masked in schools. I mean, how do masks impact a child's development? Do we have any data that indicates these masks are causing problems or do they not do anything at all? Or where are we at with masks and children?

Hopefully we're making progress on that. I think there was this kind of campaign started called the urgency of normal, I think, is what it was, where a lot of doctors, like over 800 have now started pushing for kids to be able to go to school. without masks with a sense of normalcy. There was a study I came across and I can't remember the exact numbers. I think it was something like a 360% increase in, you know, development issues among children due to masking where, you know, communication problems.

And I mean, obviously it makes sense. This is, it's, you put two or three year olds in a mask. They're not going to handle that particularly well. They don't know what it is. They don't really know how to handle it. Two-year-olds don't know how to take care of a mask properly. If it was ever going to be effective, it has to be handled and taken care of properly. Obviously, kids are not able to do that.

And it's just a complete farce that we're pushing this on to kids when you see these photos of politicians standing in the back row maskless and their kids in front of them all masked up. It's just painful to see it. There's demonstrable side effects, demonstrable harms to it. And I did this recently where I compared all the states that have forced masking in schools and those that are optional or have no masking of schools. And just like everywhere else, the states that have the forced masking have a higher case rate than those without it.

So it's just there's no impact to it. There's no benefit to it. It has only harms. And just in the purest logistical form, it makes absolutely no sense because these kids can never hope to take care of a mask properly in a school environment. It's completely absurd. Are we alone on the world stage in masking our children? I believe we're the worst in terms of masking young kids.

I know a lot of European countries never masked kids. I think it was under 12, for example. A lot of other countries are anything under six, anyone under six, they don't require masks. I mean, going down to two is pretty much the worst that it is across the international stage, as far as I can tell. That's something that happens here in D.C. I was going to a Smithsonian Museum, and they had a marking that a sign that said you had to mask a child as young as two. years old. Where does that come from? Is there a justification that they're using for this? Is there, like, data that we can look to and say, well, we don't agree with the data, but this is what they're

referencing? The problem with the data is that a lot of what the CDC has put out has been really, really bad and misleading. I wrote a whole chapter on it in the book where I go through a couple of the studies they use to try to justify mask mandates in Arizona and Kansas, for example. And it's really bad. And unfortunately, there's been a lot more willingness to speak out on this recently with other kind of doctors and scientists and experts. Vene Prasad from San Francisco has done a great job, kind of pointing out a lot of the flaws in the CDC's data. So whatever they would try to put out to justify it is very often untrustworthy and very methodology flawed. I haven't seen any good reason to justify masking two-year-olds.

I haven't seen them come up with anything that has shown why two-year-olds, specifically two to five-year-olds, could ever be justified to use masking. It's just, again, I think it's just the precautionary principle run wild. I think there's a lot of irrational fear out there. I think that they want to continue to maintain that level of keeping. I think it's probably also some deference to organizations like teachers unions and stuff that are with the very young kids that are in school. and teachers unions have pushed very hard for forced masking. And a lot of it just comes back to that whole problem of believing in science and all of that that comes along with that. I think a lot of people are concerned when they look at these mask mandates that they don't really seem to have an off ramp.

So going back to Oregon again, the Oregon Health Authority is trying to make indoor mask mandates permanent, the justification that, you know, oh, we can get to it later. And if, you know, things change, we can remove it. But it's scary that we're looking at, you know, laws that are being put into place that are sort of codifying mask mandates into law with no metrics set to say we're going to remove it at this point. Are these fears of permanent mandates justified? I think so. And that's my goal is to try to completely destroy the entire rationale behind masking being beneficial at all because that's the only way that you can permanently end this. I try to put it like, once you committed to the lie that masks.

work, you can never let them go because there will always be respiratory virus transmission. There's always, COVID's never, I mean, everybody acknowledges us now. COVID's never going away. It's never going to be eradicated. The flu has obviously never been eradicated and it's never going away. So there will always be now this excuse to bring back mask mandates, even if you say, okay, well, in the summer, we're not going to do it. But as soon as the numbers go up in the winter, we've got to bring mask mandates in.

Even though it hasn't worked every winter that we've been dealing with COVID, you know, there's always going to be this kind of underlying assumption that masks work, and that's why we have to bring them back. I mean, a good example, too, is Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside of D.C., where they had set a target of like, oh, if we get 85% of the population vaccinated, we'll lift the mask mandates. And they basically did that, and now they're discussing making it permanent there, too. So it just kind of shows you, if you believe that masks work, you can never stop believing it because they don't. And so the numbers will always be there to justify the masks. So it's very, unless you kind of destroy the entire foundation of masking as a potential intervention, quote unquote, there's always going to be this fear that you could bring masking back whenever you feel like it. All right.

So we've had a very long conversation about masks, their efficacy, what our neighbors on the world stage are doing. What should average Americans, you and me, you know, people out on the street. what should we be doing regarding masks? Is it time to ditch them? Is it time to say no more? What should average Americans do regarding masks? The only thing I think that we'll have a really significant impact is voting out the people that have been forcing masking. You know, it's clear that, you know, you see these videos of parents go into school boards, right?

I mean, that's one of the clearest examples of local people being able to kind of directly have a conversation with those that are forcing masking in schools, for example. and it just doesn't seem to help very much. You know, you see all these videos, you go to the school boards, and then they keep the mask mandate or they make it worse, or they punish kids. I mean, in Virginia right now,

you see these school boards are openly defying an executive order. It's insane that they're just getting away with saying, we're just not going to listen, we don't care, and we're going to punish kids who come to school without a mask on. So the only thing that will really have a significant impact,

I think, is voting out the politicians that have brought this in in the first place. My hope is that, there will be a change in federal leadership through Congress, through the presidency at some point in the next couple of years where you can replace the people in charge right now that are pushing this and that are recommending it and continuing to recommend it despite all the evidence. Really a change in the entire political leadership is going to have to happen here because, you know, people like Rochelle Lewinsky from the CDC and Anthony Fauci are never going to come out and say, actually, we got this wrong. masks never worked, we can all remove the mask now permanently. They're never going to admit that. So you're going to have to have an entirely different group of people come in and change the

conversation, change their recommendations, and not give these local areas excuses to continue mandating them. So that's my sense. It's really going to come down to voting. Well, we're going to wrap there. But that was Ian Miller, author of the new book, Unmasked, the Global Failure of COVID mask mandates, available now, wherever books are sold. phenomenal conversation. Really appreciate it. Yeah, coming on the show. Oh, thank you so much for having me on.

And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks so much for listening to The Daily Signal podcast. You can find The Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and IHeart Radio. Please be sure to leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts, and please encourage others to subscribe. Thanks so much for listening, and we're back with you all tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Virginia Allen and Kate Trinco, sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, please visit DailySignal.com.