One doctor’s 12 month fight over a Freedom Of Information request has revealed that not only were “face coverings” first mandated in the UK based on no peer-reviewed scientific evidence – but a government department breached the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by not responding to his request.
UK mask mandates began with public transport on 15 June 2020. Around that time a doctor, Dr Alan Black, wrote to the Department for Transport (DfT) to make a request under the FOIA. He asked a simple question: what were the names and the findings of the peer-reviewed studies which led to the mandating of masks on public transport?
After all, no-one would take such a measure without robust scientific evidence – would they?
The request however was refused by the DfT on the grounds that it was “vexatious”. The doctor appealed this decision and asked for an “internal review”. This internal review took place and unsurprisingly the DfT upheld its original decision. However, our persistent doctor was then able to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Almost 12 months after his original FOIA request, the ICO decided that the DfT were in fact in breach of the FOIA by refusing the request (read the ICO’s letter here).
Not only that, but as a result the DfT were compelled to reveal that, in fact there was NO peer-reviewed research supporting the mandating of masks on public transport.
That’s right: none… and the Department still apparently were not in possession of any such evidence as of 3 June 2021 when they replied.
“At the time of the imposition of mandatory masks on public transport there was a great deal of public debate about whether mandatory masking in public places was likely to have any beneficial effect on controlling the spread of Covid-19,” wrote Dr Black in his letter to the ICO. He continued:
“A great number of people, and I include myself in this group, were, and remain, sceptical that there is any scientific basis for such a decision. I personally think that the scientific evidence for such a proposition is at best inconclusive and at worst, non-existent.
At that time there was a clear narrative coming from the government and their advisers that there was actually strong scientific evidence to support this proposition. In fact we now discover the decision was not actually based on any specifically designed peer-reviewed research at all. The officials at the DfT clearly realised that complying with my request, as required of them by the FOIA, would indeed potentially be damaging to the government’s case and therefore they made a conscious, deliberate decision not to do so. It goes without saying that it is not the role of the DfT to ignore their obligations under the FOIA simply because they do not wish to embarrass the government…
By using tactics of obfuscation, prevarication and delay, officials at the DfT have sought to deny me my rights under the FOIA. They have done this in a deliberate attempt to restrict debate and to prevent exposure of the paucity of specific data supporting a significant government decision. This is not simply a mere technical breach of section 1 of the FOIA but an attack on one of the most important legal rights of British citizens. They have, in a deliberate and intentional way, infringed my right to hold our government to account by denying my rightful access to information of public interest and preventing me from using that information to question a government decision.”
Interestingly, there appears to be something of a pattern with FOI requests around Covid and associated policies being suppressed by government and their departments.
The Department for Health & Social Care’s refusal to disclose the names of 47 companies in the PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) procurement “VIP lane” has also recently been ruled against by the ICO.
And the government was condemned after UK’s Chief Scientific Officer Patrick Vallance’s correspondence following a secretive conference call with other high profile scientists about Covid origins was redacted to the point of absurdity.
Meanwhile, a comprehensive SAGE review of the research, examining the potential effectiveness of non-pharmacological measures in reducing viral transmission on ground public transport, provides further support for the validity of the response to the doctor’s Freedom of Information request.
Although there is evidence that public transport is a place where transmission of respiratory infections can often occur – particularly on trains rather than buses or cars – the SAGE paper provided no compelling, real-world data to back the assertion that masking healthy passengers on public transport is associated with significant benefits.
We must therefore default to the broader questions: Are there any significant benefits from heathy people wearing masks in community settings? The evidence that face coverings, as worn by the general population, reduces transmission of SARS-COV-2 is – at best – weak and contradictory.
Some may say: ‘well, if it could make a difference, or make people feel more secure, what’s the problem with doing it?’ This is misguided on at least three levels.
The first problem is that masking the healthy is not a benign intervention; it is associated with a wide range of harms and important negative consequences.
The second problem is that the UK remains a frightened nation, as indicated by the high prevalence of COVID-19 anxiety syndrome. Paradoxically, psychologists know that continuing with a requirement for face coverings – that act as a ‘safety behaviour’ – will not reduce but actually only maintain elevated fears as we strive to return to normal life.
The third problem with this supposed ‘precautionary principle’ … the government wheel out the tired cliche that they are ‘following the science’ when in actual fact they are doing anything but.
A relatively high risk of viral transmission on public transport is not a valid reason to persist with an ineffectual, and widely damaging, restriction.
All mask mandates, including those applicable to trains, tube and buses, must be lifted immediately and should never be imposed again.
