News Razer settles 'deceptive' marketing FTC lawsuit for over $1 million — 6,764 Zephyr mask buyers to get full refunds

[Admin]

The FTC fined Razer $100,000 for the deceptive marketing of its Zephyr mask and also ordered it to payback a total of $1,071,254.33 to all of its buyers.

Razer settles 'deceptive' marketing FTC lawsuit for over $1 million — 6,764 Zephyr mask buyers to get full refunds : Read more

 

[TheSecondPower]

This seems like a fair complaint but it also makes me want a refund from the CDC, who recommended cloth masks against covid when all available evidence said a surgical mask was the absolute minimum for any efficacy. Can we get refunds from the CDC too?

 

[edzieba]

This seems like a fair complaint but it also makes me want a refund from the CDC, who recommended cloth masks against covid when all available evidence said a surgical mask was the absolute minimum for any efficacy. Can we get refunds from the CDC too?

Don't mix up efficacy in protecting the wearer (in which case a properly fitted filtered mask is mandatory, and 'surgical masks'* are worthless) and efficacy in reducing population transmission (pretty much any face covering that catches projectile droplets is highly effective here).

The razer Zaphyr was a PAPR but garbage. As well as being ineffective as a respirator due to the high bypass flow, it was ineffective at transmission reduction due to the unfiltered forced air exhaust.

* a 'Surgical Mask' has the one job of preventing projectile droplets from being inhaled. It is not a particulate filter. They are effectively cloth masks with some standardisation in geometry and sterilisation protocols for manufacture and packaging.

 

[TheSecondPower]

Don't mix up efficacy in protecting the wearer (in which case a properly fitted filtered mask is mandatory, and 'surgical masks'* are worthless) and efficacy in reducing population transmission (pretty much any face covering that catches projectile droplets is highly effective here).

I'm not. Razer claimed that the mask “offers greater protection compared to standard disposable/cloth masks, and filters air both inhaled and exhaled to safeguard you and others around you.” No RCT ever demonstrated that cloth masks reduce risks to the wearer or to the people around the wearer compared to not wearing a mask, as the CDC claimed. In the same way Razer had no RCT comparing its mask to a cloth mask. I suppose there were possibly some lab experiments and observational studies around cloth masks, which is apparently more than Razer had.

 

[edzieba]

No RCT ever demonstrated that cloth masks reduce risks to the wearer or to the people around the wearer compared to not wearing a mask

Evidence is clear:

Evidence which consistently demonstrated the efficacy of cloth masks, medical masks, and respirators against infection with SARS-CoV-2 emerged early in the pandemic, from classical epidemiological (cohort and case-control) studies (179–186), database-derived real-world evidence (187, 188), and ecological studies and quasi-experiments related to policy change (189–198). A community-based case-control study performed in California found a dose-response relationship between both mask or respirator quality and frequency of use and reduction in SARS-CoV-2 risk: the aOR for SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with mask use was 0.44 (95% CI 0.24–0.82); surgical mask aOR was 0.34 (95% CI 0.13–0.90), and respirator use aOR was 0.17 (95% CI 0.05–0.64) (179).

Cloth masks are less effective than properly fitted N95 masks (though improperly fitted masks are merely as effective as cloth masks), both are more effective than no mask, and both are less effective than respirators. This isn't some mystery conjecture, this is well established evidentially, in both controlled trials and in population studies over multiple pandemics (including both Coronavirus pandemics).

 

[TheSecondPower]

Evidence is clear:

Cloth masks are less effective than properly fitted N95 masks (though improperly fitted masks are merely as effective as cloth masks), both are more effective than no mask, and both are less effective than respirators. This isn't some mystery conjecture, this is well established evidentially, in both controlled trials and in population studies over multiple pandemics (including both Coronavirus pandemics).

The paper you linked says, "The Cochrane review of non-pharmaceutical interventions, for example, appears to rest on the assumption that trustworthy evidence on this topic comes primarily or exclusively from RCTs and that if RCTs have been identified, non-RCT evidence can be ignored. An alternative view is that evidence-based medicine’s “hierarchy of evidence” (with RCTs as the assumed gold standard) is inappropriate for multifaceted topics such as masking." But I am in the former camp, which believes that RCTs are the gold standard.

 

[edzieba]

The paper you linked says, "The Cochrane review of non-pharmaceutical interventions, for example, appears to rest on the assumption that trustworthy evidence on this topic comes primarily or exclusively from RCTs and that if RCTs have been identified, non-RCT evidence can be ignored. An alternative view is that evidence-based medicine’s “hierarchy of evidence” (with RCTs as the assumed gold standard) is inappropriate for multifaceted topics such as masking." But I am in the former camp, which believes that RCTs are the gold standard.

You may wish to continue reading the rest of the paper, since you managed to skip over the entire RCT-only metanalysis section to just clip out the bit that conforms to your desired result.

 

[TheSecondPower]

You may wish to continue reading the rest of the paper, since you managed to skip over the entire RCT-only metanalysis section to just clip out the bit that conforms to your desired result.

I clipped out the bit which explains the difference in philosophy between this review and the Cochrane review on masks. This paper tries to make the case for the philosophy that puts a lower value on RCTs.

 

[edzieba]

This paper tries to make the case for the philosophy that puts a lower value on RCTs.

It does not, and instead conducts a new meta-analysis of only RCT studies. I recommend reading the paper.

 

[TheSecondPower]

It does not, and instead conducts a new meta-analysis of only RCT studies. I recommend reading the paper.

You linked two papers in your original response to my comment. I have finite time. I only looked at the first paper, Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review.

 

[edzieba]

You linked two papers in your original response to my comment. I have finite time. I only looked at the first paper, Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review.

And that first paper is the one that contains said new metaanalysis, with the section headed and starting:

A new meta-analysis: justification of approach
To address our methodological concerns about previous studies (notably, the mask section of the 2023 Cochrane review [9]), we separated dissimilar settings, interventions, and outcome measures for a new meta-analysis of published RCTs.

 

[dburke125]

It's funny, I bought these bc they were supposed to have voice amplification not the filters and when I got it and it didn't have the amplification I returned it. I still got the $150 check.