Is this accurate?
Cloth masks are a complete joke as far as preventing spread unless you're someone who constantly sprays spittle when they talk. If you are that person then no one wants to be in spray range already . Cloth masks will barely filter dust out. The anecdotal story I share about the masks being more about a social construct than a medical one is this. My wife works in reception at a medical office. They started requiring all staff to wear makes but those in non-paitent facing roles (like her) only get cloth masks. They acknowledged that the cloth masks did nothing to prevent the spread but it was important to make masks socially acceptable.
The papers closing does seem to have the conspiracy angle to it which I can't comment on if this is the case or not but overall there does seem to be quite a bit of "virology theater" going on with policy making.
There's a reason masks have been commonplace in Asia for many years now: they're meant to protect society, not the wearer. When someone thinks they're sick in Japan, they're supposed to wear a mask to keep everyone else from getting sick: it's good manners. It only works when lots of people are doing the same thing.
Similarly, the cloth masks are actually called "surgical masks", because they're normally used in surgery. They have absolutely nothing to do with keeping the surgeon safe from the patient; they're in place to keep the patient, who has a huge gaping wound in his body, from being infected by droplets from the surgeon as the surgeon bends over the wound site, and is breathing and talking to other people.
I've made two hepa cloth masks using online guides (I know, I'm like an expert now /s) for my partner and I and from my testing they filter out a non-trivial amount of undesirable particles. We use a pipe cleaner to add rigidity to the upper mask and form a better seal. I've lit a cigarette right in front of my mask and been completely unable to smell it. Does this offer us 100% protection? No of course not, is it better than not wearing one? Yes, of course.
However, in many studies there's a consistent trend toward masks doing something, in the sense that measures of dispersion are attenuated with masks vs not.
This paper is pretty poor in that it commits the classic statistical blunder of equating multiple nonsignificant results with overall effect size. It's very hastily put together.
One of the meta-analyses cited is an example of some of these issues (Offeddu, V. et al. 2017). You can see there's few studies and the ones included result in a nonsignificant effect, but it's almost significant and in the intuitively expected direction (PPE having an effect). But then there's issue of publication biases etc.
My general impression is that the truth is somewhere in between, maybe closer to what this essay is arguing in the sense that masks are much less effective than people think, but probably not actually technically correct in that masks probably have some effect.