I gave you a comprehensive review of all literature related to masks, used on people, to prevent actual illness. You don't like the conclusion of that data (there's little clinical evidence supporting their use), but digging up irrelevant laboratory papers doesn't change it.
The first link here is a lab study that doesn't demonstrate anything of relevance to the question: fit-tested masks, in a laboratory, where the outcome is "virus in the air" doesn't tell you if same masks, in the real world will protect against illness in people.
Second link is more of the same: demonstrating that a mask can filter particles, in an ideal setting, does not tell you anything about what actually happens in the real world. For that, you need clinical evidence (which I've already shown you is weak).
Medical science is filled with stories of things that work in theory, but don't work in practice. Literally every drug that failed a clinical trial (i.e. >99% of all drugs tested) worked in the lab. You must do controlled tests on real people to see what really works.
> the first is in the respected Journal of Infectious Diseases. It passed peer review.
Journal of Infectious Diseases is actually not a great journal, and "peer review" is not a magical talisman that prevents publication of bad research. See also: citing the WHO, the CDC, etc., when you've been shown that the evidence for the recommendations they're making is not robust.