Comments by "Z P" (@zachman5150) on "ABC Action News" channel.

  1.  @bakedzachnotifsoff604  Hey Karen, It's not 'my' argument. It's simply the scientific conclusions and analysis of the experts, who conducted the peer-reviewed medicals studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses-- and they ALL conclude that they do NOT. It is YOUR argument saying they're wrong. Feel free to write them and present your evidence and studies which refute their findings. Until then-- Save your virtue-free 'virtue' signaling. Furthermore, the label on the N95 mask box clearly states that they do not prevent the transmission. Did your reading comprehension challenge prevent you from realizing that too? Not surprised. Do Better I can only post the facts for you. I can't "understand" them for you too. That's all on you, and it appears that your reading comprehension and/or intellectual deficit is proving to be a substantial hurdle for you. Perhaps try re-reading-- only slower, so you don't miss it again. FYI-- All state mask mandates include medical exemptions, and for instance at Walmart-- the policy is posted on the wall and is clearly visible prior to entering the establishment, and it includes exemptions for medical conditions and for children-- SO, the employees and the mask-wearing customers are without excuse for their ignorance re: those who are not wearing a mask. If you're sick, don't go to the mall. Don't tell healthy people they are required to wear a mask to protect 'others'-- From what-- their good health? LOL  And... Spare me the BS re: asymptomatic transmission, as the entire history of airborne viruses of ANY type-- asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics. It's ALWAYS symptomatic individuals. In addition, there's a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, so panicking over a .3% differential makes you appear unhinged emotionally and intellectually stunted. You're Dismissed Karen Buh Bye
    4
  2. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND... https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. re: Bacterial pneumonia: https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-masks-causing-rise-in-bacterial-pneumonia/ And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns so NOPE-- you're just wrong.  I recall reading that Denmark's data re: death rates and such, suggesting your narrative is questionable-- at BEST. A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/ Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    3
  3.  @bea405  Um... Science is NOT a consensus. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND... https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. re: Bacterial pneumonia: https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-masks-causing-rise-in-bacterial-pneumonia/ And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns so NOPE-- you're just wrong.  I recall reading that Denmark's data re: death rates and such, suggesting your narrative is questionable-- at BEST. A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/ Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) PRIMARILY as Aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm [NOT Primarily as droplets], such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.  Such small Aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    3
  4.  @bea405  Nope... Wrong again... the 90% false positives was confirmed by the NYT's, via the CDC-- Hardly a right wing site. Google it... the censors won't let me post the direct link.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cST1EpBnv44 Try again??
    3
  5.  @debbiederosa7250  Education-- For Fun and for FREE. Learn something useful: The scientific conclusions and analysis of the experts, who conducted the peer-reviewed medicals studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses-- ALL conclude that they do NOT. It is YOUR argument saying they're wrong. Feel free to write them and present your evidence and studies which refute their findings. Until then-- Save your virtue-free 'virtue' signaling. Furthermore, the label on the N95 mask box clearly states that they do not prevent the transmission. Did your reading comprehension challenge prevent you from realizing that too? Not surprised. Do Better I can only post the facts for you. I can't "understand" them for you too. That's all on you, and it appears that your reading comprehension and/or intellectual deficit is proving to be a substantial hurdle for you. Perhaps try re-reading-- only slower, so you don't miss it again. FYI-- All state mask mandates include medical exemptions, and for instance at Walmart-- the policy is posted on the wall and is clearly visible prior to entering the establishment, and it includes exemptions for medical conditions and for children-- SO, the employees and the mask-wearing customers are without excuse for their ignorance re: those who are not wearing a mask. If you're sick, don't go to the mall. Don't tell healthy people they are required to wear a mask to protect 'others'-- From what?? their good health? LOL  And... Spare me the BS re: asymptomatic transmission, as the entire history of airborne viruses of ANY type-- asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics. It's ALWAYS symptomatic individuals. In addition, there's a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, so panicking over a .3% differential makes you appear unhinged emotionally and intellectually stunted. Here they are again: Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.  There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection."  Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 You're Dismissed Karen-- Buh Bye
    3
  6.  @matlgty  Well, it's directly attributed to the increased cases of bacterial pneumonia as one example. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND... https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. re: Bacterial pneumonia: https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-masks-causing-rise-in-bacterial-pneumonia/ And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns so NOPE-- you're just wrong.  I recall reading that Denmark's data re: death rates and such, suggesting your narrative is questionable-- at BEST. A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/ Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    3
  7.  @matlgty  It's not 'My' argument. I merely posted, read and understand the peer-reviewed medical studies, which all conclude your narrative is BS. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) [PRIMARILY as Aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011) [NOT primarily as 'droplets' from a coughing or sneezing individuals]: If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    3
  8. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND... https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. re: Bacterial pneumonia: https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-masks-causing-rise-in-bacterial-pneumonia/ And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns so NOPE-- you're just wrong.  I recall reading that Denmark's data re: death rates and such, suggesting your narrative is questionable-- at BEST. A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/ Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    3
  9.  @bea405  The unrefuted and only relevant facts which destroy your narrative, still remain. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    3
  10. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    2
  11. they are called surgical masks for a reason....blood splatter and spit....they dont do jack shit for an airborne virus ....
    2
  12. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND... https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. re: Bacterial pneumonia: https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-masks-causing-rise-in-bacterial-pneumonia/ And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns  I recall reading that Denmark's data re: death rates and such, suggesting your narrative is questionable-- at BEST. A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/ Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    2
  13.  @bea405  You really need to do better than the 'Because you say so' standard, when attempting to refute the actual historical record and science. You've refuted exactly ZERO. The currently available treatment has a success rate of 99.7%, and your panic over a .3% difference makes you unhinged. You seem about as confused about masks and this virus as most leftists are re: which restroom is appropriate. You're Dismissed
    2
  14.  @bea405  You proved ZERO and refuted nothing. The peer-reviewed medical studies show your narrative to be pure fantasy
    2
  15.  @bea405  Now that you got that out of your system... The unrefuted and only relevant facts which destroy your narrative, still remain. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria.
    2
  16.  @bea405   1. When, Where, How did you 'prove' the CDC's guidelines with PCR amplification cycles set to 40-- did not result in million of false positives, when at 33 they couldn't detect any live virus in individuals, as described in the NYT's article-- not facebook?? Crickets Answer: You did Not 2. When, Where, How did you 'prove' that the authors of the peer-reviewed medical studies who showed that masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses, and the medical specialists who conducted them are lying? Crickets  Answer: You did Not 3. Where in the conclusion of the study, does it conclude anything remotely close to what you're alleging? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817? Crickets... Answer: NOWHERE It literally concludes: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did NOT reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use". "The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (15) strongly recommend that persons with symptoms or known infection wear masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others (source control) (16).  However, WHO acknowledges that 'we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2' (prevention) (17)". How did you MISS THAT, Liar? "In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others DID NOT reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation." How did you miss THAT as well? Cognitive Dissonance is STRONG with you Miller-- Then again, it's those on the left who apparently find great difficulty in deciphering the differences between males and females, while simultaneously whinging about a white, male-dominated patriarchy at the root of a gender pay gap-- So, dismissing their/your idiocy-- for the idiocy that it is, is entirely justified, and your tone deaf responses do not inspire confidence in your clear lack of analytical capacity, to arrive at intelligent conclusions. Link to the debunking of the following info contained in the article please? https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/
    2
  17.  @billlee536  Because in MANY MANY cases, they misdiagnosed it as covid. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. The currently available treatment has a success rate of 99.7%, and your panic over a .3% difference makes you unhinged, "MY DEAR". You seem about as confused about masks and this virus as most leftists are re: which restroom is appropriate. You're Dismissed
    2
  18. A health crisis with a 99.7% recovery success rate is NOT a crisis at all
    2
  19.  @bea405  You've still refuted ZERO, re: the listed peer-reviewed medical studies: I included the studies, names of the authors, dates of the studies, the analysis and conclusions-- which all conclude you're full of crap. Do Better So-- here's some research I've done and the following questions which remain: 1. The bits of genetic material who's amount is being amplified are NOT viruses. They're merely small segments of inert genetic material, found inside of a virus's shell. The PCR test doesn't detect "live" viruses, at BEST it only detects their "dead remains". 2. The detection of viral remains involves MASSIVELY amplifying the amount in the original sample by running it through successive PCR cycles. And NOTHING about a PCR test itself, will tell you if there was any "Live" virus in the original sample. 3. The labs have no idea how many amp cycles are programmed, so how would one suggest there is a standard in place? Crickets... Nor can they tell you what your viral load was with PCR testing. I asked, they didn't know and said they'd have to find out from the vendor of the machine how it was calibrated, and when I asked how many times the sample needed to be amplified in my father-in-law's specific case, before it popped positive, and they couldn't answer that either-- So, that seems like some relevant information worth having, to determine if in fact patients are actually infected and/or potentially contagious, wouldn't you agree??? Crickets... The NYT's reported that "the CDC's own calculations suggest that it's extremely difficult to detect any live virus sample above a threshold of 33 cycles", BUT-- that's a deceptive way of saying, is it not?-- that the CDC's data shows THAT-- significantly understates how using 40 or even 37 cycles is GOING TO result in MASSIVE amounts of people being told they have covid, who Don't. If my understanding is correct, DEAD things are not going to produce the potential for infectious transfer to another individual. Thoughts??? Crickets... The CDC didn't just have "Extreme difficulty" finding any live virus in samples whose cycle threshold was above 33. They were unable to find ANY. Moreover they were unable to find any live virus even in samples with lower cycle thresholds. Thoughts? Crickets... But-- according the link, "The worst is yet to come"... Though the CDC replied to the Times by saying they were, "“examining the use of cycle threshold measures for policy decisions,” the New York Times either didn’t know or didn’t want you to know that the CDC already has guidelines that recommend … wait for it… 40 amplification cycles. Even though they were unable to find any live virus in samples with a cycling threshold greater than 33! Thoughts? Crickets... All of that is to say that it's ASININE to lend ANY credibility to any of the supposed case #'s and Supposed Death Numbers being thrown around, as the method for collecting the initial data is fatally flawed and doesn't even come close to resembling any sort of scientific standard of accounting-- rendering the numbers Fatally flawed at BEST, making drawing a reliable scientific conclusion impossible. Thoughts??? Crickets...
    2
  20.  @bea405  The peer-reviewed medical studies analysis and conclusions that conclude that masks do not prevent the transmission of the virus, and are not a matter of opinion and still apply. The Case #'s and Death #'s Fail to meet ANY sort of unbiased scientific standards-- with the PCR testing short-comings leading to 90% false positives. The PCR testing guidelines setup by the CDC are a matter of record, and were at 40 cycles, causing HUGE amounts of false positives. Get a clue Bottom line: There's a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, and acting as though anything less that 100% justifies panic over that the .3% you're flipping out over, makes you a 'Karen'
    2
  21.  @bea405  Now that you got that out of your system... The unrefuted and only relevant facts which destroy your narrative, still remain. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    2
  22.  @bea405  1. When, Where, How did you 'prove' the CDC's guidelines with PCR amplification cycles set to 40-- did not result in million of false positives, when at 33 they couldn't detect any live virus in individuals, as described in the NYT's article-- not facebook?? Crickets Answer: You did Not 2. When, Where, How did you 'prove' that the authors of the peer-reviewed medical studies who showed that masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses, and the medical specialists who conducted them are lying? Crickets  Answer: You did Not 3. Where in the conclusion of the study, does it conclude anything remotely close to what you're alleging? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817? Crickets... Answer: NOWHERE It literally concludes: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did NOT reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use". "The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (15) strongly recommend that persons with symptoms or known infection wear masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others (source control) (16).  However, WHO acknowledges that 'we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2' (prevention) (17)". How did you MISS THAT, Liar? "In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others DID NOT reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation." How did you miss THAT as well? Cognitive Dissonance is STRONG with you Miller-- Then again, it's those on the left who apparently find great difficulty in deciphering the differences between males and females, while simultaneously whinging about a white, male-dominated patriarchy at the root of a gender pay gap-- So, dismissing their/your idiocy-- for the idiocy that it is, is entirely justified, and your tone deaf responses do not inspire confidence in your clear lack of analytical capacity, to arrive at intelligent conclusions. Link to the debunking of the following info contained in the article please? https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/
    2
  23.  @wendysampson9218  They have a hard time trying to figure out which restroom is appropriate
    2
  24.  @johnhenry5038  That comment refuted nothing and established even less. Good Job
    2
  25. Point of contention: Texas and Florida are continuing to report fewer new cases of the Chinese coronavirus per capita than blue states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data.
    2
  26. Those actually work, unlike masks
    2
  27. A health crisis with a 99.7% recovery success rate is NOT a crisis at all
    2
  28.  @bea405  Masks don't work
    2
  29.  @bea405  You failed to address the issue of asymptomatic individuals not being the driver of outbreaks, which is at the heart of suggesting that healthy people wear masks. You failed to acknowledge the 90% false positive rate due to the CDC's guidelines having the PCR sample rate at 40 cycles, making rendering the case #'s and Death #'s attributed to covid fatally flawed. You failed to recognize a 99.7% success rate with currently available testing, makes mask mandates and lockdowns ridiculous, and in no way justifiable. You failed to address the fact that the peer-reviewed medicals studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing virus transmission all conclude that they do Not.
    2
  30.  @gavintan9477  "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND... https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns so NOPE-- you're just wrong.  Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) PRIMARILY as AEROSOL particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm [NOT Primarily as droplets from coughing nor sneezing], such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    2
  31.  @mikemahoney6351  You mean, Other than the fact that they pump O2 through the ventilation in hospitals? or Are you speaking about medical staff who DO have legitimate pulmonary conditions? "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND... https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. re: Bacterial pneumonia: https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-masks-causing-rise-in-bacterial-pneumonia/ And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns so NOPE-- you're just wrong.  I recall reading that Denmark's data re: death rates and such, suggesting your narrative is questionable-- at BEST. A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/ Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    2
  32.  @bea405  The NYT's reported that "the CDC's own calculations suggest that it's extremely difficult to detect any live virus sample above a threshold of 33 cycles", BUT-- that's a deceptive way of saying, is it not?-- that the CDC's data shows THAT-- significantly understates how using 40 or even 37 cycles is GOING TO result in MASSIVE amounts of people being told they have covid, who Don't. If my understanding is correct, DEAD things are not going to produce the potential for infectious transfer to another individual. Thoughts??? Crickets... The CDC didn't just have "Extreme difficulty" finding any live virus in samples whose cycle threshold was above 33. They were unable to find ANY. Moreover they were unable to find any live virus even in samples with lower cycle thresholds. Thoughts? Crickets... But-- according the link, "The worst is yet to come"... Though the CDC replied to the Times by saying they were, "“examining the use of cycle threshold measures for policy decisions,” the New York Times either didn’t know or didn’t want you to know that the CDC already has guidelines that recommend … wait for it… 40 amplification cycles. Even though they were unable to find any live virus in samples with a cycling threshold greater than 33! Thoughts? Crickets... All of that is to say that it's ASININE to lend ANY credibility to any of the supposed case #'s and Supposed Death Numbers being thrown around, as the method for collecting the initial data is fatally flawed and doesn't even come close to resembling any sort of scientific standard of accounting-- rendering the numbers Fatally flawed at BEST, making drawing a reliable scientific conclusion impossible. Thoughts??? Crickets...
    2
  33.  @bea405  The scientific conclusions and analysis of the experts, who conducted the peer-reviewed medicals studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses-- ALL conclude that they do NOT. It is YOUR argument saying they're wrong. Feel free to write them and present your evidence and studies which refute their findings. Until then-- Save your virtue-free 'virtue' signaling. Furthermore, the label on the N95 mask box clearly states that they do not prevent the transmission. Did your reading comprehension challenge prevent you from realizing that too? Not surprised. Do Better I can only post the facts for you. I can't "understand" them for you too. That's all on you, and it appears that your reading comprehension and/or intellectual deficit is proving to be a substantial hurdle for you. Perhaps try re-reading-- only slower, so you don't miss it again. FYI-- All state mask mandates include medical exemptions, and for instance at Walmart-- the policy is posted on the wall and is clearly visible prior to entering the establishment, and it includes exemptions for medical conditions and for children-- SO, the employees and the mask-wearing customers are without excuse for their ignorance re: those who are not wearing a mask. If you're sick, don't go to the mall. Don't tell healthy people they are required to wear a mask to protect 'others'-- From what?? their good health? LOL  And... Spare me the BS re: asymptomatic transmission, as the entire history of airborne viruses of ANY type-- asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics. It's ALWAYS symptomatic individuals. In addition, there's a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, so panicking over a .3% differential makes you appear unhinged emotionally and intellectually stunted. Here they are again: Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.  There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection."  Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 You're Dismissed Karen Buh Bye
    2
  34.  @bea405  1. When, Where, How did you 'prove' the CDC's guidelines with PCR amplification cycles set to 40-- did not result in million of false positives, when at 33 they couldn't detect any live virus in individuals, as described in the NYT's article-- not facebook?? Crickets Answer: You did Not 2. When, Where, How did you 'prove' that the authors of the peer-reviewed medical studies who showed that masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses, and the medical specialists who conducted them are lying? Crickets  Answer: You did Not 3. Where in the conclusion of the study, does it conclude anything remotely close to what you're alleging? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817? Crickets... Answer: NOWHERE It literally concludes: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did NOT reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use". "The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (15) strongly recommend that persons with symptoms or known infection wear masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others (source control) (16).  However, WHO acknowledges that 'we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2' (prevention) (17)". How did you MISS THAT, Liar? "In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others DID NOT reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation." How did you miss THAT as well? Cognitive Dissonance is STRONG with you Miller-- Then again, it's those on the left who apparently find great difficulty in deciphering the differences between males and females, while simultaneously whinging about a white, male-dominated patriarchy at the root of a gender pay gap-- So, dismissing their/your idiocy-- for the idiocy that it is, is entirely justified, and your tone deaf responses do not inspire confidence in your clear lack of analytical capacity, to arrive at intelligent conclusions. Link to the debunking of the following info contained in the article please? https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/
    2
  35. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    2
  36. He wouldn't have spread covid? or He'd be the 'Known' Ranger
    2
  37.  @matlgty  Nope... It is printed right on the box of N95 masks... And, There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) [PRIMARILY as Aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011) [NOT primarily as 'droplets' from a coughing or sneezing individuals]: If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    2
  38.  @thotslayer7628  The peer-reviewed studies are not debunked at all... And with the 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment-- whinging over a .3% differential in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- and mask mandates and lockdowns weren't appropriate for the flu and they're not appropriate for this variant either.
    2
  39.  @bea405  1. When, Where, How did you 'prove' the CDC's guidelines with PCR amplification cycles set to 40-- did not result in million of false positives, when at 33 they couldn't detect any live virus in individuals, as described in the NYT's article-- not facebook?? Crickets Answer: You did Not 2. When, Where, How did you 'prove' that the authors of the peer-reviewed medical studies who showed that masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses, and the medical specialists who conducted them are lying? Crickets  Answer: You did Not 3. Where in the conclusion of the study, does it conclude anything remotely close to what you're alleging? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817? Crickets... Answer: NOWHERE It literally concludes: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did NOT reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use". "The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (15) strongly recommend that persons with symptoms or known infection wear masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others (source control) (16).  However, WHO acknowledges that 'we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2' (prevention) (17)". How did you MISS THAT, Liar? "In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others DID NOT reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation." How did you miss THAT as well? Cognitive Dissonance is STRONG with you Miller-- Then again, it's those on the left who apparently find great difficulty in deciphering the differences between males and females, while simultaneously whinging about a white, male-dominated patriarchy at the root of a gender pay gap-- So, dismissing their/your idiocy-- for the idiocy that it is, is entirely justified, and your tone deaf responses do not inspire confidence in your clear lack of analytical capacity, to arrive at intelligent conclusions. Link to the debunking of the following info contained in the article please? https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/
    2
  40.  @matlgty  The vast majority of people are merely average on the IQ scale-- hence 'Average', and there are a whole lot that are WAY stupider than that, evidenced by your narrative and lack of capacity to comprehend facts and information, which destroy your narrative. The cognitive dissonance is strong, with you.  I have no problem, not wearing a mask. LOL It quite literally requires no effort whatsoever. eye roll
    2
  41.  @matlgty  If you believe that masks work, and you're wearing one-- you're protected from others, and if symptomatic and contagious-- others are protected from you-- and that seems to be your position, so then how and why exactly does anyone else need to wear one, especially noting a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, and all of the cited peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all concluding that they do Not? Crickets... Looks like You're the one crying hysterically, like a little girl.
    2
  42.  @matlgty  Yes, screw that 'vaccine' too. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us, and this virus is merely a variant. I NEVER get flu vaccines and I don't get the flu. If masks are there to reduce the chance of infection, and you're wearing one-- why does it matter if anyone else is wearing one? You FAIL to recognize the fact that there are people who recognize the likelihood of getting this virus is about the same as getting the flu and the result is just about the same too, in terms of recovery rates vs deaths regardless of masks, and as such mask mandates and lockdowns are in no way justified, not over a marginal .3% differential, w/ a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment. It's not Ebola for goodness sake, it's a freakin flu variant. Breathe through your nose, before you hyperventilate-- Karen, FFS. If you're so petrified of cold and flu season, perhaps it's YOU who should isolate yourself in a cave, trembling in fear. That said, An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." You realize healthy people don't infect anyone right?  You realize that Asymptomatic individuals throughout the entirety of study of airborne viruses-- of ANY type, have NEVER been the drivers of outbreaks, epidemics or pandemics right, and that it's ALWAYS a 'Symptomatic' individual as patient zero?
    2
  43.  @matlgty  You're no doctor, Karen. I will definitely continue playing guitar.
    2
  44.  @matlgty  Having been summarily dismissed as less than relevant, your choosing to stay awhile and prove your dismissal is justified-- is bold, but unnecessary, as your sub-80 IQ opinions are dismissed as entirely ignorant and thus as irrelevant as the noise of a brat having a tantrum. Suck it up, Buttercup-- You got OWNED... Now, it's time to do the walk of shame and be on your way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrkgBVNuFcQ
    2
  45.  @Proud2BBlue  Not much of a refutation
    2
  46.  @Proud2BBlue  Weak... And, making more snide comments is not exactly a good use of your time, to show off your powers of reason, and certainly not a refutation. eye roll You'd have to argue the analysis and conclusions of the peer-reviewed studies to make your case, and they are still unrefutted.
    2
  47. Normal people don't wear masks
    2
  48.  @aaryajain6396  Feel free to write the authors of the peer-reviewed studies and submit your evidence which refutes their findings, but until then-- your 'Because you said so' standard is rejected in favor of actual science, which crushes your narrative. You seem to have missed the analysis and conclusions which show that your assertion is not correct. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT."
    2
  49. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    2
  50.  @bea405  #1. I posted the peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses, which all conclude they do not.  Feel free to write the authors and provide them your scientific refutation because so far, all you have provided is your 'because I said so' standard, which has been issued exactly ZERO credibility. Do Better Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 #2. Looking at the way the case #'s and Death numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. #3. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets...
    2
  51.  @bea405  Now that you got that out of your system... The unrefuted and only relevant facts which destroy your narrative, still remain. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    2
  52.  @vinnyx3585  Here are a few others... For Fun and for Free 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    2
  53. Would those be those who are medically exempt, to whom you refer?
    2
  54. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    2
  55. The scientific conclusions and analysis of the experts, who conducted the peer-reviewed medicals studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses-- ALL conclude that they do NOT. It is YOUR argument saying they're wrong. Feel free to write them and present your evidence and studies which refute their findings. Until then-- Save your virtue-free 'virtue' signaling. Furthermore, the label on the N95 mask box clearly states that they do not prevent the transmission. Did your reading comprehension challenge prevent you from realizing that too? Not surprised. Do Better I can only post the facts for you. I can't "understand" them for you too. That's all on you, and it appears that your reading comprehension and/or intellectual deficit is proving to be a substantial hurdle for you. Perhaps try re-reading-- only slower, so you don't miss it again. FYI-- All state mask mandates include medical exemptions, and for instance at Walmart-- the policy is posted on the wall and is clearly visible prior to entering the establishment, and it includes exemptions for medical conditions and for children-- SO, the employees and the mask-wearing customers are without excuse for their ignorance re: those who are not wearing a mask. If you're sick, don't go to the mall. Don't tell healthy people they are required to wear a mask to protect 'others'-- From what?? their good health? LOL  And... Spare me the BS re: asymptomatic transmission, as the entire history of airborne viruses of ANY type-- asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics. It's ALWAYS symptomatic individuals. In addition, there's a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, so panicking over a .3% differential makes you appear unhinged emotionally and intellectually stunted. Here they are again: Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.  There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection."  Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    2
  56. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    2
  57.  @troyevitt2437  Life is about individual choices, so I disagree. Your comment illustrates the choice. No mask/No Entry = The Assessment of whether to enter and/or shop there, etc., or not-- by none other than, 'the individual'. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them. Can a business establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business-- so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot
    2
  58.  @lalainenash2006  If ONLY they pumped O2 into the air, like they do at hospitals... "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND... https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. re: Bacterial pneumonia: https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-masks-causing-rise-in-bacterial-pneumonia/ And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns so NOPE-- you're just wrong.  I recall reading that Denmark's data re: death rates and such, suggesting your narrative is questionable-- at BEST. A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/ Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) PRIMARILY as AEROSOL particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm [NOT Primarily as droplets from coughing nor sneezing], such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    2
  59.  @davepedersen2115  Same to you. Be well. Breathe Easy ;)
    2
  60. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot
    2
  61.  @philhewett1601  I appreciate your triggered response, but the Democrats have been the party of Oppression, Racism and Slavery for over a hundred years... And they Still are and they're Still operating with their 'Rules for Thee and not for me' Authoritarian hypocritical approach-- as they ALWAYS have and still do, evidenced by all the unmasked appearances in violation of the mandates for the People, which-- they established. . Quick History Lesson: 13th Amendment: Abolished Slavery 100% Republican Support 24% Democrat Support 14th Amendment: Gave Citizenship to Freed Slaves 0% Democrat Support 94% Republican Support 15th Amendment: Right to Vote for All 0% Democrat Support 100% Republican Support I can only post the facts for you... I can't understand them for you too. That's all on you, and you appear to be incapable of assimilating the info to course correct your understanding-- The inability to do that, is evidence of a lack of intellectual capacity. You've established nothing and refuted even less. Kick Rocks Fool
    2
  62.  @joseeguizabal6712  So, You believe that masks prevent the transmission of viruses? They do not and the manufacturer of N95 masks prints it right on the box. You think they're lying to you, or you didn't bother reading the box? They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot
    2
  63.  @Thekingcmk  1. EVERY state mandate includes Medical exemptions. 2. With nearly a 100% success rate with currently available treatment-- lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justifiable, and under the circumstances they're IRRELEVANT, and those whinging about it are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged
    2
  64.  @bea405  Like I said Karen, The unrefuted and only relevant facts which destroy your narrative, still remain, and your failure to acknowledge them is indicative of you being a moron, having a case of severe cognitive dissonance or you're trolling for sport, and I don't discount the possibility that all of the above are applicable. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    2
  65.  @grahvis  The irony is thick... You FAILED to comprehend the conclusions, and analysis which was peer-reviewed by the experts in the medical community, which pointed out the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. I posted it here twice, so you'd be without excuse for missing the relevant portion--Again. That said, I understand if your comprehension deficit makes connecting the analytical dots impossible, but I can only post the facts for you... I can't "Understand" them 'FOR' you... That's all on you babe, and you're failing massively. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT."
    2
  66.  @bea405  1. When, Where, How did you 'prove' the CDC's guidelines with PCR amplification cycles set to 40-- did not result in million of false positives, when at 33 they couldn't detect any live virus in individuals, as described in the NYT's article-- not facebook?? Crickets Answer: You did Not 2. When, Where, How did you 'prove' that the authors of the peer-reviewed medical studies who showed that masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses, and the medical specialists who conducted them are lying? Crickets  Answer: You did Not 3. Where in the conclusion of the study, does it conclude anything remotely close to what you're alleging? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817? Crickets... Answer: NOWHERE It literally concludes: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did NOT reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use". "The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (15) strongly recommend that persons with symptoms or known infection wear masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others (source control) (16).  However, WHO acknowledges that 'we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2' (prevention) (17)". How did you MISS THAT, Liar? "In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others DID NOT reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation." How did you miss THAT as well? Cognitive Dissonance is STRONG with you Miller-- Then again, it's those on the left who apparently find great difficulty in deciphering the differences between males and females, while simultaneously whinging about a white, male-dominated patriarchy at the root of a gender pay gap-- So, dismissing their/your idiocy-- for the idiocy that it is, is entirely justified, and your tone deaf responses do not inspire confidence in your clear lack of analytical capacity, to arrive at intelligent conclusions. Link to the debunking of the following info contained in the article please? https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/
    2
  67.  @daryllv1452  No, failing to comprehend a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, and choosing to whinge over a .3% differential makes YOU the 'Karen'
    2
  68.  @Grammy52  Feel free to submit your peer-reviewed findings which refute the 17 sources I cited-- which ALL dispute your theory, but-- until then-- I am sticking with the science
    2
  69.  @brookeecklund5203  They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot Beat it moron
    2
  70.  @brookeecklund5203  In order to be trespassed from public property, a crime needs to be committed and policy is not law-- and neither are mask mandates, but I'm sure the nuances and facts are of no concern to you and your agenda. The masks are USELESS at preventing the transmission of viruses according to the peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses.  The mask mandates, lockdowns and experimental inoculations make ZERO sense when you consider the fact that the currently available treatment has a near 100% successful cure rate, BUT, Don't let the relevant focus get in the way of your intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged talking points
    2
  71.  @brookeecklund5203  Your inability to comprehend what I wrote doesn't make what I wrote, rambling. It illustrates your room temperature IQ. You can't be trespassed from public property unless you're committing a crime. Hint, not wearing a mask is NOT a Crime. Look up the legal elements of a crime, if the term 'crime' confuses you. You don't even bother to acknowledge the purpose for the mask restriction in the 1st place, nor the fact that those with exemptions are enumerated in the mandates, so NOT wearing one if/when exempt IS following the mandate. Bootlicker You're wrong, but that's ok... you can blame your ignorance.  So many 1st amendment auditor videos showing exactly that, when illegally arrested they end up winning settlements in court for improper understanding of the law, and deprivation of their civil rights-- by the cops, being illegally trespassed and arrested from/on public property. The sky isn't falling Chicken Little We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- Except, it's been renamed covid-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria B R E A T H E
    2
  72. Masks do not work, and it's printed right there on the n95 box So-- here's some research I've done and the following questions which remain: 1. The bits of genetic material who's amount is being amplified are NOT viruses. They're merely small segments of inert genetic material, found inside of a virus's shell. The PCR test doesn't detect "live" viruses, at BEST it only detects their "dead remains". 2. The detection of viral remains involves MASSIVELY amplifying the amount in the original sample by running it through successive PCR cycles. And NOTHING about a PCR test itself, will tell you if there was any "Live" virus in the original sample. 3. The labs have no idea how many amp cycles are programmed, so how would one suggest there is a standard in place? Crickets... Nor can they tell you what your viral load was with PCR testing. I asked, they didn't know and said they'd have to find out from the vendor of the machine how it was calibrated, and when I asked how many times the sample needed to be amplified in my father-in-law's specific case, before it popped positive, and they couldn't answer that either-- So, that seems like some relevant information worth having, to determine if in fact patients are actually infected and/or potentially contagious, wouldn't you agree??? Crickets... The NYT's reported that "the CDC's own calculations suggest that it's extremely difficult to detect any live virus sample above a threshold of 33 cycles", BUT-- that's a deceptive way of saying, is it not?-- that the CDC's data shows THAT-- significantly understates how using 40 or even 37 cycles is GOING TO result in MASSIVE amounts of people being told they have covid, who Don't. If my understanding is correct, DEAD things are not going to produce the potential for infectious transfer to another individual. Thoughts??? Crickets... The CDC didn't just have "Extreme difficulty" finding any live virus in samples whose cycle threshold was above 33. They were unable to find ANY. Moreover they were unable to find any live virus even in samples with lower cycle thresholds. Thoughts? Crickets... But-- according the link, "The worst is yet to come"... Though the CDC replied to the Times by saying they were, "“examining the use of cycle threshold measures for policy decisions,” the New York Times either didn’t know or didn’t want you to know that the CDC already has guidelines that recommend … wait for it… 40 amplification cycles. Even though they were unable to find any live virus in samples with a cycling threshold greater than 33! Thoughts? Crickets... All of that is to say that it's ASININE to lend ANY credibility to any of the supposed case #'s and Supposed Death Numbers being thrown around, as the method for collecting the initial data is fatally flawed and doesn't even come close to resembling any sort of scientific standard of accounting-- rendering the numbers Fatally flawed at BEST, making drawing a reliable scientific conclusion impossible. Thoughts??? Crickets...
    2
  73. What evidence are you relying on that they weren't exempt? With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    2
  74. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  75. Not if it's not a lawful order... Just sayin With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  76. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    1
  77. Neither work
    1
  78. That wrong... EVERY State mandate includes medical exemptions, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    1
  79.  @bartduynstee1577  That's WRONG! NOWHERE is it required that an individual must surrender their right to their private medical history, just because someone asked. As a matter of fact according to the mask mandates they're NOT allowed to ask you much less 'require' you to produce your private medical history. Try actually reading them. You can ask for whatever you want, but that doesn't create an obligation for anyone to comply.
    1
  80.  @bea405  ROFLMAO... Not hardly... I have exposed you as a lame troll though... Your efforts to continue your BS and avoiding answering specifically the following, is proof. Up your game and provide some substantive refutation for the following. (FYI, there is none and so... You're FULL of Crap-talk-- Only) 1. When, Where, How did you 'prove' the CDC's guidelines with PCR amplification cycles set to 40-- did not result in million of false positives, when at 33 they couldn't detect any live virus in individuals, as described in the NYT's article-- not facebook?? Crickets Answer: You did Not 2. When, Where, How did you 'prove' that the authors of the peer-reviewed medical studies who showed that masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses, and the medical specialists who conducted them are lying? Crickets  Answer: You did Not 3. Where in the conclusion of the study, does it conclude anything remotely close to what you're alleging? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817? Crickets... Answer: NOWHERE It literally concludes: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did NOT reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use". "The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (15) strongly recommend that persons with symptoms or known infection wear masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others (source control) (16).  However, WHO acknowledges that 'we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2' (prevention) (17)". How did you MISS THAT, Liar? "In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others DID NOT reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation." How did you miss THAT as well? Cognitive Dissonance is STRONG with you Ms. 'Karen' Miller-- Then again, it's those on the left who apparently find great difficulty in deciphering the differences between males and females, while simultaneously whinging about a white, male-dominated patriarchy at the root of a gender pay gap-- So, dismissing their/your idiocy-- for the idiocy that it is, is entirely justified, and your tone deaf responses do not inspire confidence in your clear lack of analytical capacity, to arrive at intelligent conclusions. Link to the debunking of the following info contained in the article please? https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/
    1
  81.  @masonkendall6880  ONLY if puffing off your car's tailpipe exhaust. If you're talking about breathing through masks, that would be Carbon Dioxide aka CO2 (The stuff plants use to create oxygen for us to breathe)
    1
  82.  @cavesinger5441  With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  83.  @bea405  1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    1
  84. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot
    1
  85.  @drkhai918  I get that you were being rhetorical, my comment was intended to establish facts
    1
  86. They REALLY don't work either
    1
  87. WRONG! Those with exemptions CLEARLY are exempt. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  88. Better to learn to discern fact from fiction, when listening
    1
  89.  @bea405  1. When, Where, How did you 'prove' the CDC's guidelines with PCR amplification cycles set to 40-- did not result in million of false positives, when at 33 they couldn't detect any live virus in individuals, as described in the NYT's article-- not facebook?? Crickets Answer: You did Not 2. When, Where, How did you 'prove' that the authors of the peer-reviewed medical studies who showed that masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses, and the medical specialists who conducted them are lying? Crickets  Answer: You did Not 3. Where in the conclusion of the study, does it conclude anything remotely close to what you're alleging? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817? Crickets... Answer: NOWHERE It literally concludes: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did NOT reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use". "The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (15) strongly recommend that persons with symptoms or known infection wear masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others (source control) (16).  However, WHO acknowledges that 'we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2' (prevention) (17)". How did you MISS THAT, Liar? "In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others DID NOT reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation." How did you miss THAT as well? Cognitive Dissonance is STRONG with you Miller-- Then again, it's those on the left who apparently find great difficulty in deciphering the differences between males and females, while simultaneously whinging about a white, male-dominated patriarchy at the root of a gender pay gap-- So, dismissing their/your idiocy-- for the idiocy that it is, is entirely justified, and your tone deaf responses do not inspire confidence in your clear lack of analytical capacity, to arrive at intelligent conclusions. Link to the debunking of the following info contained in the article please? https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/
    1
  90.  @bea405  What I proved is, The drama is all from those Karens-- like you, who want to argue-- at odds with the conclusions, analysis, and the scientific evidence of the medical experts-- that masks should be worn anyway, despite the evidence showing they are irrelevant-- who are sharing a common panic, in their belief that the sky is falling. Well, Chicken Little-- It isn't.  I'm arguing that your hysteria and idiocy is not supported by the peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of the experts, while all you've done is argue that because you say something-- it is truth-- and that's wrong too. I refuted your narrative using Science, Logic and Reason which prove your whinging unjustified, while your weak Intellectually Disenfranchised rebuttal is that we should just embrace the idiocy without question, like a sheep. Well... No, just No
    1
  91. Like BLM and Aunty-Fa?
    1
  92.  @ecclairmayo4153  Does your example work if she was asked to leave because of her sex, skin color, lgbtq status, or because she was muslim? No, it does not. There are limits to what sort of policies are permissible, and ALL state mask mandates include medical exemptions. Also, The scientific conclusions and analysis of the experts, who conducted the peer-reviewed medicals studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses-- ALL conclude that they do NOT. It is YOUR argument saying they're wrong. Feel free to write them and present your evidence and studies which refute their findings. Until then-- Save your virtue-free 'virtue' signaling. Furthermore, the label on the N95 mask box clearly states that they do not prevent the transmission. Did your reading comprehension challenge prevent you from realizing that too? Not surprised. Do Better I can only post the facts for you. I can't "understand" them for you too. That's all on you, and it appears that your reading comprehension and/or intellectual deficit is proving to be a substantial hurdle for you. Perhaps try re-reading-- only slower, so you don't miss it again. FYI-- All state mask mandates include medical exemptions, and for instance at Walmart-- the policy is posted on the wall and is clearly visible prior to entering the establishment, and it includes exemptions for medical conditions and for children-- SO, the employees and the mask-wearing customers are without excuse for their ignorance re: those who are not wearing a mask. If you're sick, don't go to the mall. Don't tell healthy people they are required to wear a mask to protect 'others'-- From what?? their good health? LOL  And... Spare me the BS re: asymptomatic transmission, as the entire history of airborne viruses of ANY type-- asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics. It's ALWAYS symptomatic individuals. In addition, there's a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, so panicking over a .3% differential makes you appear unhinged emotionally and intellectually stunted. Here they are again: Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.  There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection."  Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 You're Dismissed Karen Buh Bye
    1
  93. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  94.  @christianroemer8459  Evidence? Crickets...  Since it's proven that those wearing masks and who got the experimental shots are still able to contract and transmit covid, why are the unvaxxed being credited with perpetuating the health crisis??? How is a health crisis with a 99.7% recovery rate a 'Crisis' of ANY kind? Answer: It is Not To the contrary: It appears to me that the people causing problems and acting like 'Karens'-- are those who are whinging about wearing masks. Education for Fun and for FREE: Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 microns big. That's smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    1
  95. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  96.  @Magic_Marksman  You seem to be triggered by facts, and appear to have no refutation. You realize that makes you a Karen right? Take a hike
    1
  97.  @maximus11400  When low IQ, trolls like you-- act like morons and call names, rather than make your case-- it really does Not establish your own bona fides Do Better
    1
  98. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  99.  @bea405  Why not provide your citation of the experts' peer-reviewed studies, which support your narrative, instead of your 'Because you said so' standard, which falls short? Now that you got that out of your system... The unrefuted and only relevant facts which destroy your narrative, still remain. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.  There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    1
  100.  @bea405  1. When, Where, How did you 'prove' the CDC's guidelines with PCR amplification cycles set to 40-- did not result in million of false positives, when at 33 they couldn't detect any live virus in individuals, as described in the NYT's article-- not facebook?? Crickets Answer: You did Not 2. When, Where, How did you 'prove' that the authors of the peer-reviewed medical studies who showed that masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses, and the medical specialists who conducted them are lying? Crickets  Answer: You did Not 3. Where in the conclusion of the study, does it conclude anything remotely close to what you're alleging? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817? Crickets... Answer: NOWHERE It literally concludes: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did NOT reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use". "The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (15) strongly recommend that persons with symptoms or known infection wear masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others (source control) (16).  However, WHO acknowledges that 'we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2' (prevention) (17)". How did you MISS THAT, Liar? "In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others DID NOT reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation." How did you miss THAT as well? Cognitive Dissonance is STRONG with you Miller-- Then again, it's those on the left who apparently find great difficulty in deciphering the differences between males and females, while simultaneously whinging about a white, male-dominated patriarchy at the root of a gender pay gap-- So, dismissing their/your idiocy-- for the idiocy that it is, is entirely justified, and your tone deaf responses do not inspire confidence in your clear lack of analytical capacity, to arrive at intelligent conclusions. Link to the debunking of the following info contained in the article please? https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/
    1
  101. Masks don't prevent the transmission of this virus
    1
  102.  @mzzpayton  You realize that's not scientific evidence right? Read the Box... It tells you that they don't prevent the transmission of viruses
    1
  103.  @gavintan9477  1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    1
  104.  @matlgty  Masks do not prevent the transmission of this virus, as evidenced by the conclusions and analysis of the peer-reviewed medical studies conducted by the experts. Feel free to write them, and provide your evidence, which refutes theirs, but know that until then-- you're merely spouting off some overly-emotional nonsense, rendering your opinion as less than useless. Also, with a 99.7% success rate w/ currently available treatment-- I am about as concerned about this virus, as I am the flu. We've had the flu, flu deaths and flu vaccines for decades and yet-- the flu and flu deaths are still with us.
    1
  105.  @matlgty  It is, if you've got a pre-existing respiratory or other medical condition, then yes-- wearing a mask is a problem. That you're not aware of that, is indicative of a shallow intellectual capacity, on your part. Not wearing a mask which doesn't work, doesn't make one a pussy, but wearing one-- even though you know it doesn't work-- makes you a sheep And... insisting that everyone wear one despite the peer-reviewed studies by the experts which conclude that they do not work-- makes you an overly-emotionally reactive sheep aka a moron, with a sub-double digit IQ and/or a troll
    1
  106.  @matlgty  That's nice... The censors tend to do that sort of thing too (delete truthful comments), when the comments are over the target and crush the narrative, but clearly your analytical skills are lacking, so realizing that probably never occurred to you either. Not surprised. Do you also have difficulty deciphering which restroom is appropriate, as so many on the left tend to? Eye roll  Whinging over the .3% differential with a treatment success rate of 99.7% makes you come across as an unhinged Karen or perhaps your description 'pussy' seems to fit you better than me. Hey look, I wish you good health, and have no problem if you want to wear a mask and take the vaccines... Have at it. Not being sick, and understanding the science-- I choose not to wear a mask, and I'm definitely passing on the vaccine-- as I do flu shots-- Never had one, and don't get the flu.  Before you go off about asymptomatic transmission, 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person.  Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, outbreaks, epidemic, and pandemics are NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO
    1
  107.  @matlgty  I merely posted the scientific evidence facts, and analysis that masks don't work. The drama is all from those Karens who want to argue, at odds with the conclusions and scientific evidence-- that they should be worn anyway
    1
  108.  @matlgty  Like I said, The drama is all from those who want to argue, at odds with the conclusions, analysis, and the scientific evidence of the medical experts-- that masks should be worn anyway who are sharing a common panic, in their belief that the sky is falling. Well, Chicken Little-- It isn't.  I'm arguing that your alleged 'common sense' is actually mass hysteria and stupidity-- I refuted your narrative using Science, Logic and Reason which prove your whinging unjustified, while your weak Intellectually Disenfranchised rebuttal is that we should just embrace the idiocy without question, like a sheep. Well... No, just No
    1
  109.  @matlgty  I never said I was prone to anything respiratory related.  FYI, executive orders are not LAW, they do however ALL include exemptions for medical conditions, children, etc., taking away the excuse from people-- for failing to recognize that, while pretending that your argument has any actual merit. "Socialism, in general-- has a history of failure so blatant that only an intellectual [or troll] could ignore or evade it".-- T. Sowell The problem with the virtue signaling from those on the left is-- the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever, in any of their unhinged, overly-emotional whinging-- which fails to recognize, digest and/or integrate the scientific evidence into their narratives, apparently because it's WAY over their head. There are over 30 MILLION people walking around with an IQ of 85 and less, meaning that they lack the capacity to be taught to be self-sufficient, productive members of society, and apparently like with those who are tripping over masks, they're mostly Xiao Bai Den supporters as well...  The ability to assimilate new information and course correct oneself is a good indication of higher resolution IQ capacity, and the failure to be able to do that-- like in your case here-- is by definition, the absence of intelligence-- and smart people don't bother with the emotional outbursts of delusional people-- for 'Good' Reason. There's no virtue in demanding that people wear masks which do not prevent the transmission of this virus, especially considering that asymptomatic individuals are never the drivers of outbreaks, epidemics nor pandemics. It's ALWAYS a 'Symptomatic' individual...  And with a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment-- you're an overly emotional Karen, for making a huge deal over a .3% differential.
    1
  110.  @matlgty  That's wrong
    1
  111.  @matlgty  Sure it can... LOL Evidence to back up your imo-- idiotic claim, that the flu is not easily transmitted? Crickets... I already provided proof that the flu can be transmitted easily, even when wearing an N95 mask, and you say it's not easily transmitted. Not too bright are you? Typical Karen... You believe your comments are as deep as the ocean, when in reality it's not even as deep as a baby spoon. Eye roll-- Not a lot of flu cases due to misdiagnosed covid cases being attributed to covid instead of the flu in 2020, is the 1st thing that comes to mind, due to millions of generated false positives with covid testing. You're playing the part of a triggered Karen extremely effectively, with your disregard for scientific evidence, facts, and analysis -- which disprove your narrative.  The CDC said masks are only 1.32% effective (March 8, 2021). That same day they admitted 78% of Covid deaths are obese people. That means you are (78/22 = ) 3.54 times (354%) more likely to die of Covid if you are fat. That means not being fat is (354/1.32 = ) 268 times more effective than wearing a mask. Why aren't you saying "Being thin prevents you from spreading Covid"? Is it Because you believe that fat Karens like masks and hate diets? Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making them by definition-- unreliable.
    1
  112.  @matlgty  The 'Common sense' you're referring to is only common among other morons. The science is in direct opposition to your narrative, as I've clearly shown. I can only post the facts for you, I can't 'Understand' them FOR you too. That's all on you babe, and you are FAILING Hard. Like I said, I don't get flu shots and I don't get the flu for Good reason, and since what I do works so well for me-- I'll continue to do what works for me-- even if you do mind. I don't follow the suggestions of morons, but thank you for your suggestion.  You're dismissed
    1
  113.  @matlgty  In what ways? Willingness to tell the truth and expose the hypocrisy and idiocy of the left? I'll take that as a HUGE compliment.
    1
  114. Re: The WHO-- I'll put it this way, somewhere in the world is the worst doctor-- and someone has an appointment in the morning. I've literally posted info directly from The WHO to support my case and exposing the faults in yours and your inability to recognize that says more about your intellectual disenfranchisement and I'm surprised you are waving it around, like a banner to be proud of... Truly Lo-Fi intellectual capacity you have on full display.  Stupid is not the new standard one should aspire toward-- never has been. I recommend you seek help, and see if you're capable of doing better. Ignorance can be cured with information, presuming one has the intellectual capacity to comprehend the information, but stupid is forever, so I will simply wish you good luck w/ your future-- as you don't appear capable of comprehending the facts, analysis and conclusions-- recognizing that they crush your narrative.  You appear to prefer to be driven by ignorance and fear over rational consideration of facts and evidence. Sadly it's not uncommon.  In Romania they have a saying, "The mother of idiots is always pregnant", and as I've already pointed out-- Thomas Sowell is correct in his saying, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- So with that,  You're Dismissed
    1
  115.  @matlgty  There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 Feel free to write the authors and provide them your scientific refutation because so far, all you have provided is your 'because I said so' standard, which has been issued exactly ZERO credibility. Do Better
    1
  116.  @Proud2BBlue  Weak... And, making snide comments is a good use of your time, to show off your powers of reason? eye roll You'd have to argue the analysis and conclusions of the peer-reviewed studies to make your case, and they are still unrefutted.
    1
  117. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  118. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  119. Like how G. Floyd should've listened to the cops? That was an intellectually stunted comment
    1
  120. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot
    1
  121. Use your brain... Masks don't work, and with a 99.7% success rate w/ currently available treatment, whinging and panicking over the .3% differential comes across as emotionally unhinged, and considering that masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses (according to ALL of the peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses) the point is moot.
    1
  122. The scientific conclusions and analysis of the experts, who conducted the peer-reviewed medicals studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses-- ALL conclude that they do NOT. It is YOUR argument saying they're wrong. Feel free to write them and present your evidence and studies which refute their findings. Until then-- Save your virtue-free 'virtue' signaling. Furthermore, the label on the N95 mask box clearly states that they do not prevent the transmission. Did your reading comprehension challenge prevent you from realizing that too? Not surprised. Do Better I can only post the facts for you. I can't "understand" them for you too. That's all on you, and it appears that your reading comprehension and/or intellectual deficit is proving to be a substantial hurdle for you. Perhaps try re-reading-- only slower, so you don't miss it again. FYI-- All state mask mandates include medical exemptions, and for instance at Walmart-- the policy is posted on the wall and is clearly visible prior to entering the establishment, and it includes exemptions for medical conditions and for children-- SO, the employees and the mask-wearing customers are without excuse for their ignorance re: those who are not wearing a mask. If you're sick, don't go to the mall. Don't tell healthy people they are required to wear a mask to protect 'others'-- From what?? their good health? LOL  And... Spare me the BS re: asymptomatic transmission, as the entire history of airborne viruses of ANY type-- asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics. It's ALWAYS symptomatic individuals. In addition, there's a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, so panicking over a .3% differential makes you appear unhinged emotionally and intellectually stunted. Here they are again: Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.  There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection."  Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 You're Dismissed Karen Buh Bye
    1
  123.  @aaryajain6396  Surgeons wear masks to prevent their bacteria from infecting their patients surgical site and causing a bacterial infection, not to prevent transmission of viruses-- which are MUCH smaller than bacteria, which explains the decline in sepsis. I don't know of how likely it is that a surgeon w/ the flu or equivalent would be operating, instead of re-scheduling-- So,Try again?
    1
  124. So, You believe that masks prevent the transmission of viruses? They do not and the manufacturer of N95 masks prints it right on the box. You think they're lying to you, or you didn't bother reading the box?
    1
  125. So, You believe that masks prevent the transmission of viruses? They do not and the manufacturer of N95 masks prints it right on the box. You think they're lying to you, or you didn't bother reading the box?
    1
  126. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  127.  @aaryajain6396  You can, when they violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is why all of the state mandates include medical exemptions.  Private business which are open to the public have limits to the sorts of policies that they enact. Ex. Can they institute a policy banning Blacks, Women, Gays, LGBTQ, Muslims? Answer: No, They Can Not
    1
  128.  @aaryajain6396  Mask mandates, ALL of them-- include medical exemptions. How do you not know this? I appreciate that you suspect she doesn't have a legitimate exemption, but neither of us 'Know' one way or the other, and people with medical conditions are NOT required to reveal their private medical information to anyone who requests that they do. Also, the ONLY relevant point is that masks don't work and neither do face shields
    1
  129. They don't work An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    1
  130. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  131. Masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses and the manufacturer prints it right on the box. Get a clue With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  132. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  133.  @Tetrahfy  "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance".--T. Sowell Approximately 10%-15% of the population have an IQ of 85 or less. That's over 30 million people walking around who lack the capacity to be trained to be self-sufficient, productive members of society-- and apparently, a significant portion of them are Xiao Bai Den Supports. I mean, the left apparently have difficulty deciphering the differences between males and females, so calling out and dismissing their idiocy-- for the idiocy that it is-- is entirely justified.
    1
  134. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND... https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. re: Bacterial pneumonia: https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-masks-causing-rise-in-bacterial-pneumonia/ And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns so NOPE-- you're just wrong.  I recall reading that Denmark's data re: death rates and such, suggesting your narrative is questionable-- at BEST. A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/ Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    1
  135. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  136. The US Vital Statistics Report is available and list US Death TOTALS (All Causes) and the numbers show that they're merely average.  THAT is not what you'd see if this was actually a pandemic. Where are the excessive deaths? Crickets... Answer: Nowhere If this was as deadly and contagious as the narrative would have everyone believe, the number of homeless dead piling up in the streets would be in the thousands... And THAT is just Not happening. ZERO Flu deaths = Covid saves lives?? OR They renamed the Flu? They're LYING to EVERYONE BTW, a health crisis with a 99.7% recovery success rate is NOT a crisis, so relax Covidiots-- and  B R E A T H E
    1
  137. OR they're smart enough to realize that the science proves that masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses, and so recognize that-- Because the current success cure rate with treatment is nearly 100%, they realize it's IRRELEVANT as catching a cold or any other flu seasonal virus. Use your brain
    1
  138.  @johnhenry5038  Again... You've refuted nothing whatsoever, and established even less. 🙄
    1
  139. You are NOT required to divulge your private medical information. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  140. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  141.  @animalloverjulian8243  Look, with a 99.7% success rate w/ currently available treatment-- whinging over a .3% differential makes you appear emotionally unstable, and intellectually stunted
    1
  142.  GIL Favor  "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND... https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. re: Bacterial pneumonia: https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-masks-causing-rise-in-bacterial-pneumonia/ And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns so NOPE-- you're just wrong.  I recall reading that Denmark's data re: death rates and such, suggesting your narrative is questionable-- at BEST. A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/ Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    1
  143. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract, and die from covid, not to mention the deaths directly attributed to the vaxx per the VAERS database? Amazing
    1
  144. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  145.  @bea405  1. When, Where, How did you 'prove' the CDC's guidelines with PCR amplification cycles set to 40-- did not result in million of false positives, when at 33 they couldn't detect any live virus in individuals, as described in the NYT's article-- not facebook?? Crickets Answer: You did Not 2. When, Where, How did you 'prove' that the authors of the peer-reviewed medical studies who showed that masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses, and the medical specialists who conducted them are lying? Crickets  Answer: You did Not 3. Where in the conclusion of the study, does it conclude anything remotely close to what you're alleging? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817? Crickets... Answer: NOWHERE It literally concludes: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did NOT reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use". "The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (15) strongly recommend that persons with symptoms or known infection wear masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others (source control) (16).  However, WHO acknowledges that 'we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2' (prevention) (17)". How did you MISS THAT, Liar? "In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others DID NOT reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation." How did you miss THAT as well? Cognitive Dissonance is STRONG with you Miller-- Then again, it's those on the left who apparently find great difficulty in deciphering the differences between males and females, while simultaneously whinging about a white, male-dominated patriarchy at the root of a gender pay gap-- So, dismissing their/your idiocy-- for the idiocy that it is, is entirely justified, and your tone deaf responses do not inspire confidence in your clear lack of analytical capacity, to arrive at intelligent conclusions. Link to the debunking of the following info contained in the article please? https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/
    1
  146. The scientific conclusions and analysis of the experts, who conducted the peer-reviewed medicals studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses-- ALL conclude that they do NOT. It is YOUR argument saying they're wrong. Feel free to write them and present your evidence and studies which refute their findings. Until then-- Save your virtue-free 'virtue' signaling. Furthermore, the label on the N95 mask box clearly states that they do not prevent the transmission. Did your reading comprehension challenge prevent you from realizing that too? Not surprised. Do Better I can only post the facts for you. I can't "understand" them for you too. That's all on you, and it appears that your reading comprehension and/or intellectual deficit is proving to be a substantial hurdle for you. Perhaps try re-reading-- only slower, so you don't miss it again. FYI-- All state mask mandates include medical exemptions, and for instance at Walmart-- the policy is posted on the wall and is clearly visible prior to entering the establishment, and it includes exemptions for medical conditions and for children-- SO, the employees and the mask-wearing customers are without excuse for their ignorance re: those who are not wearing a mask. If you're sick, don't go to the mall. Don't tell healthy people they are required to wear a mask to protect 'others'-- From what?? their good health? LOL  And... Spare me the BS re: asymptomatic transmission, as the entire history of airborne viruses of ANY type-- asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics. It's ALWAYS symptomatic individuals. In addition, there's a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, so panicking over a .3% differential makes you appear unhinged emotionally and intellectually stunted. Here they are again: Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.  There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection."  Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 You're Dismissed Karen Buh Bye
    1
  147. You're a racist for pointing out race, as though it's relevant. smh Cowardly deleting replies... You got owned FOOL
    1
  148.  @kikichucktown  They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot
    1
  149.  @kikichucktown  You're Welcome Karen, however I'm a skeptic. I know that, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people [like you] who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance."-- T. Sowell
    1
  150.  @kikichucktown  A Coward, afraid of facts and truth
    1
  151. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  152.  @octaviomorelos5545  FYI-- mandates are NOT Laws.  There are definitely studies showing masks attributed to the development of bacterial pneumonia in patients. Eye Roll Mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid and are the majority of hospitalizations and deaths associated w/ covid not to mention those who've had their deaths directly attributed to the vaxx seems to indicate what you just wrote is TOTALLY Wrong.
    1
  153. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  154. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  155. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  156. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  157.  @user-fp2mv1dt1y  Not much of a refutation there... I can only post the facts for you. I can't understand them 'For' you too. That's all on you. 1. EVERY state mandate included Medical Exemptions. 2. With nearly a 100% (99.7%) success rate-- with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justifiable, and under the circumstances they're IRRELEVANT, and those whinging about it are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged
    1
  158. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    1
  159. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business. These fools in the comment section can't fathom any of this because they're MORONS Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  160. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    1
  161. It is if you're medically exempt from having to wear one. How is that confusing for you?
    1
  162. Masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses.
    1
  163. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business. These fools in the comment section can't fathom any of this because they're MORONS Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  164.  @davepedersen2115  The internet can be used for more than trolling and porn, Troll
    1
  165.  @davepedersen2115  Thanks for verifying that you had no clue
    1
  166.  @davepedersen2115  Apparently, your desire to troll-- while ignoring the pertinent facts I posted about the idiocy displayed by the Covidiots, triggered you to act like a fool and virtue signal. The problem with your virtue signaling is the absence of any actual virtue.
    1
  167.  @davepedersen2115  Norwegien.
    1
  168. That was an impressive single digit IQ analysis. eye roll... Masks don't work, and suggesting that anyone is supposed to 'take' responsibility from a full grown adult-- and lord it over them as though they're a subject to your royal highness-- is the height of Arrogance.
    1
  169.  @gavintan9477  The scientific conclusions and analysis of the experts, who conducted the peer-reviewed medicals studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses-- ALL conclude that they do NOT. It is YOUR argument saying they're wrong. Feel free to write them and present your evidence and studies which refute their findings. Until then-- Save your virtue-free 'virtue' signaling. Furthermore, the label on the N95 mask box clearly states that they do not prevent the transmission. Did your reading comprehension challenge prevent you from realizing that too? Not surprised. Do Better I can only post the facts for you. I can't "understand" them for you too. That's all on you, and it appears that your reading comprehension and/or intellectual deficit is proving to be a substantial hurdle for you. Perhaps try re-reading-- only slower, so you don't miss it again. FYI-- All state mask mandates include medical exemptions, and for instance at Walmart-- the policy is posted on the wall and is clearly visible prior to entering the establishment, and it includes exemptions for medical conditions and for children-- SO, the employees and the mask-wearing customers are without excuse for their ignorance re: those who are not wearing a mask. If you're sick, don't go to the mall. Don't tell healthy people they are required to wear a mask to protect 'others'-- From what?? their good health? LOL  And... Spare me the BS re: asymptomatic transmission, as the entire history of airborne viruses of ANY type-- asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics. It's ALWAYS symptomatic individuals. In addition, there's a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, so panicking over a .3% differential makes you appear unhinged emotionally and intellectually stunted. Here they are again: Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.  There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection."  Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 You're Dismissed Karen Buh Bye
    1
  170. Masks don't work
    1
  171. The scientific conclusions and analysis of the experts, who conducted the peer-reviewed medicals studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses-- ALL conclude that they do NOT. It is YOUR argument saying they're wrong. Feel free to write them and present your evidence and studies which refute their findings. Until then-- Save your virtue-free 'virtue' signaling. Furthermore, the label on the N95 mask box clearly states that they do not prevent the transmission. Did your reading comprehension challenge prevent you from realizing that too? Not surprised. Do Better I can only post the facts for you. I can't "understand" them for you too. That's all on you, and it appears that your reading comprehension and/or intellectual deficit is proving to be a substantial hurdle for you. Perhaps try re-reading-- only slower, so you don't miss it again. FYI-- All state mask mandates include medical exemptions, and for instance at Walmart-- the policy is posted on the wall and is clearly visible prior to entering the establishment, and it includes exemptions for medical conditions and for children-- SO, the employees and the mask-wearing customers are without excuse for their ignorance re: those who are not wearing a mask. If you're sick, don't go to the mall. Don't tell healthy people they are required to wear a mask to protect 'others'-- From what?? their good health? LOL  And... Spare me the BS re: asymptomatic transmission, as the entire history of airborne viruses of ANY type-- asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics. It's ALWAYS symptomatic individuals. In addition, there's a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, so panicking over a .3% differential makes you appear unhinged emotionally and intellectually stunted. Here they are again: Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.  There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection."  Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 You're Dismissed Karen Buh Bye
    1
  172. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  173. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    1
  174. The US Vital Statistics Report is available and list US Death TOTALS (All Causes) and the numbers show that they're merely average.  THAT is not what you'd see if this was actually a pandemic. Where are the excessive deaths? Crickets... Answer: Nowhere If this was as deadly and contagious as the narrative would have everyone believe, the number of homeless dead piling up in the streets would be in the thousands... And THAT is just Not happening. ZERO Flu deaths = Covid saves lives?? OR They renamed the Flu? They're LYING to EVERYONE BTW, a health crisis with a 99.7% recovery success rate is NOT a crisis, so relax Karen-- and  B R E A T H E
    1
  175.  @johnhenry5038  Apparently, you're triggered. Relax Karen. You clearly don't give a shit so much-- that you'e been stalking my comments saying stupid shit, refuting nothing and establishing nothing other than you're interested in trolling. Do Better 💩
    1
  176. So, you're in favor of Jim Crow laws? Moron, the handicapped are a protected group-- same as blacks, lgbtq, women and muslims. Get a Clue
    1
  177. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  178. You cannot be trespassed from public property just because one of the school staff's feelings are unhinged. There must be a crime
    1
  179.  @thebandit7623  There must be a crime to be trespassed from public property, and someone's subjective feelings of not 'wanting you there' -- whether they are 'in charge', 'working there' or just another individual-- does not A) Rise to the level of the other person 'creating a disturbance', nor B) Create an obligation for you to comply with their requests nor unlawful demands.
    1
  180. 1. The peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses all conclude that-- They Do Not. 2. The CDC's PCR testing amplification cycles were set to 40 cycles and at 33 cycles, they still couldn't detect any live virus, meaning that there were MILLIONS of false positives. 3. Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making the data-- by definition-- unreliable. 4. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems to be the concept driving mask mandates, however; Asymptomatic individuals have NEVER been the drivers of Outbreaks, Epidemics, nor Pandemics-- EVER, in the history of airborne viruses of ANY type. I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... 5. We've had flu vaccines for decades and the flu and flu deaths are still with us-- And, we didn't have lockdowns and mask mandates for that and we shouldn't for the same reason with this, Especially considering that the current treatment has a success rate of 99.7%. Panic over .3% is the act of someone who's unhinged and bordering on Paranoid hysteria
    1
  181. Since it's proven that those wearing masks and who got the experimental shots are still able to contract and transmit covid, why are the unvaxxed being credited with perpetuating the health crisis??? Generally, customers of public accommodations such as restaurants, movie theaters, and gas stations are protected by Federal Law from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or other protected status. Federal law also provides that all citizens have equal rights to make and enforce contracts These rights are guaranteed by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 I.S.C. sub-section 1981. Retail stores are a grey area, however, because federal courts have held that retail shopping is not a "public accommodation" and browsing in a store doesn't normally invoke a right-to-contract provision. While many states HAVE passed anti-discrimination laws similar to or more stringent than federal laws, ex. Texas is one of a handful of state that relies solely on the federal anti-discrimination provisions of the civil rights law. This means that retail stores in Texas are probably not prohibited by state or federal law from engaging in discriminatory practices. Nevertheless, some local governments in Texas HAVE taken up the cause and have ordinances on the books which prohibit unlawful discrimination in retail establishments. Thus, it's critical to become familiar with the city and county laws which apply to your business or businesses in your area.
    1
  182.  @wolficeir  I can only post the facts for you... I can't 'understand them' FOR you too... That's on you.  The point is: There's a 99.7% success rate w/ current treatment, making mask mandates and lockdowns entirely unjustifiable. Try re-reading... Only slower this time, so you don't miss it again
    1
  183.  @grahvis  I posted the actual peer reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses, and they ALL conclude that they DO NOT. I also included the author's names, study title, year published, page numbers, analysis and conclusions-- not some merely linking to some random site. Try re-reading, only slower this time-- so you don't miss the only relevant sections-- Again. The NYT's article regarding the PCR testing and the amplification cycles set to 40 when no live virus was found with it set lower at 33, creating millions of false positives-- is hardly a right wing site.
    1
  184.  @grahvis  You appear to have missed the point regarding PCR testing leading to millions of false positives, with viral loads so low, rendering the asymptomatic individual-- non-contagious. Like I said, I posted the actual peer reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks at preventing the transmission of viruses, and they ALL conclude that they DO NOT. I also included the author's names, study title, year published, page numbers, analysis and conclusions-- not some merely linking to some random site. Try re-reading, only slower this time-- so you don't miss the only relevant sections-- Again. The NYT's article regarding the PCR testing and the amplification cycles set to 40, when no live virus was found with it set lower at 33, creating millions of false positives-- is hardly a right wing site. Now, try reading the actual medical studies, and addressing the salient points of the analysis and conclusions-- which remain unrefuted. Furthermore-- the 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment renders you, who are whinging over a .3% differential-- emotionally unhinged and intellectually disenfranchised-- or a mere Troll, out trolling for sport.  We've had flu vaccines for decades, and the flu and flu deaths are still with us. We didn't have lockdowns for those, and we shouldn't for this either-- for the same reason. Be Well
    1
  185.  @grahvis  An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) PRIMARILY as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. [NOT Primarily as droplets-- from sneezing or coughing individuals, and is at the center of the mask mandates for healthy individuals] (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...)  None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    1
  186.  @daryllv1452  No, failing to comprehend that masks do not prevent the transmission of this virus, and failing to take into account and take comfort in a 99.7% success rate with currently available treatment, and choosing instead to whinge over a .3% differential makes YOU the 'Karen'
    1
  187.  @daryllv1452  They're called surgical masks for a reason. They collect spit, blood and sweat to prevent bacterial infections in surgical sites, not to prevent virus transmission--genius.  There's no fear of masks here Karen, just the comprehension capacity to understand the analysis and conclusions of the peer-reviewed medical studies which ALL conclude that your narrative is WRONG-- as that they don't do what you and the other panic stricken believers suggest they do. The fact that it's printed right there on the box, that they don't prevent the transmission of viruses-- seems to have eluded you, as well. Intelligence is the ability to take new information and assimilate it, and the inability to do that is the opposite of intelligence. I can only post the facts for you. I can't 'understand' them FOR you too. That's all on you, and it's sad that you fail to comprehend it; though you're not alone. "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people [like you] who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance".-- T. Sowell
    1
  188. Obviously conflating 'Rights' with 'Privileges'
    1
  189.  @suburbcinderella  Masks don't work
    1
  190.  @brookeecklund5203  It's another point, only in parallel
    1
  191.  @brookeecklund5203  It's not that it's my opinion. No, It's the conclusions of the peer-reviewed medical studies on the efficacy of masks-- conducted by experts. Re: staying home: The state mandates ALL provide for medical exemptions so that's wrong too. You're not too bright are you? Rhetorical  Read slowly, so you don't miss the salient portions.  Also, the manufacturer of N95 masks prints that they do NOT prevent the transmission of viruses-- right on the box. Do you think they're lying to you? smh Below, I cite the name of the studies, date published, authors names, analysis, conclusions and page numbers for you-- and they ALL conclude that masks do NOT prevent the transmission of viruses. Feel free to refute the peer-reviewed data with your own, and until then know that your 'Because you said so' standard is rejected in favor of Actual scientific review. Here you are-- Education, Fun & for FREE: I can only post the facts for you... I can't 'understand them' for you too. That is ALL on YOU. Feel free to make your argument with the Medical Specialists who've been listed below. Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020 I hope that clears it up for you.There's a lot of disinformation out there, causing people to panic and there's no need for panic, so  B R E A T H E 99.7%+ success rate w/ currently available treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates, lockdowns or inoculation, and those whinging about the .3% differential are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged. FWIW, covid-2, influenza, Swine flu, Bird flu: NONE have been cured and are still with us and we didn't mask up or lockdown the economy for those variants either. Get a grip on reality, and  B R E A T H E Now... Kick Rocks... You're Dismissed
    1
  192.  @brookeecklund5203  Why do you believe someone asking you to wear a medical device obligates you to comply? I'm not anti-mask. I am pro science, logic and reason. You can wear a Hillary mask for all I care. They don't prevent the transmission of viruses, so feel free to continue to miss the big picture. It REALLY comes as no surprise In the ENTIRE history of airborne viruses of ANY type asymptomatic transmission of viruses is NEVER the driver of outbreaks, epidemics, nor pandemics. The driver is ALWAYS a 'Symptomatic' individual. That said, the currently available treatment's success rate is nearly 100%, so whinging over a .3% differential makes YOU the Karen. Now Kick Rocks
    1
  193.  @brookeecklund5203  You believe 'not wearing a mask' was her charge? Ya, ok... The problem with your virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue.
    1
  194.  @brookeecklund5203  I'm not presuming her to be required to abide, as I acknowledge the reason and purpose for the medical exemptions to the mask mandates. I also realize that there are people who've already had it, and carry natural immunity so why should they have to wear it? No, you're a moron who apparently believes themselves to be as deep as the ocean, but you're not even as deep as a baby spoon-- or you're trolling for sport Not to mention putting it in perspective that masks don't work, and So what??? As the treatment has a near 100% success rate, it illustrates that those whinging about the virus are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged. If one is exempt, I suspect a lawsuit could result for a similar scenario. One of them was pregnant. If they were exempt, they are NOT obligated to divulge their private medical records, except as evidence to support their law suit-- proving they didn't have to abide by the mask mandate
    1
  195.  @brookeecklund5203  EVERY mask mandate in EVERY state includes medical exemptions. Get a Clue
    1
  196.  @brookeecklund5203  Did they do that in the video?
    1
  197.  @brookeecklund5203  Looked like they were in public. to me. No evidence to support your speculation, that they may have offered anything, and no evidence to support the idea that they were not medically exempt. You're Reaching.
    1
  198.  @brookeecklund5203  I never suggested trespassing wasn't an arrest able offense. First of all, for a trespass warning-- you must be asked to leave, and the lady was in the process of leaving. IF you come back after being asked to leave, or fail to leave after asked-- it's an arrestable offense-- IF on private property ONLY. On public property, in order to be trespassed you must 1st be committing a crime. The nuance and subtlety matters, re: the LAW
    1
  199.  @brookeecklund5203  Karen, You're the one acting triggered. Feel free to embrace your ignorance. It's of no consequence-- you're just not that important
    1
  200.  @brookeecklund5203  She was warned, and was leaving. You seem to continue to miss the only relevant legal point, which is you can NOT be required to leave public property, unless you're committing a crime, and failure to wear a mask is NOT a crime. Good job
    1
  201. Simple-- Because mask mandates include exemptions, as do many store policies such as Walmart
    1
  202.  @darlenefraser3022  There are limits to what sort of policies a store can implement. Can they institute a policy banning blacks, gays, lgbtq, muslims, etc.? Answer: No... and policies which violate the Americans w/ Disabilities Act aren't allowed either.
    1
  203. You still don't know that masks don't prevent the transmission of viruses... Evidenced by mask wearing, vaxxed individuals who still transmit and contract covid? Amazing
    1
  204. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  205. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business. These fools in the comment section can't fathom any of this because they're MORONS Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  206. With a nearly 100% success rate with currently available treatment, lockdowns, mask mandates and experimental inoculations are in NO WAY justified, and those who think it is are intellectually stunted and emotionally unhinged Karens. Besides that-- masks DO NOT prevent the transmission of viruses-- and the manufacturer of N95 masks prints it right on the box. You think they're lying to you? They can't establish a policy which violates the mandates established by the state which licenses them to do business-- dummy. Can they establish a policy banning blacks, lgbtq, women, muslims, the handicapped, and say it's a private business so we have the right? Answer: No, they cannot and those who qualify for a medical exemption are firmly in the protected handicapped category
    1
  207. "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy". Seems reasonable on face value, however; I'm not aware of any conclusive unbiased data which shows the breakdown of the transmission rate of asymptomatic SARS-covid2, c19, influenza, swine flu, bird flu or any other... relative to being the driver of an outbreak that rises to the level of an epidemic or a pandemic. Link? Crickets... AND... https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/01/21/right-on-cue-for-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives/ 'The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission; in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has NEVER been the driver of outbreaks. So STILL-- Not to the level which, "People that are asymptomatic can spread the virus while appearing healthy"-- justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns, BECAUSE-- The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is NOT driven by asymptomatic carriers.' So-- Again... there is ZERO justification for Mask Mandates and Lockdowns. ZERO Hope that helps clarify and put some perspective on the picture for you. re: Bacterial pneumonia: https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-masks-causing-rise-in-bacterial-pneumonia/ And... In addition:  A 99%+ success rate with current treatment in NO WAY justifies mask mandates nor lockdowns so NOPE-- you're just wrong.  I recall reading that Denmark's data re: death rates and such, suggesting your narrative is questionable-- at BEST. A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/ Looking at the way the numbers were collected, analyzed and reported-- I realized that it's asinine to lend any credibility to any of them, as their failure to collect relevant data has fatally flawed the ability to have an accurate account that meets any sort of unbiased scientific standard, making it by definition-- unreliable. Realizing that Thomas Sowell is correct re: his statement, "It's usually futile to talk Facts and Analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority, in their ignorance"-- I'm reminded by your snarky attack, that the problem the left have with their virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual virtue whatsoever in any of their emotionally charged and unhinged, and triggered whinging. So-- I am writing this response for those interested B R E A T H E Masks have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the transmission of viruses-- evidenced by the numbers peer-reviewed medical studies, but there are also studies showing negative affects of wearing masks, such as causing Bacterial Pneumonia. An N-95 mask still lets 5% of anything smaller than 3 microns thru all the time. At 10% relative humidity to lets particles up to 8 microns thru. The Wuhan corona virus is 1.25 Nano microns big, that's : 0.00125 microns. That's 2400 times smaller than what an N-95 mask can filter. Yes, you can catch the flu while wearing an N-95 mask. "More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): If his view of the mechanism is correct (ie. "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to larger droplets, which are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Depres, 2012). As a matter of fact Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, "contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of that to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above -described features of the problem, are IRRELEVANT." Baccam et al. (2006), Lowen et al. (2007), Zwart et al. (2009), Shaman et al. (2010), Viboud (2010), Yelzi and Otter (2011), bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the science evidence", Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. There were 17 eligible studies. (...) None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask / respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Brooke et al. (2013), Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9):824-833. doing:10.1001/jama.2019. 11645, Paules and Subbaro (2017), Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)"Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020
    1