Comments by "Z P" (@zachman5150) on "ABC Action News"
channel.
-
@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
-
@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
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
@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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
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
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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