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