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