Comments by "clray123" (@clray123) on "Wendover Productions" channel.

  1. 71
  2. 63
  3. 25
  4. 21
  5. 18
  6. 12
  7. 9
  8. 6
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60.  @zxskipperxz372  Masks are more than useless, they cause daily stress, conflict and make some people avoid going out altogether (that's actually the most effective way of how the contribute to preventing the spread of the disease). The idea that "masks" will save anyone is ridiculous because even the term "mask" is completely undefined - I could put a piece of paper under my nose and call it a "mask". Others wear plastic shields that don't do jack shit in terms of filtering, and also call them "masks". Studies show that some commonly used materials filter 30-50% of NaCl particles. But other studies show that there is virtually no minimum dose of viral particles that cause an infection. It's ill-conceived and outright silly from the very get go. It's a political stunt, nothing more. Of course other people think that because they wear a "mask" they can skip on other measures. Perhaps that's why Argentina, the most masked and heavily corona-policed country, is having an explosion of infections. An "impeccable healthcare" of Scandinavia is irrelevant when it comes to spread of infections. It's just a matter of how people behave. Without masks. As for your "medical experts" of course China only invites those which will see what they want and report as they are told. You must be new to China. Meanwhile, you cannot publish anything anti-mask because of an overreaching censorship in the oh-so-scientific journals and anxiety not to damage one's career (not believing me? see how Rancourt's publication was handled, for example). And of course, the old "positive result bias" makes it far more likely that any slightest "yes it works" result gets published and any "inconclusive" or "no effect" result gets thrown away. One could say that Chinese methods are now being applied worldwide when it comes to coronavirus-related information. Which is no big surprise since billions of dollars are at stake in this farce. You may be surprised, but I don't live in the US either. Maybe you should take your head out of your ass and stop ASSuming so much.
    1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1