A family doctors SCIENCE on the vaccine

[au4life_rz]

99%+ of people dying from COVID right now are unvaccinated. There is absolutely zero doubt that the vaccines are incredibly effective at preventing the most serious COVID cases and deaths. Anyone, especially a doctor, telling people that the vaccines have not proven to be extremely effective is putting lives at risk by encouraging people not to do the one thing everyone (aside from children under 12 and those with medical conditions who can't take vaccines) in our country can do right now to end this crisis.

The overwhelming majority of the debate, (probably 95%+), is NOT about whether the new vaccines are effective. I've not seen any/many on here who feel that they don't work. It's more about whether they are safe, and whether we have enough usage data across the full life-cycle. Every reported datum and stat says that the new vaccines are SUPER safe in the short-term, but unfortunately, that's the only timeframe for which we have any data in order to do real science, (since we do not have any data for the mid-term or long-term). Some feel this lack of data isn't important because they have faith. Others want more tangible proof, so they "are still waiting".

Many are ignorant of the fact that we don't have data for the full life-cycle, or they have decided to take a leap of faith because they feel the benefit outweighs the risk etc.. But there are some who aren't willing or ready to take that leap of faith, because they feel their risk/reward ratio doesn't dictate it yet. Hopefully, you can offer a cogent argument to convince them to see things the way you do.

1) Do you feel you can guarantee everyone 100% that we won't have any blind spots, hiccups or learning curves with this novel technology?

2) Can you guarantee that if we get 85%, 90% or even 100% vaccinated, that we will definitely reach herd immunity?

If you can't look into the future, and guarantee those things, then hopefully you will have some empathy as you reason with those who feel differently than you do. We've got to find a way to stop the one-sided spinning and silly partisan piss-fighting and name-calling, and work together to come up with the best solutions so that we can end this thing.

 

[Eagle]

Addressing Dr. Daniel Stock’s Claims — Deplatform Disease

A surprisingly large number of people have sent me a video that is inundated with disinformation about COVID-19 and its reach seems considerable so I have deemed it significant enough to address. In the video, one Dr. Dan Stock from Indiana at a school board meeting opines at length about all the th

www.google.com

The author of that is a dumb ass blogger/propagandist. As I pointed out there’s certain things he doesn’t understand. Just fyi.

 

[Stumpfan]

The author of that is a dumb ass blogger/propagandist. As I pointed out there’s certain things he doesn’t understand. Just fyi.

Lol. The guy in Shorts’ video and this guy know more than you and the functional medicine guy x 10.

 

[Eagle]

I don't quite understand how you continue to argue that masks don't help in some regards. It's simple common sense, and simple science. Anything over your mouth and nose will help reduce the plume of vapor droplets, (of all sizes), in the surrounding air. Therefore, cloth masks, surgical masks or even hands, help reduce the viral load taken in, correct? So they protect all others, from the person wearing the mask, (to at least, SOME degree).

Well fitted N95 and P95 masks filter extremely small particles, and can provide some level of protection for the wearer, from others, right?

If both of those propositions are correct, then together, they would serve to reduce the viral load of any airborne respiratory disease, so who would argue against them??? Am I missing something? Now, we know there are other important considerations based on the particular virus we're dealing with, but again, in general, do you take issue with those points?

No I think the N95 mask are modestly helpful I’m talking specifically though about the cloth, the gaiters, the surgical masks.

They do not limit or retard the spread of Covid or any virus. .

 

[AUBK]

No I think the N95 mask are modestly helpful I’m talking specifically though about the cloth, the gaiters, the surgical masks.

They do not limit or retard the spread of Covid or any virus. .

Just stfu for a few years. Do yourself and all of us the favor.

You've devolved into such a fugging moron. It's getting painful man.

 

[TigerTime099]

Natural immunity wasn't better for the people that

Just stfu for a few years. Do yourself and all of us the favor.

You've devolved into such a fugging moron. It's getting painful man.

Because he has a different opinion than you? The divide in America is strong. Keep up the good work.

 

[au4life_rz]

No I think the N95 mask are modestly helpful I’m talking specifically though about the cloth, the gaiters, the surgical masks.

They do not limit or retard the spread of Covid or any virus. .

If we used a high-speed camera and a green laser light to show a plume spreading across a room, we know that most of the larger droplets fall out around 3ft - 3m, right? Those are the biggest droplets with the largest viral loads. Then the progressively smaller droplets continue on for some length, (even going a bit beyond 6 feet for the smallest).

If we looked at another sneeze, with someone simply covering their mouth and nose with their hand as we were taught to do all our lives, would it, or would it not lead to a smaller plume, with smaller droplets being projected into the room, and therefore, a lower overall viral load in air in the room??? Then next, if we have another person sneeze or cough, but this time they use a cotton T-shirt in their hand to cover their nose and mouth, wouldn't the plume be even smaller, and the number of water vapor droplets at the lowest number yet? Next up, someone wearing a cloth mask. Wouldn't there be even fewer water vapor droplets in the "plume", if there's a plume at all, with the viral load being the lowest yet??? Lastly, if someone is wearing an N95 mask, would the droplets taken into their body be minimized the most???

Given this logical, common sense example, how can someone say that covering ones mouth in any manner doesn't HELP retard/lower the viral load projected into the air for someone else to breath??? Again, I know there are other variables that change depending on the particular pathogen/virus under discussion, but in general, why would a rationale, intelligent person argue that masks don't help???

 

[AUBK]

Because he has a different opinion than you? The divide in America is strong. Keep up the good work.

????

Go away idget.

 

[TigerTime099]

????

Go away idget.

Sum Ting Wong

 

[Eagle]

If we used a high-speed camera and a green laser light to show a plume spreading across a room, we know that most of the larger droplets fall out around 3ft - 3m, right? Those are the biggest droplets with the largest viral loads. Then the progressively smaller droplets continue on for some length, (even going a bit beyond 6 feet for the smallest).

If we looked at another sneeze, with someone simply covering their mouth and nose with their hand as we were taught to do all our lives, would it, or would it not lead to a smaller plume, with smaller droplets being projected into the room, and therefore, a lower overall viral load in air in the room??? Then next, if we have another person sneeze or cough, but this time they use a cotton T-shirt in their hand to cover their nose and mouth, wouldn't the plume be even smaller, and the number of water vapor droplets at the lowest number yet? Next up, someone wearing a cloth mask. Wouldn't there be even fewer water vapor droplets in the "plume", if there's a plume at all, with the viral load being the lowest yet??? Lastly, if someone is wearing an N95 mask, would the droplets taken into their body be minimized the most???

Given this logical, common sense example, how can someone say that covering ones mouth in any manner doesn't HELP retard/lower the viral load projected into the air for someone else to breath??? Again, I know there are other variables that change depending on the particular pathogen/virus under discussion, but in general, why would a rationale, intelligent person argue that masks don't help???

Great in theory but practically doesn't work that way.... and studies show the same. The reason why? I can show you quickly:

 

[Eagle]

If we used a high-speed camera and a green laser light to show a plume spreading across a room, we know that most of the larger droplets fall out around 3ft - 3m, right? Those are the biggest droplets with the largest viral loads. Then the progressively smaller droplets continue on for some length, (even going a bit beyond 6 feet for the smallest).

If we looked at another sneeze, with someone simply covering their mouth and nose with their hand as we were taught to do all our lives, would it, or would it not lead to a smaller plume, with smaller droplets being projected into the room, and therefore, a lower overall viral load in air in the room??? Then next, if we have another person sneeze or cough, but this time they use a cotton T-shirt in their hand to cover their nose and mouth, wouldn't the plume be even smaller, and the number of water vapor droplets at the lowest number yet? Next up, someone wearing a cloth mask. Wouldn't there be even fewer water vapor droplets in the "plume", if there's a plume at all, with the viral load being the lowest yet??? Lastly, if someone is wearing an N95 mask, would the droplets taken into their body be minimized the most???

Given this logical, common sense example, how can someone say that covering ones mouth in any manner doesn't HELP retard/lower the viral load projected into the air for someone else to breath??? Again, I know there are other variables that change depending on the particular pathogen/virus under discussion, but in general, why would a rationale, intelligent person argue that masks don't help???

Also you can tell masks don't work by the elites - with the finest doctors in the world, refusing to wear masks unless it's a photo op.... Obama's bthday, AOC off camera, Pelosi off camera, Biden etc..... If they believed masks were beneficial to their well being, based on the info they had, do you think they'd wear them?

 

[AUBK]

Also you can tell masks don't work by the elites - with the finest doctors in the world, refusing to wear masks unless it's a photo op.... Obama's bthday, AOC off camera, Pelosi off camera, Biden etc..... If they believed masks were beneficial to their well being, based on the info they had, do you think they'd wear them?

They're all vaccinated you ****ing idiot.


If everyone was vaccinated, we wouldn't worry about masks.

 

[WDTE]

Also you can tell masks don't work by the elites - with the finest doctors in the world, refusing to wear masks unless it's a photo op.... Obama's bthday, AOC off camera, Pelosi off camera, Biden etc..... If they believed masks were beneficial to their well being, based on the info they had, do you think they'd wear them?

You don't think masks work at all? Like not even a little bit?

 

[HONKifUvCOACHED4BAMA]

They're all vaccinated you ****ing idiot.


If everyone was vaccinated, we wouldn't worry about masks.

 

[Stumpfan]

You’re such a dumbass. If we are 100% vaccinated, we are going to wear mask? Derp.

 

[au4life_rz]

Great in theory but practically doesn't work that way.... and studies show the same. The reason why? I can show you quickly:

That's one of the most flawed videos I've seen, and it does lend credence about misinformation coming from all directions on COVID. Please tell me you aren't buying what he just said???

The plume of vapor projected during a sneeze or cough, or through normal exhalation, is NOT the same as smoke. I BELIEVE that most airborne respiratory diseases, are carried in water vapor, again, not smoke, so the propagation dynamics are likely different. Smoke is mostly all extremely small particles.

If the virus requires water vapor to be transported, then that's what we'd need to study, using high-speed photography, lasers etc., with actual measurements etc.. Some amount of water vapor is absorbed by cotton cloth, and most importantly, the water vapor plume is disrupted and doesn't diffuse exactly the same as smoke. I could light a dang forest fire, and the smoke could travel several states away. You want to say that breath from an infected patient could travel the same distance as smoke, in any scenario? Maybe it could, but I'd certainly think the dynamics would be different.

Lastly, even if he was sitting there blowing smoke, (pun intended)....., through his masks, and I was sitting 6 feet away with an N95 or P95 mask on, wouldn't it significantly reduce any smoke that I might breath in compared to someone sitting there forcing a smoke cloud out with NO cloth mask on, and another sitting there breathing it in with NO N95/P95 mask on??? Please take the time to answer each question.

 

[au4life_rz]

They're all vaccinated you ****ing idiot.


If everyone was vaccinated, we wouldn't worry about masks.

One small point of contention. Even if every human on the planet was vaccinated, we might still need to social distance, wear masks and follow the best practice or this thing COULD possibly continue.

 

[AUBK]

One small point of contention. Even if every human on the planet was vaccinated, we might still need to social distance, wear masks and follow the best practice or this thing COULD possibly continue.

Yes. A new strain could always come along, but the whole point is to manage critical care units and general hospital availability.

 

[Eagle]

They're all vaccinated you ****ing idiot.


If everyone was vaccinated, we wouldn't worry about masks.

bwaaaaaaaaahhhhhh. And you call others idiot. Gawd I love me some irony.

you keep defending citing the cdc and all things obama. Here ya go:

Here Is Where Masks Are Still Required

Mask requirements on planes and trains have been extended again. Find out where else you have to cover up.

www.cnet.com

 

[Eagle]

You don't think masks work at all? Like not even a little bit?

Over 40 studies show that in terms of viral spread, masks are ineffective. That’s why you’ve seen such a variance between mask groups/states and unmasked. In many cases the unmask do as well or better.

 

[Eagle]

That's one of the most flawed videos I've seen, and it does lend credence about misinformation coming from all directions on COVID. Please tell me you aren't buying what he just said???

The plume of vapor projected during a sneeze or cough, or through normal exhalation, is NOT the same as smoke. I BELIEVE that most airborne respiratory diseases, are carried in water vapor, again, not smoke, so the propagation dynamics are likely different. Smoke is mostly all extremely small particles.

If the virus requires water vapor to be transported, then that's what we'd need to study, using high-speed photography, lasers etc., with actual measurements etc.. Some amount of water vapor is absorbed by cotton cloth, and most importantly, the water vapor plume is disrupted and doesn't diffuse exactly the same as smoke. I could light a dang forest fire, and the smoke could travel several states away. You want to say that breath from an infected patient could travel the same distance as smoke, in any scenario? Maybe it could, but I'd certainly think the dynamics would be different.

Lastly, even if he was sitting there blowing smoke, (pun intended)....., through his masks, and I was sitting 6 feet away with an N95 or P95 mask on, wouldn't it significantly reduce any smoke that I might breath in compared to someone sitting there forcing a smoke cloud out with NO cloth mask on, and another sitting there breathing it in with NO N95/P95 mask on??? Please take the time to answer each question.

I was trying to give you a visual on what the actual science shows, repeatedly, as an over 40 studies. N95s may be better but the cloth and surgical mask are worthless.

 

[AUBK]

bwaaaaaaaaahhhhhh. And you call others idiot. Gawd I love me some irony.

you keep defending citing the cdc and all things obama. Here ya go:

Here Is Where Masks Are Still Required

Mask requirements on planes and trains have been extended again. Find out where else you have to cover up.

www.cnet.com

You're so ****ing pathetically stupid that it actually makes me hate humans in general.

 

[au4life_rz]

I was trying to give you a visual on what the actual science shows, repeatedly, as an over 40 studies. N95s may be better but the cloth and surgical mask are worthless.

I've seen all of the visuals, and I realize that IN GENERAL, covering ones mouth and nose with anything, is better than not covering it at all.

Cloth protects others from the one wearing it, and N95's or higher, protect YOU from others. If both ends are covered, there is NO DOUBT that any viral load, for any pathogen, would be lower, (and again, I'm fully acknowledging that there ARE other important variables involved specific to each virus involved).

I just don't see how you could read the analogy/example I gave and disagree that each progressive step lowers the viral load in the room for individuals to breathe in. It's like showing clear information to Stomp. He just shakes his head, and moves on to a deflective topic as if nothing ever happened. It's the create-your-own reality form of delusion.

 

[au4life_rz]

I was trying to give you a visual on what the actual science shows, repeatedly, as an over 40 studies. N95s may be better but the cloth and surgical mask are worthless.

One last shot, and I'm done....., (I think...). What about this study?

Comprehensive mask review/study

 

[WDTE]

Over 40 studies show that in terms of viral spread, masks are ineffective. That’s why you’ve seen such a variance between mask groups/states and unmasked. In many cases the unmask do as well or better.

Ineffective doesn't mean they don't work. If someone with a known disease is coughing on you would you prefer either person to be wearing a mask or do you think both people wearing a mask is no different than them coughing directly into your open mouth

 

[Eagle]

I've seen all of the visuals, and I realize that IN GENERAL, covering ones mouth and nose with anything, is better than not covering it at all.

Cloth protects others from the one wearing it, and N95's or higher, protect YOU from others. If both ends are covered, there is NO DOUBT that any viral load, for any pathogen, would be lower, (and again, I'm fully acknowledging that there ARE other important variables involved specific to each virus involved).

I just don't see how you could read the analogy/example I gave and disagree that each progressive step lowers the viral load in the room for individuals to breathe in. It's like showing clear information to Stomp. He just shakes his head, and moves on to a deflective topic as if nothing ever happened. It's the create-your-own reality form of delusion.

You allow for no other means of infection or escaping vapors from the mask. Your theoretical is incomplete. That’s why it doesn’t work in practice.

 

[Eagle]

Ineffective doesn't mean they don't work. If someone with a known disease is coughing on you would you prefer either person to be wearing a mask or do you think both people wearing a mask is no different than them coughing directly into your open mouth

all right let me make it clear, studies show they don’t work. 40 by one count. I’ve posted a dozen or so, even from the cdc’s website. Why is it that those cities in areas with mask restrictions and tight lockdowns didn’t fare any better or even fared worse than those that didn’t??

 

[AUBK]

all right let me make it clear, studies show they don’t work. 40 by one count. I’ve posted a dozen or so, even from the cdc’s website. Why is it that those cities in areas with mask restrictions and tight lockdowns didn’t fare any better or even fared worse than those that didn’t??

All right let me make it clear, you're king simpleton.

 

[WDTE]

all right let me make it clear, studies show they don’t work. 40 by one count. I’ve posted a dozen or so, even from the cdc’s website. Why is it that those cities in areas with mask restrictions and tight lockdowns didn’t fare any better or even fared worse than those that didn’t??

I'm fine saying masks aren't 100% effective. I don't see how you can say someone coughing ebola directly into your mouth is no different than both you and them wearing a mask.

 

[Eagle]

All right let me make it clear, you're king simpleton.

this from a guy that never brings anything positive to any discussion he enters in. Can never discuss the issues. Just constant ad hominem. And then he tells everybody how much smarter he is than them. Again got a love sweet irony.

so is the CDC right or wrong? Lol.

 

[Eagle]

I'm fine saying masks aren't 100% effective. I don't see how you can say someone coughing ebola directly into your mouth is no different than both you and them wearing a mask.

because no one ever coughs ebola directly into someone else’s mouth. If I was wearing a cloth mask or they were wearing a cloth mask that simply wouldn’t matter. You keep making my points.

you can resist the truth you can resist the science but it doesn’t change it.

 

[au4life_rz]

You allow for no other means of infection or escaping vapors from the mask. Your theoretical is incomplete. That’s why it doesn’t work in practice.

No Eagle. I DEFINITELY understand the ramifications of an ill-fitting mask, and I would see people DAILY, touch an infected surface, and then take their hands directly to their masks without washing or using sanitizer etc., however, we're talking about the general case, and incremental improvement.

In a situation like this, you don't take the an all or nothing approach. "Hey, if it's not 100% perfect, let's throw it AND the baby water out". No, you take what you can get, while using the media to educate, inform and let people know the right way to get a good fit, (e.g. wearing multiples etc.), warning them that just because you have on gloves, you still can't bring the contaminated gloves to your face or mask etc.

The example I gave earlier specifically and intentionally involved a gradual progression from someone sneezing full bore with nothing on at all, to using just a hand, on up to having on an N95. It's all about minimizing the spread, not being perfect. Even if some vapors escape from a cloth mask, there could still only be 20% of the water vapor in the room compared to what it would have been if they were not wearing a mask at all, so that's 80% less viral load for someone else to suck in. Which of those is going to spread more disease in general? 100% of a particular viral load, or 20% of that same potential viral load???

 

[Eagle]

No Eagle. I DEFINITELY understand the ramifications of an ill-fitting mask, and I would see people DAILY, touch an infected surface, and then take their hands directly to their masks without washing or using sanitizer etc., however, we're talking about the general case, and incremental improvement.

In a situation like this, you don't take the an all or nothing approach. "Hey, if it's not 100% perfect, let's throw it AND the baby water out". No, you take what you can get, while using the media to educate, inform and let people know the right way to get a good fit, (e.g. wearing multiples etc.), warning them that just because you have on gloves, you still can't bring the contaminated gloves to your face or mask etc.

The example I gave earlier specifically and intentionally involved a gradual progression from someone sneezing full bore with nothing on at all, to using just a hand, on up to having on an N95. It's all about minimizing the spread, not being perfect. Even if some vapors escape from a cloth mask, there could still only be 20% of the water vapor in the room compared to what it would have been if they were not wearing a mask at all, so that's 80% less viral load for someone else to suck in. Which of those is going to spread more disease in general? 100% of a particular viral load, or 20% of that same potential viral load???

you again keep talking about hypotheticals throwing out random numbers. Just simply look at the studies, the studies that focus simply on mask efficacy. Look at the actual results between mask and lockdown areas and non-mask and lock down areas.

there’s just nothing else I can say. You can accept or reject the science and the facts. That’s your call.

 

[au4life_rz]

you again keep talking about hypotheticals throwing out random numbers. Just simply look at the studies, the studies that focus simply on mask efficacy. Look at the actual results between mask and lockdown areas and non-mask and lock down areas.

there’s just nothing else I can say. You can accept or reject the science and the facts. That’s your call.

You never commented on the study that I linked. If you have time, please give a read out. I'd like to get your opinion on it.

 

[Eagle]

One last shot, and I'm done....., (I think...). What about this study?

Comprehensive mask review/study

No fair enough. If you read through it it compares several different studies - for example, the one in Hanoi had no control group, also they were changing their mask a minimum of two times a day which is not found in the real world.

another was using N95 mask. Another recommended handwashing, gowns and masks with respirators.

The next study mentioned studies the stigma effect of wearing a mask or the signaling effect. That’s really kind of irrelevant to this particular point. But I believe virtue signaling is a reason why a lot of people wear mask.

One evaluates the viruses captured in a mask or cloth. Yes wearing them all day will load up the virus in a mask. Can’t say I’m shocked about that either. And that’s where some of the potential harm comes back to the wearer, increasing their own inhalation and load of the virus along with other bacterium. look at the increase in kids going to ER‘s with respiratory disease.

The next talking about N95 masks and mandates. I have stated repeatedly the N95s may offer some modest help. But ultimately a respiratory virus is going to do what a respiratory virus does. We’ve never eliminated one in history and won’t eliminate this one. People simply can’t function wearing N95s all day long. Particularly those most at risk, the elderly. And if the N95 mask is vented, it will provide zero protection for others around.

so in sum, that paper offers zero support for the notion that cloth and surgical mask are efficacious in retarding the spread of viruses. It also ignores the harmful effects of the reality of the current mask wearing requirements.

 

[WDTE]

because no one ever coughs ebola directly into someone else’s mouth. If I was wearing a cloth mask or they were wearing a cloth mask that simply wouldn’t matter. You keep making my points.

you can resist the truth you can resist the science but it doesn’t change it.

I'm not resisting the truth. I haven't seen the studies you've posted, I've only seen you say that masks do absolutely nothing and I'm skeptical of that claim. If you have studies that prove that I'm more than willing to read it.
If someone is going to cough on me though I'd probably still prefer them to have a mask on.

 

[au4life_rz]

No fair enough. If you read through it it compares several different studies - for example, the one in Hanoi had no control group, also they were changing their mask a minimum of two times a day which is not found in the real world.

another was using N95 mask. Another recommended handwashing, gowns and masks with respirators.

The next study mentioned studies the stigma effect of wearing a mask or the signaling effect. That’s really kind of irrelevant to this particular point. But I believe virtue signaling is a reason why a lot of people wear mask.

One evaluates the viruses captured in a mask or cloth. Yes wearing them all day will load up the virus in a mask. Can’t say I’m shocked about that either. And that’s where some of the potential harm comes back to the wearer, increasing their own inhalation and load of the virus along with other bacterium. look at the increase in kids going to ER‘s with respiratory disease.

The next talking about N95 masks and mandates. I have stated repeatedly the N95s may offer some modest help. But ultimately a respiratory virus is going to do what a respiratory virus does. We’ve never eliminated one in history and won’t eliminate this one. People simply can’t function wearing N95s all day long. Particularly those most at risk, the elderly. And if the N95 mask is vented, it will provide zero protection for others around.

so in sum, that paper offers zero support for the notion that cloth and surgical mask are efficacious in retarding the spread of viruses. It also ignores the harmful effects of the reality of the current mask wearing requirements.

Okay. I've tried my best for months to appeal using rationale and logic, but you're having none of it. You only seem to be searching for ANY reason at all, to throw out the entire baby, with the bathwater. If it ain't 100% perfect, (and nothing is), then you want to disqualify it altogether. I don't think that's a wise approach and I hope you and others will have an epiphany and reconsider at some point in the future, (or, that I will have one and understand what I'm currently missing).

Thanks for your read-out, as I know you've dug into a lot of the masks study, so I wanted that contrast. Being realistic, I thought that study did a pretty good job overall, not having obvious holes etc. We'll NEVER be likely to have a "real" mask study, because it would be unethical to actually expose the participants to any of the virulent pathogens, so we're left with projection and using common sense etc., to determine if something....anything, is better than using nothing at all, and I sure hope that most understand, and act accordingly.

One last question. Do you turn your head, and cover your nose and mouth with your hand or arm when you sneeze in a room full of people?

 

[Eagle]

I'm not resisting the truth. I haven't seen the studies you've posted, I've only seen you say that masks do absolutely nothing and I'm skeptical of that claim. If you have studies that prove that I'm more than willing to read it.
If someone is going to cough on me though I'd probably still prefer them to have a mask on.

here’s a study from the CDC pointing out that mask have zero effect on respiratory diseases such as influenza.

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures

wwwnc.cdc.gov

here’s a good little summary of eight or 10 different studies stating the same thing.

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol...

www.rcreader.com

Here’s a list of 65 studies that show the harm wearing mask under current conventions can do.

65 Studies Reveals Face Masks DO Cause Physical Harm | Principia Scientific Intl.

Image: DW Meta-Analysis of 65 Studies Reveals Face Masks Induce Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES). A first-of-its-kind literature review on the adverse effects of face masks, titled "Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of...

principia-scientific.com

I have read all of the Covid studies I have not read all of the mask studies just a couple. Fyi.

 

[WDTE]

here’s a study from the CDC pointing out that mask have zero effect on respiratory diseases such as influenza.

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures

wwwnc.cdc.gov

here’s a good little summary of eight or 10 different studies stating the same thing.

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol...

www.rcreader.com

Here’s a list of 65 studies that show the harm wearing mask under current conventions can do.

65 Studies Reveals Face Masks DO Cause Physical Harm | Principia Scientific Intl.

Image: DW Meta-Analysis of 65 Studies Reveals Face Masks Induce Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES). A first-of-its-kind literature review on the adverse effects of face masks, titled "Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of...

principia-scientific.com

I have read all of the Covid studies I have not read all of the mask studies just a couple. Fyi.

Here's an article that lists 49 studies that say masks work. So my next question would be how can anyone be so confident in the science of something when there is science saying the opposite? It seems like a claim from either side is at least questionable, so there's no need to be confrontational about something you can't say for certain. And in this case I don't see the harm in someone attempting to slow down the spread of the virus by wearing a mask.

Do face masks work? Here are 49 scientific studies that explain why they do

Reasons for mask hesitancy and doubt include conflicting data from health officials, political biases and cultural unfamiliarity (studies showed mask wearing was lower in countries where face maski…

pix11.com

 

[HONKifUvCOACHED4BAMA]

You’re such a dumbass. If we are 100% vaccinated, we are going to wear mask? Derp.

No need to get all pissed about it, Stumpid. That’s what your hero Faucci said. “Even the vaccinated should wear masks.”