But we had to download the original data from github to see that because they didn't mention it in the paper. The bottom line: mask are a complete joke with no science to back it up. Pure politics.
And, not only that, but the masks are themselves part of the spread, one might say of the psychological infection. It is startling to learn how deliberate and calculated the spread of the mental mask has been, especially given such a gentle name as "nudging." https://canadianpatriot.org/2022/01/24/unmasking-mind-gaming/
While those stats may be correct as far as particle size efficiency, they do not apply to COVID containment on the whole. First, those statistics apply to the contaminated media that passes through the filter material (we're gonna call it "air" with the understanding that "air" includes water/mucus droplets, water vapor, etc.). a "properly worn" N95 mask (there are several versions) may force a larger percentage of air under pressure (exhaled) through the filter element if it has no check valve. The one with the check valve is purely to protect the wearer. The valve opens for exhales and no significant amount of exhaled air passes through the filter. These are better than the non-vented N95 masks for personal protection because the pressure doesn't "break the seal" between the mask and the wearers face. I can't find a study on the average amount of exhaled gasses that pass through the filter substrate on a standard (non-vented) N95 mask , probably because that would be difficult to qualify/quantify. But people's non-clinical tests (wearing a mask in cold, dry air and watching where the "steam" goes) gives us a pretty good idea. One thing that's clearly evident in these presentations is that the denser the filter, the more air bypasses the filter. It creates a negated, or even a negative coefficient, making filters of smaller particulates no less likely to stop viral exodus. They would still stop "forward-launched" media (spittle) from passing directly to a person in close proximity and more or less directly in front of another person, but so would a cloth mask or face shield. The vented N95 directs exhausted gases downward, so also may help in this regard, but only incidentally.
As far as inhales, more air passes through the filter material because low pressure has a positive effect on the edge seal. This should be obvious, anyone wearing a mask can actually feel it tighten against their face when inhaling, and move away when exhaling. If everyone wore their N95 masks properly, were clean shaven, and had face shapes that perfectly conformed to the one-size-fits-all masks, efficacy would be greater for sure. But they don't have perfect-fits, they don't adjust the mask every time they put it on, they don't use it once and replace it. Even if N95s are 80% more effective at stopping viral material from being ejected or inhaled than a cloth or paper mask, the percentage is only relative to the effectiveness of the mask being compared. A paper mask at 5% efficacy become 9% effective with an 80% increase. And I suspect that 5% number (issued by the CDC) is also referring to masks that are properly worn and perfectly fitted. I go along with the idea that an N95 mask may add a small layer of self-protection to the wearer, but I see only a miniscule possibility that masks provide any significant deterrent to transmission in the real world of mask-wearers.
The "5%" figure may come from a German study that said cloth masks are (if I recall correctly) 5.4% effective. However the study also cautioned that this was within the study's margin of error, so the effectiveness could have been zero. Surgical (three-layer) masks were also tested at 11.something effectiveness, or about twice as effective as a cloth mask. But if 5.4% was within the margin of error, that means surgical masks could be anywhere from around 6% to 16% effective. Anything with such low effectiveness should never be related in terms of "effectiveness", but rather with regard to their "ineffectiveness", because it is a more honest perspective.
Yep, typical blue masks / surgical masks / home-made masks don't work. Even N95 masks don't work. To be truly protected a person would need to put on a full blown respirator. But that will not matter to the "true believers" who will say you need an n95 mask and a face shield - while contributing to the destruction of mother earth with how long such biohazard waste takes to decompose. They will loftily claim that anyone potentially saying anything different doesn't follow the science, clearly a heretic (even if that data was manipulated) until "the science changed". Just give it a couple months.
The virus is in droplets and aerosol. Your eyes are wet like sticky tape. Even if masks did work, you will still get the virus without wearing goggles. It's ridiculous people insist upon masks and ignore this.
Sadly the sheeple only hear the CDC still recommending masks which nullifies the strength of this study. Indoor masking has been suspended in my County but the sheep (50%) continue to wear anyway. Go figure.
Obscurantism is the philosophical movement that is causing all of these "scientists" to fail to show data from a trial yet want you to believe their incorrect conclusions. The Bangladesh study is a perfect example. As for proving that masks don't work, I did this way back at the beginning- on March 15, 2020- Dr. Jay Battacharya and I will be discussing masks in Part 2 of our discussion. Here is Part 1. It's a real discussion between two medical doctors. Pleasse like and share far and wide. Thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM-ROTLKos8&lc=UgyyZQQbS_668g0gVdR4AaABAg
Debate? Just do a double blind test. This is something you can easily test. "Debate" is just argument, and the only purpose of "debate" is to win. It has nothing to do with finding the truth.
I know people think that debate is useful, but it's not. I've seen people lose debates when they were entirely correct simply because the other debater was more charismatic and could spout out BS that the other guy never heard before so he couldn't address.
This was a debate on whether evolution happened or not.
maybe debate was the wrong choice of words. I would like for them to discuss why Alex thinks the trial he referred to is conclusive that IVM does not work for COVID. please send me the link to that debate you refer to, I will be interested to watch it. Thanks
Oh, it was a long time ago. I think it was Kent Hovind versus, I don't know some scientist or atheist or something. It was quite some time ago.
I'm not a biblical literalist, and it would be pretty hard to call me a religious person at all.
Debate is about convincing an audience. Laurence Krauss fairly famously pointed out the uselessness of debates, and advocated discussion instead. I think he commonly uses the tactic of overwhelming his opponent in false "facts" which they simply don't have the time to address.
Ironically, the crackdown on "conservatives" in the last few years (really just political dissidents) has forced them to be polite, not to use vulgarity, and have reduced their discussion to reason. As a result, they now seem entirely sane in comparison to the "loony left" which are simply people that still believe the government's nonsense.
He's not crazy, but he is extremely dishonest. He's a conman. Not as evil as Peter Popoff was, but still, pretty evil.
If you are unaware, Popoff would call out audience members for ailments and tell them they were cured, and urged them to throw away their medicine. He got this information by having them fill out question cards as they entered, and then was fed the information from his wife through a hidden earpiece.
The transmission was picked up by a group that Amazing Randi put together to scan the spectrum, and catch them in the act. Popoff declared bankruptcy (dishonestly, but our government is criminal itself so...) shortly after, but he came back.
The people that people trust, shouldn't be trusted. People who claim virtue rarely have it.
A virus (if they could ever isolate one) is supposed to be 0.125 microns. A mask could only block down to 0.300 microns. Mask do make people sick though.
Bryan: The SARS-2 virus is 100 nanometers =.1 microns. Smoke goes through and all around masks and its particulates are visible as you know. Sars-2 particles are invisible because their diameter is 1/4 of the shortest wavelength in the visible spectrum at 400 nanometers (so visible light cannot reflect off the virus. I am a surgeon and also an MIT physics major in case you were wondering.
The aerosols pass right through (or around) the masks. Do you wear glasses? Ever huff on a lens to moisten it to clean it?
Do you know what isn't just condensation? That's aerosols of liquid from the alveoli in your lungs - it isn't just water. If your mask captured that, it would be dripping wet within a few minutes.
If you smoke (or can stand to inhale one puff), put your mask on and exhale while you're being recorded on a camera. It's quite obvious they are useless. Most of the air being exhaled from your lungs just go around the mask. If you taped the mask to your face, you'd still see the smoke passing though, but it would make it significantly more difficult to breathe.
The masks, it's like a stupid ritual or maybe virtue signalling, maybe others things, but it has nothing to do with health safety.
We already went through this in the pandemic of 1917-1919. They knew then the masks were pointless.
Anyhow, surgical masks aren't meant to capture aerosol water droplets. It's so the surgeon doesn't get spittle into an open wound during surgery and they can still talk with relative safety for the patient.
No one said they are "mechanical robots climbing through pores". Why can you smell smoke when someone exhales while wearing a properly fitted N95 mask? That very phenomenon proves your explanation wrong as the particulates in smoke are larger than the SARS-2 aerosols. You also are lacking in perspective. My problem is with mask mandates and that is the issue at hand. The average person will not wear properly-fitted N95 masks for any reasonable amount of time and change them as needed, even if they did work.. All of this is moot anyway, because they cannot afford them and if they got them free, they wouldn't know how to properly seal the edges against the skin. It's not the surgeon who knows not of what he speaks, its you, a person who does not know what the 95 means in "N95" and has no medical perspective, nor command of the facts at hand. You said "The smallest human aerosol measured was reported at 5.6 microns ". That is a 20x exaggeration. Here are some quotes from a recent study on the subject. "Among the particles generated by the Influenza-infected patients, particles with a size range of 0.35–2.5 μm were of higher number concentration. Furthermore, these particles could remain airborne for dozens of minutes to several hours [10]." You're off by 20x, not 20%, 20x. Another quote,"SARS-CoV-2 was aerosolized for three hours and its viability was analyzed. It was found that the virus was viable even after three hours, with limited loss of viability [15]." Please read the literrature before you try to engage in a debate .
Maybe masks DO work - to spread graphene. That is part of what Ricardo Delgado Martine has been saying. He says that graphe is in the vaccine, PCR tests and some masks, and as it accumulates in people it is more andmore likely that they will suffer from acute radiation syndrome when near telephone antenna. Here is an interview with him:https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/shows/the-jerusalem-report/kHIT9ASDVM
The curves in this article remind me of the epicurves of the Omicron wave in NY (general mask mandate from Dec. 13 to Feb 10) versus NJ (no general mask mandate at that time). Per capita, the curves were literally identical, and even peaked on the same exact day. When overlaying them, you have to squint very hard just to see that they are in fact two separate lines.
Off topic but my mother who is triple vaxed, in her late 70s and not in the best health (a little overweight too) is convinced that unvaxed me who is 48 and in good physical health and well within my bmi, is going to die from Covid. What should I tell her?
Tell her you love her AND you realize that she loves you too.
If she persists, tell her that you’ll eventually die and it’s not clear why covid death is worse than death from any other cause, including vaxx. 🙂
And, not only that, but the masks are themselves part of the spread, one might say of the psychological infection. It is startling to learn how deliberate and calculated the spread of the mental mask has been, especially given such a gentle name as "nudging." https://canadianpatriot.org/2022/01/24/unmasking-mind-gaming/
Thanks for the warning.
While those stats may be correct as far as particle size efficiency, they do not apply to COVID containment on the whole. First, those statistics apply to the contaminated media that passes through the filter material (we're gonna call it "air" with the understanding that "air" includes water/mucus droplets, water vapor, etc.). a "properly worn" N95 mask (there are several versions) may force a larger percentage of air under pressure (exhaled) through the filter element if it has no check valve. The one with the check valve is purely to protect the wearer. The valve opens for exhales and no significant amount of exhaled air passes through the filter. These are better than the non-vented N95 masks for personal protection because the pressure doesn't "break the seal" between the mask and the wearers face. I can't find a study on the average amount of exhaled gasses that pass through the filter substrate on a standard (non-vented) N95 mask , probably because that would be difficult to qualify/quantify. But people's non-clinical tests (wearing a mask in cold, dry air and watching where the "steam" goes) gives us a pretty good idea. One thing that's clearly evident in these presentations is that the denser the filter, the more air bypasses the filter. It creates a negated, or even a negative coefficient, making filters of smaller particulates no less likely to stop viral exodus. They would still stop "forward-launched" media (spittle) from passing directly to a person in close proximity and more or less directly in front of another person, but so would a cloth mask or face shield. The vented N95 directs exhausted gases downward, so also may help in this regard, but only incidentally.
As far as inhales, more air passes through the filter material because low pressure has a positive effect on the edge seal. This should be obvious, anyone wearing a mask can actually feel it tighten against their face when inhaling, and move away when exhaling. If everyone wore their N95 masks properly, were clean shaven, and had face shapes that perfectly conformed to the one-size-fits-all masks, efficacy would be greater for sure. But they don't have perfect-fits, they don't adjust the mask every time they put it on, they don't use it once and replace it. Even if N95s are 80% more effective at stopping viral material from being ejected or inhaled than a cloth or paper mask, the percentage is only relative to the effectiveness of the mask being compared. A paper mask at 5% efficacy become 9% effective with an 80% increase. And I suspect that 5% number (issued by the CDC) is also referring to masks that are properly worn and perfectly fitted. I go along with the idea that an N95 mask may add a small layer of self-protection to the wearer, but I see only a miniscule possibility that masks provide any significant deterrent to transmission in the real world of mask-wearers.
The "5%" figure may come from a German study that said cloth masks are (if I recall correctly) 5.4% effective. However the study also cautioned that this was within the study's margin of error, so the effectiveness could have been zero. Surgical (three-layer) masks were also tested at 11.something effectiveness, or about twice as effective as a cloth mask. But if 5.4% was within the margin of error, that means surgical masks could be anywhere from around 6% to 16% effective. Anything with such low effectiveness should never be related in terms of "effectiveness", but rather with regard to their "ineffectiveness", because it is a more honest perspective.
Yep, typical blue masks / surgical masks / home-made masks don't work. Even N95 masks don't work. To be truly protected a person would need to put on a full blown respirator. But that will not matter to the "true believers" who will say you need an n95 mask and a face shield - while contributing to the destruction of mother earth with how long such biohazard waste takes to decompose. They will loftily claim that anyone potentially saying anything different doesn't follow the science, clearly a heretic (even if that data was manipulated) until "the science changed". Just give it a couple months.
It was proven that masks collected and grew viruses and bacteria.
The virus is in droplets and aerosol. Your eyes are wet like sticky tape. Even if masks did work, you will still get the virus without wearing goggles. It's ridiculous people insist upon masks and ignore this.
Sadly the sheeple only hear the CDC still recommending masks which nullifies the strength of this study. Indoor masking has been suspended in my County but the sheep (50%) continue to wear anyway. Go figure.
Obscurantism is the philosophical movement that is causing all of these "scientists" to fail to show data from a trial yet want you to believe their incorrect conclusions. The Bangladesh study is a perfect example. As for proving that masks don't work, I did this way back at the beginning- on March 15, 2020- Dr. Jay Battacharya and I will be discussing masks in Part 2 of our discussion. Here is Part 1. It's a real discussion between two medical doctors. Pleasse like and share far and wide. Thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM-ROTLKos8&lc=UgyyZQQbS_668g0gVdR4AaABAg
off the topic, but I would like to see a live debate (or discussion at least) between Steve & Alex Berenson on the effectiveness of Ivermectin
Debate? Just do a double blind test. This is something you can easily test. "Debate" is just argument, and the only purpose of "debate" is to win. It has nothing to do with finding the truth.
I know people think that debate is useful, but it's not. I've seen people lose debates when they were entirely correct simply because the other debater was more charismatic and could spout out BS that the other guy never heard before so he couldn't address.
This was a debate on whether evolution happened or not.
maybe debate was the wrong choice of words. I would like for them to discuss why Alex thinks the trial he referred to is conclusive that IVM does not work for COVID. please send me the link to that debate you refer to, I will be interested to watch it. Thanks
Oh, it was a long time ago. I think it was Kent Hovind versus, I don't know some scientist or atheist or something. It was quite some time ago.
I'm not a biblical literalist, and it would be pretty hard to call me a religious person at all.
Debate is about convincing an audience. Laurence Krauss fairly famously pointed out the uselessness of debates, and advocated discussion instead. I think he commonly uses the tactic of overwhelming his opponent in false "facts" which they simply don't have the time to address.
Ironically, the crackdown on "conservatives" in the last few years (really just political dissidents) has forced them to be polite, not to use vulgarity, and have reduced their discussion to reason. As a result, they now seem entirely sane in comparison to the "loony left" which are simply people that still believe the government's nonsense.
Oh right. Kent Hovind has some interesting ideas but came across as a crazy person sometimes. I think he went to jail for tax evasion.
He's not crazy, but he is extremely dishonest. He's a conman. Not as evil as Peter Popoff was, but still, pretty evil.
If you are unaware, Popoff would call out audience members for ailments and tell them they were cured, and urged them to throw away their medicine. He got this information by having them fill out question cards as they entered, and then was fed the information from his wife through a hidden earpiece.
The transmission was picked up by a group that Amazing Randi put together to scan the spectrum, and catch them in the act. Popoff declared bankruptcy (dishonestly, but our government is criminal itself so...) shortly after, but he came back.
The people that people trust, shouldn't be trusted. People who claim virtue rarely have it.
A virus (if they could ever isolate one) is supposed to be 0.125 microns. A mask could only block down to 0.300 microns. Mask do make people sick though.
Bryan: The SARS-2 virus is 100 nanometers =.1 microns. Smoke goes through and all around masks and its particulates are visible as you know. Sars-2 particles are invisible because their diameter is 1/4 of the shortest wavelength in the visible spectrum at 400 nanometers (so visible light cannot reflect off the virus. I am a surgeon and also an MIT physics major in case you were wondering.
The aerosols pass right through (or around) the masks. Do you wear glasses? Ever huff on a lens to moisten it to clean it?
Do you know what isn't just condensation? That's aerosols of liquid from the alveoli in your lungs - it isn't just water. If your mask captured that, it would be dripping wet within a few minutes.
If you smoke (or can stand to inhale one puff), put your mask on and exhale while you're being recorded on a camera. It's quite obvious they are useless. Most of the air being exhaled from your lungs just go around the mask. If you taped the mask to your face, you'd still see the smoke passing though, but it would make it significantly more difficult to breathe.
The masks, it's like a stupid ritual or maybe virtue signalling, maybe others things, but it has nothing to do with health safety.
We already went through this in the pandemic of 1917-1919. They knew then the masks were pointless.
Anyhow, surgical masks aren't meant to capture aerosol water droplets. It's so the surgeon doesn't get spittle into an open wound during surgery and they can still talk with relative safety for the patient.
No one said they are "mechanical robots climbing through pores". Why can you smell smoke when someone exhales while wearing a properly fitted N95 mask? That very phenomenon proves your explanation wrong as the particulates in smoke are larger than the SARS-2 aerosols. You also are lacking in perspective. My problem is with mask mandates and that is the issue at hand. The average person will not wear properly-fitted N95 masks for any reasonable amount of time and change them as needed, even if they did work.. All of this is moot anyway, because they cannot afford them and if they got them free, they wouldn't know how to properly seal the edges against the skin. It's not the surgeon who knows not of what he speaks, its you, a person who does not know what the 95 means in "N95" and has no medical perspective, nor command of the facts at hand. You said "The smallest human aerosol measured was reported at 5.6 microns ". That is a 20x exaggeration. Here are some quotes from a recent study on the subject. "Among the particles generated by the Influenza-infected patients, particles with a size range of 0.35–2.5 μm were of higher number concentration. Furthermore, these particles could remain airborne for dozens of minutes to several hours [10]." You're off by 20x, not 20%, 20x. Another quote,"SARS-CoV-2 was aerosolized for three hours and its viability was analyzed. It was found that the virus was viable even after three hours, with limited loss of viability [15]." Please read the literrature before you try to engage in a debate .
But YOU do..........what a moron.
Sure purple masks don't work. But most people wear blue masks. Boom! Check and mate.
The only intervention that seems to be working is propaganda in all its colors, flavors, spokespeople.
Maybe masks DO work - to spread graphene. That is part of what Ricardo Delgado Martine has been saying. He says that graphe is in the vaccine, PCR tests and some masks, and as it accumulates in people it is more andmore likely that they will suffer from acute radiation syndrome when near telephone antenna. Here is an interview with him:https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/shows/the-jerusalem-report/kHIT9ASDVM
so everyone should've been using N95 masks?
The curves in this article remind me of the epicurves of the Omicron wave in NY (general mask mandate from Dec. 13 to Feb 10) versus NJ (no general mask mandate at that time). Per capita, the curves were literally identical, and even peaked on the same exact day. When overlaying them, you have to squint very hard just to see that they are in fact two separate lines.
Off topic but my mother who is triple vaxed, in her late 70s and not in the best health (a little overweight too) is convinced that unvaxed me who is 48 and in good physical health and well within my bmi, is going to die from Covid. What should I tell her?
Tell her you love her AND you realize that she loves you too.
If she persists, tell her that you’ll eventually die and it’s not clear why covid death is worse than death from any other cause, including vaxx. 🙂