Remember When Quack Dr. Fauci Said Wearing Masks was Pointless and Stupid? Pepe Farm Members

submitted by scrubking from (youtu.be)

all 51 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Fauci is a fraud. In the beginning, masks served as a shock and awe treatment on the unwitting public. This was an attempt by the fascists to make an end run around the state legislatures and get the public introduced to illegal dictates via an illegitimate bureaucratic machine. This is typical bolshevik style power plays.

[–]Kittens 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

in the name of science, you should think about what you are saying. Dr Fauci is a leading scientist and he knows more about the corona virus situation than any other scientist could possibly know.

Wear a mask. Practice social distancing.

dr fauci is a nobel prize candidate.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

That better be sarcasm. Because fuck that little rat faced trick. And fuck the obviously corrupt nobel prize. Have you ever heard about the crisis of reproducibility? Yeah, saying someone is leading in the "novel" coronavirus situation is basically saying he is a tool of the davos crowd. He is a fraud and has been for decades. Fuck your mask. Fuck your social distancing. THIS MACHINE PLOWS THE FUCK OVER FASCISTS.

[–]Kittens 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

if you dont care about your life enough to wear a mask, do you really need to put innocent people at risk of death by not wearing a mask? if you would just follow the science, it would be obvious that we are in the middle of an international pandemic for which many millions of people are at risk of dying.

one final issue regarding the filthy language that you use, did your parents allow such words to be used in your family home?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

If there was a real pandemic I would wear a mask, but this situation is clearly a fraud from top to bottom. I was just commenting to a friend about how this fake pandemic is tailor made for weak-minded people to believe that they are "doing something" or that they can do something. Putting on a mask is now an act of bravery and a commendable effort. If this were real you would see people dying left and right and literally all around you. But you don't. That's why the fascist media had to use obfuscation tactics such as "cases" and "overwhelming the hospitals" all the while the 100's of thousands of homeless covering the west cost were fine. If this were a real pandemic that would have NOT been the case. That's why the death numbers are shrouded in misdirection and nonsensical reclassifications. That's why when BLM rioted for three months the media came out and said that it was not a risk to the pandemic.

If this were a real pandemic then it was the most smooth, easygoing pandemic that has ever occurred. Except for the fact that governors used illegal edicts to close down small businesses while funneling all cash to fascist mega-corporations.

Look, I get it, a lot of people wanted Trump out. They were willing to overlook little things here and there. They were willing to go along with things that didn't seem to line up with reality, but hey Trump is literally orange hitler so why not go along with it, right? The only problem is when you accept a small lie, you soon find yourself having to maintain small lies with bigger lies. Now you don't know what is real and what is not.

Couple this with the fact that our fiat currency system is in worldwide crisis due to rampant corruption at the highest levels and here we are. . . triple-masking with hands so blistered from hand sanitizers that you are ACTUALLY putting yourself at risk every time you touch a public door handle.

[–]Kittens 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

it is apparent that you have been brainwashed by the orangetard, and that you care about no one except for yourself. President biden won the election by a landslide and he is doing an amazing job at trying to bring this country together in unity.

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it is apparent that you have been brainwashed

how poetic.

President biden won the election by a landslide and he is doing an amazing job at trying to bring this country together in unity.

bwahahahahahaha. ok, funnies over. fuck off

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

99% survivial. it does suck for people with immune system issues, old people etc.

[–]Kittens 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

1% of the world's population is approximately 78,000,000 which is approximately three times the total deaths cause by the nazis. How can anyone want to kill more people than the nazis killed?

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

TB is worse, as is measles. fuck, riding a bicyle is worse. Do big numbers really bother you that much.

How about a statistical analysis of "length of life" lost to covid? on average, someone over 60 loses A SINGLE DAY of life, due to this deadly pandemic. woooooooooooooo

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

that is a lot but no one ever said that about the flu

[–]Kittens 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

this pandemic is not nearly as simple as was the common flu. the science clearly shows these facts to be facts. this pandemic could have been taken out of commission if the orange man would have simply done his job as the president. i am so tired of this denial of plain and simple science that i am literally sick in my stomach when i see people that laugh at a very fatal virus.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You do you girl

[–]Kittens 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it just bothers me when men try to out-man me, just because they are being a typical mister man.

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

if you would just follow the science,

neuroscientist here. Published. Researcher. etc.

coronaviruses are used as a disease model for multiple sclerosis, a demyelinating disease. All symptoms and treatments of covid are consistent with that model. Infection routes are via the olfactory and optic nerves. To actually stop a nanoparticle sized agent like the covid-19 coronavirus you'd need a hepa filter (better than a surgical mask) and even then you'd not get all of it. You'd also need that hepa filtered air to be in a full face mask to block the optic nerve route. I can provide Nature links that show histological proof of CNS infection with covid-19

so fuck off back to whatever liberal shithole you crawled out of and preach your propaganda to the choir because this is where the adults play, fucking idiot

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

hello paid shill

[–]RightousBob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fauci is and has been a pariah on the former USA for a long time. Hey Tony Bologna where did the Wuhan Lab of Virology get their funding for the gain of function studies they were running on coronaviruses just prior to Sars Cov-2 slipping out their front door?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (29 children)

You probably know that this was very early in the discussion about COVID19, and that Fauci changed his approach to this soon afterword. You might think that Saiditors are completely unaware of this.

[–]Zahn 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (26 children)

He said this because decades of mask studies have previously proven that non n95 masks don't work (statistically insignificant). Why are you anti science?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

WTF? He supported the wearing of masks thereafter. It's widely known that non-n95 masks are 'statistically significant' for reducing the spread of the virus. (n95 masks are of course better.) We know this because of scientific studies. Did you not know this, or are you trolling...?

[–]Zahn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

He supported wearing useless cloth masks in direct contradiction to existing scientific studies.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Seems we have different interpretations.

As I noted - scientific studies have proven that wearning a mask of any kind is much better than not wearing a mask, and the ideal mask to wear is the n95. That's it. Real simple. Fauci merely repeated the scientific studies.

[–]Zahn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

The existing studies indicated that cloth masks are worthless and carry greater inherent risks. Science is real.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

No they don't and that't not what the scientific reports have indicated.

[–]Zahn 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (20 children)

A repost that continues in nested comments.

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in Healthcare work was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either Healthcare work or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

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 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

“Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:

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. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

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- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

“A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

THE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, after many studies, have come to this conclusion: Wearing masks will not reduce SARS-CoV-2.

https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/

Coronavirus can enter through the eyes.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/health-news/11593666/coronavirus-enter-through-eyes-scientists-warn/

"We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility." https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Cities with mask mandates are also the ones with the highest death counts.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/07/new-york-times-attempt-promote-face-masks-backfires-shows-widespread-china-coronavirus-cases-wherever-masks-worn/

Ritter et al in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1157412/

Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.” https://europepmc.org/article/med/7379387

Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ccd.1810170306

In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736

[–]Zahn 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.” https://app.cyberimpact.com/click-tracking?ct=ddlxOXTWWl90EryEqcEKoaL2h-gzSc6NGMnZYisIeb1prfLYB2BA0WFJB1WtM2OHdYEwquDuQxpj6iPyIA-mu_9ONer7__h5aFc1_BuYu0w~ PDF!

Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.” https://europepmc.org/article/med/11760479

Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn. http://www.advancesinpd.com/adv01/21Figueiredo.htm

Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.” https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Does-evidence-based-medicine-support-the-of-in-in-Bahli/751acd427c20c8dc7d1fbc1b45eead104286f481?p2df

Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden. https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/113/6/1447/9572/Is-Routine-Use-of-a-Face-Mask-Necessary-in-the

Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.05200.x

Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub2/full

Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.” https://europepmc.org/article/med/25294675

Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.” https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Abstract/2014/09030/Surgical_Attire_and_the_Operating_Room__Role_in.11.aspx

Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” https://app.cyberimpact.com/click-tracking?ct=8XxKbw1a2tlsGS7OVvC-myVx50CQeX6oobkGLYONaABvQQiClT0d3LXoNrvXbfQhxo4nwt3Q8Et_YSEkxFx275oiqB-rFYJbNJL6Yiv8To4~ PDF!

n Epidemics 2017, a meta-analysis concluded that masks had a non-significant protective effect. In the Annuals of Internal Medicine, April 2020, “neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by affected people.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436516300858

According to a University of New South Wales, the widespread use of masks by healthcare workers may put them at increased risk of respiratory illness and viral infections, and their global use should be discouraged.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-04-masksdangerous-health.html

In the British Medical Journal 2015, “Over three times, the risk of contracting influenza-like illness if a cloth mask is used versus no mask at all.” Contaminated masks and masks holding moisture and pathogen retention can increase the risk of infection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

A 2016 study in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology found 97% of particles penetrated cloth masks, and 44% of particles penetrated medical masks. They reported that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles less than 2.5 micrometers.

https://www.nature.com/articles/jes201642

As referenced in the New England Journal of Medicine, the size of Coronavirus particles varied between 0.06 micrometers and 0.14 micrometers.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

Cloth and surgical masks do not have a fit test. When worn, gaps around the edges allow small particles to enter the respiratory system. Also, according to the May 2010 edition of PLoS One, lack of eye protection was a primary risk factor of SARS-CoV transmission.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32310553/

Wearing a mask for seven hours straight may not be safe. Carbon dioxide (CO2) rebreathing has been recognized as a concern in the Ergonomics Journal.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23514282/

In the Head and Neck Pain Journal, most healthcare workers develop de novo PPE‐associated headaches or exacerbation of their pre‐existing headache disorders.

https://headachejournal.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/head.13811

The Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control Journal demonstrated, “Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers. The benefits of using an N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage.

https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13756-015-0086-z

Masks also hamper oxygen intake; the body and the immune system require optimal levels of oxygen to feed cells and fight off illness, including Covid19. When studied, surgeons who wore surgical masks had a decrease in blood O2 saturation and an increase in pulse rates of the surgeons after the operations due to surgical mask usage.

http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf

According to the Journal of Biomedicines, our oxygen concentration is closely associated with cell survival and immune functioning, making one more susceptible to illness.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027519/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/

[–]Zahn 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

Cloth Mask Study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

Other Mask Studies

https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1

https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

https://nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

https://cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

https://jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736

https://journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf

https://cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

https://nap.edu/catalog/25776/rapid-expert-consultation-on-the-effectiveness-of-fabric-masks-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-april-8-2020

https://nap.edu/read/25776/chapter/1#6

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6599448/

https://acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

There is zero scientific evidence that wearing a mask, especially for more extended periods, protects us. However, several studies found significant problems with wearing one. Side-effects range from headaches to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, hypoxia, to more severe complications.

A mask is a petri dish for airborne pathogens. If you are not changing masks at maximum every 90 minutes you are creating a nice warm moist habitat for germs an inch from your face. Moreover, without proper glove use, eye protection, and an actual seal around nose and mouth the mask is entirely superficial and ineffective in preventing the spread of pathogens. Not to mention the evidence indicating overexposure to exhaust gasses and concentrations of Co2 with some masks that can be damaging to the immune system.

https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29140516/

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

http://stateofthenation.co/?p=13832

Oh....and about the ubiquitous moisture droplets that makes Covidiots say..."but, but, but I 'm protecting you from me". More research is pointing out that these viruses are primarily infectious via dry Bio-Aerosols! Yep, and much smaller than your pathetic mask, so you're pretty much spreading it ALL THE TIME.

Teller's 2009 article "Aerosol transmission of influenza A virus: a review of new studies" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843947/). Teller addresses this directly in the closing discussion.

Increasing evidences point towards a role for aerosol transmission in the spread of influenza (and other similar viruses), at least over short distance where exposure to both aerosol and large droplets occurs. [...] This distinction of ‘short-range aerosol transmission’ is not merely academic; aerosolized particles would readily penetrate or circumvent ordinary surgical masks, and penetration of aerosolized influenza viruses into the LRT where they can initiate infection would account well for the association of aerosol transmission and severe disease.

.....As an additional consideration, it may well be that aerosol transmission is responsible for the most severe cases of disease involving viral infection of the LRT.

[–]NodeIndependent 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

A repost

Those links with the explanations would make a great post. Or do you have the link to an original?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

UBER BRAVO!

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Congratulations - though most of these are out of date and do not provide evidence that scientific scholarship in 2020 would agree with.

You'll find the mask research when you search for: covid19 mask 2020

It's all there; numerous medical and scientific reports from 2020.

Studies show that wearing a mask, even if it's not an n95 mask, is better than wearing no mask, reducing the potential spread of the virus significantly. Yes, it's better to have an n95 mask.

[–]Zahn 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Read how they arrived at their results for the studies that were hastily slapped together to push agenda. I know you haven't done that, you will clearly see how they gamed test groups to arrive at a forgone conclusion.

Mask tech did not change enough to affect outcomes, your deflection of being outdated is irrelevant.

They think we're stupid and sadly mask proponents prove their point.

[–]NodeIndependent 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

most of these ... do not provide evidence that scientific scholarship in 2020 would agree with.

You'll find the mask research when you search for: covid19 mask 2020

It's like you can see what's going on, but haven't put the pieces together, or something. Yes, there was (and still is) tremendous pressure being put on both the medical and scientific establishments to promote the mask agenda, along with isolating people, fragmenting society, and all the rest of the new-normal-world-order.

The Google is obviously on the front lines with that. "Goys, everything you knew and believed in the past is 'old-think', and therefore invalid. It's urgent that you update your beliefs to the latest version of new-think."

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

BRAVO!

[–]Jesus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fauci has been a racketeering criminal all his life. That's why Trump never fired him. They wanted nobody to wear masks so that whatever this cut and paste virus is, would spread far enough so that they could then give back to their stakeholders that promise of profit at the curious 2019 global corona virus drill where they said a vaccine revolution will come in 2021.

[–]Lahontan 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Can't wait for leaks on which politicians invested in companies that are raking it in right now and like 12 people notice.