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

submitted by scrubking from youtu.be

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.

[–]RightousBob 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Jesus H Christ! You expect /u/socks to read all of that? That loser shill has trouble with the directions on a pack of pop-tarts let alone a litany of scientific studies and articles.

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

dis nikkah on fire

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

Thank you for the links. As noted earlier, I agree that non-n95 masks are not as efficient as n95 masks, and as research has shown, any mask is better than no mask, even if it's not an n95 mask. For example, this:

aerosolized particles would readily penetrate or circumvent ordinary surgical masks

This is not necessarily true. Aerosolized particles may or may not penetrate or circumvent ordinary surgical masks, but it is so much better to have a mask of any kind than not to have a mask around other people, while also keeping a 6' distance from them, while also getting both vaccine shots. All precautions are necessary in order not to spread the virus. Once you try to argue that the details of one precaution are problematic, using evidence that is only partially related to 2020 scientific research on the spread of COVID19, you begin to avoid the facts and the science regarding the importance of combining all of the necessary precautions.

[–]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.

[–]screwballeclipsed 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

i have to lol at those who think masks work. i have challenged those to provide data that masks work and all that has been presented has been written in the past 18 months. obviously to fit the narrative. but in the defense of pro-mask, i wonder what has changed in the past 18 months that would make masks effective? materials, virus size, i don't know. so i have to come to the conclusion that it's a scam. especially with the amount that have died from rona, reports of those dead from car crash listed (or other causes) as rona, the testing method being inaccurate, even said by the inventor of the test, etc, etc. however it seems some are unable to connect the dots and force others to participate in the scam. meanwhile the United States govt. passes a rona bill for items mostly unrelated to rona. i've read the stimulus to the people is greatly lower in other countries than the U.S. if anyone doesn't think wearing a mask inhibits breathing, which in turns kills you, then please wear more than 1 mask, because the medical industry needs more money. not to mention the pharmaceutical industry, the largest lobbyist in the states(by some accounts).

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

Dude, u/socks is a duplicitous wanker. It's pointless to argue with him. He will endlessly shift the goalposts. He must think he's at reddit or something.

[–]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)

Let's say you're right about this.

Nonetheless, in 2020, there (also?) was a rush to study the effectiveness of masks, arranged in labs, corroborated with other scientists, and there are no obvious connections between those people (or many of those people?) and a national conspiracy to push a specific agenda. The need for that research in 2020 does not constitute obvious bias for all of that research. Even if we argue over the percentage of scientists influenced by deep state conspiracy planners, it's fairly obvious that much of the research - because of the burden of proof in scientific reseach - has been fully corroborated with the research elsewhere on the same subject, especially because most people act in the interests of themselves and others, and would not commit scientific research to falsified data. Contrast this with a massive, obvious campaign to discredit scientists, without providing any evidence, or any reliable evidence, and part of that campaign focuses on deep state conspiracies. Let's say that they're right about the deep state conspiracies. That still leaves other examples of research that's not necessarily tied to the conspiracy, but is instead an honest, scientific interest in knowing how to protect ourselves, because, why not try to understand the efficacy of masks? There are obvious holes in some of the conspiracy logic, even if we can say that there is some justificaiton for assuming that there is a conspiracy. The majority of legitimate scientists want the truth, or they wouldn't really be scientists.

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

BRAVO!