Face Diapers Don't Do Anything

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Rolling Stone?

lol

Hunter S. Thompson wrote for the Rolling Stone, extensively. He's laughing at you from the grave, or rather the sky where his ashes were shot.

[Jimjam]

Perhaps the greatest evidence of the inefficiency of masks vs covid is how cold, flu and other respiratory infections have been almost eliminated in areas were precautions are implemented yet covid still runs wildfire?

I’m still wearing a mask while it still frosts at night though. So cozy.

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Politifact? GTFO

Anticipating this response, an effort was already made to find other sources. But it is an obscure write-up by someone who isn't exactly a household name, so forgive me and the rest of the world for not having already discussed it at length in that one Facebook group on the FBI watchlist.

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your sources are all shit

The masks don't do anything.

Science major, check. Captain of the debate team, check. Charles Bronson avatar, check.

In the original link provided, note that the write-up is one of only three under the person's name absent of co-authors.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...3303303&page=6

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're bringing up Koch Brothers and all kinds of stupid shit like that matters when it doesn't

Knowing who funds the research, or in this case who actively promotes its findings, is no less important than knowing who peer-reviews it. Transparency and credibility matter. And to that point, here's another article published by Med Hypotheses...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8016555/

The covid-2019 pandemic is an extraordinary event in the history of our civilization. Billions of people have never been restricted in their homes before.

Self-isolation is conducive to esoteric reflection, and we begun to ruminate about Gaia.

...

We better stop the destabilization of Gaia, because otherwise either we succeed in this reckless enterprise and destroy the ecosystem and our own existence, or Gaia recognizes our malicious character and invisible feedbacks eliminate us, as a destabilizing element. However, in order to harmonize with Gaia, we must improve our understanding of these invisible feedbacks.

Tunare meets midichlorians.

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you can prove the virus is 1000 times larger than what is accepted SCIENCE than by all means, provide the evidence. Otherwise, stop wasting my time

Find the scientific proof that the virus is 1000 times larger than what the scientific consensus currently is

One person does not a consensus make. Also, we are both checking this here elf sim forum on a Saturday night. It's safe to say that wasting time isn't a top concern for us at the moment.

There are actual experts out there who, though their time might be wasted, would gladly field that thousand dollar question of yours though, ones who have written and researched more about the subject than you, me, or this Baruch fellow.

But consider this: A single mask weighs less than half an ounce. A condom weighs even less. Not even an ounce of prevention. Of course, a condom would have violated the liberties of our fathers, eh? So here we are now, as a result, having this debate about the importance of wearing protection. And yada, yada, yada, history doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes.

Now, having said all of this, feel free to reframe it as...

https://youtu.be/Cv2PgWmQ1Lo

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There has never been a randomized clinical trial I'm aware of that proves masks prevent Covid transmission. Maybe Ennewi can find one.

...

There have been several clinical trials over the years which studied how effective masks were in preventing other illnesses such as the common cold

They all concluded masks did nothing to prevent the spread. A total waste of time.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23413265/

2013 May 1
Rationale: We compared three policy options for the use of medical masks and N95 respirators in healthcare workers (HCWs).

Objectives: A cluster randomized clinical trial of 1,669 hospital-based HCWs in Beijing, China in the winter of 2009-2010.

Methods: Participants were randomized to medical masks, N95 respirators, or targeted use of N95 respirators while doing high-risk procedures or barrier nursing. Outcomes included clinical respiratory illness (CRI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory pathogens in symptomatic subjects.

Measurements and main results: The rate of CRI was highest in the medical mask arm (98 of 572; 17%), followed by the targeted N95 arm (61 of 516; 11.8%), and the N95 arm (42 of 581; 7.2%) (P < 0.05). Bacterial respiratory tract colonization in subjects with CRI was highest in the medical mask arm (14.7%; 84 of 572), followed by the targeted N95 arm (10.1%; 52 of 516), and lowest in the N95 arm (6.2%; 36 of 581) (P = 0.02). After adjusting for confounders, only continuous use of N95 remained significant against CRI and bacterial colonization, and for just CRI compared with targeted N95 use. Targeted N95 use was not superior to medical masks.

Conclusions: Continuous use of N95 respirators was more efficacious against CRI than intermittent use of N95 or medical masks. Most policies for HCWs recommend use of medical masks alone or targeted N95 respirator use. Continuous use of N95s resulted in significantly lower rates of bacterial colonization, a novel finding that points to more research on the clinical significance of bacterial infection in symptomatic HCWs. This study provides further data to inform occupational policy options for HCWs. Clinical trial registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry http://www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN 12609000778280).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4941587

(i) Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), 19 defined as two or more respiratory or one respiratory symptom and a systemic symptom; (ii) ILI, defined as fever ≥38°C plus one respiratory symptom (i.e. cough, runny nose, etc.); (iii) laboratory‐confirmed viral respiratory infection (detection of adenoviruses, human metapneumovirus, coronavirus 229E/NL63, parainfluenza viruses 1, 2 and 3, influenza viruses A and B, respiratory syncytial virus A and B, rhinovirus A/B and coronavirus OC43/HKU1 by multiplex PCR); (iv) laboratory‐confirmed influenza A or B and (v) adherence with mask/respirator use.

A bit tired to do a more thorough search, but that seems close enough.

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But what do any of those scientists know? They aren't a writer for Dr. Who like Matthew Sweet

Those scientists have any names?

As for this Matthew fellow, you cherry picked his credentials of course, leaving out English journalist, broadcaster, cultural historian, and graduate of the University of Oxford. Granted, it's not warder loot but still, overlooking those other achievements seems wrong.

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMhGrcLLy1Y&t=18s

You included a 19 second video to show how mindless someone was, with the link set to the 18 second mark. An observation that speaks for itself?

[nostalgiaquest]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You included a 19 second video to show how mindless someone was, with the link set to the 18 second mark. An observation that speaks for itself?

lol, burn

[Ennewi]

https://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2...esjust-make-sh

Medical Hypotheses---"just make shit up; we'll publish it"

By sb admin on July 3, 2008.
Orac was kind enough to pollute my inbox with the latest idiocy from the journal that has never met a crank it didn't like. As Orac says, "Medical Hypotheses [is] the journal where the editors encourage the authors to make shit up."

Before I tell you about the latest "hypothesis", let me give you an idea of what kind of thinking goes into this publication. The latest issue has an editorial that argues that it is the "maverick" scientist who makes the real scientific breakthroughs, and that teamwork is only for the "modestly talented".

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with being somewhat unconventional, but "maverick" implies something specific: "a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates."

Science works because individuals don't get to just "make shit up". If I have what I think is a crazy but great new idea, I have to test it, but even more important, others have to test it too and verify my findings. There is no "maverick" science, as ultimately, ideas must be tested in the wider community to be legitimized.

Mavericks have made interesting discoveries, but never in a vacuum. The Galileos of history worked in context, and they were not brilliant because of their "maverick-ness", but because they were right.

So, moving on to their latest "hypothesis"...

Autism spectrum disorders are complicated and multifactorial. We don't know much about cause. We do know, by epidemiologic studies that autism and vaccines are not causally associated. We also have no reason to suspect an infectious agent or, say, aliens.

But that doesn't stop a maverick.

A recent issue of Medical Hypotheses includes an article that tries to link autism to Lyme disease. Why pick those two diseases? Who knows. Perhaps because both attract a lot of cult medicine.

So let's examine this "hypothesis".

The paper doesn't start well, as it begs the question immediately. For example, it simply assumes there is an autism "epidemic" that is "spreading" while evidence has shown this epidemic to be largely artifact. They also note that "[a]n association between Lyme disease (LYD) and other tick-borne infections (TBI) during fetal development and in infancy with autism, autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and autistic symptoms has been noted by numerous clinicians and parents." I'm not sure what that means. If they are going to base a whole paper on a particular assertion/observation, they probably should cite some data. Just sayin'.

In the introduction, they also make a rather odd statement:



Since environment changes faster than genes, the rapidly emerging epidemic and geographical spread of ASD suggests significant environmental contributors, that may include infections.

W. T. F. First, is there a "geographic spread" of ASD? OK, let's just assume there is (after all, the authors did). If there is, does this geographic distribution match the distribution of Lyme infections? For instance, is ASD more common in New England and Long Island, where Lyme is endemic? Is it less common in the Southwest, where Lyme is vanishingly rare? Their odd statement about genes and environment is not some grand discovery. Finding environmental factors through epidemiologic studies is pretty, well, standard. I wonder if they did that? I wonder if they even read the extant literature? Apparently, their "epidemiology" was limited to directly comparing incidence of autism and of Lyme disease on a state by state basis, without clear definitions or the use of standard statistics. Here is their blindingly stupid observation:

In a geostatistical review of CDC and IDEA statistics 10 out of the top 15 states overlap for the incidence of autism and LYD (MN, ME, MA, MD, CT, WI, RI, NJ, PA, VA).



The science of statistical analysis was developed to do away with this type of primitive observation.

It's difficult to overstate how bad this paper is. First, it relies on the journal's stated preference for maverick (i.e. way the hell out there) ideas. It starts with a hypothesis whose implausibility
matched only by it's weak observational foundation. It then goes on to support this hypothesis with case reports and other weak "evidence".

Ideally, an unusual hypothesis like this serves to inspire work on a new idea (contrary to the "maverick theory"). For this to happen, the hypothesis must be based on a plausible idea (it will have to stand up to a Bayesian analysis at some point). This paper is not such a jumping-off point, unless you are jumping off a cliff into a pool of fantasy.

Medical Hypotheses is truly the journal where one can "just make shit up."

References

Robert C. Bransfield, Jeffrey S. Wulfman, William T. Harvey,
Anju I. Usman. The association between tick-borne infections,
Lyme borreliosis and autism spectrum disorders. Medical Hypotheses (2008) 70, 967-974.

[GinnasP99]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X29lF43mUlo

Have a nice day.
Consider skateboarding.

[Nocht]

Nothing like the eternal wisdom of George Carlin in the morning!

I miss that guy.

[starkind]

Just wear a mask. Get one with fancy designs and like some maskuline logo. If your dick engourgement decreases... it's probably not the mask.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

studies

Are we reading the same papers? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23413265/ compares medical masks to N95 respirators. There was no unmasked study control group. Further, a P value of 0.02 basically means the study is noise (while a 1/50 chance of randomness sounds impressive, the reality is that 50 trials were done and this is the only one that was published).https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4941587 has the same problem and seems to be based on the same study. Simply put, there is no actual science supporting mask usage. https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/ has a good summary of, yes, peer reviewed papers that show why. The biggest randomized clinical trial in Denmark (6000 participants) came up negative or, if you want to be generous, indicated a very, very small and not statistically significant reduction in transmission.

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

I also read this paper. May I suggest you take a different tack? The guy is an exercise physiologist. His area of expertise is oxygen starvation. The biggest problem we have right now is "oh, it's no big deal, just wear a mask" people. What you should be saying is "Let us imagine that masks did somehow work and stop COVID. Guess what? They increase your resting heart rate by 5 bpm! They increase your stress response! Low oxygen causes CANCER! Where are your clinical studies that long term mask wearing is safe? Because you only have a 0.25% chance of dying from COVID aka the flu. If improving your odds there costs you a 10% chance of a bout with cancer due to low oxygenation, are you really winning?"