Thanks for your Reporting that masks are not proven to be effective. However, it’s what they are being claimed to be effective against that I disagree with, whole heartedly.
There has been ongoing research exploring the impact of environment and micro organisms such as bacteria, fungi and archaea and non living entities (virus). We know we exist in a sea of bacteria and virus. The theory explores the changes in environment that impact virus and bacteria, especially inside the human body. Bacteria take on a beneficial scavenger role. They are not deemed to be the cause of illness or infection. They are a response to it. In the same token, virus also plays a clean up role eliminating from the cell toxins by breaking them down and removing them. Virus is produced by most cells. Virus is non-living and acts as a soap to clean things up. Living organisms would not survive this task, thus, the evolutionary production of virus by the cell is necessary. BTW, this is happening all the time as our bodies deal with the constant exposure to daily toxins.
Germ theory is just that, an outdated and invalidated theory.
Life is to symbiotic for this perspective. Discussions on germ theory quickly conclude in many dead ends weakly validated by only dogma and superstition.
It also detracts from the real culprits- mainly pollution and the plethora of toxins it possesses. Hence, bigchem, bigpharma, bigagra, mining, big medicine, big-shitty-food are all to blame. We need to Stop chasing an invisible boogeyman and focus on reality instead.!
Hi! I agree that pollution probably isn't great (though organisms are resilient) and big chemical, big pharma and big agriculture are probably more-likely our enemy than our friend in sum.
However, that is only because of their monopoly power and ability to control the narrative through corrupt politics and corrupt media.
No reasonable person would call germ theory an "invalidated theory". There is, I understand from my training, one variable that predicts whether a child with serious bacterial infection will survive and that is timing of first dose of appropriate antibiotic.
Are you suggesting that I should stop prescribing antibiotics for strep, pneumonia, ear infections? How about viral encephalitis/meningitis from neonatal herpes simplex? Should we not give them acyclovir?
Please explain your thoughts and please consider that there is a middle ground between the two extremes. Medicine is not perfect, pharma manufacturers may be evil but there is a reason I took an oath of care and spent 11 years building my knowledge base and experience, full-time, and continue learning to this day, so my patients can have better outcomes under my care.
Antibiotics are very good at doing what the they claim to do, kill bacteria. That doesn’t mean bacteria are the cause or the problem. What is claimed to be a bacterial infection or sickness or disease, is the process by the body to eliminate the cause, if permitted to, by allowing the appropriate timeframe for this process, which the body itself determines. These principles are those of Herbert Sheldon. Although one may be critical of his views, based on thousands of patients and decades of successful recoveries, it is equally imperative to be critical of every aspect of today’s medical practises.
If germ theory is validated by the indiscriminate extermination of germs, bravo. I do not see how this process contributes to improved health or condition. There are always consequences. Perhaps, time permitted, the body would have resolved the infection. If the sickness deterred the individual from eating, perhaps this provided the body with leeway and contributed to resolving the condition.
To your point, there may be instances when an individuals body is overwhelmed by the infection response of the body, as a result of the high degree of poisoning, and an antibiotic seemingly spares the individual from an assured demise. But this cannot be known either.
Yeah. This is totally wrong. We can easily show with animal models that bacteria untreated lead to death and bacteria treated leads to not death. Unless you are suggesting that animal models are a poor surrogate for human health.
We can also look to the humans untreated for myriad diseases, who are… shockingly… dead.
Ever tested patients for procalcitonin to use as an adjunct bio marker to aid in determining quantity of bacterial insult? Or to use as differentiator between viral and bacterial?? Or to utilize to ensure correct antibiotic is being deployed??
Thx for your input to this comments section. Lots of sharing and therefore learning going on.
I think academic Physicians are interested in using procal and other markers for such differentiation but (and obviously I'm speaking only for myself here) when a patient is very ill, the risk of antibiotic overuse is far outweighed by the risk of imminent death or permanent disfigurement from delay to antibiotic administration.
If sepsis/meningitis are on your differential, you get your blood culture, try to get your csf and start appropriate empiric antibiotics because it's way more important to keep your patient alive than to prove how smart and crafty you are with untested, unproven and, quite frankly, useless additional diagnostic steps.
But that's just me and I don't even practice "real" medicine anymore. I'm outpatient in the community (not ER). But if I found out that I or my loved ones were being put on hold waiting for some nonsense surrogate marker, we're gonna have words.
I think also, early in my career, the notion of viral vs bacterial seemed like an interesting question. However, when you see, let's say 1000 patients a month (my average) and basically all of them are fine, then maybe 5 or 10 seem sick enough to require antibiotics, I'm not playing any games for "antibiotic stewardship". I don't care what some uninvested bureaucrat says about it.
Taking this one step further into the emergency world or the critical care world: if someone is actually sick (like "sick" that only someone who has been through medical school and Residency and paid attention can understand), you give the antibiotics and anyone who is antibiotic-phonic better sign a waiver that they are willing to die for their philosophy. And if it is a child, the parents better be willing to sit in jail for making a decision that leads to their child's death
You need to check your knowledge base, cause your statement that bacteria "are not deemed to be the cause of illness or infection" will get you laughed right out of the Mayo Clinic (maybe you've heard of that Institution):
"But bacteria may also cause illness. Many disease-causing bacteria make powerful chemicals called toxins that damage cells and make you ill. Other bacteria can get into and damage tissues. Some infections caused by bacteria include:
Let me get this straight advocate of clown school. Bacteria that exist within the body can suddenly go rogue and cause problems unprompted? Ditto for virus (brainless and lifeless entities). Your saying the internal environment (nutrition, exposure to chemicals -household products -cosmetics and detergents, textiles, outdoor chemicals, insecticides, herbicides, whatever chems are falling from the sky, pollution, vitamins, drugs, stress-from living in a world full of all this shit) are not plausible possibilities causing disease and sickness? It’s the bacteria themselves?? You’re saying Bacteria arbitrarily migrate to areas of the body whereby the inflammation that results from their by-products leads to infection and sickness? It’s not the change in the internal environment drawing them to areas of the body in an effort to remove the toxins or poisoned tissues?
Becoming sick and experiencing symptoms, disease, is the process of the body attempting to eliminate the poisons. The strength of the individual and extent of the poisoning determines the duration of sickness. If not perturbed by more poison.
Sometimes the response can be to overwhelming for a weak body and one may succumb. But that does not mean bacteria was the cause of the sickness.
If you just stick with posting "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah" then you won't wear your fingertips out trying to convince everyone that the Mayo Clinic doesn't know anything about medicine.
Plus, you won't confirm your ignorance, laziness, and stupidity on a public forum!!!
Oh, and the two most common bacterium that cause infections are Staphylococcus aureus (staph) and Escherichia coli (E. coli) ... want to guess where they are commonly found???
Dys-biosis (sp?) might be part of what you’re staying. Strep does live within us and serves benefits,,,,,,,,,,,until it becomes out of whack/out of balance, potentially and or likely due to something changing (negatively) to the mammalian biome. Tough call I know. If you’re house suddenly goes up in flames, best to put it out first and later ask how’d the fire in the fireplace/kitchen/barbeque get so big.
Thank you for this article Dr. Prasad, I totally agree. I understand a person wearing a mask if they are immunocompromised, as after an organ transplant, or elderly with respiratory infirmities but the average healthy person needs to build up immunity to everyday viruses. Also, something I never hear about is how the mask is worn. I constantly see people wearing these masks under their nose and, even worse, they reach up and touch the mask with hands that have touched everything in sight placing the viral and bacterial offenders right on their nose. Plus -their soggy mask needs to be changed every 2 hours. They can’t possibly run a decent study without including these variables.
Vinay, here is the question you've never asked, but should have, from day 1. "How do you know the masks are the thing producing the data?". Like really...think about that. That goes for both Pro and Anti studies... It has simply been "assumed" by everyone that its the masks. But here's the thing about that....Masks are a safety mitigation control..therefore they fall under the umbrella of exposure science principles. You MUST apply exposure science to the conversation.... And ....that science, over 75 years of tens upon tens of thousands of hours of actual in field work, studies, trial and error etc...unbiased and unpolitical... has already established the order of strength of all/any kind of safety mitigation control. Nutshell: ...Things that require less human intervention or instruction/handling to function...are ALWAYS superior to things that require more human involvement. Simply put...humans are stupid and inconsistent...and are the cause of 99% of the problems. So where do facemasks line up in the order of strength?....Dead. Last. . ( actually its worse than that....facemask mitigiation performance is so bad that the relevant governing agencies refused to even classify it as PPE....so technically facemasks suck so bad they really were never even on the list...its only cuz covid and Fauci that we're even dealing with the useless things).... essentially it means that literally everything else that was happening at the same time as masks....are things that have a stronger contribution to infection mitigation....like literally everything...opening a door, or window, the wind blowing, table disinfectant, air conditioning, personal immunity, distancing, vitamin D....literally everything. and sure, it is entirely possible that other things like HVAC, distancing etc may have had negligible impact on covid...but however microscopic their contribution was...ITS STILL STRONGER THAN THE MASKS....that's the "exposure science" point that is missing from all of the mask discussions. Its irrefutable. Masks are nothing but a surface area...and frankly...the most contaminated surface area on the planet...but somehow are able to produce this amazing study data all the time.. All of the CDC sanctioned mask experiment studies were "gamed". ( the receipts for every CDC sanction experiment study here:https://doranpeck.substack.com/p/the-cdc-mask-experiment-studies-quick
(alternate link: Documentary explaining exposure science relative to mask science, and several mistakes and provable fraud in some CDC studies (things you've never seen before I guarantee it) https://rumble.com/v1hk0h1-mask-documentary-series.html
In order to scientifically test a hypothesis, there has to be something that can be objectively measured. The fundamental problem with "covid" is that there is no gold standard to define the illness. No virus has ever been physically isolated or successfully cultured. Covid is simply a collection of symptoms remarkedly similar to what has always been called cold and/or flu. PCR is not a test; it is a laboratory procedure for multiplying bits of DNA or RNA and has never been shown to be an accurate indicator of infection. Antibody tests are likewise unreliable as the cross reactions with antibodies said to be evidence of infection with other viruses are very frequent. This limitation is enough to render any "study" of the phenomenon unscientific.
AS much as I "want" to agree with you that everything about COVID is a sick prank being played on us by the pharmaceutical industry and power-hungry governments (and non-government actors) who want to control every aspect of our lives, including when we're allowed to leave our houses and what should be injected in ours and our kids' arms...
A symptomatic person with a PCR +COVID test (as long as the cycle threshold is set reasonably (I'm not the expert on cycle counts) is probably a reasonable surrogate for symptomatic COVID infection.
By symptomatic, might that mean they feel sick (like when the flu makes one feel like shit all over), and therefore want to disassociate with others while they isolate, rest and recover?? I suggest PCR & CoV testing likely will only end up dragging them out of isolation to be told post diagnosis they need to return to isolation, which likely is what they were trying to do initially.
I was only referring to the interpretation of this study. If you feel sick, maybe don't go sneezing on your grandma. But your grandma is probably gonna get whatever you've got eventually anyway so...
Given there's no true control arm, that it's likely a placebo effect, that it's about symptoms not signs, should it even be called an RCT at all? I think not.
You are an ass who is just moving the goal post. For people who are looking to avoid getting sick in a particular period of time this study is helpful.
"Moving the goalpost"? This study shows that - masks or not - about 10% of people will catch a cold in a 2-week period. There's a negligible (I agree this is a subjective adjective) difference between those in masks and those not.
Of course, interpretation has a subjective element to it. Some may see a 3% difference and say, "Oh my gosh. I'm 3% less likely to get a virus for 2 weeks, that's awesome. I'm willing to hide my face, inhale microplastics, impair my child's language development. I also don't need to shave, brush my teeth or wear lipstick." Others may reasonably interpret this as, "Woah... even with the obvious bias, confounding and other errors inherent in a trial based on self-reporting subjective results without blinding, there is hardly any difference in outcomes in this short-term trial. I may postpone my infection risk by a few weeks, but this is ridiculous and how dare my government dream of infringing on my rights to have a face and force it on me based on such garbage data?"
Maybe you were already masking and living in a bubble when all the boogeyman junk mandated by the government- school boards, chief medical officer, douche bag trudumb, business community, etc was mandated. I suppose one could have chosen to stay in their own bubble and avoid daily life if they didn’t want to mask. Maybe that’s the medical freedom we were entitled to. As long as you didn’t have mouths to feed and a household to support.
You're delusional ... try looking at any health care personnel who work around those with viral infections and see if they're wearing masks that cost $0.02 to manufacture, yes TWO CENTS, for protection.
Vinay, while I completely agree that masks are not a productive tool to battle airborne disease, you're still not looking at this through the lens of an expert. I recommend you reach out to consult with an industrial hygienist to better examine these irrelevant mask studies. An RCT is meaningless in this lane of science without accounting for all exposure mitigation tactics through the prism of the Hierarchy of Controls. Additionally, recommended PPE measures are considered the last line of defense (not a pillar measure) and are unsafe without risk being considered. Please guide people to the proper scientists for these discussions.
Hospitals ran studies to see if masks prevented ianotropic disease (they started in surgical suites while MRSA & C-Diff outbreaks took hold and the $$$ hope was that masks would save the day), but masks did not improve outcomes. Sorry to say.
You're just as delusional as every other masker ... try looking at any health care personnel who work around those with viral infections and see if they're wearing masks that cost $0.02 to manufacture, yes TWO CENTS, for protection.
Thank God someone finally said it and to be frank the nonsense that developed during the 80s and 90s over germs and the fear of illness is what helped lead to this stupidity your parents were correct. "Over the last 4 years, globally, we have witnessed one of the greatest propaganda campaigns to convince the public that mask work."
And the fear of illness is a mental disorder fed by the Medical Industrial Complex's "geriatrics-for-endless-profits" everyone wants to live WAY past humans' natural longevity (menopause). This foolish endeavour of "eradicating disease" in a general sense is completely moronic.
Fine if you don’t agree and present facts. But not fine for unsupportable presumptions. It was not an attitude, it was common sense, physical facts as well as epistemological results that show regions with severe mask mandates faired not better than regions with none, or lax rules. Not 100% compliance issue. Issue is there is no way to ensure any consistent adherence. Your argument about mechanistic reasoning “some things should work but don’t” misses the point. A chain link fence won’t stop mosquitoes. The only mask capable of stopping a virus is one you can’t breathe through. Might consider your own advice about being reasonable.
All of the points you bring up considering they’re in effectiveness or ancillary. If used, masks work. That is the bottom line.
not to mention, your assertions mean nothing. If they are true, you must provide a citation from a credible source to lend the comment any credibility. As is, you’re just random sock puppet on the Internet saying shit. Stupid shit.
The “a virus is smaller than gaps in the fabric” comment is the height of intentionally disingenuous bullshit. viruses, all by themselves, attached to nothing else, with no form of liquid, dust, etc etc etc simply don’t exist.
There are already thousands upon thousands of studies that absolutely prove masks work. Holy fuck. Why don’t you do something constructive with your time and energy?
Ding dong
How do we even know the masks are the thing producing the data in any of these studies? There are a lot of strong mitigations happening simultaneously. https://open.substack.com/pub/doranpeck/p/so-you-want-to-run-a-randomized-control?r=ygaqy&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Even those with IQs that barely rise above 70 understand that masks have zero prophylactic effect on viral transmission.
Thanks for your Reporting that masks are not proven to be effective. However, it’s what they are being claimed to be effective against that I disagree with, whole heartedly.
There has been ongoing research exploring the impact of environment and micro organisms such as bacteria, fungi and archaea and non living entities (virus). We know we exist in a sea of bacteria and virus. The theory explores the changes in environment that impact virus and bacteria, especially inside the human body. Bacteria take on a beneficial scavenger role. They are not deemed to be the cause of illness or infection. They are a response to it. In the same token, virus also plays a clean up role eliminating from the cell toxins by breaking them down and removing them. Virus is produced by most cells. Virus is non-living and acts as a soap to clean things up. Living organisms would not survive this task, thus, the evolutionary production of virus by the cell is necessary. BTW, this is happening all the time as our bodies deal with the constant exposure to daily toxins.
Germ theory is just that, an outdated and invalidated theory.
Life is to symbiotic for this perspective. Discussions on germ theory quickly conclude in many dead ends weakly validated by only dogma and superstition.
It also detracts from the real culprits- mainly pollution and the plethora of toxins it possesses. Hence, bigchem, bigpharma, bigagra, mining, big medicine, big-shitty-food are all to blame. We need to Stop chasing an invisible boogeyman and focus on reality instead.!
Hi! I agree that pollution probably isn't great (though organisms are resilient) and big chemical, big pharma and big agriculture are probably more-likely our enemy than our friend in sum.
However, that is only because of their monopoly power and ability to control the narrative through corrupt politics and corrupt media.
No reasonable person would call germ theory an "invalidated theory". There is, I understand from my training, one variable that predicts whether a child with serious bacterial infection will survive and that is timing of first dose of appropriate antibiotic.
Are you suggesting that I should stop prescribing antibiotics for strep, pneumonia, ear infections? How about viral encephalitis/meningitis from neonatal herpes simplex? Should we not give them acyclovir?
Please explain your thoughts and please consider that there is a middle ground between the two extremes. Medicine is not perfect, pharma manufacturers may be evil but there is a reason I took an oath of care and spent 11 years building my knowledge base and experience, full-time, and continue learning to this day, so my patients can have better outcomes under my care.
Antibiotics are very good at doing what the they claim to do, kill bacteria. That doesn’t mean bacteria are the cause or the problem. What is claimed to be a bacterial infection or sickness or disease, is the process by the body to eliminate the cause, if permitted to, by allowing the appropriate timeframe for this process, which the body itself determines. These principles are those of Herbert Sheldon. Although one may be critical of his views, based on thousands of patients and decades of successful recoveries, it is equally imperative to be critical of every aspect of today’s medical practises.
If germ theory is validated by the indiscriminate extermination of germs, bravo. I do not see how this process contributes to improved health or condition. There are always consequences. Perhaps, time permitted, the body would have resolved the infection. If the sickness deterred the individual from eating, perhaps this provided the body with leeway and contributed to resolving the condition.
To your point, there may be instances when an individuals body is overwhelmed by the infection response of the body, as a result of the high degree of poisoning, and an antibiotic seemingly spares the individual from an assured demise. But this cannot be known either.
I was thinking, “there's gotta be a meme for this.” Lo and behold:
This
I'm not sure why the photo isn't loading… or is it a glitch on my cellphone?
Yeah. This is totally wrong. We can easily show with animal models that bacteria untreated lead to death and bacteria treated leads to not death. Unless you are suggesting that animal models are a poor surrogate for human health.
We can also look to the humans untreated for myriad diseases, who are… shockingly… dead.
Ever tested patients for procalcitonin to use as an adjunct bio marker to aid in determining quantity of bacterial insult? Or to use as differentiator between viral and bacterial?? Or to utilize to ensure correct antibiotic is being deployed??
Thx for your input to this comments section. Lots of sharing and therefore learning going on.
I think academic Physicians are interested in using procal and other markers for such differentiation but (and obviously I'm speaking only for myself here) when a patient is very ill, the risk of antibiotic overuse is far outweighed by the risk of imminent death or permanent disfigurement from delay to antibiotic administration.
If sepsis/meningitis are on your differential, you get your blood culture, try to get your csf and start appropriate empiric antibiotics because it's way more important to keep your patient alive than to prove how smart and crafty you are with untested, unproven and, quite frankly, useless additional diagnostic steps.
But that's just me and I don't even practice "real" medicine anymore. I'm outpatient in the community (not ER). But if I found out that I or my loved ones were being put on hold waiting for some nonsense surrogate marker, we're gonna have words.
I think also, early in my career, the notion of viral vs bacterial seemed like an interesting question. However, when you see, let's say 1000 patients a month (my average) and basically all of them are fine, then maybe 5 or 10 seem sick enough to require antibiotics, I'm not playing any games for "antibiotic stewardship". I don't care what some uninvested bureaucrat says about it.
Taking this one step further into the emergency world or the critical care world: if someone is actually sick (like "sick" that only someone who has been through medical school and Residency and paid attention can understand), you give the antibiotics and anyone who is antibiotic-phonic better sign a waiver that they are willing to die for their philosophy. And if it is a child, the parents better be willing to sit in jail for making a decision that leads to their child's death
You need to check your knowledge base, cause your statement that bacteria "are not deemed to be the cause of illness or infection" will get you laughed right out of the Mayo Clinic (maybe you've heard of that Institution):
"But bacteria may also cause illness. Many disease-causing bacteria make powerful chemicals called toxins that damage cells and make you ill. Other bacteria can get into and damage tissues. Some infections caused by bacteria include:
- Strep throat.
- Tuberculosis.
- Urinary tract infections.
Let me get this straight advocate of clown school. Bacteria that exist within the body can suddenly go rogue and cause problems unprompted? Ditto for virus (brainless and lifeless entities). Your saying the internal environment (nutrition, exposure to chemicals -household products -cosmetics and detergents, textiles, outdoor chemicals, insecticides, herbicides, whatever chems are falling from the sky, pollution, vitamins, drugs, stress-from living in a world full of all this shit) are not plausible possibilities causing disease and sickness? It’s the bacteria themselves?? You’re saying Bacteria arbitrarily migrate to areas of the body whereby the inflammation that results from their by-products leads to infection and sickness? It’s not the change in the internal environment drawing them to areas of the body in an effort to remove the toxins or poisoned tissues?
Becoming sick and experiencing symptoms, disease, is the process of the body attempting to eliminate the poisons. The strength of the individual and extent of the poisoning determines the duration of sickness. If not perturbed by more poison.
Sometimes the response can be to overwhelming for a weak body and one may succumb. But that does not mean bacteria was the cause of the sickness.
If you just stick with posting "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah" then you won't wear your fingertips out trying to convince everyone that the Mayo Clinic doesn't know anything about medicine.
Plus, you won't confirm your ignorance, laziness, and stupidity on a public forum!!!
Oh, and the two most common bacterium that cause infections are Staphylococcus aureus (staph) and Escherichia coli (E. coli) ... want to guess where they are commonly found???
Dys-biosis (sp?) might be part of what you’re staying. Strep does live within us and serves benefits,,,,,,,,,,,until it becomes out of whack/out of balance, potentially and or likely due to something changing (negatively) to the mammalian biome. Tough call I know. If you’re house suddenly goes up in flames, best to put it out first and later ask how’d the fire in the fireplace/kitchen/barbeque get so big.
You are obviously projecting. Such anger, vulgarity and vitriol! My sympathies.
When I see someone masked out in public these days I feel sorry for him. And often I see fear in their eyes.
Loss of human communication is also a health issue.
Thank you for this article Dr. Prasad, I totally agree. I understand a person wearing a mask if they are immunocompromised, as after an organ transplant, or elderly with respiratory infirmities but the average healthy person needs to build up immunity to everyday viruses. Also, something I never hear about is how the mask is worn. I constantly see people wearing these masks under their nose and, even worse, they reach up and touch the mask with hands that have touched everything in sight placing the viral and bacterial offenders right on their nose. Plus -their soggy mask needs to be changed every 2 hours. They can’t possibly run a decent study without including these variables.
Vinay, here is the question you've never asked, but should have, from day 1. "How do you know the masks are the thing producing the data?". Like really...think about that. That goes for both Pro and Anti studies... It has simply been "assumed" by everyone that its the masks. But here's the thing about that....Masks are a safety mitigation control..therefore they fall under the umbrella of exposure science principles. You MUST apply exposure science to the conversation.... And ....that science, over 75 years of tens upon tens of thousands of hours of actual in field work, studies, trial and error etc...unbiased and unpolitical... has already established the order of strength of all/any kind of safety mitigation control. Nutshell: ...Things that require less human intervention or instruction/handling to function...are ALWAYS superior to things that require more human involvement. Simply put...humans are stupid and inconsistent...and are the cause of 99% of the problems. So where do facemasks line up in the order of strength?....Dead. Last. . ( actually its worse than that....facemask mitigiation performance is so bad that the relevant governing agencies refused to even classify it as PPE....so technically facemasks suck so bad they really were never even on the list...its only cuz covid and Fauci that we're even dealing with the useless things).... essentially it means that literally everything else that was happening at the same time as masks....are things that have a stronger contribution to infection mitigation....like literally everything...opening a door, or window, the wind blowing, table disinfectant, air conditioning, personal immunity, distancing, vitamin D....literally everything. and sure, it is entirely possible that other things like HVAC, distancing etc may have had negligible impact on covid...but however microscopic their contribution was...ITS STILL STRONGER THAN THE MASKS....that's the "exposure science" point that is missing from all of the mask discussions. Its irrefutable. Masks are nothing but a surface area...and frankly...the most contaminated surface area on the planet...but somehow are able to produce this amazing study data all the time.. All of the CDC sanctioned mask experiment studies were "gamed". ( the receipts for every CDC sanction experiment study here:https://doranpeck.substack.com/p/the-cdc-mask-experiment-studies-quick
(alternate link: Documentary explaining exposure science relative to mask science, and several mistakes and provable fraud in some CDC studies (things you've never seen before I guarantee it) https://rumble.com/v1hk0h1-mask-documentary-series.html
In order to scientifically test a hypothesis, there has to be something that can be objectively measured. The fundamental problem with "covid" is that there is no gold standard to define the illness. No virus has ever been physically isolated or successfully cultured. Covid is simply a collection of symptoms remarkedly similar to what has always been called cold and/or flu. PCR is not a test; it is a laboratory procedure for multiplying bits of DNA or RNA and has never been shown to be an accurate indicator of infection. Antibody tests are likewise unreliable as the cross reactions with antibodies said to be evidence of infection with other viruses are very frequent. This limitation is enough to render any "study" of the phenomenon unscientific.
AS much as I "want" to agree with you that everything about COVID is a sick prank being played on us by the pharmaceutical industry and power-hungry governments (and non-government actors) who want to control every aspect of our lives, including when we're allowed to leave our houses and what should be injected in ours and our kids' arms...
A symptomatic person with a PCR +COVID test (as long as the cycle threshold is set reasonably (I'm not the expert on cycle counts) is probably a reasonable surrogate for symptomatic COVID infection.
By symptomatic, might that mean they feel sick (like when the flu makes one feel like shit all over), and therefore want to disassociate with others while they isolate, rest and recover?? I suggest PCR & CoV testing likely will only end up dragging them out of isolation to be told post diagnosis they need to return to isolation, which likely is what they were trying to do initially.
I was only referring to the interpretation of this study. If you feel sick, maybe don't go sneezing on your grandma. But your grandma is probably gonna get whatever you've got eventually anyway so...
Given there's no true control arm, that it's likely a placebo effect, that it's about symptoms not signs, should it even be called an RCT at all? I think not.
You are an ass who is just moving the goal post. For people who are looking to avoid getting sick in a particular period of time this study is helpful.
"Moving the goalpost"? This study shows that - masks or not - about 10% of people will catch a cold in a 2-week period. There's a negligible (I agree this is a subjective adjective) difference between those in masks and those not.
Of course, interpretation has a subjective element to it. Some may see a 3% difference and say, "Oh my gosh. I'm 3% less likely to get a virus for 2 weeks, that's awesome. I'm willing to hide my face, inhale microplastics, impair my child's language development. I also don't need to shave, brush my teeth or wear lipstick." Others may reasonably interpret this as, "Woah... even with the obvious bias, confounding and other errors inherent in a trial based on self-reporting subjective results without blinding, there is hardly any difference in outcomes in this short-term trial. I may postpone my infection risk by a few weeks, but this is ridiculous and how dare my government dream of infringing on my rights to have a face and force it on me based on such garbage data?"
When did the govt infringe on your rights?
This is a joke, right? Where have you been since March 2020?
Maybe you were already masking and living in a bubble when all the boogeyman junk mandated by the government- school boards, chief medical officer, douche bag trudumb, business community, etc was mandated. I suppose one could have chosen to stay in their own bubble and avoid daily life if they didn’t want to mask. Maybe that’s the medical freedom we were entitled to. As long as you didn’t have mouths to feed and a household to support.
You're delusional ... try looking at any health care personnel who work around those with viral infections and see if they're wearing masks that cost $0.02 to manufacture, yes TWO CENTS, for protection.
Yes I see it every day at my shop. What's your point?
You see "health care personnel who work around those with viral infections" wearing masks in your shop every day???
HAHAHAHA, HOHOHOHO, HAHAHAHA!!!
You're the only ass here pushing fear- mongering and false hopes. Shame on you.
If he's an ass he's one that is using logic, unlike the asses that think this study resolved anything.
Vinay, while I completely agree that masks are not a productive tool to battle airborne disease, you're still not looking at this through the lens of an expert. I recommend you reach out to consult with an industrial hygienist to better examine these irrelevant mask studies. An RCT is meaningless in this lane of science without accounting for all exposure mitigation tactics through the prism of the Hierarchy of Controls. Additionally, recommended PPE measures are considered the last line of defense (not a pillar measure) and are unsafe without risk being considered. Please guide people to the proper scientists for these discussions.
Hospitals ran studies to see if masks prevented ianotropic disease (they started in surgical suites while MRSA & C-Diff outbreaks took hold and the $$$ hope was that masks would save the day), but masks did not improve outcomes. Sorry to say.
You're just as delusional as every other masker ... try looking at any health care personnel who work around those with viral infections and see if they're wearing masks that cost $0.02 to manufacture, yes TWO CENTS, for protection.
Thank God someone finally said it and to be frank the nonsense that developed during the 80s and 90s over germs and the fear of illness is what helped lead to this stupidity your parents were correct. "Over the last 4 years, globally, we have witnessed one of the greatest propaganda campaigns to convince the public that mask work."
And the fear of illness is a mental disorder fed by the Medical Industrial Complex's "geriatrics-for-endless-profits" everyone wants to live WAY past humans' natural longevity (menopause). This foolish endeavour of "eradicating disease" in a general sense is completely moronic.
Fine if you don’t agree and present facts. But not fine for unsupportable presumptions. It was not an attitude, it was common sense, physical facts as well as epistemological results that show regions with severe mask mandates faired not better than regions with none, or lax rules. Not 100% compliance issue. Issue is there is no way to ensure any consistent adherence. Your argument about mechanistic reasoning “some things should work but don’t” misses the point. A chain link fence won’t stop mosquitoes. The only mask capable of stopping a virus is one you can’t breathe through. Might consider your own advice about being reasonable.
All of the points you bring up considering they’re in effectiveness or ancillary. If used, masks work. That is the bottom line.
not to mention, your assertions mean nothing. If they are true, you must provide a citation from a credible source to lend the comment any credibility. As is, you’re just random sock puppet on the Internet saying shit. Stupid shit.
The “a virus is smaller than gaps in the fabric” comment is the height of intentionally disingenuous bullshit. viruses, all by themselves, attached to nothing else, with no form of liquid, dust, etc etc etc simply don’t exist.
Sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
There are already thousands upon thousands of studies that absolutely prove masks work. Holy fuck. Why don’t you do something constructive with your time and energy?
One word: Cochrane. You clearly want masks to work to justify something you have thoroughly bought into.
They do. Sorry. I know that’s hard for an agitprop tool to digest.
What are the "thousands upon thousands of studies that absolutely prove masks work"? How many of them are RCTs?