Pioneer cover

From the press release: From the moment he is handed a possibility of making the first alien contact, Saunders Maxwell decides he will do it, even if doing so takes him through hell and back.

 
Unfortunately, that is exactly where that journey takes him.

 
The vision that Zimmerman paints of vibrant human colonies on the Moon, Mars, the asteroids, and beyond, indomitably fighting the harsh lifeless environment of space to build new societies, captures perfectly the emerging space race we see today.

 
He also captures in Pioneer the heart of the human spirit, willing to push forward no matter the odds, no matter the cost. It is that spirit that will make the exploration of the heavens possible, forever, into the never-ending future.

 
Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at amazon, Barnes & Noble, all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.

Mask madness even as scientists confirm once again their uselessness

Even as a just published new study has shown once again the utter uselessness of masks to limit the spread of respiratory diseases like COVID-19, the control freaks of our now largely oppressive society are clamping down with new totalitarian rules requiring masks to be worn at all times, no matter what.

First let ‘s look at the study, which was published by the National Center for Biotechnological Information government website, a branch of the National Institute for Health. From the paper:

The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists.

Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose etc…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people. This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase.

There is a lot more in the study. Read it all. It shows, based on extensive research, that even when worn properly masks are relatively useless in stopping viral diseases. And since as mandated no one ever uses them properly, they end up becoming likely collectors of pathogens instead, at the very spot where people breath, thus contributing to the spread of infection.

The study also documented the numerous physiological and psychological costs caused by the forced continuous use of masks, from restricting oxygen to causing people to become socially isolated.

The paper’s conclusion:

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death.

These conclusions by the way match up with more than a hundred years of research into mask use. While their benefit in surgical settings is considered helpful but very limited (merely acting to keep sanitary a patient’s surgical site), research for decades has found masks to have of little or no significant benefit in protecting against most viral respiratory diseases.

Do these well documented facts matter? No. The control freaks and petty tyrants of modern America are going to force masks down our throats regardless. For example, St. Joseph’s College in Standish, Maine, is now fining its students $50 every time they are caught on campus not wearing their mask’s properly.

In Michigan meanwhile the Department of Health and Human Services has expanded its mask mandate, now requiring 2-year-old toddlers to wear face masks in any gathering of “two or more people” from more than one household.

Then there is Oregon, where the state health department wants to make permanent its mask requirements.

In New York, Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo last week issued a new edict, requiring everyone to wear a mask all the time.in public.

Ironically, only in these states with strict mask mandates and still-stringent lockdown rules has the coronavirus epidemic continues to rage. States like Texas and Florida have seen instead no growth and even a corresponding decline in infections and deaths, following their ending of their mask mandates.

Masks don’t work. They are inhuman, and work to destroy the fundamental social interactions that people need. Stop using them. Show some courage. Make businesses aware that if they require them, you will shop elsewhere.

Readers!
 

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:
 


 

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

37 comments

  • Cotour

    RELATED: SEE: Cotour: CDC admits its almost impossible to catch COVID from surfaces

  • m d mill

    1)Once again it seems RZ finds a publication that he likes and is satisfied to quote it, without really investigating it.
    This “paper” surveyed some literature, without any actual first hand investigation. And even then THEY GOT IT WRONG.

    What does of the referenced paper[26] from the second paragraph quoted above state?

    “Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks”

    Nancy H L Leung ,et al
    Abstract:
    “We identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.”

    So the results of the referenced paper seem to be the OPPOSITE of the paper cited by RZ. Again, “Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.”
    [it does not surprise me that masks are not effective on asymptomatic people…zero times one =zero]

    2) And RZ has done this before. In another previous BTB post quoting an article about the ineffectiveness of masks, what does the first line of the actual paper actually state?
    “Infectious respiratory diseases spread when a healthy person comes in contact with virus-laden droplets from someone who has been infected, often through a sneeze or cough.1,2 Wearing a mask has been PROVEN to be an effective method of protection in this pandemic, which both reduces the exhalation of virus-laden aerosols from a COVID patient and minimizes the inhalation of airborne virus-laden aerosols by the subjects surrounding the patient.”

    And specifically, in that first referenced paper (of this paper) we read:

    “A large reduction in volume is also seen with a surgical mask (Table I). A N95 mask, therefore, not only cuts the number of droplets ejected out by the person but also substantially reduces the amount of infected air produced by the person. Based on typical data,13 the volume of the cloud without a mask is about 7 times and 23 times larger than that with a surgical mask and an N95 mask, respectively.”
    [ https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0029186 ]

    This same original paper shows that most cough spittle droplets are in the range 4 to 16 microns (which multi-layer cotton can filter), but the largest volume of spittle and viruses is actually in the less dense but much larger droplets.
    But the authors of this paper admit: “It is natural to think that wearing a mask, no matter new or old, should always be better than nothing,” said author Jinxiang Xi. “Our results show that this belief is only TRUE for particles larger than 5 micrometers, but not for fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers.” But most viruses ARE in particles greater than 5 micron. Therefore a low leakage multilayer cloth mask is not a “useless talisman”

    Similarly, the disease control experts in South Korea, who have managed to avoid a large death rate using NO lock-downs, have called masking an essential part of their covid-19 response…not useless, and they seem to know what they are talking about, but we may disagree about that.

    HOWEVER,
    this is completely separate from the question “if and when” masking should be required by government or private businesses. If very few people are infectious and very few infected people are in any significant danger, then masks may well be unnecessary or not worth the trouble to the general public, regardless of how effective masks may be in principle in reducing exhaled particles from infectious persons [In practice mask mandates don’t SEEM to have made much difference on death rates for the reasons given above AND because people do not, and can not wear them most of the time–which is when the infection transmission actually occurs]. Also, as a society we may view viruses as a natural inevitable risk and require isolation/avoidance to be the responsibility of the individual (which tends to be my position). These are separate valid and essential questions.

    3) And in a similar vain of misrepresentation,
    RZ: “…unprecedented measures imposed by governments during this epidemic were ALL WORTHLESS in slowing the virus…”
    Similarly in a previous post:
    “NOTHING done by any government ANYWHERE in the world has stopped the virus from spreading, whether it be lockdowns, masks, or quarantines.”–RZ

    This is simply factually not true, and should be retracted. See New Zealand, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Norway, Finland (others?). But they are NOT retracted, they are repeated!
    Even though it does seem to be true in most societies, and certainly in the U.S..

    And I do agree with the general sentiment of that post. The number of people in the U.S. mortally threatened (ie needing hospitalization) of covid is about 4 in 1000 per year. The number of covid-19 induced deaths is about half of that…hardly an existential crisis warranting the egregious devastation of an economy, personal finances, private businesses, education, and the social health and happiness of entire societies.

    I just wish RZ would not “pad” the argument indiscriminately.

  • eddie willers

    m d mill

    You are talking about droplets. That means if the virus is locked in mucus that is expelled, the mask could (your paper’s word) catch the products of sneezes and spittle. The virus itself is far too small to be blocked alone. So we get back to what was said early, before everything got politicized, if you are sick, a mask can keep you from infecting someone else. Now you could argue it could help you if someone spits in your face, but let’s be reasonable. But no one’s been reasonable since April of last year.

    You quarantine the sick, not the sick and the healthy together.

  • Restricting oxygen? I tested that myself. The difference in O2 with and without a mask is negligible.

    IOW, the anti-mask side is completely wrong on the one aspect I can check for myself.

    I recommend you get your own oximeter and try it out. Nullius in verba!

  • Bart

    “According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger.”

    No. This is a 2-dimensional problem. Area goes as diameter squared. It is more than 1,000,000 times larger.

  • chemman

    Joseph H.
    I asked you this on another site.
    1. What type of mask were you wearing?
    2. How long did you wear it before testing?

    You proved nothing with you juvenile test. In science you lay out the steps in your experiment in detail including all the equipment used and environmental conditions. You did none of that and then drew an unjustified conclusion.

  • Frank

    Please note that there are several mechanisms on how facemasks work.
    See more here:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185834/

  • Mere Citizen

    Someone cited this at me on the instapundit site, and I noted back that the study says in its title it is a hypothesis. I think most people learned in grade school what a hypothesis is. This is not a study. It is cherry picking of information meant to bolster that papers HYPOTHESIS.
    Next, if a masks cause hypercapnia then surgeons would be falling out in the middle of surgery, as a cardiac nurse I have seen more than a handful of hypercapnic patients. The most recent on a patient with Covid in November, then home and then back to the hospital 2 weeks ago. She died after going step by step from nasal cannula supplement to bipap and last intubation.
    You do a great disservice through publishing this as if it was anything other than a hypothesis.

  • Robin Tilling

    That Andrew Cuomo order is from April of 2020.

  • commodude

    If masks are so effective, why has the CDC and WHO removed consideration of mask wearing from their contact tracing protocols?

    The original tracing protocols asked if the contact was in proximity to a confirmed symptomatic positive while unmasked. Those protocols were updated last summer and the reference to mask wearing was removed, and you had to quarantine if you were inside 6′ of a confirmed positive within 2 days of the positive becoming symptomatic.

    Occam’s razor would dictate that both CDC and WHO KNOW that masks are ineffective, and are nothing more than a sop for the masses who have to feel like they can DO something.

  • I would gladly donate but because of my color blindness and the site’s color scheme – which makes the page very difficult to read – I’m rarely here.

  • Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting a chain link fence completely over and around your house to keep out mosquitos.

  • wayne

    I’m just a social-science major, but the whole thing for me rests on one little factoid; if we are trying to filter out viruses, all these ‘masks’ everyone is wearing, just do not accomplish that task.

  • Phill O

    Joseph Hertzlinger You are correct. To argue that masks will lower O2 levels argues that masks will stop the virus as O2 molecules are smaller!

    However, masks do not work! They could reduce the load obtained due to reducing the droplets, but I have a friend who was anal about mask wearing (until she got the virus) then she did not wear a mask. It was all about her and not others.

    Even in dusty environments (like going to the Aragonite room in Crystal Cave) I overheated if wore a mask. As one who suffer from claustrophobia, overheating is not good!

    This society no longer tolerates risk and can not make rational decisions as fear clouds all decisions. While people who are advocating severe restrictions to combat this mild virus, it is laying the groundwork of mistrust in governments and health officials so when a serious infection happens (GMO smallpox) people will not obey sensible restrictions. There are unintended consequence of crying WOLF.

  • GWB

    I note that everyone talking about weave spacing neglects the effect on the fluid dynamics when breathing through any material. You can’t just say “oh, the virus is smaller than the holes, so no effect.” Breathing with a covering on your face shifts the airflow and increases turbulence, which will effect how much of the contaminants impact or approach a surface. It also restricts the velocity of the airflow “straight out” from the mouth or nose, reducing any necessary distancing. It won’t absolutely stop transmission, but it will do some reduction and redirection of the viral load that is shed.

    Having said all that, no, they don’t protect you much from asymptomatic people. Duh. (Most of the people freaking out about asymptomatic transmission seemed to me to be Zero Risk folks. Also ignoring the cruise ship data.) And they won’t protect you very much if you’re in, say, an infectious ward full of people coughing, hacking, sneezing, and otherwise flinging virus into the atmosphere. But they will protect you some.

    One point to ponder:
    they end up becoming likely collectors of pathogens instead
    Well, if they can “collect” pathogens… then they’re certainly stopping those pathogens, are they not?

    I am not a pro-masker, except for actually sick people (and I think they should mask up or stay home if it’s a cold or the flu, too). I just don’t like bad arguments.

  • Mike Abyle: You do know that you have full power to change the color scheme of every website, using the preference settings in your browser? I for example like a grey background, and force every website to use it. If you need background to be white and text to be black, you can make it so.

  • wayne

    mike–
    ditto on what Mr. Z. said. you can change the colors to whatever suits you best. What browser do you use? (I’m not the guy to explain how, but it’s doable.)

    J Kazak-
    -missed your post.
    >Excellent stuff. I mean, that about says it, all.

    GWB-
    you do raise a point I readily concede–but I would put it this way: physical barriers around the face DO hinder the human propensity to unconsciously touch their faces with their fingers.
    >How effective that is at reducing this particular pathogen transmission vs. the downside of perpetually wearing any type of mask/covering of whatever filtering grade it actually is, in actual hour-to-hour use, is an open question.

    I was all in on “15 days,” but what it transmogrified into, real darn fast, was pathological, and it’s not letting up.

  • Trent Castanaveras

    “Well, if they can “collect” pathogens… then they’re certainly catching those pathogens, are they not?”

    Fixed that for you.

    And what happens to the caught pathogens? Throwing a pre-covid study into the mix:

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0141076815583167

  • Cotour

    From the real world:

    One of my customers is a young EMS tech and when he comes in I ask him what is keeping him busiest, Covid?

    And this is what he told me.:

    He is very busy taking people to the emergency room now with people having medical issues like blood clots after they get the vaccine. And I have heard nothing of this in the media. He busiest now not with Covid, he is most busy with the effects of the vaccine.

    I fund that very interesting.

  • eddie willers

    The difference in O2 with and without a mask is negligible.

    Not if you have COPD as I do. The silver lining: As more information comes in, it appears that the medications used to treat COPD and asthma (especially inhaled steroids) seem to be good prophylactics.

    I may be bulletproof.

  • GWB

    wayne
    April 20, 2021 at 9:23 am

    GWB-
    I was all in on “15 days,”

    Yes, I was willing to tolerate it if it was two weeks. But even in that time period the Zero Risk people showed their lunacy, and it was apparent it wouldn’t stop at 15 days even then.

    Trent Castanaveras
    April 20, 2021 at 9:39 am

    “Well, if they can “collect” pathogens… then they’re certainly catching those pathogens, are they not?”

    Fixed that for you.
    Which means some of the pathogens are being stopped. It was intended as another poke at the arguments used, not some sort of “I got ya now!” premise.

    That is an interesting study, btw. It would be nice to have someone set up an actual laboratory test that simulated the breathing and such.

  • Cotour

    There are no conspiracies, and there are no coincidences:

    https://youtu.be/QciiFYJJiJk

    Ivermectin?

  • TM Avenger

    I encourage you to look much deeper into the study you are quoting here. You will find that the author’s numerous citations range from cherry-picked to irrelevant to direct contradictions to the way he has presented them. I took the time to do this because on the surface, this study seems to show conclusively that masks are worse than useless; something I consider radically unlikely. The paper itself is highly persuasive, but it does contain two obvious fallacies, one of which you quote above:

    “medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [than the virus]”

    The tread size of the masks is completely irrelevant. The threads are a BARRIER. It is the GAPS between the threads that are in question, and although they are also larger than the virus they are not generally “1,000 times larger.” This is illustrative of the author’s repeated mis-statements of the facts.

  • buddhaha

    Joseph H: I dispute your assertation.

    I have actually done the experiment, using an N95 mask and a finger oxiometer. My resting O2 level was 96-98% taking deliberate breaths. After 5 minutes of significant exertion -yard work- my O2 level was still in the 96-97% range without a mask. Adding an N95 mask, fitted tightly, continuing the same level of exertion, at the 5 minute mark, my O2 level was down to 92-93%, and was panting.

    Maybe using the “face masks” sold at the 7-11 doesn’t affect blood oxygen levels, but they’re a joke. No medical personnel would ever use them, because they are useless, even for most bacterial pathogens.

    I’m so tired of conflation and goalpost-moving in these discussions.
    N95 masks are effective against bacterial infections,which is why they are worn in medical situations. No one can come up with any explanation as to how they are supposed to filter viral particles. The “droplet” theory assumes that all Covid-19 viral particles ride on moisture droplets. Experiments in airborne transmission seem to indicate that this isn’t true.
    Masks, of any sort, fail the practical test. The infection rate is the same between “masks mandated” and “masks optional” areas.

    On balance, masks have a negative effect on public health vis-a-vis Covid-19.

  • Cotour

    The WHO, not that WHO

    https://youtu.be/TeXrOJ7C0HY

    Change the recommendations, or else.

  • wayne

    C–

    Music that never existed, but works surprisingly well…

    Metallica, Megadeth, and The Who –
    “Eminence of Holy Wars and Creeping Death”
    https://youtu.be/APOGz3EBzKE
    4:13

  • Edward

    Phill O noted: “To argue that masks will lower O2 levels argues that masks will stop the virus as O2 molecules are smaller!

    Unfortunately, this ignores the air flow restriction that face diapers place in the path as well as the CO2 reservoir that is created between the diaper and the face.

    I have a friend who was anal about mask wearing (until she got the virus) then she did not wear a mask. It was all about her and not others.

    Now that she is no longer contagious and can no longer become contagious, why should she take all the risks that come with masks? She should take risks without any benefit to herself or to anyone? Just so that they can feel good? Sounds like it is not about her but about everyone else at her risk and no benefit to anyone. Someone is being selfish, and it isn’t her.

    GWB asked: “Well, if they can “collect” pathogens… then they’re certainly stopping those pathogens, are they not?

    They collect pathogens from a variety of sources, including hands, pockets, purses, and the air. From the air they collect pathogens from droplets that they stop, and as the droplets evaporate (perhaps while in storage between uses) the pathogens become available for inhalation.

    m d mill wrote: “Once again it seems RZ finds a publication that he likes and is satisfied to quote it, without really investigating it.

    Once again, m d mill has said something that he cannot back up. Sure he links to a paper, but even the quote he pulls out of it fails to back up his point. “A N95 mask, therefore, not only cuts the number of droplets ejected out by the person but also substantially reduces the amount of infected air produced by the person.” The quote actually backs up Robert’s point that with these asthma-simulators all we get is more difficulty in breathing, specifically less air in our lungs. The quote fails to say anything about face diapers preventing the Wuhan virus from making it through the material, and indeed it says that the virus does get through. It says that there is less air and that the air is still infected.

    m d mill complains that Robert misrepresents his own links, but it is m d mill who does the misrepresentations.

    So the results of the referenced paper seem to be the OPPOSITE of the paper cited by RZ.

    It may seem that way to m d mill, who fails to comprehend what he reads and only sees what he wants to see, disregarding the rest. However, the paper cited by Robert draws different information from Leung, et al than m d mill thinks it does. m d mill thinks that the abstract is the relevant section, but it isn’t. A researcher can reference a paper that comes to a different conclusion just for data, which is the case here.

    m d mill has confused droplets for the virus itself. We all know that masks have an effect on droplets, because filtering droplets are their purpose, to reduce post-surgical infections due to bacteria emitted from the surgical staff. However, even for this purpose masks do not have a large effect, and some studies have shown no benefit.

    Somehow m d mill believes that the virus is orders of magnitude larger than it actually is and thus thinks that face diapers stop the virus itself.

    Out of 67 referenced papers, m d mill found only one says that its results indicate that masks could work, based solely on the assumption that droplets are the vector of infection, and assuming we only use them properly at all times rather than in the way that we actually use them. That paper is Lysenkoist, written post-March 2020 and presenting the government’s position, at that time. Leung knows which side of the bread is buttered. Of course, before March 2020, the government insisted that face diapers don’t work to prevent the spread of Wuhan flu. Even as late as June, the position was that wearing them was merely to show that we care.

    m d mill preaches someone else’s theory (government’s hypothesis, actually), but Robert has explained the result of actual practice. Then m d mill attacks Robert for not believing that we all use our masks exactly in the way that the researchers study them. I have yet to see a non-medical person use them properly, and in my area I get a whole lot of examples for observation.

    [it does not surprise me that masks are not effective on asymptomatic people…zero times one =zero]

    As m d mill points out, they are completely ineffective for the rest of us, and we only get the risks, dangers, and downsides of wearing them without any benefit.

    So, why are asymptomatic people required to wear them? And why are symptomatic people running around town, with or without face diapers, rather than staying in bed where they belong? If they work, then shouldn’t they be worn only by household members where there is a symptomatic person (who is staying in bed, of course)?

    Meanwhile, the rest of us suffocate whenever we are required to wear a face diaper. Because I loathe to suffocate, I have discovered how many of life’s necessities are not so necessary after all or can be purchased some later week, after I have accumulated a larger list of items to get at the store. Even at the store, I have to make sure that the line at the cash register is not long, otherwise I end up gasping for breath by the time I can get the hell out of there.

    I just wish m d mill would not “pad” his arguments indiscriminately.

    Mere Citizen wrote: “Someone cited this at me on the instapundit site, and I noted back that the study says in its title it is a hypothesis. I think most people learned in grade school what a hypothesis is. This is not a study. It is cherry picking of information meant to bolster that papers HYPOTHESIS.

    I love how the person who claims to be a medical professional drew conclusions merely by reading the paper’s title (talk about cherry picking information!), assuming that the paper is the hypothesis, not that it is studying the hypothesis. The paper gives its own conclusions, which a medical professional should have read before commenting. I would also expect that medial professional to read the rest of the paper, too, but perhaps that is asking too much.

    Yes, we know what a hypothesis is, and we know what it takes to turn a hypothesis into a theory. Mere Citizen rejects that process when it occurs. Just like m d mill does.

    Mere Citizen also seems to think only in extremes. No one could possibly be hypercapnic unless they were passing out in the halls or on the street (or behind the wheel of their car, which happened to one guy a year ago). Anything less is no problem at all, no reduced cognitive ability or other signs and symptoms.

    All these people commenting on science papers that they didn’t read makes me wonder whether they really think we should follow the science when they can’t even be bothered to know what the science is. Instead, they decide to be busybodies (AKA Karens), extensions of the government and are here to help us, telling us bogus science as though it is real. How I wish I knew why they want us dead.

  • Cotour

    “If were not doing the best for the patient then we have to find another occupation.”

    https://youtu.be/S7loqRFv6xA 3 min. A doctors Ivermectin testimony.

    Why are government agencies in America not able to detect inexpensive, effective drugs, used for decades and proven safe in dealing with Covid?

    Why are highly paid medical professionals in our system not able to efficiently identify and promote inexpensive therapies to control this virus and lessen peoples sickness and save lives? But they are universally promoting that everyone receive one of several vaccines that have been rushed into production at a cost of many billion$ of dollars.

    Government, any government, in the best of circumstances is a blunt instrument, and in the worst of circumstances is a danger to all who come under its influence.

  • Cotour

    And check this, Ivermectin apparently addresses the after effects of Covid that dog many: https://youtu.be/1Bt7HfJYxHw 2 min.

    There is something not right about just about everything that government has its hands in.

    STRATEGY OVER MORAILTY, there always two conversations underway, and the Public Realm is always behind the curve by design.

  • Cotour

    If this Covid V Ivermectin V The powers that be issue interests you you might be interested in this Dr. John Campbell presentation on the subject as he relates the information he received from a researcher, Dr. Lawrie:

    https://youtu.be/ix8i7dfsCJg

    Its cheap, it is apparently 83% effective, its safe, it is prophylactic, its appears to have it all, but the governments around the world apparently want everyone to be injected with vaccine. How many people have un necessarily died because of such controversies and what appear to be manipulations driven by agendas and $$$?

    Government, a blunt instrument indeed to say the least.

  • Edward

    People listen to medical professionals for knowledge, yet those professionals seem to give advice without having investigated the topic. This certainly explains why our medical experts failed us so horrifically over the past year. In the meantime, those who have listened to Mere Citizen received poor information. What a terrible realization about our medical industry.

    No wonder we lost so many people last year.

  • Cotour

    Now here is a piece of rational logic and PR that would be effective:

    “GOP Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) said Wednesday that the federal government’s messaging on vaccines has been full of “fearmongering” and suggested the best way to get more people on board with taking COVID-19 shots is for President Joe Biden to take off his mask and burn it on national television.”

    But Joe can not and will not do so, its too Trumpian of a move. Biden I suspect is too frail to not continually wear his double mask. Even if he did received one of the vaccines, if he contracts Covid he may not survive it or may emerge from it in such a debilitated state that he would have to resign. And thus there would be no need to impeach him after the mid term elections. That honor would go to Kamala.

    And like I have previously pointed out: Government (All government) is at best a blunt instrument, and at its worst is a danger to everyone’s health and freedom.

  • Cotour

    Why is that Dr. Fauci?

    Why are you not sharing and promoting your own personal health beliefs and practices with the world?

    Dr. Fauci apparently mega doses and takes 6000 IU Vitamin D every day.

    (I only take 4000IU)

    https://youtu.be/DeOxZVdudts 2 min.

  • Col Beausabre

    Guess which media source this headline came from

    “How a dose in the U.S. takes a dose away from a poorer country”

    Man, stoke that white, liberal guilt!

  • m d mill

    Edwards mostly inane and laughable criticisms above (when they are cogent at all) are par for his course, and not really worthy of further reply, but the particular statement:

    ‘Somehow m d mill believes that the virus is orders of magnitude larger than it actually is and thus thinks that face diapers stop the virus itself.”

    is also either an outright lie or just another in a long line of grossly incorrect and false misrepresentations (again, par for his course), and incompetently stated as you can expect.

  • m d mill: Your method of debate is once again devolving into pure insult. Edward raises factual points. You need to respond with equally valid factual points, showing how he is wrong. Merely saying he is wrong or that he is lying doesn’t cut it. It provides zero justification for believing you, and in fact, discredits you.

  • m d mill

    RZ:

    “Somehow m d mill believes that the virus is orders of magnitude larger than it actually is and thus thinks that face diapers stop the virus itself.”
    Are you saying this is a factual point!! It is false for Gods sake. I know what I believe, not Edward and not you. It is your bias that is discrediting you. Even though Edwards criticisms were mostly inane (when they are cogent at all) I was responding to one particular grossly incorrect and false misrepresentation.
    Further I have described 3 instances where you have misrepresented or omitted important facts in making your case, and I will add a forth below.
    I would like you to respond to these specific instances.
    To say that I haven’t provided facts in this matter is laughable, but I will do so again:

    1)Once again it seems RZ finds a publication that he likes and is satisfied to quote it, without really investigating it.
    This “paper” surveyed some literature, without any actual first hand investigation. And even then THEY GOT IT WRONG.

    What does of the referenced paper[26] from the second paragraph quoted above state?

    “Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks”

    Nancy H L Leung ,et al
    Abstract:
    “We identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.”

    So the results of the referenced paper seem to be the OPPOSITE of the paper cited by RZ. Again, “Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.”

    IS THIS NOT AN IMPORTANT FACT TO OMIT? REALLY?

    2) And RZ has done this before. In another previous BTB post quoting an article about the ineffectiveness of masks, what does the first line of the actual paper actually state?
    “Infectious respiratory diseases spread when a healthy person comes in contact with virus-laden droplets from someone who has been infected, often through a sneeze or cough.1,2 Wearing a mask has been PROVEN to be an effective method of protection in this pandemic, which both reduces the exhalation of virus-laden aerosols from a COVID patient and minimizes the inhalation of airborne virus-laden aerosols by the subjects surrounding the patient.”

    And specifically, in that first referenced paper (of this paper) we read:

    “A large reduction in volume is also seen with a surgical mask (Table I). A N95 mask, therefore, not only cuts the number of droplets ejected out by the person but also substantially reduces the amount of infected air produced by the person. Based on typical data,13 the volume of the cloud without a mask is about 7 times and 23 times larger than that with a surgical mask and an N95 mask, respectively.”
    To repeat “…the volume of the cloud [droplets] without a mask is about 7 times and 23 times larger than that with a surgical mask and an N95 mask, respectively.”!!!
    [ https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0029186 ]

    This same original paper shows that most cough spittle droplets are in the range 4 to 16 microns (which multi-layer cotton can filter), but the largest volume of spittle and viruses is actually in the less dense but much larger droplets.
    But the authors of this paper admit: “It is natural to think that wearing a mask, no matter new or old, should always be better than nothing,” said author Jinxiang Xi. “Our results show that this belief is only TRUE for particles larger than 5 micrometers, but not for fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers.” But most viruses ARE in particles greater than 5 micron. Therefore a low leakage multilayer cloth mask is not a “useless talisman”

    [Similarly, the disease control experts in South Korea, who have managed to avoid a large death rate using NO lock-downs, have called masking an essential part of their covid-19 response…not useless, and they seem to know what they are talking about, but we may disagree about that.]

    ARE THESE NOT IMPORTANT FACTS TO OMIT? REALLY

    HOWEVER,
    this is completely separate from the question “if and when” masking should be required by government or private businesses. If very few people are infectious and very few infected people are in any significant danger, then masks may well be unnecessary or not worth the trouble to the general public, regardless of how effective masks may be in principle in reducing exhaled particles from infectious persons [In practice mask mandates don’t SEEM to have made much difference on death rates for the reasons given above AND because people do not, and can not wear them most of the time–which is when the infection transmission actually occurs]. Also, as a society we may view viruses as a natural inevitable risk and require isolation/avoidance to be the responsibility of the individual (which tends to be my position). These are separate valid and essential questions.

    3) And in a similar vein of misrepresentation,
    RZ: “…unprecedented measures imposed by governments during this epidemic were ALL WORTHLESS in slowing the virus…”
    Similarly in a previous post:
    “NOTHING done by any government ANYWHERE in the world has stopped the virus from spreading, whether it be lockdowns, masks, or quarantines.”–RZ

    This is simply factually not true, and should be retracted. See New Zealand, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Norway, Finland (others?). But they are NOT retracted, they are repeated!
    Even though it does seem to be true in most societies, and certainly in the U.S..

    And I do agree with the general sentiment of that post. The number of people in the U.S. mortally threatened (ie needing hospitalization) of covid is about 4 in 1000 per year. The number of covid-19 induced deaths is about half of that…hardly an existential crisis warranting the egregious devastation of an economy, personal finances, private businesses, education, and the social health and happiness of entire societies.

    CAN YOU POSSIBLY DEFEND YOURSELF HERE? REALLY?

    4)Another misrepresentation[https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/cdc-admits-its-almost-impossible-to-catch-covid-from-surfaces/] The May 2020 link indicated does NOT state that the CDC thought surface contamination was insignificant (certainly not 1 in 10000, although it may now believe so), contrary to RZ’s indication.
    May 2020:
    “It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes,” the CDC also states on its site. “This is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads, but we are still learning more about this virus.”

    WAS THIS NOT A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CDC MAY 2020 POSITION? REALLY

    I just wish RZ would not “pad” the argument indiscriminately, even though I do agree with the general thrust of his criticism of US Covid response.

    RZ, if you do not think these criticisms are justified or at least compelling, then I have zero justification for believing you, and in fact, it discredits you.

    PS–It was wrong of me to use the terms “par for the course” and “as you can expect” and “in a long line”. Those were unnecessary “digs” at Edward, as true as they may be. Everything else I stand behind completely.

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *