To Mask or Not To Mask, that is the question

[podfish]

[QUOTE=Hotspring 44;239019]I think your interpretation of what I meant is upside-down from the point I was trying to make... ...I was not in any way trying to say that anyone should 'feel better' about either bullets or virus./QUOTE]
sorry, didn't mean to imply that. It was a comment aimed at the ideas that drew your comment..
even if true the secondary effects are the threat, we should still focus on the triggering events!

(btw: what's with the [ QUOTE ] tag failures? I think I'm using them correctly!)

[Hotspring 44]

podfish, To answer your last question first:
I pasted your whole reply onto a plain text notepad, and noticed that, at the end quote, (the HTML code part), the one on your posting was missing an 'element'. It was like: /QUOTE] instead of: [/QUOTE]. I think that is your issue.

RE:

even if true the secondary effects are the threat, we should still focus on the triggering events!

I agree.

[Adinkrahene]

Excellent Post!
Thanks!

[Goat Rock Ukulele]

[viajera]

Thank you for sharing the statistics and data regarding the effectiveness of mask wearing. I am saddened to read other Wacco postings that deny the effectiveness of wearing a mask. Lies and denial are what make a pandemic a pandemic.

[Jude Iam]

Why Won’t Anyone Publish the Danish Mask Study?

A study of 6,000 Danes was set to reveal whether wearing a face mask actually reduces the risk of COVID-19. The only problem is leading medical journals are refusing to publish the data, and the study's lead author hinted it's because they're not "brave enough" to do it

Does a mask work? It's a question recently posed by the Danish newspaper Berlingske,[i] and one that would seem to demand an answer from scientists and public health officials alike. Yet, despite mask mandates existing in 34 U.S. states and the District of Columbia,[ii] there's shockingly little hard data about whether or not they slow the spread of infectious disease.
Researchers from Denmark wanted to change that, conducting what may be the only randomized trial[iii] to determine if masks actually protect against COVID-19,[iv] but multiple medical journals have refused to publish the findings.

Thomas Benfield, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen and one of the study's lead authors,[v] was asked when it would be published. Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson published Benfield's emailed response on Twitter, which is simply: "As soon as a journal is brave enough …"[vi]

What Does the Danish Mask Study Reveal?

Speaking to Nature in October 2020, Benfield said his team wasn't yet ready to share the study's results.[vii] In truth, three medical journals -- The Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association -- have refused to publish the study, leading to speculation that it reveals a message that goes against the status quo.
Berlingske, which is the oldest daily newspaper in Denmark, suggests this is so, stating (loosely translated), "The researchers behind a large and unique Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask even have great difficulty in getting their research results published. One of the participating professors in the study admits that the still secret research result can be perceived as 'controversial.'"[viii],[ix]

The study included 6,000 participants who were randomly assigned to wear a face mask or not for a 30-day period. Participants were confirmed to not have COVID-19 or symptoms of it at the start of the study, and they were required to spend more than three hours per day outside of the home with exposure to other people during the study period.[x]
Described as an "outstanding sample," the Berlingske article, which was written by Lars Henrik Aagaard, praised the study, noting, "The study and its size are unique in the world, and the purpose was once and for all to try to clarify the extent to which the use of masks in public space provides protection against corona infection."[xi]

While the results were originally expected to be published in August 2020, Benfield later said that his comment was taken "a bit out of context" and, "The article is being reviewed by a respected journal. We have decided not to publish data until the article has been accepted."[xii]

Study Co-Author Hints at Controversial Results

Aagaard interviewed another of the study's researchers, Christian Torp-Pedersen, a chief physician at North Zealand Hospital's research department, who similarly said, "We cannot start discussing what they (the medical journals) are dissatisfied with because, in that case, we must also explain what the study showed, and we do not want to discuss that until it is published."[xiii]
He then went on to say that he "might also have dared to go as far as Benfield," had he been asked why the results haven't been published, referring to his "brave enough" comment. Aagaard asks, "Does this mean that your research results may be perceived as controversial in the eyes of some?" to which Torp-Pedersen replies, "That's how I want to interpret it, too."

Aagaard then states, "Can one interpret a controversial research result in the sense that no significant effect of mask use is demonstrated in your study?" Torp-Pedersen says, "I think that's a very relevant question you are asking."[xiv]

Dr. Henning Bundgaard with Denmark's Rigshospitalet is another of the study's authors. In speaking with Bloomberg in July 2020 -- when he still expected the study's results to become public the next month -- he said, "All these countries recommending face masks haven't made their decisions based on new studies."[xv]

Denmark was one of the latest countries to institute a mask mandate, which took effect October 29, 2020 for all public indoor spaces.[xvi] In July, however, Bundgaard told Bloomberg he worried mask mandates may offer a "false sense of security" and make people "sloppy" when following other guidelines like handwashing, self-isolating if you're sick and social distancing.

Also revealing is Bloomberg's last paragraph:

"Bundgaard's study on masks is due to be published next month. In the meantime, he says he hopes they don't become mandatory in Denmark."[xvii]

Masks have become a contentious topic in the U.S., dividing neighbors, colleagues and families over whether or not they slow the spread of infectious disease. The controversy continues to grow, particularly since public health officials have been giving conflicting information from the start,[xviii] and solid data, such as what may be revealed via the Danish study, is sorely lacking.

---

[Adinkrahene]

https://geneticmemory.org/images/videos/mask.mp4
OHSA (Occupational Health and Safety) Test of mask
https://geneticmemory.org/images/videos/mask2.mp4
Anthony Fauci M.D. NIAID Director comment on wearing mask

[heresbruce]

For what it is worth: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/worldhealth-net/

[wisewomn]

Here are the latest County regs re mask-wearing:

https://patch.com/california/across-...de-their-homes

[Barry]

Fauci's comments where driven by the shortage of masks at the time. He want them to be available for health care providers.

[Adinkrahene]

I agree that is the way he wanted people to think. Now explain away the OSHA mask test.

OSHA MASK WHISTLEBLOWERS TELL ALL
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PXcSOn5SqlTF/

Lawyer Investigation COVID Crimes against Humanity

https://www.bitchute.com/video/giRCCibN3mzB/

[wisewomn]

BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful material. The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube, and some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue have migrated to BitChute.
Wikipedia

[Adinkrahene]

LOL, Now you are going to use the fake news trope. Citizens in France protested for more than 360 days! And the major media told us what about it? Oh, that's right they didn't report on it at all. So who is fake news in America these days?
"The eyes" when you rearrange the letters "They see"!

[Adinkrahene]

Also you want to talk about creditably and you site "Wikipedia" This is a site where anyone with a membership can log in and change information. NO ONE who knows anything about that site would depend on it for any important information. What's next? Will you will be quoting Face-book post? I am not a believer in the left or right side of the American political system. Now if you are able to talk about this subject without depending on the words of people you don't know, and have never seen, then I'm your huckleberry! Tell me about what you think is the science? If you can't do that, then nothing you say amounts to a brass farthing.

[podfish]

Also you want to talk about creditably and you site "Wikipedia" This is a site where anyone with a membership can log in and change information.

well, that's true. That's why citing websites is often a futile exercise. Still, you can get some context. We do actually know that BitChute isn't a reputable site, it has an obvious agenda that's easy to discern. Wikipedia at least has some chance at being somewhat objective - though, as you point out, it's not the final word on anything.

[M/M]

some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue have migrated to BitChute.

This is true...
That does not make it right; nor does it make them not worth hearing from or worthy to be judged and found wanting.

[M/M]

"Wikipedia" This is a site where anyone with a membership can log in and change information. NO ONE who knows anything about that site would depend on it for any important information.

This is very true unfortunately; and many who have written articles or books that are 'quoted' and quoted wrongly - are not able to get corrections done on that site so they aren't misrepresented.

[Adinkrahene]

If you believe that "Your living in a dream world Nano!" How are you going to validate what your saying, when anyone can broadcast on bit-chute but on Wikipedia only those selected people are allowed to post. And on Youtube they are censoring and removing people for their opinions as if only their (Youtube) opinions matter or is the truth? The reason many people are posting on alternate site is because falsehood will never be able to stand up to truth. One should be able to make their own mind, that is if one has a mind of their own. As the name of a Broadway play states "Your arms are to short to box with god" I'm not god and I'm not (necessarily) talking about your arms, I don't know you. But to say that a site is bad (in your opinion) and therefore everything on the site is also bad, just shows how limited your opinions are.

"God will bless the mind that has it's own" Use the magic in your mind...

[Adinkrahene]

Just to be clear "Your arms (beliefs) are to short to box with God (The Truth)

[Adinkrahene]

What is does is make them unworthy to quote! I am not quoting anyone. However, I find it strange that if doctors are giving factual information and someone post that on any alternate that the information somehow becomes bad information because someone posted it on that site. And the reason it is posted there is because YOUR main site Youtube would block it. Strange world your living in!

[wisewomn]

Don't like wikipedia? Try the anti-defamation League:

https://www.adl.org/blog/bitchute-a-hotbed-of-hate

[Adinkrahene]

Thanks anyway, but I prefer the truth! And I'm not going to get that from either one of your suggestions.

[M/M]

This is a great object lesson in the 'exactness' of scientific inquiry.

Danish Mask Study finally published - already being critiqued, with demand for more studies: published on Wednesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The fact that PCR test is admitted as criterion for diagnosis makes this entire study faulty.
Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste PCR tests cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones. What that means is that PCR tests cannot detect infection. Period.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-co...-waste/5729700

People are very frightened. This is deliberate. See a version of Biderman's Chart of Coercion: a psychological tool that describes how spirit is broken either in prisoners of war or victims of various types of domestic or other abuse.

I went to check link. It is AMAZING to witness - that in one day's time one link to Biderman's chart is now defunct: https://www.strath.ac.uk/media/1neww...ofcoercion.pdf

and a link to several images of said chart that worked yesterday, may bring up versions of the chart - or - it may instad bring up Ann Biderman and other irrelevant info. Obviously I hope it will bring up chart; or you can do an independent search for same if interested: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Biderman%E....jpg&ia=images

There seems to be some investment in public NOT seeing this chart...

[M/M]

Surgical Face Masks: No Statistically Significant Benefit Against COVID-19. Danish Study in Annals of Internal Medicine

https://www.globalresearch.ca/massive-danish-study-surgical-masks-found-no-significant-benefit-against-covid-19/5729897

three major journals – JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet – refused to publish the study. It appears that the study’s authors had to twist their tongues in order to get this study published by noting that “the estimates were imprecise and statistically compatible with an effect ranging from a 46% decrease to a 23% increase in infection.” They of course had to concede that their study doesn’t definitely rule out the idea that masks could be effective!

Critique is not objective in the best sense... yet has facts that can be gleaned readily.

[Barry]

[podfish]

“Because the issue has become so politicized, there’s a real risk — and it’s already being used in this way — that studies like this will be sort of cherry-picked and presented as conclusive evidence that masks are completely ineffective,” Columbia University virologist Angela Rasmussen said.

....

no kidding?

[RaphaelA]

I have been perusing this thread and am disheartened by the seeming importance of people posting just to prove they are right and others are wrong. Although I am sure someone posted something claiming that masks are harmful somehow (despite the fact that doctors and nurses have been wearing them forever), why not wear one if there is a chance that you could lessen the possibility of infection? Don't we have to take everything into account based on the available science? The contact tracing seems pretty clear that the factors are air volume (thereby having the most ventilation is prudent), whether the person is shedding the virus (which we have to assume given the lack of symptoms in some people), and potentially distance (although you can still get it in closed air spaces or even outside of talking into each others faces). If we value life, why not buy and wear as effective a mask as possible (N95 if you can), avoid indoor spaces especially those with lack of ventilation, keep distance and avoid being near crowds or gatherings especially indoors? Erring on the side of caution seems prudent. If we are wrong and are too cautious, well I guess we made a mistake in the right direction. The alternative does not seem intelligent to me.

[socoexpat]

I have to wonder... how many people have died. How many will suffer life long consequnces... because of this thread?

[pamelaL]

study resulting of graphs and use of masks

https://rationalground.com/post-than...at-masks-work/

[Finell]

There is a strong statistical correlation between the number of teachers in a county and the quantity of alcoholic beverages consumed in that county. Obviously, teachers are drunkards.

It is also the case that the highest rated hospitals experience the highest mortality rates. Clearly, a patient is safest in the worst hospitals.

These are classic spurious correlations. The number of teachers and alcohol consumption closely correlate with population. The best teaching hospitals tend to treat the most gravely ill patients.

So, which communities have mask mandates? They are the communities with the worst outbreaks of COVID-19 before the mandates are issued. Furthermore, mask mandates other precautions are widely ignored by idiots. Lots of these idiots spread lots of disease.

Statistics can be misused to "prove" many false propositions.

Historically, the greatest advance in successful surgical outcomes was the adoption of measures to reduce infection. Use of surgical masks, scrubbing, and sterilization of instruments were key strategies for reducing infection in surgery. (The spread of infectious disease in hospitals is still a serious problem, by the way. The problem is not the adoption of antiseptic precautions. The problem is insufficiently rigorous use of known antiseptic precautions.)