TPD
the poor dad
Wow - long Covid probably caused by mask wearing!
Can someone forward this video to my favorite doctor - I think she still has me on ignore.
Politics of The Mask
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Wow - long Covid probably caused by mask wearing!
Can someone forward this video to my favorite doctor - I think she still has me on ignore.
No Evidence That N95 Masks Can Protect People Against COVID-19: UK Agency
But in a rapid review (pdf) published on April 13, the UKHSA said it screened thousands of primary studies on the effectiveness of face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic and couldn’t find anything as to whether wearing N95 and equivalent respirators in the community can protect people at higher risk from becoming seriously ill from COVID-19.
Researchers at the government agency screened some 50 studies published by Sept. 14, 2021, and had previously been examined in a separate UKHSA review on the effectiveness of all face coverings in all people against transmission of COVID-19.
They also searched for papers and preprints published by Sept. 26, 2022, identifying a further 4,371 studies, but none looked at the efficacy of the specific type of masks in protecting the cohort.
“No studies matching the inclusion criteria were found, so no evidence could be presented,” the review concluded.
It noted that researchers didn’t include evidence from other infectious diseases such as influenza, and that they didn’t conduct an extensive search of sources other than databases of peer-reviewed and preprint articles.
High Quality Masks Don't Work, No Matter Who Wears Them
But the CDC, Dr. Fauci and other public health experts rejected the evidence in favor of blind hope, desperately searching for ways to “control” the pandemic.
As a result, the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions everywhere on earth mandated masks which, unsurprisingly, completely failed to have any noticeable impact on the pandemic.
Real world data wasn’t enough to convince the “experts” to admit they were wrong. This was also the case when a gold standard evidence review recently confirmed that there was no evidence showing masks worked to stop the coronavirus.
New Gold Standard Evidence Review on Masking to Stop COVID Has Been Released
The New York Times Published Misinformation on Masks to Placate Its Readers
Study Results Clearly Debunk Masks, Even in Hospitals
One large hospital in London decided to examine the impact of the hospital’s policies on mask wearing.They did so by studying whether the removal of masks was associated with a change in the rate of infections detected among hospital workers.
As they explain, the mask-wearing policy was removed in certain wards but not others, allowing for a ready made comparison.
“The intervention was the removal of a staff/visitor surgical mask-wearing policy for the majority of wards at week 26 of this period (study group) with a subset of specific wards retaining the mask policy (control group). The nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was normalised by the underlying community infection rate identified by unselected admission screening.”
And after a lengthy time period comparing the results, there was “no post-intervention identifiable trend.”
“In the context of a surge in SARS-CoV-2 infection (see figure 1), removal of the mask policy was not associated with a statistically significant change in the rate of nosocomial SARSCoV-2 infection in the study group (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 1.11 95% CI: 0.52 to 2.33) and no post-intervention identifiable trend (IRR 1.01 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.10) to suggest a delayed effect. The control group also found no immediate or delayed change in infection rate (IRR 2.56 95% CI 0.55 to 11.81; IRR 1.08 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25 respectively) (See figure 2).”
In short, ending the policy made absolutely no difference to infection rates whatsoever.
Their figure shows the complete lack of impact on Nosocomial spread from the end of mask wearing.
Their admission screening allowed them to separate out pre-existing infections versus those acquired inside the hospital. By doing so, they were able to identify how important their mask wearing policy was in preventing spread.
And as expected, the conclusions confirmed observable reality: there is no evidence that masks work in a real-world setting. This is true even in hospitals.
“The real-world benefit of this mitigation measure in isolation is likely to be modest within a healthcare setting,” they explain.
None of it makes any difference.
International research suggests masks better at causing 'long COVID' than stopping virus
German, Austrian, Polish and Indian researchers in the Frontiers study found "mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome" and "down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions [sic]" resulting from wearing surgical and N95 masks, which can have "long-term clinical consequences," especially for children, pregnant women, elderly and ill people.
Starting with more than 2,000 German- and English-language studies, they culled the research to 54 publications for synthesis and 37 for meta-analysis. Only 14 were RCTs, which the researchers said have trouble measuring "causes with a long latency period."
They found "significant effects" from surgical masks and especially N95s: decreased "peripheral oxygen saturation" and volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute, "simultaneous" with increased blood-CO2 concentration, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, skin temperature and humidity.
Citing a Journal of Infectious Diseases long-COVID study by University of Michigan researchers, the Frontiers researchers found nearly 40% of those symptoms "overlap" with mask-related complaints and symptoms. "It is possible that some symptoms attributed to long-COVID-19 are predominantly mask-related," they wrote, calling for further research.
The median mask-wearing duration was 18 minutes, ranging from 6 minutes to 6 hours depending on the study. While a "short application of the mask seems to be less harmful, longer and long-term use may cause shift [sic] toward the pathophysiological direction with clinical consequences even without exceeding physiological thresholds," the researchers said.
Whoopsies! More bad news for mask lovers. Another study critical of the mouth bandages ran about two weeks ago in the journal Public Health, titled “Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation.”Rather than measuring how ineffective masks were at filtering viruses or preventing covid transmission, these researchers measured various health indicators on the people who WORE the masks. What they found was not good. Mask wearers had: decreased blood oxygen, increased blood CO2, increased heart rates, higher blood pressure, more difficulty breathing, higher skin temperatures, and higher reports of headaches, acne, skin irritations, feeling overheated, voice disorders, and dizziness.
Gosh.
Worse still, the researchers found that even short-term mask wearing can cause long-term medical problems, coining the term “mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES).” They even attributed that some “long covid” cases are really “long mask” cases:
☕️ WOKE-CABULARY ☙ Monday, April 17, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Rockets and exploding meteors in Israel; a new proxy war to virtue-signal about; Lula embraces Xi; injection manufacturing problems; free spike brain injuries; bad news for maskers; and more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
CDC Data Confirms Masks in Schools Are Ineffective, Despite Walensky's Zealotry
Fortunately several intellectually honest researchers took it upon themselves to follow up on the CDC’s work, and on an incredibly important subject too.
And in a stunning turn of events, using the CDC’s own data, those researchers exposed that the CDC’s work doesn’t hold up to scrutiny once again.
CDC Cherry Picking
Back in late 2021 as the CDC was continually contradicting observable reality with bad science, they published an observational study showing an association between school mask mandates and pediatric COVID cases.The study attempted to prove that masking in schools was a critical public health tool for stopping the transmission of the virus. Unsurprisingly, their motivation was apparent in the first sentence of the description, leaving no doubt as to their goal of promoting the endless masking of children.
Shockingly, they found that mask mandates in schools were associated with lower case rates among children.
Thankfully, two researchers, Ambarish Chandra from the University of Toronto, and Tracy Hoeg, friend of this Substack, decided to refute that finding.
The CDC's Latest Study on Masks is Purposeful Misinformation
Not Statistically Significant
A definition of statistical significance is “…the claim that a result from data generated by testing or experimentation is not likely to occur randomly or by chance but is instead likely to be attributable to a specific cause.”Most well constructed studies do not attribute an outcome to a specific cause without statistical significance.
For example, in the DANMASK study, which was a randomized controlled trial designed to test the hypothesis that mask wearing would prevent infection with COVID, their results pointedly reference the lack of statistical significance to any measurement:
Statistical significance is an important tool — except for the manner in which the CDC and these researchers used it.
Here is the graphic that the CDC publicized, which was promptly used and redistributed by political activists in order to prove masks work:
There’s a lot going on here, so you’d be forgiven for not observing one of the most important elements — the symbol next to the “cloth mask” notation.
Notice that it corresponds to a sentence at the very bottom of the graphic, to the left of the MMWR logo. It’s hard to see, so I’ll repeat it here:
“Not statistically significant”
The CDC posted this graphic, which will be used to inform public policy, local school boards, politicians and corporate executives, and purposefully included a result that was not statistically significant.
That’s misinformation.
It’s an intentional attempt to deceive the public by utilizing a result that did not meet the bare minimum requirements to be “significant” in order to push an agenda.
It’s the textbook definition of misinformation and should be included among the long series of discrediting statements from the CDC. Posting a graphic with a non-statistically significant result highlighted as a conclusion should not be acceptable. But that’s exactly what the CDC did.
And they weren’t done yet.
TPD
the poor dad
Went to MedExpress this evening. Sign on door said masks required. I walked in without one. Stood at counter for 5-10 minutes checking in giving all my info. Nothing said. The moment I was called to the back, woman says you need a mask - its required. I said I don’t think so - delete my info out of your system- the pain isn’t that bad. I walked out. Such BS!
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky Announces Departure From Public Health Agency
“The end of the COVID-19 public health emergency marks a tremendous transition for our country, for public health, and in my tenure as CDC Director,” Walensky said in a Friday statement. “I took on this role, at your request, with the goal of leaving behind the dark days of the pandemic and moving CDC, and public health, forward into a much better and more trusted place.”
Walensky will cease her official duties on June 30. Biden lauded her work at the public health agency in a separate statement from the White House.
“As Director of the CDC, she led a complex organization on the frontlines of a once-in-a-generation pandemic with honesty and integrity. She marshalled our finest scientists and public health experts to turn the tide on the urgent crises we’ve faced,” the commander-in-chief said. “Dr. Walensky leaves CDC a stronger institution, better positioned to confront health threats and protect Americans. We have all benefited from her service and dedication to public health, and I wish her the best in her next chapter.”
Masks Significantly Harmed Wearers, According To New Research
Researchers behind a new study out from Cell decided to investigate the effect masks have on individual exposure to CO2.While this research should have been conducted before hundreds of millions of people were subjected to mask mandates and strictly enforced mask compliance, it’s vitally important as it contradicts the deliberate misinformation shared by public health authorities.
In their introduction, they examine the evidence for and against universal masking in the general public, and unsurprisingly, reached the same conclusion as the Cochrane Review - there is no evidence to suggest that masks work.
While it’s abundantly clear that masks being “overrated” is the understatement of the century, they also acknowledge that research has shown children were negatively harmed by mask wearing during the pandemic.
To uncover just how substantial the damage from masks actually is quantitatively, they conducted a thorough review of literature on masking. And found some undeniably concerning results.
As they explain, CO2 exposure can impact cognitive performance at extremely low levels. Negative impacts only increase as exposure increases.
If mask wearing results in exposure above 0.5-1%, it could result in significant harm to the wearer. So what did they find from their examination?
Emphasis added.
Just five minutes of masking increases exposure to carbon dioxide well above the level of known harmful effects. Just five minutes.
These exposure rates represent 35 to 80 times the normal level of CO2 we breathe on a regular basis.
Tens of millions of people were (and too many still are) forced to mask for hours on end: hospital workers, store employees, teachers.. The list is endless. Oh, and of course, the children, too. And for nothing.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
Childhood Masking Proponents Have The Debate Entirely Backwards
Yesterday the 76-year-old Democrat Representative Jerry Nadler took to the floor of the House not to quietly dismiss childhood masking, but to forcefully defend it.According to Nadler, NOT forcing 2-year-old toddlers to wear pointless facial decorations would have amounted to child abuse.
That's correct. Child abuse. To not forcibly mask children.
Absolutely unbelievable.
Nadler, being staunchly and proudly ignorant, has no idea that his own mask usage thoroughly discredits his own disgraceful activism.
If, as was evident in the Spring of 2020, he was incapable of wearing a mask properly in public, what possible chance do 2-year-olds have to wear them correctly?
Elderly adults like Nadler couldn’t be bothered to wear a mask for just a few minutes, but would frequently take it off to speak and be heard properly. Toddlers, however, are required to wear masks the moment they leave the house. Absolutely stupefying.
Mask extremism in the U.S. led to immense harm, with flight attendants disgracefully policing parents based on CDC misinformation.
The Left's Mask Extremism Discredits Their 'Follow The Science' Messaging
Nadler's unbelievable claim stands in direct contradiction to the consensus of international health agencies.While the World Health Organization and European CDC have made an endless list of mistakes, even they don't recommend masking 2-year-olds.
Only the U.S. CDC, under the steadfastly incompetent leadership of Rochelle Walensky and company, has abandoned all pretense of objectively evaluating evidence.
Nadler's claim is completely unsupported, directly contradicts science, and importantly, misrepresents the entire debate.
Forcibly masking 2-year-olds was inexcusable, and given the lack of supporting evidence, arguably abusive.
There was never a realistic expectation that masks would work for any age, let alone for toddlers. But the U.S. based agencies never even pretended to study the issue, especially with regards to children.
Instead, they used indescribably poor, cherry-picked observational studies that were later contradicted.
In schools, for example, forced masking did not lead to better observable case outcomes than optional masking policies.
Detailed examinations of school masking have also confirmed that masks on children are ineffective.
But to Nadler and other like-minded bureaucrats, pledging blind allegiance to politically aligned "experts" comes before reality.
Masks have become a symbol of how completely pervasive anti-science extremism has become. Instead of objectively examining evidence, they're obsessive in outsourcing critical thinking to ideological allies.
Nadler also claimed that vaccine mandates were justifiable and comparable to polio based on reducing the spread of infection, ignoring years of international data that the vaccines and even targeted boosters are unable to prevent infection.
And so nonsensical, unsupported comments on childhood masking and vaccine effectiveness are now permanently par for the course.
Nadler and those like him have bought so completely into disinformation and inaccuracies they haven’t a clue how absurd they sound.
Or perhaps even worse, they know and just don't care.
One Of The United States' Most Powerful Politicians Just Made An Unbelievably Absurd Claim About Masks
You can't make it up
ianmsc.substack.com
If Masks Work, Why Didn't We Plan to Use Them?
So let’s begin with this quote:
“It draws from the findings of nearly 200 journal articles written between 1990 and 2016.”
Got that? Their Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza, was based on nearly 200 journal articles. Theoretically, this should be the gold standard, right? They reviewed 200 scientific articles on how to respond to a pandemic respiratory virus and then created their guidelines. Let’s move on:
“Personal NPIs which include personal protective measures you can take every day and personal protective measures reserved for pandemics.”
So these are things individuals can do to protect themselves and their loved ones during a pandemic respiratory virus. Sounds like this would be where they go all in on masks, right? Not exactly:
“Personal protective measures reserved for pandemics include voluntary home quarantine of household members who have been exposed to someone they live with who is sick.”
Ah! Well…uh…that is…that’s not masks. That’s not forced quarantining of healthy people. That’s not “masks are better protection than a vaccine.” That says voluntary home quarantine for people who have sick family members. That’s it. That’s what the gold standard, the best prepared pandemic influenza planning document in the world, based on 200 journal articles over 26 years, said to do to protect yourself and loved ones. No masks. Just stay home, if you feel like it, if someone in your household is sick and you’ve been exposed.
You might be saying — well sure, but COVID is more severe than just your standard flu season. Sure, so let’s keep going:
“CDC and other federal agencies have been practicing for this since the 2019 influenza pandemic. In the last two years, CDC has engaged in two pandemic influenza exercises that have required us to prepare for a severe pandemic and just this past year we had a whole of government exercise practicing similarly around a pandemic of influenza.”
CDC has literally been practicing for a “severe pandemic.” Not just a normal flu season, a severe pandemic. This document, their practice, was based exactly on an outbreak of an illness like COVID…and they never mentioned masks once in a major briefing as the outbreak was unfolding. Not once.