The Limits of Science

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:37 am

.

Iamwhomiam » Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:16 am wrote:Goin off topic for a moment to share my thanks to my well-wishers. Thank you all.

Monday, today, sorta, even though it's now 1am Tuesday, it's been two weeks since my surgery was scheduled on the 15th. I'll tell you what's been going on with me lately. Some time around February of 2019 I noticed some unusual swelling in my groin. My inguinal groin, which is the area where your leg joins with your torso. Couldn't get supplemental insurance until December, which I did, but then took two more months to find a primary physician, from whom all things medical must flow, it seems. I certainly didn't want to wait in a waiting room with sickies and asked for the preliminary paperwork to be sent to me by mail, which was refused to me. Next time, a month later, in March, their practice was not accepting new patients at that time. And so, I waited and finally got to see a doctor; a new doctor, brand new.

I told him my concerns and he told me I had a hernia. I knew I didn't have a hernia. I have been an EMT and have had nursing education. The doctor told me we could just leave it be. He called back a few days later to tell me about my blood work, the results were back from the lab. I mentioned to him I didn't want this thing hanging off me and let's get it tucked back in, if it is as you say, "fatty abdominal tissue." It is a bit uncomfortable. "I have high confidence it is a hernia, but if you're uncomfortable, I'll refer you to a surgeon." Which he did.

Off to see the surgeon! She, a young and new to practice surgeon, assured me It was a hernia and I told her I was pretty sure it wasn't. She ordered an ultrasound and discovered a mass in my groin! Surgeon wanted to cut it out, as much of it as she could get, she told me during a follow-up call to discuss the results of my ultrasound. I said a verbal conversation over the telephone was not enough for me to make such a decision, that I wanted to be able to meet with her and point at things shown in the ultrasound and ask questions. I also insisted on having a cat scan to see what exactly was involved before making my decision. We really had no idea if major blood vessels, muscles or intestinal tissues were involved. So I had a cat scan. I didn't have a mass, I had two grotesquely enlarged lymph nodes that appeared to be isolated, with no intrusion into any other tissues. Oh, and I didn't have a hernia! Still haven't seen the cat scan, but decided to approve surgery proceeding on the Ides of March. (The woman calling from the hospital two days before surgery to give me pre-admission instructions blew out my left eardrum and now I've gone deaf in that ear!!)

Earlier, a few weeks before surgery, my primary physician cleared me for surgery, meaning I was healthy enough to survive it. I had an electroencephalogram and my ticker looked good.

Maybe a few of you read about my adventure running out of gas in a mini blizzard across from an open field? That was a few days after my doctor gave me a clean bill of health. And now it's Monday and I'm prepped for surgery and hooked up to a heart monitor. But I didn't have surgery.

As it turned out, the anesthesiologist noted some marked difference between the eeg reading that cleared me for surgery a few weeks before, and the constant readout he was getting from me then. Of course, this calls for a cardiologist! who tells me I recently had two heart attacks! Doctor tells me I'm and old fucker who's smoked and my arteries are probably clogged, so he's going to catheterize me and install stents, if necessary, at the same time. Either before or after, I can't recall which, I had an echo-cardiogram done that showed my left ventricle was "ballooned and its ejection is 25% of normal" (that got better, to 45%.)

The doctors believe that with medicines they will soon repair my heart. My surgeon wants to pursue obtaining a core biopsy (like a needle biopsy) of the lymph nodes and I've turned into an old man who looks like he shouldn't be riding on that handicapped grocery cart, one that takes 5 pills a day, two, twice a day and one more at bedtime. Seems that I had a heart attack the night of the momentary blizzard after running out of gas!

Sure hope I made that legible


What a journey. Unfortunately, this is not isolated, as I have family members with similar anecdotes.

JR summed it up well:

You're telling us about the limits of science, of applied medicine in an assembly line system, of the unexamined workaday arrogance of authorities, of a system with wrong incentives.


I will add, however: your dogged pursuit to get to the core issue -- despite doctor recommendations/diagnosis, which turned out to be inaccurate, at least with respect to the would-be hernia -- have no doubt helped your outcome. How many others wouldn't have the instincts (or prior related training) to have done the same?

Sobering and somewhat disturbing to ponder.

Thank you for sharing this, Iam.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby PufPuf93 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:47 am

So sorry you are experiencing all that Iamwhoiam.

Good you have obtained medical care but also good that you know your body and have effectively communicated with the doctors.

Be good to yourself man :hug1: Persevere.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby Grizzly » Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:47 pm

^^^ Geez, man, Godspeed!
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby norton ash » Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:58 pm

Get well, Iam. :snoring:
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby BenDhyan » Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:53 pm

The force be with you Iam, Bendy
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:55 pm

Best wishes to you, Iam!

Unfortunately, every time I interact with the medical "care" system in the USA, I have uncannily similar experiences.

It appears to me that a good doctor is harder to find than a good mechanic, and that as a general rule, the worst thing any patient can do is to blindly trust whatever any medical expert tells them.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby Blue » Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:24 am

Hey Iam, thanks for the update! Sorry for all your troubles. I hope that you are patched up and good as new now.

The limits of science and medicine are mostly due to not enough knowledge yet and to human errors and defects like hubris and greed. The docs are good at triage and acute injury but due to their Pharma "education" are absolutely a disaster for chronic care.

Stay well!
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:09 pm

.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0249661


Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda

Federico E. Testoni ,
Mercedes García Carrillo ,
Marc-André Gagnon,
Cecilia Rikap ,
Matías Blaustein

Published: April 7, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249661

Abstract

Background

Conflicts of interest in biomedical research can influence research results and drive research agendas away from public health priorities. Previous agenda-setting studies share two shortfalls: they only account for direct connections between academic institutions and firms, as well as potential bias based on researchers’ personal beliefs. This paper’s goal is to determine the key actors and contents of the prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, overcoming these shortfalls.

Methods

We performed a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 95,415 scientific articles published between 1999 and 2018 in the highest impact factor journals within HBMS, using the Web of Science database and the CorText platform. HBMS’s prevailing knowledge network of institutions was proxied with network maps where nodes represent affiliations and edges the most frequent co-authorships. The content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda was depicted through network maps of prevalent multi-terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts.

Results

The HBMS research agendas of large private firms and leading academic institutions are intertwined. The prevailing HBMS agenda is mostly based on molecular biology (40% of the most frequent multi-terms), with an inclination towards cancer and cardiovascular research (15 and 8% of the most frequent multi-terms, respectively). Studies on pathogens and biological vectors related to recent epidemics are marginal (1% of the most frequent multi-terms). Content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda prioritizes research on pharmacological intervention over research on socio-environmental factors influencing disease onset or progression and overlooks, among others, the study of infectious diseases.

Conclusions

Pharmaceutical corporations contribute to set HBMS’s prevailing research agenda, which is mainly focused on a few diseases and research topics. A more balanced research agenda, together with epistemological approaches that consider socio-environmental factors associated with disease spreading, could contribute to being better prepared to prevent and treat more diverse pathologies and to improve overall health outcomes.


...

Summing up, one of the main contributions of this article is to approach the skewing dilemma from a novel methodology that enlarges the scope of existing research, overcoming its shared shortfalls. To our knowledge, there is no background of an investigation on the skewing problem that simultaneously provides evidence beyond direct links with private firms and the perceptions of the actors involved. Our contribution addresses all the latter by mapping bibliometric evidence and revealing the network of power relationships that underlies the prevailing HBMS research agenda.

Nonetheless, a significant limitation of our research is that we have only considered one academic research outcome (publications). Our results may end up favoring topics within HBMS that are more often published as papers over other outcomes, such as reports for public authorities, patents, or the creation of a spin-off. Another limitation is that we did not look at the interplay between co-authorship and funding sources. It was shown by previous literature that industry influences HBMS research by sponsoring certain topics and methods [7–9]. Therefore, we may expect both factors to complement each other. More research will be needed to shed light on these aspects. Our future agenda includes this research question.

Additionally, the journal selection process may be considered as another limitation of this study, since it could play a role in creating a bias due to a sampling process focused on a limited set of journals, those with the highest impact factor. Although preliminary data using different sets of high impact journals showed similar results, further research will be necessary to address whether these results can be extrapolated to other journals within the field. In this sense, this work concludes only on what we defined as the prevailing HBMS research agenda, drawn from the 30 journals with the highest impact factor within the field of HBMS. However, it is worth emphasizing that our analysis included some of the most influential interdisciplinary scientific journals and particularly some of the most prestigious journals specialized in microbiology or infectious diseases.

Since we found that certain large pharmaceutical corporations contribute to set HBMS’s prevailing research agenda, further research will also involve comparing the research agendas of these corporations—defined by their scientific publications—with the prevailing HBMS research agenda obtained from our analysis. This will allow us to provide evidence on their level of alignment. Finally, further investigations will also explore the global implications of the lack of diversity, since we found that HBMS’s prevailing research agenda is mainly focused on a few diseases and research topics. A more balanced research agenda, together with epistemological approaches that consider socio-environmental factors associated with disease spreading, could contribute to being better prepared to prevent and treat more diverse pathologies and to improve overall health outcomes.

Top 200 HBMS research affiliations (2009 to 2018) plotted according to co-authorship using a chi-squared distribution.
Source: Authors’ analysis based on WoS data extraction plotted via CorTexT.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249661.g002
Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby conniption » Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:25 am

Off-Guardian

Apr 15, 2021
WATCH: Science Says

link to Odysee platform: https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/ep398-sciencesays:2

The mouthpieces of the scientific establishment have identified the latest global security threat: antiscience. So what does that mean, exactly? Whatever they want it to mean, of course!

This week on The Corbett Report podcast, James explores the game of Science Says that the self-appointed experts are playing with the public and outlines how that game is about to get a whole lot darker.
For links, sources and shownotes – plus download options and an audio-only version – click here.
Also, as many of you likely already know, but The Corbett Report is now officially banned from YouTube (a long expected parting), so do follow on other platforms including BitChute, Odysee and Minds. Or go straight to the source and subscribe to his newsletter or RSS feed.

https://off-guardian.org/2021/04/15/watch-science-says/

comments
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby conniption » Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:14 pm

Dr. Simon ツ - https://twitter.com/goddeketal

Dr. Simon ツ
@goddeketal
6h
I told you, it's a dreadful cult.

Image
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby dada » Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:14 am

You call it dreadful, I call it art.

There's like, epiphanic potential in the photo. Practically glowing.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby conniption » Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:48 am

thread reader app.


Dr. Simon ツ
Follow @goddeketal
Twitter logo
30 Mar, 56 tweets, 22 min read

1/: The fate of the world as we know it is at stake. Pseudoscience is dominating the news. My appeal is based on the appendix of Michael Crichton's book ‘State of Fear’ that clarifies why politicised science is dangerous. It is more topical than ever. ⬇️a thread⬇️ Image
Image

2/: Imagine a new ‘scientific theory’ that warns of an imminent crisis and points to a way out. This particular theory quickly draws support from mass media, leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities/influencers worldwide.

3/: Research is funded by renowned philanthropists and carried out at prestigious universities and research institutes. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. This science is taught in college and high school classrooms. ImageImage

4/: I am not talking about #COVID here. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago. Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was also approved by US-Supreme Court justices, who ruled in its favour.

5/: The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; Leland Stanford, founder of @Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others.

6/: Nobel Prize winners gave support. The research was backed by the @CarnegieFdn and @RockefellerFdn. Important work on this topic was done at @Karl_Lauterbach’s friends at @Harvard, @Yale, @Princeton, @Stanford, and @JohnsHopkins (a protagonist of the current crisis).

7/: Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California. These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences (@theNASciences), the American Medical Association (@AmerMedicalAssn), and the National Research Council (@NResearchCoun). Image

8/: It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort. (h/t @sternde & @derspiegel) ImageImage

9/: The research, legislation, and moulding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost 50 years. Those who opposed the theory were called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected. ImageImage

10/: Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually #pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of this theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of souls.

11/: The theory was #eugenics, and its history is so dreadful – and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing – that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen as its horrors are currently repeating.

12/: The theory of #eugenics postulated a gene pool crisis leading to the human race's deterioration. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones – the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the “feeble-minded”.
Image

...continues on through #55: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1376 ... 99587.html
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby conniption » Sun May 09, 2021 11:10 pm

RT

If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that science is the 1st victim in a political argument. Exhibit A: The Mask


Image
The Ox © http://www.artofox.com

John Scott Lewinski
As a journalist, John Scott Lewinski hustles around the world, writing for more than 30 international news organization covering news, lifestyle and technology. As an author, he is represented by the Fineprint Literary Agency, New York.

8 May, 2021

For all the protestations to follow ‘the science’ from all sides, it is obvious none of them actually care about it. From ‘don’t tread on me’ anti-maskers to double-masked, double-vaccinated Democrats, this is all politics.

A few years ago, an academic and author named Harry G. Frankfurt wrote a book called ‘On Bulls**t’. The title is self-explanatory, and the subject matter is as expected. Still, a repeating theme of the book is how quickly and easily people claim to be experts on a given topic by citing facts and figures they don’t understand, can’t properly quote, and apply incorrectly.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the only entities more prevalent than the virus itself were the never-ending flood of people throwing around ‘half-facts’ and ‘maybe-numbers’ to support their view of the crisis and how to handle it. Everyone became a ‘scientist’ when they wanted to make a point on how silly health precautions were or how others weren’t taking the bug seriously enough. Very few of these ‘Dr. Bunson Honeydews for a day’ took the time to examine any scientific writings or data in the heat of their arguments.

Also on rt.com Covid has made celebrities out of public officials we'd never have heard of – no wonder they don't want restrictions to end

Science should stand amongst the noblest of human pursuits. Our methods of exploring, testing, quantifying and mastering our world are based in the greatest of virtues – intelligence, curiosity, determination, courage and patience. True science is not a common, convenient pursuit. It can never be rushed, cheapened or shaped to any agenda except the structured execution of trial, error and confirmation. Science raises us above the beasts.

Unfortunately, in this Age of Narcissism where winning an argument at any costs is more important, easier and more seductive than presenting a reasoned, supported case with genuine evidence, science is beaten with a pipe, bound, gagged, chained to a basement radiator and left to starve by the ugliest of those same human pursuits – politics.

The great Samuel Johnson is rightly famed for saying, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” If he’ll forgive me, I’d borrow the sentiment and insist, “Science is the first victim in a political argument.”

While coronavirus debates have escalated scientific abuse by polarized camps into an art form, the practice was already in fashion in disputes over everything from abortion to climate change. The rules were 1) Pick your side. 2) Pick what data supports your side. 3) Dismiss any facts that weaken your side.

In such cases, so much of this playing of the science card results from impatience and a burning desire to win a given political argument. “I want to be right. I want you to be wrong. I’ll find some form of quick, convenient scientific study or statistic to seize the high ground.”

Such tactics often allow for only the most cursory of research and rarely encourage full understanding of any scientific environment. By cherry picking the ‘right’ studies that support a point of view and ignoring opposing research, the cherry picker is just engaging in an exercise in persuasion, unavoidably steeped in an incomplete understanding or, worse, outright willful ignorance.

The gleaming symbol used by both the left and the right during Covid disagreements was a poor, helpless weave of cotton or paper attached to ear-irritating straps – the humble, yet ever-present mask. Rather than remain a medical implement with basic uses, it became everything from a symbol of responsibility and compassion to a scarlet letter of subservience. (Maybe a ‘white cotton letter’ was the better analogy, but Nathaniel Hawthorne never got Covid-19.)

Early in the pandemic, if you agreed to wear a mask in the hope of not contracting a respiratory illness, you were a dupe or a sheep. You may have thought you were choosing simply to exercise sensible precautions until more information came your way, but you were wrong. Unfortunately, there came along those people trying to wrap you in woolen epithets out of political motivations and not from any semblance of expertise on virology. In reality, the anti-mask crowd simply don’t like wearing face coverings or eating their broccoli, so they have to pretend they’re Thomas Payne and wave a ‘don’t tread on me’ flag to hide their childish tantrums.

Their clan chieftain was Donald Trump, as he would’ve walked through the culture lab at the CDC HQ without a mask, licking every Petri dish, if it scored points with the most stubborn, conservative chest puffers making up his base… All in the name of free ‘science’.

Alternatively, if you are a vaccinated, otherwise healthy human being who insists on wearing a mask while out for a walk on a bright, sunny day as a fresh breeze shakes the darling buds of May, you didn’t don the face covering for any other purpose but political advertising and virtue signaling. You lavish your support on the progressive nanny state that loves to control and be controlled, and you want the whole world to marvel at your compassion.

Your guru is Joe Biden. Though also fully vaccinated and now unable to transmit the virus or succumb to infection, there he stood for a Rose Garden press conference – looking ridiculous in a mask larger than his home state of Delaware and standing 206 yards from the nearest reporter… All in the name of responsible ‘science’.

An actual scientist would stand between those two extreme political camps and try to explain the follies of both positions. Of course, that very same scientist would immediately become either a co-conspirator in on the phony virus con or a Covid denier who wants your nana to die with her lungs full of blood.

The result of this steamrolling of any genuine scientific method during Covid-19 was that a virus proven to be serious but manageable became framed as either A) a conspiracy-garnished hoax or B) a cocktail of Ebola, AIDS and a demon the size of 0.01 microns. It all depends on how you vote.

We’re left to wonder where we might be as a post-pandemic society if science had somehow escaped from politics’ basement to guide the viral agenda without the left or the right claiming ownership of convenient, though dubious facts and figures.

How many people might still be alive if conservative leaders had admitted the seriousness of Covid-19 sooner and instituted stronger temporary restrictions? How many businesses would’ve survived and how many livelihoods would’ve remained intact if progressive authorities wouldn’t have blended panic with faux-compassion and shuttered every aspect of daily life?

We’ll never know. Worse still, it will all happen again over some other upcoming crisis. Meanwhile, actual dedicated scientists will be over there working quietly in their labs to better understand the world around us – while the politicos endlessly look for ways to bulls**t their opponents into submission.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/523179-science ... ics-masks/

comments follow...
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby thrulookingglass » Mon May 10, 2021 8:13 am

The bellyaching sentiment of refusing to wear a piece of cloth over the nose and mouth while in public as some drastic infringement on personal freedom is deplorable. Science is broken because I don't like its results.

Science: a branch of KNOWLEDGE or study dealing with a body of FACTS or TRUTHS systematically arranged and showing the operations of general laws. A systemic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
User avatar
thrulookingglass
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: down the rabbit hole USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon May 10, 2021 10:14 am

.

The key issue is the fucking pieces of cloth over your mouth DON'T WORK. They are NOT EFFECTIVE. IN other words, SCIENCE showcases that they don't work. Why would anyone put something on their face that has minimal, if any, impact on spread? Unless, of course, they are suffering from classic brainwashing or have been conditioned to believe otherwise.

Here, actual SCIENCE:

“According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], 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 [25]. 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.”

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

Or perhaps this:
“many of the face masks would contain polyester with chlorine compounds…if I have the mask in front of my face, then of course I inhale the microplastic directly and these substances are much more toxic than if you swallow them, as they get directly into the nervous system.”

A few more quotes from the article:
- “There are also reports of toxic mold, fungi, and bacteria that can pose a significant threat to the immune system by potentially weakening it.“
- “Loose particulate was seen on each type of mask. …if even a small portion of mask fibers is detachable by inspiratory airflow, then there is the possibility of not only entry of foreign material to the airways, but also entry to deep lung tissue, and potential pathological consequences of foreign bodies in the lungs.”
- “Reports are that ‘Graphene is a strong, very thin material that is used in fabrication, but it can be harmful to lungs when inhaled and can cause long-term health problems.’ …these substances might also be highly carcinogenic. Not just for us as adults but we must be very concerned about the risks especially to our children.”

https://www.aier.org/article/the-dangers-of-masks/

Never in the history of respiratory illnesses has there ever been widespread asymptomatic infectious transmission.

Until recently, mask use was NOT recommended.

Fauci himself indicated in a 60 Minutes interview on March 2020: “Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks. There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”
https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI

The WHO made a similar statement around the same time on its Twitter account:

“If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask. When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly.”
https://twitter.com/WHOWPRO/status/1243 ... 77024?s=20

At some point afterwards, the CDC and WHO changed their guidance, reportedly due to ‘updated information’, to recommend mask usage, but never provided any science-backed data (other than modeled scenarios) for this change. Their most recent "study" on double-masking was based on using mannequins, not real people, and certainly not children.

Language by the CDC related to mask use are framed with qualifying terms such as "may possibly", or "could prevent spread", and yet this relatively-loose language has led to wide-scale -- and damaging -- mandates/requirements, despite more data becoming available to support the argument that masks are simply not effective.

A few more links:
https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a- ... -evidence/

https://www.city-journal.org/masking-ch ... nd-harmful

And what about real world evidence? What happens when states lift mask mandates?

Since Texas opened 100% 2 months ago (tomorrow)

* Covid hospitalizations are the lowest in almost 11 months

* 5 consecutive days with fewer than 2,000 Covid cases

* Covid positivity rate below 5% for 6 straight days for the 1st time in forever

* fatalities down more than 2/3

Sports stadiums and arenas in Texas are FILLED practically to capacity with very few mask wearers.

How much longer are people willing to be DUPED?

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests