Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

Can mRNA vaccines alter human DNA?

[stickdog99]

https://nypost.com/2021/03/02/professor ... -findings/

A Swedish professor of epidemiology has quit researching COVID-19 after facing fierce backlash over his findings that the illness poses a low threat to children — undermining the political argument that schools can’t reopen.

Jonas Ludvigsson, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute, said he has lost sleep as a result of the “angry messages through social media and email” assailing his study and partly blaming him for Sweden’s contrarian COVID-19 strategy, the College Fix reported.

His research focused on children ages 1 to 16 during the first wave of the pandemic last spring, including those with “laboratory-verified or clinically verified COVID-19, including patients who were admitted for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children” because it’s “likely” related to the bug.

Only 15 children went to the ICU — a rate of 0.77 per 100,000, according to the report. Four had “an underlying chronic coexisting condition” and none died.

As far as teachers, “fewer than” 30 ended up in the ICU during the same period — a rate of about 19 per 100,000.

Ludvigsson also noted that children weren’t wearing face masks, while the rest of Swedish citizens were simply “encouraged” to practice social distancing.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

From the link shared by stickdog at the top of this page, Re: mRNA vaccines:

...we’ve been told in no uncertain terms that it would be impossible for the mRNA in a vaccine to become integrated into our DNA, simply because “RNA doesn’t work that way.” Well, this current research which was released not too long after my original article demonstrates that yes, indeed, “RNA does work that way”. In my original article, I spelled out this exact molecular pathway.

Specifically, a new study by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA. (study linked below). This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome. They also found that the exact pathway that I laid out in in my original article is more than likely the pathway being used (retrotransposon, and in particular a LINE-1 element) for this retro-integration to occur.

And, unlike my previous blog where I hypothesize that such an occurrence would be extremely rare (mainly because I was attempting to temper expectations more conservatively due to the lack of empirical evidence), it appears that this integration of viral RNA segments into our DNA is not as rare as I initially hypothesized. It’s difficult for me to put a number on the probability due to data limitations present in the paper, but based on the frequency they were able to measure this phenomenon in both petri dishes and COVID patients, the probability is much greater than I initially anticipated. Due to this current research, I now place this risk as a more probable event than my original estimation.

To be fair, this study didn’t show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA. However, they did show, quite convincingly, that there exists a viable cellular pathway whereby snippets of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA could become integrated into our genomic DNA. In my opinion, more research is needed to both corroborate these findings, and to close some gaps.

That being said, this data can be used to make a conjecture as to whether the RNA present in an RNA vaccine could potentially alter human DNA. This is because an mRNA vaccine consists of snippets of the viral RNA from the genome of SARS-CoV-2; in particular, the current mRNA vaccines harbor stabilized mRNA which encodes the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which is the protein that enables the virus to bind to cell-surface receptors and infect our cells.

This was thought near impossible. Based on this ground-breaking study, I would hope that the highly presumptuous claim that such a scenario is impossible will find its way to the trash bin labeled: “Things We Were Absolutely and Unequivocally Certain Couldn’t Happen Which Actually Happened”; although, I have a suspicious feeling that the importance of this study will be minimized in quick order with reports from experts who attempt to poke holes in their work. It’s important to add that this paper is a pre-print that is not peer-reviewed yet; but I went through all of the data, methods, and results, and I see very little wrong with the paper, and some gaps that need closing- but, at least from the standpoint of being able to answer the question: can RNA from the coronavirus use existing cellular pathways to integrate permanently into our DNA? From that perspective, their paper is rock-solid. Also, please take note that these are respected scientists from MIT and Harvard.

Quoting from their paper:

“In support of this hypothesis, we found chimeric transcripts consisting of viral fused to cellular sequences in published data sets of SARS-CoV-2 infected cultured cells and primary cells of patients, consistent with the transcription of viral sequences integrated into the genome. To experimentally corroborate the possibility of viral retro-integration, we describe evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse transcribed in human cells by reverse transcriptase (RT) from LINE-1 elements or by HIV-1 RT, and that these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed. Human endogenous LINE-1 expression was induced upon SARS-CoV-2 infection or by cytokine exposure in cultured cells, suggesting a molecular mechanism for SARS-CoV-2 retro-integration in patients. This novel feature of SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain why patients can continue to produce viral RNA after recovery and suggests a new aspect of RNA virus replication.”

Why did these researchers bother to investigate whether viral RNA could become hardwired into our genomic DNA? It turns out their motive had nothing to do with mRNA vaccines. The researchers were puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone. It was also shown that these people were not reinfected. The authors sought to answer how a PCR test is able to detect segments of viral RNA when the virus is presumably absent from a person’s body. They hypothesized that somehow segments of the viral RNA were being copied into DNA and then integrated permanently into the DNA of somatic cells. This would allow these cells to continuously churn out pieces of viral RNA that would be detected in a PCR test, even though no active infection existed. Through their experiments, they did not find full-length viral RNA integrated into genomic DNA; rather, they found smaller segments of the viral DNA, mostly representing the nucleocapsid (N) protein of the virus, although other viral segments were found integrated into human DNA at a lower frequency.

In this paper, they demonstrate that:

1) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 Viral RNA can become integrated into human genomic DNA.

2) This newly acquired viral sequence is not silent, meaning that these genetically modified regions of genomic DNA are transcriptionally active (DNA is being converted back into RNA).

3) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA retro-integrated into human genomic DNA in cell culture. This retro-integration into genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients is also implied indirectly from the detection of chimeric RNA transcripts in cells derived from COVID-19 patients. Although their RNAseq data suggests that genomic alteration is taking place in COVID-19 patients, to prove this point conclusively, PCR, DNA sequencing, or Southern Blot should be carried out on purified genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients to prove this point conclusively. This is a gap that needs to be closed in the research. The in vitro data in human cell lines, however, is air tight.

4) This viral retro-integration of RNA into DNA can be induced by endogenous LINE-1 retrotransposons, which produce an active reverse transcriptase (RT) that converts RNA into DNA. (All humans have multiple copies of LINE-1 retrotransposons residing in their genome.). The frequency of retro-integration of viral RNA into DNA is positively correlated with LINE-1 expression levels in the cell.

5) These LINE-1 retrotransposons can be activated by viral infection with SARS-CoV-2, or cytokine exposure to cells, and this increases the probability of retro-integration.

Instead of going through all of their results in detail (you can do that if you like by reading their paper linked below), I will answer the big question on everyone’s mind – If the virus is able to accomplish this, then why should I care if the vaccine does the same thing?

Well, first let’s just address the big elephant in the room first. First, you should care because, “THEY TOLD YOU THAT THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE AND TO JUST SHUT UP AND TAKE THE VACCINE.” These pathways that I hypothesized (and these researchers verified with their experiments) are not unknown to people who understand molecular biology at a deeper level. This is not hidden knowledge which is only available to the initiated. I can assure you that the people who are developing the vaccines are people who understand molecular biology at a very sophisticated level. So, why didn’t they discover this, or even ask this question, or even do some experiments to rule it out? Instead, they just used superficially simplistic biology 101 as a smoke screen to tell you that RNA doesn’t convert into DNA. This is utterly disingenuous, and this lack of candor is what motivated me to write my original article. They could have figured this out easily.

Second, there’s a big difference between the scenario where people randomly, and unwittingly, have their genetics monkeyed with because they were exposed to the coronavirus, and the scenario where we willfully vaccinate billions of people while telling them this isn’t happening. Wouldn’t you agree? What is the logic in saying, “Well, this bad thing may or may not happen to you, so we’re going to remove the mystery and ensure that it happens to everyone.”? In my best estimate, this is an ethical decision that you ought to make, not them.

Third, the RNA in the vaccine is a different animal than the RNA produced by the virus. The RNA in the vaccine is artificially engineered. First, it is engineered to stay around in your cells for a much longer time than usual (RNA is naturally unstable and degrades quickly in the cell). Second, it is engineered such that it is efficient at being translated into protein (they accomplish this by codon optimization). Increasing the stability of the RNA increases the probability that it will become integrated into your DNA; and, increasing the translation efficiency increases the amount of protein translated from the RNA if it does happen to become incorporated into your DNA in a transcriptionally active region of your genome. Theoretically, this means that whatever negative effects are associated with the natural process of viral RNA/DNA integration, these negative effects could be more frequent and more pronounced with the vaccine when compared to the natural virus.

As a side note, these researchers found that the genetic information for the nucleocapsid “N” protein was, by far, the largest culprit for being permanently integrated into human DNA (because this RNA is more abundant when the virus replicates in our cells). The vaccine, on the other hand, contains RNA that encodes the Spike (S) protein. Therefore, if the mRNA from the vaccine (or subsegments thereof) were to make its way into a transcriptionally-active region of our genome through a retro-integration process, it will cause our cells to produce an over-abundance of Spike protein, rather than N protein. Our immune system does make antibodies to both N and S proteins, but it is the Spike protein which is the prime target for our immune system because it exists on the outside of the virus. If our cells become permanent (rather than temporary) Spike Protein producing factories due to permanent alteration of our genomic DNA, this could lead to serious autoimmune problems. I would imagine that autoimmunity profiles arising from such a scenario would be differentiated based on order of events (i.e., whether or not someone is vaccinated before or after exposure to coronavirus).

Again, this is a theoretical exercise I am presenting for consideration. I am not making the claim that an mRNA vaccine will permanently alter your genomic DNA, and I didn’t make this claim in my first article, although it appears that troll sites made the fallacious claim that I did. I simply asked the question, and provided hypothetical, plausible molecular pathways by which such an event could occur. I believe this current research validates that this is at least plausible, and most likely probable. It most certainly deserves closer inspection and testing to rule this possibility out, and I would hope that a rigorous and comprehensive test program would be instituted with the same enthusiasm that propelled the vaccine haphazardly through the normal safety checkpoints.

Obviously, even given this information, people are still free to get vaccinated, and will do so according to the overall balance of risks and rewards that they perceive in their mind. The purpose of my article is to make sure you can make that assessment fairly by possessing all potential risks and rewards, rather than an incomplete set. For something as important as this, you should not be operating in the dark.

[stickdog99]

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself?

[brainpanhandler]

If you are uninterested in the ridiculously tiresome argument about mask wearing please scroll past:

I emerged from a lengthy hibernation in order to peruse this thread for deep info about the pandemic beyond the scope of liberal or conservative MSM, and have instead found examples of mask debates that should have been settled 9 or so months ago, albeit more eloquent than the forms found on Reddit or my uncle’s Facebook page. To this I say: please wear a mask around strangers indoors. It definitely doesn't hurt. We really don't know much about this virus, still.

Exactly. Since we don't know much COVID-19...

We know enough about SARS-CoV-2. We know it exists. We know it is communicable. We know it is transmitted between people via droplets and aerosols. We know it causes COVID-19. We know that there is an ongoing global pandemic and public health crisis caused by SARS-CoV-2. We know these things.

and because known Trump supporters have argued against masks, it necessarily follows that the question of whether the benefits of wearing masks actually exceed their costs and risks is closed.

That would not be the reason, though the fact that the loudest people inveighing against wearing face masks come largely from the ranks of Trump supporters and associated right wing nitwits hardly gives the argument any weight.

What are the costs and risks? I confess my ignorance. Please enlighten me.

Nothing could be more logical, and there is no reason to consider any scientific evidence.

The scientific evidence supports the following facts at a minimum: "We know it exists. We know it is communicable. We know it is transmitted between people via droplets and aerosols. We know it causes COVID-19. We know that there is an ongoing global pandemic and public health crisis caused by SARS-CoV-2."

If we can stipulate to these facts then it follows that a face covering which captures some appreciable percentage of droplets and aerosols will reduce transmission of the virus.

It's that fucking simple.

Just as in the cases of putting fluoride in our drinking water, filling our mouths with mercury amalgam, and making our kids take Adderall, we all already know that perpetual mask wearing is inherently awesome.

Normally I would conclude from such a ridiculous strawman argument that you were simply trolling. That would be the more charitable thing to do.

Healthcare is totally political,

You would need to expand on this. You could begin by defining terms. Oh, don't bother.

and liberal consensus can never be wrong.

Not sure why this is an "and" statement. Regardless, I'm pretty sure no one here is claiming "liberal consensus" can never be wrong. I'm not even sure what "liberal consensus" is. Certainly I am not sure what you think it means. Wearing a mask to help prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is part of a liberal consensus?

[Belligerent Savant]

Brainpanhandler:

The scientific evidence supports the following facts at a minimum: "We know it exists. We know it is communicable. We know it is transmitted between people via droplets and aerosols. We know it causes COVID-19. We know that there is an ongoing global pandemic and public health crisis caused by SARS-CoV-2."

If we can stipulate to these facts then it follows that a face covering which captures some appreciable percentage of droplets and aerosols will reduce transmission of the virus.

All you're typing in the above is that it acts like any other virus/flu. This does not in any way lend credence to mask mandates, especially outdoors. There are case studies that delve into these topics (efficacy and drawbacks of mask use, especially when worn over prolonged periods) in detail; they've been shared here, going back many pages. They are available for review and assessment.


Also, there is NO proof individuals exhibiting zero symptoms (asymptomatic) are significant vectors of spread.

Fauci himself said the following, back in January of 2020:

Fauci 1/28/20: “Even if there is some asymptotic transmission, in all the history of respiratory born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks.”

There's been no evidence provided since then -- other than propaganda and/or misleading data points -- that would in any way change his statement.

Indeed, the raw data shows that masks have had minimal impact on spread.

[stickdog99]

If you are uninterested in the ridiculously tiresome argument about mask wearing please scroll past:

I emerged from a lengthy hibernation in order to peruse this thread for deep info about the pandemic beyond the scope of liberal or conservative MSM, and have instead found examples of mask debates that should have been settled 9 or so months ago, albeit more eloquent than the forms found on Reddit or my uncle’s Facebook page. To this I say: please wear a mask around strangers indoors. It definitely doesn't hurt. We really don't know much about this virus, still.

Exactly. Since we don't know much COVID-19...

We know enough about SARS-CoV-2. We know it exists. We know it is communicable. We know it is transmitted between people via droplets and aerosols. We know it causes COVID-19. We know that there is an ongoing global pandemic and public health crisis caused by SARS-CoV-2. We know these things.

and because known Trump supporters have argued against masks, it necessarily follows that the question of whether the benefits of wearing masks actually exceed their costs and risks is closed.

That would not be the reason, though the fact that the loudest people inveighing against wearing face masks come largely from the ranks of Trump supporters and associated right wing nitwits hardly gives the argument any weight.

What are the costs and risks? I confess my ignorance. Please enlighten me.

Nothing could be more logical, and there is no reason to consider any scientific evidence.

The scientific evidence supports the following facts at a minimum: "We know it exists. We know it is communicable. We know it is transmitted between people via droplets and aerosols. We know it causes COVID-19. We know that there is an ongoing global pandemic and public health crisis caused by SARS-CoV-2."

If we can stipulate to these facts then it follows that a face covering which captures some appreciable percentage of droplets and aerosols will reduce transmission of the virus.

It's that fucking simple.

Just as in the cases of putting fluoride in our drinking water, filling our mouths with mercury amalgam, and making our kids take Adderall, we all already know that perpetual mask wearing is inherently awesome.

Normally I would conclude from such a ridiculous strawman argument that you were simply trolling. That would be the more charitable thing to do.

Healthcare is totally political,

You would need to expand on this. You could begin by defining terms. Oh, don't bother.

and liberal consensus can never be wrong.

Not sure why this is an "and" statement. Regardless, I'm pretty sure no one here is claiming "liberal consensus" can never be wrong. I'm not even sure what "liberal consensus" is. Certainly I am not sure what you think it means. Wearing a mask to help prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is part of a liberal consensus?

First, thank you for engaging me in a good faith discussion. I sincerely appreciate it.

But what you are stating as self-evident scientific facts are nothing more than a series of reasonable but currently completely unproven scientific hypotheses.

The Hippocratic Oath says, "First, do no harm."

You have somehow managed to ignore all the personal health, psychological, and profound environmental harm caused by universal mask wearing. So to summarize, it is equally "self-evident" that masks are not harmless. They restrict oxygen flow, and this can result in severe health consequences for many people. They cause severe headaches and severe skin conditions. They harbor bacteria and fungus some species of which are very unhealthy for humans to breathe continually. Many masks release toxic chemicals known to cause lung cancer. Masks cause many old and frail people to lose their balance and fall over. They cause people to touch their faces with their dirty hands much more that they would otherwise. They deteriorate non-verbal communication between humans, which is especially damaging to students and toddlers. And 1.5 billion of them landed in our oceans last year alone.

Therefore, their supposed benefits need to be scientifically weighed against their definite costs and risks. Would you at least agree to this statement or do you instead hypothesize that their benefit to risk and cost ratio is also inherently self-evident?

To you, they are a mere inconvenience. But what of all of the people with underlying health conditions who you force to constantly wear these masks for the totality of their 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 or even 18 hour days? What of all of those who can't afford the clean, non-toxic, and fashionable masks that you so virtuously adorn your face with? What of all the young and developing children whom you have now robbed a year of non-verbal interaction from even though they do not suffer any long-term ill effects from COVID-19?

[dada]

I have to admit that I find it strange that in the reality tunnels where mask wearing is a bad thing, the argument begins with the assertion that mask wearing is irrational, and then presents us with some scienctific data, attempting to prove it. If wearing a mask is an irrational response, as it is in these anti-mask reality tunnels, I'm trying to figure out why you'd then imagine that appeals to a scientific authority would have any effect?

So the whole complex makes me curious. Like I'm watching the mechanisms of maskophobia at work. Can't really psychoanalyze it fully, since I don't know much about the maskophobic individuals. I guess it will just have to remain a mystery to me.

[Belligerent Savant]

[stickdog99]

I have to admit that I find it strange that in the reality tunnels where mask wearing is a bad thing, the argument begins with the assertion that mask wearing is irrational, and then presents us with some scienctific data, attempting to prove it. If wearing a mask is an irrational response, as it is in these anti-mask reality tunnels, I'm trying to figure out why you'd then imagine that appeals to a scientific authority would have any effect?

So the whole complex makes me curious. Like I'm watching the mechanisms of maskophobia at work. Can't really psychoanalyze it fully, since I don't know much about the maskophobic individuals. I guess it will just have to remain a mystery to me.

LOL. And here I am trying to understand the "reality tunnels" that underlie maskophilia.

Personally, I wear a mask everywhere I go because of the intense social pressure from literally everyone who surrounds me to do so. But because I do not have and never have had COVID-19, because COVID-19 has never been shown to be transmitted outdoors, and because the rate of COVID positivity in my city is now exactly the same as the published false positive rate of COVID-19 PCR tests, I have to wonder exactly to whose benefit I and everyone single other person around me has been doing this now for almost exactly an entire year with no currently conceivable end in sight, no matter what the science and data say about the benefit versus cost and risk of this perpetually mandated quasi-religious adherence.

But to everyone else I know, the "proven" salvation of masks is totally and unquestionably self-evident. It's just like They Live and I'm the only one stuck wearing the sunglasses.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Mask

[conniption]

Flashmob organisé le 4 mars 2021 à Paris, Gare du Nord.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq9qFvoMKaY
Piaf Edit
Mar 4, 2021

[mentalgongfu2]

Fauci 1/28/20: “Even if there is some asymptotic transmission, in all the history of respiratory born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks.”

There's been no evidence provided since then -- other than propaganda and/or misleading data points -- that would in any way change his statement.

I see two major ways to attack that talking point, which on a quick google seems popular among some crowds.

1) That Fauci quote is from pre-lockdown times, when Trump was still keeping people on a boat because he liked how the numbers looked better that way. That was pretty early on. So, the existence of an outbreak that appears to have been driven by asymptomatic transmission doesn't count in your book as evidence that would in any way change any assumptions/conclusions?

2) Quote could still be accurate, but the large number of symptomatic folks not following suggested precautions could also have caused the virus to spread more than it would have if we had all just been responsible.

You have somehow managed to ignore all the personal health, psychological, and profound environmental harm caused by universal mask wearing. So to summarize, it is equally "self-evident" that masks are not harmless. They restrict oxygen flow, and this can result in severe health consequences for many people. They cause severe headaches and severe skin conditions. They harbor bacteria and fungus some species of which are very unhealthy for humans to breathe continually. Many masks release toxic chemicals known to cause lung cancer. Masks cause many old and frail people to lose their balance and fall over. They cause people to touch their faces with their dirty hands much more that they would otherwise. They deteriorate non-verbal communication between humans, which is especially damaging to students and toddlers. And 1.5 billion of them landed in our oceans last year alone.

Another series of assertions, some more provable than others. Restriction of oxygen flow? Makes common sense, but not seen the data. Is it enough to have a major impact on a person? Not that I'm aware of or have experienced.

Severe headaches and skin reactions sounds like allergies, attributable to the material the masks are made from and not the concept of wearing a mask.

Bacteria, fungus, chemicals, same deal. Appropriate material, proper care resolves this.
The claim masks cause old people to lose balance and fall over, I don't even understand.
Face touching --well, you believe asymptomatic transmission isn't a worry anyway, so who cares? Or, if it is a worry, the benefits of mask wearing outweigh the risks of face touching.
Inhibition of non-verbal sucks, but you can learn to smise.
Masks land in oceans - we need better practices & policies as a world to limit waste, and this is a good example of why, but does not play into the health argument.

It's not a 1:1 comparison, but these talking points remind me of my late friend Old George, a real person, who refused for his entire life to wear a seat-belt. He was in a brutal crash in a car with his aunt when he was a teen, and he got thrown from the car and survived. His aunt was pinned in the cab of the vehicle and crushed by the collapsing metal. She died. Starting from the assumption that seatbelts were bad because he only lived by not having one, Old George had a lot of arguments about their dangers. But I spent 10 years writing up accident reports for the local paper, and I can assure you that I never had the pleasure to write in that time about someone being saved by not wearing a seatbelt, but I wrote about many people who died because they weren't.

[dada]

" no matter what the science and data say about the benefit versus cost and risk of this perpetually mandated quasi-religious adherence."

Alright, so we're saying here that wearing mask appears irrational. I would question the conclusion that people must be tricked to act irrationally. The mega-corporate one is doing the tricking, and society fell for it, only an act of rational will breaks the spell. Society is divided into the hypnotized masses, and the rational actors.

I think this disregards people's emotions, leaves something key out of the equation. People act irrationally for emotional reasons. They feel uneasy, and do things to ward it off, like a baseball player going through their pre-game superstitious rituals. I see no reason to fault people for doing this, I don't see it as a failure or weakness.The way I look at it, unease and disease are two sides of the same coin. Disease is cured by rational intelligence, unease is cured by emotional intelligence.

So I'm looking at a society that is plagued by unease. I don't look down on it for feeling uneasy, don't see emotional, irrational actions as a failure of intelligence. I don't see the wisdom in trying to rationalize at them, that would be insulting. Instead I try to have compassion for what they're going through.

[dada]

"The only way for partisans to square the circle is to bury their heads in the sand."

A certain surrealishness to the statement, isn't there? Also see a spiritual truth hiding in there, symbolically speaking. Though purely unintentional.

I think it's funny that people read an alchemical maxim like 'squaring the circle,' and imagine transforming a circle into a square. Like the operation is to take the surface area of a circle, and try to find a mathematical formula that gives us a square with equal surface area to the circle. Few consider that the squaring might be the old exponential multiplier.

In squaring the circle, we're trying to visualize the unvisualizable. Like imagining the hypersphere. The mind understands by analogy, pictures a two-dimensional being's experience of a three-dimensional world, and extrapolates to higher dimensions. Like speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, but we use the speed of light squared to perform certain mathematical operations.

So we have a circle, C. I'm saying that the formula for squaring the circle isn't C = S, but C2.

Of course there are other uses for the alchemical maxim. The circle could represent the view with eyes closed. "Squaring the circle" in this case is manifesting/witnessing solid visions in the empty space.

[stickdog99]

Fauci 1/28/20: “Even if there is some asymptotic transmission, in all the history of respiratory born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks.”

There's been no evidence provided since then -- other than propaganda and/or misleading data points -- that would in any way change his statement.

I see two major ways to attack that talking point, which on a quick google seems popular among some crowds.

1) That Fauci quote is from pre-lockdown times, when Trump was still keeping people on a boat because he liked how the numbers looked better that way. That was pretty early on. So, the existence of an outbreak that appears to have been driven by asymptomatic transmission doesn't count in your book as evidence that would in any way change any assumptions/conclusions?

2) Quote could still be accurate, but the large number of symptomatic folks not following suggested precautions could also have caused the virus to spread more than it would have if we had all just been responsible.

You have somehow managed to ignore all the personal health, psychological, and profound environmental harm caused by universal mask wearing. So to summarize, it is equally "self-evident" that masks are not harmless. They restrict oxygen flow, and this can result in severe health consequences for many people. They cause severe headaches and severe skin conditions. They harbor bacteria and fungus some species of which are very unhealthy for humans to breathe continually. Many masks release toxic chemicals known to cause lung cancer. Masks cause many old and frail people to lose their balance and fall over. They cause people to touch their faces with their dirty hands much more that they would otherwise. They deteriorate non-verbal communication between humans, which is especially damaging to students and toddlers. And 1.5 billion of them landed in our oceans last year alone.

Another series of assertions, some more provable than others. Restriction of oxygen flow? Makes common sense, but not seen the data. Is it enough to have a major impact on a person? Not that I'm aware of or have experienced.

Severe headaches and skin reactions sounds like allergies, attributable to the material the masks are made from and not the concept of wearing a mask.

Bacteria, fungus, chemicals, same deal. Appropriate material, proper care resolves this.
The claim masks cause old people to lose balance and fall over, I don't even understand.
Face touching --well, you believe asymptomatic transmission isn't a worry anyway, so who cares? Or, if it is a worry, the benefits of mask wearing outweigh the risks of face touching.
Inhibition of non-verbal sucks, but you can learn to smise.
Masks land in oceans - we need better practices & policies as a world to limit waste, and this is a good example of why, but does not play into the health argument. .

I have already presented tons of scientific evidence of all of my claims. You have simply chosen not to read this evidence.

Why not? Could it be confirmation bias? I mean, you already know that the amazing talismanic benefits of masks must necessarily and self-evidently outweigh their costs and risks. Right? So why actually take the time to look at any of the evidence. Right? Why actually consider all the real world costs and risks of universal masking of non-COVID infected people when you can simply dismiss all of them as minor in your view because they don't affect you personally, are a result of "user" error, or are mere environmental concerns that "do not play into the health argument." Right?