How Fauci Fooled America

[muichimotsu]

They are waaay bigger than twice the size. But they aren't designed to filter individual viruses. Is that how you thought they were meant to work? You should read up on these matters before you post on them.

It's almost like some people just take a statement at face value and assume it's true instead of utilizing even an iota of skepticism because....doubt is the devil!!!

When I first read that, I thought, "Even if that's true, I don't think that's pertinent to viral transmission," And turns out, it isn't, because viruses require a medium, and in many cases, it'd be a droplet or an aerosolized particle, the former of which definitely is contained by a mask and there'd be some reduction supposedly even with the latter

America seems especially embarrassing in how we seem to think we're scientific experts just because we can understand the terminology in some basic sense, but not the application of the theory. More knowledge than sense, as the Southern adage would go.

 

[muichimotsu]

Nothing changed - the holes in the masks are still 200% bigger than the virus, and are still useless to filter out viruses.

Kind of like filtering sand with a fishing net.

Meanwhile, a half dozen studies not surprisingly show no difference in infection rates between masked and non masked.

Oh, a half dozen studies that I'm 99% sure are cherry picked? Pretty sure more studies also would have the methodological considerations to not let confirmation bias slip in or think that the results must be absolutely conclusive of the claims that are more correlation than causation ultimately

 

[chad kincham]

Oh, a half dozen studies that I'm 99% sure are cherry picked? Pretty sure more studies also would have the methodological considerations to not let confirmation bias slip in or think that the results must be absolutely conclusive of the claims that are more correlation than causation ultimately

I was wrong, it’s 47 studies, not just six:

47 Studies Confirm Ineffectiveness of Masks for COVID & 32 More Confirm their Negative Health Effects - Dr. Rich Swier

 

[muichimotsu]

I was wrong, it’s 47 studies, not just six:

47 Studies Confirm Ineffectiveness of Masks for COVID & 32 More Confirm their Negative Health Effects - Dr. Rich Swier

So there's no methodological issues whatsoever? You appear to want to promote it because a doctor confirms your paranoid suspicions about masks when pretty sure we've used them for easily a century to reduce the spread of diseases and not seen anything that necessarily was caused by wearing of masks for that purpose. There are variables, of course, but even with some reduction in efficacy because of things like not wearing it properly, having some reduction is far better than none at all and expecting the immune system to not kill us is naive when that's literally what it can do even while trying to "protect" us, because nature is not some well oiled machine

Or would you prefer we just keep culling people by playing Russian roulette with a coronavirus that, while not always lethal, spreads exceptionally well and can result in long term problems as well? Worked "fantastic" with the 1918-1920 pandemic, only 17 million dead worldwide with a conservative estimate. You think we have less deaths because we have better immune systems or even because of better healthcare?

No, because our healthcare system was pushed to the brink during surges and many people actually recognized the validity of masks for reducing the spread of a droplet based virus, but otherwise took precautions you want to frame as weakness and "brainwashing" while simultaneously talking like doctors DON'T wear masks while doing surgery for that basic reason of hygiene and sterility.

 

[Bradskii]

I was wrong, it’s 47 studies, not just six:

47 Studies Confirm Ineffectiveness of Masks for COVID & 32 More Confirm their Negative Health Effects - Dr. Rich Swier

The first few:

Summary from the first one: 'Efforts to reduce possible exposures where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, such as when eating and drinking, should be considered. So they obviously consider mask wearing to be required.

Results from the second: 'Limited evidence suggests that reused and improvised masks should be used when medical-grade protection is unavailable.

Conclusion from the third: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, thge trials weren't conducted re covid.

Objective from the fourth: To determine whether the wearing of disposable surgical face masks by the surgical team during clean surgery reduces postoperative surgical wound infection. In other words, nothing whatsoever to do with covid and everything to do with clean surgery.

Conclusion from the fifth: From the limited results it is unclear whether wearing surgical face masks results in any harm or benefit to the patient undergoing clean surgery. Again, nothing to do with covid whatsoever and everything to do with clean surgery.

From the sixth: Compared with cloth masks, disposable surgical masks are more effective in reducing particulate exposure. In other words, if you haven't got a surgical mask, then wear a cloth one.

I really can't be bothered going through any more. But a 100% failure rate for the first six in suggesting that these can be considered trials that deny the effectiveness of masks should give anyone an idea of what follows. Did you actually read any of them, or was this just a cut and paste exercise?

And is this a biased article? Why, whatever gave you that idea? The very first sentence: 'Masks are ineffective. They are no longer a medical precaution – they are a symbol of acquiescence to totalitarianism. The unmasked are the new sub-class.'

What does Swier (the author) do in his spare time? Pick cherries?

 

[muichimotsu]

The first few:

Summary from the first one: 'Efforts to reduce possible exposures where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, such as when eating and drinking, should be considered. So they obviously consider mask wearing to be required.

Results from the second: 'Limited evidence suggests that reused and improvised masks should be used when medical-grade protection is unavailable.

Conclusion from the third: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, thge trials weren't conducted re covid.

Objective from the fourth: To determine whether the wearing of disposable surgical face masks by the surgical team during clean surgery reduces postoperative surgical wound infection. In other words, nothing whatsoever to do with covid and everything to do with clean surgery.

Conclusion from the fifth: From the limited results it is unclear whether wearing surgical face masks results in any harm or benefit to the patient undergoing clean surgery. Again, nothing to do with covid whatsoever and everything to do with clean surgery.

From the sixth: Compared with cloth masks, disposable surgical masks are more effective in reducing particulate exposure. In other words, if you haven't got a surgical mask, then wear a cloth one.

I really can't be bothered going through any more. But a 100% failure rate for the first six in suggesting that these can be considered trials that deny the effectiveness of masks should give anyone an idea of what follows. Did you actually read any of them, or was this just a cut and paste exercise?

And is this a biased article? Why, whatever gave you that idea? The very first sentence: 'Masks are ineffective. They are no longer a medical precaution – they are a symbol of acquiescence to totalitarianism. The unmasked are the new sub-class.'

What does Swier (the author) do in his spare time? Pick cherries?

Invoke Godwin's law apparently

 

[A_Thinker]

Nothing changed - the holes in the masks are still 200% bigger than the virus, and are still useless to filter out viruses.

Kind of like filtering sand with a fishing net.

So ... I guess that you never heard that the virus particles are spread on mucus droplets which are many times larger that than the holes in masks ???

 

[timothyu]

Hitchhikers

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I guess that governments across the world and across the whole political spectrum from far right to far left are busy contacting each other to plan this globalist goal. So Ireland, North Korea, NZ, UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Nigeria...they're all in touch on a daily basis to make sure the masses are controlled.

And if you have covid, do you think when you breathe out, all that comes out is a little cloud of tiny viruses? How can we be two years into this and the basics of what one needs to do to stay safe are still not understood?

Are you denying that Fauci said not to wear masks? Because that was the comment made and you deflected to this.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Pretty sure social distancing and masking would be effective if we didn't have willful children that happen to be mature adults that have a mentality that I'd expect in someone under 12. It's not a guarantee that things get better if mandates are put in place, but when people follow this basic "common sense" idea in terms of public behavior as a temporary preventative measure, things would've been better.

But nope, misinformation spread as fast, if not more than the highly transmissible virus and thus we have more people dead than practically all American deaths in every modern war we've been in.

Maybe because the elderly aren't as rock stupid as the young people and maintain social distancing better. Assuming it must be because everyone is doing their part is naive

But people have and are following basic common sense and distancing and wearing masks right now. I see it every day and since I am fortunate enough to live in a rational state instead of a lockdown crazy state, there ARE NO mandates. About 2/3 are wearing them indoors and keeping distance. And our rates are low.

The misinformation has been spread from the top, pretending that natural immunity never existed, in order to move the product.

 

[Bradskii]

Are you denying that Fauci said not to wear masks? Because that was the comment made and you deflected to this.

I have literally lost count the number of times his comments have been twisted to fit this narrative of some 'global conspiracy' to control the masses. I thought it had been refuted enough times to ensure nobody kept pushing it. Apparently not.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That's simply not true ... Florida's deaths/per million rate is 8th highest in the country ... behind (in order of highest rate of death) ... Mississippi, Alabama, New Jersey, Louisiana, Arizona, New York, and Arkansas ...

Source? It moves up and down but Florida has an enormous population of elderly. Cases don't matter...hospitalizations FROM Covid - not with Covid, because they were exposed while actually there for cancer - are way down, and deaths are nonexistent last I checked.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I have literally lost count the number of times his comments have been twisted to fit this narrative of some 'global conspiracy' to control the masses. I thought it had been refuted enough times to ensure nobody kept pushing it. Apparently not.

"The Washington Post and Buzzfeed News have obtained hundreds of pages of Fauci's emails through the Freedom of Information Act, revealing more about the early days of the pandemic.

In one message, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, replies to an email from Sylvia Burwell, believed to be the Sylvia Burwell who was health and human services secretary for three years under President Barack Obama. Burwell had asked for advice about wearing face masks while traveling. Fauci's reply is dated February 5, 2020, and is available in a document cloud provided by Buzzfeed.

Fauci said - very much IN context -
Fauci wrote: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

He added: "I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location."

Go read it yourself if you don't believe it.

 

[Bradskii]

"The Washington Post and Buzzfeed News have obtained hundreds of pages of Fauci's emails through the Freedom of Information Act, revealing more about the early days of the pandemic.

In one message, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, replies to an email from Sylvia Burwell, believed to be the Sylvia Burwell who was health and human services secretary for three years under President Barack Obama. Burwell had asked for advice about wearing face masks while traveling. Fauci's reply is dated February 5, 2020, and is available in a document cloud provided by Buzzfeed.

Fauci said - very much IN context -
Fauci wrote: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

He added: "I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location."

Go read it yourself if you don't believe it.

That's advice given to a single person in specific circumstances before the pandemic became anywhere near the problem it was to become.

I'm just going out shopping. The current advice (when the situation is a lot worse then it was when that advice was given) is that masks are not required when out and about. Because I am going to 'a very low risk location'.

But hey, go for your life. I'm not sure to what purpose but feel free to keep posting this stuff. I have no further interest in correcting whatever belief you have regarding the man.

 

[rambot]

America seems especially embarrassing in how we seem to think we're scientific experts just because we can understand the terminology in some basic sense, but not the application of the theory. More knowledge than sense, as the Southern adage would go.

Ooo...I don't htink that is an American thing. That is a ignorance thing as most people, I think, don't actually know how much they DON'T know but, as you say, they know enough buzzwords to think they know

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was wrong, it’s 47 studies, not just six:

47 Studies Confirm Ineffectiveness of Masks for COVID & 32 More Confirm their Negative Health Effects - Dr. Rich Swier

The studies themselves aside, that site is a fever swamp of right-wing paranoia.

 

[timothyu]

that site is a fever swamp of right-wing paranoia.

Why should it be either wing?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why should it be either wing?

If it's credible meta-analysis of scientific studies of covid interventions, it shouldn't be either. That's my point. The source site is pure politics (and bigotry) of a rather paranoid style.

The owner of the site (Dr. something or other) has a Ed.D. and is not an expert of any kind on medicine, epidemiology, or statistical analysis. The author of the post (Pam Geller) is also not any of those things either. She rose to "fame" opposing the "Ground Zero Mosque", which was neither at Ground Zero, nor a mosque.

At least "America's Frontline Doctors" have the decency to be practicing physicians while peddling their covid misinformation and paranoia.

 

[timothyu]

At least "America's Frontline Doctors" have the decency to be practicing physicians while peddling their covid misinformation and paranoia.

Has that been ascertained by fact or comes compliments of a carefully controlled narrative?

 

[Bradskii]

Why should it be either wing?

Its raison d'etre is to pander to a political mindset. And slapping down a few dozen links to papers investigating the efficacy of face masks is a rather low rent type of argument. Those people who either haven't the time or the interest in investigating them come to the not unreasonable conclusion that 'gee, there's so many - some of them must be true'. When even a cursory investigation (which still takes time) will show that none of them are relevant.

The usual modus operandi, if one starts explaining the facts of the matter, is to ignore the rebuttal, throw some other arguments into the mix and divert attention to the next conspiratorial claim. Of course, later on, one can return to the original debunked point and start the process all over again.