COVID-19 Forum, Information, Studies, Treatments
COVID-19 Coronavirus => COVID-19 Treatment, Prophylaxis, Preventive Nutraceuticals and Supplements - also discuss lockdowns and facemasks => Topic started by: admin on January 04, 2022, 03:09:20 PM
-
"A December 2020 comprehensive study confirmed Fauci's January 28th 2020 assertion that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is infinitesimally rare. Furthermore, some 52 studies - all available on NIH's website - find that ordinary masking (using less than an N-95 respirator) doesn't reduce viral infection rates, even - surprisingly - in institutional settings like hospitals and surgical theaters. Moreover, some 25 additional studies attribute to masking a grim retinue of harms, including respiratory and immune system illnesses, as well as dermatological, dental, gastrointestinal, and psychological injuries. 14 of these studies are randomized peer-reviewed placebo studies. There is no well constructed study that persuasively suggests masks have convincing efficiency against COVID-19 that would justify the harms associated with masks." - Robert Kennedy Jr. - The Real Anthony Fauci
________________________________
Like most everything else, it's about context and risk VS benefit.
Perhaps a time and a place for everything.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/science-of-masking-full.pdf
Though the link starts out with BS regarding asymptomatic transmission - at least according to Fauci, the WHO, the China study and more:
In 2020 there was essentially no chance of asymptomatic COVID spread (https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=551.0)
-
Some different but easily expected harm - to the environment and wildlife:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1599334521614176256
-
"The Cochrane Review on Masks is Damning"
Vinay Prasad
Feb 1, 2023
I want to highlight what just came out: the Cochrane review on masking. It shows that community mask recommendations have no firm data to support it. The authors write:
“There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk”
Now, who does that sound like?
Let me be clear: The science did not change. Public health experts started lying. We never had good data that mask mandates help, or that mask advice (a softer policy) improves outcomes. Yet it was widely pushed— most likely to distract from true federal failures.
After vaccination, not only do we not have evidence. It is irrational to mask. At best you marginally delay the inevitable, and unlike pre-vax, there is no milestone you are waiting for. Let’s take a closer look.
Here is the big summary finding. With 276,000 participants in RCTs or cluster RCTs, masking does nothing. No reduction in influenza like or Covid like illness and no reduction in confirmed flu or COVID. That’s stone cold negative. See those effect sizes and confidence intervals.
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc5ff9eb6-e595-4198-bd54-09076cbd08f5_1574x1158.png)
This is why Fauci said what he said initially on 60 minutes. He wasn’t lying. The best evidence showed no benefit. That was before we saw a concerted campaign to promote cloth masking— a bizarre way to treat anxiety. People routinely wore cloth masks outside— something that was less 21st century and more 3rd century, akin to animal sacrifice, and dancing to make the rains come.
The section on N95 masks was also devastating. Read this
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5a0fc234-05a7-4bea-a276-ad9c9b74ab00_1776x316.png)
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/the-cochrane-review-on-masks-is-damning?utm_source=direct&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Obviously, unlike the types of studies that the CDC likes— hairdresser anecdotes— randomized trials are the best way to separate an intervention from the habits of someone who embraces them. Comparing Pima and Maricopa counties is a pointless way to study masks—because the people are fundamentally different— apart from masking. They have different rates of vaccination and different levels of caution. But randomization balances outcome distributions and the effect (if a statistically persuasive one is seen) can only be due to the intervention.
Cochrane is run by smart people. I have met Tom Jefferson, and I know he understands evidence. He was the driving force behind the Tamiflu reanalysis for BMJ. These researchers know that not all evidence is the same. RCTs are imperative for recommendations that span years, or longer.
Who should we be angry with? Obviously there is a class of twitter expert that doesn’t understand how to read evidence. Some of them have even been promoted to be deans for public health schools. So much for public health. But the real failure is NIAID and CDC. It is Tony Fauci.
Fauci controlled NIAID budget. He could have run 10 RCTs of masking— different masks, different ages, different settings. He chose to run zero. Instead he went on TV, 1000 times and lied about effectiveness of cloth masks. The first time on 60 mins he told the truth, the rest were lies.
CDC & AAP are also steeped in failure. These agency forced 2 year olds to masks. Against the advice of the World Health Organization and UNICEF. The Cochrane review fails to identify any data that pertains to 2 year olds. The CDC should be ashamed of themselves. Tens of thousands of people working from home, and no one inside the organization with the ability to stop this policy.
Those are just some small highlights. But the whole review is worth your time."
The study from the Cochrane Library:
"Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses
Tom Jefferson, Liz Dooley, Eliana Ferroni, Lubna A Al-Ansary, Mieke L van Driel, Ghada A Bawazeer, Mark A Jones, Tammy C Hoffmann, Justin Clark, Elaine M Beller, Paul P Glasziou, John M Conly
Authors' declarations of interest (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/information/en#CD006207-sec-0230)
Version published: 30 January 2023
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
-
Someone posted this N95 mask study in defense of masking for COVID virus. Hard to imagine she even read the study. Though they can mitigate spittle and sawdust.
https://twitter.com/denise_dewald/status/1432112771005440001
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9487666/
"Performance of N95 respirators: filtration efficiency for airborne microbial and inert particles
Y Qian 1 , K Willeke, S A Grinshpun, J Donnelly, C C Coffey
Affiliations
PMID: 9487666 DOI: 10.1080/15428119891010389
Abstract
In 1995 the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued new regulations for nonpowered particulate respirators (42 CFR Part 84). A new filter certification system also was created. Among the new particulate respirators that have entered the market, the N95 respirator is the most commonly used in industrial and health care environments. The filtration efficiencies of unloaded N95 particulate respirators have been compared with those of dust/mist (DM) and dust/fume/mist (DFM) respirators certified under the former regulations (30 CFR Part 11). Through laboratory tests with NaCl certification aerosols and measurements with particle-size spectrometers, N95 respirators were found to have higher filtration efficiencies than DM and DFM respirators and noncertified surgical masks. N95 respirators made by different companies were found to have different filtration efficiencies for the most penetrating particle size (0.1 to 0.3 micron), but all were at least 95% efficient at that size for NaCl particles. Above the most penetrating particle size the filtration efficiency increases with size; it reaches approximately 99.5% or higher at about 0.75 micron. Tests with bacteria of size and shape similar to Mycobacterium tuberculosis also showed filtration efficiencies of 99.5% or higher. Experimental data were used to calculate the aerosol mass concentrations inside the respirator when worn in representative work environments. The penetrated mass fractions, in the absence of face leakage, ranged from 0.02% for large particle distributions to 1.8% for submicrometer-size welding fumes. Thus, N95 respirators provide excellent protection against airborne particles when there is a good face seal."
So as everyone that has used one for woodworking and such is aware, they do a pretty good job at filtering out sawdust. However:
"Tests with bacteria of size and shape similar to Mycobacterium tuberculosis....."
So what size is that? "M. tuberculosis is carried in airborne particles, called droplet nuclei, of 1-5 microns in diameter. (https://www.cdc.gov/tb/education/corecurr/pdf/chapter2.pdf)"
While COVID virus particles are about 0.06 microns to .14 microns (https://duckduckgo.com/?va=a&t=hp&q=size+of+covid+virus+microns&ia=news), or about 1/10th the size of Mycobacterium tuberculosis particles.
So while they may impact spittle, is it any wonder that the Cochraine study in the prior post established little to no benefit from face masking for viral transmission, even with N95 masks? Is that a reason to risk one's health considering the side effects, including high levels of CO2 (https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=1754.0)?
After I posted this reply:
"What does this N95 mask study on dust particles have to do with COVID virus? The only reference to a pathogen was to Mycobacterium tuberculosis which has particle size 1-5 microns compared to COVID which is .06 to .14 microns or about 1/10th the size.
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=263.0 "
I found her channel had changed to replies limited to those she communicates with (allows).