No, we're not going to forget

[MichaelKeller99]

The 2 studies (out of 78) studying masks and covid both said the same thing: masks are useless. More false claims propping up junk science from the usual suspect(s).

In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19. (The awesome part is that 1.8% of the masking group caught covid. Those in the 46% that wore those 'exactly as instructed' found their positive numbers rise to 2.0% compared to the control group at 2.0%. Virtually indistinguishable!!) 🤣🤣🤣

Landmark Danish study finds no significant effect for facemask wearers

Do face masks work? Earlier this year, the UK government decided that masks could play a significant role in stopping Covid-19 and made masks mandatory in a number of public places. But are these policies backed by the scientific evidence? Yesterday marked the publication of a long-delayed trial...

www.spectator.co.uk

The fact that the data are based only on testing people who report symptoms introduces a possible bias: Whether or not a person believes they have ‘covid symptoms’ is extremely subjective when the symptoms are minor. If two people – a mask wearer and a non mask wearer - have very similar minor symptoms, then intuitively it seems it is less likely that the mask wearer will report having covid symptoms (since they presumably believe wearing the mask avoids catching covid). Even a very small increase (e.g. by 3 or 4%) in mask wearers
reporting symptoms could reduce the probability the seropositivity rate is lower in the intervention group to below 50%

We have explained why unreasonable assumptions may have led the authors of the Bangladesh study to make claims about the benefits of mask wearing that simply do not hold up when subject to rigorous Bayesian analysis. Those claims were further exaggerated in multiple media reports and consequently the study’s results have been explicitly cited to justify continuing or reintroducing
aspects of mask mandates by CDC [15], IDSA [16] and the UK’s National Health Service [17]. In the light of this, the study paper published in Science [2] needs to corrected or withdrawn
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360320982_The_Bangladesh_Mask_study_a_Bayesian_perspective
https://www.researchgate.net/public...gladesh_Mask_study_a_Bayesian_perspective#pfb
https://www.researchgate.net/public...gladesh_Mask_study_a_Bayesian_perspective#pfb
https://www.researchgate.net/public...gladesh_Mask_study_a_Bayesian_perspective#pfb
https://www.researchgate.net/public...gladesh_Mask_study_a_Bayesian_perspective#pfb
https://www.researchgate.net/public...gladesh_Mask_study_a_Bayesian_perspective#pfa
https://www.researchgate.net/public...gladesh_Mask_study_a_Bayesian_perspective#pfa
https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/Models/mask_study_models.zip
https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https://www.agenarisk.com/agenarisk-free-trial
https://www.researchgate.net/deref/...ck.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-not-believe
https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https://vimeo.com/695666226
https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https://www.argmin.net/2021/09/13/effect-size/

 

[Joes Place]

The 2 studies (out of 78) studying masks and covid both said the same thing: masks are useless

FALSE

Not what Stanford says.

 

[MichaelKeller99]

FALSE

Not what Stanford says.

Garbage. The Stanford 'study' was a promotional exercise to increase mask usage. The 'data' was fudged to (sort of) insinuate that masks (might, possibly) help, though it was sort of amusing that these 'scientists' came to the conclusion that purple masks work better than blue masks when in came to preventing covid in the over 50 crowd. 🤣🤣🤣

The next time you ever find any real science to post will be the first time. Good luck.

So, all in all, it’s just impossible to take this study seriously, especially as it flies in the face of about 100 other studies that WERE well designed.

Read many HERE including RCT’s showing not only a failure as source control, but in higher rates of post op infections from surgeons wearing masks in operating theaters vs those that did not.

The WHO said so in 2019.



And the DANMASK study in Denmark was a gold standard study for variable isolation and showed no efficacy.

Perhaps most hilariously, the very Kansas counties data the CDC tried to cherry pick to claim masks worked went on to utterly refute them when the covid surge came.





The evidence that masks fail to stop covid spread is strong, deep, wide, and has a lot of high quality studies. (many more here from the swiss)

To refute them would take very high quality data from well performed studies and counter to the current breathless histrionics of masqueraders desperate for a study to wave around to confirm their priors, this is not that.

 

[Joes Place]

Garbage. The Stanford 'study' was a promotional exercise to increase mask usage. The 'data' was fudged

The data were not "fudged".

The two studies from Cochrane on masking, involving Covid, BOTH showed a positive effect for slowing the spread.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Garbage. The Stanford 'study' was a promotional exercise to increase mask usage. The 'data' was fudged to (sort of) insinuate that masks (might, possibly) help, though it was sort of amusing that these 'scientists' came to the conclusion that purple masks work better than blue masks when in came to preventing covid in the over 50 crowd. 🤣🤣🤣

The next time you ever find any real science to post will be the first time. Good luck.

So, all in all, it’s just impossible to take this study seriously, especially as it flies in the face of about 100 other studies that WERE well designed.

Read many HERE including RCT’s showing not only a failure as source control, but in higher rates of post op infections from surgeons wearing masks in operating theaters vs those that did not.

The WHO said so in 2019.



And the DANMASK study in Denmark was a gold standard study for variable isolation and showed no efficacy.

Perhaps most hilariously, the very Kansas counties data the CDC tried to cherry pick to claim masks worked went on to utterly refute them when the covid surge came.





The evidence that masks fail to stop covid spread is strong, deep, wide, and has a lot of high quality studies. (many more here from the swiss)

To refute them would take very high quality data from well performed studies and counter to the current breathless histrionics of masqueraders desperate for a study to wave around to confirm their priors, this is not that.

It's nothing short of amazing that there are actually people who still stick up for the dumpster fire COVID safety measures. Wouldn't it just be so much easier and much more admirable to admit they were wrong? They can't actually believe they were right about everything, since they were wrong about virtually everything, can they?

 

[LBoogie28]

It's nothing short of amazing that there are actually people who still stick up for the dumpster fire COVID safety measures. Wouldn't it just be so much easier and much more admirable to admit they were wrong? They can't actually believe they were right about everything, since they were wrong about virtually everything, can they?

This coming from someone that posted a fake Mark Wahlberg pic?

 

[SocraticIshmael]

This coming from someone that posted a fake Mark Wahlberg pic?

Nearly everything he posts is fake.

 

[Joes Place]

It's nothing short of amazing that there are actually people who still stick up for the dumpster fire COVID safety measures.

Because those safety measures saved thousands and thousands of lives.
Which is also documented in peer-reviewed research.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Because those safety measures saved thousands and thousands of lives.
Which is also documented in peer-reviewed research.

Here's some reading for you Joe. Enjoy!

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign

Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the...

www.cureus.com

 

[Joes Place]

Here's some reading for you Joe. Enjoy!

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign

Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the...

www.cureus.com

​

M. Nathaniel Mead, MSc
Independent Researcher

Stephanie Seneff, PhD
I'm not a medical professional.

Russ Wolfinger
Independent researcher

Jessica Rose, PhD
I'm not a medical professional.
Independent researcher

Kris Denhaerynck
Independent researcher

Steve Kirsch
I'm not a medical professional.
Independent researcher

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Truth for Health Foundation

So, basically, THEY COULD NOT GET A SINGLE UNIVERSITY-AFFILIATED RESEARCHER TO SIGN OFF ON THIS.

Looks like GARBAGE.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Please dear baby Jesus...

 

[MichaelKeller99]

Here's some reading for you Joe. Enjoy!

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign

Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the...

www.cureus.com

Damn! A whole lot of fraud went down during those vaccine (show) trials, huh?

(Just one of the wayyy too many examples to link). A total of 3,410 cases of suspected, unconfirmed COVID-19 were identified, a 20-fold difference between suspected and confirmed cases. There were 1,594 such cases in the vaccinated group, and 1,816 in the placebo. When factoring in both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy against developing symptoms drops to only 19%, far below the 50% RR reduction threshold required for regulatory authorization [37]. Even when removing cases occurring within seven days of vaccination to account for short-term vaccine reactogenicity (rather than true infections), efficacy would be a meager 29%. Any false negatives among the suspected cases would tend to further diminish the benefit.

 

[Joes Place]

Damn! A whole lot of fraud went down during those vaccine (show) trials, huh?

Nah

Just a group of anti-vaxx idiots posing as actual scientists.
If they had any merit to their "study", they'd have invited existing university researchers to co-author with them. Not ONE university is listed on the author's list.

 

[MichaelKeller99]

It's nothing short of amazing that there are actually people who still stick up for the dumpster fire COVID safety measures. Wouldn't it just be so much easier and much more admirable to admit they were wrong? They can't actually believe they were right about everything, since they were wrong about virtually everything, can they?

Re: the Cochrane Review and the Bangladesh 'study' - it was never a study on mask efficacy; it was blatant attempt to coerce people into masking up then fudging the numbers to make it look like masks work. They do not but the usual suspect(s) will keep spreading the lie.

Masks are effective but here's how a study from a respected group was misinterpreted to say they weren't

Experts said a Cochrane review study seemed to imply masks don't work against COVID spread, but it was misinterpreted and was actually looking at mask interventions.

abcnews.go.com

However, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library, Dr. Karla Soares-Weiser, issued a statement on March 10 to say the analysis had been misinterpreted and that the review didn't find that masks do not work. (Orwell would be proud of this misleading use of the English language, lol).

Rather it looked at how effective masking programs, like mandates, were at slowing the spread of respiratory viruses and, from there, found the results to be inconclusive.

"Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work,' which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation," Soares-Weiser wrote. "It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive."

"The study was misinterpreted and, when you give it a very quick glance, you see how that would happen," Dr. Jessica Justman, an associate professor of medicine in epidemiology at Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, told ABC News. "It's looking at interventions that tried to promote the use of different kinds of protective equipment, such as masks, and the outcomes are all going to depend on how well people actually adhere to the particular type of protective equipment."

She continued, "So, it's not as much a study of the mask but a study of the intervention to get people to wear a mask."
🤡😷🤡😷🤡😷🤡😷🤡😷

 

[Joes Place]

However, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library, Dr. Karla Soares-Weiser, issued a statement on March 10 to say the analysis had been misinterpreted and that the review didn't find that masks do not work.

Yes. We told you this months ago.
The two studies Cochrane looked at involving Covid DID show a positive effect. That was also pointed out to you.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

​

M. Nathaniel Mead, MSc
Independent Researcher

Stephanie Seneff, PhD
I'm not a medical professional.

Russ Wolfinger
Independent researcher

Jessica Rose, PhD
I'm not a medical professional.
Independent researcher

Kris Denhaerynck
Independent researcher

Steve Kirsch
I'm not a medical professional.
Independent researcher

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Truth for Health Foundation

So, basically, THEY COULD NOT GET A SINGLE UNIVERSITY-AFFILIATED RESEARCHER TO SIGN OFF ON THIS.

Looks like GARBAGE.

Yeah I agree, pretty sad you can't get university-affiliated staff to sign off on the truth. It really does speak volumes.

 

[Joes Place]

Yeah I agree, pretty sad you can't get university-affiliated staff to sign off on the truth.

Precisely the opposite. None of them want to sign off on fabricated nonsense.

If what is claimed is "true", a university researcher would make a big name for themselves in uncovering the problems. Quite literally how career-making papers come about - do something outside the mainstream that everyone else steps in and then verifies. And then your name is first on that list.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Precisely the opposite. None of them want to sign off on fabricated nonsense.

If what is claimed is "true", a university researcher would make a big name for themselves in uncovering the problems. Quite literally how career-making papers come about - do something outside the mainstream that everyone else steps in and then verifies. And then your name is first on that list.

Quit acting stupid Joe. Now we're worried about vaccine hesitancy. We can't talk shit about vaccines or people won't get them, remember? Nowadays if U faculty badmouth vaccines they may lose their job and their reputation. Like doctors, and like journalists.

 

[Joes Place]

We can't talk shit about vaccines or people won't get them, remember? Nowadays if U faculty badmouth vaccines they may lose their job and their reputation.

No; they won't. They'll get a publication.

Your premise here, is that EVERY university-affiliated researcher is covering for Pfizer/Moderna.
Which is asinine. Those people recommend the vaccines for their OWN families.

 

[MichaelKeller99]

Just keep lying to yourself.

Lock·down
/ˈläkˌdoun/
Noun: a state or period in which movement within or access to an area is restricted in the interests of public safety or health:

Joe is delusional. Again.

 

[Joes Place]

Lock·down
/ˈläkˌdoun/
Noun: a state or period in which movement within or access to an area is restricted in the interests of public safety or health:

We.Had.No.Lockdowns.

 

[KFsdisciple]

We.Had.No.Lockdowns.

This.is.a.lie.

 

[Joes Place]

This.is.a.lie.

You're simply making shit up now.

There were SHUTdowns of many public-venue events.
NO ONE was "locked down" in America.

 

[Joes Place]

 

[MichaelKeller99]

Quit acting stupid Joe. Now we're worried about vaccine hesitancy. We can't talk shit about vaccines or people won't get them, remember? Nowadays if U faculty badmouth vaccines they may lose their job and their reputation. Like doctors, and like journalists.

He clings to the mask and vaccine fallacies like a toddler clings to their favorite stuffed toy.

Would be pretty sad if it weren't so damned funny. 🤣

 

[SocraticIshmael]

Here's some reading for you Joe. Enjoy!

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign

Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the...

www.cureus.com

🙄

Cureus Journal of Medical Science - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Rated in the "Conspiracy-Pseudoscience" category.

Unbelievably stupid.

 

[Joes Place]

🙄

Cureus Journal of Medical Science - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Rated in the "Conspiracy-Pseudoscience" category.

Unbelievably stupid.

That's what they all latch onto!!! 🤣 🤣 🤣

 

[naturalbornhawk]

No; they won't. They'll get a publication.

They'll have their funding stripped, their reputation in the gutter, and their job on the line, if not fired altogether. That's what happens if you badmouth vaccines at the U. Sorry, that's not an environment where one can feel that the science is worthy of any kind of trust whatsoever.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Those people recommend the vaccines for their OWN families.

Do they?

 

[SocraticIshmael]

They'll have their funding stripped, their reputation in the gutter, and their job on the line, if not fired altogether. That's what happens if you badmouth vaccines at the U. Sorry, that's not an environment where one can feel that the science is worthy of any kind of trust whatsoever.

How many people does it take to keep a conspiracy alive?

The Apollo 11 moon landing was one giant leap for mankind, but a string of conspiracy theories have since tried to ground the 1969 spaceflight as a staged production on a Hollywood backlot. The false claims range loud enough that NASA, in 2001, issued a response. Unique rocks and common sense...

www.google.com

Do some reading, simpleton.

😘

 

[naturalbornhawk]

🙄

Cureus Journal of Medical Science - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Rated in the "Conspiracy-Pseudoscience" category.

Unbelievably stupid.

Another "fact" checker.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

How many people does it take to keep a conspiracy alive?

The Apollo 11 moon landing was one giant leap for mankind, but a string of conspiracy theories have since tried to ground the 1969 spaceflight as a staged production on a Hollywood backlot. The false claims range loud enough that NASA, in 2001, issued a response. Unique rocks and common sense...

www.google.com

Do some reading, simpleton.

😘

I've listened to several U scientists say the exact same thing in their interviews. The scientists that badmouth vaccines are punished and threatened their jobs.

The same thing was said by the U scientists who badmouthed GMOs. It happens.

 

[SocraticIshmael]

I've listened to several U scientists say the exact same thing in their interviews. The scientists that badmouth vaccines are punished and threatened their jobs.

The same thing was said by the U scientists who badmouthed GMOs. It happens.

Facts are facts. Period.

You're one of those "I do my own research" morons.

Don't trust science, little simpleton.

We need a good culling of the herd.

😘🤡

 

[Joes Place]

They'll have their funding stripped, their reputation in the gutter, and their job on the line

Nope

They'll have a blockbuster publication, that gets referenced thousands of times by others using it to further understand the science.

Literally, how science works.

 

[Joes Place]

I've listened to several U scientists say the exact same thing in their interviews. The scientists that badmouth vaccines are punished and threatened their jobs.

Nope

Not what happens. In fact, the university scientists who pointed out the myocarditis risks still publish. Only, they've also identified Covid causes WORSE myocarditis events, and more frequently.

 

[Joes Place]

Do they?

Yes.

Go check any major medical society's webpage.
Read what actual pediatricians recommend, who are leaders in those societies.

 

[Rifler]

Useless,.. recommendations made to family members wouldn't be published anywhere.

 

[Joes Place]

Useless,.. recommendations made to family members wouldn't be published anywhere.

Except on the websites of major medical societies, where they literally tell you they vaccinate their own kids...

 

[Joes Place]

Useless,.. recommendations made to family members wouldn't be published anywhere.

Pediatricians’ perspectives on COVID-19 and HPV vaccine hesitancy

Rises in parental vaccine hesitancy, observed during the COVID−19 pandemic, threaten public health. This is especially concerning for vaccines not typically required for school-entry, such as the vaccines for COVID−19 and human papillomavirus ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

ABSTRACT​

Rises in parental vaccine hesitancy, observed during the COVID−19 pandemic, threaten public health. This is especially concerning for vaccines not typically required for school-entry, such as the vaccines for COVID−19 and human papillomavirus (HPV), both of which also have much lower rates of completion compared to other adolescent vaccines. Pediatricians are well-positioned to address vaccine hesitancy and can offer insights into parents’ perspectives in this area. There is evidence that pediatricians’ sharing their own vaccine stories may help to address parents’ concerns; yet we have little information on pediatricians’ or their children’s COVID−19 vaccine uptake. To address these gaps, we conducted a cross-sectional survey about Massachusetts pediatricians’ behaviors and perspectives on vaccines that face significant resistance: HPV and COVID−19 vaccines. A total of 144 people initiated the survey, and 109 participants were eligible and completed the survey. Participants reported high levels of COVID−19 vaccine uptake for themselves (97%) and their children (98%).

Conclusions​

Our study demonstrates that 97% of pediatricians received the vaccine themselves and nearly 100% vaccinated their children against COVID−19.

F***ing Idiot.

 

[Rifler]

Massachusetts, during the period of July-September 2022,.. phucking idiot.