[gruez]

>The journals are unreliable on this and many other topics. Objective data suggests that mandatory masking has no effect on transmission.

1. It's ironic how much you denounce the value of journals and extol the value of "objective data", yet you have not attached any "objective data" (in any meaningful sense) with your original comment, and have dodged follow up requests for sources.

2. You're moving the goalposts from masks "do not work at all" to "mandatory masking has no effect".

[_yoqn]

The Lancet knowingly lied about HCQ. Therefore I don't trust them.

Anything less than an airtight full aerosol filtration respirator will not stop aerosols infected with SARS-CoV-2 from leaving and being inhaled by people. Fact. The latest CDC data suggests that "medical masks are better than cloth masks" but never attempt to identify a difference between a cloth mask and nothing.

This article outlines a paywalled paper suggesting masks don't work at all. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-...

The incidence of infection between areas that are fully mask-mandated can't be proven to differ significantly from areas that had no mask mandate due to many other factors https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-....

I don't trust the establishment because they were wrong about everything. Fauci lied about masks, then lied about lying about masks, then lied about HCQ, then about IVM and other treatments. The NIH has provided 0 guidance on treating COVID other than vaccines. They did eventually do a study on HCQ to "disprove" it's effectiveness but started the dose at 1200mg/day! Nearly lethal. This of course started on patients that were too far advanced in disease and also had co-morbidities. It was a sham and borderline homicidal. All to protect the emergency use authorization for vaccines and Remdesivir.

A course of HCQ: $10. A course of Remdesivir: $3000. Which is a more fiscally responsible opportunity for a for-profit industry that controls the NIH and FDA?

The NIH staffers including Fauci (and of course the expert who is not an expert: Bill Gates) stand to make a lot of money on vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer.

Fauci also lied about the NIh funding gain of function research in the Wuhan lab under oath to Congress. https://www.outkick.com/nih-admits-fauci-lied-about-gain-of-...

Historically the entire medical industrial complex and APA lied about the "chemical imbalance" theory for depression for decades while making billions of dollars selling SSRIs and misleading the population for profit: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0

It is my opinion that these establishment organizations have 0 credibility anymore and I would never trust anything put forth by them at face value.

2. If masks don't prevent transmission, and mandates are intended to prevent transmission then mandates don't work. Aristotelian logic.

[gruez]

>Anything less than an airtight full aerosol filtration respirator will not stop aerosols infected with SARS-CoV-2 from leaving and being inhaled by people. Fact.

Even if we suppose this is true, it does not support the claim that "in 99.999% of cases, non-airtight masks do not work at all. Not even a little bit". At best it supports the claim that "non-airtight masks" are not 100% effective, which is an entirely different claim.

>The latest CDC data suggests that "medical masks are better than cloth masks" but never attempt to identify a difference between a cloth mask and nothing.

Okay, but this feels like you're moving the goalposts again. In your original comment you were talking about "non-airtight masks" in general, not cloth masks in particular. Also, even if we grant that cloth masks are the same as wearing nothing, the fact that medical masks are better than cloth masks/nothing still contradicts your original claim that "non-airtight masks" (ie. including surgical masks) "do not work at all" in "99.999% of cases".

>This article outlines a paywalled paper suggesting masks don't work at all. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-...

The paper actually isn't paywalled. You have to log in to download pdf, but you can view the paper using the web viewer without any login: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25776/chapter/1

I skimmed the paper and I disagree with the characterization that it "suggest[s] masks don't work at all". The conclusion seems to be "there's no evidence that masks works in practice (ie. because no such studies were conducted, not because studies were conducted and turned up negative), but evidence does seem to suggest that they works at capturing virus particles". The relevant parts from the conclusion:

"There are no studies of individuals wearing homemade fabric masks in the course of their typical activities. Therefore, we have only limited, indirect evidence regarding the effectiveness of such masks for protecting others, when made and worn by the general public on a regular basis. That evidence comes primarily from laboratory studies testing the effectiveness of different materials at capturing particles of different sizes.

The evidence from these laboratory filtration studies suggests that such fabric masks may reduce the transmission of larger respiratory droplets. There is little evidence regarding the transmission of small aerosolized particulates of the size potentially exhaled by asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. The extent of any protection will depend on how the masks are made and used. It will also depend on how mask use affects users’ other precautionary behaviors, including their use of better masks, when those become widely available. Those behavioral effects may undermine or enhance homemade fabric masks’ overall effect on public health. The current level of benefit, if any, is not possible to assess."

>The incidence of infection between areas that are fully mask-mandated can't be proven to differ significantly from areas that had no mask mandate due to many other factors https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-....

Again, moving the goalposts. This is talking about the effectiveness of mask mandates, your original claim was "in 99.999% of cases, non-airtight masks do not work at all. Not even a little bit.".

>2. If masks don't prevent transmission, and mandates are intended to prevent transmission then mandates don't work. Aristotelian logic.

Right, but "do masks work" and "do mask mandates work" are two separate questions. I suspect your intention might be to argue for the latter, but by overplaying your hand (ie. making the bold and unfounded claim that non-N95 masks don't work at all) you ended up getting dimissed/downvoted.

> The Lancet knowingly lied about HCQ. Therefore I don't trust them.

>I don't trust the establishment because they were wrong about everything. Fauci lied about masks, then lied about lying about masks, then lied about HCQ, then about IVM and other treatments. The NIH has provided 0 guidance on treating COVID other than vaccines. They did eventually do a study on HCQ to "disprove" it's effectiveness but started the dose at 1200mg/day! Nearly lethal. This of course started on patients that were too far advanced in disease and also had co-morbidities. It was a sham and borderline homicidal. All to protect the emergency use authorization for vaccines and Remdesivir.

>A course of HCQ: $10. A course of Remdesivir: $3000. Which is a more fiscally responsible opportunity for a for-profit industry that controls the NIH and FDA?

>The NIH staffers including Fauci (and of course the expert who is not an expert: Bill Gates) stand to make a lot of money on vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer.

This is getting derailed from the original discussion of masks, so I'm explicitly going to not respond to it.