Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Johnny Dollar's avatar

Have you seen the editor of SA? She practices and is a pedlar of superstition.

Pseudoscientific American.

Indeed, the literature up to 2020 showed masks to be ineffective. The body of evidence against its use is overwhelming in both community and hospital settings. It's worth noting from the day the mask was invented and used in hospitals it was met with skepticism from doctors. They were originally meant for BACTERIA and not viruses.

Either these two are not good at what they do or they have an agenda. They conflate the two thus misleading people. Only; they can answer if this is done on purpose. Epidemiologists are NOT PPE experts. They're germ chasers. A physicist is far more qualified to discuss masks.

Epidemiology is more art than science. This is why they're accepting unreliable 'mathematical models ' as their base for evidence rather than RCTs. I notice that every epidemiologist here who screamed for masks IGNORED the three major RCTs that were published but amplified flawed observational mathematics models that confirmed their bias.

Epidemiology at the moment is one step above astrology. In fact, I'm thinking astrology has more merit. It's more honest.

Expand full comment
Al X G's avatar

A thorough debunking yet again Peter.

Pushing for the ridiculous wearing of masks just will not fade into oblivion. Is this because the puppet masters of the plandemic need this to demonstrate the power of their persuasiveness to control sheeple?

And the TV commercials hyping slab jabs continue nonstop.

Expand full comment
22 more comments...

No posts